Money from marijuana legalization could fix MTA: report

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK POST)

 

Money from marijuana legalization could fix MTA: report

An NYU think tank is high on fixing the cash-strapped Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

A new report out Wednesday by the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management urges the statewide legalization of recreational marijuana — in order to get more green into mass transit.

“No new revenue source can match a tax on weed, ” Mitchell Moss, director of the Rudin Center, asserted to The Post. “New Yorkers deserve a subway system that is as productive as they are. It is time for New York to legalize and tax cannabis — and to designate the revenues for mass transit.”

A potential tax imposed on marijuana — if pot becomes legalized in New York — “would provide a way for the MTA to address many of their operating and capital requirements,” the center said.

Marijuana is currently legal for adult recreational use in 10 states, plus Washington, DC.

The report, citing BDS Analytics — a leading source for cannabis industry data — says the legal pot industry in North America reached $9.2 billion in 2017 and “is projected to generate $47.3 billion over the next decade.”

“This report argues that the subways need a dedicated revenue source with the potential for growth in future decades — one that does not divert funds from other public services, and that has yet to be tapped by the state and local government,” the paper reads.

Several states, including Colorado, Washington and Oregon, have already reported “higher-than-expected tax revenues” from the legalization of marijuana, the report notes

The state Health Department has already backed the legalization of recreational cannabis.

In July, the department released a report saying that legal marijuana sales could generate between $248.1 million and $677.7 million in revenue for the state in the first year alone.

FILED UNDER         

SHARE THIS ARTICLE:

Here’s what Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test shows: She Does Have Some Native Blood

(THIS ARTICLE OS COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK POST)

 

Here’s what Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test shows

She has Native American in her family tree going back generations, according to a report Monday.

Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field, determined in his analysis that a pure Native American ancestor appears in Warren’s family “in the range of 6-10 generations ago,” the Boston Globe reported.

That’s consistent with the Massachusetts Democrat’s family lore from her Oklahoma upbringing that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was partially Native American.

Bustamante, who won a 2010 MacArthur Fellowship, also known as a Genius Grant, found that the “vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but “the results strongly support the existence of an unmixed Native American ancestor.”

The release of the DNA findings appear to be a way for Warren, who is expected to run for president in 2020, to put the issue to rest and remove a talking point for her opponents.

In a video posted on her website that begins with Trump calling her “Pocahontas,” Warren is speaking to Bustamante.

“Now, the president likes to call my mom a liar. What do the facts say?” she asks him.

“The facts suggest that you absolutely have a Native American ancestor in your pedigree,” he replies.

Tamping down accusations made by many Republicans that she parlayed her heritage to benefit her career, the video includes a number of law professors — including from Harvard Law and the University of Pennsylvania Law School — attesting that she was hired for her ability.

“Her heritage had no bearing on her hiring. Period,” Jay Westbrook, a professor at the University of Texas Austin School of Law, says in the video.

Warren also includes family members in the video who call out Trump for mocking her.

“He’s talking about stuff he doesn’t have any idea about,” says her nephew Mark Herring.

Warren herself also addresses Trump’s “Pocahontas” comments, saying “my family history is my family history.”

“This isn’t just about casual racism — war-hoops and tomahawk chops. Native Americans have faced discrimination, neglect and violence for generations,” she says in the video. “And President Trump can say what he wants about me, but mocking Native Americans or any group in order to get at me — that’s not what America stands for.”

FILED UNDER       

SHARE THIS ARTICLE:

Nikki Haley steps down as UN Ambassador

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK POST)

 

Nikki Haley steps down as UN Ambassador

United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley is stepping down, according to a report on Tuesday.

President Trump has accepted Haley’s resignation, but the timing of her departure is unclear, Axios reported.

The White House released a statement saying Haley would meet with Trump in the Oval Office at 10:30 a.m.

Haley, the former Republican governor of South Carolina, discussed her resignation with Trump during a White House visit last week, the website said.

She joined the Trump administration in January 2017.

FILED UNDER     

SHARE THIS ARTICLE:

Is President Trump Getting Ready To Dump Alt-Right Strategist Steve Bannon

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CNN)

(CNN) It’s easy to forget, after a whirlwind 82 days in the White House, that chief strategist Steve Bannon only formally joined Donald Trump’s presidential campaign fewer than three months before Election Day.

For Trump, however, the timeline is crystal clear. He is keenly aware of when Bannon joined the team and, more to the point, how far he’d gone without him.
“I like Steve,” the President told the New York Post on Tuesday, “but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late.”
Trump in the same breath went on to list his pre-Bannon accomplishments and remind the world, “I’m my own strategist,” making clear what many had suspected — that the former Breitbart executive is on the presidential chopping block. Bannon picked the wrong rival in Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, also a top adviser, and it’s become expressly clear that if the two can’t, as Trump said, “work this out,” Bannon will be the one who pays.
The prospect of Bannon’s dismissal will bring unalloyed joy to Democrats and the anti-Trump resistance, who view him as an right-wing extremist with a direct line to the Oval Office, and no small measure of relief to moderate Republicans turned off by his ideological aversion to most forms of American engagement overseas.
All of which begs the question: What becomes of Trump and his administration if the Bannon gets the boot?
The emerging wisdom is that Bannon’s departure would set off a centrist drift, with aides like daughter Ivanka Trump, Kushner and former Goldman Sachs No. 2 Gary Cohn, Trump’s top economic adviser, leading the way. Firebrands like Stephen Miller, one author of the initial travel ban, would be sidelined or dismissed.
By this logic, Trump, too, would moderate. Tweets aside, he might be more inclined to engage the establishment, whether that means seeking some kind of bipartisan consensus on trade or getting in the trenches with House Speaker Paul Ryan and fighting for more familiar GOP policies.
It would be, in short, the “pivot” that so many conservatives in Washington have clamored for and hopefully anticipated since it became clear Trump would be the GOP nominee.

Source: No one is leaving the White House

 Source: No one is leaving the White House

There is a concern, however, among some Trump allies that firing Bannon — who helped amplify Trump’s outside-the-beltway base with his particular brand of economic populism and pledges to “deconstruct the administrative state” — could backfire.
One senior White House official told CNN’s Jim Acosta some are worried Bannon will turn Breitbart against Trump if he leaves the White House.
But those worries seem to crumble when you consider the brief history lesson imparted by Trump during his chat with the Post.
“I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve,” Trump said, referencing a primary he successfully navigated while Bannon was at Breitbart. “I’m my own strategist, and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary.”
Trump is correct here. The “psychic connection to the issue palette” that drove his base was firmly in place ahead of Bannon’s arrival. Breitbart played a part, of course, in boosting Trump, but it was not the author of his worldview. That, for anyone who hasn’t followed Trump since the New York City tabloids were fat and literally dripping with classifieds, predates this past political cycle by a decades.
While the Breitbart website could potentially turn on Trump, a scenario that supposes Bannon is unceremoniously dumped and doesn’t leave declaring victory, it would hardly unmoor the zealous core of support that has stood by Trump through countless political tsunamis.
The more likely outcome if Bannon goes is that he returns to Breitbart and continues to expand on its emerging media empire. And you don’t do that by going to war with the most popular politician in its pages.
Would the alt-right be unhappy? To the extent they are a coherent movement with shared interests beyond trolling women and minorities, sure. But they would get over it, and faster than one might expect. Trump is their meal ticket, too.
As for the actual voters, well, they might not even notice. Bannon is, after all, a staffer — one that Trump, CNN’s Sara Murray reports, believes was getting a little too much attention.
Despite his outsize outsider persona, Bannon’s profile is more prominent in Washington than in the blue-collar districts Trump feasted on during the election.
He does not represent the “silent majority” that turned the 2016 election — a cohort that, as much as anything else, was joined by its uniform disdain for the political and cultural establishment.
Trump does.