Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
That, and them going "I deserve it moooooreeee!" is likely to bite them on the keister quite heavily down the road.
Semper Fi. Semper Paratus. Vigilo Confido.No, it won't. The people who will pay attention already expected them to be hypocrites. Anyone who would be surprised by this will just be the usual "Huh? But... if they want the vaccine... does that mean... President Trump is a liar?" interviewees the Times props up every now and again.
It's been fun.Remember how Becerra supported Medicare-for-All when he was a Representative in the House? Apparently, as Health and Human Services Secretary, he could help it along. (Just to be clear, the article doesn't say he will support the measures they're suggesting, just that it's a possibility.) NY Times
The Health and Human Services secretary oversees an array of waivers that states can use to cover new groups or provide different types of health plans. Because these waivers do not require congressional approval, they could become a crucial policymaking tool for the Biden administration if Republicans retain control of the Senate.
"Without a Senate majority, it will be hard to advance some of the fundamental planks of the administration’s plans," said Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "That's where the waiver authority becomes important."
Some of the waivers can work through the Medicaid program, which has authority to allow states to cover additional groups or to provide enhanced health benefits.
Others can go through the Affordable Care Act, which has a section that allows states to bundle their different sources of health law funding - such as the individual premium subsidies that residents would receive, or tax credits that would go to small businesses - and take those dollars as a lump sum to finance a different type of health system. States do have to meet certain requirements: They cannot increase the uninsured rate, and their plan cannot require additional federal money.
Which types of waivers get approval often depends on the policy preferences of the administration and the Health and Human Services secretary. The Trump administration has typically approved waivers that tighten eligibility for public health programs, such as those requiring Medicaid recipients to work to receive health coverage.
The waivers approved by Mr. Becerra as part of the Biden administration would most likely be different, and could reflect his long track record of supporting single-payer health care. He endorsed the idea as a first-term congressman in 1994 and sponsored Medicare for all legislation four times during his 12 terms in Congress. In 2017, he reiterated that he "absolutely" supports a policy that would move all Americans to one government-run health plan.
Most observers expect Mr. Becerra and the Biden administration to be amenable to waivers that expand health coverage in small and large ways.
"Waivers are discretionary for the secretary," said Patricia Boozang, a senior managing director at the consulting firm Manatt Health. "There's a lot of innovative ideas that states have around expanding coverage and making it more affordable."
States will also have the opportunity to pursue more experimental and larger coverage expansions. Many experts believe that Mr. Becerra's waiver authority would easily allow a state-level public option to move forward. Nevada, Colorado and Connecticut have all considered the idea in recent years, and President-elect Biden supported the idea in his 2020 campaign.
An enterprising health secretary, working in partnership with a state, could also go even further. Some experts believe that a combination of Medicare, Medicaid and Affordable Care Act waivers could allow a state to build a single-payer plan with all of its federal health dollars.
This speaks to one weakness of much of the waiver process: Though states can use their federal funding in new ways, they typically cannot receive additional money. Any extra dollars they need would have to come either from raising taxes or cutting something else in their budget.
The hardest part of moving single-payer health care forward this way may be finding a state that wants to step up and try again. The coronavirus has significantly strained state budgets; many states are now exploring cuts to their Medicaid programs rather than thinking about ways to expand coverage.
A few states have shown at least some interest in taking on the issue, but none are poised to pursue a federal waiver.
So, for example, if coronavirus stimulus helped states recover their budget lost from COVID, a state with a progressive Democratic legislature could pass M 4 A and pay for it with ACA and Medicaid funds (I think - please let me know if I'm missing something here).
[reads a few pages back, sighs]
Personally, I'm with Parable and the like; when I read Biden saying "some things activists were saying their guy would EO into existence on Day 1 don't match up with what EOs are or how they work" I don't quite interpret it as "I, Joe Biden Junior Jr., pledge to Consciously Do Nothing". (If anything, the dialogue feels more like "We'll use the force!" "... that's not how the force works.")
Signing an EO is publicly putting your name on something, so it seems natural to me that signing an EO that turns out to be invalid and ineffectual is putting your name on something with the same qualities. 'President Ronbert Hussano Clinbidington signs a bunch of pieces of paper that issue orders not within presidential domain, unable to do anything except rail at judges as all of them get chucked out', as stories go, is unlikely to help Democrats (and thus progressives) and would more likely just harm them publicly. Giving the other side a bunch of ammo isn't a fair trade for a "You Tried" sticker. (And if he did do those orders, and they almost-inevitably got shot down, we'd have the same people acting as if this was somehow due to Biden & the Democrats just Not Trying Hard Enough.)
And, as others have said, the passage of legislation (the stuff the executive's job is to carry out) depends on the legislature.
My first launched Trope!Yeah, tbh, let's get Biden actually sworn in first.
Let him pass or fail on his own merits. Don't write him off before he's even had a chance to do anything yet.
Semper Fi. Semper Paratus. Vigilo Confido.It's also just a fact that, while an executive order that makes things better for three or two years is better than no executive order that does nothing, the goal is still to implement long-lasting change - and that means Congress. This isn't "Joe Biden pledges not to press the Fix Everything Button hidden in the Resolute Desk", it's "Joe Biden reminds people that executive orders are band-aids and not what's going to institute real and lasting societal change".
It's been fun.Challenging executive orders doesn't work like a missile defense system. You're not asking "if I deploy X missiles, how many missiles will get through THADD coverage?"
If Biden starts throwing around E Os, they'll be challenged with regularity, and part of that is issuing an injunction to halt the action that the EO mandates until the matter is resolved in court. Conceivably, they could all be frozen out. The foolishness of arguing, "Well, he should issue 100 executive orders; even if 20 get through, he'll at least have done something" is that you don't know what will get through court. It could be inconsequential, procedural stuff. None of them could stand up to scrutiny, even. Either way, that sort of attritional approach will guarantee the normalization of high-volume EO issuance by future presidents without any guarantee that valuable policy will be enacted.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Dec 13th 2020 at 12:31:30 PM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."![]()
That argument would have merit were it not already happening with Trump. Cat's out of the bag. Trump's just terribly incompetent at it (and evil, but that's a given). We can't pretend like this is not something his predecessor hasn't already done and future Republicans won't do given the chance, because they absolutely will. Unilateral disarmament only makes Biden's job harder for no reason, and he's already going to be dealing with a hostile Congress even if both those Georgia seats swing our way. Biden also has the benefit of competence on his side, so his team could write the orders that make them harder to challenge on the merits.
Edited by TheRoguePenguin on Dec 13th 2020 at 9:49:53 AM
Damn straight.
Remember Biden's been in politics in the US for the better part of 40 years, and he's actually paid attention to what goes on.
We've already seen an idiot in for four years who thinks being president makes him some form of infallible god-king.
Biden remembers a simple truth about being the American President: His service, first and foremost, is to the people and Constitution of the United States.
Semper Fi. Semper Paratus. Vigilo Confido.Ahem.
Additionally, the report claims that a supervisor at the Army Corps of Engineers approved Ultimate Concrete's building of a dirt road to expedite illegal border crossings to sites in San Diego, using construction vehicles to block security cameras.

Trump Officials: "Covid is a hoax! Masks don't work!"
Also Trump Officials: "We'll be getting that vaccine first, thank you very much."