Let's start with Face the Nation, where Margaret Brennan spoke with Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina and The White House), and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) who is also a candidate for president.
Kudlow talked about trade, basically that we'll outlast the tariffs and that Trump is doing what needs to be done and everything's going to be OK and there'll be no recession. Graham admitted that tariffs had an impact on his southern constituents, but that we need to accept the pain that comes with Trump's standing up to Beijing.
Klobuchar talked about Trump's China policy, such as it is, noting that he's been using tariffs "like a tweet cleaver" and pointed out all of the twists and turns we've heard on China just this month
...on August 1st he announced $300 billion goods, more tariffs. Then on August 13th they reversed it. Then on August 20th they said they were going to do taxes - because of the fears of recession, they were going to reduce taxes which, of course, would only add more to the debt that he's created. And then the next day they reversed that.Her approach, if elected, would be to go back to the negotiating table with our allies. They'd look at the tariffs. Some would go, some would stay - and there'd be focus on enforcement as well.
On the administration's plan to get rid of the Flores agreement, here's Klobuchar's take.
This will end up in court. And my guess is that it will be thrown out because of the way this administration has handled immigration. But I think the bigger issue here, Margaret, is that if he really wanted to do something about this, he's pass comprehensive immigration reform which would be better for our economy, instead of using these immigrants as pawns.On CNN's Face the Nation, Senator Bernie Sanders (not a D-VT) talked with Brianna Keilar (sittin in for Jake Tapper) about the change that's not a change in his Medicare for All plan.
Basically, the senator caved to unions who were expressing concern about having to give up their hard-fought health insurance benefits. In some cases, the unions negotiated smaller wage increases in exchange for improving (or at least not losing) their health insurance benefits. So, Sanders now says that if a union benefits plan moves to Medicare for All, the savings for the company have to be given to union members in the form of wages.
Brianna Keilar (sitting in for Jake Tapper) asked why all workers shouldn't receive the same benefit, the wage increase, when their company moves to Medicare for All. Here's the response.
Well, they are going to receive an enormous benefit. The overwhelming majority of the American people are going to pay significantly less for better health care under Medicare for All. Right now you've got 87M people who are uninsured, underinsured; 500,000 go bankrupt every year because they cannot pay their outrageous medical bills. You've got 30,000 people who are dying. People are spending 10, 15, 20% of their limited income on health care.
But Medicare for all will do is lower the cost of health care for the overwhelming majority of Americans. That's how they benefit, no premiums, no copayments, no deductibles, no out-of-pocket expenses, every American, virtually every American.Keilar tried again, noting "a non-union worker, unlike a union worker, under your plan, if there is a savings, their employer sees a saving, they would not be guaranteed to have higher wages or benefits to realize the savings."
Well the difference - but the difference is -- I will tell you why not, because union workers gave up wage benefits over the years in order to pay for health care, and non-union workers did not, that's the difference. But at the end of the day, the vast majority of of the American people - union and non-union workers, will benefit under a Medicare for All.And what about his opponents who say this is special treatment?
Very few people - very few people have been attacking me. I think one candidates, and the media picks up on it... the issue again, as I've just said, is that if you are a worker in a union shop and the company says, well we're going to offer you a 3% wage increase, but you know what, you're going to have to pay - you're going to lose 4% in your health care, your deductible is going up, your premium is going up, those workers have given up wage increases in order to retain the health care that they have. Those are the workers we are reaching out to in this -- what we are doing right now.Actually, here's the truth: union workers have the opportunity to be at the table when these decisions are made. Regular folks, non-union workers, are not at the table when these decisions are made.
I worked for a health insurance company, and when our premiums, copays, or formulary changed, I found out during open enrollment, like millions of other non-union workers. We didn't have the benefit of a two- or three-year contract to help us prepare for the changes in costs - we got hit with them, and we did the best we could to manage them. I'm retired, but why wouldn't my former coworkers and everyone else deserve the same wage bump as the union workers will get when their company moves to the new plan?
I'll tell you why: unions endorsements carry a lot of weight, and they spend a lot of money helping Dems get elected. He's creating two separate classes in the 99%, which goes completely against what he supposedly stands for.
It's pandering, pure and simple, I don't care what Sanders says.
See you around campus.