http://inthesetimes.com/article/21737/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-wealth-income-tax

An incredible thing has happened in 2019: We’re actually talking seriously about taxing the rich. And the debate is not over whether to do it, but how.

Within the month of January, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders proposed separate measures that would, respectively, increase top marginal tax rates on income, levy a direct tax on wealth and interrupt intergenerational transfers of fortunes.

It’s important to note that these policies are not in any way mutually exclusive: When it comes to billionaires, we can tax them when they’re alive, and we can tax them when they’re dead!

To achieve left priorities like a Green New Deal, Medicare for All and universal childcare, we probably need some version of all three of these types of taxes. But it’s important to evaluate not just how much of the price tag new progressive taxes would cover, but how they would transform the balance of power, invigorate our politics and mobilize Americans around achieving bold, transformative policies.

I think AOC’s district is likely safe because she’s just way too popular.

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/09/ocasio-cortez-district-redistricting-2020/

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ is prepared for the possibility that Democrats in New York could redraw her district after the 2020 election, she told The Intercept in an interview.

Following the 2020 census, every state will draw new district boundaries to reflect changes in the population, the political implications of which will stretch for at least the next decade. In 2014, New York approved a constitutional amendment establishing a nonpartisan redistricting commission, which is set to take over the redistricting process starting in 2020. The 10-member commission, meant to be independent from the legislature, is made up of individuals selected by leaders from the state Senate and Assembly, and the original eight members pick two additional members.

But Ocasio-Cortez’s most determined adversaries are not partisan Republicans, but Democrats who say that she has been a disruptive influence. On Tuesday, The Hill reported that at least one member of Congress has been urging New York party leaders to recruit a Democratic primary challenger to Ocasio-Cortez. But the news led to a surge of donations to Ocasio-Cortez, suggesting that a more efficient means of ousting her might be simply to eliminate her district.

The 29-year-old congressperson noted (accurately) that it’s generally expected that New York will likely lose a seat, despite the city itself growing at a consistent pace. “I don’t know if that means that all of our districts are going to be redrawn dramatically, because they have been historically gerrymandered, or what will happen, but there’s certainly a possibility, if not a guarantee, that my district in the coming years will not look like my district today,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “So I think it’s entirely possible, and New York politics being what it is, we have no idea where things are going to go.”

Indeed, Ocasio-Cortez could just run, and probably win, in any nearby New York City district the party may try to draw for her. She noted that when it comes to future redistricting, she’s in a unique situation because her name recognition is so strong “that even when I won my primary in New York [District] 14, we won like a third ballot, a third-party primary in a different congressional district the same day.” And that was in November 2018, before an endless media cycle that has been all Ocasio-Cortez, all the time.

Moving her into a different district would pit her against another incumbent Democrat, and that Democrat has an incentive to avoid that race. ”Maybe some people wouldn’t want trouble for themselves,” she noted.

Another reason not to target Ocasio-Cortez would be Chuck Schumer. The Democratic Senate minority leader, and a major player in New York politics, is up for re-election in 2022. The commission redrawing the lines may be technically independent, but Schumer’s power is no secret. If Ocasio-Cortez were gerrymandered out of the House, she’d need something new to do — and primarying Schumer would be an obvious option on the table. That could make Schumer Ocasio-Cortez’s strongest advocate at the redistricting negotiating table.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-a-troll-the-good-kind/2019/02/08/c3a39550-2be7-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html?utm_source=reddit.com

“Let’s play a lightning round game,” begins Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in her most recent viral moment, lambasting the lack of campaign finance regulations at a House Oversight Committee hearing.

“I’m gonna be the bad guy, which I’m sure half the room would agree with anyway.” At this point, Ocasio-Cortez is not even bothering to hide her mischievous grin.

It’s an intentional provocation, and she’s relishing it. Ocasio-Cortez is trolling us all — and it’s good.

Usually, madcap provocation isn’t something to celebrate. But at this point in our nation’s history, we may need to go to the edges to face the challenges ahead.

Climate change has stopped being theoretical: 2018 was the fourth-warmest year on record and polar ice melt is clearly contributing to sea-level rise and extreme weather. Scientists suggest that we’re 12 years away from catastrophe.

There’s rampant inequality, such that the richest 400 Americans now own more of our nation’s wealth than the bottom 150 million. It’s a concentration of wealth not seen since the Roaring Twenties, and we know where that got us.

And there’s the total absurdity (indeed, trollery — is a see-through steel-slat wall anything but a joke?) taking place on our southern border. Almost eight months after Trump supposedly ended the family separation policy, thousands of children have still not been returned to their parents, and the Department of Health and Human Services now bizarrely suggests that reuniting them would somehow cause further harm.

The normal modes of dialogue have ceased to be enough. And though Ocasio-Cortez often seems to be at the extremes of our discourse, she’s also speeding the movement toward change.

Whether we like it or not, provocation is how we conduct business today. Maybe we should be happy that someone is finally trolling for good.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/09/politics/elizabeth-warren-campaign-kickoff-massachusetts/index.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren will officially launch her 2020 presidential campaign Saturday with a rally in Lawrence, Massachusetts, using the backdrop of Everett Mills — the site of a historic 1912 labor strike led by women and immigrants — to highlight the ​progressive populist ideals she has made the centerpiece of her candidacy.

The formal start of Warren’s White House campaign comes as the Democratic primary intensifies by the day, with numerous candidates including Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker already in the race, and others, like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar, expected to jump in soon.

Warren plans to unveil a new, high-profile backer in Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III​ on Saturday, who will ​endorse his former professor at the outdoor event. According to multiple sources familiar with the plans, Kennedy will discuss why he believes ​Warren’s record on economic issues should set her apart from the rest of the​ ballooning 2020 presidential​ field.

In addition to Kennedy, other members of the Massachusetts delegation will also speak at the rally, sources told CNN, including Sen. Ed Markey, Rep. Lori Trahan, Lawrence Mayor Dan Rivera and Boston City Councilor Michelle Wu. All are expected to indicate their official support for Warren’s campaign.

​Kennedy’s decision to throw his support to his home state senator — and not his good friend, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who is considering a bid of his own — is a clear signal to fellow Democrats that she remains a serious primary contender despite a politically trying week.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/as-another-shutdown-looms-flight-attendants-plan-protests.html

In anticipation of another shutdown, Nelson says that the union will be out leafleting in airports in 80 major cities next week ahead of Saturday’s demonstrations. “We are also working very hard to get information out to all of our members about what’s at stake. We need people to fully understand what the issues are so that we can be prepared to respond potentially with withholding our service, if that’s what it takes to stop a continuation of the shutdown,” she added.

The AFA isn’t working alone. Nelson cites the American Federation of Teachers as “a very strong ally” in addition to Unite Here, which represents many federal subcontractors who have still not received backpay for paychecks withheld during the shutdown. Reached by phone on Friday afternoon, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, told New York that AFT is “very concerned” about the shutdown’s impact on both the aviation industry and its unions. “We are working together to do what is impossible to do alone,” she said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/09/new-york-southern-district-donald-trump-inauguration-prosecutors

For almost two years, Donald Trump has laid down fire at Robert Mueller, calling the special counsel’s work a “witch-hunt”, a partisan charade and now “presidential harassment”.

The bigger threat to Trump, however, may have just walked up and tapped him on the shoulder.

Trump did not tweet about or otherwise acknowledge the revelation on Monday night that prosecutors from the US attorney’s office for the southern district of New York (SDNY) had issued a subpoena seeking a mountain of documents from his inaugural committee.

But former prosecutors and others familiar with the Manhattan-based prosecutors’ work allowed their jaws to drop at the news of the subpoena or – in the case of former SDNY chief Preet Bharara, whom Trump fired early on – their virtual eyes to bulge.

On Friday, ProPublica and WNYC reported further eye-popping news: that the inaugural committee paid the Trump International hotel in Washington a rate of $175,000 a day for event space.

Booker is particularly pitiful at only 56,000

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/us/politics/2020-democrats-campaign-funding.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Senator Bernie Sanders would begin a 2020 presidential bid with 2.1 million online donors, a massive lead among low-dollar contributors that is roughly equivalent to the donor base of all the other Democratic hopefuls combined.

Beto O’Rourke, the former Texas congressman who narrowly lost a Senate race last year, is also poised to be a fund-raising phenom if he runs for president: He has twice as many online donors as anyone eyeing the race besides Mr. Sanders.

Three senators who are already running have their own solid track records with small donors. Senator Elizabeth Warren, with the third-highest number, has notable strength in New Hampshire, even topping Mr. O’Rourke there. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has built up broad national support among small donors, despite a reputation as a big-money fund-raiser, while Senator Kamala Harris raised $1.5 million online in her first 24 hours as a presidential candidate.

For Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Rourke, the enormous early edge in their donor rolls has afforded them the flexibility to wait longer before deciding to jump in, and has sparked a sense of urgency in other campaigns. Both men have signaled they would rely overwhelmingly on small donors to fuel any campaign.

The particular power of Mr. Sanders’s list was on display in late December when he emailed supporters with the provocative subject line, “If I run.” That single email netted $299,000 from 11,000 donations, according to a senior Sanders official.

That is almost the exact amount that Ms. Warren raised on the day she announced she was entering the race, data shows.

The advantage that Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Rourke enjoy is not just the size of their lists but the exclusivity of their donors — the vast majority of whom (an estimated 87 percent for Mr. Sanders, 72 percent for Mr. O’Rourke) have not contributed to any other potential 2020 candidate. In contrast, less than half of Ms. Warren’s donors have given only to her among the potential 2020 field.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pramila-jayapal-matt-whitaker-border-separation-children_us_5c5de751e4b0f9e1b17d107f?utm_source=reddit.com

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) handed down an impassioned rebuke of the Trump administration’s migrant child separation policy during Matthew Whitaker’s hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on Friday.

The acting attorney general appeared stunned as the congresswoman grilled him on the “zero humanity” border policy and how it affected the children.

Jayapal asked him whether the Department of Justice kept track of the migrant parents who were separated from their children by border officials.

“There’s only one answer to this,” Jayapal reminded Whitaker. “It’s gone through the courts.”

When Whitaker said he didn’t believe the Justice Department was tracking separated parents, the congresswoman replied, “You were not tracking it. That is the correct answer.”

As Jayapal continued, her voice grew louder: “Your department was not tracking parents who were separated from their children. Do you know what kind of damage has been done to children and families across this country?”

“Children who will never get to see their parents again,” she added. “Do you understand the magnitude of that?”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA): “Did the U.S. attorneys track when they were prosecuting a parent or legal guardian who had been separated from their child?”

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker: “I don’t believe we were tracking that.” pic.twitter.com/tCk4oyZZb4

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 8, 2019

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/08/we-all-have-skin-game-thats-why-we-need-medicare-all?amp

If there is one defining symbol of how horribly broken our health care system is, this is it: One-third of all GoFundMe campaigns are created to pay for medical expenses, a stunning 250,000 campaigns that have raised an astonishing $650 million, CBS recently reported.

What’s behind this appalling portrait of tens of thousands of families having to beg for help to pay for critically needed care? A morbidly named concept branded as, “Skin in the Game.”

The twisted thought is that requiring patients to pay up front through premiums, deductibles, and co-pays before they can walk in the door, will discourage patients who supposedly over utilize the system if not confronted with punitive out of pocket costs.

As if undergoing invasive medical treatment or diagnostic procedures, or enduring long waits in Emergency Rooms or doctor’s offices is somehow an enticing experience.

However, the volume of patient services, whether hospital stays, office visits, tests, or prescription drugs, is no greater in the U.S., and sometimes less, than in other highly developed nations. The U.S. vastly outspends the rest of the world not because of patient over use, but because prices are so much higher – to the benefit of the mammoth health care corporations at the enormous expense of everyone else.

Rather than reign in this corporate hijacking of our health, policy wonks and politicians of both major parties, typically funded by the healthcare industry, shift the blame and the cost to patients and working people generally.