Brookings Institution: William A. Galston: 'Is Medicare For All A Trap For Democrats?'

Source:Brookings Institution- Washington: the capital of the free world. 

Source:Brookings Institution 

To answer William Galston's question: Medicare For All, is a trap for Democrat and I'll explain why.

Source:The Wall Street Journal- Socialist Democrats?

Back in 1972 had the Democratic Party nominated Senator Edmund Muskie, who was a solid Progressive Democrat, but a Center-Left mainstream Democrat, over Senator George McGovern who was the Bernie Sanders Socialist of him time running nationally against a Center-Right and in many cases Progressive Republican in Richard Nixon, chances are and would depend on what campaign he would've ran, but he probably beats President Nixon in that election. The reasons why Richard Nixon ever becomes President in the first place and didn't win in 1960 has as much to do with to do with who he ran against in 60, 68, and 72 and the Democratic Party during those years, as it had to do with Richard Nixon the man himself. Who was never a popular national figure, at least personally even if Americans liked his foreign policy.

If anything Donald Trump is even less likable and and more unpopular than Richard Nixon. Whatever you think of Dick Nixon, at least he had a plus approval rating as President and more than two years into his presidency, Trump has never been above even 45% and that was in his first days as President. Which means that Trump can't run for election on his popularity and run a positive campaign, because other than the strong economic and job growth in the economy, President trump really has nothing to run on in a positive sense. Americans clearly don't like him, don't trust him, don't even believe the man, don't even believe he's honest and not just ignorant and unqualified and they believe he's ignorant and unqualified, but apparently disliked Hillary Clinton even more in 2016. Which is how Donald trump, who is nothing more than a reality show star who really has nothing other than that when it comes to his own accomplishments becomes President of the United States.

So why is Medicare For All a trap for Democrats?

Instead of being able to run a positive reelection campaign in 2020, President Trump will be running a campaign against the Democratic Party. He'l be running against those Socialist Democrats ( as he'll them ) and their Socialist Democrat nominee for President ( as he'll call whoever that person is ) who wants to just raise your taxes, spend most of your money for you, take your health care and health insurance from you and make all of us dependent on Uncle Sam for our daily survival. If the Democratic Party and their leader embrace Medicare For All and the so-called Green New Deal in general. But if Democrats nominate a Center-Left Progressive ( which is what Progressives really are and not Socialists ) like a Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Andrew Cuomo, Jay Inslee, ( just to throw out some names here ) than they can not just beat President Trump, especially if they have a solid Vice Presidential nominee, but don't have to run to the middle and be boring to beat the Republican Party in 2020. Which means not just the White House, but winning back the Senate and adding to their majority in the House.

The difference between what's called Medicare For All which depending on what numbers you look would be a new 3 trillion-dollar Federal program, where almost no one knows how to finance that and plus all the lost jobs that would result in eliminating the private health insurance industry, as well as perhaps jobs in the medical industry with hospitals having to layoff doctors and nurses because Medicare simply doesn't cover everything that private health insurers cover and what's called the Medicare Public Option that was almost passed out of Congress in 2009-10 and probably should've been had then Senate Leader Harry Reid used reconciliation on that and he could've gotten it through the Senate with just 51 Democratic votes, is that the private health insurance and health care industry would remain in place. But Americans depending on how the Medicare Public Option would be set up would now have the option to buy into Medicare in their state as if they were buying private health insurance, or keep their private health insurance plan.

I have issues with what's called Medicare For All for multiple reasons.

Perhaps the main one after you get to how huge the new Medicare would be with it now responsible for the health insurance and therefor the health care of about 320 million Americans ( and growing ) with roughly 1/5 Americans not able to afford health insurance at all which would make the Medicare costs for everyone else especially lower middle class Americans more expensive, because they would have to cover their own Medicare costs, plus the costs of low-income Americans whether they're working or not.

Perhaps the 2nd would be me as  Federalist who actually still believes in the U.S. Constitution and that having to do with the 10th Amendment. It would be one thing if the Federal Government decided to eliminate the private health insurance industry and replace it with Medicare For All and allow the states to run their own Medicare program, instead of Uncle Sam trying to run the whole damn program for the entire country himself, because then Medicare For All would be on sound constitutional grounds and not get the 10th Amendment challenges in court that it would be guaranteed to get. And then you would also get some competition between the states about how best to run Medicare in America.

My 3rd issue has to do with the fact that Medicare For All is not only not practical, but not necessary either. You can get to universal health care coverage without having to create one huge and expensive health insurance program. Which is the Medicare Public Option that I've already mentioned. Give Americans of all ages the option to buy into Medicare as if they were purchasing private health insurance.

Similar to Medicaid, allow the states to set up their own Medicare programs instead of again Uncle Sam trying to run the entire new program by himself. And the simple answer to the simple question of how would this be paid for is it would be paid for by the customers themselves. And you could set up a new low-income fund for low-income workers and people who are on Welfare so they could get into Medicare as well, if they choose too. With a Medicare Public Option you could also now eliminate Medicaid, because Medicare would become universal in the sense that every would become eligible for it. You could also even phase out the payroll tax for Medicare, because you now have all this new additional Americans paying into Medicare for their health insurance. Which would be a huge middle class tax cut for 10s or hundreds of millions of Americans.

If Democrats are smart history suggests they might not be instead repeat the history of 1968 and 72, but if they're smart they'll leave the socialism for the Green Party again in 2020 and instead of run as the FDR or Truman, LBJ, Obama Progressive Democratic Party as a party that's not looking to take over Americans lives for them and create a government big enough to run people's lives for them, but instead a responsible government that is able to empower people who are in need to get up and become productive and successful members of society.

As well as be able to represent the entire country as a whole and not just as politicians who are running for a certain wing of the country that wants government to do everything for them, but instead as a pluralist party that represents all Americans and what we have in common as a country that believes that every American regardless of their physical identity and DNA can make it America on their own, if they're just given the opportunity to do so.

Source:MSNBC: MTP Daily With Chuck Todd- U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley: Democrats Divided Over Single-Payer Health Care- Yes, Democrats divided over Medicare For All 

Brookings Institution: Vanessa Williamson: 'Back Without Popular Demand- Tax Cuts For The Wealthy & Tax Hikes For The Middle Class'

Source:Brookings Institution- talking about the Republican tax plan.

"The Trump-GOP tax plan released today gives an enormous tax cut to wealthy people and corporations. These tax cuts have been a top priority for Republican leadership, despite the fact that, as I demonstrate in my new book, corporate tax breaks are among the least popular things the government can do, and most Americans think wealthy people should be paying more, not less. More tax cuts for very rich people are back without popular demand—and it remains a terrible idea.

The likely regressive impact of the tax plan is well-explained elsewhere. Self-interested millionaires and billionaires will smile at the elimination of the AMT and the estate tax. A new loophole for “pass-through” businesses will reward little mom-and-pop shops like the Trump Organization. Other beneficiaries include multinational corporations that have been hiding their profits overseas.

It’s worth noting, however, exactly how unpopular these policies are.

If you ask Americans what bothers them about taxes, the most common answer is “the feeling that some corporations don’t pay their fair share.” The next most common? “The feeling that some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share.” Not even ten percent of Americans say that the amount they pay is what bothers them most. And even Republicans are more likely to say they are bothered by corporate tax avoidance than by their own tax responsibilities." 

From Brookings 

 

"President Trump and Republicans are proposing a $5 trillion plan that would cut taxes for corporations and individuals, simplify the code and nearly double the deduction used by most Americans. But questions remain about how much it will cost."  

Source:Associated Press- talking about the Republican tax plan.

From the Associated Press

If you're going to talk about tax reform especially if you're saying you're proposing it which is what President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans are saying that they're doing, you should at the very least know what tax reform is. When you're talking about tax reform you're at least implying that there's something that is currently wrong with the current system. Otherwise why would you want to reform it? Why fix what ain't broken, to use a cliche.

What the Congressional GOP Leadership led by House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as President Trump are proposing, are tax cuts primarily if not exclusively for high-earners and business's. While lower-end middle class tax payers would actually get a tax increase. If you're lets say a teacher making 40 thousand-dollars a year, you're paying the 10 percent tax rate right now. Under the Trump-Ryan-McConnell plan you would pay 12 percent instead. So instead of paying 4,000 dollars a year to Uncle Sam in Federal income taxes (before deductions) plus 2,400 dollars in payroll taxes where there are no deductions, under Trump-Ryan-McConnell, you pay an additional 800 dollars in Federal income taxes and still have to pay that 2,400 in payroll taxes.

Call me crazy and maybe this just sounds like commonsense here, but I'm thinking if you were going to cut taxes that it might be a smart thing to do to cut taxes for people who could actually use the extra money in their pay checks who would then spend that money to help them pay their bills better and enjoy life more. Instead of cutting taxes for people who already have more than enough money to live out the rest of their lives comfortably and don't need an extra million-dollars in tax relief. But that is just me speaking off-the-cuff here.

What the Trump-Ryan-McConnell plan says to middle class taxpayers is essentially this. "Those hard-working middle class fools who've never made enough money to join our country clubs. Who have to worry about paying mortgages, who only own one home and perhaps not even a luxury car, let alone have their own driver. Who probably bowl during the week and drink beer and eat chicken wings. Can you believe these people voted for billionaire Donald Trump to be President? I know what we'll do, we'll raise their taxes so we can cut our own taxes and the people who keep us in office. They'll never know anyway, at least until they start filling out their income taxes next spring. And when they see less money in their paychecks, we'll just blame the Democrats. Those greedy working class Americans who struggle just to pay their bills and current tax bills, pay too little in taxes anyway. The only reason why the rich pay any taxes at all is because of our low rates on middle class workers. Why should the rich have to pay taxes when they're already so successful?"

Isn't the Republican Party supposed to be the party that never votes for tax increases on anyone? They're supposed to be the anti-tax party, at least when it comes to tax increases. Maybe the only reason why you still have any Conservative-Libertarians at all still in the Republican Party is because they're supposed to be the anti-tax and anti-regulation of business party. Senator Rand Paul who is a Conservative-Libertarian Republican, has come out against the GOP tax plan because its a middle class tax increase.

I don't see this plan passing at all even if Congressional Republican are somehow able to pass a Federal budget and be able to pass a tax plan with just 50 Senators and Vice President Mike Pence voting in favor of it. Again because you have a middle class tax increase in it with all 48 Democrats including Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders voting against it and probably 5-10 Senate Republicans. Especially if they're up for reelection next year, or not running for office again, or are true to their conservative economic principles of never being in favor of tax increases. Senator's like Rand Paul, John McCain, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, plus the so-called moderates like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, name a few. And they would have to pass this plan in the House as well with 190 plus House Democrats all voting against and perhaps 25-30 House Republicans or more, who are all up for reelection next year voting against the plan as well.

If you want to talk about tax cuts and tax reform as well even if the GOP plan fails, Congressional Democrats would be smart both in the House and Senate to have their alternative led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. That instead of raising the bottom 10 percent tax rate, you cut it to 7 or even 5 percent. The 15 percent tax rate take that down to 12 or 10. That would be a huge middle class tax cut that would benefit most of the country who tend to pay those first two rates in the tax code. And we would see a new demand in consumer spending as well.

And Democrats would have another issue next year to go along with ObamaCare repeal. Which is to say Democrats are the party of middle class tax cuts. The Republican Party is the party of middle class tax increases and believe that the rich shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all and the middle class are undertaxed. But then Congressional Democrats should also offer their hands to Congressional Republicans and President Trump on real tax reform. That says our business tax rates are too high, so lets cut them. But do it in a smart and fiscally responsible manner. And say you want lower business taxes, get rid of corporate welfare in exchange.

Democrats could say that everyone and every business that invests in America will pay a low tax rate, but get no subsidy to go along with their lower taxes. Democrats could say we don't think businesses should be overtaxed in America, but we're also against corporate welfare and pro-middle class. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Brookings Institution: Dana Goldman: 'Why Bernie Sander's Plan For Universal Health Care Is Only Half Right'

Source:Brookings Institution- Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Vermont) holding a press conference introducing his Medicare For All plan.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders plans to introduce his universal health care bill Wednesday; it is likely to serve as a litmus test for Democrats with presidential aspirations. The legislation is bold and simple, which makes it very appealing. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that 60 percent of Americans believe the federal government should ensure health coverage for all Americans." 

Read the rest at Brookings 

"Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-For-All bill has been revealed. Ana Kasparian, Jimmy Dore, and Ron Placone, the hosts of The Young Turks, tell you what’s in it. Tell us what you think in the comment section below:The Young Turks 

“Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unveiled Wednesday a new version of his plan to give everybody government-run health insurance, potentially opening a new chapter in the ongoing debate over how to make health care in the U.S. more affordable and available.

The plan calls for an overhaul of American health insurance with a souped-up, more generous version of Medicare replacing nearly all private health insurance ― and government exerting far more control over the cost of medical care. It would arguably be the most ambitious social welfare initiative in U.S. history, but Sanders told HuffPost in an interview Tuesday that he believes America is ready for it.

“The American people are catching on to where the Republicans are coming from, they see the limitations of the Affordable Care Act and they’re looking at the alternatives,” Sanders said. “And this is a rational alternative.” 

Sanders has been waging a frequently lonely crusade for this kind of universal health care since the early 1990s, when he first came to Congress. In 2013, when he introduced a previous iteration of the bill, he had no support from his colleagues. But in a clear sign of the idea’s increasing popularity, as well as Sanders’ influence within progressive politics, 16 Democratic senators are co-sponsoring the bill.” 

Read more at:The Huffington Post." 

Source:The Young Turks- talking about Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Vermont) Medicare For All plan.

From The Young Turks

Actually, I believe Dana Goldman is being generous here and giving Senator Bernie Sanders too much credit here. I don't believe Senator Sanders is even half right and is selling his supporters a Mercedes for the cost of a Ford Escort and telling them that he'll get back to them as far as how much the Mercedes really cost later on. Leaving his supporters with hopes of buying a Mercedes with only the budget of an Escort.

The problem with a Mercedes health care plan is that is cost as much as a Mercedes. If you're looking at a Mercedes SEL or sports car, you're talking about eighty thousand dollars or more. If you're a young public school teacher just starting out, you might only be able to afford the Ford Escort economy car. Luxury cars are expensive for most Americans and so are great health care plans. Even Senator Sanders is now acknowledging that his so-called free universal Medicare For All health care plan is not free.

Why? Because it would be run by government. Who funds government? The taxpayers that consume its services. How do taxpayers pay for government services? Through taxation and that includes from their annual income, as well as payroll taxes that comes out of their paychecks. Whether you're new public school teacher making 25-30 thousand dollars a year, driving a Ford Escort or another economy car. Or corporate lawyer or crooked politician making 500 hundred thousand dollars a year driving a Mercedes SEL or perhaps a Jaguar, or another great luxury car. The Sanders's Medicare For All plan comes with deep costs and they have no idea to pay for it.

And you would be talking about a Medicare For All budget assuming you're completely eliminating all private health insurance companies, as well as Medicaid, Tri-Care, the Federal civil service health insurance program, and all state health insurance programs, you would be talking about an annual Medicare budget of over three-trillion-dollars, to go on top of the already four-trillion-dollar U.S. Government budget. There's no free health care for anyone who pays taxes. Which means the Medicare For All supporters would have to come up with the finances to pay for it.

And if that is not depressing enough I only covered the costs of a Medicare For All plan and the fact that their supporters don't have a damn clue how to pay for it. Other than saying, "well, if we can borrow trillions of dollars to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we can do that to guarantee health care for everyone." Which at best is a sophomoric answer. Which is like saying, "hey if Billy can skip cool and shoplift, how come I can't and have to go to go to school everyday?." Not exactly an example that you want to teach people.

But how about the other big problem dealing with completely eliminating competition in the health insurance system and completely putting the U.S. Government in charge of the health insurance for 320 million Americans. We've already seen the problem with the Veteran Affairs Administration when you put the one agency in charge of not just the health insurance for everyone, but their complete health care as well.

Which is military veterans not able to get needed health care because their hospitals are overcrowded or live hundreds of miles from the nearest VA hospital. Which is why Congress and the Obama Administration reformed the VA in 2014 and now veterans can get health care at private hospitals at least, leaving taxpayers to pick up the costs of their health care that these veterans have earned by serving their country.

The VA example is really the only example you need to know why government shouldn't be in complete control of the health insurance for a country of 320 million people at least. Socialism is just not the answer here because government is no bureaucratic and moves so slowly with the executive not being able to reform themselves quickly and keep up with the times without the approval of Congress. And Congress which always has their eye on the next election and always keeping their eyes on their donors and making sure they're pleasing them and only being able to move when it helps them politically.

The U.S. Government doesn't respond to competition because it doesn't have any in America. In theory they can do whatever they want and don't even have to meet a budget. Private organizations obviously don't have have that luxury and have to stay within their budgets and be able to adapt and deliver the best and most affordable services that they can. Or they'll lose to the competition. Which is why you want competition in the health insurance market and you want to keep that market and if anything expand that market and give people other options to pay for their health insurance.

Like Medicare option and not just having Medicare for our oldest and unhealthiest Americans. That could be run by the states and not adding to the Federal budget. As well as health savings accounts including for low-income workers which would add even more competition to the health insurance market.

So, other than the costs of a Medicare For All plan other than their supporters seeming to believe that we can borrow three-trillion-dollars a years and put it on the national debt, which would actually be more expensive than what we borrowed for Afghanistan and Iraq, at least annually. 

Or than having rich people not only fund their own health care and health insurance, but forcing them to pay for everyone else's even for people who can afford health insurance and health care and that the U.S. Government would be in complete control of everyone's health insurance in a country of three-hundred and twenty-million people, without the money to pay for it other than deep borrowing and expecting wealthy people to cover the other costs and forgetting that rich people can simply escape taxes by moving their money to other countries, you might actually have to like the Sanders's Medicare For All Plan. At least the idealistic romance novel side of it. Free health care for everyone. Who would be against that. 

But again, so such thing as a free lunch for people who buy that food. No such thing as free health care for people who consume that health care. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

Brookings Institution: Molly Reynolds: Limitations of The Senate Filibuster

Source: Brookings Institution-

Source:Brookings Institution

Warning! This article is only for truly hard-core political and Congressional junkies and people who haven't slept in days and need to fall asleep real quick. Great bedtime reading for your hard-core insomniacs. Because this is not just about Congress, but the Senate in particular and not just the Senate, but Senate rules and not just Senate rules, but a rule called the filibuster. One of those inside Washington words that people from outside of the beltway might think is from a different language. Let alone able to explain what that word is and what it means.

For people who need to fall asleep real quick I'll give you a little background and history about the Senate filibuster to explain the current limitations of it today and for those people who see this they might be able to sleep for weeks after reading this.

Before then Senate Leader Harry Read and about 52 or so of his Senate Democratic colleagues nuked the filibuster as it has to do with executive nominations and judicial nominations in the fall of 2013 in the 113th Congress. The Senate Minority Leader (the person who leads the minority party in the Senate) and his party colleagues in the Senate could block almost every piece of legislation on their own. If they had at least 41 seats and votes in the Senate.

The only exceptions having to with the budget and what's called reconciliation. Which is a Congressional term that has to do with the budget. Meaning that any bill that has to do with spending tax dollars like tax cuts and reforms and expansions of entitlement programs like Medicare, would only need 51 votes including the Vice President to break a tie to pass the Senate.  Now for someone who is a Congressional junky like myself and loves studying and reading about Congress especially the history of it, the Senate filibuster and Senate rules in general are fascinating to me and learning any information about it like that would make me so charge up it might keep me awake until the next solar eclipse. But for your average insomniac this kind of material might send them into a coma.

Thanks to former Senate Leader Harry Reid and his Senate Democratic colleagues in the Senate, the majority party only needs 51 votes to not only move to voting on presidential nominations for both the executive and judiciary, but for final passage on those nominations. During the spring this year Senate Democrats lead by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, blocked President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch with the filibuster rule. I think Senate Joe Manchin, Senate Joe Donnelly, and Senate Heidi Heitkamp, were the only three Senate Democrats who voted to cut off any filibuster of then Judge Gorsuch.

And when Senate Democrats blocked Gorsuch, current Senate Leader Mitch McConnell moved to eliminate all filibusters of Supreme Court nominees which passed on a party-line vote. Which means almost everyone in one party votes one way and almost everyone in the other party votes the other way. Not people standing in line to go to some party.

So under current Senate rules the majority party can only eliminate filibusters on legislation if they have 60 votes. Meaning they either have 60 seats in the Senate (which rarely happens) or they get a compromise with the minority party generally the Minority Leader or the minority manager of the bill that is on the floor. And that compromise leads to at least enough minority members of the Senate to cut off any potential filibuster of the current bill.

Or to get back to that crazy arcane word of reconciliation and the Senate majority party brings up some legislation that has to do with the budget. Something that they want as part of the budget that has to be passed that year. And if they're able to do that they pass tax dollar related legislation with just 51 votes including the Vice President of the United States.

But even reconciliation has it's limits because that rule has to be passed first and the time for that is limited if a budget is not passed during that year in Congress, then bills can only be passed through reconciliation through September. And then if a budget is still not passed every piece of legislation that is considered in the Senate is subjected to the cloture rule (meaning the filibuster) and needs 60 votes to pass for the rest of that year. Which means again unless the Senate majority party has 60 seats (which rarely happens) the majority party needs cooperation and votes from the minority party to move legislation in the Senate.

I hope these explanations of the Senate filibuster and it's usage and limitations help people who are interested in learning about Congress, especially the upper chamber which is the Senate. Or at the very least helps people who are in badly need of sleep finally get the sleep that they deserve.

I realize reading about Congressional rules or perhaps reading about anything outside of new technology and celeb culture especially in today's world reality TV world and overdose of celebrity culture and smartphones which of course is far more important (to too many people) can seem intrusive and time consuming. And reading about how legislation that affects over three-hundred-million Americans as far as what laws we have to do live under and will our civil liberties, property rights, civil rights, will be protected or expanded. Will any of our relatives be sent to war, how much we're going to have to pay in taxes, or in interest on the national debt and budget deficit. Just to show some examples of how Congress and the Federal Government in general can and does affect our lives.

But it's worth learning and knowing about any institution in America that can have that much power  over how any of us live in America. Because we all pay for the government that we get whether we think that government is interesting and worth our time knowing about it or not. Whether we like it or not.

Source: Discerning History 

Discerning History: History of The Filibuster

Brookings Institution: Molly E. Reynolds: Can Speaker Paul Ryan Keep His Promise of Amendment Opportunities For the Rank and File?

Source: Brookings Institution-

Source:The New Democrat

Warning! This piece may come off as inside Congress and the beltway wonky for all of you non-political junkies who have better things to do than follow Washington politics. Especially if you’re currently sober.

Generally speaking except when I’m trying to get somewhere, I love living just outside of Washington in Bethesda, Maryland. I’ve lived here my whole live and wouldn’t live somewhere else if someone paid me to leave. But this is probably why I’m such a political junky to the point where I can actually name all one-hundred U.S. Senators and most of the key U.S. Representatives. Even when a lot of Americans couldn’t name their own Senators and Representative even if you spotted them the last names. I love Congress and love following Congress especially the Senate, but the House is fascinating as well. Which is why I’m writing a piece on how to reform the House of Representatives.

One thing that Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi can agree on for the remainder of this Congress and future Congress’s, is that the House is broken. Both parties have continually broken into it (pun intended) and have almost destroyed it. And a big part of why it’s so partisan has to do with how the majority treats the minority. House Democrats, didn’t ask for much if any input from House Republicans when they were in charge. And continually wrote bills in the House Democratic Leadership room. Bypassing even their own committee chairman, let alone the Republican Leadership. So House Republican couldn’t even attempt to amend bills. As well as Moderate Democratic members who were actually interested in getting reelected and didn’t want to vote for something that could hurt them at home.

House Republicans, in the last two Congress’s under Speaker Boehner, have been a little better and have at least allowed for bills to come out of committee and have some amendment votes on bills. Not saying the House should become the Senate and adopt come super majority requirement for bills to get passed. But if I’m Speaker of the House, (that idea scares me more than you) I would want members of my caucus to weigh in on bills. Especially my committee chairman, so my members feels they have a real role in how the House works. But also if I need their votes on controversial legislation, they can say back home that they offered their amendments, but didn’t have the votes for them. And had to vote for the next best thing. Or they can say they made the bills better, because their amendments passed.

You also want the minority to not only be able to offer amendments to bill in committee and mark bills up in committee and not just send them to floor without even a hearing. Especially on the minority leadership to put pressure on them to offer ideas and alternatives. So you could say, “you don’t like what we’re doing, what would you do instead?” Put some responsibility on them to offer their own ideas and vision. Which would also give you opportunities to hit them back and not always be on defense when the House is debating bills on the floor. And when reelection season comes, you’ll have an opportunity to explain why their agenda isn’t good and why they shouldn’t be back in the majority.

Again not saying the House should become the Senate with unlimited debate short of 3-5 majority and all of that. With all the hot air that comes out of Senate filibusters, who needs summer in Washington? But in a couple of areas where the House should become like the Senate has to do with how committees operate and bills are written. All major legislation should go through committees. Where the chairman write bills along with their members and when the chairman and ranking members don’t agree on what the final bill should be they can both write their own relevant bill to whatever the issue that they’re considering is. And then let the rank in file decide who has the better bill. And offer their own amendments as well.

The House floor should work the same way. Where the Majority Leader brings up bills that have been passed out of committee and then when the Minority Leader and the minority caucus doesn’t like the majority bill and they haven’t reached a compromise on what the bill should be, the Minority Leader or their designee should be able to offer a substitute to the majority bill. When the two-party leaders disagree. And again let the members decide who has the better bill. And not just do this in this Congress, but make these rule changes permanent so both parties whether they’re in the majority, or minority can have a stake in the game. And the ability to legislate and offer their own ideas.

Speaker Paul Ryan, who ideologically I don’t agree with him on much other than how government should help the poor and empower them to take control over their own lives, I believe truly believes in the notion that the U.S. House should be a battle place of ideas. A competition where both Democrats and Republicans can offer their own visions for the country and then let the country decide who has the better vision. And not just on the campaign trail, but on the House floor and in committee as well. Probably more than even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who rarely if ever allowed for amendments to bills except when they were bipartisan. A reform approach like this would make the House work better, because now they would be debating ideas and visions. Instead of who wants to destroy America first. And the country would better off as a result.

Brookings: John Hudak: How The GOP Lost The Democratic Presidential Debate

Source:The New Democrat

I believe the debate that we saw last night between the Democrats is exactly what the party should be doing a lot more. Intelligent serious people who all have different ideas and experiences who come together and lay out where they want to take the country and why they should lead. Instead of having 10-15 people up there as if they’re at a WWE Battle Royal or something, who all have things that the Tea Party doesn’t like about them and have issues with Independents as well, who try to make everyone else worse than they do, instead of offering a positive vision for the country. The Democratic Party should have at least 5-6, or more of these things before the end of the year. And show Americans just how much more serious and qualified Democrats are over Republicans.

As far as the winners, Hillary Clinton’s best performance of this campaign season. She did nothing to hurt herself and get her base to worry about her. She was sharp and even funny and came out of her centrist shell which has been dogging her at least since she ran for president the first time and couldn’t admit to what almost everyone else in the country believed which was the Iraq War was a mistake and she shouldn’t have voted for it. She had a great line to the question from Anderson Cooper about is she a Progressive or a Centrist and she answered she’s a Progressive results. Meaning to me anyway that she doesn’t just fight the good fight, but she gets things done and moves the ball forward even if that means working with pragmatic Republicans. There was nothing in this debate to show that she’s not still clearly the favorite.

Bernie Sanders, I don’t think hurt himself here either. Other than losing an opportunity to close the gap between her and Hillary in the national Democratic polls. And he was caught on the defensive on issues like gun control and I don’t believe he sounded like a strong Commander-In-Chief last night. Which is the most important part of the job. If anything he came out finished 5-5 on national security and foreign policy issues. Even losing to Martin O’Malley who has never served in Congress, or in the military, or in the foreign service before. But he didn’t lose any support with his Far-Left Democratic Socialist base. And perhaps even picked up some votes from the Green Party that otherwise would vote for Jill Stein if they bother to vote at all.

Martin O’Malley, good night for him. I wish Anderson Cooper had let the Governor answer the marijuana question. Because as Governor of Maryland he decriminalized marijuana and he could have shared some of the experiences that Maryland has had with marijuana. I don’t think O’Malley did anything to boost his national poll standing, or boost his numbers in Iowa, or New Hampshire, but he showed that he’s ready for the Major Leagues and deserves to be on the same stage as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, at least.

Jim Webb, impressed me at least in the sense that I could easily see him as the next Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Director, for President Hillary Clinton. Because I believe by far has the best grasp and experience when it comes national security and foreign policy issues really on anyone running for president right now, especially with Vice President Joe Biden being in the race yet. And he did make some good points about criminal justice and education for returning veterans and the work he did on those issues. But I don’t see him with much of a base and even reason for running for president in the Democratic Party.

Lincoln Chafee, I think he’s a hell of a Democrat on the issues and is very likable and perhaps should have been a Democrat all along. But he blew the Glass-Steagall question and essentially answered that he voted for something without understanding it and not bothering to read the legislation first. But similar to Jim Webb he didn’t have much of a reason and case for running for president in the first place. We now have a three person presidential race in the Democratic Party. Perhaps 2 and a half. Martin O’Malley showed that he belongs here, the question is can he build on that and gain support and financing. And we’ll see where the Democrats go from here.

Brookings: William A. Galston & E.J. Dionne: The Case For Universal Voting

Source:The New Democrat

“William Galston and E.J. Dionne, Jr. make the case for universal voting – a new electoral system in which voting would be regarded as a required, civic duty. They argue that universal voting would enhance the legitimacy of our governing institutions, greatly increasing turnout and the diversity of the American voter base, and ease the intense partisan polarization that weakens our governing capacity.”

Before doctors try to fix their patients and fix what is physically wrong with them they first look their patients over to figure out the problem. They talk to their patients to where they are hurting and give them a full-examination. Well the lack of voting in America should be treated the same way. Instead of just saying out low voter turnout is a problem that must be fixed how about we first try to find out why people aren’t voting in the first place. Low voter participation in America is the perfect time for people especially politicians and partisan political activists to look in the mirror to see where they’re responsible here.

You want more voting in America then you need better politicians. And I’m not talking about people who get elected and reelected easier who’ll say they’ll do one thing during the campaign, but then govern a different way. But we need politicians that will simply go to Washington and do their jobs. Which is represent their districts and states. And instead of focusing most of their attention on the reelection or moving on to the Senate from the House, or looking at a presidential run they instead serve their people and establish a good record in Congress. And concentrate their reelection, or hopeful promotion based on their record in Congress. They do their jobs and reelection and promotion will take care of itself.

The only way you get better politicians is by having better voters. Which means the current people who vote every two years for Congress and four years for president need to do a better job of voting. Treat voting like a high school and college test and actually do your homework. Know who you’re voting for before you actually vote for that person. I know that sounds like commonsense, but a lot of American voters don’t bother to do that. And instead vote for people solely based on political commercials, soundbites and short campaign speeches. Without bothering to look to see if their current rhetoric matches up with their record in Congress, or before they ran for Congress.

As a proud Democrat it would be easy for me to be in favor of compulsory universal voting. With higher turnouts especially with young adults you would see more Democrats getting elected and reelected. Higher turnouts tend to favor Democrats, because there tends to be more registered Democrats than Republicans. One of the reasons why hyper-partisan Republicans support the so-called voter ID laws which are really Democratic voter prevention laws. Which at least one Federal judge saying that the proponents of these laws failed to show any real evidence of real voter fraud. Which is why the Pennsylvania voter id law was struck down.

But there are a couple problems with that argument. One of the practical and that is even if somehow you were to make voting mandatory in America, most non-voters or people who only vote during presidential years would still choose not to vote. And pay the twenty-dollar fine or whatever it would be. But then the other problem is why should Americans be punished for not voting for people they don’t believe in. A lot of Americans don’t vote because they don’t like the available choices. Which again goes to the need of needing better politicians and candidates. Which would drive up voting in America.

Brookings Institution: Ron Haskins: '$2 a Day: A More Complete Picture'

Source:Brookings Institution- food assistance in America.

"As Edin and Shaefer show in such moving fashion, there are some American households living on very low incomes. There is now a large literature on what researchers call “disconnected” mothers; that is, mothers who are disconnected from both the labor market and cash welfare through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program." 

From the Brookings Institution

I agree with Ron Haskins here that when today’s so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) say that Americans in poverty only live on $2 a day, they tend to leave out things like public housing, food assistance, Medicaid (to use as examples)aAll of these benefits that go to low-income non-workers and unemployed workers. 

All of these benefits are obviously worth money and help people in poverty pay their bills and survive in the short-term. Plus, all the benefits that people get from private charity as well like extra food, blankets, clothes, furniture even. All of these things that we all need to live well and survive in America that go to low-income people whether they work, or not for free and they all have cash value.

The way for more people on Welfare to earn more money is to either go to work, or get a good job. And where government can help is help low-income people find good jobs. And if they’re also low-skilled empower them to finish or further their education. 

Public assistance in America was never designed for people to live comfortably and to feel like they are part of the middle class. Especially when you have to be out-of-work, or have a low-income job in order just to qualify for public assistance. 

The idea is to encourage as many physically and mentally able people to become independent and work with a good job. So we have as small of a poverty population as possible which gives us more resources to help the less-fortunate.

One of the reasons why I would like to see a 10-12 dollar an hour minimum or living wage in America at least for adults who have finished high school is to encourage more low-income people to work. And then apply the $7.25 minimum wage to people on Welfare for a forty hours a week. 

We should have people on Welfare take the first job that they are qualified for and give them real work experience. As well as assistance for child support and education so they can get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job. Like finishing high school if they haven’t done that, junior college, or vocational training, empower them to start their own business’s even and even work from home.

Today’s so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, really) seem to believe that everyone born in America is entitled to at least a middle class income for simply being live in America even if they didn’t earn that income form their own skills and what they bring to the market. The problem with that is once you encourage people to not earn their own living and not work for it that is exactly what is going to happen. 

If Socialists go what they wanted when it came to public assistance, you’ll see more Americans decide: “Why should I finish my education and get a good job when Uncle Sam is just going to give me a check every week or month that covers all of my bills and allows for me to live comfortably?” Plus, throw in how expensive and national basic income would be. Even if you have that you’re still going to have to have a lot of deciding to get educated and earn a good living for themselves.

Public assistance is social insurance. You collect from it to help you get by in the short-term while you’re rebuilding your lives, or a building a life for yourself and your family. But unless you’re disabled it is not meant to live off of at least not indefinitely, but to help you get by in the short-term. 

And one thing that you can also do with social insurance is to prepare people and empower people to take control and charge over their own affairs. That comes with education and a good job, economic development, infrastructure, small business loans, to empower people who are struggling to get on their own feet and no longer have to live in public assistance at all. 

You don’t move people out of poverty by giving them bigger public assistance checks. That just encourages more people to get on public assistance. Especially if they’re already struggling.

Brookings Institution: Thomas Mann: Election 2016: The Dumbing Down of American Politics

Source:The Daily Review

Tom Mann-“Donald Trump and the chorus of Republican presidential aspirants may have appeared to monopolize the capacity to make fantastical claims about what’s wrong with America and how to fix it. But a new entrant–Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig–has outlined a very different sort of fantastical claim. In this post, Thomas Mann looks at Lessig’s candidacy and what it says about the state of American politics.”

The Dumbing Down of American Politics, so I guess American politics had reached a new low and American voters are now borderline retarded. And vote for people based on what realty shows they watch, or who they’re favorite celebrities are, or do they have the same smart phone. Wait, Americans voters already vote for candidates based on those things. How else do you explain our last two president’s. Neither one of them became president based on their deep knowledge of the issues, or their brilliant resumes. But because they’re likable and the country was looking for something different. And this coming from someone who voted for Barack Obama twice. But not because I think he’s like totally awesome, or whatever. But because he was the best person for the job.

I don’t think American politics can get any dumber. The presidential election is already a popularity contest. The candidate who gets the voters to personally like them the most for whatever the reasons tends to get the job. The most important job and election in the world is not rewarded to the person who has the best economic, national security, or foreign policies, but to the person who looks the most Hollywood, lets says. The person whose seen as the hippest. And a lot of our Congressional races both House and Senate are decided that way as well. That is you get a billionaire like a Donald Trump, who the whole country knows from his so-called realty TV show, looking like a contender for the Republican presidential nomination.

As George Carlin, politicians are us. They’re the people they represent. They weren’t beamed down here from Star Trek, or someplace to play career politicians on TV. They live and come from our communities and speak the language of the people they live with and share the same politics. And what career politicians do, that is people who get a heart attack at the even thought of having to have a real job and work outside of government and perhaps go back to selling shoes, or auto insurance, is take advantage of the communities that they come from. And the more extreme the community they represent, the more extreme rhetoric. Whether they actually believe the bullshit that they’re saying, or not.

If Americans want better politicians and politics, they need to be better voters. The only ways someone like a Donald Trump can get on the national scene is, that he’s a billionaire. who had his own so-called reality show and that there a lot of dumb voters in America who believe Latinos are invading America and raping their daughters , trying to occupy America as if they were a Western ISIS and want to create a Greater Mexico. And oh by the way. They believe Latinos are stealing their fast food, food service, retail and agriculture jobs. That most Americans wouldn’t take even if it meant they would have to starve. And what The Donald does, is play to those fears of a very ignorant people who simply don’t know any better.

American voters should look at politicians and political candidates the same way they look at buying a car, or house, or clothes, What’s the best purchase for them based on the money that they can afford to spend on that purchase and exactly who’ll represent them best with that purchase. And stop looking at American politics likes it’s a game show, or beauty contest. But instead whose the best candidate for the job based on how they would vote, or what policies they would push and what they would do for the country. Who would best defend, promote and develop the country so the most Americans possible can live well here. Instead of voting for people based on what they’re favorite movies, or entertainers are and do they watch celebrity TV and so-forth and so on.

Brookings Institution: William Galston: The American People to its Leaders: Ground Troops Against ISIS & a Stronger National Defense

Source:The New Democrat 

I think its pretty clear about what we’ve learned in the last thirteen-years or so in our Middle East adventures. That if you try to defend and govern a country that won’t do that for themselves, then they’ll expect you to stay indefinitely especially if you’re also putting up the bills. And the answer to that is don’t fight other people’s wars for them. This is what we learned about Vietnam. That we shouldn’t try to fight for people who won’t fight for themselves. That if you’re going to get involved in foreign wars you need to have partners of the ground people who live in the country and region that will do their part to defeat the enemy.

Of course America has a role in defeating ISIS in Syria, Iraq and everywhere else. But so does Iraq, so does Kurdistan, so does the Syrian rebels, the Arab League, Turkey, the European Union and especially NATO. And Jordan which is already doing their part and so does Saudi Arabia the biggest and most powerful military in the region. Well the Saudis or Turkey and either one of them could combat ISIS by themselves especially with a NATO no fly zone protecting them. That you must have partners that will work with you on the ground to take out ISIS as you assist them in the air and with other resources.

President Obama doesn’t want to put American ground troops on the ground in Syria and Iraq and neither does the country. That is not going to happen, but what we can do with our NATO allies is give the ground troops from the Middle East the cover to go in take ISIS out as we’re taking out the air-cover and blowing them away. So they can’t get additional resources that they need to keep the fight going and bring in additional personal. And while we are there we could also take out the Assad Regime in Syria as well. But that might be a different debate, but America can play its part to defeat Islamism in the Middle East and other places. But our allies have to play their parts as well.

Brookings Institution: Martin S. Indyk: A Return to The Middle Eastern Great Game

Source:The New Democrat

Support Middle Eastern dictators in the past may have worked in the past up until 1978 or so with the fall of the Shah of Iran, as far as maintaining some form of peace and stability in this region. And giving America a good resource for energy which we don’t need anymore, as well as intelligence on certain terrorist groups and the worst dictators that had plans for expanding their territory like Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But we’ve paid a heavy price for both financially and with our own security. Like having troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia a country more than capable of defending themselves both financially and with their current military.

Not excusing 9/11 obviously, but our involvement in the Arabia and our subsidizing authoritarian states there is one of the motivations for the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 9/11. We subsidized the Shah of Iran for about forty years going back to Franklin Roosevelt and the Shah was a tough ruthless dictator that beat down the opposition. And the Iranians rose up and threw the Shah out of power and of course replaced that regime with another authoritarian regime the Islamic Theocrats. There are huge costs that America is still paying for subsidizing states that don’t have our best interest and their own people’s best interest at heart. And we’re still paying for them today.

And you can say that well if America and Europe didn’t subsidize these authoritarian regimes, something else that is worst would come instead. Perhaps if all you did was not subsidize them in the first place and done nothing else instead. But an alternative would be to give those states conditional backing. That they respect the human rights of their people. Like not arresting political prisoners simply for being against the current government. Respect the rights of their women, racial, ethnic and religious minorities. Most of the countries are fairly diverse across the board. And instead of backing authoritarian regimes, back people who want democratic change and to build a democratic society in their country.

Backing authoritarians doesn’t stop or prevent future violence or terrorism. Is just moves it around, because instead of the regime backing terrorists who would hit you, what you do instead of give the people on the ground in those countries who hate their government motivation to want to hit you. Get organized, join a current terrorist group or create their own that would work to knockout the current regime, as well as try to hit American targets. America needs to get past the better of two evils foreign policy in the Middle East. And stop subsidizing bad guys even if they aren’t as bad as other bad guys. And instead work with the good guys who want to build a developed peaceful society where their people would be respected.

Brookings Institution: E.J. Dionne: A Conversation With House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Source:The New Democrat

Infrastructure investment, a national energy policy, education and job training for our low-skilled adults and low-income students, immigration reform and expanding trade to sell more American products oversees as they are built in this country, this is how you not only increase economic security for middle class Americans, but also expand the middle class in America. Educating Americans and putting them to work with good jobs that not only allows for them to pay their bills, but put money away and joy life in America.

You can talk about all sorts of government social programs to help people in poverty, but without a strong and expanding American middle class who are the real job creators in America because of the economic growth that they drive with their consumer spending, you won’t have the resources needed to pay for those social programs that you want. You can only tax so much and tax people who have money to tax. The larger the middle and even upper classes in America that you have, the more people with more money you have to do the things that we need government to do.

Infrastructure, energy, immigration, education and job training for our low-skilled adult population so they can get themselves good jobs that puts them in the middle class and even upper middle class, education reform so low-income students aren’t trapped in failing schools simply because of their zip code, that is you expand and strengthen the middle class in America. By freeing people up to be free and live their American dream and not need government to take care of them. This is the economic agenda that President Obama has pushed and that Leader Pelosi and her House Democratic Caucus should back as well. And a lot of them already do.

Brookings Institution: Thomas Mann: The New Normal in Politics: Response to Gridlock & Gloom

Source:The New Democrat

I don’t feel any sympathy for anyone for Americans who claim to hate the dysfunction in Washington, especially in Congress, but at the same time vote for people who are responsible for that dysfunction. Its like hearing from a football player who played in the NFL for 10-15 years and now suffers from serious knee pain and always complaining about knee pain. Or the driver involved in a car accident who wasn’t wearing a seatbelt and now suffers from serious back or neck pain. I mean, what do they have to complain about? They knew the consequences for the decisions they made that lived up to their injuries. And if they didn’t, they are too stupid, drunk or high a combination of all of those factors for me to give a damn about.

American voters all the time in poll after poll say they disapprove of Congress and yet they reelect the same representatives and senators to represent them. So maybe it is that American voters actually like gridlock, but if you look at poll after poll there’s clearly a feeling in the country that Congress needs to act on a series of issues for the country. Like the economy, infrastructure, immigration just to use as examples, but they elect and reelect people who don’t seem to have any interest in addressing those issues. If you want someone to do something for you and you’re talking about politics, you vote for people who are actually interested in those concerns.

If you want Gridlock, vote for Joe and Marry Gridlock running for U.S. House or Senate or reelection to one of those chambers. Because they’ll be more than happy to keep their election promises. I mean seriously how hard is it to do nothing. Even someone in Congress can figure how to do that. You don’t get action on issues by voting for inaction. I know that sounds as obvious as the Earth is round or concrete is hard or the Chicago Cubs won’t win the World Series. But apparently we have millions if not tens of millions of voters who don’t seem to understand that.

We have a lot of people in Congress, especially in the Tea Party Republican Party who are really only there for one reason. To stop President Obama from doing anything, at least anything constructive. If they actually want to do anything, it is to repeal and sit on their ass’s, another way of saying repeal and replace. So if that is what you want, you might have a hundred people on Capitol Hill who’ll do exactly that for you, which again is nothing. Again, how hard is it to do that and if you are still thinking about that, you are too dumb to follow along even for the ride. And then non wonder why what ninety-percent of the members of Congress get reelected.

But if you want people to actually do things in Congress and address your issues, whatever the issues and if you’re a Democrat or Republican, then you need to vote for the people who’ll address those issues. I know, this sounds like basic common sense, but that is a big problem with America and Congress in particular. It is not the budget deficit that is such a huge problem right now, but the common sense deficit up there. Which is why not a lot gets done up there, but why are they there in the first place? Because the voters sent them there to represent them.

Brookings Institution: Stuart M. Butler: Can We Move Past Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance?

Source:Brookings Institution

I like the idea of health savings accounts when it comes to health care and health care reform. Just as long as HSA’s aren’t just for wealthy people, or upper middle class people, but we make them accessible to everyone. Because you eliminate premiums and red tape for employers because they don’t have to pay for that employees health insurance with premiums and hiring workers to manage those benefits. The employee puts money away into their HSA every week that is matched by their employer and the employee them self uses those funds to pay for their health care. And doesn’t have to worry about what their employer covers.

I like the idea of what I at least call competitive health insurance plans. Instead of the employer deciding what plan their employees can have and from which company, the employee would decide that. Because some times people have health care needs for either themselves or a relative that they are responsible for that their employer health care plan doesn’t cover. So with a CHIP the employee would decide which health care plan they would get and from which health insurance provider, but their employer still be able to decide how much of that plan that they would pay for. And we could have a tax credit for employees who need it to make up for whatever their employer decides not to cover.

I would like to eliminate the middleman when it comes to health insurance in America. Not move to single payer and nationalize health insurance in this country. But give the power to the employee to decide how to finance their health care. Either through health insurance, or a health savings account. And perhaps just move health insurance to cover catastrophic health care that would be needed when someone is in a car accident to use as an example and needs long-term health care to cover things like rehabilitation. But use their health savings account to cover their basic health care needs like checkups and medicine.

I’m not saying we should outlaw health insurance or employer-sponsored health insurance. But you put more of the responsibility on individuals with health savings accounts that again would be an affordable option for everyone and leave health insurance for simply catastrophic health care and you no longer have to deal with rising cost of premiums and health care costs and employers having to drop health coverage when times are tough. And you give individuals more responsibility and freedom to manage their own lives.

Brookings: Stephen Grand & Shadi Hamid: The Tension between Democracy and Liberalism

Liberalism and democracy are two different things. Liberals believe in both, but just because you are a Democrat doesn't mean you are a Liberal as we see in the Democratic Party. Or if you are a small d democrat, meaning you are someone who believes in democracy, but you are not a member of the Democratic Party like let's say center-right Republicans. So you can be both someone who believes in liberalism and democracy, but you can believe in another lets say democratic oriented ideology that believes in at least certain amount of individual freedom and believe in democracy as well.

Now there is also liberal democracy which is what the two men in this video were talking about to a certain extent. Liberal democracy would be a national system or governmental system where we have democracy based on lets say liberal values. Where everyone is treated the same and fairly under law. Where we all have a certain amount of individual rights and liberty under a Constitution that can't be taken away even if there's some democratic or majoritarian will to do so. Which is how the American founding fathers set up America. A liberal democracy based on liberal values and constitutionalism.

Brookings Institution: Melissa S. Kearney & Benjamin Harris: Fighting Poverty Need to be a National Policy Priority

Source:Brookings Institution

This blog covers and writes about poverty a lot as it should. But writing about something a lot can make it difficult to put things in a new an interesting way and makes it difficult to sound repetitive and boring. So this post will be different in the sense and look at poverty simply and purely as an public investment pure and simple. "We as taxpayers give people who aren't able to make it on their own in life this amount money and this is what we expect in return from the money that we give you". Instead of looking at public assistance almost entirely from a public charity perspective.

The question for me at least as a New Democrat and Liberal is not whether or not we should have public assistance in America. But what is it for and what we should get in return. Yes what we should get in return that public assistance is a hand up and not a handout. Again "we give you money to help you sustain yourself in the short-term and this is what we expect you to do while you are getting our money". That is where the hand up and public investment function kicks in. The money people on public assistance yes receive money to survive in the short-term, but they are also getting help improving themselves as people.

Preparing themselves to not only reenter or enter the workforce, but reenter or enter the workforce with the skills needed to get themselves a good job. Which is what Welfare to Work from 1996 was about at least from the Clinton Administration and other New Democrats. "You get help to pay your immediate bills and cost of living with a wide variety of assistance. But what you do in return is finish your education and making sure your kids are not only in school, but getting a good education as well. So you get the skills you need to get yourself a good job and so do your kids if you have any".

If we simply look at public assistance from the perspective of public investment and investing in human capital included in that immediate cost of living instead of looking at simply, or mostly as public charity then public assistance would be popular in America. Because hardworking Americans who perhaps struggle just to pay their bills, but who are not poor would support these policies. Because they would not only see them as public investments in their fellow Americans, but the country as a whole.

Brookings Institution: Sr. Semone Campbell: 'Faith Has Political Consequences'

Source:Brookings Institution

The American Left, especially the Far-Left, gets stereotyped as being Atheist.  This is reinforced by MSNBC at any point when they are talking about religion.  Ditto,  Salon, The Nation, the AlterNet or  Bill Maher.  But, there's also a strong Religious Left in America and Sr. Simone Campbell is a perfect example of it.

The people of the Religious Left have very strong progressive and social democratic political tendencies.  They believe that their religion tells them to look after people and their communities and that government has a strong role to play in this. They believe in social justice and that all Americans should have equal access to freedom and true equality.

You could make a good case that the Religious Left came of age in the 1950s and 1960s with the civil rights movement and Dr. Martin Luther King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference.  It was pushing for civil rights and equality for African-Americans but, by the late 1960s, they had  won those battles and moved on to talking about and and pushing for social justice and giving the Federal Government a bigger role to see that more Americans have what they need to live well.

Not everyone on the Left is an atheist, as much as we get stereotyped that way. I come from an atheist family but I'm a liberal and an agnostic.  There are liberal catholics and progressive protestants and  even socialist christians. The problem with stereotypes is that even though they are all based on some truth, it's never the whole truth.  It's a biased characterization of a group that others want the public to see.  The popular religious characterization  of the left is a perfect example of that.