Elizabeth Warren 2020

[David Dennison 18860]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

Isn't this just a one-time payout?   If so, what ongoing entitlement would there be to eliminate? 

It opens the door to the argument. It should apply to everyone. If that benefits the rich, so be it.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

don't make me come over there

*waggles broom at u*

I guess it's obvious to everyone else, but I don't get it.  I know a bunch of lawyers who make $200K+ and have no problem paying off their student loans.  Why direct money their way? 

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

What is the question?

if people who have been making an effort to aggressively pay down their student loan debt get fucked. obviously he meant that the effort was a waste, not that the person’s remaining debt wouldn’t be part of this. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It opens the door to the argument. It should apply to everyone. If that benefits the rich, so be it.

Why should it apply to everyone and not just those who are struggling to pay their loans?  I'm not trolling, I honestly don't see the argument for this. 

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Why should it apply to everyone and not just those who are struggling to pay their loans?  I'm not trolling, I honestly don't see the argument for this. 

Because that opens the door for means testing Social Security and Medicare.

No, thank you.

[henrygandorf 29191]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

I guess it's obvious to everyone else, but I don't get it.  I know a bunch of lawyers who make $200K+ and have no problem paying off their student loans.  Why direct money their way? 

other than the whole “limitations create new issues” argument, i would think the response would be that money spent on things other than paying down debt is good for the economy. regardless of who’s spending it. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I guess it's obvious to everyone else, but I don't get it.  I know a bunch of lawyers who make $200K+ and have no problem paying off their student loans.  Why direct money their way? 

Because it's the right thing to do.

It's really not more complicated than that. Don't overthink it.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Because that opens the door for means testing Social Security and Medicare.

No, thank you.

I don't see how it does.  This would be based on income, just like how we put higher taxes on higher income.  Means testing is a different ball game that requires wealth calculations.   And I'm not opposed to that either. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

"Wait, you mean that those kids will NEVER have to be slaves??? THIS IS BULLSHIT!" - slaves upon hearing about emancipation, if they were as dumb and spiteful as modern centrists

[bad_teammate 13195]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

I don't see how it does.  This would be based on income, just like how we put higher taxes on higher income.  Means testing is a different ball game that requires wealth calculations.   And I'm not opposed to that either. 

Why even bother with means testing?

No point.

Universal is universal. We're all friends. Let's work together.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Because it's the right thing to do.

It's really not more complicated than that. Don't overthink it.

Why is it the right thing to do?   People who borrowed to enable a high-income job and achieved that are getting exactly what they bargained for.    Are you against progressive taxation too? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Don’t we means test taxes.  Seems like that door is already open when it comes to reducing cost burdens. 

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't see how it does.  This would be based on income, just like how we put higher taxes on higher income.  Means testing is a different ball game that requires wealth calculations.   And I'm not opposed to that either. 

What's the cutoff? Who gets screwed?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, David Dennison said:

What's the cutoff? Who gets screwed?

Nobody gets screwed.   It's an unexpected windfall for those who get it, and those who don't are in the same position as before.   Warren's sliding scale makes sense to me. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

Why is it the right thing to do?

Because our educational system has been far too expensive for too long, and even those who went private have suffered the downstream effects as costs increased everywhere.

Quote

   People who borrowed to enable a high-income job and achieved that are getting exactly what they bargained for. 

Good for them. That's OK. Universal is universal and I don't begrudge them their success.

Quote

 Are you against progressive taxation too?

No, I don't know why that would follow logically.

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Nobody gets screwed.   It's an unexpected windfall for those who get it, and those who don't are in the same position as before.   Warren's sliding scale makes sense to me. 

Allowing student debt to be discharged through personal bankruptcy makes the most sense to me.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Because our educational system has been far too expensive for too long, and even those who went private have suffered the downstream effects as costs increased everywhere.

Good for them. That's OK. Universal is universal and I don't begrudge them their success.

No, I don't know why that would follow logically.

It follows logically from "universal is universal."  Its the same "value" relied upon by supporters of a flat tax. 

OK, I'll stipulate that high-income earners have faced increased downstream costs from the educational system.  Why is making that up to them a priority when they can easily pay their student loan bills? I'm not against it per se, I just don't get the argument for it.   Many people are struggling to pay their loans and it's crippling their lives.  I get forgiving their loans and think it should be a priority.   It makes no sense to me why people who aren't in that situation should also get paid out. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Allowing student debt to be discharged through personal bankruptcy makes the most sense to me.

I agree, but bankruptcy destroys your credit and causes other problems, and I don't think we should force everyone to go to those lengths to get out from under the yoke of crushing student loan debt.   Limited student loan forgiveness combined with some degree of dischargeability seems to me the best approach. 

[TwiceHorn 31471]

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I agree, but bankruptcy destroys your credit and causes other problems, and I don't think we should force everyone to go to those lengths to get out from under the yoke of crushing student loan debt.   Limited student loan forgiveness combined with some degree of dischargeability seems to me the best approach. 

True enough, but it would decrease moral hazard for both students and lenders.  Even if there's "free college," it would appear that there will still be student loans.

[bad_teammate 13195]

31 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Allowing student debt to be discharged through personal bankruptcy makes the most sense to me.

26 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

OK, I'll stipulate that high-income earners have faced increased downstream costs from the educational system.  Why is making that up to them a priority when they can easily pay their student loan bills?

Because, again, their student loan bills only exist because of a flawed system and it is impossible to know what the actual "fair" amount of loan was.

And because it's simpler and better and cooler and nicer to just Oprah that shit. Unity, brother, embrace it. I know the capitalists (and Brisket) have told you that we're all a bunch of furious animals trying to eat each other, but we're all brothers and we can actually work together for our mutual benefit.

[bad_teammate 13195]

You, smart: "Business flow chart spreadsheet moral hazard data."

Me, an idiot:

[Bama Chick 28596]

I chose to go out of state for college and grad school and I finished with $40,000 in student loans.

I got a BA in American Studies with the intention of going to law school.

I was accepted to law school but three months before beginning I changed my mind after talking to many attorneys - including my future FIL - who to a man and woman told me it wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.

Especially since I wanted to be a prosecutor and took a good look at what my actual return on my investment would be.

I took the GRE last minute to have grad school as an option because while I loved and enjoyed my undergrad studies, I was realistic about the kind of job prospects I would face with an American Studies degree.

I got my masters in Marketing and PR and it turned out to be a good decision.

All that to say, I finished with heavy loan repayments - and that was in the late 90s. No telling what the bill would be in today’s dollars.

I busted my ass and went without a lot but I paid it all off in 6 years.

But I don’t begrudge giving today’s students relief that wasn’t available to me.

Their debt is much larger, the salaries they earn aren’t any higher despite the higher prices they pay for education, and the cost of living is so much higher now.

Plus I have a child with big dreams who wants to go out of state to an expensive university and plans for law school.

I’d love for her to not face the burden I had.

Anyone whining that it isn’t fair for students today to get a break they didn’t get is just a selfish ass.

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

It follows logically from "universal is universal."  Its the same "value" relied upon by supporters of a flat tax. 

OK, I'll stipulate that high-income earners have faced increased downstream costs from the educational system.  Why is making that up to them a priority when they can easily pay their student loan bills? I'm not against it per se, I just don't get the argument for it.   Many people are struggling to pay their loans and it's crippling their lives.  I get forgiving their loans and think it should be a priority.   It makes no sense to me why people who aren't in that situation should also get paid out. 

i answered your same question earlier, but you skimmed past it.

money spent on things besides paying down debt is good for the economy.  there are more reasons to include them than not to include them.

the way trump is claiming responsibility for the uptick makes it all the more important that things stay on a similar trajectory (even though history shows that it likely won't) when the dems take over.

[BradInATX 9208]

Is it a good idea to forgive all the debt without at the same time making public school free? Wouldn't the risk of another future student loan bailout just drive up rates for anyone applying for a loan after the forgiveness? Seems like they have to go hand in hand, simultaneously, to work.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-republican-conservative-democrat.html

“The two women sat next to each other for years in desks arranged alphabetically by surname, and Dr. Cochran, who was Katrina Harry in high school, remembered talking about politics at lunchtime. She adored her friend, but their political views differed. Ms. Warren believed government’s role in American life should be limited.

“She was extremely conservative at the time,” said Dr. Cochran, whose father was working in Democratic politics. She said Ms. Warren would joke about her friend’s Democratic leanings. “She would ask me what other subversive organizations I was a member of besides the Democratic Party.”

 

lulz

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-republican-conservative-democrat.html

“The two women sat next to each other for years in desks arranged alphabetically by surname, and Dr. Cochran, who was Katrina Harry in high school, remembered talking about politics at lunchtime. She adored her friend, but their political views differed. Ms. Warren believed government’s role in American life should be limited.

“She was extremely conservative at the time,” said Dr. Cochran, whose father was working in Democratic politics. She said Ms. Warren would joke about her friend’s Democratic leanings. “She would ask me what other subversive organizations I was a member of besides the Democratic Party.”

lulz

[henrygandorf 29191]

without a hint of irony or self-awareness, trump will attack her for being a former member of the other party.

[bad_teammate 13195]

15 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Is it a good idea to forgive all the debt without at the same time making public school free? Wouldn't the risk of another future student loan bailout just drive up rates for anyone applying for a loan after the forgiveness? Seems like they have to go hand in hand, simultaneously, to work.

HAVE IG OT NEWS FOR YOU BROTHER

It's all in the same bill

[BradInATX 9208]

HAVE IG OT NEWS FOR YOU BROTHER

It's all in the same bill

Right. Does Warren's? I guess it could be nitpicking as she's just churning out policy. One would assume she'd bundle forgiveness with free tuition if it gets to that point.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Some are really running with this “Elizabeth Warren is a secret Republican” narrative and it’s hilarious.  No way that could backfire. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Anastasis 23469]

8 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I chose to go out of state for college and grad school and I finished with $40,000 in student loans.

....

Their debt is much larger...

Both yours and my student loan debt was higher than the average current student loan debt levels. I think the biggest change has been in the total percentage of people with any loan. Note the percent of graduates with most loans among for-profit college attendees, also with highest average loan balance. But the vast majority of people with graduating with student loan debt are in the sub 50k range, and majority under 25k. These are fairly manageable loan balances, all things considered. 

 

https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/

More shocking student loan debt statistics

If those numbers weren’t stunning enough, here’s a closer look at how students accumulate debt based on the type of school they attend.

• 65% of seniors graduating from public and nonprofit colleges in 2017 had student loan debt.
• Average debt at graduation from public and nonprofit colleges was $28,650 in 2017, a 1% increase from 2016.
• 66% of graduates from public colleges had loans (average debt of $25,550)
• 75% of graduates from private nonprofit colleges had loans (average debt of $32,300)
• 88% of graduates from for-profit colleges had loans (average debt of $39,950)
• About 15% of the student debt held by the graduating class of 2017 was private.
• 48% of borrowers who attended for-profit colleges default within 12 years, compared to 12% of public college attendees, and 14% of nonprofit college attendees.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-student-loan-debt

[BradInATX 9208]

Some are really running with this “Elizabeth Warren is a secret Republican” narrative and it’s hilarious.  No way that could backfire. 

It's not a secret. Her, Bill Kristol, the Koch's, me, you, and the corpse of Will Buckley are using her to infiltrate the Democratic party and make everyone sign a blood oath to be a straight Christian for life.

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

14 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Right. Does Warren's? 

I don't know if she has legislation ready to be filed, but she pairs the two initiatives as well.

[bad_teammate 13195]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Some are really running with this “Elizabeth Warren is a secret Republican” narrative and it’s hilarious.  No way that could backfire. 

She deserves better advocates than you.

[TDunk 590]

Do these plans involve only Federal student loans?  Because there are plenty of private loans that are still outstanding for degree holders out there.  

[bad_teammate 13195]

56 minutes ago, TDunk said:

Do these plans involve only Federal student loans?  Because there are plenty of private loans that are still outstanding for degree holders out there.  

Both plans apply to private loans as well as federal loans. (Warren's relief is capped at $50k, Sanders's is full amount.)

 

[6th Street 6403]

These funds offered up for debt relief would be better earmarked for affordable healthcare for the uninsured. This would benefit ALL Americans, not just college graduates. 

[David Dennison 18860]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Both plans apply to private loans as well as federal loans. (Warren's relief is capped at $50k, Sanders's is full amount.)

How does Bernie get this passed into law?

[EuroHorn 3264]

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

How does Bernie get this passed into law?

He won’t ...but just like you got talked into getting a worthless journalism  degree, you’ll believe it’s worth something 

Edited June 25, 2019 by EuroHorn

[bad_teammate 13195]

20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

How does Bernie get this passed into law?

Why are you specifically asking about Bernie's in the Warren thread?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

[henrygandorf 29191]

8 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

He won’t ...but just like you got talked into getting a worthless journalism  degree, you’ll believe it’s worth something 

your answer was better before the edit.

[EuroHorn 3264]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

your answer was better before the edit.

Groverat knows...

[David Dennison 18860]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why are you specifically asking about Bernie's in the Warren thread?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Cuz I like to party.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Fair enough.

The only way to get any progressive legislation does is to change the makeup of Congress either by bringing in entirely new people or exerting the pressure necessary on the existing legislators to get the votes you need.

You get people in the streets marching and calling out their House Reps and Senators. You get people ringing their phones off the hook. You get people flooding their offices with mail. You get people occupying their offices.

- If it's a Republican, you get people to run vigorously against them and you organize and work for their opponent.

- If it's a Democrat standing in the way, you primary them vigorously and organize and work for their opponent.

You say, "Do what the people want or the people are going to remove you from office and make your life hell. I will name your name. I will tell them who is standing in the way."

And if you have millions of active and fired-up people, you can do that.

I would be genuinely interested in hearing how Warren plans to get her version passed.

[bad_teammate 13195]

@David Dennison

How is Liz going to get her agenda passed?

[wildcat09 29354]

12 hours ago, 6th Street said:

These funds offered up for debt relief would be better earmarked for affordable healthcare for the uninsured. This would benefit ALL Americans, not just college graduates. 

How bout we do both?

[David Dennison 18860]

Put her proposals forward, build support, get a bill bill before Congress, negotiate, get a vote, sign the bill.

It won't work for all of her proposals. It will work for some.

America!

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Put her proposals forward, build support, get a bill bill before Congress, negotiate, get a vote, sign the bill.

It won't work for all of her proposals. It will work for some.

America!

Among whom? How?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

New Plan:

My Plan to Strengthen Our Democracy

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-strengthen-our-democracy-6867ec1bcd3c

Elections are the foundation of our democracy, but in the United States — the greatest democracy in the world — our government treats voting like it’s one of the least important things we do. We have around 8,000 election jurisdictions all doing their own thing. They are overstretched, under-resourced, and their technology is often laughably out of date.

Voting should be easy. But instead, many states make it hard for people to vote. We have all heard stories about polling places running out of ballots, computer problems causing delays, ballot designs confusing voters, and extremely long lines preventing working people from voting. And on top of these administrative issues, racist and partisan officials often deliberately seek to stop citizens from exercising the right to vote. States have purged names from the voter rolls, limited same-day registration, closed polling places in communities of color, used voter ID laws to try to disenfranchise Native Americans, and even placed restrictions and criminal penalties on efforts to register new voters.

Our elections should be as secure as Fort Knox. But instead, they’re less secure than your Amazon account. State and local officials take their jobs seriously, but they often don’t have the resources to secure their elections. Even then, it’s hard for local officials to defend against attacks from foreign governments. In the 2016 election, the Russian government tried to infiltrate at least 39 state election systems and at least one election equipment company. They tried to spear-phish more than 100 local election officials’ email accounts. They even successfully broke into several voter registration databases.

The harsh truth is that our elections are extremely vulnerable to attack: Forty-two states use voter registration databases that are more than a decade old. Laughably, in 2019, some still use Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Twelve states still use paperless machines, meaning there’s no paper trail to verify vote counts. Some states don’t require post-election audits. And ten states don’t train election officials to deal with cybersecurity threats. This is a national security threat, and three years after a hostile foreign power literally attacked our democracy, we’ve done far too little to address it.

We need a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to vote. But the moral necessity of this amendment shouldn’t stop us from acting now. The federal government already has the power to regulate federal elections, secure our democracy, and put a stop to racist voter suppression.

Under our Constitution, Congress can regulate the “Times, Places, and Manner,” of federal elections. This power is so broad that even Justice Scalia believed this provision gives Congress “authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections.” Congress also has the power to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments to prevent voting discrimination, and the power of the purse to grant money to the states to meet federal standards. It’s time to draw on these constitutional powers to strengthen our democracy.

Enough is enough. It is time to make high-quality voting in the greatest democracy in the world easy, convenient, and professional. It’s time to secure our elections from all threats, foreign and domestic. It’s time to address election security, administration problems, and voter suppression.

Here’s how my plan will work:

• Federal elections get state-of-the-art federal machines, federal ballots, and federal security. Right now some jurisdictions use dated machines that are easily hackable with no paper trail. Ballot design is all over the place. No more. The federal government will replace every voting machine in the country with state-of-the-art equipment and require adoption of a uniform federal ballot. And we will lock all federal voting technology systems behind a security firewall like it’s Fort Knox.
• Federal standards for federal elections. We have 8,000 election jurisdictions running elections. Problems with resources, malfeasance, and errors are rampant. No more. We will have federal standards to ensure everyone can vote, including mandating automatic and same-day registration, early voting, and vote by mail. My plan will mean no more arbitrary voter purges. No more registration issues. And no more gerrymandering. We will also make Election Day a holiday to make it easier for people to get to the polls.
• Enforce the law and expand access — through incentives where possible, and with federal authority where necessary. My plan will give states cutting-edge voting equipment and election security protocols, all paid for by the federal government, and states will be required to follow all federal standards for federal elections. States who also choose to meet these requirements in their state elections can work through federal-state partnership agreements to have those elections fully funded by the federal government, too — and we’ll give them a bonus for achieving high voter turnout rates. And where racist or corrupt politicians refuse to follow the law, the federal government will temporarily take over the administration of their federal elections to guarantee the fundamental right to vote.

---

Securing Our Elections

Under my plan, federal elections will get state-of-the-art federal machines, federal ballots, and federal security. The federal government will replace insecure and outdated systems with hand-marked, voter-verified paper ballot machines. To prevent hanging-chads and other confusing ballot designs, we’ll have uniform federal ballots all across the country that are based on easy-to-use design principles. The federal government will also provide every polling location with accessible ballot machines for people with disabilities and conduct research into how to improve voting security and accessibility for all people, including those with disabilities and people for whom English isn’t their primary language.

Through a new independent Secure Democracy Administration, which will replace the Election Assistance Commission and be staffed by civil servants, the federal government will manage the cybersecurity aspects of elections and develop additional security procedures for election administration and the end-to-end handling of ballots. States will implement these additional security measures, and will receive technical assistance and training from the Secure Democracy Administration. In addition, states will be required to conduct risk-limiting audits prior to certifying elections — and we’ll have independent oversight of those audits.

Establishing Binding Federal Standards for Federal Elections

Our elections are never going to be secure, fair, or workable with so many jurisdictions each making their own rules — especially when some officials deliberately manipulate those rules to stop people from voting. Under my plan, we’ll have a uniform set of federal election standards that achieve four goals:

No more registration problems. My plan will mandate automatic voter registration and same-day registration for federal elections. State and federal government agencies will automatically register voters and transfer that information to state elections officials, and voters can opt-out, if they choose. Every state will also be required to offer same-day registration, which acts as a fail-safe for anyone who is mistakenly left off the rolls.

No more voter purges. Under my plan, states will be banned from removing voters from the election rolls unless the voter affirmatively requests to be removed or there is objective evidence of a legitimate reason to remove them, like death, change of address, or loss of eligibility to vote. We will also re-enfranchise those who have served their time and left prison.

No more difficulties voting. We will make Election Day a national holiday, and all federal elections will have a minimum of 15 days of early voting, expanded voting hours, the option to vote with a sworn statement of identity instead of an ID, convenient polling locations, and voting by mail. And we will pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Native American Voting Rights Act to shut down a host of festering discriminatory practices.

No more gerrymandering. Under my plan, states will be required to use independent redistricting commissions to draw federal congressional districts to prevent gerrymandering. Both parties should compete on a level playing field; not in a rigged game designed to suppress the will of the people.

Enforcing the law and expanding access — through incentives where possible, and with federal authority where necessary

Our democracy shouldn’t be about keeping people out — it should strive to bring everyone to the polls. Under my plan, states will receive new state-of-the-art machines and federal election security, all paid for by the federal government, and they will also be obligated to comply with the federal standards for federal elections. But we should make voting easier in all elections — federal, state, and local. I’m proposing a federal-state partnership so that states will have a strong financial incentive to follow these rules in their state and local elections as well — and to maximize voter turnout.

Here’s how it will work: the federal government will pay the entirety of a state’s election administration costs, as long as the state meets federal standards in its state and local elections and works to make voting more convenient. States will create state implementation plans, describing how they will adhere to federal law and increase access to voting (e.g. location of polling places). The Secure Democracy Administration will review state implementation plans for compliance with federal law, election security protocols, potentially racially discriminatory impacts, and efforts to make voting more convenient. States that achieve high percentage voter turnout, including across racial, gender, and age groups, will be awarded additional bonus payments. All plans will be finalized well in advance of Election Day, and states will provide data on their election activities. If a state does not participate in the federal-state partnership, but a local jurisdiction within the state wishes to do so, the local jurisdiction can work with the federal government to create a local implementation plan and it will get access to federal funds to cover its election administration costs.

States can choose to follow their own rules for their state and local elections. But if they do, they won’t receive new funding for administering state elections beyond election security measures, and they will still have to administer federal elections in accordance with federal law — including preclearance for any changes that might have a discriminatory impact under the Voting Rights Advancement Act.

If state or local election officials choose to ignore these federal rules and instead move to violate them, my plan will give the Secure Democracy Administration the authority to seek a court order to step in and guarantee that every voter has access to the polls unless or until the state shows its intent to fully comply with federal law. The right to vote is a fundamental right, and we will not let racist and corrupt politicians undermine it or our democracy.

---

Our democracy is too important for it to be under-resourced and insecure. We need to do everything we can to make sure our elections are convenient, professional, and secure — and we should be willing to pay for it. Based on estimates of national election administration expenses, recent state efforts to upgrade their election systems, and assessments of the costs of new machines and audits, to cover these costs, we would allocate around $20 billion over ten years, which includes around $15 billion for election administration and around $5 billion for election security. This investment can be fully paid for with revenue generated from the Ultra-Millionaire Tax.

Democracy hangs on the idea that whoever gets the most votes wins. Politicians are supposed to compete over how many voters they can persuade, not how many they can disqualify or demoralize. And we have a solemn obligation to secure our elections from those who would try to undermine them. That’s why the Constitution gives Congress the tools to regulate the administration of federal elections. It’s time to pick up those tools and use them.

Talk amongst yourselves...

[bad_teammate 13195]

Very excellent stuff in there.

If we can get that stuff, we have a chance to make real changes possible.

War Liz!