Skip to toolbar
HomeUncategorized2/24 News Roundup & Open Thread
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

More than 500 social media campaigners in California are being offered $2,500 a month to spread Mike Bloomberg’s message as “deputy field operatives.”

However, according to a report by the LA Times, being offered a small slice of the candidate’s vast personal fortune is not ensuring their dedication or loyalty.

The newly-formed army has been tasked with spending 20 to 30 hours a week on text messages, phone calls, and social media posts aimed at leveraging their personal networks to secure Bloomberg victory in California’s Democratic primary.

But four out of the five Bloomberg operatives who spoke anonymously to the LA Times said that their primary motivation for joining Bloomberg’s campaign was for the money.

One was actually a Bernie Sanders supporter, reported the newspaper, followed up one pro-Bloomberg text message to a friend with: “Please disregard, vote Bernie or Warren.”


Now running as the presumptive frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday morning unveiled a sweeping new proposal that would guarantee high-quality child care and then pre-kindergarten education to every child—regardless of income or status—in the United States.

Citing figures that show the average American family with young children spends $10,000 per year on childcare—a burden that eats as much as 35 percent out of the annual budget of low-income families’ annual budget—the detailed early childhood plan released by the Sanders campaign seeks to address the crisis and economic hardship by providing free child care starting at infancy and pre-K beginning at age three.

“Childcare must be guaranteed for every child regardless of their parents’ income, just like K-12 education,” said Sanders in a statement. “We know that the first four years of a child’s life are the most important years of human development, so it is unconscionable that in the wealthiest country in the world, we do not properly invest in early childhood education.” Sanders said.


Indeed, a major theme of the Sanders proposal is to treat child care as an extension of public education.

That means, among other things, focusing on raising qualifications and pay for the adults who care for children. Following a phase-in period, child care providers would have to meet the same training standards they do for the federal Head Start program, in which, for example, all lead preschool teachers must have a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or some related field.

In return, the program envisions paying child care providers more like public school teachers by requiring that they make a living wage. Although the plan does not specify what that means, it’s bound to be a lot higher than existing wages, which are about $12 an hour or roughly the median wage for retail cashiers. Those low wages make it difficult to attract or retain the most talented workers.

The other way the Sanders plan treats child care like public education is by making it free at the point of service. It would be open to all families, regardless of income, at no direct cost to them.

This is also the most conspicuous difference between the plan from Sanders and the plans from other Democrats, especially Warren.

Child care has become something of a signature issue for Warren. She emphasizes her plan in campaign appearances, frequently referencing her own experiences as a working mother who struggled to find care for her kids.

But while the Warren and Sanders plans have a lot in common, including the emphasis on quality, hers would guarantee free child care only for families with incomes of up to twice the poverty line, which works out to about $52,000 a year for a family of four.

For families making more than that, child care would require fees, albeit on a sliding scale pegged to income and with a guarantee that no family would have to pay more than 7% of its income on child care.

This is the same basic approach in the Buttigieg plan and on Capitol Hill, in legislation introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.).

That decision to make child care free for all, rather than free for just lower income families, reflects Sanders’ long-standing commitment to full universality ― the idea that programs are most resilient, most equitable and, ultimately, most effective when they are available to all people under the same conditions.

But that decision also means the federal government would have to spend more money on the program. And that money would have to come from somewhere.

The Sanders campaign says that it can finance the entire initiative by using money from its proposed wealth tax that it has not yet allocated for other purposes. It also points out that investments in early childhood can pay off over the long run, because, according to a large body of research, kids who get high quality care tend to be healthier and more successful later in life.


Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg are New York Democrats’ top two choices for president, according to a Siena College Research Institute poll released Monday.

Sanders garnered the highest support among registered Democrats, clocking in at 25 percent, with Bloomberg in second place at 21 percent — a four-point difference that falls within the poll’s margin of error. Following far behind were former Vice President Joe Biden with 13 percent support, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 11 percent and both Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 9 percent.

It’s a stark difference from late November, when another Siena poll indicated that New Yorkers increasingly favored Biden for the nomination, putting him on top with 24 percent support, followed by Warren at 14 percent and Sanders at 13 percent. The poll was released just days before Bloomberg would announce his run for president




The evidence abounds: A Medicare for All single-payer system would guarantee comprehensive coverage to everyone in America and save money.

Christopher Cai and colleagues at three University of California campuses examined 22 studies on the projected cost impact for single-payer health insurance in the United States and reported their findings in a recent paper in PLOS Medicine. Every single study predicted that it would yield net savings over several years. In fact, it’s the only way to rein in health care spending significantly in the U.S.

All of the studies, regardless of ideological orientation, showed that long-term cost savings were likely. Even the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank, recently found about $2 trillion in net savings over 10 years from a single-payer Medicare for All system. Most importantly, everyone in America would have high-quality health care coverage.

Medicare for All is far less costly than our current system largely because it reduces administrative costs. With one public plan negotiating rates with health care providers, billing becomes quite simple. We do away with three-quarters of the estimated $812 billion the U.S. now spends on health care administration.


i hope they raise the rates at first so that providers can meet their current debt obligations as we ramp up.


You seem far more savvy then me on this!


Even they are worried

National security and intelligence experts warn that climate change could become a “catastrophic” threat to security and recommended quick action to be taken to mitigate risks, according to a new report released Monday.

“Even at scenarios of low warming, each region of the world will face severe risks to national and global security in the next three decades,” experts wrote in the report released by the National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel of the Center of Climate and Security, a nonpartisan security policy institute.

“Higher levels of warming will pose catastrophic, and likely irreversible, global security risks over the course of the 21st century.”