Mediaboss Marketing

Together We Can Be Better.

Our June meeting heard presentations from candidates for the 8th Congressional District, the Pierce County Council, and the Pierce County District Court.We also had an opportunity to ask the candidates questions. Following those conversations, we compared their strengths and adopted the following endorsements.

2018 Endorsements

Jamie Smith Position 1Brian Duthie Position 2

Our nomination does not eliminate the Top Two Primary in August,but it does inform voters of our considered preferences.Additionally if our nominated and elected candidate is unable to complete an elected term,then our nomination assures our PCOs a voice in the choice of a successor by the Pierce County Council.

Economic Justice

Read Paul Krugman's List of Republican Lies about their tax give away to the ultra rich.

Thisvideo provides a compelling and stark comparison of

Why Does the Disparate Distribution of Wealth Matter So Much?

Watch this short videofor a clear explanation of how extra wealth generates vast incomemore that the most lavish life style could absorbthat then compounds and exacerbates the disparate distribution of wealth.

The Affordable Care Act still remains at risk. Call Dave Reichert's Issaquah Office at(425) 677-7414 or (877) 920-9208to insistthat he protect Washington State's 600,000 people covered by Medicaid expansion and more than 225,000 people that obtained insurance through theExchange on Washington State's Exchange. Phone calls appear to be the most effective vehicle to express our positions because they consume office staff's timeand patience.

For free face-to-face help in understanding how to get insurance visit or call

For free assistance from the state, call 1-855-WAFINDER (1-855-923-4633)TTY/TTD 1-855-627-9604

To compare plans or to enroll on line visit the Washington Health Plan Finder.

There They Go Again

Read the Republican planto cut Social Security. Even though Social Security can be made safe and sound forever by eliminating the cap and applying FICA to all income,the Republicans prefer to cut benefits and raise the retirement age. Read the Social Security Administration's report by the Chief Actuary.

You Draw It: How Family Income Affects Childrens' College Chances. How likely is it for children who grow up in very poor families to go to college? How about children who grow up in very rich families?The New York Times gives you an opportunity todraw your estimate for every income level on a graph and then to compare your estimate to the actual experience of nearly 100,000 children born in the 80's.

This next story, however, describes the difference family income can make in graduation rates.

Affluent Students Have an Advantage and the Gap Is Widening.

The gap in graduation rates, however, can be narrowed when Universities make an effortto improve graduation rates.

The 25th LDD supports truly equal opportunity in education at all levels.Financial support is necessary but not sufficient. Vote for Legislators that care about all us.Together We Can Be Better.

See the original post here:
The 25th LD Democrats Home on the Web

Former Democrat tech aide may strike a plea deal

Bizarre case of former IT aide to leading Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz takes another odd turn as reports suggest Imran Awan and his wife may be ready to take a plea deal; reaction on 'The Story.'

The curious case of Imran Awan, which sounds like an international spy thriller, is entering its third act. Awan was a congressional IT aide to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and he was finally fired just after he was arrested trying to fly to Pakistan last summer.

Awan and his wife, Hina Alvi, were charged last summer with bank fraud. They now appear poised to strike a plea deal with the Department of Justice. A plea agreement hearing is set for July 3 before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in Washington, Fox News reported Wednesday.

As Ive dug deep into this case for my book Spies in Congress (out later this year), sources have made it clear that the bank fraud charges in this case, though very real, are just a way to hold the defendants.

Alleged theft of congressional equipment, massive data breaches of Congress members emails, likely espionage and more are all wrapped up in this case that involves data from 40 or more Democratic members of Congress.

Sources tell me that the FBIs Joint Terrorism Task Force has been looking into this matter since well before Awan and his crew of Pakistani congressional IT aides were booted off the House computer network in February 2017.

Sources also say that investigators were particularly interested in whether anyone else in the congressional offices that all of these IT aides worked for was involved in alleged improper activity. This might include Rep. Wasserman Schultz, who was the Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair when she employed Awan. It might also include former Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., who employed Awan when Becerra was chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. Becerra is now California attorney general.

The House Office of Inspector General tracked the Awans network usage and found that a massive amount of data was flowing from the (congressional) networks, said Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa. Over 5,700 logins by the five Awan associates were discovered on a single server within the House, the server of the Democratic Caucus Chairman, then Rep. Xavier Becerra of California. Up to 40 or more members of Congress had all of their data moved out their office servers and onto the Becerra server without their knowledge or consent.

Becerra left Congress in January 2017. Before he left, Capitol Police wanted a copy of the caucus servers contents.

Becerra presumably told Imran Awan that Capitol Police wanted a copy of the server. What is known is that Awan did produce a copy of a servers data for Capitol Police; however, after taking a look at the data they were provided, Capitol Police determined they were given a copy of data from some other server instead.

Capitol Police found that the image (the copy of the server contents) they were supplied was false, said Rep. Perry, quoting a report from the House Office of Inspector General.

So the Awans had access to in fact, were copying all the emails, personal schedules and other data from the Democrats they worked for to this server and, according to other reports, a Dropbox account.

Imran Awan was also going back to Pakistan for long stays and, in fact, at times worked remotely from Pakistan. This is where the case leads to possible espionage.

Meanwhile, court hearings on the alleged bank fraud Imran Awan and Hina Alvi have been charged with have been delayed again and again. The last hearing took place in October 2017.

The delays came as Department of Justice prosecutors and defense attorneys have been fighting it out over a laptop found in a cubbyhole (what was once a phone booth) in congressional office building that has the username REPDWS (a computer used by Imran Awan that is the property of Rep. Wasserman Schultzs office).

Whats on this computer we can only surmise, but it is clear that Wasserman Schultz wants the evidence kept out of court. She even publicly threatened the chief of the Capitol Police with consequences if the laptop wasnt returned.

Meanwhile, a House Office of Inspector General investigation determined that Awan and his crew (none of whom underwent background checks to gain the IT positions they held in Congress) committed numerous violations of House security policies.

There is a lot more to come from this explosive case. Before this plea agreement hearing was set the biggest worry was that the governments odd failure to prosecute Awan for alleged thefts of government equipment (some of which were found in a garage of one of Awans rental properties) and the many alleged national security violations pointed to a political cover-up.

Now it appears the plot is set for a riveting climax.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats' IT scandal set to explode with possible plea ...

There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructiv...e war in the Middle East. Thats why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in Americas interest it has significantly rolled back Irans nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes with Iran the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

That is why todays announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on Americas closest allies, and an agreement that our countrys leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding Americas credibility, and puts us at odds with the worlds major powers.

Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So its important to review several facts about the JCPOA.

First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Irans nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Irans nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Irans entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this wont happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.

Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But thats precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Irans destabilizing behavior and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.

Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to Americas own security; and trigger an arms race in the worlds most dangerous region. If the constraints on Irans nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.

In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.

Follow this link:
Democrats - Home | Facebook

The Democrats are coming off an election in which their presidential candidate won only 487 of the nations 3,141 counties. Four years before, Barack Obama won just 689 against Mitt Romney. The party is in severe geographic retreat, and it has happened with alarming speed.

If I told you that Democrats once controlled the governors mansions in the unlikely states of Tennessee, Wyoming, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma, what year would you think I was referring to? Maybe 1987? Nope. Up through the 2010 elections, Democrats governed all these states. Likewise, the Democrats had a House majority until those elections. They controlled seats in large swaths of North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Minnesota, Wisconsin, both Dakotas, Indiana, West Virginia and Appalachian Ohio.

They held up to 257 seats in those days. They got decimated in 2010 and 2014, and maybe there just wasnt that much they could have done about it. But they could have identified some young comers from swing and heartland states and elevated them to positions of greater prominence than they did. For example, in the 114th Congress (2015-2016), the Democrats had nine leadership positions and only one was held by a representative from a state that didnt have a coastline.

And if youre wondering whether the Republicans do the same thing in reverse, no, they dont. Their Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, comes from their Southern base, but their last three House leaders have been from Wisconsin, Ohio and Illinois two purple states and one blue one. Kevin McCarthy, the partys No. 2 in the House and the leading contender to replace Paul Ryan as its leader this fall, comes from California.

Mr. Schumer is a very skilled legislative leader. So for that matter is Ms. Pelosi, whatever her perceived liabilities. And maybe Mr. Crowley is Lyndon Johnson and William Pitt the Elder rolled into one. But if Democrats charge into 2020 advertising themselves as the party of New York and California, the rest of the country will notice.

Read the original post:
Opinion | The Democrats Real Diversity Problem - The New ...

In very liberal Marin County (Clinton 77.3 percent, Trump 15.5 percent, median household income $100,310), elected officials of at least seven local municipalities have voted to oppose the legislation.

Jonathan Chait, writing in New York Magazine on Wednesday, pointed out that the housing issue in California and elsewhere,

is ultimately a question of whether the most prosperous parts of blue America can be opened up to new entrants, or whether they will remain closed off and increasingly unaffordable. It is also a political test for whether progressives will be manipulated by knee-jerk suspicions, or be able to think clearly about using the market to serve human needs.

After overwhelmingly Democratic City Councils along the California coast voted to oppose the legislation, the Democratic State Senate answered Chaits question and killed the bill.

The maneuvers in California are a reflection of a larger problem for Democrats: their inability to reconcile the conflicts inherent in the partys economic and racial bifurcation.

Dani Rodrik, an economist at Harvard, addressed the Democrats dilemma in a recent essay for Project Syndicate:

In principle, greater inequality produces a demand for more redistribution. Democratic politicians should respond by imposing higher taxes on the wealthy and spending the proceeds on the less well off.

In practice, Rodrik writes

democracies have moved in the opposite direction. The progressivity of income taxes has decreased, reliance on regressive consumption taxes has increased, and the taxation of capital has followed a global race to the bottom. Instead of boosting infrastructure investment, governments have pursued austerity policies that are particularly harmful to low-skill workers. Big banks and corporations have been bailed out, but households have not. In the United States, the minimum wage has not been adjusted sufficiently, allowing it to erode in real terms.

Why?

Rodrik cites the work of the French economist Thomas Piketty, who argues that political parties on the left have been taken over, here and in Europe, by the well-educated elite what Piketty calls the Brahmin Left. The Brahmin Left, writes Rodrik,

is not friendly to redistribution, because it believes in meritocracy a world in which effort gets rewarded and low incomes are more likely to be the result of insufficient effort than poor luck.

Michael Lind, a professor of public policy at the University of Texas in Austin, wrote in a prescient 2014 essay, The Coming Realignment: Cities, Class, and Ideology After Social Conservatism, that high-density downtowns and suburban villages are coming to have an hourglass-shaped social structure.

Wealthy individuals are at the top, according to Lind, with a large luxury-service proletariat at the bottom. Democrats, in this scheme, have become the party of

the downtown and edge city elites and their supporting staff of disproportionately foreign-born, low-wage service workers.

Linds point raises a fundamental question for the Democratic Party: Can it find a way to hold its hourglass-shaped political coalition together?

Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, predicted the potential political developments of this situation in an article in March 2016:

Over the next decade or so, the Republicans will split between their growing nationalist-populist wing and their business establishment wing, a split that the nationalist-populist wing will eventually win. The Democrats will face a similar split between the increasingly pro-corporate but socially liberal Clinton wing and a more economically progressive Sanders wing, a split that the Clinton wing will eventually win.

The outcome?

The Democrats will become the party of urban cosmopolitan business liberalism, and the Republicans will become the party of suburban and rural nationalist populism.

Clearly, the 2016 election demonstrated the fragility of the Democratic coalition and its vulnerability to challenge from the populist right.

Dani Rodrik picks up this point in his Project Syndicate essay:

Why were democratic political systems not responsive early enough to the grievances that autocratic populists have successfully exploited inequality and economic anxiety, decline of perceived social status, the chasm between elites and ordinary citizens? Had political parties, particularly of the center left, pursued a bolder agenda, perhaps the rise of right-wing, nativist political movements might have been averted.

The forces behind the conversion of the Democratic Party into the party of urban cosmopolitan business liberalism, as described by Drutman, may be inexorable. If so, Rodriks call on the center-left to adopt a bolder agenda may be beyond reach.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion | The Democrats Gentrification Problem - The New ...