President-Elect Joe Biden Could Give Everyone Medicare by Himself (Without Congress)

The powers of the American presidency have become incredibly vast. A good president could significantly improve the healthcare system by themselves, without congressional interference, improving millions of lives in the process.

******

The people of Libby, Montana, population 2,628, share something in common with the rest of the developed world, but not their compatriots in the United States. They all have access to a single-payer, Medicare-for-All system.

As part of the Affordable Care Act, the residents of Libby, who were exposed to hazardous airborne asbestos from a vermiculite mine owned by the W.R. Grace Company, were made eligible for Medicare, for free, at the discretion of the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It was codified in Section 1881A of the Social Security Act. The language of the statute refers to any individuals subject to an “environmental exposure,” though it was well understood at the time that this was about Libby.

The fact that the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, hailed from Montana played no small part in creating Medicare for All Libbyians. But the principle was solid. Through no fault of their own, these residents were subject to a dangerous environmental hazard that would trigger long-term medical complications. The government considered it only right to pick up the exorbitant health care costs for these individuals.

There’s an environmental health hazard spreading through the entire country right now. It’s infecting people unsuspectingly and killing hundreds of thousands. And using Section 1881A, the incoming Biden administration can give all 11 million people infected with COVID—and if they want to be really aggressive—all Americans who have tested positive for coronavirus the option of free Medicare coverage, immediately.

I do not expect Joe Biden to use this power on Inauguration Day to instantly turn the United States into a single-payer country. But there’s nothing in the law that would appear to prevent him from doing it. This is the larger point. The United States Code doesn’t make for scintillating leisure reading, but buried in it are countless options for a president to help people. And once you start orienting yourself in that fashion, thinking about what you can do under the law rather than what you cannot, the possibilities really open up.

The primary pilot program in Section 1881A is the Libby, Montana program. But the executive branch is also given the authority to establish “optional pilot programs” to any area subject to a public health emergency declaration. The entire United States has been under a public health emergency since January 31, 2020, due to the coronavirus. (It’s possible that the Environmental Protection Agency would have to declare a separate public health emergency under the Superfund law to comply with the statute, but Biden’s EPA administrator could easily do so.) Individuals eligible for Medicare would have to have spent six months in the geographic area subject to the emergency; since the area is “the entire United States,” this should not be a problem, either.

At that point, the individual with exposure to the environmental hazard files an application for Medicare benefits, and receives them if they meet the proper criteria. The statute cites that those eligible for benefits must have a diagnosis of ailments like mesothelioma and other consequences from asbestos exposure. But an addendum at the bottom makes the statute applicable to any individual exposed “to a public health hazard to which an emergency declaration applies, based on such medical conditions, diagnostic standards, and other criteria as the Secretary specifies.” Cutting through the legislation-ese, this means that HHS could create a specific pilot program around COVID-19.

We know that there are going to be specific long-term costs from COVID-19. While we’re still learning about “long-haul” COVID patients, it is possible that they could experience a lifetime of health problems from their infection, whether through severe lung damage, heart failure, or gastrointestinal complications. The cost of managing these difficulties will be high, and probably out of reach for most people. It’s cost-effective to put them on Medicare and ensure that they don’t have to go bankrupt because they were unlucky enough to contract the virus. America did something similar with kidney disease under Richard Nixon and for first responders with respiratory problems after spending time at 9/11 cleanup sites. But unlike those two programs, which required Congressional action, a president invoking Section 1881A could do this through executive action, rather than having to get a new law through Congress.

If you really wanted to push it, you could do what they did in Libby: give Medicare to everyone, whether they showed symptoms or not, based on the potential for an environmental exposure. As long as the runoff from the W.R. Grace mine was still in the air, residents of Libby needed the peace of mind that they would be covered from the health consequences. The entire U.S. public needs that same kind of reassurance in the face of coronavirus.

Yes, Joe Biden ran against a single-payer system in the election. (He did run on free coronavirus treatment for all of those infected, and triggering Section 1881A would do just that. This declaration could also guarantee a free vaccine.) He’s not likely to make the incredibly aggressive move to use COVID as a pretext to give everyone the option for government-run healthcare. That’s just reality.

But it’s also reality that Biden has this option to protect people suffering from coronavirus, and even those afraid to get tested because they know they cannot afford treatment. Furthermore, Section 1881A is the kind of creative policy thinking that’s going to be required of a Biden Administration on day one if it wants to make progress for the American people, especially if Mitch McConnell and the Republicans hold onto the Senate.

Maybe Biden doesn’t want to instantly create Medicare for All. But through a range of laws that vest power in the president, he could seize drug patents to dramatically lower the cost of prescription drugs. He could change bad Obamacare rules that cost low-income families using the exchanges roughly $2 billion every year. He could do all kinds of things laid out in the Day One Agenda that would have tangible and enduring benefits for people. 

Since 1789, the legislative branch has been placing a set of powerful authorities in the president’s lap. It does not violate any notion of our system of government for the president to look for creative ways to use those authorities; in fact, it’s the very job description of the chief executive. If President-elect Biden wants to respond to the tragedy of coronavirus by giving millions of people public health care, he could.

Will Trump Win Again?

American president Donald Trump will not be victorious in the popular vote — that is certain. He will probably lose the popular vote by an even higher margin than what Hillary Clinton beat him with in 2016. That said, the Electoral College is what determines presidential outcomes, and there are factors that may allow Trump to win the Electoral College again.

A poll credited with predicting Trump’s Electoral College win in 2016 — the IBD/TIPP Poll — shows Trump with a 0.7 point lead among Hispanics and a 3 point lead in the Midwest. The Midwest is particularly important to win due to having swing states such as Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Most polls show that Trump has maintained a multiple percentage point lead in the state of Ohio, a state that seems to have largely been neglected by the national media outlets based in coastal areas such as California and New York. (The people working for those coastal media outlets have been increasingly seen as out of touch with the realities of wage stagnation, drug epidemics, and deindustrialization that has taken place place in much of America.) Whoever wins Ohio has won the presidency every year since 1964 — a record of over half a century that makes it stand out even among the other swing states.

Much of my own family supports Trump, something that continues to disturb and disappoint me in 2020. That being said, something people don’t always realize is that much of the population is struggling to an absurd degree in what has long been world history’s wealthiest nation. A CNBC article from before the pandemic found that 78 percent of people were living paycheck to paycheck, a number that can only have grown worse with what is essentially now an economic depression during the pandemic. Many people are therefore too stressed and too busy to consistently study politics effectively, and the American formal education overall does a terrible job at giving people a decent political education. It doesn’t help that there is so much disinformation now that it takes a fair amount of intelligence to see through it, and too many people in America have suffered cognitive problems for reasons such as growing up in extreme poverty, being subjected to abuse generated in their family members by America’s flawed society, and even — as seen in Flint, Michigan — drinking lead in their water supply. The Flynn Effect is a phenomenon recounting how average IQ scores have gone up as factors such as nutrition have improved. It’s been apparent for all of us since our days in school that high general intelligence is somewhat rare, but many people are not as smart as they would otherwise be growing up in healthier environments. Since democracy is about making choices based on information, democracy suffers when the general capacity of the population to make intelligent decisions is reduced. America would look different if the average IQ was 10 points higher than what it is today.

One of the worst things that Trump has said is encouraging his supporters to vote twice — once by mail and once at the polls. This is encouraging his supporters to commit voter fraud, a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. With so many people in my family that support Trump, I have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about and reading the more scientific reasoning about why they support him. One of the reasons is that Trump speaks with short sentences that are easier to understand, at what was once evaluated as a speaking level lower than many other politicians. In association with that, Trump is an accomplished con man, seen through the history of his fraudulent for-profit college and his casino bankruptcies, and he is good at making his supporters feel good. He’s an incredibly charismatic politician — the people who deny this are delusional to what his supporters and many others feel. In getting a bit more anecdotal here, even people who know me and don’t particularly like me (i.e., some people in my family) admit that I am perceptive and by nature feel certain things many others don’t. This doesn’t mean I am a sensitive snowflake — I am not and I hate the amount of our discourse taken up by identity politics rather than focus on people’s material interest. In any case, I always seem to feel when someone is charismatic, no matter how vile that person is. Trump is charismatic. The other main reasons are that Trump is an authoritarian, something much of the population identifies with, and — my biggest takeaway from seeing so much of my family support Trump — is that support of Trump is something for people to come together on. American society has become broken, divisive, run-down, and incredibly politically polarized for much of the population, and support of Trump presents an opportunity for what is arguably one of the few ways for Trump supporters to have meaningful positive interactions with each other. Politics is not like talking about the weather or other small talk subjects — it presents a much greater opportunity than those subjects to have more valuable and fulfilling conversations, even if the people discussing the politics are wrong about what issues to support to benefit the majority of the population. The desire to have these fulfilling social conversations, I posit, is an integral part of human social contact, and one that was increasingly fading in the device-driven world before the pandemic and the term social distancing became a widely used term.

In addressing Trump’s perceived strength, the idea that Trump had a significant positive impact on the economy is a joke. The biggest positive factor on the economy in the last decade was probably the appointment of Janet Yellen and her low interest rate policies at the Federal Reserve, and that allowed the unemployment rate to drop low and it therefore also allowed some of the only minor wage growth for low-wage workers in the last 50 years. To his credit, Trump appointed Jerome Powell, who largely continued the policies of Janet Yellen by not raising interest rates and thus allowing the unemployment rate to remain low before the pandemic hit. Trump also refused to go along with the terrible Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, and the tax cuts mainly for the wealthy and corporations that he pressed for did have a slight boost in demand for the economy. If Trump had done well on other major economic things I would give him credit for them, and it’s clear from these points that he did some decent things for the economy while in office. The decent things he did for the economy are heavily outweighed by the flaws of his governing, such as his illogical trade war and his failure on managing the pandemic. The result of his impact on the economy is a net negative effect, one that may prove to be far more net negative later on as the impacts of those policies are felt for years, but many left-wingers don’t admit the very few things he did that were decent. I consider Trump the worst president by far in modern history, but I consider it important to tell the truth about matters such as these and give credit where it’s due. Trump is stunningly ignorant of most important political issues, and he doesn’t talk about it anymore like he did in 2016, but he does seem to understand that trade deficits in America are bad, and that’s part of why in 2016 he won over so many Rust Belt workers who have been screwed by trade policy. The trade deficit increased under Trump however, despite his having the ability to decrease it through policy, and this was before the pandemic. The reason that trade deficits for the U.S. are bad is that it decreases demand in the economy, and we generally have needed more demand to help workers in the last 50 years. On another note, I read an article by a former Republican governor endorsing Joe Biden, and I read it looking for positive things he had to say about Trump. Essentially the most he said that was good about Trump are some regulatory changes. That was all. In conducting surveys of Americans, I would venture a guess that few are fond of the deregulations that allow more coal debris and pollutants to be deposited in streams near residential water supplies and the deregulation that allows imported meat to claim to be made in America. It is rather incredible that so many continue to support Trump despite him not enacting policies that benefit their material interest. The vast majority of the Trump tax cuts go to the richest people in America, not middle-income or low-wage workers. Trump blocked the Post Office from sending out masks to hundreds of millions of Americans because he “didn’t want to create a panic.” There is audio of Trump with Bob Woodward where Trump back in February acknowledges that COVID-19 is far more deadly than the flu, but then he lies to the public in trying to downplay its severity and holds mass gatherings of people close together where many of them don’t wear masks. Trump’s campaign recently had an event in Nebraska where people caught hypothermia and were left out in the cold due to a lack of transportation provided by the campaign. I scanned social media when this happened and I didn’t find any defense of this from the Trump supporters. Trump is a con man that has successfully deceived millions of people, and that includes many things such as his lies about the pandemic, his lies about stopping the wars overseas and his lies about bringing many manufacturing jobs back. If American society was a more rational place, the CNBC program American Greed that focuses on corporate crime would have had an episode on Trump where they focus on his immoral business dealings and damage to much of the population. There’s a long list of how Trump has negatively impacted the public, but I chose to focus more on the economic conditions since that’s more concrete than focus on controversial issues such as abortion and religion.

All of this said, even as a president with an awful track record, Trump may still win the Electoral College. It looks unlikely by polling and the history of presidents losing when they in power during awful economic conditions, but there are variables present in this pandemic election year that normally haven’t been present in past elections. One is that many more Democrats than Republicans will vote by mail, and a considerable percentage of these mail-in ballots won’t be counted. This isn’t a conspiratorial claim — it’s the state of the voter suppression in American politics. In the 2016 election, Greg Palast — author of the book titled “How Trump Won 2020” — found that 141,000 ballots were thrown out after a challenge due to their signatures. He found that there weren’t any voters arrested for forgery because of this. Additionally, Palast said recently that “Once a year, secretaries of state can literally wipe off the voter rolls those voters they think shouldn’t vote. And not surprisingly, these hacks tend to remove people of color where they can, where Republicans control the state. So for example, in Georgia, as you just heard, the Secretary of State [Raffensperger] removed 198,000 voters illegally on false information. Almost all of them [were] black voters, young voters, including Martin Luther King’s 92-year-old cousin.” Palast also said that “In 2016, 5.8 million ballots were cast and never counted. By the way, that’s an official number from the EAC [Election Assistance Commission], from our federal agency; 5.8 million votes cast not counted.” Most disturbingly, Palast mentioned the study finding that “According to MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], 22%, [i.e.,] one in 5 million mail-in ballots, is never counted.”

If 22 percent of mail-in ballots aren’t counted in 2020, that combined with the voter suppression of other people likely to vote for Joe Biden may hand Trump another Electoral College victory. Again, there is a far higher percentage of Republicans going to the polls to vote for Trump than there is Democrats going to the polls to vote for Biden, and this may culminate in not only Trump eventually winning the Electoral College yet again but it may make Trump have an overall lead today on election day before more mail-in ballots are counted. This may then devolve into a scenario where the contested election is taken to the 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, where the results of the election that are not favorable to Trump may be thrown out.

America will suffer further harm from another four years of Trump. I dislike Biden and consider him to be a politician with a long record of terrible policies, but after years of Trump, it’s apparent that another four years of Trump will continue to have the sort of vast consequences and immense damage seen during the pandemic. In any case, with either person winning the presidency, I would encourage people to try to make the most of what they have even if it’s not that good. A year from now may be an even worse time than today, and now is already bad for so many of us. That’s just the realistic view of things. Exercise and a healthy diet (including plenty of vitamin D to protect against COVID-19 problems) will help us stay strong, and staying strong will remain important when life is tough.

How Toxic Chemicals Are Robbing Vulnerable Children of Millions of IQ Points

The crisis of contaminated water seen in Flint, Michigan is ongoing and terrible, but other related events of contamination are more common than people tend to think they are. America is a society with many protections for the most powerful, and not enough for the most vulnerable.

The chemicals we’ve long feared the most – heavy metals like lead and mercury – are less of a threat to kids’ developing brains than they were two decades ago. But two new menaces may be taking their place: pesticides and flame retardants.

According to new research from New York University, flame retardants resulted in a loss of 162 million IQ points among children in the US between 2001 and 2016.

The study, published Tuesday in the journal Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, looked at the four chemicals known to impact the brain of a developing child most: lead, mercury, pesticides, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (otherwise known as flame retardants).

Leo Trasande, a paediatrician and public-health researcher at NYU who co-authored the study, described these pollutants as “hit-and-run” chemicals: Once a child is exposed to them, there’s no reversing the damage.

“Kids’ brain development is exquisitely vulnerable,” Trasande told Business Insider. “If you disrupt, even with subtle effects, the way a child’s brain is wired, you can have permanent and lifelong consequences.”

The study found that lead cost US kids 78 million IQ points during the 15-year period studied, while pesticides caused a loss of nearly 27 million IQ points during those years. Mercury, meanwhile, caused a loss of 2.5 million IQ points.

Children’s’ lower IQs are costing the US trillions of dollars

The researchers found that among kids exposed to toxins from 2001 to to 2016, the proportion of IQ loss due to exposure to flame retardants and pesticides increased from 67 percent to 81 percent. Flame retardants can be found in household furniture and electronics, while pesticides can be consumed when they linger on produce.

“What we found was quite striking,” Trasande said.

“We know that there is no safe level of lead exposure. The same is true for methylmercury, pesticides, and flame retardants.”

The study also found that there is an economic cost to childhood brain damage: Trasande said that each individual IQ point is worth roughly 2 percent of a child’s lifetime economic productivity. So if a child could potentially make US$1 million over the course of their lifetime, they would lose US$20,000 for every IQ point lost.

“A kid’s brain power is the engine of our economy,” Trasande said.

“If a child comes back from school with one less IQ point, maybe mum or the parent might not notice. But if 100,000 children come back with one less IQ point, the entire economy notices.”

According to the researchers, IQ loss due to lead, mercury, flame retardants, and pesticide exposure combined cost the US around US$6 trillion from 2001 to 2016.

Regulations on flame retardants and pesticides are more lax than heavy metals

For decades, scientists have understood that exposure to lead and mercury can result in childhood brain damage. So many of the main hideouts for these chemicals – leaded gasoline, lead paint, and mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants – have been phased out.

As early as the 1970s, the Environmental Protection Agency required lead to be phased out of gasoline and paint (though lead paint can still be found in homes built before 1978).

The agency also set standards to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in 2011, though some power plants still do not meet these requirements.

But there have been fewer efforts to regulate pesticides and flame retardants.

The EPA has banned around 37 pesticides, though more than 500 have been used in the US. Another 97 have been voluntarily withdrawn by pesticide manufacturers.

More than a dozen states have adopted legislation that restricts the use of flame retardants in products like furniture, carpeting, and children’s toys, but none of the chemicals are banned federally.

Ways to reduce kids’ exposure

Many factors can influence a kid’s exposure to a chemical, Transande said.

“The science has really evolved such that the dose is not the only thing that makes the poison,” he said. Other factors to consider could include the timing and frequency of exposure.

Trasande added that regulating all of these chemicals has a far lower long-term economic cost than the cost of kids’ lost IQ points due to exposure.

To minimise personal risk in one’s own home, Trasande suggested simple steps like opening windows so that dust laced with flame retardants can escape. He also suggested vacuuming frequently and using a wet mop to sop up chemicals on the floor.

In addition, parents should avoid mattresses and children’s toys that contain polyurethane foam (which often carries flame retardants).

Trasande also said households should avoid spraying pesticides on their lawns or backyards and recommended switching to organic foods (though organic produce can also contain pesticides).

“We’ve made less progress in phasing out or banning some of the pesticides of greatest concern,” Trasande said. “But there are steps we can take proactively as consumers.”

2018 Midterm Elections in the United States

The 2018 midterms will have significant impacts on not only America but the world — see the Republicans being a more authoritarian example for other countries and being worse on issues such as climate change.

Usually the elections for federal and state offices that take place between the US presidential elections get considerably less attention than those taking place in the same year as the presidential race. This is not likely to be true in 2018.

As is always the case, the entire House of Representatives will be up for reelection. There will be elections for a third of the Senate (actually 35 of 100 senators because of a resignation) and state governors races in 36 of the 50 states, including nine of the ten largest. In addition, most state legislatures will be up for grabs in the election as well.

The main reason this election is so important is that Donald Trump has demonstrated an unprecedented level of disrespect for basic norms of democracy and the rule of law. Republicans in Congress, with almost no exceptions, have been willing to go along in his abuses of power. If the Republicans manage to maintain control of both houses of Congress, there will be little ability to block Trump’s attack on the basic institutions of democracy.

[…]

Trump and the Republican party are also looking for ways to disenfranchise voters to maintain their grip on power. It is important to recognize that the Republicans depend on being able to rule as a minority.

In 2016 Trump lost the nationwide popular vote by almost 3 million votes, or 2.1 percentage points. He nonetheless won the election because the presidential race is decided by the Electoral College in which most states the winner takes all. While electoral votes are partially proportionate to population (each state gets at least three votes regardless of its size), Trump won several large states by tiny margins, allowing him to get a majority in the Electoral College.

There is a similar story in the US Senate. Each state has two senators, which means that Wyoming, with less than 600,000 people, has the same number of senators as California with almost 40 million. With Republicans winning most of the small states’ senators, they are able to have a majority of the Senate even when they get much less than half of the vote for senators.

The House of Representatives awards seats to states based on the population. But because the Republicans controlled the last redistricting processes following the 2010 Census, they drew districts in a way that will require the Democrats to win the overall vote by 6 to 8 percentage points to retake the House. With a new Census in 2020, the governors who are elected this year will preside over the redistricting that takes place in 2021. This will be an opportunity for either party to lock in favorable districts for a decade.

There is also a basic issue of whether people are able to vote. Republicans have pursued a variety of measures intended to make it difficult for minorities to vote. In prior years, courts have overruled many of these measures since the right to vote is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. In more recent years, Republican-appointed judges have approved many blatant acts of disenfranchisement. If they can maintain control of both houses of Congress, Republicans at both the federal and state level are likely to move more aggressively in implementing obstacles to minority voting.

For these reasons, there any many basic issues about democracy that will be at stake with the outcome of the 2018 election. While the US government has a long-standing democratic tradition and respect for the rule of law, these are very much up for grabs this year. We have a president and a major political party that care about neither.

Republican Budget Would Cut $5.4 Trillion from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid Over the Next Decade

The classic Republican scheme in the modern era — cut taxes on the richest people in the country (those who are already the big beneficiaries of the massive upwards redistribution of income over the last four decades) and then cut the safety net programs vital to the majority of the population. If policies like this one continue to be enacted, America is simply going to be further ruined for the vast majority.

With the nation’s attention rightly fixated on President Donald Trump’s horrific treatment of immigrant children, House Republicans on Tuesday quietly unveiled their 2019 budget proposal that calls for $537 billion in cuts to Medicare, $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, and four billion in cuts to Social Security over the next decade in an effort to pay for their deficit-exploding tax cuts for the wealthy.

“It’s morally bankrupt, patently absurd, and grossly un-American,” the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires said of the GOP’s budget proposal, which calls for $5.4 trillion in spending cuts from major domestic programs.

[…]

Progressives have been warning for months about the GOP’s plan to axe crucial safety net programs following the passage of its deeply unpopular $1.5 trillion tax bill, which has sparked a boom of corporate stock buybacks while doing little to nothing for most American workers.

“Each GOP budget is more fraudulent than the last,” Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote on Tuesday. “We know what they stand for: tax cuts paid for with healthcare cuts.”

In addition to proposing devastating safety net cuts, the House GOP budget also calls for partial privatization of Medicare and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a move that would throw tens of millions off their health insurance.

EPA Blocked Release of Major Water Contamination Report

All of the wealth in world history’s wealthiest country and it still isn’t using those resources to provide access to safe drinking water for tens of millions. America is a plutocracy though, and while it remains that way, the society’s structure will primarily prioritize making the rich richer over much else.

The chemicals that were under review are PFOA and PFOS, which, as Politiconotes, “have long been used in products like Teflon and firefighting foam”—as well as by the Department of Defense, when it conducts exercises at U.S. bases—despite the fact that they “have been linked with thyroid defects, problems in pregnancy, and certain cancers, even at low levels of exposure.”

The study, conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), reportedly shows that these chemicals are dangerous to human health at far lower levels than previously known or disclosed by the EPA, and have “contaminated water supplies near military bases, chemical plants, and other sites from New York to Michigan to West Virginia.”

An Abuser of Human Rights Shouldn’t be Appointed CIA Director

The CIA has a grotesque past, from helping to install dictators in various countries to leaving explosives under an American school bus for a week. It doesn’t need to be made worse by appointing a known torturer, especially when torture is a war crime and has shown to not even be effective.

On Capitol Hill, President Trump’s nominee to head the CIA, Gina Haspel, repeatedly refused Wednesday to call the CIA’s post-9/11 treatment of prisoners “torture,” and declined to state whether she believes torture is immoral. CIA Deputy Director Haspel’s comments came in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee as she made her case to become CIA director.

Haspel is a 33-year CIA veteran who was responsible for running a secret CIA black site in Thailand in 2002, where at least one prisoner was waterboarded and tortured in other ways during her tenure. Haspel also oversaw the destruction of videotapes showing torture at the black site.

Campaign Finance Reform — 75% Approval

The dreaded extent of money in politics shows itself.

Amidst a widely-shared recognition that the country is effectively being run by powerful special interests, a new poll out Friday shows that more than 3 out of 4 Americans now support serious campaign finance reform as a way to mitigate the corrupting influence of money in the nation’s democracy.

The results of the extensive Pew Research Center survey, released Thursday, reveal Americans “see the country falling well short in living up to” democratic ideals and values, and believe core changes are needed in the political system.

Seventy-six percent say the government is run by a few big interests, a level unchanged since 2015. Just 21 percent say the government is run for the benefit of all.

[…]

The new survey also shows widespread backing of campaign finance reform.

Over three-quarters of Americans—77 percent—say that there should be limits on the amount of money political candidates can spend on campaigns. There is strong support from both Democrats (85 percent) and Republicans (71 percent).

A majority of Americans—65 percent—say they believe new campaign finance laws would be effective in limiting the amount of money in political campaigns.

Cardi B is Correct About the Importance of Social Security

It’s good that a rapper like Cardi B is into studying politics, since you either turn on to politics or politics turns onto you.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) embraced a newfound ally this week when he tweeted his agreement with a statement made by rap artist Cardi B about strengthening Social Security.

In a recent GQ interview, Cardi B shared her interest in politics and her admiration for President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his establishment of a social safety net through the New Deal and laws like the Social Security Act of 1935.

“This man was suffering from polio at the time of his presidency, and yet all he was worried about was trying to make America great—make America great again for real. He’s the real ‘Make America Great Again,’ because if it wasn’t for him, old people wouldn’t even get Social Security,” she said.

[…]

Sanders is a long-time advocate of strengthening the system which ensures a financial safety net for senior citizens—and on which Republicans could wage an attack this year, with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) claiming in December that the program is a major “driver of our debt,” just before the GOP pushed through a law giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.

The Vermont senator introduced a proposal last year that would require Americans who make more than $250,000 per year to pay the same percentage of their income into the Social Security system as lower-income and middle-class households do, which would increase benefits for low-income seniors.