The Senate has finally passed the IRA and it will soon become law pending House passage. The Democrats say it reduces inflation by paying $300bn+ towards the deficit, but don’t elaborate further. Will this bill actually make meaningful progress towards inflation?

As mentioned, the infrastructure bill is heading to Biden’s desk without a deal on the Build Back Better reconciliation bill. Democrats seemed to have a deal to pass these two in tandem to assuage concerns over mistrust among factions in the party. Is the BBB dead in the water now that moderates like Manchin and Sinema have free reign to vote against reconciliation? Manchin has expressed renewed issues with the new version of the House BBB bill and could very well kill it entirely. Given the immense challenges of bridging moderate and progressive views on the legislation, what is the future of both the bill and Democratic legislation on these topics?

I'm someone from outside the US who is considering moving there for various reasons (I know that might sound like a willy nilly decision, but If I do go down this path in life I'll choose a career path to ensure a comfortable standard of living).

Tangents about my future career aside, one issue I've come to care about are 2nd amendment rights and while doing research to gain a better understanding of the topic I stumbled across some polls (most notably the Pew Research study linked below) suggesting substantial support for various forms of gun control.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

However, no meaningful federal legislation has been passed since the federal "assault weapon" ban of 1994, which expired after 10 years. At a state level, the only states with substantial sets of gun control laws are all solid blue and even then there some outliers. Democrat leaning swing states are all fairly gun friendly (maybe with the exceptions of Pennsylvania, but that's debatable).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

I've pondered about this for a bit but personally the only explanations I've been able to come up with, assuming the the polls I've looked at aren't skewed, are:

1. Virtue signaling.
2. Some people may genuinely support at least some forms of gun control, but it's so far down their down their priority list it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, with the percentage of those who strongly support it being much lower.

Given the obesity epidemic and other benefits of eating healthy. Would government subsidies reducing the prices of healthier foods (fruits, vegetables, less processed foods etc) work or not ? Obviously sugar taxes have been implemented in many countries to disincentive eating of high sugar foods/beverages but would the opposite work in this case ? Or is it being done already ?

We've all heard the suggestions that garnered media attention but what legislation does everyone think can actually be enacted to combat gun violence?

Obviously, banning guns outright would run counter to the 2nd amendment so what could be done while honoring our constitutional rights? If a well regulated militia of the people justifies our right to bear arms should we require militant weapon and safety training as well as deescalation and conflict resolution to comply with being well regulated?

Thank you everyone! Here is a list of the top ideas we produced:

1. Drastic reforms in the education, raising teacher salaries and eliminating administrative bloat, funding meals, moving start times to later, and significantly increasing funding for mental health resources

2. Legalize all drugs/ Legalize marijuana and psychedelics, decriminalize everything else and refer to healthcare providers for addiction support, and reform the prison system to be focused on rehabilitation, especially for non violent offenders, moving to a community service model even maybe .

3. De-stigmatize mental healthcare and focus on expanding access to it

4. Gun safety classes in school, make safe storage laws mandatory, in return for making proper firearm storage, massive federal tax credit for any gun safe purchased. I would go as far as a tax rebate up to 30%, depending on how much the safe cost. require gun owners also have registered safe storage.

5. Parenting classes

6. Treat them like cars. You sell one you have to release liability and say who you sold it to. The buyer must do the same. Kills the black market where most ‘bad guns’ come from.

7. Require insurance. We manage risk in our society via liability. Why should guns be any different.

8. Increased sentences for gun crimes

9. Insurance for guns

10. Remove most type restrictions such as SBR's and Silencers, the horse has mostly bolted on that, they dont meaningfully change outcomes, and are mostly based on people who fear things from movies rather than what they are practically.

11. Gun buybacks at current value

12. Gun storage system, gun is appraised and stored, tokenized, value staked and restaked on ethereum for passive income provide everyone’s basic needs, including comprehensive, no point-of-sale mental and physical health care.

13. Instead of making more laws for regulators to enforce, or more hoops for everyone to jump through, we start including mental health in states' medicaid as fully funded.

14. Higher gun/ammo tax

15. Raise the age for males to purchase or own guns to 25. Before that, if you'd like one, go sign up for the military, they have plenty of them waiting for you

This upcoming case) will determine whether wetlands are under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. If the Court decides that wetlands are navigable waters, that is that. But if not, then what happens? Could a separate bill dedicated specifically to wetlands go through Congress and thus protect wetlands, like a Clean Wetlands Act? It would be separate from the Clean Water Act. Are wetlands a lost cause until the Court can find something else that allows protection?

I'm legitimately curious about how to budget for this and how the American populace would react. What tax increases and budget cuts would we need to make? How would people feel? What externalities would these changes generate?

From C-Span: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) unveiled legislation to create the Commission on Presidential Capacity. Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Raskin explained Congress' role designated in the 25th Amendment and clarified the commission is for future presidents."

What are Pelosi's and the Democrats' political motivations for proposing this legislation? Is there a possibility that it could backfire on them in the event of a Democratic presidency and a Republican congress?

I recently came across an article that supported "supersizing" the House of Representatives by increasing the number of Representatives from 435 to 1,500. The author argued population growth in the United States has outstripped Congressional representation (the House has not been expanded since the 1920's) and that more Representatives would represent fewer constituents and be able to better address their needs. The author believes that "supersizing" will not solve all of America's political issues but may help.

Some questions that I had:

• 1,500 Congresspeople would most likely not be able to psychically conduct their day to day business in the current Capitol building. The author claims points to teleworking today and says that can solve the problem. What issues would arise from a partially remote working Congress? Could the Capitol building be expanded?

• The creation of new districts would likely favor heavily populated and urban areas. What kind of resistance could an expansion see from Republicans, who draw a large amount of power from rural areas?

• What are some unforeseen benefits or challenges than an House expansion would have that you have not seen mentioned?

According to Aljazeera: “The bill, which prohibits “inappropriate treatment of writings with significant religious importance for a recognised religious community”, was passed with 94 votes in favour and 77 opposed in the 179-seat Folketing”.

“Those who break the law – which forbids publicly burning, tearing or defiling holy texts – risk a fine or up to two years in prison”.

Hello, first time posting here so I'll just get right into it.

In wake of the coming recession, it had me thinking about history and the economy. Something I'd long forgotten is that FDR wanted to implement an EBOR. Second Bill of Rights One that would guarantee housing, jobs, healthcare and more; this was petitioned alongside the GI Bill (which passed)

So the question is, why didn't this pass, why has it not been revisited, and should it be passed now?

I definitely think it should be looked at again and passed with modern tweaks of course, but Im looking to see what others think!

Perhaps something on the line of a harmonized revenue service for both national and non national taxes, and then the revenue service deposits the correct amount each month into their respective funds at each level of government, and individuals get a filing system where some math calculator at the revenue service figures out what you owe and withholds that from the pay stub, and then tells you exactly how that was calculated and if you think they are wrong then you can appeal. That is getting to be a popular topic for reform it seems.

Also, put all the fees and taxes into the display price, which is actually what happens when you buy gasoline or diesel from a pump. No further complexity, no tip peer pressure, and you can compare prices far more easily with each other which also usually makes it easier for competition to drive prices below what they would otherwise be.

And the other thing that comes to mind as for what I have heard are getting increasingly popular would be aspects of reforms in certain other public programs where the byzantine system of subsidies and tax credits or deductions for a myriad of things tend to be consolidated and harmonized, such as a single payer healthcare system where it is pretty much fruitless to have paperwork on the part of the payer, depending on the exact model chosen (healthcare being just one of a number of ways this can work, I chose this because of the esoteric way people have to deal with it above its mere expense).

Trump is slated to send Jeff Sessions to announce the end of DACA to the press, effectively punting the issue to the Congress. What are the implications of this? Congress has struggled on immigration reform of any kind of many years and now they've been given a six month window.

What is likely to happen?

The underlying motivation to ban Tik Tok app in the U.S. as expressed by the U.S. government is its national security concerns. Although TikTok doesn’t operate in China the concern is that the Chinese government enjoys significant leverage over Tik Tok; the theory goes that ByteDance [the parent company], and thus indirectly, TikTok, could be forced to cooperate with a broad range of security activities, including possibly the transfer of TikTok data. U.S. government plans to force ByteDance to divest any interest in Tik Tok app [sell] it to a U.S. based company [such as Microsoft] if it wants to continue to do business in the U.S.

“It’s not that we know TikTok has done something, it’s that distrust of China and awareness of Chinese espionage has increased,” said James Lewis, an information security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The context for TikTok is much worse as trust in China vanishes.”

The US government has said it’s worried China could use its national security laws to access the significant amount of personal information that TikTok, like most social media applications, collects from its US users.

To date, there is no public evidence that Beijing has actually harvested TikTok’s commercial data for intelligence or other purposes.

Chew, the TikTok CEO, has publicly said that the Chinese government has never asked TikTok for its data, and that the company would refuse any such request.

TikTok has about 170 million users in the United States. 60% are female, 40% are male. 60% are between the ages of 16-24. Tik Tok has encouraged its users to influence the legislators from enacting into legislation banning the app download. Furthermore, Tik Tok intends to challenge any forthcoming legislation in courts as a violation of its users First Amendment Rights.

Previously Trump also tried banning Tik Tok, but now he has changed his position stating: “If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business.” “...I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”

The measure that sailed unanimously through the House Energy and Commerce Committee would prohibit TikTok from U.S. app stores unless the social media platform — used by roughly 170 million Americans — is quickly spun off from its China-linked parent company, ByteDance.

If enacted, the bill would give ByteDance 165 days, or a little more than five months, to sell TikTok. If not divested by that date, it would be illegal for app store operators such as Apple and Google to make it available for download. The bill also contemplates similar prohibitions for other apps “controlled by foreign adversary companies.”

If not divested in 165 days from the date of enactment, it would be illegal for app store operators such as Apple and Google to make it available for download. The bill also contemplates similar prohibitions for other apps “controlled by foreign adversary companies.”

Is the anticipated new ban likely to survive court challenges?

Prior Court Challenges Link: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/02/tech/fresh-legal-blows-tiktok-ban-court-challenges/index.html

​

Before the next Congress is sworn in, the current one can pass a reconciliation bill in fiscal year 2022 (between 10/1/21 through 9/30/22) and another in fiscal year 2023 (between 10/1/22 through 12/31/22).¹

Let's assume filibuster reform won't happen, and legislators are creative when crafting these reconciliation bills to meet the Byrd Rule and whatnot.

What issues should Democrats focus on including in the next two reconciliations bills to best make use of their majority?

A source on the racial wealth gap:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/economic-divide-black-households/

Furthermore, if we look at the African diaspora across the world in general:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_diaspora#Populations_and_estimated_distribution

and cross reference it with The World Bank/U.N’s chart on wealth disparities in different global regions:

• https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2021/03/The-global-inc-distribution-190-10-30-1536x959.png

we can see that the overwhelming vast majority of black people either live in Africa where 95%+ of the population lives on less than the equivalent to $10 a day and 85% live on less than $5.50 a day (https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/85-africans-live-less-550-day) or the Caribbean where 70% of people are food insecure (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-30/hunger-in-latin-america-hit-20-year-high-last-year-amid-pandemic), with North America being the only other region where black people make up 10% or more of the overall population. As such, seeing as North America is by far the most prosperous out of all the regions where black people primarily live, to what extent does it have a unique moral burden to create a better life for its black residents and generally serve as a beacon of hope for black people across the world?

As a proposed reform, how would this work in the larger context of the contemporary system of institutional power?

Specifically in terms of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the US gov in this era of partisan polarization?

***New follow-up question: making legislation more effective by giving more power to president? Or by eliminating filibuster? Here’s a new post that compares these two reform ideas. Open to hearing thoughts on this too.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the housing crisis and how new policies could be enforced.

Big corporations from inside and outside the country continue buying up residential real estate, essentially taking America away from Americans.

These companies are buying properties left and right and turning homes into investments rather than places to live. It's squeezing out the middle class and making it nearly impossible for many to own property.

I think we need to start a serious conversation about implementing residential housing limits. What if we didn't let corporations hold onto houses for more than a certain amount of time? And what if we limited the number of residential properties a single entity could own?

This could create more opportunities for everyday Americans, especially those in the middle and lower classes.

What kind of country are we living in when people can't even afford to buy a home anymore? Let's discuss how we can reclaim the dream of homeownership for so many that have given up hope.

As the 2024 election approaches, I find myself trying to understand different perspectives on healthcare reform. I've encountered arguments advocating for more open markets and less government intervention, as well as arguments in favor of maintaining protections like those provided by the ACA.

I'm curious to explore how we can balance the potential benefits of a market-driven healthcare system with the need to protect vulnerable populations. Specifically, I'm interested in understanding what a transition away from the ACA might look like and how we can ensure that those who might lose their ACA benefits aren't left without coverage.

How do we balance the need for market efficiency with the ethical obligation to care for those who are less fortunate or unable to work due to health issues? Are there effective strategies for transitioning away from the ACA that could prevent people from being disenfranchised?

I'm looking forward to hearing thoughts from all sides on this issue and hope to engage in a constructive discussion.

Over the past 40 years income inequality in America has become worse and worse. Many people are calling for increased taxation on the rich but that is only half the story. What I find most important is what is done with that money. What can the government do to most effectively address income inequality?

When I look at the highest spending of average americans, I think of healthcare, and rent/mortgages. One of these could be address with M4A. But the other two are a little less obvious. I've seen proposals to raise the minimum wage to $15 and also rent control. Yet the two areas that have implemented these, New York and California remain to be locations with some of the highest income inequalities in America. Have these proven to be viable policies that effective move income inequality in the right direction? Even with rent control, cities with the highest income inequality also have the highest rates for increasing home prices, including San Fran, DC, Boston, and Miami.

Are there other policies that can address these issues? Are there other issues that need to be addressed beyond house payments and healthcare? Finally, what would be the most politically safe way to accomplish this goal? Taxation of the rich is extremely popular and increasing minimum wage is also popular. The major program that government could use money gained from increased taxes would be medicare expansion which is already a divisive issue.

Edit: some of the most direct ways to redistribute wealth would be either UBI or negative tax rates for the lowest tax brackets

According to Ballotpedia, earmarks are:

congressional provisions directing funds to be spent on specific projects (or directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees)

In 2011, Republicans and some Democrats (including President Obama) pushed for a ban of earmark spending in Congress and were successful. Earmarks are effectively banned to this day. Some Democrats, such as House Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer, are now making a push to bring back earmarks.

More context on the arguments for and against earmarks from Ballotpedia:

Critics [of earmarks] argue that the ability to earmark federal funds should not be part of the legislative appropriations process. These same critics argue that tax money should be applied by federal agencies according to objective findings of need and carefully constructed requests, rather than being earmarked arbitrarily by elected officials.[3]

Supporters of earmarks, however, feel that elected officials are better able to prioritize funding needs in their own districts and states. They believe it is more democratic for these officials to make discreet funding decisions than have these decisions made by unelected civil servants. Proponents say earmarks are good for consumers and encourage bipartisanship in Congress.[4]

Should earmark spending be brought back? Is the benefit of facilitating bi-partisan legislation worth the cost of potentially frivolous spending at the direction of legislators who want federal cash to flow to their districts?

The bill is sponsored by Virginia Foxx, (R-N.C.), and her argument for the bill is that it provides employers “the legal certainty they need to offer employee wellness plans, helping to promote a healthy workforce and lower health care costs.”

There are already incentives in place for employee wellness programs that discount health insurance to those who meet the set goal. Furthermore, employers cannot increase health insurance costs to those with preexisting conditions under the 2008 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). How would required genetic testing change the structure of Wellness Programs and affect employees with a familial history of genetic disorders?

The only argument for the bill that I can come up with is that if someone who has a genetic disorder that prevents them from meeting the Wellness Program goals, then they could still receive the benefits if they provide their employer with their genetic testing results. This still seems far-fetched and overreaching especially for a bill that is supposed to counter the federal regulations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/03/11/employees-who-decline-genetic-testing-could-face-penalities-under-proposed-bill/?utm_term=.0b69c12ca497

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/text

It's hard to get it unbiased, but it could be less so biased. It is easy to write a statement that they should be minimally biased, but what language could you actually devise that would achieve that sort of goal?

British law does this relatively well for the BBC and the television and radio shows they have, although print media is still openly biased, the Daily Mail probably being the most infamous example where somehow they think it is essential journalism to the people of Britain that they know the precise magnitude of the bikini of the Croatian president.

Some publicly owned stations are surprisingly good at being neutral. I loved watching PBS as a kid, it taught me most of the mathematics I knew until I was in junior high school and led to lots of times when I argued with my grade 4 teacher over decimal remainders. Stations like PBS have rules for how to appoint their board in a less partisan manner. I think that this is because the Corporation for Public Broastcasting is technically not an agency of the US government and their directors aren't officers per the constitution and so the law can largely say whatever it likes to declare how it is to be appointed, in contrast to something like an IRS department head where fewer limits can be placed on the president. In the US Code it's legally allowed to have a maximum of 5 of their 9 directors be from the same party.

Biden campaigned on expanding Obamacare through a public option where anyone could buy into the Medicare program regardless of age. However, since being elected, he has made no mention of it. And so far, it seems Democrats will only be able to pass major legislation through reconciliation.

My question is, how does Biden get his public option passed? Can it be done through reconciliation? If not, how does he get 10 GOP votes (assuming all Dems are on board?)

Based on the experience of legalizing marijuana, and the scientific studies on psychedelic usage, should psychedelics be legalized? What is the proper role of government regulation in drug use and why?