Published on Mar 17, 2019
Warren, Harris Add Reparations to 2020 Campaign Platforms
By
All Democrats have to do is not be insane. And they can’t do it.
In an effort to pander to black voters, Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), both presidential candidates, said they will back reparations for black Americans as part of their campaign platforms.
“We have to be honest that people in this country do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” Harris reportedly said. “I’m serious about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities.”
That statement followed a radio interview in which she explicitly agreed with the host when that “government reparations for black Americans were necessary to address the legacies of slavery and discrimination.”
Warren echoed a similar sentiment.
“Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported,” The New York Times said.
The report said that Warren “declined to giver further details” about her reparations plan.
These are the same candidates that also support a “Green New Deal,” which will also cost trillions of dollars at the expense of the American taxpayer.
But there are more questions surrounding reparations than exactly how much they would cost.
Mainly, who would pay them?
Would reparations be paid only by white people who have slave-owning lineages, like Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia? Would I, as an Arab American whose family immigrated to the United States through Ellis Island, be required to pay for something in which my ancestors had no part?
Likewise, who exactly would receive them?
Would all blacks receive some form of reparations, regardless of whether their ancestors were slaves? What if someone is half black? Or a quarter? Is that person owed a fraction of the reparations of a fully black American?
And what about poor white people? There are millions of whites who “do not start from the same place or have access to the same opportunities,” as Harris argued. Will they be buried more deeply – will they have to become poorer – simply to atone for the color of their skin? Is that justice?
Most importantly, would reparations help repair the cultural strife in this country, which is mostly promulgated by the mainstream press for ratings and Democrat politicians for votes? Wouldn’t the Harris/Warren plan cause more strife and racial tension?
Do these loons really believe that – in a perfect world – reparations would be paid and everyone would simply shake hands, walk away, and that the country will be more united than it has ever been?
These are practical questions that remained unanswered by politicians who are race-baiting for votes.
LABOR UNIONS FEAR ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’ A JOB KILLER
Unions withhold support for economy-destroying scheme
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Labor unions say they are withholding support for a Green New Deal unveiled by Democrats last week to transition the American economy away from fossil fuels, arguing the loosely-defined plan could kill jobs if its architects aren’t careful.
The cool response from unions underscores the challenge facing Democratic presidential hopefuls who support aggressive action on climate change but must also win back the blue-collar voters that swept President Donald Trump to victory in 2016.
The Green New Deal is a non-binding Congressional resolution introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Edward Markey that would legislate government-led investment in clean energy infrastructure with the goal of making America carbon neutral within a decade.
Democratic presidential hopeful Senators Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren have already thrown their support behind it.
The resolution’s backers say the plan – once fully sketched out in the legislation – would create jobs in much the same way as President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s by putting Americans to work on transformative government-led projects.
It also calls for a “just transition” for current fossil fuel workers – from coal miners to pipeline workers – through guarantees of healthcare, jobs, and job training.
Union officials told Reuters they were skeptical.
“We will never settle for ‘just transition’ language as a solution to the job losses that will surely come from some of the policies in the resolution,” said Yvette Pena O’Sullivan, executive director of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), whose members work in construction and other industries.
Phil Smith, a spokesman for the United Mine Workers (UMWA), which represents workers in the coal industry, echoed the concerns.
“We’ve heard words like ‘just transition’ before, but what does that really mean? Our members are worried about putting food on the table,” he said.
LIUNA and UMWA said they were not contacted for input on the resolution before it was released.
Sean McGarvey, president of the North America’s Building Trades Unions, representing construction workers across all sectors including energy, said his staff had been contacted by Markey’s office about the Green New Deal, but said his members are skeptical of “green job” promises.
Members “working in the oil and gas sector can make a middle-class living, whereas renewable energy firms have been less generous,” he said at a pipeline safety event last week.
APPALACHIAN BACKLASH
Democrats backing the resolution are seeking to highlight the contrast in their position with the Trump administration’s vocal support for drilling and mining and its skepticism about the causes and impacts of global warming.
Trump’s approach was warmly received in 2016 in parts of Appalachia and the Rust Belt, which have been suffering from manufacturing and mining jobs losses.
Trump’s Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton struggled to sell her clean energy agenda in those regions, and suffered politically after saying her policies would “put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
The Sunrise Movement, a youth organization backing the Green New Deal, plans to launch a multi-state campaign in March to drum up support, featuring stops in Michigan, Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
“A lot of places struggling with joblessness are fossil fuel dependent places that suffer from poor air and water quality. Guaranteeing the right of clean air, water and jobs is something we think a lot of people can get behind,” said Stephen O’Hanlon, a spokesman for the group.
Unions have expressed support in the past for more moderate approaches to addressing climate change, including cap-and-trade systems to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
Ocasio-Cortez and Markey’s offices did not respond to a request for comment.
Pocahontas BACK in some FIRE WATER – Claimed to be “American Indian” in 1986 after denying it – liar
Democrats Reveal Priorities in SOTU Invitees: Transgender, Illegal Immigrants, Gun Control
By Penny Starr
The Democrats in Congress are using their invited guests to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday to send a message about their priorities for this legislative session, including transgenders serving in the military, illegal immigration and gun control.
Politico, the Washington Post, U.S. News and World Report, and CNN reported on lawmakers and who they invited.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) invited mother and daughter Albertina Contreras Teletor and Yakelin Garcia Contreras, who were allegedly separated at the southern border with Mexico while trying to enter the United States.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/58515819/GettyImages_912427784__1_.0.jpg)
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) will bring Trisha Pesiri-Dybvik, an air traffic controller who was temporarily furloughed during the recent partial government shutdown.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) invited Sajid Shahriar, a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) employee who protested during the partial government shutdown.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) asked Navy Lt. Cmdr. Blake Dremann, who is transgender, to attend the SOTU.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) asked Rita Lewis, who wants “pension reform” to join him at the SOTU.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) invited Nicole Smith-Holt, who wants “affordable” health care after her son died because he allegedly could not afford insulin for his diabetes.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) asked Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor Cameron Kasky to join him at the SOTU. Kasky has become an advocate for gun control.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is bringing Ana Maria Archila, the activist who confronted then-Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) during the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Rep. Jimmy Gomez (R-CA) invited Sandra Diaz, who allegedly worked at Trump’s golf course in New Jersey while an illegal immigrant, to attend the SOTU.
Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY) invited Jin Park, the first so-called Dreamer to get a Rhodes scholarship. Park, a native of South Korea, got temporary protection from deportation through former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order.
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) is bringing a DACA college student, only named as Elias in his announcement, to SOTU.
Dems Worry Northam Could Derail Using Race Against Trump in 2020
By Kristina Wong
Democrats are worried that Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s racist yearbook photo will hurt their efforts to use race as an issue against President Trump in 2020, according to a report.
“A racist photo in Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s yearbook entry has become a national political concern for Democrats, threatening to complicate their bid to draw a sharp contrast with President Trump and the Republican Party on race ahead of the 2020 election,” the Washington Post reported Monday.
Democrat lawmakers and activists swiftly called for Northam’s resignation, signaling that their party would not tolerate racism. But Northam’s refusal to leave “could complicate the message,” an anonymous Democrat lawmaker told the Post.
Northam on Friday apologized for appearing in the photo on his 1984 medical school yearbook page, after it was published in Big League Politics. It showed two people — one in blackface, and the other in a Ku Klux Klan robe. Another photo showed that his nickname was “Coonman.”
But on Saturday, he held a press conference where he denied he was in the photo altogether, but then admitted to wearing blackface during a Michael Jackson moonwalk contest.
The photos raised questions about the time Northam refused to shake the hand of an African American opponent for lieutenant governor of Virginia in 2013. Then-opponent E.W. Jackson tweeted on Sunday, “And that wasn’t Northam in the video of him refusing to shake my hand. That was his evil twin!”
The resurfacing of the photos comes at an awkward time for Democrats — when 2020 hopefuls are announcing their bids, and hoping to run on racial inequality.
“We … expect candidates — and the broader progressive movement — to commit to an inclusive and motivating message in 2020 that addresses both economic and racial inequality,” Maria Urbina, Indivisible’s national political director, told Politico in November.
After Northam’s photos were published Friday, 2020 hopefuls Sens. Kamala Harris (CA), Cory Booker (NJ), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Bernie Sanders (VT), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), and Julian Castro called for Northam to resign.
Gillibrand first called on Northam to explain, but then later called on him to resign.
The photo could also hurt Democrats with African American voters, with whom Trump has made inroads.
“The recent, more explicit rhetoric on race among potential 2020 Democratic hopefuls … is at least partly strategic. Black voters are likely to be decisive in many 2020 primaries, especially in the South,” wrote Politico’s Alex Thompson.
A former Hillary Clinton adviser texted Thompson, “It’s fairly simple–s/he who wins the black vote, wins the primary.”
But there was “anger and sadness” among some African Americans in Virginia in response to Northam’s photo, according to another article in the Post.
“Honestly, he was in med school, so he’s not a child,” Pierre Hartgrove, 55, told the Post.
“I thought he was a good guy, actually. Does he not really like blacks? All these years, did he get the votes from us, did he say to his buddies, ‘Guess what? I got the Negroes’ votes!’ We don’t know,” he said.
#MeToo: Admitted Sexual Predator Cory Booker Joins Presidential Race
Will the FBI investigate his admitted sexual misconduct?
By Peter D’Abrosca
A heterosexual U.S. Senator from New Jersey announced Friday morning that he will join the crowded 2020 Democratic presidential field.
“In America, we have a common pain,” said a video posted to Twitter by Sen. Cory Booker. “But what we’re lacking is a sense of common purpose. I grew up knowing that the only way we can make change is when people come
The announcement was typical of a Democrat. The main message is this: America is a fundamentally bad place and I will fix it. It is reminiscent of the eight year message of do-nothing President Barack Obama.
Booker, though, has some problems of his own to contend with. Mainly, he admitted to sexual misconduct with a teenaged girl in an op-ed he wrote in Stanford University’s newspaper.
New Jersey Senator who has been sharply critical of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh wrote a 1992 column in which he bragged about groping a high school friend.
“As we fumbled upon the bed, I remember debating my next ‘move’ as if it were a chess game,” said Sen. Cory “Spartacus” Booker in the column. “With the ‘Top Gun’ slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast. After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my ‘mark.’”
Booker admittedly ignored his female friend’s rejection before moving forward in his column called “So Much for Stealing Second.” Apparently “no” means “yes” in Booker’s mind.
Booker’s column surfaced while he, playing the role of male feminist, grilled Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh for unprovable allegations of sexual assault during Kavanaugh’s September confirmation hearing.
Booker enters an already-crowded field which includes Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), former San Antonio mayor Julian Castro, among other lesser-known candidates. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has teased an independent run.
Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Confiscation Tax Would “Redistribute” 2.75 Trillion Dollars Over 10 Years
Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
Elizabeth Warren is making it exceedingly clear that she is a socialist, and that is quite frightening considering the fact that she could potentially become our next president.
Unless some really big name unexpectedly enters the race, there is a decent chance that Elizabeth Warren could win the Democratic nomination in 2020. And if she ultimately won the general election, the Democrats would likely have control of both the House and the Senate during her first two years in the White House as well. So that means that the proposal that you are about to read about could actually become law in the not too distant future.
After AOC’s proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent received so much favorable attention, it was just a matter of time before Democratic presidential candidates started jumping on the “soak the rich” bandwagon, and the first one to strike was Elizabeth Warren.
When she announced her new proposal on Twitter, she dubbed it the “Ultra-Millionaire Tax”…
We need structural change. That’s why I’m proposing something brand new – an annual tax on the wealth of the richest Americans. I’m calling it the “Ultra-Millionaire Tax” & it applies to that tippy top 0.1% – those with a net worth of over $50M.
It would be bad enough if this was just a one-time tax on wealth.
But it isn’t.
Please note the use of the word “annual” in Warren’s tweet. That means that the rich would keep getting hit with this tax year after year after year.
Those with more than 50 million dollars in assets would pay a 2 percent tax each year, and those with more than a billion dollars in assets would pay 3 percent each year…
The Post reported that Warren has been advised by Saez and Gabriel Zucman, left-leaning economists affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley, on a deal that would levy a 2 percent wealth tax on Americans with $50 million-plus in assets. For Americans with assets above $1 billion, that tax rate would increase to 3 percent.
The newspaper, citing a person familiar with the plan, reported that Warren’s plan would try to counter tax evasion by boosting funding for the IRS, and by levying a one-time tax penalty on people with more than $50 million who try to renounce their U.S. citizenship. It would also require that a certain number of people who pay the wealth tax be subject to annual audits, the Post reported.
3 percent may not sound like a lot to many of you. But over the course of a couple of decades many families could have their fortunes almost completely wiped out by this wealth confiscation tax.
According to economist Emmanuel Saez, this new tax would be imposed upon approximately 75,000 families and would raise 2.75 trillion dollars over 10 years.
Clearly this is a move by Warren to appeal to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. I really like how Zero Hedge made this point…
Elizabeth Warren has never been a friend to the wealthy. But in the age of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, merely advocating for “holding the rich accountable” simply doesn’t penetrate like it did back in 2008. And that’s because, on the left flank of the Democratic Party, you’re not really a progressive unless you believe that the existence of billionaires is a policy error.
And surprisingly, there is actually a lot of public support for such a proposal. In fact, a recent Fox News poll found that Americans overwhelmingly support soaking the rich…
Voters support tax increases on families making over $10 million annually by a 46-point margin (70 percent favor-24 percent oppose), and support a hike on those making over $1 million by 36 points (65-29 percent).
There is less support for a broader tax increase: 44 percent favor raising rates on those with income over $250,000, and a small minority, 13 percent, approves of an increase on all Americans.
Of course so much depends on how a survey is worded. For example, I would be willing to bet that a survey would show that well over 50 percent of all Americans would back my proposal to abolish the income tax completely.
Over the coming months, Democratic presidential contenders are going to be continuously trying to one up each other with their promises to tax the rich and give out free stuff. By the end, someone out there may even be promising to give free rides to the Moon to everyone.
But if Elizabeth Warren really wants to be considered a serious contender, she needs to eliminate the ridiculous gaffes that have plagued her in the past. For instance, she recently claimed that we have “two co-equal branches of government”…
Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., already has declared that the government has “three chambers of Congress,” the House, the Senate and the presidency.
Now, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has claimed on Twitter that the government has “two co-equal branches of government, the president of the United States and Congress.”
“The Notorious RBG (Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg) is gonna be ticked off that she’s been forgotten again,” said a post on the Twitter news-aggregating site Twitchy.
And there is certainly no excuse for such a gaffe, because she used to be a law professor.
In the end, it is difficult to understand why so many Americans seem to want to march down the road toward socialism. Because as President Trump has noted, Venezuela has shown us where that road leads…
“We’re looking at Venezuela, it’s a very sad situation,” Trump told reporters. “That was the richest state in all of that area, that’s a big beautiful area, and by far the richest — and now it’s one of the poorest places in the world. That’s what socialism gets you, when they want to raise your taxes to 70 percent.”
He added: “You know, it’s interesting, I’ve been watching our opponents — our future opponents talk about 70 percent. No. 1, they can’t do it for 70 percent, it’s got to be probably twice that number. But, maybe more importantly what happens is you really have to study what’s happened to Venezuela. It’s a very, very sad situation.”
Unfortunately, political proposals don’t have to actually make sense, and right now Elizabeth Warren is doing all that she can to win the progressive vote.
Tom's Blog 