"I think he probably will run," Hightower says, although he quickly notes that he may not be the only progressive candidate in the field. "There's a whole new dynamic sparked by Bernie's presidential run showing that people respond when something big and different and ethical comes their way."

"He looks younger today than he did four years ago," says Danny Fetonte, a retired labour union organiser from Austin who served as a Sanders delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention. "I think they'll have a very hard time stopping him."Jake Stevenson, a 20-year-old student at St Mary's University, said Mr Sanders was the first presidential candidate he voted for and the reason he chose to study political scienc

The NPC is expected to: ratify the inclusion of the president's political philosophy - "Xi Jinping Thought" - in the constitution. confirm China's new government line-up for the next five years, kicking off Xi Jinping's second term as president. approve the removal of the two-term limit on the presidency, meaning Xi Jinping can stay in office beyond 2023. ratify a law to set up a new powerful anti-corruption agency.

Beijing-based website China Finance Online lists sustainable industrial growth, building on benefits from the Belt and Road initiative and poverty alleviation as the key themes for the meetings.

Currently, those who criticize the results receive much attention,” he told Funke Group newspapers in an interview published Saturday. “But the deeper you look into the agreement, the more you see its quality.”

The president’s comments come as Democrats and Republicans in Congress scramble to make a deal on immigration that would protect Dreamers, immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. Trump has expressed interest in such a deal, but has said changes to the legal immigration system would have to accompany it.

Trump has added to this ugly record by banning Iranians from entering the United States and repeatedly denigrating Muslims and Islam. It’s hardly surprising, therefore, that according to a 2016 survey by the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies, 87 percent of Iranians held a negative view of the United States government. And that by a margin of three to one, according to a Zogby Research Services poll taken last summer, Iranians think Trump has made U.S.-Iranian relations worse.

Why can’t Pence understand that? I suspect a lot of it has to do with Ronald Reagan. Reagan, according to conservative legend, denounced the USSR—calling it an evil empire and demanding that it tear down the Berlin Wall—and thus helped inspire the revolts that brought down the Soviet empire. Pence wants to do something similar in Iran. But it’s a poor analogy. Eastern European countries like Poland were suffering under Soviet domination, and had little history of being dominated by the United States. Thus, Reagan was able to help stoke a Polish nationalism that expressed itself largely against Moscow. Iranians, by contrast, are rising up against homegrown dictators who use the specter of American domination to justify their hold on power. Iranians are thus less like Poles in the 1980s than Nicaraguans in the 1980s, who distrusted Reagan’s denunciations of their repressive Sandinista government because of their long, ugly experience with American power.It’s ironic that Pence, in his oped, called Iranians “proud.” It’s precisely because they are proud—because, like Americans, they desire both individual freedom and national self-determination—that they can reject Ayatollah Khamenei while also rejecting Donald Trump.

Pakistan now says the alliance is over—and good riddance. Foreign Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif complained that “This is not how allies behave.” He is absolutely correct: U.S. allies do not take its lower and middle-class taxpayers’ hard-earned money and hand it over to enemies such as the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and Lashkar-e-Taiba.Asif went on to offer the usual protestations that Pakistan’s military operations have cleared Pakistan of sanctuaries for these groups to hide in. But if there were such scoundrels on Pakistan’s territory, he said that if Pakistan went after them, “then the war will again be fought on our soil, which will suit the Americans.”

Still, Pakistan likely suspects it has the upper hand, and for good reason: It has cultivated a global fear that it is too dangerous to fail. This is why many Americans have been afraid to break ties with Pakistan and have never encouraged the International Monetary Fund and other multilateral organizations to cut off the country and let Pakistan wallow in its own mess. Pakistan believes it has effectively bribed the international community with the specter that any instability could result in terrorists getting their hands on Pakistani nuclear technology, fissile materials, or a weapon. In fact, Pakistan has stoked these fears by having the world’s fastest-growing nuclear program, including of battlefield nuclear weapons. It is conceivable that Pakistan could use funds from a future IMF bailout to service its burgeoning Chinese debt.

Still, one positive side effect of having an erratic head of state is that the United States now has a genuine and credible threat to act against Pakistan. America has not been in such a position since 9/11, when it used its position of leverage to coerce Pakistan to facilitate the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Whereas Pakistan had long comforted itself that neither Presidents Bush nor Obama would seriously alter course, due to the petting zoo of Islamist militants that Pakistan cultivated as crucial tools of foreign policy, and to its nuclear weapons, Pakistan will have to seriously consider that Trump means what he says. Since the early months of the war on terror that began in October 2001, the United States has ultimately swerved when confronted with Pakistani brinkmanship. Pakistan can’t count on that this time.

Part of the problem has been that, beyond the headlines trumpeting sales of aircraft to Iran by Boeing and Airbus, and energy investments by European and Chinese companies, there has actually been little real foreign direct investment in Iran since the JCPOA was signed. Last April, Iran’s finance minister said memorandums of understanding worth $50 billion were signed after the JCPOA went into effect in January 2016. But a government spokesman said that from March 2016 to March 2017, the Iranian fiscal year, Iran received $13 billion in foreign investment. It turned out that the memorandums were for the most part only that—the investments have yet to materialize.

“It is excessive to expect a radical change in the field [of foreign investment] as long as the concept is controversial for the top influential elites,” Majid Tehrani, an organization development adviser in trade, transport and finance industries, told Al-Monitor.Existing U.S. sanctions on Iran are broad enough to hinder any potential economic activity. The fact that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the target of U.S. sanctions, has significant stakes in Iranian companies makes investing in the country a legal minefield. Had the U.S. reimposed sanctions, multinational companies would have hesitated to invest in Iran. Now that it looks like the JCPOA is alive for another 120 days, the uncertainty over the agreement’s future hasn’t gone away.

While such behavior may not be enough to sever a more than two-century-old relationship, it has proven enough to force both sides to address the question that it could. “This is a long-term special relationship that we have,” May said of the U.K.-U.S. relationship following a terse exchange with Trump in November. “It is an enduring relationship that is there because it is in both our national interests for that relationship to be there. As Prime Minister, I am clear that that relationship with the United States should continue.”While a Trump visit to the U.K. appears to be ruled out for now, at least he’ll be there in spirit. Shortly after the president’s cancellation, the London-based Madame Tussaud’s wax museum offered their own replica of the president to take his place.

If those effects were repeated in Medicaid, it could prove disastrous for the health of the program’s beneficiaries. Especially in states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare, work requirements could create a new underclass of people ineligible for any health insurance. That includes a large contingent of people with disabilities who don’t qualify for Supplemental Security Income and vulnerable populations like young men with felonies. Caught in a vicious cycle, those people would then be less healthy and less financially secure, and thus less likely to be able to work and make it out of poverty

Such a program would have its most drastic effects on wages, productivity, and reducing racial and class-based wealth inequality if it were implemented as a universal program. But it could probably achieve CMS’s goals of long-term health benefits and poverty reduction if it were instituted solely for current Medicaid beneficiaries. If the 4.4 million non-elderly adults who aren’t working; aren’t caregivers, retired, or students; and don’t qualify for disability insurance are used as a floor, providing jobs for them would cost a little more than Lowrey’s total of $158 billion, around 30 percent of Medicaid’s annual budget of over $550 billion. If people who self-report as ill or disabled are excluded from that number, Medicaid would need to pay for a maximum of 880,000 jobs, or $35 billion a year, 6 percent of the annual Medicaid budget.

A Medicaid jobs guarantee could serve to amplify both of those roles. It could essentially set a wage floor for Medicaid enrollees, who often work near the bottom of the wage scale and often barely crack the poverty line even while working full-time hours (or more). Integrating Medicaid into bespoke job structures for people with disabilities could provide transportation and rehabilitation, and further increase the accessibility of those positions, thus creating more synergy between health and employment.

Similar to how employer-sponsored insurance has become a backbone to the economic growth of the middle class, a jobs guarantee for Medicaid would take the largest health-insurance program in America and transform it into a nexus of anti-poverty policy and health equity. Put more simply: The easiest way to make sure people receive the health benefits of employment could be to employ them.

Congress is now considering amending the 1995 Congressional Accountability Act, the law governing how harassment cases are handled on Capitol Hill, after seven members have either resigned or said they would not seek reelection in the wake of sexual harassment allegations. Attorneys who handle these cases say most staffers take no action because they fear it could hurt their careers.

For nine months, Packer was Hastings’s policy adviser on the commission staff. Then he promoted her to a foreign post in Vienna. Her salary more than doubled, to $165,000 from $80,000, court records show.

In February 2010, Packer said she sought help from the office of Rep. Christopher H. Smith, (R-N.J.), who served with Hastings on the commission, and was referred to the Office of Compliance. The office was established by the Congressional Accountability Act as a place for legislative branch employees to file workplace claims, including sexual harassment allegations. Packer filed a formal complaint against Hastings on Aug. 9, 2010. Under the law, she had to agree to up to 30 days of confidential counseling to get advice on her rights and options for pursuing a complaint. Counselors in the Office of Compliance are forbidden under the law from advocating for the victim in sexual harassment cases, including making lawyer referrals.

Officials say they have worked to make the process easier for employees. “It is not required that the employee attend,” said Barbara Childs Wallace, chair of the Office of Compliance Board of Directors, at a congressional hearing in November. “It is not required that they sit in the same room with the person they are accusing, of sexual harassment, for instance.”

House Employment Counsel attorneys Ann Rogers and Russell Gore did not respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment. Gloria Lett, the lead attorney in the Office of House Employment Counsel (OHEC), said she was bound by confidentiality and could not discuss the case.

By spring 2014, the discovery phase of the case was ramping up, meaning both sides would be forced to hand over emails and other documents that might be critical in the case. Key witnesses, including Hastings and Packer, would be required to testify under oath.