My Summary of the Democratic Debate in South Carolina

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

No one won this debate.

Steyer – Seems like a nice guy. He’s not afraid to speak his mind. I used to actually think he was a Bernie Bro. ? Nope.

Klobuchar – I guess she was solid. No one went after her though that I can remember. I didn’t like how she pivoted away from condemning Bloomberg (because I loathe him). ?

Buttigieg – He seems like he’s fading and he’s fully aware. He still seems phony to me but I liked his facial expression at a certain point when Warren went after Bloomberg.

Warren – I loved her at the last debate but she should have changed the formula for this one. I felt her attacks on Bloomberg were useless tonight.

Biden – I want him to retire and be with his family. ??‍♀️

Sanders – He was on defense tonight. I’m miffed he didn’t get to respond to Pete saying something about private insurance still being offered in countries with universal health care while Sanders wanted to abolish private insurance after four years. From what I understand Buttigieg is incorrect. M4A would just limit what private insurance companies could do to avoid competition with public. Sanders had the best answer regarding marijuana.

Bloomberg – He came across as ignorant on race and marijuana. His paid for cheering section was annoying.

I think they all had somewhat equally good and bad moments. Some had more bad moments than others.

It’s all a blur.

I’ll definitely want to see the fact-checking for this debate.

Similar Read: Amira’s Debate Summaries

My Summary of the 7th Democratic Debate

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

My debate summary:

Sanders started out the strongest but started to fall back when it came to health care.

Biden started out the weakest but picked up when discussing foreign policy. He had an OK night.

While I’ve never been a fan of hers, Klobuchar had a solid night.

Buttigieg didn’t stand out at all and I still see him as manufactured, smug, and condescending. 

Warren made great points throughout but she lost it for me when the beef with Sanders came up. It made me think her camp concocted the Sanders smear so that she could go on stage to make her case on why women can win a presidential election. I didn’t like that. In previous debates, Warren acted as though she and Sanders were friends. Now she’s suddenly bringing up a supposedly old conversation? NOW she’s upset? I don’t get it and it feels disingenuous.

I don’t dislike Steyer.

If I had to choose the winner for this debate I’d say Klobuchar. Sanders and Warren follow in a tie for second place. Biden would be third and Buttigieg last. Buttigieg represents what I think a lot of people don’t like in politicians. On the other hand, some people love that he seems very “politician-y.” I’m torn on where to place Steyer. I could place him in first with Klobuchar or I could place him last with Buttigieg. Go figure.

I don’t think this debate will move any needles but then again, who knows! Maybe Buttigieg will drop? Maybe Steyer will get a boost? ??‍♀️ What happens on the ground is most important.

I don’t think the Warren-Sanders spat will do anything. From what I’ve seen, Sanders supporters feel Warren is lying and Warren supporters think Warren made a slam dunk on stage with her well-planned performance regarding their beef.

Although he gets the least bit of speaking time, Yang was definitely missed. Plus if you follow me you know he’s my #1 in this race.

I agree with Van Jones when he said this post-debate:

“Democrats have to do better than what we saw tonight. There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out. And I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible… I came away feeling worried for the Democratic Party. It felt like a big bowl of cold oatmeal, and I got to say this: I missed Andrew Yang tonight.”  

A Trillion Dollars in Afghanistan… So How Did We Fix This?

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPolitics

On December 9, 2019, the Washington Post published documents detailing how for nearly two decades the US spent nearly a trillion dollars in Afghanistan (please note, this doesn’t include Iraq). So how do we fix this?

Let’s not use this piece to discuss current political fights on being unable to afford health care for all of us or why we cant relieve student debt or the current reduction to SNAP recipients.

Today we will look at talks that have gone on in the military since the conflict began. Once, Afghanistan was referred to as America’s forgotten war as Iraq stole the headlines. In the year 2004, I was preparing to be a military officer by 2006. The concern of classmates then was, “how can we lead and train troops who saw combat while we are only studying now and the wars would be done?” Little did we know…

Since the wars have gone on, the talk was always this isn’t a single war, but the explanation you would get in honest informal talk was these were 6, 9, 12, 15 or God forbid 18-month wars. Once a new unit came in, they had their way of doing operations and what was previously done would be forgotten. And if I’m being totally honest, I was guilty of it to. Whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, in both places I was apart of “our predecessors are jacked up and our replacements don’t get it yet.“

In combat, you have three fights. In simple terms, there is the tactical fight, the operational fight and the strategic fight. Tactically, force vs force and owning a geographical area, I bet on us any day. Even operationally, our military will is undeniable. Then you get to this thing called the strategic fight and this is where it gets murky.

So how do we fix this?

I had a Sergeant Major who I considered a teacher tell me to ask two questions; what’s next, and who needs to know? Tactically and operationally, this is not so difficult, but strategically, that is a bigger problem. Now, I ask you to match that problem with a military system that frowns if you say “I don’t know.” Imagine a system that your evaluations and career depends on producing results and showing gains towards a desired goal. Imagine leaders who are convinced beforehand they know the problem and answer (hint: it leads to cherry-picking data).

So how do we fix this?

In the military, we have this concept we call a self-licking ice cream cone. The data pulled can tell any story you want (and often a favorable progressing story is told); but in Afghanistan, nearing two decades and a trillion dollars, the story told is extremely complicated.

So how do we fix this?

Again, that’s complicated. We all know someone who served but really, only 1% of the population serves, so there is an extreme disconnect and lack of ownership and/or true investment.

Strategically, saying have one strategy and sticking to it sounds good, but in combat, variables are fluid and can change instantly, there is no one size fits all. You need to know your objective and accomplish this BEFORE variables change, BUT the enemy ALWAYS has a vote as does other regional and global actors.

So how do we fix this, and importantly, how do we prevent this you ask? It’ll take a nation as a whole. Not every war is Desert Shield/Desert Storm where ground operations are done in under 100 hours. That is part of the problem.

I want you to think back… When have you ever heard, “this war will be long, operations will be tough, we’re going to spend trillions and your kids not yet born will one day be fighting this same war.” The answer is never… we always here how it will be business as usual and the political proclamations made publicly are held up by the military and championed by the press.

So how do we fix this? Next time conflict arises, don’t cheerlead. Ask those tough questions to leaders and the press. If misled hold those leaders accountable, but also know if our leadership changes, that’s a variable change that also may affect our actions…. so I leave you with one question, so how do we fix this?

Similar Read: Diplomacy and War: Know the Difference

The Demise of Kamala Harris – the Good, the Bad, and What’s Next

by with 3 Comments FeaturedPolitics

Kamala Harris suspended her campaign (12/3) just weeks before the Iowa caucuses. The New York Times ironically wrote a devastating article about her campaign just a few days before she made the disappointing announcement to drop out of the race. To add insult to injury, one of her former aides, Kelly Mehlanbacker wrote a damning resignation letter than somehow leaked to the media. Mehlanbacher mentioned that “while she no longer had confidence in the campaign or its leadership,” she still felt that Senator Harris was the strongest candidate to win the General Election 2020. So strong that she ended up joining Bloomberg’s campaign right around the time her letter leaked. Hardly a coincidence. 

How did we get here?

When a Black woman makes the decision to run for any political office in America I believe she does so with a certain level of understanding that is unique and quite different than her White counterparts. Kamala Harris had never lost a race – only the second Black woman in US history to be elected to the US Senate. It’s fair to say she has successfully calculated political and personal risk time and time again, faced immeasurable odds, and won.

But ask any presidential historian, and they’ll quickly tell you that nothing can prepare you for a presidential run.

Did Senator Harris have to deal with racism AND sexism? Of course. Could she have also run a better campaign? The answer to that question, unfortunately, is YES as well. However, that second question quasi-argument, which seems to be of major debate amongst liberals, becomes a moot point when you consider the fact that EVERY candidate in the race has also made strategy mistakes in regard to their campaign, especially the front runners, Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg. (If we agree with that, then why was she being held to a different standard and penalized more than them?)

Factor in the mainstream media and it’s inevitable huge role in national elections… they purposely erased her from polls, allowed other campaigns to steal her slogans AND data without holding them accountable, refused to interview her in primetime slots on issues relative to 2020 (healthcare, immigration, trade, etc), and wrote article after article focusing solely on controversies, hearsay, and the negatives of her career as an elected official. Such attacks are hard to counter, and eventually, it’s too much and you’re left with no other decision but to exit the race.

The Good: While Kamala Harris is suspending her campaign, it’s plausible to accept the moral argument that she picked up the torch Shirley Chisholm (1972) and Carol Moseley Braun (2004) dropped and carried it further down the political path for Black women who will come after her and run for Commander-in-Chief. That’s important and should not be overlooked. While this is the first time she’s ever lost a race, she is still politically young. If she chooses to run for president again, she has the time and now the experience to tweak her strategy and message. Hillary Clinton, Biden, Romney, as well as most presidential candidates, also lost their first bid for the White House. While her supporters might not be in favor of her taking a cabinet position for Biden, I mean whoever the presumptive Democrat nominee is, maybe Vice President, AG, or Secretary of State, it’ll give her the inevitable experience and exposure needed in case she does plan to run for president in the future.

The Bad: The critiques for Senator Harris were many, and came from all directions. Many point to her initial statements and mishaps on her healthcare plan, her record as a DA in California, even allegations of her having an affair with Willie Brown, the Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly at the time when she was 30 and he was 60. While many applauded her brilliant performance in the second debate, they cringed at her not so good performance in the next debate highlighted by Tulsi Gabbard attacking her criminal justice record in California. Gabbard telegraphed her attack a week prior to the debate and Senator Harris was still not prepared. Rumblings of strategy missteps, turmoil within, and inconsistent messaging didn’t help her campaign.

What’s Next: With Kamala dropping out of the race, and neither Corey Booker or Julian Castro having qualified for the next debate, there will be no people of color on the Democratic debate stage next week. For a party that can’t do anything without the support and backing of their diverse base, that says a lot. You’ll have mumbling Joe Biden, whose latest gaffe includes talking about kids touching his hairy legs in a pool, Pete Buttigieg, who literally drops the ball every time he’s asked about race and is currently polling at 0% with Black voters, and Bernie Sanders, who thinks that if Black men just respected the police they wouldn’t get shot in the head. All of these men have been given the benefit of the doubt, time and time again. No obituary articles and plenty of primetime interviews with softball questions. A spade is a spade, Kamala wasn’t afforded the same luxury or grace.

Against all odds, campaigns are tough and candidates make mistakes… let’s see how she does the next time around, I’m sure she’ll be back.

Similar Read: Kamala or Bust?

My Summary of the 5th Dem Debate

by with No Comment FeaturedPoliticsRace Relations

MSNBC/WaPo should be banned from hosting debates. Too many of the questions were centered on Trump’s personality. That shouldn’t be the focus of the questions for a presidential debate, but talking about DT has been excellent for MSNBC’s ratings. DT has especially helped Rachel Maddow’s career.

The debates took place in Atlanta, at Tyler Perry Studios. Buttigieg’s camp just had a week of race-related issues and the only people who got questions concerning race were Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang. ? Yang’s response was spot on though. 

Warren – She’s good when she’s prepared to answer non-surprise questions so this performance wasn’t bad for her. I appreciated that her responses were more specific than most of the other candidates’ responses. At one point she said: “And in the first 100 days, I want to bring in 135 million people into Medicare For All at no cost to them. Everybody under the age of 18, everybody who has a family of four income less than $50,000. I want to lower the age of Medicare to 50 and expand Medicare coverage to include vision and dental and long-term care.” This doesn’t sound too different from what is available now through the ACA. ?

Booker questioned Warren’s wealth tax much like Yang did in the last debate. Booker had a great night. I’m miffed that the media puts so much glory on Buttigieg, the Rhodes Scholar, when Booker is ALSO a Rhodes Scholar. I’m glad Booker let people know! ??

Buttigieg – If I weren’t following the race and only saw this debate, I might think Buttigieg was great. He claims the progressive title but he totally isn’t. He has a lot of big money backing him. The moderators favored him so much that instead of addressing him on his manufactured Black endorsements, people from his camp using stock images of Kenyans to show Black support, and being dismissive of his own constituents in South Bend – they tried to bait Kamala to attack him. Kamala didn’t take the bait. I wonder if she didn’t because she thought that if he were to win the nomination he’d seek her out as his VP since she’s a Black woman and he polls at 0% with Black voters. The moderators were really SOFT on him.

Gabbard went after him, but I doubt her attack will affect his polling numbers. He’s a big-money establishment candidate. She is not.

Harris came into the debates with planned statements. Not once did she answer a question. LOL, She’s very evasive. She also seems to get a thrill out of criticising people. I think she’d make a horrible Commander in Chief. A leader who gets off in criticizing others isn’t a good thing. We already have that!

Neither Harris nor Biden could respond to how they could get Republicans to work with them. I think that says a lot.

I’d feel so badly for the person put in charge of typing up the transcript of a Biden vs Trump debate. ?

Klobuchar – She brings absolutely nothing new to the table. She’s a younger Biden in a dress.

Steyer annoyed me. He also isn’t offering anything new but he thinks he is. He also kept saying he’s the only candidate talking about term limits. He’s wrong. Yang has been talking about term limits too. In fact, Yang is for 12-year Congressional term limits and 18-year Supreme Court justice term limits.

Yang made the most out of the little time he was given. He isn’t the establishment and is obviously not an MSNBC/WaPo favorite. All his answers were substantive and teachable moments. Who knew the only other country without paid family leave for new mothers was Papua New Guinea? What other candidate has concluded that we should have a WTO, but for data (new world data organization) and that this would get Russia to the table and make it so they have to join the international community and stop resisting appeals to the world order?

Sanders offers great teachable moments too. He’s the best at revealing the country’s problems and realities.

Similar Read: Who Did Well in the 4th Debate… Sanders, Yang, Buttigieg? 

Dems Can Learn From the Patriots… “On to Milwaukee”

by with No Comment FeaturedPoliticsSports

I’m sure you’re familiar with the phrase “We’re on to Cincinnati.” This was the famous line used by New England Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick during a Monday Night Football postgame conference. He used the phrase after the New England Patriots were blown out by the Kansas City Chiefs (not those Chiefs with Patrick Mahomes) 41-14, and fell to 2-2 in the early 2014 season.

The reason behind the phrase, and Bill Belichick’s entire coaching style for that matter, was that the loss was not due to the Chiefs, but due to the Patriots. “On to Cincinnati” was his way of saying… look we got blown out, we’ll adjust, it’s on to the next game to do what we do best… win.

The Patriots would hold true to that and beat the tiger stripes off the Cincinnati Bengals… 43-17. And oh, that Bengals team went to the playoffs the year prior and the same 2014 season the Patriots beat them. 

You see, the secret sauce to the Patriots success is their relentless discipline to only focus on one opponent at one time. And each opponent is analyzed with the same mindset that they can beat the Patriots. In other words, the Patriots focus on their own strengths against the weakness of their opponents… in order to beat them. 

2020 Presidential Election… 

At the time of this writing (October 2019), there are more legit Democratic candidates than teams in the NCAA tournament! And though there are many candidates… they all have the same mindset…

DEFEAT TRUMP! 

The same mindset… from the useless impeachment orchestrated by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to each and every Democratic candidate during debates using Trump as their rally call to gain an edge against their opponents. 

We know Trump is terrible, so what… his base is MORE entrenched now than they were in 2016. Which means that if a lackluster candidate wins the nomination for the Democratic Party… you’re looking at a close night come Tuesday, November 3rd 2020. 

So what’s the answer? Go to Milwaukee and double down on bold clear agendas on why a Democratic president is needed moving forward. No matter who it is, the policies are what matter. That’s the Patriots way. That’s why they went 3-1 without Tom Brady and 11-5 overall him during their 2016 Super Bowl Season. Because for the Patriots… opponents don’t matter… THEY DO. 

So go to Milwaukee Dems. Make bold declarations that the Democrats along with its newly elected president will be bold on the environment, be bold on fixing immigration, full legalization of marijuana, universal healthcare, and so on.  

Make the race about principles over (Trump) the person, because the current way isn’t working. Dems need to go to Milwaukee and plan to win in November 2020. The Patriots are great because they focus on one team and one game at a time. Despite starting the 2014 season 2-2, the “on to Cincinnati” Patriots went on to win the Super Bowl. And Dems can do the same. 

Similar Read: The Language of the Soul: The Power of Sports

Luke’s Consciousness from Night 2 of the Debates

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

My thoughts… 

Biden vs Harris is good TV. Kamala Harris is trying to get Warren supporters with her single-payer plan, but now allowing private plans after taking some heat. The one person who is clear on this issue is Bernie Sanders, and he embraces every criticism for single-payer, including raising taxes. Warren and Harris are not comfortable getting into the criticisms. 

The similarities between Harris and Ted Cruz’s campaign from 4 years ago can’t be understated. She is very sharp and very tight to the base, which will turn out in caucuses. Harris has one mission tonight, and she telegraphed it loud and clear – tear down Biden. 

Gillibrand’s answer on healthcare feels forced. Taking the same position as Bernie or Warren is a lost cause because people who care about this will choose Bernie or Warren instead.

Mayor De Blasio enjoys listening to himself talk. He just teed it up for Biden on healthcare when Harris had landed a number of haymakers.

Just like the previous night, the divide between red or purple state candidates versus blue state candidates when it comes to decriminalizing illegal border crossings made it clear that some of them do not know the difference between illegal crossings and seeking asylum. 

Castro is extremely opportunistic on illegal immigration and it is also the only issue he feels comfortable on the offensive.

Cory Booker is trying to be the unifier. This is not an electorate that wants unity.

Joe Biden is being framed as hostile to immigrants. I don’t think it will cause lasting damage because his base is more interested in general election dynamics than primary-based issues. Biden’s biggest threat is after the field winnows down to 3 or 4 candidates. If Bullock, Delaney, Hickenlooper, or one of the moderate wing candidates catches fire, he will be in trouble.

Booker vs Biden on criminal justice reform is fascinating. Booker is wisely milking the attention. This is how candidates raise their profile. We will see copycat attempts by the rest of the field to duplicate it.

My wife brought up a great point, every single time a candidate attacks Trump, 1) he gets more TV time to speak to voters, and 2) it reinforces that he is the unquestioned frontrunner.

Biden is campaigning to be Obama’s 3rd term. He is betting Obama could win another primary. 

Tulsi Gabbard will not receive a Christmas card from the Harris family this year.

Candidates need to STOP USING ANECDOTAL STORIES EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I get it, you spoke to a stranger before.

There was a better discussion on climate change on Night 1. Considering it is Inslee’s pet issue, I expected a better dialogue tonight.

If candidates were serious about addressing lead levels in water in places like Flint, the profession that needs to be brought in are civil engineers, not politicians.

I am surprised to not see anyone at least push for additional tariffs in a state like Michigan.

Biden will face questions over TPP if he is a candidate. The base opposes it, and Trump does as well.

Biden faced accusations of racism in the first debate and sexism in the second debate. It raises the question if his critics will fully unite behind him if he is the nominee.

Biden is the only person on stage to be around for the 2002 Iraq vote and voted for it. Will that come back to haunt him if it comes down to him and Bernie?

Calling for impeachment hearings during campaign season is pandering. If impeachment hearings are going on next year, it will be political theatre that Trump feasts upon.

This debate crystalizes the intra-party civil war. Biden is the traditional Democratic Party, running against Warren, Sanders, Booker, and Harris who represents the new Democratic Party. I don’t think Biden wins if the race is reduced to a 1 on 1 race after New Hampshire. He is a near-lock if 3 or 4 of the others stay in the race on Super Tuesday.

Similar Read: Luke’s Consciousness From Night 1 of the Debates

Before Watching the Debate Tonight…

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

Before you watch the debates tonight and tomorrow night remember these few things:

a. Flint still doesn’t have water

b. Donald Trump has been accused by a new woman of sexual assault

c. Who will speak up about the border crisis

d. Warren and Sanders have proposed student loan debt elimination

e. Biden is still making political gaffes but is it sticking…

f. Pete has a crisis happening in South Bend with white cops killing black men

g. There are multiple women and women of color running for President

h. There are plenty of white men running for president

i. Climate change is real and listen for who speaks up about it

j. The economy is not better under the Trump administration and listen who references that

k. There is a war happening in Sudan- who will speak up about it

l. Healthcare is still not accessible by every American in every state

m. The election is still over a year out

Listen intently and give every candidate a real chance to win you over.

This article was originally published on 26 June 2019. 

40 Acres & A Mule (Why Reparations Can No Longer Wait)

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGen Z

Reparations are defined as “the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.” Throughout history, numerous wrongs have been committed towards African-Americans, including (but not limited to) unequal education access, medical racism, housing discrimination, mass incarceration, etc., and yet no attempt to make amends has been made.

In 2009, The Senate issued an apology for slavery plus the years of oppression that followed, and expressed commitment to “rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future.” However, the apology remains empty since the rectification is nowhere to be found. The United States of America refuses to sufficiently acknowledge its’ long history of oppressing, dehumanizing and exploiting Black folks, and restitution is long overdue. The Compensated Emancipation Act was passed in 1862 to repay slave owners for the income they would lose once their slaves were freed. If reparations could be given to repay slave owners for lost wages, then why is giving reparations to the descendants of slavery for centuries’ worth of lost wages viewed as unthinkable?

Reparations continues to be a pressing issue due “to a series of changes that have occurred in recent years — namely, the increased academic understanding of and public attention to the ways a history of slavery and discrimination has fueled disparities like the racial wealth gap, which shows that the median white household is 10 times wealthier than the median black one.” (The 2020 Democratic Primary Debate Over Reparations, Explained) People are aware of the glaring racial wealth gap, and that slavery, plus the centuries of disenfranchisement that came after, have fueled it. 

Enslaved Black people were denied the opportunity to build wealth. Meanwhile, America gained wealth from their work. The early American economy was built and dependent on slavery. The income from the forced labor of slaves was so lucrative that defenders of slavery went so far as to argue that emancipation would lead to the collapse of the American economy as a whole. “By 1860, there were more millionaires (slaveholders all) living in the lower Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the United States. In the same year, the nearly 4 million American slaves were worth some $3.5 billion, making them the largest single financial asset in the entire U.S. economy, worth more than all manufacturing and railroads combined.” In addition to plantation slavery, slave labor was used for the development of The White House, The Capitol, Wall Street, JP Morgan Chase, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Washington & Lee University, and The University of Virginia. These institutions profited from slavery in the past and continue to make a profit in the present day. America benefitted greatly from slave labor, while those who were enslaved never received any benefits.

Furthermore, America has never acknowledged that slavery can’t be an issue of the past when it still impacts the present. The harms of slavery didn’t just go away with emancipation. When slavery was abolished, it evolved into other forms of oppression. Black people were denied educational opportunities, adequate housing, good jobs with decent wages, discriminated against by businesses, and their labor was once again exploited through the prison system. Harassment from police and White residents was common, and the subjugation of Black people continued, taking a toll on the entire community. This toll still exists in the present day.

It is not logical to enslave a group of people for over two hundred years, repeatedly railroad them into less than adequate schools and neighborhoods, incarcerate them at unnecessarily high rates as well as repeatedly brutalize them by those who are sworn to “serve and protect”, only to tell them that they are “undeserving” of proper repayment in any form. The United States has done nothing to help Black Americans recover from centuries worth of marginalization, which needs to change. Reparations have proven to be an important issue among Black constituents for the 2020 election, and a hearing was held last month to discuss a bill (H.R.40) that would establish a commission to study and develop reparations proposals. It is obvious that the demand for reparations is not going away anytime soon, nor should it. The impact of slavery is still something that negatively impacts the Black community on the social, political, and economic levels, proving that reparations are long overdue.

War Taxes and Other Radical Ideas From the Left

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Joe Biden is the clear front runner in the Democratic race for the presidential nomination. Regardless of his tone-deaf comments and self-inflicting blunders, his poll numbers haven’t wavered and the race is his to lose. With that being said, nearly every Democrat trailing him is willing to say and do anything to gain traction, including radical ideas and “sound good” policy.

Bernie Sanders, who is second in most polls, just proposed cutting student loan debt, all $1.6 TRILLION. It sounds good, but unrealistic by any measure and a weak attempt to gain traction. Student loan debt can be crippling, and maybe that’s why so many people have quickly jumped on the Bernie bandwagon after he made the announcement… some probably knowing it sounds too good to be true, and others really believing it could happen (if he wins of course). Let’s just say we defer to the former.

If that wasn’t a stretch goal, last week Beto O’Rourke proposed a “war tax”, which would require non-military households (so roughly 99% of the population) to pay a “war tax” to help cover the health care of veterans of newly-authorized wars. Healthcare for veterans, including mental health and other related services for them and their families, should be a primary concern of every White House administration. We can safely say both parties have dropped this ball. But more taxes to address this issue isn’t the answer, and if Beto didn’t know that before his announcement, Twitter quickly confirmed that it’s a nonstarter. While the taxes would be nominal, it’s still a bad idea thrown at an even worse problem.

Household income…

  • Making less than $30,000/year would pay $25
  • Making less than $40,000/year would pay $57
  • Making less than $50,000/year would pay $98
  • Making less than $75,000/year would pay $164
  • Making less than $100,000/year would pay $270
  • Making less than $200,000/year would pay $485
  • Making more than $200,000/year would pay $1,000.

Just a thought… Considering we budget more for our military than the next 7 countries combined, why don’t we start by allocating a small percentage of that to veterans healthcare? I think we’ll have enough… to still say we budget more for our military than the next 7 countries combined.