Meghan Kruger writes in The Washington Post:

Warren’s plan would dramatically increase demand for an already-limited number of day-care slots, as out-of-home care suddenly becomes “free” or much less expensive for millions of families. The plan would also be available to parents who stay at home with their children, encouraging families to use day-care services they don’t necessarily need.

Parents who choose to stay home with their kids not because they don’t need daycare, but because day care is too damn expensive. Right now the cost for day care is about $2,000 a month for one child. If parents have two young children, that’s almost $48,000 a year. Does it make sense for one of the parents to go to work just to pay for day care or better to stay home with their kids? When parents don’t have to worry about daycare they can go back to work.

With Warren’s plan, parents only have to pay seven percent of their income. If they make $100,000 a year. That’s only $7,000 a year.

When I brought this up to my wife, her question was how the government going to pay for all of this. It can be done through investment, benefits enhancement, and major system overhaul. I’ll let the expert explains them.

Let it be known that I am a strong supporter of Elizabeth Warren. She is an intellectual figure who has serious policy proposals. If you are considering her nominee for the primary, I urge you to zone out all the noise on her background. I highly recommend and encourage you to read her first book, A Fighting Chance, to find out for yourself how she has been fighting for the middle class. Let’s give her a chance.

George Zornick has a fantastic piece on Warren in The Nation. He writes:

What Elizabeth Warren has going for her is the fact that Democratic voters have never particularly liked Wall Street bailouts or big international “free-trade” deals. She, for one, won’t have to renounce her record to appeal to their beliefs. Her presidential campaign is a bet that someone who has been a strong critic of the political system and the Democratic Party can become the leader of both by being consistent, credible, and right.

Paul Krugman explains:

The logic of the Warren plan is fairly simple (although some commentators are trying to make it sound complex). Child care would be regulated to ensure that basic quality was maintained and subsidized to make it affordable. The size of the subsidy would depend on parents’ incomes: lower-income parents would get free care, higher-income parents would have to pay something, but nobody would have to pay more than 7 percent of income.

Sounds logical to me.

Paul Krugman:

By the way, I don’t know whether Warren will or even should get the nomination. But she’s a major intellectual figure, and is pushing her party toward serious policy discussion in a way that will have huge influence whatever her personal trajectory.

Agree.

Moira Donegan writes in The Guardian:

Like Sanders, Warren has a long career of railing against the injustice of a country where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Unlike him, she has a proven track record outside of the Senate, helping to establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Obama administration and writing the book – actually, writing several books – on how to help working families by making finance and debt laws more fair.

This one is important:

The fact is that Warren is to the left of Sanders on some issues, notably gun control.

I concur.

Marcela Howell, Sung Yeon Choimorrow, and Jessica González-Rojas write in The Hill:

During her hearing, Rao stated that her op-ed position — “A good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober” — was “just a commonsense observation.” While Rao issued a letter after the hearing insisting that she was not blaming survivors, she signed off on the Title IX changes regarding campus sexual assaults. Rao’s statements at the hearing and her work at OIRA reflect a lack of understanding that the systems of power and control can perpetuate rape culture.

Disturbingly, Rao has shown that she believes racial oppression is a myth. She has spoken derisively about affirmative action, suggesting that standards are dropped for “a few minorities.” More specifically, she referred to affirmative action as the “anointed dragon of liberal excess,” and said race, generally, is a “hot, money-making issue.” As organizations that fight for reproductive justice, including racial justice, we find this language to be deeply offensive and grossly out of touch with the realities our communities face every day. Currently, Rao is working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to gut protections against housing discrimination based on race.

Rao also has espoused dangerous views on LGBTQ rights. In talking about activists for racial justice, gender equity and LGBTQ rights, she wrote, “Underneath their touchy-feely talk of tolerance, they seek to undermine American culture. … For example, homosexuals want to redefine marriage and parenthood.” As reproductive justice advocates, we believe that centering our intersectional identities enhances our society, rather than undermines it.

Word!

Julie Pace wites in the Boston Herald:

Back in Iowa as a full-fledged presidential candidate, Democrat Elizabeth Warren took aim at President Donald Trump on Sunday, saying he “may not even be a free person” by next year’s election.

I am with her. Lock the motherfucker up.

Jeff Bezos writes on Medium:

Of course I don’t want personal photos published, but I also won’t participate in their well-known practice of blackmail, political favors, political attacks, and corruption. I prefer to stand up, roll this log over, and see what crawls out.

Good for you, Mr. Bezos.

John Eligon reports in the New York Times:

Some white students said that nothing seemed out of the ordinary when their white classmates wore blackface. It was typical at costume parties or at talent shows, said Dr. William Elwood, a retired family physician who is white and who graduated in 1984, the same year as Mr. Northam.

Dr. Elwood worked on the yearbook that year, laying out pages, he said. For their personal pages, students would submit their own photos to the staff, he said. The designers would lay them out on the page, he said, and mark where each photo was to be placed. The photos were then put into an envelope, which was attached to the page where they belonged and sent to the press to be printed.

I am not condoning racist, but time has changed and 30 years ago was much different than today. Eligon concludes:

The gap between black and white, Dr. Randolph said, was why he felt that white classmates probably would not have blinked at the offensive image on Mr. Northam’s yearbook page.

“That was the norm,” he said. “That’s what people did.”

Democrats need to chill the hell out. No one is perfect. We already lost Al Franken in the Senate. Let’s not allow a Republican to take over the Virginia governor.