What does everyone think Biden's100 day agenda should be?

Yep, all temporary for now though, let them do their evaluation and see where it's at. No reason to freak out.

 

Most important...

 

Even my favorite reporter is on this story...

 

https://www.city-journal.org/biden-touts-california-as-model-for-america

 

Biden fires doctor who lied about Trump's Covid condition

Remember Dr. Sean Conley, the Trump sycophant who misrepresented Trump's Covid condition last fall? The doctor who said, "This morning the President is doing very well… The President is fever-free for over 24 hours," when in reality Trump wasn't doing "very well" and was receiving supplemental oxygen for shortness of breath?

And then, minutes later, it was reported that White House chief of staff Mark Meadows contradicted the doctor, telling reporters, "The president's vitals over the last 24 hours were very concerning and the next 48 hours will be critical in terms of his care…We're still not on a clear path to a full recovery." Well, President Biden decided that's not the doctor for him.

Biden fired Dr. Conley and replaced him with Dr. Kevin O'Connor, who was his doctor when he served as vice president.
​

 

speaking of 100 days....

Texas judge temporarily halts Biden's 100-day deportation freeze (yahoo.com)

 

"Twitter's priceless gift to Biden":

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/28/joe-biden-donald-trump-twitter-ban-463384

 

Republican playbook from 2009-2010. Slow walk the bill. Make many demands. And then still not vote for the bill.

 

Right now we have a president who reads and understands full form Intel briefings.

That's not on the 100 day agenda and up until Trump it was business as usual.

Finally, it is once again.

 

"Biden Restores a Barrier to Opioid Addiction Treatment":

https://reason.com/2021/02/02/biden-restores-a-barrier-to-opioid-addiction-treatment/

 

https://www.addictioncenter.com/news/2021/01/biden-canceling-trumps-opioid-treatment-prescriptions/

During his campaign, President Biden recognized the problem surrounding Opioid treatment. He declared the restrictions on Buprenorphine as unnecessary and outdated. He even promised to lift and review Methadone treatment regulations. But experts in both the legal and healthcare sectors advised against it. Many believe the Department of Health and Human Services did not have the authority to remove a Congress regulation. According to the Washington Post, the new guidelines had “legal and clinical concerns.” They were an attempt by the Trump administration to bypass Congress’s mandated requirements. Even Elinore McCance-Katz attempted to block the plan. Katz was once Trump’s assistant HHS secretary for mental health and substance use. According to Katz, for months she tried to stall the announcement. She believed the policy was not ready for release and needed more restrictions. Without proper limits, a catastrophe like the Opioid epidemic could occur, starring Buprenorphine.

Due to numerous concerns, the Biden administration is planning on withdrawing the hasty order. Change and rapid action are needed to battle the Opioid epidemic. But the Trump administration’s clinical guidelines may be more problematic than helpful. So, a repeal may be necessary to avoid the creation of a new crisis. By delaying the policy change, Biden’s administration can smooth out legal concerns. They may even design a new drug policy based on science, health, and compassion. Soon we could see effective recovery plans in response to the Opioid epidemic.

 

Those lying shitbags and their partisans, to this day, still point to Obamacare passing with Reconcilliation as Dems "ramming the bill down their throats" despite the year it took in comittees no one gave a **** about.

Even used that excuse as "payback" for what they did during Trump.

Two-faced bullshit.

 

I'm starting to think twtr may still be undervalued. So much power eventually = more $
@Ziggy

Too bad can't invest in reddit directly.

 

"Biden Tells Federal Bureaucrats To Approve Regulations With Benefits That Are 'Impossible To Quantify'":

https://reason.com/2021/02/01/biden...ith-benefits-that-are-impossible-to-quantify/

excerpt:

President Joe Biden has moved swiftly to rev up the regulatory state by weakening oversight and effectively ending a reality-based assessment of the costs and benefits of federal regulation.

It may have gone largely unnoticed amid a flurry of executive orders Biden has signed since taking office less than two weeks ago, but a January 20 memo from the White House to the "heads of executive departments and agencies" outlines a regulatory framework that will empower federal bureaucrats to count unquantifiable "benefits" when weighing the potential impact of new regulations.

Specifically, Biden instructed those officials to revamp their regulatory review processes to "promote public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations." The memo also states that the new regime "serves as a tool to affirmatively promote regulations."

Towards that end, Biden's memo says that his administration will alter the Office of Management and Budget's rules regarding regulations "to ensure that the review process…fully accounts for regulatory benefits that are difficult or impossible to quantify."
​

more at the link

 

"Biden Is Ignoring Virus Mutations":

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/02/03/biden_is_ignoring_virus_mutations_145175.html

excerpt:

Message to the Biden administration: The public doesn't want to see any more presidential press conferences announcing Climate Day, racial Equity Day, Immigration Reform Day, or any other themes. Every day needs to be vaccination day. The urgency needs to be translated into action.
​

more at the link

 

"The Hidden Cost of Undoing the Travel Ban"

the author argues this was a mistake:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/hidden-cost-undoing-travel-ban

excerpt:

How, you might ask, could undoing such an unpopular and racist order possibly be a mistake? The answer is that, by the time of its revocation, the Trump travel ban had become something quite different from its starting point. Under pressure from the courts and the press, the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had reshaped Trump's order into a calibrated security tool that depended not at all on the majority religion of the countries it affected.

One of DHS's great successes since 9/11 has been finding a way to let huge numbers of people into the country each day without giving up on security. The key is knowing more about each traveler, so that the government can make good risk-based decisions about who to admit. But that data-driven strategy only works if the U.S. has a minimum of cooperation from other governments. If the traveler's home government makes it easy to obtain a fake identity, or if it refuses to tell the U.S. about travelers with criminal or terrorist ties, a border security system that depends on traveler data will fail.

The original travel ban executive orders, issued in January and March of 2017, weren't grounded directly in the need for such cooperation. Instead, to determine which countries were subject to the ban, the orders simply borrowed their list from past congressional and executive designations. But these orders did contemplate that the temporary ban would be followed by an interagency effort to determine the kind of information needed to admit future travelers. DHS took this as a mandate to put the ban on a new footing—one that would support its data-driven, individualized assessment of travelers by encouraging deeper cooperation from other governments.

Many commentators have jeered at the idea of Republicans joining the Trump administration in the hope of contributing to government by sanding the rough edges off Trump's instincts and turning them into good policy. But this is such a case. DHS officials were able to transform Trump's off-the-cuff rhetoric into a defensible and important contribution to U.S. border security.

By September 2017, DHS's work was adopted in a presidential proclamation. It did not judge a handful of countries by the ethnicity or religion of their citizens; nor did it borrow its list from other legal contexts. Instead, the department had ranked 200 countries by how much help they give the U.S. in deciding who can safely be admitted to this country.

It is an unfortunate fact that some governments don't issue reliable identity documents, or don't bother to tell Interpol when one of their citizens' passports is stolen, even though such a passport can be used for a long time outside the country of issuance. Other governments are reluctant to share the criminal or terrorist records of their citizens, and a few are so hostile that the U.S. can't count on them for any help in spotting terrorists.

The U.S. has a pretty good idea which countries are doing a good job on these and other measures of cooperation. In fact, in its initial review, DHS found almost 50 countries whose identity systems or information sharing with the U.S. needed improvement. It told them all that their citizens could be caught in an expanded and revamped travel ban.

No one wanted to end up on the new list. DHS was able to open talks, not just with the least helpful governments but with any that didn't meet the highest standards. The result was heartening. Nearly 30 countries provided document exemplars that could be used to spot fake IDs. According to testimony by Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Neumann, three countries agreed to issue more secure passports. Nearly a dozen agreed to share more information about known or suspected terrorists.

I have negotiated such information sharing agreements with other countries on behalf of DHS, and getting even one new agreement is an accomplishment. DHS's achievement here is impressive.
​

more at the link

 

Man.... where we're your links on Trump's poor handling of Covid during his presidency?


All I remember is lockdowns don't work, Sweden and Cuomo.