“The painting of 16th St with “BLACK LIVES MATTER” is an effort not only blessed by Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser but initiated by her,” said the mayor’s spokeswoman LaToya Foster to CNN.
“The painters are contractors directed by the Mayor. They have been at it since 2 or 3 in the morning.”
Washington has been the site of more than a week’s worth of protests in response to the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers. St. John’s Church, the site of President Trump’s roundly criticized photo opp during a peaceful protest, sits along the expanse of road that now bears the BLM message. They will continue this weekend, including one on Saturday that is expected to yield a large turnout.
Minneapolis Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey is ordering city officials to begin a wide-ranging query of the damage done to the city’s infrastructure from the race riots that began last week after the death of George Floyd, planning on requesting a federal bailout for the city to repair the damages done by “protestors.”
Early preliminary estimates gauge the price tag of property damage from the riots at more than $55 million dollars. Frey is already working with U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar and representatives Ilhan Omar and Betty McCollum on a potential bailout package for the city.
However, McCollum described a more realistic picture on the prospect of the Twin Cities being granted a federal bailout, which would require approval from the Republican Senate and the signature of President Trump. In an email to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, she said the chances of a bailout were slim. “To be realistic, the odds of that happening are, at best, very difficult.”
Curiously, Frey seemed a lot less concerned about the economic and property damage impacts of the race riots when they were actually happening. Even the Democratic Governor of Minnesota, who proved almost equally inept at preventing mass destruction and controlling the volatile situation, slammed Frey for his refusal to deter the large crowds of criminal rioters, calling the city’s response to the riots an “abject failure.” Frey rebuffed suggestions to deploy the Minnesota National Guard before caving and giving in.
In a remarkable display of irresponsibility, the liberal Democrats cheering on rioting and property damages aren’t even willing to pay for the damages enacted in their own communities. As it turns out, the buck stops with the American taxpayer, many of whom they’d gladly point to as ones whom they’re protesting.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Mondayreleaseda fact sheet explaining how he will fund his “major” multitrillion-dollar campaign proposals — the Green New Deal, free college, housing for all, etc. — and revealed that he will pay for them through a combination of cutting military spending, creating new taxes, and enacting penalties on the fossil fuel industry in the form of lawsuits.
While Sanders has released a suite of lofty plans with the promise to improve the lives of middle class and low income Americans, critics have repeatedly asked the socialist senator to explain how his administration will pay for his grandiose proposals.
His campaign released a fact sheet on Monday listing each of his “major plans” and providing a line on how he will make it a reality.
His $16.3 trillion Green New Deal plan, perhaps one of his most prolific proposals, will be paid for, he claims, through a variety of methods including slashes in military spending and lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry.
He is calling to reduce defense spending by $1.215 trillion “by scaling back military operations on protecting the global oil supply.” His campaign claims he will raise $3.085 trillion by “making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies.” He expects to garner another $6.4 trillion “from the wholesale of energy produced by the regional Power Marketing Administrations.”
“This revenue will be collected from 2023-2035, and after 2035 electricity will be virtually free, aside from operations and maintenance costs,” his website states.
Sanders also claims his Green New Deal plan will create 20 million jobs, which will effectively create a new tax base and eliminate the need for $1.31 trillion in “federal and state safety net spending due to the creation of millions of good-paying, unionized jobs.”
His campaign actually argues that enacting his multitrillion-dollar climate change proposal will save the United States $2.9 trillion in the next decade, $21 trillion over the next 30 years, and $70.4 trillion over the next 80 years.
“If we do not act, the U.S. will lose $34.5 trillion by the end of the century in economic productivity,” he claims.
That is far from Sanders’ only proposal. Offering free college and cancelation of student debt will cost, according to his estimates, $2.2 trillion. Sanders claims the plan is “fully paid” for with a “modest tax on Wall Street speculation,” contending that it will raise more than enough — $2.4 million over the next decade.
Sanders says his $1.5 trillion housing for all plan and $1.5 trillion universal child care/pre-K plan will be paid for with “a wealth tax on the top one-tenth of one percent – those who have a net worth of at least $32 million.” He claims it will raise “a total of $4.35 trillion.”
His other plans rely almost entirely on new taxes on the wealthy. His vow to erase $81 billion past-due medical debt will be “fully paid for by establishing an income inequality tax on large corporations that pay CEOs at least 50 times more than average workers.”Additionally, Social Security expansion will be paid for, he says, with a tax on Americans with incomes over $250,000.
Instead of explicitly stating how Sanders will fund his Medicare for All plan, which some experts say could cost over $60 trillion over the next decade, the fact sheet simply touts a “menu of financing options that would more than pay for the Medicare for All legislation he has introduced,” which includes raising taxes on the middle class.
Per the fact sheet, those options include:
Creating a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four.
Imposing a 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers, exempting the first $1 million in payroll to protect small businesses.
Eliminating health tax expenditures, which would no longer be needed under Medicare for All.
Raising the top marginal income tax rate to 52% on income over $10 million.
Replacing the cap on the state and local tax deduction with an overall dollar cap of $50,000 for a married couple on all itemized deductions.
Taxing capital gains at the same rates as income from wages and cracking down on gaming through derivatives, like-kind exchanges, and the zero tax rate on capital gains passed on through bequests.
Enacting the For the 99.8% Act, which returns the estate tax exemption to the 2009 level of $3.5 million, closes egregious loopholes, and increases rates progressively including by adding a top tax rate of 77% on estate values in excess of $1 billion.
Enacting corporate tax reform including restoring the top federal corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.
Using $350 billion of the amount raised from the tax on extreme wealth to help finance Medicare for All.
The release of the fact sheet follows Sanders growing frustration over the mounting questions over the costs of his massive proposals.
Anderson Cooper grilled Sanders on the costs of his various proposals during the presidential hopeful’s recent sit-down interview with 60 Minutes.
“But you say you don’t know what the total price is, but you know how it’s going to be paid for. How do you know it’s going to be paid for if you don’t know how much the price is?” Cooper asked.
“I can’t rattle off to you every nickel and every dime,” Sanders said. “But we have accounted for — you talked about Medicare for All — we have options out there that will pay for it.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Democratic socialist from Vermont who is now the frontrunner for the 2020 presidential nomination, released a new plan Monday to give away $1.5 trillion in taxpayer cash.
Under the plan, Sanders plans to provide universal child care and pre-K, spending $1.5 trillion over a decade for the “free” program. All Americans would guaranteed child care through age 3 followed by free pre-kindergarten education.
“As president, we will guarantee free, universal childcare and pre-kindergarten to every child in America to help level the playing field, create new and good jobs, and enable parents to more easily balance the demands of work and home,” Sanders said in a statement.
Sanders says he would fund the program through his “tax on extreme wealth” over $32 million. His campaign claims that tax would bring in some $4.3 trillion over 10 years.
The socialist has a slew of “free” programs that cost trillions. He supports a single-payer “Medicare for All” system, wants to cancel all student debt and make public college free, and raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. And Sanders advocates providing free breakfast, lunch and dinner to all students, regardless of income level.
“Exact cost projections on all of Sanders’ proposals aren’t available, in part because he hasn’t fully fleshed out some of the ideas he’s embraced (such as universal pre-K and child care),”CNN reported in January.
But a wide variety of estimates put the likely cost of the single-payer health care plan he has endorsed around $30 trillion or more over the next decade. Depending on the estimates used, including projections from his own campaign, the other elements of the Sanders agenda — ranging from his “Green New Deal” to the cancellation of all student debt to a guaranteed federal jobs program that has received almost no scrutiny — could cost about as much, or even more than, the single-payer plan. That would potentially bring his 10-year total for new spending to around $60 trillion, or more. …
“I think if the price tag for the Sanders agenda was [better] known … voters would blanch — even Democratic primary voters would blanch,” said Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. “The truth of the matter is in primary elections both in 2016 and so far in this one, he’s allowed to skate. He gets graded on a curve. But if he were the nominee, the curve is over. The Republicans will spend a billion dollars picking apart every one of his plans.” …
The sheer size of Sanders’ spending agenda dwarfs the proposed tax increases he has offered to pay for it, economists across the ideological spectrum agree. Brian Riedl, a former Senate Republican budget aide who’s now a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, has calculated that at most Sanders’ existing proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy, Wall Street and corporations would raise about $23 trillion over the next decade.
“There is nowhere near enough resources that you can credibly collect to pay for spending of this size [from the rich],” agrees MacGuineas. “When you are talking about a doubling in the size of the government, you are talking about significant tax increases on the middle class.”
In addition, Sanders supports a plan offered by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez she has dubbed the “Green New Deal.” The cost for that program: $93 trillion.
A ground-breaking new study has shown that illegal immigrants cost the U.S. taxpayer approximately $6,500 per year by soaking up welfare cash and other government benefits after they break the law to enter the country.
FAIR surveyed ten small states and determined that illegal immigration cost them an average of $454 million per year.
“To put that figure into context, that $454 million expenditure is more than 200 times what the state of Montana budgets for its entire Veterans Affairs program, and it is 2.5 times the total sum that West Virginia invests in its state university,” the report states.
Dan Stein, president of FAIR, notes that the native populations of these small states are getting squeezed the most by the burden caused by illegal immigrants. These individuals are essentially being replaced as a once-great nation transforms into a globalist economic zone.
“In many ways, the influx of immigrants into less populous areas of the country has an even greater impact on long-time residents than it does in larger and more urban areas,”Stein said.
“These areas have neither the tax base, nor the economic and social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the growing numbers of immigrants taking up residence,” he added.
The FAIR study, Small Migrant Populations, Huge Impacts, analyzed Alaska, West Virginia, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Montana, Mississippi, North Dakota and Maine to discover their startling conclusions regarding the costs of illegal immigration.
“Many local officials tout immigration, including illegal immigration, as a remedy to economic stagnation. However, as this report reveals, the reality is precisely the opposite,” Stein said.
“Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead,” he added.
FAIR released the following video to accompany their newly released study:
“This report highlights the fact that the adverse effects of unchecked mass immigration, combined with an immigration selection process that does not choose people based on individual merit, job skills and education, are now being felt in all parts of the country,”Stein explained.
“Americans, in every part of the nation, are being affected by antiquated and unenforced immigration policies, which is why it is at the top of the list of voter concerns heading into the 2020 elections,” he added.
Representative Bradley Byrnetoldhis Congressional colleagues during a hearing on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 that American taxpayers pay over about $60 billion to educate illegal alien students and the children of illegal aliens.
Byrne highlighted that the burden of paying for the education of more than 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants coming into the country annually is shouldered by American citizens.
“In 2016, the Pew Research Center estimated that 3.9 million — or 7.3% — of kindergarten through 12th grade students in the United States were either here illegally or were the children of at least one parent illegally present in the United States,” Byrne stated. “Can anyone tell me how much we spend on public education for that population of students? It’s around $60 billion.”
The Republican congressman detailed that while the federal government requires English as a Second Language (ESL) programs for approximately 9.6 percent of American students who have Limited English Proficiency (LEP), state and local governments must bear the majority of the costs.
“What percentage of ESL programs are paid for by the federal government that requires them? Just over one percent,” Byrne declared. “Who pays for the rest? States and local school systems.”
So, we require it and we push 99 percent of the costs on state and local school systems. That costs a lot of money for these state and local school systems. Many of them, like my state of Alabama, just don’t have it. But because the federal government requires it, they have to put that money in there to the detriment of other programs.
That cost is not being borne by those of us in Washington. It’s being borne by men and women and the states and local school systems around the United States of America. But really the cost is being borne by children who are being denied the programs that they should have. Children who are citizens of the United States, whose parents are citizens of the United States, they’re being denied programs because we’re forcing their state and local school systems to take on an expense that we should be taking on because we’ve failed to enforce our own laws.
Steven Kopits conducted a study that showed the United States could have up to one million new migrant children by the November 2020 election — about 800,000 of those would need to be enrolled in local school districts.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) would not deny Tuesday that her plan for “Medicare for All” raised taxes on the middle class — even as she did everything she could to avoid confirming it.
A CNN panel in the spin room after the fourth Democrat debate on Tuesday night in Columbus, Ohio, struggled to pin Warren down on the question of whether her policy would raise middle class taxes.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the author of the bill Warren backs, has admitted openly that middle class Americans would pay higher taxes under his (and her) plan, but argues that middle class families would save money overall because their health insurance costs would supposedly fall.
But Warren has dodged the question in debate after debate, and interview after interview — and did so again when confronted by her opponents in the debate.
In the spin room after the debate, CNN’s anchors and political pundits struggled to extract an answer from Warren. Jake Tapper tried to help her craft an answer that would admit the tax hike, but argue for lower overall costs; John King pointed out, sympathetically, that Warren ran the risk of being accused of lying to the public.
Warren replied, over and over again: “My commitment is I will not sign a bill into law that raises costs on middle class families.”
David Axelrod, former White House adviser to President Barack Obama during the Obamacare fight, was incredulous at Warren’s claim that she knew with certainty that “Medicare for All” would not result in higher overall costs for any middle class family. “How can you even make an assurance as to how all this is going to pencil out?”
Warren stuck to her talking point, refusing to admit she would raise taxes — but declining to deny she would, either.
Two-time losers Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are rumored to be mulling presidential runs in 2020, despite repeated and resounding rejections from the voting public. Why won’t they go away, and is this a sign of a deeper crisis?
It’s not just Clinton and Romney. Democratic frontrunner Joe Bidenhimself is a two-time loser convinced that third time’s the charm. Even Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, whose policy ideas are relatively new, even if he isn’t, has been in politics most of his life. DC has become the east coast version of Hollywood, churning through remake after remake as audiences and interest dwindle, fueled by a zombie economy of donors utterly disconnected from the real world.
Clinton has been ubiquitous on TV for the past few weeks, making the rounds ostensibly to promote a book she co-wrote with her daughter. Yet every single conversation inevitably swings back to 2016, how she was robbed of her rightful place in the Oval Office, and how President Donald Trump is an “illegitimate” leader who “knows” he stole the election.
When Trump opted to pull troops out of northern Syria on Monday, finally fulfilling a campaign promise he’d made in part to counter her warmongering, Clinton was quick to slam the decision as a “sickening betrayal.”
Her tweet – which seemingly wouldn’t hold much significance now that she’s (supposedly) retired from politics – nevertheless rated entire articles in the Hill and other publications.
Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon claimed last week that Clinton is definitely running – she’s merely looking for an opening.
Her impeachment cheerleading could be motivated by the possibility that when the Ukrainegate cards are laid out on the table, frontrunner Biden could easily go down in flames, leaving the field wide open for her to step in – especially now that her 2016 rival, Sanders, has been laid low with a heart attack.
Biden speaks for the Democratic establishment when he promises“nothing would fundamentally change” if he won. His constant name-dropping of Obama – when he can remember his former boss’ name that is – is a naked appeal to amnesiac nostalgia, the Democratic Party platform’s declaration that everything bad in the country has happened because of Trump.
This is not merely a Democratic Party problem, however. Mitt Romney, the Utah Senator who failed to secure his party’s nomination for president in 2008 and failed to beat Barack Obama in 2012, has been complaining to anyone who will listen that Trump’s actions on Ukraine are “wrong and appalling.”
He too leapt onto Twitter following Trump’s announcement of the Syria pullout, calling “the president’s decision to abandon our Kurd allies in the face of an assault by Turkey…a betrayal.” And he too suddenly rates entire articles based on a single tweet.
Romney is testing the waters for a 2020 run, calling his donors to see who’ll bite, according to the self-described “Republican political operative” Jack Posobiec. Trump Communications Director turned sophomoric insult machine Anthony Scaramucci has already started cheering Romney on, while never-Trump neocon William Kristol’s new outlet The Bulwark posted a fawning paean to the former Massachusetts governor on Monday, just two days after Kristol himself tweeted a poll that showed Trump nearly twice as “respected” as Romney. Perhaps hoping to change those numbers, the warmonger’s journal gushed that Romney has “stepped up at the decisive moments” and “seems focused on the verdict of history.”
American politics has seemingly fallen prey to the same sickness that plagues Hollywood, where nearly every film seems to be a remake or spinoff of something that came before. Producers argue audiences embrace the familiar; a recent survey found that isn’t the case – that 91 percent of remakes experience steep drop-offs in approval compared to the originals. Movie theater attendance dropped to a 19-year low in 2017. Audiences are sick of being fed pre-chewed entertainment and “woke” takes on beloved classics.
And it’s no different in politics – 42 percent of Americans identified as independents in 2017, suggesting that nearly half the country is utterly disgusted with a two-party system that doesn’t even pretend to represent them, instead pandering to an idealized “middle class” their policies have helped kill. Nevertheless, hoary old has-beens are the only candidates with enough money to make it onto the ballot. As a result, voter turnout plunged to a 20-year low in 2016, with just 55 percent of voting-age citizens casting ballots.
Neither party has learned its lesson from 2016, which saw a dynamic – if, to some, off-putting – character sweep through first the primaries and then the general election by positioning himself as the opposite of the “swamp creatures” that have made a career out of looking busy while ensuring the status quo doesn’t move. Anyone with a flicker of originality is sidelined (Tulsi Gabbard) or mocked (Marianne Williamson). Perhaps both parties really do want four more years of Trump – it gives them an excuse to sit on the sidelines and complain without having to do any governing.
The Trump administration will require many future immigrant applicants to prove they can afford health insurance, marking the White House’s latest move to restrict immigration from those who could become a financial burden on the government.
President Donald Trump, invoking his executive authority, issued a proclamation Friday evening that will prohibit the entry of immigrants applying for visas unless they prove they can obtain health insurance within 30 days of entering the U.S. or otherwise indicate they can afford their own medical care.
“The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants who come lawfully in search of brighter futures. We must continue that tradition while also addressing the challenges facing our healthcare system, including protecting both it and the American taxpayer from the burdens of uncompensated care,” Trump said in the proclamation. “Continuing to allow entry into the United States of certain immigrants who lack health insurance or the demonstrated ability to pay for their healthcare would be detrimental to these interests.”
Notably, the subsidized health care plans found on Obamacare exchanges will not qualify as eligible forms of insurance under the new rule.
“While lawful immigrants qualify for [Affordable Care Act] subsidies, they’ll be stuck in a catch-22 because subsidized coverage does not qualify as insurance under the proclamation,” Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said Friday on Twitter.
The order will apply to any foreign national who applies for an immigrant visa abroad and cannot obtain health insurance within 30 days of entering the U.S. or does not have the financial ability to cover their own medical care. Those with ties to family members in the U.S. are not exempt from the rule. However, asylees and refugees will not be impacted, and neither will non-citizen children of U.S. citizens. Those who have already obtained immigrant visas also will not have worry.
The health care proclamation is Trump’s latest move to restrict immigration from those who are likely to become dependent on U.S. government benefits.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) acting Director Ken Cuccinelli, for example, rolled out a directive in August that takes into account an immigrant’s use of government benefits when deciding whether or not to grant them permanent status. Known as the “public charge” rule, the directive makes it more difficult for immigrants to obtain permanent status if they have used any number of public benefits, such as Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing, cash assistance or other programs.
“Immigrants who enter this country should not further saddle our healthcare system, and subsequently American taxpayers, with higher costs,” Trump wrote in his proclamation.