thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--R.E.M. Considers Legal Action To Stop Trump From Using The Band's Songs

The bass player for the now-defunct rock band R.E.M .
wants to stop President Donald Trump from using the group ’ s songs after Trump ’ s reelection campaign played two of its tunes at a rally in Milwaukee Tuesday night .
R.E.M.
’ s Mike Mills said Wednesday the band ― which broke up in 2011 after decades of success ― was “ exploring all legal avenues ” to prevent Trump from using their tunes at the political gatherings .
Mills went on to characterize the president as a “ fraud ” and “ con man , ” saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of our music ” by him .
We are aware that the President* @ realDonaldTrump continues to use our music at his rallies .
We are exploring all legal avenues to prevent this , but if that ’ s not possible please know that we do not condone the use of our music by this fraud and con man .
— Mike Mills ❄💨⛄ ( @ m_millsey ) January 15 , 2020 The R.E.M .
songs “ Everybody Hurts ” and “ Losing My Religion ” played at Tuesday ’ s event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his administration ’ s assassination of Iran military leader Qassem Soleimani , on of the most powerful figures in the Middle East .
Soleimani ’ s death escalated conflict between the U.S. and Iran and , many experts worry , intensifies the danger facing American assets and troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East .
Mills is a vocal opponent of Trump and his policies , often insulting him in tweets .
On Sunday , he called Trump an “ Adderal-deranged idiot ” who is “ renting our troops out as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s questionable claims about Saudi Arabia paying for additional U.S. troops dispatched to that country .
Mills has railed about Trump ’ s use of R.E.M.
’ s songs since 2015 , when the businessman began his first presidential campaign .
“ Go f*** yourselves , the lot of you―you sad , attention grabbing , power-hungry little men , ” Mills tweeted that year .
“ Do not use our music or my voice for your moronic charade of a campaign.
” At that time , Trump ’ s campaign was using R.E.M.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s The End Of The World As We Know It ( And I Feel Fine ) .
” Other musicians and singers have pushed back against the use of their music in politics without prior approval , especially when they have been played at Trump events .
Adele , Rihanna , Aerosmith and Elton John are just a few pop stars who have urged the president ’ s campaign to stop using their material at such gatherings .
Aerosmith and Rihanna have even sent Trump cease-and-desist letters , though it is hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The bass player for the now-defunct rock band R.E.M. wants to stop President Donald Trump from using the group’s songs after Trump’s reelection campaign played two of its tunes at a rally in Milwaukee Tuesday night.
R.E.M.’s Mike Mills said Wednesday the band ― which broke up in 2011 after decades of success ― was “exploring all legal avenues” to prevent Trump from using their tunes at the political gatherings. Mills went on to characterize the president as a “fraud” and “con man,” saying the band does “not condone the use of our music” by him.
Advertisement
We are aware that the President* @realDonaldTrump continues to use our music at his rallies. We are exploring all legal avenues to prevent this, but if that’s not possible please know that we do not condone the use of our music by this fraud and con man. — Mike Mills ❄💨⛄ (@m_millsey) January 15, 2020
The R.E.M. songs “Everybody Hurts” and “Losing My Religion” played at Tuesday’s event before Trump took the stage and celebrated his administration’s assassination of Iran military leader Qassem Soleimani, one of the most powerful figures in the Middle East.
Soleimani’s death escalated conflict between the U.S. and Iran and, many experts worry, intensifies the danger facing American assets and troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.
The Trump campaign seems to have added R.E.M. to its rally playlist. ("Everybody Hurts" and "Losing My Religion" so far.) — Christopher Mathias (@letsgomathias) January 14, 2020
Advertisement
Mills is a vocal opponent of Trump and his policies, often insulting him in tweets. On Sunday, he called Trump an “Adderal-deranged idiot” who is “renting our troops out as mercenaries” in response to Trump’s questionable claims about Saudi Arabia paying for additional U.S. troops dispatched to that country.
Mills has railed about Trump’s use of R.E.M. songs since 2015, when the New York businessman began his first presidential campaign.
“Go f*** yourselves, the lot of you―you sad, attention grabbing, power-hungry little men,” Mills tweeted that year. “Do not use our music or my voice for your moronic charade of a campaign.”
At that time, Trump’s campaign was using R.E.M.’s song “It’s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine).”
Other musicians and singers have pushed back against the use of their music in politics without prior approval, especially when they have been played at Trump events.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Cutting Social Security Disability Benefits Can Backfire Horribly

More than 8 million Americans receive Social Security Disability Insurance , for which they must prove to the government that they suffer from a severe disability that won ’ t go away within a year .
Even after they ’ ve been awarded benefits , from time to time most recipients have to prove that they ’ re still unable to work in order to continue receiving benefits .
How often reviews happen depends on the severity of a person ’ s impairments .
The Trump administration wants to make those “ continuing disability reviews ” more frequent , arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for medical improvement among some recipients .
And it said it would look particularly closely at disability claimants awarded benefits partly because their age and educational attainment made them less likely to be able to find work .
As part of a long-running moral panic over supposedly undeserving Americans getting welfare , Congress in 1980 required the Social Security Administration to review nonpermanent disability claims every three years .
Reagan loved to bash welfare , and his administration implemented the law with gusto .
Instead of doing just 150,000 reviews each year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration aimed for half a million .
“ It was frightening to people ― they hated to get letters from Social Security because it was in the news all the time , ” said Marty Ford , who worked at the time for the Washington , D.C. , chapter of The Arc , a nonprofit that advocates for people with disabilities .
Ford is now a senior adviser with The Arc nationally .
One 1983 news story focused on Roy Benavidez , a Vietnam war hero Reagan had recognized with a Medal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security had reviewed his case and decided he could get a job despite the war injuries that left him with severe pain and shrapnel in his heart .
“ I don ’ t like to use my Medal of Honor for political purposes or personal gain , but if they can do this to me , what will they do to all the others ?
” Benavidez said then , according to his 1998 obituary in the Times .
Class action lawsuits revealed what a federal judge described as an illegal “ covert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ d been granted enrollment in part because of mental impairments , rather than solely because of physical disabilities .
Officials believed such people ought to be able to do unskilled work .
“ If we flash-forward to the present , there is a parallel or similar thing that ’ s come in to play , ” Stein said .
“ The Social Security Administration is using the cover of a CDR , which are authorized by Congress , but they are at the same time altering it in important ways.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Trump administration has insisted that former recipients will be better off if they ’ re forced to go get jobs .
But with the disability proposal , the administration admitted it “ can not currently quantify ” how many might find work .
Past research on incomes of former disability recipients paints a somewhat grim picture , with low earnings and high poverty rates .
The draft regulation would not affect initial eligibility for disability benefits , but would subject some claimants to review every two years if the administration believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical improvement .
The rule specifies that certain cancers , such as leukemia or lymphoma , would be considered likely to improve , as well as speech and anxiety disorders .
Other claimants would be included in the “ improvement likely ” category if they had been awarded benefits not solely because of their disability , but also because of factors such as age , education and work experience that affect their ability to find new jobs .
“ Unfortunately , what we are seeing in the proposed regulations are similar mistakes made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Lowell Arye , who worked as a staffer on the House Select Committee on Aging in the 1980s , said in a formal comment on the Trump regulation .
He said “ the targeting of individuals ” who won benefits partly because of vocational factors is similar to what the Reagan administration did when it targeted people with mental illness .
If the regulation is finalized ― which could happen later this year ― disability claimants would have far more recourse than they did in the 1980s , said Barbara Silverstone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Claimants ’ Representatives , largely because of the safeguards Congress enacted in 1984 .
But Silverstone emphasized that the reviews aren ’ t easy .
“ It requires short essays about the beneficiary ’ s use of assistive devices , daily activities , and hobbies or interests , ” she wrote in a letter to the Social Security administrator .
“ It requires a list of all medical providers with their contact information , the dates of the first and most recent appointments , and any treatments provided .
All medications and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be listed as well .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In the early 1980s, the Ronald Reagan administration terminated benefits for thousands of disabled people who were supposedly loafing on Social Security Disability Insurance instead of getting a job.
The cuts sparked a public outcry, state government protests, serious congressional pushback and court rulings restoring people’s benefits.
Advertisement
Now the Donald Trump administration is pursuing changes that disability advocates say could repeat those same mistakes.
In a proposed regulation, the Social Security Administration said in November that to “maintain appropriate stewardship of the disability program” it wants to do more frequent reviews checking that program enrollees are still disabled.
The administration is also reportedly considering a separate rule that would tighten initial eligibility standards for disability benefits. Both moves are part of the president’s general crackdown on programs that benefit poor people.
More than 8 million disabled American workers receive Social Security Disability Insurance, for which they must prove to the government that they experience from a severe disability that won’t go away within a year. Even after they’ve been awarded benefits, from time to time most recipients have to prove that they’re still unable to work in order to continue receiving benefits. How often reviews happen depends on the severity of a person’s conditions.
Advertisement
The Trump administration wants to make those “continuing disability reviews” more frequent, arguing that the current system fails to account for medical improvement among some recipients. And it said it would look particularly closely at disability claimants awarded benefits partly because their age and educational attainment made them less likely to be able to find work.
“It was frightening to people ― they hated to get letters from Social Security.” - Marty Ford, The Arc
Increasing the number of disability reviews also triggered the Reagan-era debacle.
As part of a long-running moral panic over supposedly undeserving Americans getting welfare, Congress in 1980 required the Social Security Administration to review nonpermanent disability claims every three years. Reagan loved to bash welfare, and his administration implemented the law with gusto. Instead of doing just 150,000 reviews each year, as had been done previously, the administration aimed for half a million.
It became a scandal almost immediately, as thousands discovered their benefits were being terminated.
“It was frightening to people ― they hated to get letters from Social Security because it was in the news all the time,” said Marty Ford, who worked at the time for the Washington, D.C., chapter of The Arc, a nonprofit that advocates for people with disabilities. Ford is now a senior adviser with The Arc nationally.
Advertisement
The New York Times reported in 1982 that federal officials “acknowledge that several people have committed suicide after being told that they were losing disability benefits.”
One 1983 news story focused on Roy Benavidez, a Vietnam war hero Reagan had recognized with a Medal of Honor just two years prior. Social Security had reviewed his case and decided he could get a job despite the war injuries that left him with severe pain and shrapnel in his heart.
“I don’t like to use my Medal of Honor for political purposes or personal gain, but if they can do this to me, what will they do to all the others?” Benavidez said then, according to his 1998 obituary in the Times.
From 1982 through 1984, the Reagan administration reviewed about 1.2 million cases and sent out 490,000 termination notices, according to the Congressional Research Service. A whopping 200,000 of those terminations were reversed on appeal.
Class action lawsuits revealed what a federal judge described as an illegal “covert policy” to revoke benefits from people who’d been granted enrollment in part because of mental conditions, rather than solely because of physical disabilities. Officials believed such people ought to be able to do unskilled work.
Advertisement
“They used the cover of disability reviews which appeared to be legally authorized ... but they used it as a vehicle to actually change rules,” said Jonathan Stein, a former legal aid attorney who represented disability claimants in the ’80s.
Amid the uproar, the Reagan administration declared a moratorium on continuing disability reviews in 1984, and that year Congress passed a law disallowing terminations without substantial improvement in whatever medical condition had led to the initial award of benefits.
“If we flash-forward to the present, there is a parallel or similar thing that’s come in to play,” Stein said. “The Social Security Administration is using the cover of a CDR, which are authorized by Congress, but they are at the same time altering it in important ways.”
The Trump proposal would result in 2.6 million more reviews over a decade, at a cost of $1.8 billion ― which the administration said would save $2.6 billion by terminating benefits for an unspecified number of SSDI and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries. Altogether there are more than 13 million beneficiaries of SSDI and SSI combined. (SSI helps people with more limited work histories and provides smaller benefits.)
With its proposals to cut food benefits, the Trump administration has insisted that former recipients will be better off if they’re forced to go get jobs. But with the disability proposal, the administration admitted it “cannot currently quantify” how many might find work. Past research on incomes of former disability recipients paints a somewhat grim picture, with low earnings and high poverty rates.
Advertisement
The draft regulation would not affect initial eligibility for disability benefits, but would subject some claimants to review every two years if the administration believes they are “likely” to see medical improvement. The rule specifies that certain cancers, such as leukemia or lymphoma, would be considered likely to improve, as well as speech and anxiety disorders.
Other claimants would be included in the “improvement likely” category if they had been awarded benefits not solely because of their disability, but also because of factors such as age, education and work experience that affect their ability to find new jobs.
“Unfortunately, what we are seeing in the proposed regulations are similar mistakes made by SSA in the early 1980s,” Lowell Arye, who worked as a staffer on the House Select Committee on Aging in the 1980s, said in a formal comment on the Trump regulation. He said “the targeting of individuals” who won benefits partly because of vocational factors is similar to what the Reagan administration did when it targeted people with mental illness.
If the regulation is finalized ― which could happen later this year ― disability claimants would have far more recourse than they did in the 1980s, said Barbara Silverstone, director of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, largely because of the safeguards Congress enacted in 1984.
But Silverstone emphasized that the reviews aren’t easy. “It requires short essays about the beneficiary’s use of assistive devices, daily activities, and hobbies or interests,” she wrote in a letter to the Social Security administrator. “It requires a list of all medical providers with their contact information, the dates of the first and most recent appointments, and any treatments provided. All medications and tests, education, and vocational rehabilitation must be listed as well.”
Advertisement
Silverstone’s letter pointed to administrative data indicating that benefit terminations due to a simple failure to cooperate with a review had more than doubled as a percentage of all terminations from 2013 to 2016.
The Trump proposal was specifically designed “to demotivate and demoralize people from getting their disability benefits they earned,” said Alex Lawson, director of the liberal advocacy group Social Security Works.
A key difference between the 1980s and today is that while disability receipt had been rising then, it’s falling now. The total number of disabled workers receiving benefits peaked at 9 million in 2014; there were a half million fewer disabled worker beneficiaries in 2018, according to the latest data.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--The Equal Rights Amendment Just Cleared A Key Hurdle For Ratification

Women ’ s rights activists were jubilant Wednesday after Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment , finally clearing a key hurdle needed for it to be included in the Constitution .
The ERA would amend the Constitution to give women equal standing under the law .
It was first conceived of nearly a century ago , but first passed in the U.S. Congress in 1972 .
It then went out for ratification to the states , three-fourths of which must ratify in order to amend the Constitution .
After a flurry of states ratified back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and by the time the congressional deadline came and went , the ERA had fallen three states short of what was necessary .
Jessica Lenahan , center , a domestic violence survivor , and Carol Jenkins , right , of the Equal Rights Amendment Task Force , attend a news conference at the House Triangle in Washington , D.C. , on the need to ratify the ERA on June 6 , 2018 .
Then , about five years ago , women ’ s rights activists picked the effort back up .
In 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ratify .
Illinois followed in 2018 .
On Wednesday , Virginia ’ s House and Senate both voted to ratify ― a huge victory .
Last year , the ERA fell one vote short of moving out of committee .
The blue , women-infused wave of last year ’ s Virginia elections changed the dynamics this time around .
Technically , the House and Senate votes will need to be reconciled before the ERA is officially ratified in the state , but for all intents and purposes it ’ s official .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly tremendous , ” said Carol Jenkins , the CEO of the ERA Coalition , a group of more than 100 organizations that have been pushing the amendment for the past five years .
“ There are other steps that need to be addressed , but this was a clear victory after so much hard work on the part of the activists in Virginia and across the country who supported them and the legislators who ’ ve fought to get the ERA ratified.
” The next problem for activists is that pesky deadline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it set a deadline for states to approve .
It eventually extended the deadline to 1982 .
Opponents argue that was the end of the road .
Trump ’ s Justice Department made that case in a written nonbinding opinion earlier this month , arguing that the process to ratify the ERA needs to start back at square one .
ERA proponents are pushing back against this in two ways : Some ERA activists are trying to get Congress to pass a bill extending the deadline .
Others say the deadline itself @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Women’s rights activists were jubilant Wednesday after Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, finally clearing a key hurdle needed for it to be included in the Constitution.
Many more obstacles lay ahead, however, including a hostile Trump administration and a lawsuit from anti-ERA Republican attorneys general.
Advertisement
The ERA would amend the Constitution to give women equal standing under the law. It was first conceived of nearly a century ago, but first passed in the U.S. Congress in 1972. It then went out for ratification to the states, three-fourths of which must ratify in order to amend the Constitution.
Clearly, that’s taken a while.
After a flurry of states ratified back then, a backlash kicked in ― and by the time the congressional deadline came and went, the ERA had fallen three states short of what was necessary.
Jessica Lenahan, center, a domestic violence survivor, and Carol Jenkins, right, of the Equal Rights Amendment Task Force, attend a news conference at the House Triangle in Washington, D.C., on the need to ratify the ERA on June 6, 2018. Tom Williams via Getty Images
Then, about five years ago, women’s rights activists picked the effort back up. In 2017, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify. Illinois followed in 2018.
Advertisement
On Wednesday, Virginia’s House and Senate both voted to ratify ― a huge victory. Last year, the ERA fell one vote short of moving out of committee. The blue, women-infused wave of last year’s Virginia elections changed the dynamics this time around.
Technically, the House and Senate votes will need to be reconciled before the ERA is officially ratified in the state, but for all intents and purposes it’s official.
“It’s a big day; truly tremendous,” said Carol Jenkins, the CEO of the ERA Coalition, a group of more than 100 organizations that have been pushing the amendment for the past five years. “There are other steps that need to be addressed, but this was a clear victory after so much hard work on the part of the activists in Virginia and across the country who supported them and the legislators who’ve fought to get the ERA ratified.”
The next problem for activists is that pesky deadline. When Congress initially passed the ERA, it set a deadline for states to approve. It eventually extended the deadline to 1982. Opponents argue that was the end of the road.
Trump’s Justice Department made that case in a written nonbinding opinion earlier this month, arguing that the process to ratify the ERA needs to start back at square one.
Advertisement
ERA proponents are pushing back against this in two ways: Some ERA activists are trying to get Congress to pass a bill extending the deadline. Others say the deadline itself is unconstitutional.
Either way, expect a big constitutional battle to come.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--In Milwaukee, Trump Fans Cheer Soleimani Assassination Amid Anti-War Protest

SAUL LOEB via Getty Images U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for a `` Keep America Great '' campaign rally in Milwaukee , Wisconsin , Jan. 14 , 2020 .
But there wasn ’ t just one protester with a weak voice Tuesday night .
Outside the arena , hundreds of protesters gathered in the cold .
“ No more war !
” they chanted , as cops in riot gear looked on .
“ Money for jobs !
Not for war !
” And some 350 miles west , on another stage in Des Moines , Iowa , six Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for recklessly bringing the U.S. to the brink of war with Iran .
The competing political events highlighted deep divisions in the U.S. over Soleimani ’ s assassination .
While many see the escalation in tensions with Iran as potentially leading to a greater armed conflict and further instability in the Middle East , the president ’ s supporters , with a uniform and cultish devotion , saw Trump ’ s decision as further evidence of his strength and leadership .
She ’ d served in the Navy , she explained to HuffPost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Army to Afghanistan , where she says he was seriously wounded by an improvised explosive device .
Finger , who now works in retail in Oconto , Wisconsin , was glad the president ordered the airstrike that killed Soleimani .
Last week Trump claimed , without offering any evidence , that Soleimani , head of Iran ’ s Quds Force , a group the U.S. designates as terrorists , which had worked to counter American influence in the region , had been planning imminent attacks on four U.S. embassies .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mark Esper , and his secretary of state , Mike Pompeo , both declined to confirm the president ’ s assertion .
The administration had also emphasized Soleimani ’ s role in planning attacks throughout the Middle East in recent years , leading to the deaths of some 600 U.S. troops in Iraq , where America has had a military presence since 2003 , after it illegally invaded that country , leading to a war that has since killed hundreds of thousands .
Chris Lewison , a 47-year-old Iraq War veteran , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clipboard , cheerily asking fellow Trump supporters to volunteer for the campaign .
His right hand was in a cast .
He had gotten stressed out recently and punched a table , he explained to HuffPost .
“ It ’ s just PTSD , ” he elaborated .
“ I got some issues with that.
” And Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
said the U.S. needs to get our troops out of the Middle East and instead use economic and diplomatic tools to bring peace to the region .
( Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ East after the killing of Soleimani . )
“ We have to stop this mindset that we can do everything with combat troops , ” Warren said .
“ Our military is the finest military on Earth , and they will take any sacrifice we ask them to take , but we should stop asking our military to solve problems that can not be solved militarily.
” As Trump supporters filtered out of the arena after the rally , there were some minor skirmishes with protesters in the street .
Mohammed Mustfa , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the protest .
He told HuffPost one Trump supporter tried to get him to convert from Islam to Christianity .

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for a "Keep America Great" campaign rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Jan. 14, 2020. SAUL LOEB via Getty Images
MILWAUKEE — At a campaign rally here Tuesday evening, as President Donald Trump touted his decision to assassinate Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a protester behind the president held up a sign that read, “NO WAR.”
The protester screamed too, though the message was largely inaudible to the crowd of some 10,000 Trump supporters inside the UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena. Trump paused his speech. Loud jeers from the crowd turned into rapturous cheers and applause as security officers removed the protester.
Advertisement
Trump gestured at the journalists in the arena. “So here’s your headline tomorrow: ‘Protesters Disturb The Rally,’” he said. But it was only “one protester,” Trump argued, with a “very weak voice.” The crowd laughed.
But there wasn’t just one protester with a weak voice Tuesday night. Outside the arena, hundreds of protesters gathered in the cold. “No more war!” they chanted, as cops in riot gear looked on. “Money for jobs! Not for war!” And some 350 miles west, on another stage in Des Moines, Iowa, six Democratic candidates for president lashed out at Trump for recklessly bringing the U.S. to the brink of war with Iran.
The competing political events highlighted deep divisions in the U.S. over Soleimani’s assassination. While many see the escalation in tensions with Iran as potentially leading to a greater armed conflict and further instability in the Middle East, the president’s supporters, with a uniform and cultish devotion, saw Trump’s decision as further evidence of his strength and leadership.
Barbara Finger, 69, stood in line outside the arena in Milwaukee before Tuesday’s rally, wrapped in a long coat. “NAVY VETERAN,” was sewn on the front, “ARMY MOM” on the back.
Advertisement
Barbara Finger, 69, attends a Trump rally in Milwaukee on Jan. 14, 2020. Christopher Mathias, HuffPost
She’d served in the Navy, she explained to HuffPost, and her son had been deployed with the Army to Afghanistan, where she says he was seriously wounded by an improvised explosive device. Finger, who now works in retail in Oconto, Wisconsin, was glad the president ordered the airstrike that killed Soleimani.
“To have let him live would have signaled weakness on our part,” she said. “It would’ve further emboldened our enemies, and there was very strong evidence he was planning attacks on four more embassies.”
Last week Trump claimed, without offering any evidence, that Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force, a group the U.S. designates as terrorists, which had worked to counter American influence in the region, had been planning imminent attacks on four U.S. embassies. But Trump’s own secretary of defense, Mark Esper, and his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, both declined to confirm the president’s assertion.
The president further undermined his own claim on Monday that Soleimani posed an imminent threat — the legal threshold required to justify the assassination — by tweeting that “It doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past.”
Advertisement
The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “imminent” or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2020
The administration had also emphasized Soleimani’s role in planning attacks throughout the Middle East in recent years, leading to the deaths of some 600 U.S. troops in Iraq, where America has had a military presence since 2003, after it illegally invaded that country, leading to a war that has since killed hundreds of thousands.
Chris Lewison, a 47-year-old Iraq War veteran, stood outside the arena Tuesday with a clipboard, cheerily asking fellow Trump supporters to volunteer for the campaign. His right hand was in a cast. He had gotten stressed out recently and punched a table, he explained to HuffPost. “It’s just PTSD,” he elaborated. “I got some issues with that.”
Asked about Soleimani’s assassination, Lewison offered this: “It’s not a bad thing to kill one of the top terrorists in the world. It’s a pretty darn good thing actually.”
Lewison argued that Iran has been steadily escalating its aggression “towards our interests in the Middle East, and it just reached a point where they hit sovereign American soil,” referring to the recent attack by militia groups — widely regarded as proxy forces for Iran — on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
Advertisement
Trump though, critics say, bears much of the blame for rising tensions with Iran. In 2018, he pulled out of a deal with Iran, negotiated under President Barack Obama, to stop the country’s nuclear program. Trump has also ramped up devastating sanctions against the country.
Meanwhile, at the Democratic debate in Des Moines Tuesday night, presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was asked about his opinion of Trump’s approach to Iran. “We cannot keep acting unilaterally,” he argued.
“The nuclear deal with Iran was worked on with a number of our allies,” Sanders said. “We have got to undo what Trump did, bring that coalition together, and make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.”
Sanders also warned that Trump is risking a greater conflict with Iran, which bombed U.S. bases in Iraq after Soleimani’s assassination.
“We have a president who is lying again and could drag us into a war that is even worse than the war in Iraq,” Sanders said.
Advertisement
Former Vice President Joe Biden said he, too, thought Trump “flat out lied about saying the reason he went after [Soleimani] was because our embassies were about to be bombed.”
And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said the U.S. needs to get our troops out of the Middle East and instead use economic and diplomatic tools to bring peace to the region. (Trump sent 3,000 more troops to the Middle East after the killing of Soleimani.)
“We have to stop this mindset that we can do everything with combat troops,” Warren said. “Our military is the finest military on Earth, and they will take any sacrifice we ask them to take, but we should stop asking our military to solve problems that cannot be solved militarily.”
Back in Milwaukee, Trump lashed out at Democrats for “being outraged that we killed this terrorist monster.”
“Great percentages of people don’t have legs right now and arms because of this son of a bitch,” he said. “And the Democrats should be outraged by Soleimani’s evil crimes, not the decision to end his wretched life.”
Advertisement
Mohammed Mustfa, 18, says a Trump supporter told him to convert to Christianity. Christopher Mathias, HuffPost
As Trump supporters filtered out of the arena after the rally, there were some minor skirmishes with protesters in the street. Mohammed Mustfa, an 18-year-old Palestinian-American student, was part of the protest. He told HuffPost one Trump supporter tried to get him to convert from Islam to Christianity.
“He was talking about how the Quran is bad and corrupt and tells people to kill Americans, to behead Americans when you see them,” Mustafa recalled. “I didn’t know how to respond to such a stupid comment, so I walked away.”
Islamophobia has been a driving force of the Trump administration’s hawkish stance towards Iran. On Monday, Trump retweeted a photoshopped image of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wearing a turban and a headscarf in front of an Iranian flag. The corresponding text read: “The corrupted Dems trying their best to come to the Ayatollah’s rescue #NancyPelosiFakeNews.”
(In response, Sen. Warren tweeted: “Circulating images of Democrats in hijab or a turban as a way of insulting them denigrates the faith of millions of Muslims and Sikhs.)
Advertisement
And Donald Trump Jr., in the days following the assassination of Soleimani, posted images of himself to Instagram at a gun range. The images showed that his assault rifle was emblazoned with the Jerusalem Cross, a symbol of the Crusades, when Christians invaded the Middle East as part of a holy war.
Also engraved on the gun were the words “Deus Vult,” which translates from the Latin as “God wills it.” The phrase, which also has origins in the Crusades, has gained popularity in recent years among far-right and white supremacist circles as a way of calling for violence against Muslims.
At the hotel bar inside Hyatt Regency Milwaukee Tuesday night, just across the street from where Trump spoke, dozens of Trump supporters wearing Make America Great Again red hats ordered drinks from two bartenders. “Four more years!” they chanted.
In the neighboring hotel lobby, two muted televisions showed the Milwaukee Bucks beating the New York Knicks. Two other televisions, however, were tuned into CSPAN. The volume on these TVs were on.
Advertisement
A table of Trump supporters watched and listened to CSPAN footage of Democratic members of the House, during a congressional hearing Tuesday, interview Iran experts, including former Deputy National Security Adviser Avril Haines, about the pitfalls of Trump’s decision to assassinate Soleimani.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Pelosi Takes Victory Lap On Impeachment Delay

WASHINGTON ― House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) on Wednesday celebrated her decision to delay sending impeachment articles to the Senate , saying the delay has greatly benefited the case against President Donald Trump .
“ Time has been our friend in all of this because it has yielded incriminating evidence , ” Pelosi said at a press conference announcing the House would finally vote to send the articles .
The House of Representatives approved the impeachment articles in December on a mostly party-line vote , but Pelosi unexpectedly broke with historical custom and did not immediately send the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she wanted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) to reveal the Senate ’ s rules for the impeachment trial .
He refused to do so , but on Wednesday , Pelosi listed some of the damaging evidence Democrats uncovered since the impeachment vote .
In late December , for instance , new documents revealed that less than two hours after the July phone call during which President Trump asked Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden , the Trump administration placed a hold on military assistance to Ukraine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ impeachment argument that Trump abused his power by leveraging foreign policy for his own personal gain .
In early January , former national security adviser John Bolton announced he would be willing to testify at an impeachment trial .
Several diplomats have said Bolton disapproved of Trump ’ s Ukraine scheme , which he reportedly once described as a “ drug deal.
” And on Tuesday evening , Democrats released a new cache of documents from Lev Parnas , a former aide to Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani , who is a central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the documents is a letter from Giuliani to Zelensky .
“ I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump , ” Giuliani said in the May letter .
“ Just to be precise , I represent him as a private citizen , not as President of the United States.
” Trump has insisted that when he asked Zelensky to investigate Biden as a “ favor ” during their July phone call , the favor was for the United States ― not the president personally .
The fact that Trump told Zelensky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor , and that Giuliani emphasized he was the president ’ s personal attorney , undermines his claim .
( It was a dubious claim to start with , since a cadre of diplomats testified that the favors Trump wanted were contrary to U.S .
interests . )
The documents “ further prove the president was a central player in a scheme to pressure Ukraine for his own benefit in the 2020 election , ” Pelosi said .
If the delay strengthened Democrats ’ case , then why , a reporter asked Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December in the first place ?
Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , who will be one of the impeachment managers in the Senate , said Democrats balanced urgency with a pressure campaign to encourage senators to call witnesses such as Bolton .
“ We ’ ve always felt a certain urgency about this impeachment given that the president was trying to get foreign help in cheating in the next election , ” Schiff said .
“ You ’ ve seen additional evidence continue to come to light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelming case , but also has put additional pressure on the Senate to conduct a fair trial .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday celebrated her decision to delay sending impeachment articles to the Senate, saying the delay has greatly benefited the case against President Donald Trump.
“Time has been our friend in all of this because it has yielded incriminating evidence,” Pelosi said at a press conference announcing the House would finally vote to send the articles.
Advertisement
The House of Representatives approved the impeachment articles in December on a mostly party-line vote, but Pelosi unexpectedly broke with historical custom and did not immediately send the articles to the Senate.
Pelosi had said she wanted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to reveal the Senate’s rules for the impeachment trial. He refused to do so, but on Wednesday, Pelosi listed some of the damaging evidence Democrats uncovered since the impeachment vote.
In late December, for instance, new documents revealed that less than two hours after the July phone call during which President Trump asked Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, the Trump administration placed a hold on military assistance to Ukraine. The timing of the hold bolsters Democrats’ impeachment argument that Trump abused his power by leveraging foreign policy for his own personal gain.
In early January, former national security adviser John Bolton announced he would be willing to testify at an impeachment trial. Several diplomats have said Bolton disapproved of Trump’s Ukraine scheme, which he reportedly once described as a “drug deal.”
Advertisement
And on Tuesday evening, Democrats released a new cache of documents from Lev Parnas, a former aide to Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who is a central player in the Ukraine affair. One of the documents is a letter from Giuliani to Zelensky.
“I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump,” Giuliani said in the May letter. “Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States.”
Trump has insisted that when he asked Zelensky to investigate Biden as a “favor” during their July phone call, the favor was for the United States ― not the president personally. The fact that Trump told Zelensky to talk to Giuliani about doing the favor, and that Giuliani emphasized he was the president’s personal attorney, undermines his claim. (It was a dubious claim to start with, since a cadre of diplomats testified that the favors Trump wanted were contrary to U.S. interests.)
The documents “further prove the president was a central player in a scheme to pressure Ukraine for his own benefit in the 2020 election,” Pelosi said.
If the delay strengthened Democrats’ case, then why, a reporter asked Wednesday, did they rush to vote in December in the first place?
Advertisement
Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who will be one of the impeachment managers in the Senate, said Democrats balanced urgency with a pressure campaign to encourage senators to call witnesses such as Bolton.
“We’ve always felt a certain urgency about this impeachment given that the president was trying to get foreign help in cheating in the next election,” Schiff said. “You’ve seen additional evidence continue to come to light that not only has bolstered an already overwhelming case, but also has put additional pressure on the Senate to conduct a fair trial.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--GOP Senator Blasts Proposed Limits On Press During Impeachment Trial

“ I think it ’ s a huge mistake .
U.S. senators are grown women and grown men .
If they don ’ t want to make a comment , they know how to say no comment , ” Kennedy told reporters on Wednesday .
The organization representing beat reporters on Capitol Hill is sharply protesting the severe restrictions expected to be imposed on the media during the length of the trial , which might last several weeks .
Under the rules , authored by the Senate Republican leaders who control the chamber , reporters will have very limited access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move about the Capitol .
“ These potential restrictions fail to acknowledge what currently works on Capitol Hill , or the way the American public expects to be able to follow a vital news event about their government in the digital age , ” tweeted Sarah Wire , a Los Angeles Times reporter who chairs the Standing Committee of Correspondents on Capitol Hill .
Wire added that the rules would prevent the public from hearing what their representatives in the Senate think about the trial .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee , which typically handles such matters , echoed those concerns .
She suggested Republicans crafted the rules because they “ don ’ t want people to interview senators and have them talk ” about the trial , which will examine Trump ’ s alleged abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
“ We should have open access for the press , ” Klobuchar said Tuesday in comments to reporters after she participated in a debate among Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa .
“ I think this is a big mistake.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules would make it “ more difficult for reporters to keep the public informed about every step of this historic trial.
” Top Senate Republicans have defended the proposed restrictions as a way to protect senators from crowds as they make their way around the Capitol during a historic event sure to draw large media attention .
Some pointed to the 2018 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh , which attracted many protesters to the Capitol , as a reason to increase security .
But Kennedy , a staunch Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more press-friendly senators on the Hill , argued against restricting the media .
“ We ’ re not children .
We ’ re grown men and grown women , ” he said .
“ And if you don ’ t want to talk to the press , you don ’ t have to talk to the press , all you got ta say is ‘ No comment.
’ If you guys ask 150 times , say no comment 150 times .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) had some strong words for the proposed press restrictions during the upcoming impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
“I think it’s a huge mistake. U.S. senators are grown women and grown men. If they don’t want to make a comment, they know how to say no comment,” Kennedy told reporters on Wednesday.
Advertisement
The organization representing beat reporters on Capitol Hill is sharply protesting the severe restrictions expected to be imposed on the media during the length of the trial, which might last several weeks. Under the rules, authored by the Senate Republican leaders who control the chamber, reporters will have very limited access to speak freely to lawmakers as they move about the Capitol.
“These potential restrictions fail to acknowledge what currently works on Capitol Hill, or the way the American public expects to be able to follow a vital news event about their government in the digital age,” tweeted Sarah Wire, a Los Angeles Times reporter who chairs the Standing Committee of Correspondents on Capitol Hill. Wire added that the rules would prevent the public from hearing what their representatives in the Senate think about the trial.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, which typically handles such matters, echoed those concerns. She suggested Republicans crafted the rules because they “don’t want people to interview senators and have them talk” about the trial, which will examine Trump’s alleged abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
“We should have open access for the press,” Klobuchar said Tuesday in comments to reporters after she participated in a debate among Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa. “I think this is a big mistake.”
Advertisement
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said the rules would make it “more difficult for reporters to keep the public informed about every step of this historic trial.”
Top Senate Republicans have defended the proposed restrictions as a way to protect senators from crowds as they make their way around the Capitol during a historic event sure to draw large media attention. Some pointed to the 2018 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which attracted many protesters to the Capitol, as a reason to increase security.
“There was a lot of harassment of members,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said Wednesday.
But Kennedy, a staunch Trump ally who also is one of the more press-friendly senators on the Hill, argued against restricting the media.
“We’re not children. We’re grown men and grown women,” he said. “And if you don’t want to talk to the press, you don’t have to talk to the press, all you gotta say is ‘No comment.’ If you guys ask 150 times, say no comment 150 times.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Trump Team Predicts Slam Dunk Acquittal In Senate Impeachment Trial

The impeachment trial for President Donald Trump will not last longer than two weeks before he is acquitted , senior Trump administration officials predicted on Wednesday just before the House of Representatives voted to send articles of impeachment to the Senate .
White House officials insist the trial will move quickly and that Trump did nothing wrong when he withheld military aid from Ukraine in order to pressure the country ’ s president to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden , Trump ’ s potential 2020 rival for the presidency .
“ The reason it will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts are simple and the facts are on the president ’ s side , ” a senior administration official said on a briefing call with reporters , on condition of anonymity .
The White House also hopes its opposition to the calling of any new witnesses ― which Democrats want after the White House blocked testimony from notable officials during the House ’ s impeachment inquiry ― would also help lead to a swift conclusion to the trial .
It makes sense that the White House is so bullish about Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all Senate Republicans have echoed the president ’ s talking points on his actions and impeachment .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) said the House “ rushed ” Trump ’ s impeachment with an “ incomplete case ” due to the Democratic Party ’ s “ partisan rage.
” He said that he will not be an “ impartial juror ” during the trial .
Still , it ’ s possible four Republicans will choose to side with Democrats and call at least one new witness .
That would most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton , who was reportedly opposed to the scheme to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden , saying he did not want to be involved in a metaphorical “ drug deal ” planned by the president ’ s agents .
Bolton has said he was willing to testify to the Senate .
But the president would likely invoke executive privilege to prevent Bolton from divulging any private conversations they had , senior administration officials said .
The House voted to impeach Trump on Dec. 18 on two counts .
First , for abusing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Congress in order to pressure a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 elections on his behalf .
And second , for refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents and witness testimony issued by the impeachment inquiry .
A transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shows Trump asked Zelensky to “ do us a favor ” in opening investigations into Biden and a false conspiracy theory that Ukrainians , not Russians , hacked the Democratic National Committee ’ s servers in 2016 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sought an invitation to the White House .
Trump then asked Zelensky to get in contact with Rudy Giuliani , who was working solely as the president ’ s personal attorney and not as a representative of the United States .
At the same time , Trump directed the Department of Defense and the State Department to freeze military aid to Ukraine .
The president ’ s allies have argued that the aid was frozen because of Trump ’ s great concern about corruption in Ukraine .
There remains no evidence that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key player in the president ’ s alleged plot , Gordon Sondland , ambassador to the European Union , told the Ukrainians that they would need to announce an investigation into Biden to obtain the military aid and a much-coveted invitation to the White House for Zelensky .
Trump released the aid only after an intelligence community whistleblower filed a complaint that Trump may have broken the law by soliciting a thing of value from Ukraine while placing a hold on the aid .
Later , Trump admitted on the White House lawn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the public announcement of an investigation into Biden .
At the same time , he called on the Chinese government to investigate Biden .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The impeachment trial for President Donald Trump will not last longer than two weeks before he is acquitted, senior Trump administration officials predicted on Wednesday just before the House of Representatives voted to send articles of impeachment to the Senate.
White House officials insist the trial will move quickly and that Trump did nothing wrong when he withheld military aid from Ukraine in order to pressure the country’s president to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s potential 2020 rival for the presidency.
Advertisement
“The reason it will not be a very long time is the facts are simple and the facts are on the president’s side,” a senior administration official said on a briefing call with reporters, on condition of anonymity.
The White House also hopes its opposition to the calling of any new witnesses ― which Democrats want after the White House blocked testimony from notable officials during the House’s impeachment inquiry ― would also help lead to a swift conclusion to the trial.
It makes sense that the White House is so bullish about Trump’s prospects in the Senate trial. Nearly all Senate Republicans have echoed the president’s talking points on his actions and impeachment. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the House “rushed” Trump’s impeachment with an “incomplete case” due to the Democratic Party’s “partisan rage.” He said that he will not be an “impartial juror” during the trial.
Still, it’s possible four Republicans will choose to side with Democrats and call at least one new witness. That would most likely be former national security adviser John Bolton, who was reportedly opposed to the scheme to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden, saying he did not want to be involved in a metaphorical “drug deal” planned by the president’s agents.
Advertisement
Bolton has said he was willing to testify to the Senate. But the president would likely invoke executive privilege to prevent Bolton from divulging any private conversations they had, senior administration officials said.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announces impeachment managers for the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Jan. 15, 2020. Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
The House voted to impeach Trump on Dec. 18 on two counts. First, for abusing his authority as president by withholding funds authorized by Congress in order to pressure a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 elections on his behalf. And second, for refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents and witness testimony issued by the impeachment inquiry.
A transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shows Trump asked Zelensky to “do us a favor” in opening investigations into Biden and a false conspiracy theory that Ukrainians, not Russians, hacked the Democratic National Committee’s servers in 2016. The request for a favor came as Zelensky sought an invitation to the White House.
Trump then asked Zelensky to get in contact with Rudy Giuliani, who was working solely as the president’s personal attorney and not as a representative of the United States.
Advertisement
At the same time, Trump directed the Department of Defense and the State Department to freeze military aid to Ukraine. The president’s allies have argued that the aid was frozen because of Trump’s great concern about corruption in Ukraine. There remains no evidence that the president was concerned about corruption.
A key player in the president’s alleged plot, Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, told the Ukrainians that they would need to announce an investigation into Biden to obtain the military aid and a much-coveted invitation to the White House for Zelensky.
Trump released the aid only after an intelligence community whistleblower filed a complaint that Trump may have broken the law by soliciting a thing of value from Ukraine while placing a hold on the aid.
Later, Trump admitted on the White House lawn that he hoped the phone call resulted in the public announcement of an investigation into Biden. At the same time, he called on the Chinese government to investigate Biden.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Van Jones Delivers Ominous 2020 Warning To Democrats After 'Dispiriting' Debate

Van Jones issued a warning to the Democratic presidential candidates : You ’ re going to have to do a whole lot better if you hope to beat President Donald Trump in this year ’ s election .
The CNN commentator called Tuesday night ’ s debate “ dispiriting , ” especially the clash between Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
and Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) .
The two progressive candidates have stepped up their hostilities in recent days after Warren said Sanders told her in 2018 that he did not believe a woman could beat Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than what we saw tonight , ” Jones said .
“ There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out , and I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible.
” There was nothing tonight , if you ’ re looking at this thing , to say any of these people are prepared for what Donald Trump is going do to us .
And to see further division tonight is very dispiriting .
In a tweet , Jones also called the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high expectations for the candidates during tonight ’ s # DemDebate , but there was a spark missing on stage .
It felt like cold oatmeal to me .
Do you agree ?
@ CNN — Van Jones ( @ VanJones68 ) January 15 , 2020 Trump seemed to appreciate Jones ’ comments ; overnight , he retweeted them .
See more of Jones ’ observations below : .
@ ewarren had breakout moments tonight , but did anyone on that stage really seem ready to take on Trump in a debate ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House ( which I certainly do ) we need our candidates to start showing up a lot stronger .
# DemDebate @ CNN pic.twitter.com/TO88Bn0ipv — Van Jones ( @ VanJones68 ) January 15 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Van Jones issued a warning to the Democratic presidential candidates: You’re going to have to do a whole lot better if you hope to beat President Donald Trump in this year’s election.
The CNN commentator called Tuesday night’s debate “dispiriting,” especially the clash between Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The two progressive candidates have stepped up their hostilities in recent days after Warren said Sanders told her in 2018 that he did not believe a woman could beat Trump.
Advertisement
Sanders denied making the comment.
“Democrats got to do better than what we saw tonight,” Jones said. “There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out, and I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible.”
He added:
There was nothing tonight, if you’re looking at this thing, to say any of these people are prepared for what Donald Trump is going do to us. And to see further division tonight is very dispiriting.
In a tweet, Jones also called the debate “cold oatmeal.”
I had high expectations for the candidates during tonight’s #DemDebate, but there was a spark missing on stage. It felt like cold oatmeal to me. Do you agree? @CNN — Van Jones (@VanJones68) January 15, 2020
Trump seemed to appreciate Jones’ comments; overnight, he retweeted them.
See more of Jones’ observations below:
.@ewarren had breakout moments tonight, but did anyone on that stage really seem ready to take on Trump in a debate? If we want a Democrat to win the White House (which I certainly do) we need our candidates to start showing up a lot stronger. #DemDebate @CNN pic.twitter.com/TO88Bn0ipv — Van Jones (@VanJones68) January 15, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick Seeking Treatment For Alcoholism

ASSOCIATED PRESS Rep.-elect Ann Kirkpatrick , D-Ariz. , walks outside after checking-in for orientation for new members of Congress , Tuesday , Nov. 13 , 2018 , in Washington .
( AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais ) PHOENIX ( AP ) — U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona said Wednesday that she ’ s taking time off from her congressional duties to seek treatment for alcohol dependence after a “ serious ” fall .
Kirkpatrick , a Democrat , said she ’ s “ finally seeking this help after struggling to do so in the past.
” “ I am ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Americans , suffer from this disease , ” Kirkpatrick said in a statement .
“ Hard work and determination — which have brought me success in life — have not been enough to win this battle.
” Kirkpatrick did not release details of her injury last week but said with physical therapy she can fully recover .
She did not she say how long she would be absent from Congress but indicated she has no plans to step aside .
Kirkpatrick has represented parts of Arizona in Congress for most of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swing district in Tucson and southeastern Arizona that Republicans are targeting in the 2020 election .
She previously represented a different swing district in northern and eastern Arizona before she ran unsuccessfully against Republican Sen. John McCain in 2016 .

Rep.-elect Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., walks outside after checking-in for orientation for new members of Congress, Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) ASSOCIATED PRESS
PHOENIX (AP) — U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona said Wednesday that she’s taking time off from her congressional duties to seek treatment for alcohol dependence after a “serious” fall.
Kirkpatrick, a Democrat, said she’s “finally seeking this help after struggling to do so in the past.”
Advertisement
“I am ready to admit that I, like countless other Americans, suffer from this disease,” Kirkpatrick said in a statement. “Hard work and determination — which have brought me success in life — have not been enough to win this battle.”
Kirkpatrick did not release details of her injury last week but said with physical therapy she can fully recover. She did not she say how long she would be absent from Congress but indicated she has no plans to step aside.
Kirkpatrick has represented parts of Arizona in Congress for most of the past decade. She currently represents a swing district in Tucson and southeastern Arizona that Republicans are targeting in the 2020 election.
She previously represented a different swing district in northern and eastern Arizona before she ran unsuccessfully against Republican Sen. John McCain in 2016.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Justin Trudeau 'Isn't Entirely Sure' Who Will Cover Meghan, Harry's Security Costs

As Meghan Markle and Prince Harry ease into a “ period of transition ” in which they ’ ll be splitting time between the U.K. and Canada , one issue remains to be resolved : security costs .
After the queen confirmed Monday that she is “ entirely supportive ” of the Sussexes ’ settling down in Canada , Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau discussed whether Canadians will pick up the bill for the duke and duchess and their security detail .
“ There are still a lot of decisions to be taken by the Royal Family , by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engagement they choose to have , ” Trudeau said Monday , as reported by Canada ’ s Global News .
“ We are obviously supportive of their reflections but have responsibilities in that as well.
” Now that the queen has agreed that the Sussexes will stay in Canada and the U.K. , Trudeau said , the Canadian government is entering conversations with the royals .
He said he is “ not entirely sure what the final decisions will be.
” A report from the Evening Standard published Monday claimed that Trudeau “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will pick up half of the reported $ 1.3 million needed for security for Meghan and Harry .
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced last Wednesday that they will be stepping back as senior members of the royal family , working toward financial independence and setting up a home across the pond .
Following the news , Meghan returned to Canada , where the couple ’ s son Archie was reportedly staying with a friend , Jessica Mulroney .
Harry and Meghan spent their six-week sabbatical away from royal duties in Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After a spokesperson for the couple confirmed that they were residing in Canada for their break , Trudeau tweeted out a sweet , simple message .
Meghan is very familiar with living in Canada , as she resided in Toronto while shooting her hit show , “ Suits .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As Meghan Markle and Prince Harry ease into a “period of transition” in which they’ll be splitting time between the U.K. and Canada, one issue remains to be resolved: security costs.
After the queen confirmed Monday that she is “entirely supportive” of the Sussexes’ settling down in Canada, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau discussed whether Canadians will pick up the bill for the duke and duchess and their security detail.
Advertisement
“There are still a lot of decisions to be taken by the Royal Family, by the Sussexes themselves as to what level of engagement they choose to have,” Trudeau said Monday, as reported by Canada’s Global News. “We are obviously supportive of their reflections but have responsibilities in that as well.”
Now that the queen has agreed that the Sussexes will stay in Canada and the U.K., Trudeau said, the Canadian government is entering conversations with the royals. He said he is “not entirely sure what the final decisions will be.”
Prince Harry meets with Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ahead of the Invictus Games in Toronto on Sept. 23, 2017. Mark Blinch / Reuters
A report from the Evening Standard published Monday claimed that Trudeau “privately assured” the queen that Canadians will pick up half of the reported $1.3 million needed for security for Meghan and Harry.
Advertisement
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced last Wednesday that they will be stepping back as senior members of the royal family, working toward financial independence and setting up a home across the pond.
Following the news, Meghan returned to Canada, where the couple’s son Archie was reportedly staying with a friend, Jessica Mulroney.
Harry and Meghan spent their six-week sabbatical away from royal duties in Canada just before making their unprecedented announcement. After a spokesperson for the couple confirmed that they were residing in Canada for their break, Trudeau tweeted out a sweet, simple message.
“Prince Harry, Meghan, and Archie, we’re all wishing you a quiet and blessed stay in Canada,” he tweeted at the time. “You’re among friends, and always welcome here.”
Meghan is very familiar with living in Canada, as she resided in Toronto while shooting her hit show, “Suits.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Trump Signs First Phase Of China Trade Agreement

But the “ Phase 1 ” trade agreement would do little to force China to make the major economic changes such as reducing unfair subsidies for its own companies that the Trump administration sought when it started the trade war by imposing tariffs on Chinese imports in July 2018 .
Trump and China ’ s chief trade negotiator , Liu He , met at the White House to sign the modest agreement .
It is intended to ease some U.S. economic sanctions on China while Beijing would step up purchases of American farm products and other goods .
The deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has slowed global growth , hurt American manufacturers and weighed on the Chinese economy .
But the “ Phase 1 ” agreement would do little to force China to make the major economic changes such as reducing unfair subsidies for its own companies that the Trump administration sought when it started the trade war by imposing tariffs on Chinese imports in July 2018 .
Larry Kudlow , Trump ’ s chief economic adviser , said the agreement vindicated the president ’ s strategy of using tariffs in trade negotiations , though not in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China he was exactly right , ” Kudlow said .
” I think the tough tariffs hurt their economy and made them much more amenable to a good deal.
” Most analysts say any meaningful resolution of the main U.S. allegation — that Beijing uses predatory tactics in its drive to supplant America ’ s technological supremacy — could require years of contentious talks .
Skeptics say a satisfactory resolution may be next to impossible given China ’ s ambitions to become the global leader in such advanced technologies as driverless cars and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deal is a solid start that includes Chinese commitments to do more to protect intellectual property , curb the practice of forcing foreign companies to hand over sensitive technology and refrain from manipulating their currency lower to benefit Chinese exporters .
In advance of Wednesday ’ s signing , the Treasury Department on Monday dropped its designation of China as a currency manipulator .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump signed a trade agreement Wednesday with China that is expected to boost exports from U.S. farmers and manufacturers and is aimed at lowering tensions in a long-running dispute between the economic powers.
Trump said during a White House ceremony that the deal is “righting the wrongs of the past.” He promoted the signing as a way of delivering economic justice for American workers and said, “We mark a sea change in international trade” with the signing.
Advertisement
Chinese leader Xi Jinping, in a letter to Trump that was read by Beijing’s chief negotiator Liu He, said concluding the first phase of the trade deal was “good for China, the U.S. and for the whole world”
But the “Phase 1” trade agreement would do little to force China to make the major economic changes such as reducing unfair subsidies for its own companies that the Trump administration sought when it started the trade war by imposing tariffs on Chinese imports in July 2018.
The White House ceremony gave Trump a chance to cite progress on a top economic priority on the same day that the House prepared to vote to send articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial.
“Our efforts have yielded a transformative deal that will bring benefits to both countries,″ Trump said. He added: ”K eeping these two giant and powerful nations together in harmony is so important for the world” and said “the world is watching today.”
Advertisement
The agreement is intended to ease some U.S. economic sanctions on China while Beijing would step up purchases of American farm products and other goods. Trump cited beef, pork, poulty, seafood, rice and dairy products as examples.
The deal would lower tensions in a trade dispute that has slowed global growth, hurt American manufacturers and weighed on the Chinese economy.
In remarks to an audience of administration officials, lawmakers and business leaders, Trump said before the signing that the “unbelievable deal” would benefit both countries and “lead to even a more stable peace throughout the world.″
Thornier trade-related issues are expected to be taken up in future rounds of negotiations. But it’s unclear when those talks might begin, and few observers expect much progress before the U.S. presidential election in November.
“It is imperative that we develop trade and economic rules and practices that allow us both to prosper. The alternative is not acceptable for either of us,” said Trump’s chief trade representative, Robert Lighthizer.
Advertisement
His Chinese counterpart said “the world is now at a critical historical crossroads” facing choices of how to promote country-to-country cooperation.
“Cooperation is the only right choice,″ said Liu, the vice premier.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday described an initial trade agreement with China as “righting the wrongs of the past and delivering a future of economic justice and security for American workers, farmers and families.”
The president was preparing to sign a trade agreement with China that is expected to boost exports from U.S. farmers and manufacturers and ease trade tensions between the two countries going into November’s presidential election.
For Trump, the White House ceremony gives him the opportunity to cite progress on a top economic priority on the same day that the House votes to send articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial.
Trump and China’s chief trade negotiator, Liu He, met at the White House to sign the modest agreement. It is intended to ease some U.S. economic sanctions on China while Beijing would step up purchases of American farm products and other goods. The deal would lower tensions in a fight that has slowed global growth, hurt American manufacturers and weighed on the Chinese economy.
Advertisement
But the “Phase 1” agreement would do little to force China to make the major economic changes such as reducing unfair subsidies for its own companies that the Trump administration sought when it started the trade war by imposing tariffs on Chinese imports in July 2018.
Larry Kudlow, Trump’s chief economic adviser, said the agreement vindicated the president’s strategy of using tariffs in trade negotiations, though not in every instance. “I think with China he was exactly right,” Kudlow said. ”I think the tough tariffs hurt their economy and made them much more amenable to a good deal.”
Most analysts say any meaningful resolution of the main U.S. allegation — that Beijing uses predatory tactics in its drive to supplant America’s technological supremacy — could require years of contentious talks. Skeptics say a satisfactory resolution may be next to impossible given China’s ambitions to become the global leader in such advanced technologies as driverless cars and artificial intelligence.
This first phase “hardly addresses in any substantive way the fundamental sources of trade and economic tensions between the two sides, which will continue to fester,” said Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University economist and and former head of the International Monetary Fund’s China division.
The thornier issues are expected to be taken up in future rounds of negotiations. But it’s unclear when those talks might begin, and few observers expect much progress before the U.S. presidential election in November.
Advertisement
“Phase 2 ― I wouldn’t wait by the phone,’’ said John Veroneau, who was a U.S. trade official when George W. Bush was president and is now co-chair of the international trade practice at the law firm Covington & Burling. “That is probably a 2021 issue.’’
The U.S. has dropped plans to impose tariffs on an additional $160 billion in Chinese imports, and it cut in half, to 7.5%, existing tariffs on $110 billion of good from China.
Beijing agreed to significantly increase its purchases of U.S. products. According to the Trump administration, China is to buy $40 billion a year in U.S. farm products — an ambitious goal for a country that has never imported more than $26 billion a year in U.S. agricultural products.
The deal may be most notable for what it doesn’t do. It leaves in place tariffs on about $360 billion in Chinese imports — a level of protectionism that would have been unthinkable before Trump took office.
Beijing’s retaliatory tariffs affect more than half of American exports to China. The average U.S. tariff on Chinese imports has risen from 3% in January 2018 to 21% now.
Advertisement
The administration argues that the deal is a solid start that includes Chinese commitments to do more to protect intellectual property, curb the practice of forcing foreign companies to hand over sensitive technology and refrain from manipulating their currency lower to benefit Chinese exporters. In advance of Wednesday’s signing, the Treasury Department on Monday dropped its designation of China as a currency manipulator.
By maintaining significant tariffs on Chinese imports, the administration retains leverage to force Beijing to abide by its commitments — something the United States says Beijing has failed to do for decades.
The administration contends that however narrow the first phase may be, it represents a significant breakthrough.
Derek Scissors, China specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, said the trade war has already delivered a benefit for Trump, even if it hasn’t forced Beijing to make major changes to its economic policy: Trump’s tariffs have reduced Chinese exports to the United States and narrowed America’s trade deficit with China.
The president has long lambasted the U.S. trade gap with Beijing as a sign of economic weakness, though many economists disagree. A wide trade deficit can actually reflect economic strength because it means that a nation’s consumers feel prosperous and confident enough to spend freely — on imported goods as well as on home-grown goods.
Advertisement
So far this year, the U.S. deficit with China in the trade of goods has declined by 16%, or $62 billion, to $321 billion compared with a year earlier. The deficit will narrow further if Beijing lives up to its pledges to buy dramatically more American imports.
Trump’s tariff increase have proved to be a headwind for China’s economy, which was already slowing, though the damage has been less than some expected. Chinese global exports eked out a 0.5% increase in 2019 despite a plunge in sales to the United States, according to Chinese customs data.
Chinese exporters responded to Trump’s tariff hikes by shipping goods to the United States through other countries and by stepping up sales to Asia, Europe and Africa. The government reported double-digit gains in 2019 exports to France, Canada, Australia, Brazil and Southeast Asia.
Economists said the tariff war slowed Chinese growth, which hit a multi-decade low of 6% in the quarter ending in September, by as little as 0.6 percentage point. Weak domestic demand and the cooling of a construction boom inflicted more damage.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Joe Biden Releases New Anti-Donald Trump Ad: ‘Why Are You So Obsessed With Me?’

President Donald Trump can ’ t stop talking about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in an attack ad that the former vice president ’ s 2020 campaign released this week .
“ Donald Trump has made it clear .
He ’ s got Joe Biden on his mind , ” the narrator says in the 30-second clip .
“ Trump knows Biden will beat him in Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin , the states we need to take back the presidency , ” he continues .
The narrator notes how Biden , during former President Barack Obama ’ s administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ helped make Obamacare the law of the land , ” and declares he can “ step in on day one.
” “ It ’ s why Trump can ’ t stop talking about ... ” he adds , followed by the sound of Trump repeatedly saying Biden ’ s name .
Why are you so obsessed with me , Mr. President ?
pic.twitter.com/BbAawEvQo6 — Joe Biden ( Text Join to 30330 ) ( @ JoeBiden ) January 14 , 2020 “ Why are you so obsessed with me , Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted alongside the video , which garnered more than half a million views in its first 12 hours online .
Trump ’ s reported concern about Biden becoming his Democratic rival in the 2020 election led to the Ukraine scandal , over which the House impeached the president last month .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump can’t stop talking about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in an attack ad that the former vice president’s 2020 campaign released this week.
“Donald Trump has made it clear. He’s got Joe Biden on his mind,” the narrator says in the 30-second clip.
Advertisement
“Trump knows Biden will beat him in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, the states we need to take back the presidency,” he continues.
The narrator notes how Biden, during former President Barack Obama’s administration, “stood on the world stage” and “helped make Obamacare the law of the land,” and declares he can “step in on day one.”
“It’s why Trump can’t stop talking about...” he adds, followed by the sound of Trump repeatedly saying Biden’s name.
Why are you so obsessed with me, Mr. President? pic.twitter.com/BbAawEvQo6 — Joe Biden (Text Join to 30330) (@JoeBiden) January 14, 2020
Advertisement
“Why are you so obsessed with me, Mr. President?” Biden’s campaign tweeted alongside the video, which garnered more than half a million views in its first 12 hours online.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Sunny Hostin Calls Bloomberg's Stop And Frisk Reversal A 'Political Move'

Hostin confronted the former New York City mayor about the sincerity of his November apology for a controversial policy that disproportionately targeted “ people of color , especially young Black and Latino men and boys , the vast majority of whom have done nothing wrong.
” Hostin noted that the program caused a 600 % increase in police stops targeting people of color — “ 90 % of whom were innocent , ” she said — and questioned Bloomberg ’ s motives for his reversal .
As recently as January 2019 , he had supported stop and frisk , Hostin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year you stood up for stop and frisk , ” she said .
“ So , what happened between January and November that caused this change of heart ?
Because it sounds like a political move to me.
” .
@ sunny to @ MikeBloomberg on apologizing for his controversial NYC stop and frisk policy : “ It sounds like a political move to me.
” “ I apologized when enough people said to me you were wrong ... and I wish I had done it earlier — I just didn ’ t. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pic.twitter.com/T5vc52C0sK — The View ( @ TheView ) January 15 , 2020 Bloomberg , who announced his run for president later in November , did not deny that the timing of his apology was political ; in his first speech as a potential 2020 candidate , the 77-year-old told a predominantly Black megachurch in Brooklyn : “ I was wrong and I am sorry.
” “ I said , ‘ We just have to stop this.
’ That ’ s where my heart is , that ’ s what I wanted to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could , anything that professionals gave me some advice to do to stop that .
And when I left office , it was down to 300 .
So , it saved a lot of lives , but during that period , in looking back , it certainly got out of hand and we stopped more , ” he explained .
“ We had gone way overboard , ” Bloomberg continued .
“ I stopped it , and before I left office , we cut 95 % of it out .
Then , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ You were wrong ’ and I thought about it , and I wish I had done it earlier .
I just didn ’ t .
So , you apologize and go on .
In my heart of hearts , I tried to do things that make this country better.
” Bloomberg admitted to Colbert that near the end of his time as mayor , he “ realized we were getting out of control and doing it too much.
” “ As a leader , don ’ t we want to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you change your mind , not after it doesn ’ t matter ?
” asked Colbert , who was interrupted by Bloomberg .
To that , Bloomberg said : “ Well , we did the best thing we can .
I think it had something to do with it at some point in time .
You do too much of one thing , then you should stop doing it .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
“The View” co-host Sunny Hostin questioned Democratic hopeful Michael Bloomberg on Wednesday over why he changed his tune about the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program just before announcing his 2020 presidential bid.
Hostin confronted the former New York City mayor about the sincerity of his November apology for a controversial policy that disproportionately targeted “people of color, especially young Black and Latino men and boys, the vast majority of whom have done nothing wrong.”
Advertisement
Hostin noted that the program caused a 600% increase in police stops targeting people of color — “90% of whom were innocent,” she said — and questioned Bloomberg’s motives for his reversal. As recently as January 2019, he had supported stop and frisk, Hostin noted.
“In January of that year you stood up for stop and frisk,” she said. “So, what happened between January and November that caused this change of heart? Because it sounds like a political move to me.”
.@sunny to @MikeBloomberg on apologizing for his controversial NYC stop and frisk policy: “It sounds like a political move to me.”
“I apologized when enough people said to me you were wrong... and I wish I had done it earlier — I just didn’t.” he says. https://t.co/f8u2wbJuik pic.twitter.com/T5vc52C0sK — The View (@TheView) January 15, 2020
Bloomberg, who announced his run for president later in November, did not deny that the timing of his apology was political; in his first speech as a potential 2020 candidate, the 77-year-old told a predominantly Black megachurch in Brooklyn: “I was wrong and I am sorry.”
Advertisement
Bloomberg told Hostin that when he was elected, there were 650 murders a year in New York City.
“I said, ‘We just have to stop this.’ That’s where my heart is, that’s what I wanted to do and I would do virtually anything I could, anything that professionals gave me some advice to do to stop that. And when I left office, it was down to 300. So, it saved a lot of lives, but during that period, in looking back, it certainly got out of hand and we stopped more,” he explained.
“We had gone way overboard,” Bloomberg continued. “I stopped it, and before I left office, we cut 95% of it out. Then, I apologized when enough people said to me, ‘You were wrong’ and I thought about it, and I wish I had done it earlier. I just didn’t. So, you apologize and go on. In my heart of hearts, I tried to do things that make this country better.”
“Late Show” host Stephen Colbert pressed Bloomberg on the same topic on Tuesday night.
Bloomberg admitted to Colbert that near the end of his time as mayor, he “realized we were getting out of control and doing it too much.”
Colbert responded by asking Bloomberg why he didn’t assess the problems with stop and frisk while they were happening.
Advertisement
“As a leader, don’t we want to know that while you’re in power you change your mind, not after it doesn’t matter?” asked Colbert, who was interrupted by Bloomberg.
“No, we did, but the murder rate went from 650 down to 300. We reduced dramatically,” said Bloomberg.
Colbert pushed back: “But you’re saying afterwards it wasn’t because of stop and frisk, because when you stopped it, it didn’t change anything.”
To that, Bloomberg said: “Well, we did the best thing we can. I think it had something to do with it at some point in time. You do too much of one thing, then you should stop doing it.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-15--Child Care Is Expensive. So Is Not Fixing Its Problems.

But Americans don ’ t realize it , the report says , because a big chunk of those costs come in the form of lost wages and opportunities for working parents and child care providers ― and shoddy care for the kids .
The report , published by the Economic Policy Institute ( EPI ) on Wednesday morning , arrives at a politically important moment .
Early childhood policy is getting more attention than ever in American politics , with leading presidential candidates and senior members of Congress proposing that the federal government dramatically expand support for child care .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposals , like that introduced by Sen. Patty Murray ( D-Wash. ) and Rep. Bobby Scott ( D-Va. ) in 2017 and the one proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
in 2019 as part of her presidential campaign , envision the federal government subsidizing child care for people who can ’ t afford it and boosting salaries for the people who provide it .
That could easily require tens of billions of dollars a year in new spending , or even more .
In nations that belong to the Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public spending on early childhood is 0.74 % of gross domestic product .
Here in the U.S. , it ’ s just 0.33 % , taking account of both federal and state spending .
Parents Pay The Price , And So Do Kids The most obvious way that American society pays a high price now , according to the report , is when parents who would prefer to work either stop working , turn down a better-paying job or drop off a career track because such changes would require child care that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can lose out in other ways as well , the report notes .
Some working parents , struggling to find decent care they can afford , end up placing their kids with providers who lack adequate skills or training ― or are simply overwhelmed by the number of kids under their supervision .
Children who are put in these poor quality settings can suffer consequences later in life because early childhood is such a formative time for developing the intellectual and emotional skills that foster success in school , at work and within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lack of quality child care is the poor pay for providers , whose median wage today is barely more than $ 12 an hour , according to EPI .
That sort of pay ― about what retail cashiers typically receive ― makes it difficult to attract and to keep skilled and talented educators .
“ We know that almost half of early educators rely on public income supports and the costs related to turnover are very , very high , ” said report co-author Marcy Whitebook , founder of the Center for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of California , Berkeley .
“ As for the value of [ early childhood education ] for children and the society at large , the case is probably as strong if not stronger than the climate science , ” Whitebook said .
“ Ensuring the well-being and fair and decent livelihood of early educators is the lynchpin of a high-quality system.
” But the numbers are all very rough , as the report ’ s authors acknowledge .
Their main purpose is to convey a sense of scale on the true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today so that a new , large public investment might start to make more sense .
“ I don ’ t want to make a value judgment that we know what women or men should do when they become parents in terms of their time , ” Gould said .
“ I just think that they should have the option to be able to work in the paid labor force , and oftentimes they don ’ t because they can ’ t afford childcare .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
America’s child care system costs the country hundreds of billions of dollars every year, according to a new report.
But Americans don’t realize it, the report says, because a big chunk of those costs come in the form of lost wages and opportunities for working parents and child care providers ― and shoddy care for the kids.
Advertisement
The report, published by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) on Wednesday morning, arrives at a politically important moment. Early childhood policy is getting more attention than ever in American politics, with leading presidential candidates and senior members of Congress proposing that the federal government dramatically expand support for child care.
The topic even came up in Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate.
But the prospects for actually enacting a major new child care initiative in the next few years seem mixed at best.
One reason is that the most serious proposals, like that introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) in 2017 and the one proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in 2019 as part of her presidential campaign, envision the federal government subsidizing child care for people who can’t afford it and boosting salaries for the people who provide it. That could easily require tens of billions of dollars a year in new spending, or even more.
But as the EPI report documents, government spending on early childhood in the U.S. is small by the standards of peer countries.
Advertisement
In nations that belong to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, average public spending on early childhood is 0.74% of gross domestic product. Here in the U.S., it’s just 0.33%, taking account of both federal and state spending.
Closing that gap would be worthwhile, the EPI report suggests, given the not-so-hidden costs that an inadequate child care system already places on the U.S.
“We are paying a high price right now,” said co-author Elise Gould, a senior economist at the Washington-based think tank. “Yes, new investment is needed, but there’s already a lot of money being spent ― or lost.”
Parents Pay The Price, And So Do Kids
The most obvious way that American society pays a high price now, according to the report, is when parents who would prefer to work either stop working, turn down a better-paying job or drop off a career track because such changes would require child care that is unaffordable, unavailable or both.
Families can lose out in other ways as well, the report notes. Some working parents, struggling to find decent care they can afford, end up placing their kids with providers who lack adequate skills or training ― or are simply overwhelmed by the number of kids under their supervision.
Advertisement
“When you do it right, there is a payoff for kids.” - Elise Gould, Economic Policy Institute
Children who are put in these poor quality settings can suffer consequences later in life because early childhood is such a formative time for developing the intellectual and emotional skills that foster success in school, at work and within the family.
“When you do it right, there is a payoff for kids,” Gould said.
A major factor in the lack of quality child care is the poor pay for providers, whose median wage today is barely more than $12 an hour, according to EPI. That sort of pay ― about what retail cashiers typically receive ― makes it difficult to attract and to keep skilled and talented educators.
“We know that almost half of early educators rely on public income supports and the costs related to turnover are very, very high,” said report co-author Marcy Whitebook, founder of the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment at the University of California, Berkeley.
“As for the value of [early childhood education] for children and the society at large, the case is probably as strong if not stronger than the climate science,” Whitebook said. “Ensuring the well-being and fair and decent livelihood of early educators is the lynchpin of a high-quality system.”
Advertisement
“Our current system shortchanges everyone ― children, parents, educators, employers and the society at large.” - Marcy Whitebook, Center for the Study of Child Care Employment
The EPI report includes some specific figures, like the $80 billion in lost wages for child care workers because the U.S. doesn’t pay them the kinds of salaries that elementary and middle school teachers get.
But the numbers are all very rough, as the report’s authors acknowledge. Their main purpose is to convey a sense of scale on the true costs of child care in the U.S. today so that a new, large public investment might start to make more sense.
“Our current system shortchanges everyone ― children, parents, educators, employers and the society at large,” said Whitebook.
Women Bear A High Burden
Gender is a big part of the story. A variety of factors, including workplace discrimination and cultural pressures on working mothers, have depressed women’s wages in general and left them, not men, sacrificing their careers for kids when child care is not affordable.
Advertisement
“I don’t want to make a value judgment that we know what women or men should do when they become parents in terms of their time,” Gould said. “I just think that they should have the option to be able to work in the paid labor force, and oftentimes they don’t because they can’t afford childcare.”
Gender is also one reason why child care has received more political attention lately than it did before.
It’s no coincidence that the two most high-profile Democrats pushing major child care initiatives right now, Murray and Warren, are both women who were working parents and, as it happens, educators of young children. (Murray was a preschool teacher before she got into politics, Warren was a special needs teacher in the public schools.)