Is Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders turning to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to stem Joe Bidens surge in the polls? Reaction and analysis from Jason Meister, Trump 2020 campaign advisory board member, and Jay Jacobs, New York state Democratic chairman.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has called on House Democrats to “move forward” with impeaching President Trump, adding that if they fail to do so it could be viewed as a “politically motivated” decision.
Video: 8-year-old Ocasio-Cortez impersonator makes a splash online
The freshman New Yorker issued the call to arms to members of her party shortly after White House Counsel Don McGahn defied a subpoena and skipped a committee hearing at Trump's direction.
The move infuriated Democrats and touched off what could be another high-profile battle over holding a Trump official in contempt of Congress.
“Let me be clear, this committee will hear Mr. McGahn's testimony, even if we have to go to court to secure it,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y, said at the beginning of the hearing which McGahn did not attend.
Speaking to reporters from a hallway inside the Capitol, Ocasio-Cortez said members of her party must understand how the decision whether or not to impeach the president will be viewed.
“Just as impeaching without cause could be construed, and is, politically motivated choosing to not impeach when there is an abundance of cause could also be construed similarly,” she said.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: We Have to Move Forward on Impeachment
PELOSI 'ISN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO HOLD OFF' IMPEACHMENT PUSH FROM INSIDE HER PARTY, SENIOR HOUSE DEM TELLS FOX NEWS
“I trust the Speaker is taking a measured approach to ensure that we’re moving everyone forward,” she said. “Being a Speaker is hard, holding this party together is a difficult task! But I think I that we know what we need to do — I personally think that we have to move forward.”
WATCH: Ocasio-Cortez says its time for Nancy Pelosi to fire up Trump impeachment hearings
Ocasio-Cortez was also asked by CNN’s Manu Raju if Democrats should impeach Trump in the wake of McGahn’s no-show.
“You know, I trust the speaker is taking a measured approach to ensure that we’re moving everyone forward and, you know, being a speaker is hard, holding this party together is a difficult task,” the freshman congresswoman said.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Tuesday told CNN’s Manu Raju that it’s time for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to start up impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump.
The development comes one day after a senior House Democrat — speaking on the condition of anonymity — told Fox News that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could soon be left with no choice but to embrace calls from some within her party to impeach Trump.
The official said, despite Pelosi’s repeated attempt to quell talk of impeaching the president, she “isn’t going to be able to hold off on impeachment much longer.”
“It is coming to a head,” the Democrat told Fox News, before predicting the mounting pressure from inside her own ranks could force Pelosi to change her position “within the next two weeks.”
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made headlines by calling for taxing the robots of the emergent digital economy. That followed upon her previous call for a 70% top marginal income tax rate on the richest and Senator Elizabeth Warrens plan for a 2% wealth tax on assets worth more than $50 million (and 3% on assets worth more than $1 billion).
By putting inequality front and center on the political agenda as the U.S. heads into the election season, Democratic politicians are trying to capture the populist zeitgeist.
The redistributionist rhetoric has some investors concerned. Ray Dalio, who runs the worlds largest hedge fund, says he foresees some kind of revolution coming. Even J.P. Morgan s Jamie Dimon feels compelled to talk about the fraying of the American Dream of upward mobility and the need to address capitalisms inequities.
Wed like to propose a new approach that would enhance both the skills and assets of the less well off in the first place—we call it pre-distribution as opposed to redistribution. This idea has two aspects.
The first is the upskilling the workforce so that people are prepared for the steady disruptions of an ever-innovating, knowledge-driven economy. That means promoting public higher education as the bedrock of opportunity, much as secondary education was in the industrial era.
Public higher-ed is already the most certain route to upward mobility and will be more so in the future. A study of all American universities in 2017 showed that California State University Los Angeles was the top school in the nation in generating upward mobility for graduates from low-earning families. More of its students (9.9%) from the bottom 20% income cohort made it to the top 20% in the years after graduation than at any other institution surveyed. While the number may sound modest, Cal State LAs mobility rate is more than five times the mobility rate of the average U.S. college (1.9%).
The second aspect of pre-distribution responds to the hard reality coming our way: Technological innovation, from basic automation to artificial intelligence, is divorcing employment from productivity growth and wealth creation.
Since income through employment will diminish and even disappear where tasks are routinized, more of peoples incomes in the decades ahead should be drawn from an ownership stake in the robots that displace them. All working-age citizens should possess an equity share in the growing wealth of companies where intelligent machines drive productivity gains.
One way this can be done is through national savings accounts, in which all participate, that are invested in mutual-fund type instruments mixed with diversified venture capital pools. Another way is to provide a dividend for all citizens by parceling out shares of initial public offerings in the stock market, especially from companies that commercialize publicly funded research and development.
Platform cooperatives are another way: For example, everyone in a neighborhood could own a piece of ride-sharing services that operate there, or those who share their personal medical data would get a royalty payment from pharmaceutical inventions based on that data. The public could be assigned equity shares of any IPO by companies that benefited from publicly funded R&D. Another way, as California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed, is a data dividend for the use of your personal data by big tech.
If the greatest social divide is between those who own capital and those who have to live off their labor alone, then the key answer to rising inequality is to boost the capital of those who have less of it. Increasingly, a return on capital ought to supplement sole dependence on wages and salaries. Instead of paying ever-more exorbitant taxes to fund the income of others, we would be paying ourselves. To put it another way, the most effective way to reduce inequality is to spread the equity around.
This suggests that a policy agenda for fighting inequality in the future economy ought to focus on fostering universal basic capital instead of relying mostly on transfer payments of redistributed wealth. To close the social chasm that has emerged, we need to break down the structure of inequality, not perpetuate it.
Just because the wealth and income gap today is at the 1920s level of the Gilded Age doesnt mean we need to return to 20th-century solutions. Lets not fight the last war in the trenches of the fast-fading era of labor-intensive manufacturing, but advance a new social contract that is fit for purpose as digital capitalism takes hold.
Nathan Gardels is co-author with Nicolas Berggruen of Renovating Democracy: Governing in the Age of Globalization and Digital Capitalism. (University of California Press, April, 2019).