Hi Phil, thanks for writing. I don’t believe I’d written bout the Gulf of America/Mexico since January, so I honestly hadn’t put much thought into the question until writing this piece -- so I don’t have a hard policy on it and my thoughts are subject to change. But here’s the way I’m thinking about it right now: Wake Up To Politics is America-based and America-focused, so I do think it makes sense to follow American naming conventions, which now call for the body of water to be called the Gulf of America. I honestly don’t remember if I wrote about Mount McKinley/Denali from 2015 to this year, but during that time, I think it would have been a reasonable policy, by the same token, to call it Mount Denali after President Obama changed the name. Now that President Trump has switched it back to Mount McKinley, I’ll follow that.
Sorry - I wasn't aware that the US President had the power to set "American naming conventions". I know we have to take this guy seriously as he exercises the powers given to the President by the US Constitution but I think you are treading pretty close to the line when you start accepting the re-naming of an international body of water.
American naming conventions (at least the ones enshrined in law) are set by the Board of Geographic Names, an executive branch body, which defers to any laws or executive orders on naming. US law also gives the Interior Secretary power over the board and over naming places. Trump directed his Interior Secretary to rename the body of water, the same process Obama used to direct his Interior Secretary to rename Mount McKinley. This is not a case of President Trump overstepping his powers.
I learn something every time I read Wake Up To Politics! But don't you think your respecting the Board of Geographic Names' change of the name of an international body of water is showing a bit of "US Empire" colonial mentality?
Again, WUTP is US-based, I cover US politics, and most of my readers are in the US. So, at a first glance, makes sense to me to use the name used in the US, though I’m open to other arguments. But frankly it doesn’t strike me as that different from the reason why I write in English, and American English at that. Suppose you could argue that’s propping up the US as an empire…or it’s just the language used where I and most of my readers live.
I just think it's an example of your accepting an assertion of Presidential authority which is absurd on its face. It seems to me that there is a lot of that going on these days and history tells us it's going nowhere good.
We in the United States use our own names for all kinds of international entities. For example we use country names like Germany, Switzerland and Sweden instead of Deutschland, Helvetia and Sverige. Gulf of America is a strange choice for Trump as it is actually less specifically tied to a particular country than The Gulf of Mexico. I guess The Gulf of The United States just sounded too odd.
In the U.K. the body of water separating it from France is called The English Channel. In France it is called La Manche. Then there is a naming dispute over the body of water the Japanese call The Sea of Japan. The North Koreans call it The Korean East Sea and the South Koreans call it The East Sea.
I don’t understand why there isn’t more discussion on how little the wealthiest people in the US actually pay in taxes. If they paid even 1/4 of their real share we wouldn’t have any of these insane worries about how much Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security Security could be cut. I realize the goal of this administration is specifically NOT to provide these “entitlements”, but could you at least discuss at some point how the Tax Cuts for the Wealthy are what’s decimating millions of Americans futures. Am I wrong? This is a simple problem with a simple solution, and it would be interesting to see how a REALLY Beautiful Bill designed by … Gabe! would fix everything in a heartbeat. Just make it plain to us, please. And again, I realize the Republicans only want to make us poorer. Thanks Gabe, as always a terrific article!
If that is actually true, what I glean from it is this...the disparity between the top 1% / 10% and the rest of us is ASTRONOMICAL.
Plus the way they cap Social Security payments is absolutely despicable. I had no idea that was how it was until my best friend became a doctor and said she was done paying into social security by the end of March.
They have always capped social security because there is also a maximum payout you can receive when you retire. It is calculated based on what you will receive in the future.
"New requirements that Medicaid recipients between the ages of 19 to 64 work, volunteer, or go to school for at least 80 hours a week". ?? 80 hours a month?
I think what you are referring to is not actually the filibuster, which is the stalling of a vote by taking the floor and not yielding it. Corey Booker used this tactic recently. The requirement of 60 votes in the Senate is related to the filibuster in that it keeps legislation from being voted on. But it’s a bit different and has a different name, cloture. 60 votes are needed for cloture. Cloture ends debate on a measure and moves it to a vote. The measure in question then passes or fails by a simple majority. It may be that in contemporary usage a bill that does not reach cloture can be said to have been filibustered. But it’s not really the same thing.
Thanks for the deep dive, Gabe. My reading was interrupted a bit when you used “Gulf of America,” but I can understand why. I wouldn’t want you to be censored by this administration for using “Gulf of Mexico.” 😉
Hi Gabe, I'm not sure if this has been pointed out, but in your section on the reconciliation bill you have the Medicaid work requirements as "80 hours a week"- it's actually 80 hours a month.
Honestly, I think expanding the filibuster power back to full strength would help. It would be amazing to see what the nominees would look like if you needed some Democratic or Republican votes to have a confirmation pass.
Absolutely agree, we and the country would be better off since consensus and compromise is more required. People and the GOP were warning about this in 2013 but Reid and Senate Dems went ahead with the "nuclear option" for cabinet appointments anyway. It's directly why we have incompetents like Hegseth and Patel in the US government
Can somebody please explain to me the need for a tax cut while the Aviation Secretary is announcing the need for billions of dollars in deferred maintenance for our air traffic control system that has been underfunded primarily by the GOP since Reagan?
LBJ used to say, when he was Master of the Senate, once he got to 57 or 58 Democrat Senators, it wasn't to hard to get something passed. The 60 Senator limit, only really applies when there are 55 or less in the majority. Once that number is breached, bills can and will be tweaked.
Related to (and sometimes involving) the filibuster is the indeterminate nature of the Appointments Clause in terms of what happens if there are a critical number of opponent Senators who steadfastly refuse to give good faith consideration and consent to -any- of the President's nominees. One can point to the Vacancies Act, but indefinite government by civil servants in acting or "SOPD" capacity and not politically and directly accountable to the President is arguably inconsistent with the Constitutional scheme (though no one is very interested in testing this). One answer is to use the budget cliff technique and say that if the Senate doesn't confirm a nominee, the business of the agency cannot be conducted at all until it is, and the agency shuts down
On taxes, voting and democracy: As democracy at the Congressional level breaks down we the people need to vote with our pocketbooks (eg. non-GMO, electric cars, B corps, organic farming, etc.). We could have a "pie chart" included with our tax filing where we would be able to weight the amount of our dollars that we wanted to go into various categories (military, education, environmental preservation, etc.). This could result in some big metrics/news with way more specificity than votes in an election. These pie charts could be non binding, but simply force Congress (and "we the people") to gain a more fine grained understanding of democratic priorities.
Why are you using "Gulf of America" when the international accepted name is "Gulf of Mexico"?
Hi Phil, thanks for writing. I don’t believe I’d written bout the Gulf of America/Mexico since January, so I honestly hadn’t put much thought into the question until writing this piece -- so I don’t have a hard policy on it and my thoughts are subject to change. But here’s the way I’m thinking about it right now: Wake Up To Politics is America-based and America-focused, so I do think it makes sense to follow American naming conventions, which now call for the body of water to be called the Gulf of America. I honestly don’t remember if I wrote about Mount McKinley/Denali from 2015 to this year, but during that time, I think it would have been a reasonable policy, by the same token, to call it Mount Denali after President Obama changed the name. Now that President Trump has switched it back to Mount McKinley, I’ll follow that.
Sorry - I wasn't aware that the US President had the power to set "American naming conventions". I know we have to take this guy seriously as he exercises the powers given to the President by the US Constitution but I think you are treading pretty close to the line when you start accepting the re-naming of an international body of water.
American naming conventions (at least the ones enshrined in law) are set by the Board of Geographic Names, an executive branch body, which defers to any laws or executive orders on naming. US law also gives the Interior Secretary power over the board and over naming places. Trump directed his Interior Secretary to rename the body of water, the same process Obama used to direct his Interior Secretary to rename Mount McKinley. This is not a case of President Trump overstepping his powers.
I learn something every time I read Wake Up To Politics! But don't you think your respecting the Board of Geographic Names' change of the name of an international body of water is showing a bit of "US Empire" colonial mentality?
Again, WUTP is US-based, I cover US politics, and most of my readers are in the US. So, at a first glance, makes sense to me to use the name used in the US, though I’m open to other arguments. But frankly it doesn’t strike me as that different from the reason why I write in English, and American English at that. Suppose you could argue that’s propping up the US as an empire…or it’s just the language used where I and most of my readers live.
I just think it's an example of your accepting an assertion of Presidential authority which is absurd on its face. It seems to me that there is a lot of that going on these days and history tells us it's going nowhere good.
I'd prefer Gulf of Mexico, but Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America) could be a reasonable compromise for this blog.
I you feel compelled to use “Gulf of America” at least put it in quotes! Can we expect you to also start referring to the “Arabian Gulf”?!
And also, you don't want to be abducted by masked goons and wake up in a prison in El Salvador.
I think you are caving
We in the United States use our own names for all kinds of international entities. For example we use country names like Germany, Switzerland and Sweden instead of Deutschland, Helvetia and Sverige. Gulf of America is a strange choice for Trump as it is actually less specifically tied to a particular country than The Gulf of Mexico. I guess The Gulf of The United States just sounded too odd.
In the U.K. the body of water separating it from France is called The English Channel. In France it is called La Manche. Then there is a naming dispute over the body of water the Japanese call The Sea of Japan. The North Koreans call it The Korean East Sea and the South Koreans call it The East Sea.
Thank you!
Gabe, "anyways" is not acceptable in place of "anyway". At least to the grammar and usage nags. Picky, picky.
Soooo, anyway, I find this incredibly frustrating 🫠
I don’t understand why there isn’t more discussion on how little the wealthiest people in the US actually pay in taxes. If they paid even 1/4 of their real share we wouldn’t have any of these insane worries about how much Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security Security could be cut. I realize the goal of this administration is specifically NOT to provide these “entitlements”, but could you at least discuss at some point how the Tax Cuts for the Wealthy are what’s decimating millions of Americans futures. Am I wrong? This is a simple problem with a simple solution, and it would be interesting to see how a REALLY Beautiful Bill designed by … Gabe! would fix everything in a heartbeat. Just make it plain to us, please. And again, I realize the Republicans only want to make us poorer. Thanks Gabe, as always a terrific article!
The top 1% pay 40% of all the tax collected. The top10% pay 75% of all tax collected. So how much of I earn should I pay for someone else’s benefit?
If that is actually true, what I glean from it is this...the disparity between the top 1% / 10% and the rest of us is ASTRONOMICAL.
Plus the way they cap Social Security payments is absolutely despicable. I had no idea that was how it was until my best friend became a doctor and said she was done paying into social security by the end of March.
They have always capped social security because there is also a maximum payout you can receive when you retire. It is calculated based on what you will receive in the future.
I was citing the federal taxes collected.
"New requirements that Medicaid recipients between the ages of 19 to 64 work, volunteer, or go to school for at least 80 hours a week". ?? 80 hours a month?
Yes, that should have been 80 hours a month. That was my error, and I’ve corrected the text. My apologies -- should not have happened.
And not even in effect until 2029. What a bunch of bs. The GOP is so scared to touch the entitlements.
By which time it will be repealed. What a farce.
I think what you are referring to is not actually the filibuster, which is the stalling of a vote by taking the floor and not yielding it. Corey Booker used this tactic recently. The requirement of 60 votes in the Senate is related to the filibuster in that it keeps legislation from being voted on. But it’s a bit different and has a different name, cloture. 60 votes are needed for cloture. Cloture ends debate on a measure and moves it to a vote. The measure in question then passes or fails by a simple majority. It may be that in contemporary usage a bill that does not reach cloture can be said to have been filibustered. But it’s not really the same thing.
Thanks for the deep dive, Gabe. My reading was interrupted a bit when you used “Gulf of America,” but I can understand why. I wouldn’t want you to be censored by this administration for using “Gulf of Mexico.” 😉
Hi Gabe, I'm not sure if this has been pointed out, but in your section on the reconciliation bill you have the Medicaid work requirements as "80 hours a week"- it's actually 80 hours a month.
Honestly, I think expanding the filibuster power back to full strength would help. It would be amazing to see what the nominees would look like if you needed some Democratic or Republican votes to have a confirmation pass.
Absolutely agree, we and the country would be better off since consensus and compromise is more required. People and the GOP were warning about this in 2013 but Reid and Senate Dems went ahead with the "nuclear option" for cabinet appointments anyway. It's directly why we have incompetents like Hegseth and Patel in the US government
Can somebody please explain to me the need for a tax cut while the Aviation Secretary is announcing the need for billions of dollars in deferred maintenance for our air traffic control system that has been underfunded primarily by the GOP since Reagan?
80 hours a week? umm..standard work week is 40. So how does this compute?
Thanks for this! Super informative. Quick question: Is the number of hours for Medicaid recipients really 80?
LBJ used to say, when he was Master of the Senate, once he got to 57 or 58 Democrat Senators, it wasn't to hard to get something passed. The 60 Senator limit, only really applies when there are 55 or less in the majority. Once that number is breached, bills can and will be tweaked.
Related to (and sometimes involving) the filibuster is the indeterminate nature of the Appointments Clause in terms of what happens if there are a critical number of opponent Senators who steadfastly refuse to give good faith consideration and consent to -any- of the President's nominees. One can point to the Vacancies Act, but indefinite government by civil servants in acting or "SOPD" capacity and not politically and directly accountable to the President is arguably inconsistent with the Constitutional scheme (though no one is very interested in testing this). One answer is to use the budget cliff technique and say that if the Senate doesn't confirm a nominee, the business of the agency cannot be conducted at all until it is, and the agency shuts down
On taxes, voting and democracy: As democracy at the Congressional level breaks down we the people need to vote with our pocketbooks (eg. non-GMO, electric cars, B corps, organic farming, etc.). We could have a "pie chart" included with our tax filing where we would be able to weight the amount of our dollars that we wanted to go into various categories (military, education, environmental preservation, etc.). This could result in some big metrics/news with way more specificity than votes in an election. These pie charts could be non binding, but simply force Congress (and "we the people") to gain a more fine grained understanding of democratic priorities.
Gabe,
This was my take on the bill a few months ago. It's gotten worse from a debt and deficit POV.
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/vulnerable-americans-will-die-so
Gabe, minor correction.. medicaid job requirement is for 80 hours a MONTH (not week) of work or school.
and ps. I suspect the change of heart on leaving Head Start alone was due to the effect of those recipient families then being required to work