The Aquarian Agrarian: G.O.P.

Showing posts with label G.O.P.. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Links to Membership Lists of Ideological Factions within the Two Major Parties in the U.S. House of Representatives

The following list consists of links to the membership lists of the formal and informal ideological C.M.O.s (Congressional Member Organizations) in the United States House of Representatives. Some of the links below lead to information on how to contact these representatives.

U.S. Senators may be listed as well. Readers should keep in mind that the Senate and House have their own separate organizations to represent these ideological factions. For example, a Republican U.S. Senator cannot become a member of the House Freedom Caucus because its membership is only for U.S. Representatives in the lower house.

I would like readers to take note of the following two facts, which the below information makes clear:

1) Not all so-called "Tea Party politicians" are (or were) formal members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House;

2) The Tea Party Caucus appears to be defunct, so it's possible that it has no members anymore;

3) The Republican Party only has two formal ideological C.M.O.s;

4) The "Justice Democrats" is not a formal ideological C.M.O. in the House of Representatives, nor are the Democratic Socialists of America (D.S.A.); and

5) The Populist Caucus of the Democratic Party, the Main Street Caucus, and the Republican Liberty Caucus, no longer exist.

It's also important to notice how much influence the Ripon Society has within the Republican Party, despite the fact that it is not a formal caucus. The Ripon Society's centrist stance is arguably more liberal-friendly and libertarian than most of the Republican Party's membership, but it should still concern us that this public policy organization has a congressional advisory board that is made up of one-third of the set of currently serving Republican U.S. Representatives (about 70 out of 211).

It should concern us because these 70 House members are working on the interest of the Ripon Society as an interest group, without the group being officially recognized as the ideological faction within the Republican House membership that it is.

Readers should also note that some caucuses, such as the Tea Party Caucus, are (or were) open to members of both parties.

Also, there are many caucuses in the U.S. House of Representatives which are non-ideological, that are not included below. Additionally, some House caucuses could be argued to be ideological, but were not included here because their ideological bent or angle is not immediately obvious.
Lists of caucuses in the U.S. House of Representatives are available at the links immediately below:
http://ballotpedia.org/List_of_caucuses_in_the_United_States_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucuses_of_the_United_States_Congress

REPUBLICAN GROUPS

House Republican Conference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Republican_Conference

Formal Republican Party Factions/Caucuses

Republican Study Committee
http://rsc-banks.house.gov/about/membership

House Freedom Caucus
http://ballotpedia.org/House_Freedom_Caucus

Republican Ideological Factions Which Are Not Formal U.S. House Caucuses, But Are Similar Enough to Caucuses to Mention

Tea Party Caucus
(Effectively defunct, although several current U.S. House members were Tea Party Caucus members recently)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus

Tea Party politicians
(includes list of House members, although not all are formal members of the House Tea Party Caucus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_politicians_affiliated_with_the_Tea_Party_movement

Main Street Partnership
(the Main Street Caucus was dissolved in 2019, although many current U.S. House members were Main Street Caucus members until that occurred just two years ago)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Main_Street_Partnership
http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/members
http://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/753404051/meltdown-on-main-street-inside-the-breakdown-of-the-gops-moderate-wing

Ripon Society
(public policy organization with a congressional advisory board)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripon_Society

Tuesday Group / Republican Governance Group
(informal caucus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuesday_Group

Liberty Caucus
(Effectively defunct. There are current House members who still serve and were recently members, and they may still be members. It's unknown whether the group still has meetings or elects leaders.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Caucus

Republican Liberty Caucus
(political action organization that endorses; affiliated with the non-profit 501(c)4 organization The Liberty Committee)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Liberty_Caucus
List of former members: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Liberty_Committee

DEMOCRATIC GROUPS

House Democratic Caucus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Democratic_Caucus

Formal Democratic Party Factions/Caucuses

Blue Dog Coalition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

New Democrat Coalition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

Blue Collar Caucus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Collar_Caucus

Congressional Progressive Caucus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

Democratic Ideological Factions Which Are Not Formal U.S. House Caucuses, But Are Similar Enough to Caucuses to Mention

Democratic Socialists of America
(non-profit organization that endorses)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America

Populist Caucus
(Effectively defunct. There are current House members who still serve and were recently members, and they may still be members. It's unknown whether the group still has meetings or elects leaders.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist_Caucus

Justice Democrats
(progressive PAC that endorses)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats

Democratic Freedom Caucus
(small caucus, no current U.S. Representatives are members)
http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/

Written, compiled, and published on February 3rd, 2021

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Partial List of Candidates Running for President in 2020

(?) = expressed interest, and/or formed an exploratory committee, but has not yet formally declared

Republican Party

1. de la Fuente, Roque "Rocky" (now running as the Reform Party candidate)
2. Hogan, Larry (seemed likely, but not running)
3. Istvan, Zoltan
4. Kasich, John (dropped out)
5. Sanford, Mark (dropped out)
6. Trump, Donald J. (incumbent)
7. Walsh, William Joseph "Joe" (dropped out)
8. Weld, William R. ("Bill") (dropped out)

Democratic Party

1. Abrams, Stacey (seemed likely, but not running)
2. Arth, Michael E. (probably ineligible; born in the United Kingdom)
3. Bennet, Michael (dropped out)
4. Biden, Joseph R., Jr. ("Joe")
5. Bloomberg, Michael (dropped out)
6. Booker, Cory (dropped out)
7. Boyd, Mosie
8. Braun, Harry
9. Brown, Sherrod (dropped out)
10. Bullock, Steve (dropped out)
11. Buttigieg, Pete (dropped out)
12. Castro, Julian (dropped out)
13. deBlasio, Bill (dropped out)
14. Delaney, John (dropped out)
15. Gabbard, Tulsi (dropped out)
16. Gillibrand, Kristen (dropped out)
17. Gleib, Ben
18. Gravel, Michael ("Mike") (dropped out)
19. Greenstein, Mark Stewart
19. Harris, Kamala (dropped out)
20. Hickenlooper, John (dropped out)
21. Horowitz, Ami (dropped out)

22. Inslee, Jay (dropped out)
23. Klobuchar, Amy (dropped out)

24. Messam, Wayne (dropped out)
25. Moulton, Seth (dropped out)
26. Nwadike, Ken, Jr.
27. o'Rourke, Robert Francis ("Beto") (dropped out)
28. Ojeda, Richard, Jr. (dropped out)
29. Patrick, Deval (dropped out)
30. Ryan, Tim (dropped out)
31. Sanders, Bernard ("Bernie") (dropped out)
32. Sestak, Joe (dropped out)
34. Steyer, Tom (dropped out)
35. Swalwell, Eric (dropped out)

36. Warren, Elizabeth (dropped out)
37. Wells, Robby (dropped out)
38. Williamson, Marianne (dropped out)
39. Yang, Andrew (dropped out)

Libertarian Party

1. Abramson, Max (withdrew)
2. Amash, Justin
3. Ardeleanu, Sorinne
4. Armstrong, Kenneth "Ken"
5. Ashby, Stephan Blake
6. Avouris, Aaron
7. Behrman, Daniel ("Dan")
8. Benedix, Daniel
9. Berry, Joey
10. Blevins, Kenneth
11. Brown, Keith
12. Campbell, Joseph Charles
13. Chafee, Lincoln (withdrew)
14. Christmann, Daniel
15. Cook, M. E. Sergeant, Sr.
16. Davenport, Daniel
17. DePriest, Kyler
18. Dryke, Benjamin T. (declined to run)
19. Dunham, Keenan Wallace
20. Ellison, Brian
21. Faas, Souraya
22. Faucett, Peyton
23. Gerhardt, Erik Chase
24. Gray, James P.
25. Gray, Phil
26. Greer, Evret
27. Hale, Dakota
28. Hartliep, Bradley Scott
29. Hill, Jedidiah "Jedi"
30. Hornberger, Jacob (came in 2nd place)
31. Horst, Heather
32. Hurst, William Joseph
33. Jackson, Ryan
34. Jones, Cameron
35. Jefferson, Cedric
36. Jefferson, Dakinya
37. Jefferson, Demondria
38. Jorgenson, Jo (won nomination)
39. Kokesh, Adam
40. Ince, Cecil Anthony Southwest
41. Layton, Nyle Benjamin "Ben"
42. Lea, Brandin
43. Leder, Benjamin G. ("Ben")
44. Lee, Kip
45. Lee, Seymour Art
46. Lowe, Donald Eugene
47. Lynch, Lorraine
48. Maldonado, Joseph Allen
49. McAfee, John David (was rumored, seeking vice presidential nomination instead)
50. McCutcheon, Shaun
51. Monds, John
52. Morris, Rickey
53. Peach, Jason Daniel
54. Perry, Darryl
55. Peterson, Austin
56. Phillips, John R.
57. Reid, Derrick Michael
58. Richey, Steven Allen "Steve"
59. Robb, Samuel Joseph
60. Ruff, Kimberly Margaret ("Kim") (withdrew)
61. Salas, Sandra
62. Seder, Sam (possible)
63. Sibillo, Jason Michael
64. Smith, Rhett Rosenquest
65. Spivey, Mark Douglas
66. Sportsinterviews, Leonard
67. Stefan, Christopher
68. Supreme, Vermin (came in 3rd place, now running as write-in independent)
69. Vanacore, Louis
70. Vohra, Arvin
71. Weaver, Christopher Francis
72. Whipple, Krista Marie
73. White, Justin
74. Whitney, Mark Ellerton
75. Wilkerson, Terry
76. Williams, Andy
77. Wysinger, Demetra

Sources for this information include:

http://ballotpedia.org/Libertarian_Party_presidential_nomination,_2020

Learn more about many of the above candidates at the following link:
http://beinglibertarian.com/libertarian-potus-2020/

Green Party

1. Augustson, Alan
2. Desuasido, Ivan-Jan
3. Hawkins, Howie (won nomination; has also received the nomination of the Socialist Workers' Party and several other parties)
4. Hunter, Dario (came in 2nd place, now running as an independent)
5. Kreml, Bill
6. Lambert, Dennis
7. Manley, Elijah
8. Mesplay, Kent
9. Milnes, Robert
10. Moyowasifza-Curry, Sedinam (now running as Mark Charles's running mate)
11. Nichols, Curt
12. Ogle, James
13. Rolde, David
14. Schiakman, Ian
15. Ventura, Jesse (received several delegates, now running as a write-in independent)

Constitution Party
1. Blankenship, Don (nominated)
2. Bradley, Scott
3. Castle, Darrell
4. Copeland, Scott
5. Kraut, Charles

American Free Soil Party (may have disbanded, nominee unknown)
1. Ramos, Enrique
2. Seaman, Adam

American Solidarity Party
1. Carroll, Brian T. (won nomination)
2. Perkins, Joshua
3. Schriner, Joe (now running as an independent)

Other Parties
1. Collins, Phil (Prohibition Party)
2. de la Fuente, Roque (Reform Party)
3. Hammons, Bill (Unity Party)
4. LaRiva, Gloria (Party for Socialism and Liberation, Peace and Freedom Party, Liberty Union Party)
5. Myers, J.R. (Life and Liberty Party)
6. Segal, Jerome (Bread and Roses Party)
7. West, Kanye (Birthday Party)
8. Zion, Ben (Transhumanist Party)

Independent Candidates

1. Amash, Justin (ran as an independent, then as a Libertarian, then dropped out)
2. Charles, Mark
3. Cuban, Mark (said no in an interview, but did not rule it out)
4. Kroell, Ronnie
5. Marks, Christopher "Chris"
6. Pierce, Brock
7. Simmons, Jade
8. Supreme, Vermin (came in 3rd for the Libertarian Party nomination, now running as a write-in independent candidate)

Click on the following links to see more candidates for the 2020 presidential election,
including the full list of nearly 700 people who have formally filed to run for president:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

http://ballotpedia.org/List_of_registered_2020_presidential_candidates

http://politics1.com/p2020.htm?fbclid=IwAR2KbPhEXf93zsEa2b1pxUcEDJEFqsrk55eolC6wD6ogUBcDwfK6ifZoNMw

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/16-candidates-now-qualify-for-the-first-democratic-primary-debates/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_candidates_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

Originally Published on April 16th, 2019

Expanded on April 18th and 29th; June 24th;
July 3rd and 22nd; August 26th; September 21st;
November 8th, 13th, 14th, and 19th; December 3rd, 2019;
January 28th; March 5th and 16th;
April 9th, 13th, and 15th; May 5th, and July 31st, 2020

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

In Defense of Allowing Denial of Coverage on the Basis of Pre-Existing Conditions

Written on January 11th, 2017

Edited on January 25th, 2017

Health insurance companies should be free to deny subscribers coverage, and raise the prices of premiums, on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
It may sound inhumane to advance this position, but it only seems cruel when we forget that insurance is supposed to insure against things that haven't happened yet; it is irrational to insure against getting a disease that you already have. If you have a pre-existing condition; what you need isn't health insurance; it's health care.

Taking this position seems even more inhumane when we forget that the provision of Obamacare that opposes that pre-existing conditions policy, by design, rests (in terms of implementation) on the completely illogical Individual Insurance Purchase Mandate, which was somehow found by the majority of the Supreme Court to be the most appropriate part of Obamacare. This means that once the Mandate falls, most of the rest of Obamacare falls. Moreover, the health insurance industry might not even need to exist.

It's not necessary to compel anyone to purchase health insurance, especially with people they may not want to be in the same pool with; whether that's because they have expensive conditions, or because they're older (and therefore more prone to disease), or simply because their political values - and their ideas about what health policy should look like - are different from other subscribers'. It is not only unnecessary to compel anyone to be in the same health insurance pool as any other particular person, for whatever reason; it is a violation of our constitutionally recognized freedom of, to, and from association.

Single-payer systems and public options can be made obsolete through the focused pooling of assets into voluntary health insurance cooperative plans. This idea replaces competition-destroying monopsonies (one-buyer systems; i.e., single-payer systems) with consumer-cooperative purchasing societies; market actors that can grow as large as necessary (in terms of purchasing power) in order to affect prices in a way that obtains low premium prices for all members of the pool.

The only way to justify continuing the Pre-Existing Conditions provision of Obamacare on grounds of freeing and opening people's access to trade in health insurance, is to absurdly argue that ordering someone to purchase something, is the same thing as allowing them to purchase it.

The blatantly unconstitutional Individual Insurance Purchase Mandate flies in the face of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and the Supreme Court opinion that upheld it undermines everything that a logical and fiscally responsible society ought to understand about what the difference should be between fees and fines, and between taxation and theft.

The government regulates people for refraining to engage in commerce by buying health insurance. Next it tries to address the problem of people being uninsured because they can't afford it, by requiring people to spend money they can't afford to buy the insurance. It passes this off as helping the poor.

Finally, it regulates the commerce (buying the policy) because it's commerce now, even though you wouldn't have engaged in commerce unless they ordered you to buy it. Still, you're theirs to regulate, even if they only have federal jurisdiction but you can't even buy policies from other states.

None of this is necessary. Doctors' Hippocratic Oaths include pledges to help patients regardless of their ability to pay. If Hippocratic Oaths were enforceable (whether by government, or by non-state-actor contract enforcement agencies), then doctors who agree to abide by that oath would not legally be free to decide whether to turn patients away.

If that happened, and if the parts of Obamacare that violate the Constitution were repealed, then patients wouldn't need health insurance companies. Not only that, but our supposedly caring government wouldn't even force patients to trade with health insurance companies. Without the Individual Mandate, government couldn't force us to buy from these companies; and without the Individual Mandate, there would be no need for government to force companies to accept us.

Remember, this is the same government that is limiting people's choices about what kind of medications they can try to save their own lives, taxing profits and sales of medical devices (raising prices and increasing malpractice lawsuits in the process), and enforcing medical patents for overly lengthy time periods in order to benefit Big Pharma (which makes the problem of availability of medical devices worse).

Meanwhile, the Third World suffers from disease, and Americans aren't allowed to buy cheaper drugs that imitate the patented ones, from Canada or Mexico. Figures in liberal media that "open borders is a Koch brothers proposal" so that we won't become aware of the hazardous effects that state and national borders have on the affordability and variety of consumer goods (medications and medical devices included). There are plenty of changes to health policy that would be more appropriate than six of the seven major provisions of P.P.A.C.A..

I oppose the Pre-Existing Conditions provision because it takes away a valuable freedom - the right of the insurance company to deny coverage - without compensating them for this takings, and without allowing individual insurance companies to refuse or opt-out. If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way, this takings would be seen as the extrajudicial theft that it constitutionally is.

Barack Obama's signature piece of legislation was a failure and a waste of public attention and money. In my opinion, about eighty-five percent of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has absolutely no constitutional or economic merit to it. I believe that it has only served to make the health care and insurance industries more complicated (both for its employees and for patients); more plagued with financial and procedural problems; and less compatible with civil liberties, due process of law, the right of private property, and a federal government that enforces strictly limited intellectual property rights laws, and obeys suggestions by the framers about what kind of taxes are permissible and why.

We should be allowing more people to buy insurance, not forcing people to do so. If young people are allowed to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26, that's fine, because that's freedom. It would not be freedom if they were ordered to stay on their parents' plans. For the same reason, government allowing denial of coverage is a freedom, while government forcing you to be covered by compelling you to buy, is the opposite of freedom; it is command-and-control economics.