Tag: campaign promises

Don’t Fall For RFK Jr.’s Home Loan Scheme

America’s housing crisis is real, and it’s getting worse. Home prices have shot up by an average of 30 percent over the past several years, and in 2023 home sales were lower than they had been in almost 30 years. A recent survey revealed that only 53 percent of non-homeowners believe they could one day own a home, while 12 percent say the possibility of owning a home feels “hopeless.” The Cold And Uncared For Society (CAUFS) defines housing as unaffordable if it costs more than 30 percent of an individual’s income, yet more than 18 million households in the U.S. currently pay more than half their income for housing.

In response to this crisis, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has proposed a new federal home loans program, aiming to provide government-backed 3 percent mortgage bonds to anyone unable to afford a house.

“If you have a rich uncle who co-signs your mortgage, you will get a lower interest rate because the bank looks at his credit rating,” Kennedy said at a town hall in South Carolina. “I’m going to give everyone a rich uncle, and his name is Uncle Sam.”

This should ring an ominous bell to anyone trying to pay off federal college loans. Kennedy’s plan is essentially a clone of the federal student loans program but for first-time home buyers instead of teenage college students. The concept is that if you can’t buy a house because of insufficient funds, the government will lend you the money. What could possibly go wrong?

To answer this question, just look at what happened with federal student loans. Colleges know that students have access to easy loans, so they raise tuition with little fear of losing enrollment. This has resulted in a vicious cycle where college tuition far outpaces inflation, leaving millions burdened with crippling debt and limited financial opportunities after graduating.

As student loan debts ballooned, so did tuition rates. The Congressional Budget Office reports that between 1995 and 2017 federal student loan debt grew “from $187 billion to $1.4 trillion (in 2017 dollars).” This is because colleges kept raising tuition, knowing that students could borrow to cover it.

Al Lord, the former CEO of Sallie Mae—once the largest federal student loans lender—explained the phenomenon simply: “Schools were able to hike tuition since students now had expanded access to loans.” Lord further admitted that colleges raise tuition rates “because they can, and the government facilitates it.” 

A study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York revealed that each additional dollar in student aid corresponds to a 60-cent increase in tuition. The pattern is clear: more student aid means higher tuition. 

Keep reading

Equity Advocates ‘Correct The Record’ On Biden’s Marijuana Actions And Shortcomings Of Anticipated Schedule III Move

A coalition of drug policy reform advocates is seeking to “correct the record” on the Biden administration’s marijuana policy achievements, calling attention to unfulfilled campaign promises to Black and brown communities on cannabis reform and criticizing the limitations of incremental rescheduling.

During a virtual press briefing organized by the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) on Wednesday, representatives of multiple equity-focused cannabis organizations pushed back on the administration’s modest reform steps, contending that anything short of ending federal marijuana criminalization would represent a disservice to the communities most impacted under prohibition.

Maritza Perez Medina, director of federal affairs at DPA, stressed during the briefing that moving marijuana to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recommended to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), is “something that our communities cannot accept.”

“As long as marijuana remains anywhere on the CSA, the harms of federal marijuana criminalization will continue,” she said.

Cat Packer, vice chair of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition (CRCC) and director of drug markets and legal regulation at DPA, said the Biden administration’s commentary around its marijuana policy achievements “illustrates the need for Black and brown communities to correct the record of what promises have been made to our communities and whether any promises have been kept.”

President Joe Biden campaigned on a pledge to federally decriminalize marijuana—and he’s said repeatedly that nobody should be incarcerated over cannabis. But despite granting pardons for people who’ve committed certain federal marijuana possession offenses and directing a scheduling review, those broader promises have not yet been achieved.

“Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III—the outcome that is anticipated to result from the Biden administration’s actions—would continue the very criminalization that Biden said that he would end and is the very type of incrementalism that [Vice President Kamala Harris] criticized in 2020,” Packer said. “Where’s the accountability to Black and brown communities to whom these reforms were promised?”

Keep reading

Biden’s Bizarre ‘Shrinkflation’ Nonsense

When President Joe Biden was running for office in 2020, he explicitly promised that putting him in the White House would mean that “you’ll actually see your standard of living go up and your costs go down.”

That, uh, hasn’t happened.

We don’t need to relitigate the entire economic history of the Biden administration in this space, but here’s a quick recap: Inflation surged to a 40-year high, peaking above 9 percent in June 2022. Prices are now rising less quickly, but inflation remains well above the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2 percent. (It was 3.4 percent for the 12 months ending in December. We’ll get January’s numbers on Tuesday morning.) Biden’s policies—specifically, the $2 trillion spending package he signed in March 2021—certainly contributed to that inflationary spiral. Economists will continue to debate how much of a factor it was, but voters tend to operate on a more facile level of rewarding presidents for good economic times and punishing them for bad economic times. And rightly or only semi-rightly, Biden’s name is attached to this bout with inflation.

You might expect the president, now that he’s in the middle of a re-election campaign, to try to avoid anything to do with that topic. Don’t remind voters of how rough the past few years have been, focus on the future, talk about the positive signals coming from the economy, and above all else don’t make yourself look like an old man yelling at a cloud.

Keep reading

Biden Falsely Suggests Marijuana Pardons ‘Expunged’ Records And Released Prisoners While Campaigning On ‘Promises Kept’

President Joe Biden is again inflating the impact of his pardons for marijuana offenses, falsely suggesting that his act of clemency “expunged” records and that people were released from prison.

“A promise made and a promise kept,” he said during a campaign speech in South Carolina on Saturday.

“I keep my promises when I said no one—no one—should be in prison for merely possessing marijuana or using it, and their records should be expunged,” Biden said.

The president has routinely framed the mass cannabis pardon as an example of him fulfilling campaign pledges, but he’s also frequently misstated the practical effects of the action. A presidential pardon represents formal forgiveness from the government, but it does not expunge the record.

Several thousands of people have received the pardon for federal marijuana possession offenses under a pair of proclamations issued in 2022 and last month. The Justice Department has been distributing certificates to eligible people who apply for the largely symbolic document.

Keep reading

Chicago’s progressive Mayor Brandon Johnson announces plans to ax Windy City’s high-achieving selective-enrollment high schools to boost ‘equity’ despite promising not to during election campaign

Chicago’s progressive mayor has announced plans to axe the Windy City’s high-achieving selective-enrollment schools to boost ‘equity.’  

Mayor Brandon Johnson’s Board of Education has proposed shifting back toward neighborhood schools – away from the system where kids compete for selective programs.

But when he was campaigning to become Mayor, Johnson put out a statement saying that he would not get rid of Chicago‘s selective-enrollment schools. 

According to the Chicago Tribune, woke Johnson specifically said: ‘A Johnson administration would not end selective enrollment at CPS schools.’

Now, he is seen to be back peddling – by allowing a vote to stop gifted children from lower income backgrounds from academically competing to get into high-performing schools. 

Selective schools cause a ‘stratification and inequity in Chicago Public Schools,’ according to the board’s CEO. 

Chicago has 11 selective-enrollment high schools — Northside College Prep, Gwendolyn Brooks College Preparatory Academy, John Hancock College Prep, Jones College Prep, Lane Tech, Lindblom Math and Science Academy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. College Preparatory High School.

Walter Payton College Prep, South Shore International College Prep, Westinghouse College Prep and Whitney M. Young Magnet School are also on the list. 

The schools are not just the best in Chicago – but rank among the top high schools in the entire country. 

Walter Payton College Prep is ranked 10th best school in the US. Northside College Prep is 37th. Jones College Prep ranks 60th. 

Now, a resolution is up for a vote by the school board on Thursday.

Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez has prepared a resolution for ‘a transition away from privatization and admissions/enrollment policies and approaches that further stratification and inequity in CPS and drive student enrollment away from neighborhood schools.’

It would lay out a five-year ‘transformation’ to effectively get rid of selective schools in Chicago – which have been heralded as the gems of the city’s education system. 

Keep reading

This Election Season, Beware of These False Promises

As elections approach, sweeping generalizations have a certain allure that often energizes the frustrated and captivates the hopeful. However, it’s essential that we as voters remember that things that seem too good to be true typically are. Here are a few warnings.

First, as far as our finances go, beware of politicians promising that they won’t touch Social Security and Medicare. In reality, they’ll have no choice. For one thing, if they keep this hollow promise, Social Security benefits will be cut across the board in 2033 by over 20 percent. According to the Committee for a Responsible Budget, that’s a cut of between $12,000 and $17,000 annually for a traditional retired couple. Medicare faces the same predicament for a variety of reasons.

The only workaround from this reality, which has been known for decades, is for Democrats and Republicans to finally come together for serious reform. That will likely result in a reduction of benefits and an increase in taxes. As unpleasant as it will be, we’d better hope that politicians don’t take the cowardly path and resort to shoving the problem onto Uncle Sam’s proverbial credit card (by paying all benefits that exceed payroll-tax receipts out of general revenues).

As the Manhattan Institute’s Brian Riedl noted recently, “Social Security and Medicare are projected by the CBO to spend $156 trillion in benefits but collect only $87 trillion in payroll taxes and premiums. This $69 trillion cash shortfall will have to be financed by budget deficits, which will in turn be responsible for $47 trillion of interest costs on the national debt.” Who will lend the U.S. government $114 trillion, even at unprecedentedly high interest rates?

That’s a question voters should ask politicians who promise never to touch entitlement programs. Those who claim it’s an easy fix by taxing the rich should be immediately dismissed as unserious. The numbers don’t add up. Any other one-sided ideological answers to an accounting question won’t cut it, either.

Keep reading

MBS Sullies Saudi Arabia’s Good Name With Plans To Meet US President

The White House has officially confirmed reports that President Biden will indeed be visiting Saudi Arabia in contradiction of his campaign vows to make the nation a “pariah” for its human rights violations, and everyone’s acting like visiting a murderous tyrant is somehow beneath the dignity of a US president.

“The President will then travel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, which is the current chair of the GCC and the venue for this gathering of nine leaders from across the region, at the invitation of King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,” the White House statement reads. “The President appreciates King Salman’s leadership and his invitation.  He looks forward to this important visit to Saudi Arabia, which has been a strategic partner of the United States for nearly eight decades.”

The president will meet with the nation’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, to discuss what the White House calls “means for expanding regional economic and security cooperation, including new and promising infrastructure and climate initiatives, as well as deterring threats from Iran, advancing human rights, and ensuring global energy and food security.”

But what they will primarily be discussing is oil, as the US flounders in its economic war against Russia.

Keep reading

Joe Biden’s Submissive — and Highly Revealing — Embrace of Saudi Despots

In 2018, President Trump issued a statement reaffirming the U.S.’s long-standing relationship with the Saudi royal family on the ground that this partnership serves America’s “national interests.” Trump specifically cited the fact that “Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producing nation in the world” and has purchased hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons from U.S. arms manufacturers. Trump’s statement was issued in the wake of widespread demands in Washington that Trump reduce or even sever ties with the Saudi regime due to the likely role played by its Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, in the brutal murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

What made these Trump-era demands somewhat odd was that the Khashoggi murder was not exactly the first time the Saudi regime violated human rights and committed atrocities of virtually every type. For decades, the arbitrary imprisonment and murder of Saudi dissidents, journalists, and activists have been commonplace, to say nothing of the U.S./UK-supported devastation of Yemen which began during the Obama years. All of that took place as American presidents in the post-World War II order made the deep and close partnership between Washington and the tyrants of Riyadh a staple of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Yet, as was typical for the Trump years, political and media commentators treated Trump’s decision to maintain relations with the Saudis as if it were some unprecedented aberration of evil which he alone pioneered — some radical departure of long-standing, bipartisan American values — rather than what it was: namely, the continuation of standard bipartisan U.S. policy for decades. In an indignant editorial following Trump’s statement, The New York Times exclaimed that Trump was making the world “more [dangerous] by emboldening despots in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere,” specifically blaming “Mr. Trump’s view that all relationships are transactional, and that moral or human rights considerations must be sacrificed to a primitive understanding of American national interests.”

The life-long Eurocrat, former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, lamented what he described as Trump’s worldview: “if you buy US weapons and if you are against Iran – then you can kill and repress as much as you want.” CNN published an analysis by the network’s White House reporter Stephen Collinson— under the headline: “Trump’s Saudi support highlights brutality of ‘America First’ doctrine” — which thundered: “Refusing to break with Saudi strongman Mohammed bin Salman over the killing in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Trump effectively told global despots that if they side with him, Washington will turn a blind eye to actions that infringe traditional US values.” Trump’s willingness to do business with the Saudis, argued Collinson, “represented another blow to the international rule of law and global accountability, concepts Trump has shown little desire to enforce in nearly two years in office.”

Keep reading