alternet--2020-11-01--The FBI is now investigating ‘Trump train’ that surrounded Biden campaign bus

Sign up for The Brief , our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news .
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into a Friday incident in which a group of Trump supporters , driving trucks and waving Trump flags , surrounded and followed a Biden campaign bus as it drove up I-35 in Hays County , a law enforcement official confirmed to The Texas Tribune Saturday .
The confrontation , captured on video , featured at least one minor collision and led to Texas Democrats canceling three scheduled campaign events on Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns '' for the cancellations .
The highway skirmish came as Democrats close ground in a state that is polling like a potential battleground in the race for president .
Recent polls indicate the presidential race in Texas between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden is tight , with some national prognosticators calling it a “ toss-up . ''
“ Rather than engage in productive conversation about the drastically different visions that Joe Biden and Donald Trump have for our country , Trump supporters in Texas [ Friday ] instead decided to put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others in harm 's way , '' said Tariq Thowfeek , Texas communications director for the Biden campaign .
On Saturday night , Trump tweeted a video of the Trump supporters following the Biden bus saying , “ I LOVE TEXAS ! ''
When reached for comment , the Texas GOP Chairman Allen West dismissed questions regarding the incident .
“ It is more fake news and propaganda .
Prepare to lose ... stop bothering me , '' West said in a statement .
The bus tour was separate from vice presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state Friday .
Texas Congressional candidate and former state senator Wendy Davis was on the Biden bus at the time , according to multiple sources , including U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett and Travis County Democratic Party Chair Katie Naranjo , and a now-deleted tweet from the Biden Operations Director for Texas , David Gins .
A spokesperson for Davis declined to comment .
The tour , which started on Wednesday in Amarillo and went through East Texas , the Gulf Coast , along the Texas-Mexico border , and Central Texas faced protests of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's campaign events started with a small gathering in Laredo that was met with few protesters .
From there , staffers drove to San Antonio .
Around 12:30 p.m. on Friday , a social media user using the hashtag # TrumpTrainTexas posted on Twitter , “ Trolling is FUN . ''
The user called for other Trump supporters to “ escort the Biden [ bus ] coming through San Antonio . ''
Eric Cervini , a volunteer for the Biden campaign who grew up in Round Rock and flew in from Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from San Antonio to the next event when he saw a long line of 40-50 vehicles along the side of the highway with Trump and American flags .
Cervini told the Tribune that when he arrived in San Marcos , he started to hear from people on the bus that the Trump supporters had started following them closely , honking their horns and shouting .
According to the Biden campaign , multiple trucks pulled in front of the bus and appeared to try to slow it down .
The campaign canceled the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Austin where another event was scheduled at the AFL-CIO in downtown Austin .
A person with knowledge of the events who spoke to the Tribune on the condition of anonymity said New Braunfels police responded to requests for assistance and provided an escort throughout their jurisdiction .
During that time , the person said , the group of Trump supporters fell back behind the police .
In a statement , New Braunfels City Manager Robert Camareno said the police department received calls , “ of the Trump Train following the Biden/Harris campaign bus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any traffic violations . ''
Naomi Narvaiz , a Texas Republican Party official in San Marcos , said Trump supporters formed the convoy after learning of the bus 's movements up the interstate on Facebook from fellow supporters in San Antonio .
“ We decided we would jump on 35 to show support for our president , '' she said .
“ I did n't see anyone being overly aggressive . ''
On Twitter , Narvaiz wrote : “ We sent the @ JoeBiden @ KamalaHarris bus out of Hays !
Your kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We do n't want any of the values or policies that the Democratic Party is embracing , '' she told the Tribune on Saturday .
“ We do n't want any of those in Texas . ''
“ Those who fear their party is about to lose Texas resort to such desperate tactics .
We have to stand up to these bullies just as we seek to protect the right of every last Texan to vote out the Bully-in-Chief , '' Doggett said in a statement to the Tribune .
Naranjo , chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she was on the phone with a staffer on the bus who alerted her that they were being closely followed by a group of Trump supporters .
According to Naranjo , the staffer on the bus told her a truck collided with one of the staff member vehicles .
Neither of the vehicles stopped .
The collision was partially caught on video and posted on Twitter .
The video does not show how the collision began .
As the bus continued to pass through multiple jurisdictions in Hays County , different police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a statement , the city of Kyle said police received a report that two or more vehicles may have made contact on Friday around 4 p.m. Officers responded to the area but no vehicles stopped to share information with law enforcement .
“ From videos of the event that have now surfaced on social media , it appears that the vehicle contact actually occurred within San Marcos , Texas , prior to the campaign bus arriving in Kyle , '' a statement from the Kyle Police Department read .
“ All involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marcos Police Department should they desire to file any type of report with law enforcement .
A San Marcos spokesperson said police received a call from the Biden campaign bus requesting a police escort but were n't able to catch up to the bus before it exited the city due to traffic .
The police have not spoken to either driver about the collision and said they were n't able to determine who was at fault .
According to Hays County Sheriff Gary Cutler , the Biden campaign did not notify his office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county to allow law enforcement to prepare for any possible confrontations .
“ The planning of this was questionable , '' said Cutler , a Republican running for reelection on Tuesday .
Democratic officials say Trump supporters created a dangerous situation on Interstate 35 and continued following the bus into Austin .
Travis County Precinct 4 Constable George Morales was at the AFL-CIO parking lot at 11th and Lavaca streets for a planned press conference and said the group initially tried to step on the property , but law enforcement asked them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the group was aggressively shouting but did not get physical .
The press conference was canceled as well as a subsequent campaign event in Pflugerville with the Austin Young Dems due to safety concerns .
State Rep. Sheryl Cole , D-Austin , shared the cancellation on Twitter , calling it a “ first for her . ''
“ Unfortunately , Pro-Trump Protestors have escalated well beyond safe limits .
Sorry to all who looked forward to this fun event . ''
Miguel Gutierrez Jr. and Emily Goldstein contributed to this report

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into a Friday incident in which a group of Trump supporters, driving trucks and waving Trump flags, surrounded and followed a Biden campaign bus as it drove up I-35 in Hays County, a law enforcement official confirmed to The Texas Tribune Saturday.
The confrontation, captured on video, featured at least one minor collision and led to Texas Democrats canceling three scheduled campaign events on Friday. The campaign officials cited “safety concerns" for the cancellations.
The highway skirmish came as Democrats close ground in a state that is polling like a potential battleground in the race for president. Recent polls indicate the presidential race in Texas between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden is tight, with some national prognosticators calling it a “toss-up."
“Rather than engage in productive conversation about the drastically different visions that Joe Biden and Donald Trump have for our country, Trump supporters in Texas [Friday] instead decided to put our staff, surrogates, supporters, and others in harm's way," said Tariq Thowfeek, Texas communications director for the Biden campaign.
On Saturday night, Trump tweeted a video of the Trump supporters following the Biden bus saying, “I LOVE TEXAS!"
When reached for comment, the Texas GOP Chairman Allen West dismissed questions regarding the incident. “It is more fake news and propaganda. Prepare to lose ... stop bothering me," West said in a statement.
The bus tour was separate from vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris' visit to the state Friday.
Texas Congressional candidate and former state senator Wendy Davis was on the Biden bus at the time, according to multiple sources, including U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett and Travis County Democratic Party Chair Katie Naranjo, and a now-deleted tweet from the Biden Operations Director for Texas, David Gins. A spokesperson for Davis declined to comment.
The tour, which started on Wednesday in Amarillo and went through East Texas, the Gulf Coast, along the Texas-Mexico border, and Central Texas faced protests of varying sizes along the way.
Friday's campaign events started with a small gathering in Laredo that was met with few protesters. From there, staffers drove to San Antonio. Around 12:30 p.m. on Friday, a social media user using the hashtag #TrumpTrainTexas posted on Twitter, “Trolling is FUN." The user called for other Trump supporters to “escort the Biden [bus] coming through San Antonio."
Screenshot via Twitter
Eric Cervini, a volunteer for the Biden campaign who grew up in Round Rock and flew in from Los Angeles, said he was driving on I-35 from San Antonio to the next event when he saw a long line of 40-50 vehicles along the side of the highway with Trump and American flags.
Screenshot via Twitter
Cervini told the Tribune that when he arrived in San Marcos, he started to hear from people on the bus that the Trump supporters had started following them closely, honking their horns and shouting. According to the Biden campaign, multiple trucks pulled in front of the bus and appeared to try to slow it down. The campaign canceled the event in San Marcos and proceeded directly to Austin where another event was scheduled at the AFL-CIO in downtown Austin.
A person with knowledge of the events who spoke to the Tribune on the condition of anonymity said New Braunfels police responded to requests for assistance and provided an escort throughout their jurisdiction. During that time, the person said, the group of Trump supporters fell back behind the police.
In a statement, New Braunfels City Manager Robert Camareno said the police department received calls, “of the Trump Train following the Biden/Harris campaign bus ... NBPD responded and did not observe any traffic violations."
Naomi Narvaiz, a Texas Republican Party official in San Marcos, said Trump supporters formed the convoy after learning of the bus's movements up the interstate on Facebook from fellow supporters in San Antonio.
“We decided we would jump on 35 to show support for our president," she said. “I didn't see anyone being overly aggressive."
On Twitter, Narvaiz wrote: “We sent the @JoeBiden @KamalaHarris bus out of Hays! Your kind aren't welcome here!"
“We don't want any of the values or policies that the Democratic Party is embracing," she told the Tribune on Saturday. “We don't want any of those in Texas."
Screenshot via Twitter
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett disagreed, accusing President Trump of inciting “aggressive, abusive conduct".
“Those who fear their party is about to lose Texas resort to such desperate tactics. We have to stand up to these bullies just as we seek to protect the right of every last Texan to vote out the Bully-in-Chief," Doggett said in a statement to the Tribune.
Naranjo, chair of the Travis County Democratic Party, said she was on the phone with a staffer on the bus who alerted her that they were being closely followed by a group of Trump supporters.
According to Naranjo, the staffer on the bus told her a truck collided with one of the staff member vehicles. Neither of the vehicles stopped. The collision was partially caught on video and posted on Twitter. The video does not show how the collision began.
Screenshot via Twitter
As the bus continued to pass through multiple jurisdictions in Hays County, different police departments received reports about the caravan.
In a statement, the city of Kyle said police received a report that two or more vehicles may have made contact on Friday around 4 p.m. Officers responded to the area but no vehicles stopped to share information with law enforcement.
“From videos of the event that have now surfaced on social media, it appears that the vehicle contact actually occurred within San Marcos, Texas, prior to the campaign bus arriving in Kyle," a statement from the Kyle Police Department read. “All involved parties are being referred to the San Marcos Police Department should they desire to file any type of report with law enforcement.
A San Marcos spokesperson said police received a call from the Biden campaign bus requesting a police escort but weren't able to catch up to the bus before it exited the city due to traffic. The police have not spoken to either driver about the collision and said they weren't able to determine who was at fault.
According to Hays County Sheriff Gary Cutler, the Biden campaign did not notify his office that it would be passing through the county to allow law enforcement to prepare for any possible confrontations. “The planning of this was questionable," said Cutler, a Republican running for reelection on Tuesday.
Democratic officials say Trump supporters created a dangerous situation on Interstate 35 and continued following the bus into Austin.
Travis County Precinct 4 Constable George Morales was at the AFL-CIO parking lot at 11th and Lavaca streets for a planned press conference and said the group initially tried to step on the property, but law enforcement asked them to stay on the sidewalk. He said the group was aggressively shouting but did not get physical.
The press conference was canceled as well as a subsequent campaign event in Pflugerville with the Austin Young Dems due to safety concerns.
State Rep. Sheryl Cole, D-Austin, shared the cancellation on Twitter, calling it a “first for her."
“Unfortunately, Pro-Trump Protestors have escalated well beyond safe limits. Sorry to all who looked forward to this fun event."
Miguel Gutierrez Jr. and Emily Goldstein contributed to this report


alternet--2020-11-01--Stanford study links 18 Trump rallies to over 30,000 cases and 700 deaths: 'Killing Americans' to 's

Stanford study links 18 Trump rallies to over 30,000 cases and 700 deaths: 'Killing Americans' to 'serve his own ego'

As the U.S. coronavirus caseload surpassed nine million on Friday , Stanford University economists published a study that connected 18 of President Donald Trump 's reelection rallies from June 20 to September 30 with more than 30,000 Covid-19 infections and over 700 deaths—tallies that do n't include the month of October , when cases nationwide surged .
`` Our analysis strongly supports the warnings and recommendations of public health officials concerning the risk of Covid-19 transmission at large group gatherings , particularly when the degree of compliance with guidelines concerning the use of masks and social distancing is low , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ B. Douglas Bernheim , Nina Buchmann , Zach Freitas-Groff , and Sebastián Otero .
`` The communities in which Trump rallies took place paid a high price in terms of disease and death . ''
The new study comes after an analysis published Tuesday by the think tank Center for American Progress which found that half of the 22 campaign rallies Trump held between June and September were followed by county-level increases in Covid-19 infections .
As Common Dreams reported Friday , attendees of the president 's more recent reelection events have also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypothermia and required medical attention for heat-related illnesses .
With less than a week until Election Day , the United States saw a record number of new daily Covid-19 cases on Friday—99,321 , according to Johns Hopkins University 's global tracker .
Meanwhile , both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were on the campaign trail .
The president held rallies in Michigan , Wisconsin , and Minnesota while Pence held two events in Arizona .
As the economists explained , `` Trump rallies have several distinguishing features that lend themselves to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved large numbers of attendees .
Though data on attendance is poor , it appears that the number of attendees was generally in the thousands and sometimes in the tens of thousands .
Because the available information about the incidence of Covid-19 is at the county level , the effects of smaller meetings would be more difficult to detect using our methods . ''
Additionally , `` the set of major Trump campaign events is easily identified .
We know whether and when the Trump campaign held a rally in each county .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'treated ' and 'untreated ' counties , '' the authors continued .
`` The events occurred on identifiable days .
They neither recurred within a given county nor stretched across several days .
This feature allows us to evaluate the effects of individual gatherings . ''
`` Rallies were not geographically ubiquitous .
As a result , we always have a rich set of untreated counties we can use as comparators , '' they wrote .
`` At least through September 2020 , the degree of compliance with guidelines concerning the use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in part because the Trump campaign downplayed the risk of infection .
This feature heightens the risk that a rally could become a 'superspreader event . '
'' Bernheim , chair of Stanford 's economics department , spoke with Politico about their findings : Politico noted that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden 's campaign seized on the study as evidence that Trump has n't taken the pandemic seriously .
As Biden spokesperson Andrew Bates put it : `` He 's even costing hundreds of lives and sparking thousands of cases with superspreader rallies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Campaigning for Biden in Michigan—where Trump narrowly beat 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton—former President Barack Obama mentioned the Stanford study on Saturday and charged that if Trump was `` focused on Covid from the beginning , cases would n't be reaching new record highs across the country . ''
Trump on Saturday held four rallies in Pennsylvania—which he won in 2016—and planned five more for Sunday , also in states where he beat Clinton : Michigan , Iowa , North Carolina , Georgia , and Florida .
On Monday , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each in North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin , and two in Michigan .
Although Election Day is November 3 , the pandemic—and perhaps other concerns about access to the ballot box—has led to a historic national turnout for early mail-in and in-person voting .
By Saturday evening , 90.5 million Americans had already cast ballots , according to Michael McDonald , a political science professor at the University of Florida who runs the U.S .
Elections Project .
Experts project total voter participation could exceed 150 million this year for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pair of New York Times journalists reported : As of Saturday evening , the United States had more than 9.1 million Covid-19 cases and over 230,000 people had died , according to Johns Hopkins University .
Despite the national death toll and months of criticism , Trump said during a town hall this week that there is `` not much '' he would do differently in terms of how his administration has handled the pandemic .

As the U.S. coronavirus caseload surpassed nine million on Friday, Stanford University economists published a study that connected 18 of President Donald Trump's reelection rallies from June 20 to September 30 with more than 30,000 Covid-19 infections and over 700 deaths—tallies that don't include the month of October, when cases nationwide surged.
"Our analysis strongly supports the warnings and recommendations of public health officials concerning the risk of Covid-19 transmission at large group gatherings, particularly when the degree of compliance with guidelines concerning the use of masks and social distancing is low," wrote (pdf) Stanford's B. Douglas Bernheim, Nina Buchmann, Zach Freitas-Groff, and Sebastián Otero. "The communities in which Trump rallies took place paid a high price in terms of disease and death."
The new study comes after an analysis published Tuesday by the think tank Center for American Progress which found that half of the 22 campaign rallies Trump held between June and September were followed by county-level increases in Covid-19 infections. As Common Dreamsreported Friday, attendees of the president's more recent reelection events have also been taken to the hospital with possible hypothermia and required medical attention for heat-related illnesses.
With less than a week until Election Day, the United States saw a record number of new daily Covid-19 cases on Friday—99,321, according to Johns Hopkins University's global tracker. Meanwhile, both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were on the campaign trail. The president held rallies in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota while Pence held two events in Arizona.
As the economists explained, "Trump rallies have several distinguishing features that lend themselves to this inquiry," including that "they involved large numbers of attendees. Though data on attendance is poor, it appears that the number of attendees was generally in the thousands and sometimes in the tens of thousands. Because the available information about the incidence of Covid-19 is at the county level, the effects of smaller meetings would be more difficult to detect using our methods."
Additionally, "the set of major Trump campaign events is easily identified. We know whether and when the Trump campaign held a rally in each county. This property allows us to distinguish between 'treated' and 'untreated' counties," the authors continued. "The events occurred on identifiable days. They neither recurred within a given county nor stretched across several days. This feature allows us to evaluate the effects of individual gatherings."
"Rallies were not geographically ubiquitous. As a result, we always have a rich set of untreated counties we can use as comparators," they wrote. "At least through September 2020, the degree of compliance with guidelines concerning the use of masks and social distancing was low, in part because the Trump campaign downplayed the risk of infection. This feature heightens the risk that a rally could become a 'superspreader event.'"
Bernheim told Politico he hopes the study will help inform policymakers [to] understand the tradeoffs around holding large public gatherings during the pandemic.
"There's currently this very important debate going on about the costs and benefits of lockdowns, restrictions, and so forth," Bernheim said. "It's important that debate be informed by good information."
Bernheim, chair of Stanford's economics department, spoke with Politico about their findings:
Politico noted that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's campaign seized on the study as evidence that Trump hasn't taken the pandemic seriously. As Biden spokesperson Andrew Bates put it: "He's even costing hundreds of lives and sparking thousands of cases with superspreader rallies that only serve his own ego."
Campaigning for Biden in Michigan—where Trump narrowly beat 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton—former President Barack Obama mentioned the Stanford study on Saturday and charged that if Trump was "focused on Covid from the beginning, cases wouldn't be reaching new record highs across the country."
Trump on Saturday held four rallies in Pennsylvania—which he won in 2016—and planned five more for Sunday, also in states where he beat Clinton: Michigan, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. On Monday, Trump has five more events scheduled: one each in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and two in Michigan.
Although Election Day is November 3, the pandemic—and perhaps other concerns about access to the ballot box—has led to a historic national turnout for early mail-in and in-person voting. By Saturday evening, 90.5 million Americans had already cast ballots, according to Michael McDonald, a political science professor at the University of Florida who runs the U.S. Elections Project. Experts project total voter participation could exceed 150 million this year for the first time ever.
On Saturday, a pair of New York Times journalists reported:
As the nation enters one of the most consequential weeks for voting in recent years, with swaths of Americans nervous about whether their ballots will be received and counted and others determined to push through concerns about the virus to vote, officials across the country have been mounting a furious effort to shore up election systems that have been pushed to the brink. They are recruiting tens of thousands of additional poll workers, working around the clock to process ballots and keeping polling locations open late to accommodate long lines.
"I'm going to vote like my life depends on it," Marilyn Crowder, 60, said as she waited in a line a block long at Anna B. Day School in Northwest Philadelphia this week. The school, one of 17 early voting locations open for the first time in Philadelphia, has for weeks drawn lines of voters filing down the street.
For Ms. Crowder, a cancer survivor, the pandemic was a motivating factor, as well what she saw as attempts by Republicans to make it harder to vote. "I personally felt powerless to do anything about it, except what I'm doing now," she said. "And now I'm making phone calls."
As of Saturday evening, the United States had more than 9.1 million Covid-19 cases and over 230,000 people had died, according to Johns Hopkins University. Despite the national death toll and months of criticism, Trump said during a town hall this week that there is "not much" he would do differently in terms of how his administration has handled the pandemic.


alternet--2020-11-01--Trump asserts dictatorial power over top government employees

In a major power grab , Donald Trump signed an executive order on Oct. 21 that asserts he has vast new authority to punish federal employees with demotions or firing without cause .
It 's a Trumpian assertion of a right to cronyism and personal fealty to him .
This executive order purports to grant Trump dictatorial-like power over thousands of career federal managers and executives .
They are now at risk of losing their jobs and careers unless they blindly follow Trump 's agenda with abject loyalty to his whims .
This Executive Order on Creating Schedule F In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand , largely will overturn an 1883 law that was passed to reduce corruption among federal government executives by creating a career civil service based on documented merit .
The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act , passed in 1883 in the unexpected presidency of Chester A. Arthur , covers most federal employees , who earn promotion via competitive exams .
Instead of patronage positions , these civil servants are protected from demotion or firing for political reasons , though they can be disciplined for serious misconduct .
In effect , this would extend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointees each president is entitled to hire — people who serve at the `` pleasure of the president '' — to apolitical career managers and executives .
The executive order states `` faithful execution of the law requires that the President have appropriate management oversight regarding this select cadre of professionals . ''
In common language , this means Trump claims the ability to fire career public servants via Tweet .
His executive order ignores 137 years of law and personnel regulations , allowing him to run roughshod over job protections for career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he can fire them on a whim .
One of the most prominent federal employees affected by this change is Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation 's top infectious disease expert .
Trump first admired Fauci then called him an `` idiot '' and said last week he would fire him except for the political uproar it would cause .
The order also covers officials , scientists and staff of the Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) and the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) .
This creation of `` Schedule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to fire any current employees working in the broad categories as managers and executives covered by his order .
He can treat them the same as private-sector workers whose employment , absent a personal or union contract , is `` at-will . ''
Federal employee unions promptly denounced the order even though it is aimed at management , not line workers .
Rep. Don Beyer ( D-Va. ) said he will develop legislation that would restore protections for federal employees .
Boyd , whose district is in the northern Virginia suburbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than any other member of Congress .
If Trump 's order stands it would be a major expansion of presidential power .
Under threat of loss of employment and reduced or no retirement benefits , department heads might bend to Trump 's mercurial whims .
Any department head who pushes back would be subject to immediate discharge even if Trump 's instructions were illegal .
The long-term consequences for our government would be disastrous .
Many civil servants took federal jobs because they favored stable employment and a focus on their professional interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talent more costly and less successful .
And for what ?
To satisfy the petulance of Donald Trump ?
Trump acted just as DCReport published its investigation into the firing of Warren S. Whitlock , one of the highest-ranking civilians in the U.S. Army .
Part One Why This Man Lost His Top Pentagon Civilian Job and Part Two Out On The Street After Two Secret And Illegal Investigations detailed the racism and machinations behind the removal of Whitlock , an equal opportunity and diversity specialist with a track record of successful changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The broader impact was explained in Racism In The Pentagon And Higher .
In the Whitlock case , there is clear evidence of discrimination and unlawful termination .
In future cases any possible protection someone like Whitlock may assert will not exist if Trump 's executive order stands .
Trump and the department heads he names will not need any reason whatsoever to fire anyone who is re-classified as an at-will worker .
`` You 're fired ! ''
is of course the signature line of Trump 's faux reality television shows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carefully noticed he sometimes fired the best performing person and praised those whose performance made them likely candidates for leaving the show .
Not aired were scenes in which he demeaned people , ogled women including making one twirl for him , and engaged in other boorish sexist behavior .
The executive order reclassified many federal employees from regular civil service status to `` excepted service '' status if they are involved in policy-determining , policymaking or policy-advocating .
It 's difficult , having studied the man for 32 years , to imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump a senior executive service member .
A related strategy Trump undertook in 2017 to impose his will on career civil servants was detailed in my 2018 book It 's Even Worse Than You Think : What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America .
Trump put in key management positions , the very lobbyists and executives who had worked against those agencies , contradicting his campaign promise to `` drain the swamp '' of special interests .
Because they eat away at the substance of our federal government silently and generally unseen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` political termites . ''
This newest power grab by Trump is more of the same with a major addition .
People who never signed up for tenuous employment at the pleasure of the president would become at-will employees with no job security .
This is exactly what the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was supposed to prevent .
That law was enacted when Vice President Chester Arthur unexpectedly became president after the assassination of James A. Garfield just six months into his term in 1881 .
President Arthur had been a major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machine in New York .
His cronies scurried down to Washington licking their chops at all the graft they anticipated .
To their shock , Arthur told his longtime pals to never again darken the White House .
Arthur promised to run a clean administration , which he did , abandoning the old `` spoils '' system of hiring cronies and party loyalists and embracing the creation of our merit-based federal civil service .
Trump 's executive order will certainly be challenged in federal court .
But unless and until some judge blocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect .

In a major power grab, Donald Trump signed an executive order on Oct. 21 that asserts he has vast new authority to punish federal employees with demotions or firing without cause. It's a Trumpian assertion of a right to cronyism and personal fealty to him.
This executive order purports to grant Trump dictatorial-like power over thousands of career federal managers and executives. They are now at risk of losing their jobs and careers unless they blindly follow Trump's agenda with abject loyalty to his whims.
This Executive Order on Creating Schedule F In The Excepted Service, if allowed to stand, largely will overturn an 1883 law that was passed to reduce corruption among federal government executives by creating a career civil service based on documented merit. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, passed in 1883 in the unexpected presidency of Chester A. Arthur, covers most federal employees, who earn promotion via competitive exams.
Instead of patronage positions, these civil servants are protected from demotion or firing for political reasons, though they can be disciplined for serious misconduct.
In effect, this would extend the rules governing the roughly 4,000 political appointees each president is entitled to hire — people who serve at the "pleasure of the president" — to apolitical career managers and executives.
The executive order states "faithful execution of the law requires that the President have appropriate management oversight regarding this select cadre of professionals."
In common language, this means Trump claims the ability to fire career public servants via Tweet. His executive order ignores 137 years of law and personnel regulations, allowing him to run roughshod over job protections for career government employees. Under the order, he can fire them on a whim.
Who is affected
One of the most prominent federal employees affected by this change is Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert. Trump first admired Fauci then called him an "idiot" and said last week he would fire him except for the political uproar it would cause. The order also covers officials, scientists and staff of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This creation of "Schedule F" employees effectively gives the president the power to fire any current employees working in the broad categories as managers and executives covered by his order. He can treat them the same as private-sector workers whose employment, absent a personal or union contract, is "at-will."
Federal employee unions promptly denounced the order even though it is aimed at management, not line workers. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said he will develop legislation that would restore protections for federal employees. Boyd, whose district is in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, represents more federal workers than any other member of Congress.
If Trump's order stands it would be a major expansion of presidential power. Under threat of loss of employment and reduced or no retirement benefits, department heads might bend to Trump's mercurial whims. Any department head who pushes back would be subject to immediate discharge even if Trump's instructions were illegal.
The long-term consequences for our government would be disastrous. Many civil servants took federal jobs because they favored stable employment and a focus on their professional interests. Removing that security would make recruiting talent more costly and less successful. And for what? To satisfy the petulance of Donald Trump?
Whitlock case relevant
Trump acted just as DCReport published its investigation into the firing of Warren S. Whitlock, one of the highest-ranking civilians in the U.S. Army. Part One Why This Man Lost His Top Pentagon Civilian Job and Part Two Out On The Street After Two Secret And Illegal Investigations detailed the racism and machinations behind the removal of Whitlock, an equal opportunity and diversity specialist with a track record of successful changes to discriminatory government actions and policies. The broader impact was explained in Racism In The Pentagon And Higher.
In the Whitlock case, there is clear evidence of discrimination and unlawful termination. In future cases any possible protection someone like Whitlock may assert will not exist if Trump's executive order stands. Trump and the department heads he names will not need any reason whatsoever to fire anyone who is re-classified as an at-will worker.
"You're fired!" is of course the signature line of Trump's faux reality television shows that made him famous. Those who watched carefully noticed he sometimes fired the best performing person and praised those whose performance made them likely candidates for leaving the show. Not aired were scenes in which he demeaned people, ogled women including making one twirl for him, and engaged in other boorish sexist behavior.
The executive order reclassified many federal employees from regular civil service status to "excepted service" status if they are involved in policy-determining, policymaking or policy-advocating.
It's difficult, having studied the man for 32 years, to imagine a federal Qualifications Review Board would accept Trump a senior executive service member.
Political termites
A related strategy Trump undertook in 2017 to impose his will on career civil servants was detailed in my 2018 book It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America. Trump put in key management positions, the very lobbyists and executives who had worked against those agencies, contradicting his campaign promise to "drain the swamp" of special interests. Because they eat away at the substance of our federal government silently and generally unseen by the public I called those appointees "political termites."
This newest power grab by Trump is more of the same with a major addition. People who never signed up for tenuous employment at the pleasure of the president would become at-will employees with no job security.
This is exactly what the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was supposed to prevent. That law was enacted when Vice President Chester Arthur unexpectedly became president after the assassination of James A. Garfield just six months into his term in 1881.
President Arthur had been a major gear in the corrupt Tammany Hall political machine in New York. His cronies scurried down to Washington licking their chops at all the graft they anticipated. To their shock, Arthur told his longtime pals to never again darken the White House. Arthur promised to run a clean administration, which he did, abandoning the old "spoils" system of hiring cronies and party loyalists and embracing the creation of our merit-based federal civil service.
Trump's executive order will certainly be challenged in federal court. But unless and until some judge blocks it, this executive order is in effect.


alternet--2020-11-01--Lindsey Graham's closing message to women: ‘There’s a place for you in America’ if you ‘follow tradi

Lindsey Graham's closing message to women: ‘There’s a place for you in America’ if you ‘follow traditional family structure’

Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) told women over the weekend that they can `` follow traditional family structure '' @ @ @ @ @ welcome in America .
Graham made the remarks at a campaign stop in Conway , @ @ @ @ @ where he hyped the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett .
`` You @ @ @ @ @ Judge Barrett ?
She 's got everything , '' Graham explained to supporters .
`` @ @ @ @ @ smart , she 's incredibly good .
She embraces her faith . ''
`` I @ @ @ @ @ know that that there 's a place for you in America if you 're pro-life @ @ @ @ @ religion and you follow traditional family structure , '' he added , `` that you @ @ @ @ @ lady . ''

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told women over the weekend that they can "follow traditional family structure" if they want to be welcome in America.
Graham made the remarks at a campaign stop in Conway, South Carolina on Saturday, where he hyped the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
"You know what I like about Judge Barrett? She's got everything," Graham explained to supporters. "She's just not wicked smart, she's incredibly good. She embraces her faith."
"I want every young woman to know that that there's a place for you in America if you're pro-life, if you embrace your religion and you follow traditional family structure," he added, "that you can go anywhere, young lady."
Watch the video clip below.


alternet--2020-11-01--Biden is winning nationally — but the states actually decide. Here's what they're telling us

We 've been checking into the state polling every Thursday for several months , and it 's hard to believe , but we 're out of Thursdays !
I 'll do one more of these on Monday or Tuesday , but we 're pretty much at the end .
Nothing much will change the dynamics of the race anymore .
It 'll all come down to 1 ) can we get our core vote to vote , and 2 ) where do the dwindling set of undecideds land .
The answer to those two questions will determine whether we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early evening call , or weeks and months of chaos , legal uncertainty , and violence .
The Proud Boys are , after all , standing by .
We always start with a look at the national poll trends , using The Economist 's polling aggregate .
As you can see merely eyeballing the chart above , nothing much has happened since late August .
The top-line numbers—54.2-45.8 are pretty much the same numbers we had in early June .
You want to see something fun ?
Let 's compare the chart above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval ratings over the last year : It 's the same freakin ' trend .
I 've written before that all you have to do is add two-points to Trump 's approval rating to get his share of the Biden-Trump vote in Civiqs polling .
( Here 's is our 50-state map of Trump approval ratings , if you want to play the game . )
There is direct correlation .
Back to the aggregate , Joe Biden has an 8.4-point lead in the national polling .
Last week it was 8.6 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nothing has moved .
And why would it ?
We are so polarized at this point , that it 's hard to imagine anything having a measurable impact anymore .
We 're approaching a quarter million dead from the coronavirus pandemic , and Trump 's numbers have barely budged .
But in the same token , what could Trump say to start winning back some of that support ?
That 's why this Hunter Biden laptop nonsense is so patently ridiculous .
Even if it was true , and it 's not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One last note before we get to the polls , please do n't say stupid shit like `` ignore the polls ! ''
and `` act like we 're 10 points down ! ''
We are the reality-based community .
We do n't ignore data , and we certainly do n't create an alternate reality .
It amazes me how conservatives ca n't handle bad news , and liberals ca n't handle good news .
The reason we have opportunities to win tough races like Senate seats in Texas , Kansas , Alaska @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is doing this well .
That 's not a bad thing or a reason to be scared .
It 's a reason to get excited , because only a few points separate an okay night from a good night from the best night ever .
There is no excuse for complacency because there are races we are legitimately behind in , that we can only win if we out-hustle Republicans on the ground .
As usual , we start with our baseline map .
As I say every week , I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling is n't validating my gut instinct , so it remains red on this map .
All in all , a great week for Biden in the key battlegrounds .
Iowa flipped ( barely ) from a narrow Trump win to the narrowest Biden one .
More importantly , the Big Three—Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin all trended up for him .
If Biden wins these three , it 's over .
He 's got it .
So as things currently stand , Trump would have to overcome a six-point deficit in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After Pennsylvania , things get closer , and this is where we really need to work hard to nail these states down .
Political Campaigning 101 says that a good ground game can be worth three points in the final results .
Look at all these states—everything from Florida on down is within that three-point spread .
The work we put in to get the final vote out can be the difference between a 279-259 victory , with Trump 's lawyers trying to sow chaos and discord in Pennsylvania , trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegitimate Supreme Court pulls another Bush v. Gore , or a 413-125 historic walloping that puts an early end to the night and squashes any conservative efforts to steal the election .
Not to mention , there are seven Senate pickups possible in those presidential battlegrounds .
Given that we need to pick up net-three seats , the more we maximize our performance in those states , the better our chances to have a real and transformative Senate majority .
Finally , I really want to highlight the GOP 's dilemma heading into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ red states , by electoral votes , are all battlegrounds : Texas ( 38 ) , Florida ( 29 ) , Pennsylvania ( 20 ) , Ohio ( 18 ) , Georgia ( 16 ) , and North Carolina ( 15 ) .
Their largest safe red state is Indiana ( 11 ) .
Of those , it 's safe to say that Ohio is trending red , and maybe Pennsylvania .
But Texas , Georgia , and North Carolina are clearly trending blue , and Florida is Florida .
I 'm just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forever , but really , demographically , it 's a blue state .
The modern GOP ca n't function as a national party if Ohio and Pennsylvania are their anchors , particularly since they 're both likely losing seats during reapportionment .
Who will gain ?
Texas , Florida , Arizona , North Carolina … you get the point .
There is something real and special happening this year .
We are all part of history .
And the hard work of every single one of us , of you , has gotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precipice of transformative change .
So do n't let up now , so close to the finish line .
Let 's finish strong .
Leave nothing on the road .

We've been checking into the state polling every Thursday for several months, and it's hard to believe, but we're out of Thursdays! I'll do one more of these on Monday or Tuesday, but we're pretty much at the end. Nothing much will change the dynamics of the race anymore. It'll all come down to 1) can we get our core vote to vote, and 2) where do the dwindling set of undecideds land. The answer to those two questions will determine whether we have an Electoral College landslide victory with an early evening call, or weeks and months of chaos, legal uncertainty, and violence. The Proud Boys are, after all, standing by.
We always start with a look at the national poll trends, using The Economist's polling aggregate.
(The Economist)
As you can see merely eyeballing the chart above, nothing much has happened since late August. The top-line numbers—54.2-45.8 are pretty much the same numbers we had in early June. You want to see something fun? Let's compare the chart above to Civiqs' chart of Trump's approval ratings over the last year:
It's the same freakin' trend. I've written before that all you have to do is add two-points to Trump's approval rating to get his share of the Biden-Trump vote in Civiqs polling. (Here's is our 50-state map of Trump approval ratings, if you want to play the game.) There is direct correlation.
Back to the aggregate, Joe Biden has an 8.4-point lead in the national polling. Last week it was 8.6 points, so for all intents and purposes, nothing has moved. And why would it? We are so polarized at this point, that it's hard to imagine anything having a measurable impact anymore. We're approaching a quarter million dead from the coronavirus pandemic, and Trump's numbers have barely budged. But in the same token, what could Trump say to start winning back some of that support? That's why this Hunter Biden laptop nonsense is so patently ridiculous. Even if it was true, and it's not, no one gives a shit.
One last note before we get to the polls, please don't say stupid shit like "ignore the polls!" and "act like we're 10 points down!" We are the reality-based community. We don't ignore data, and we certainly don't create an alternate reality. It amazes me how conservatives can't handle bad news, and liberals can't handle good news. The reason we have opportunities to win tough races like Senate seats in Texas, Kansas, Alaska, Iowa, and Georgiais because Biden is doing this well. That's not a bad thing or a reason to be scared. It's a reason to get excited, because only a few points separate an okay night from a good night from the best night ever. There is no excuse for complacency because there are races we are legitimately behind in, that we can only win if we out-hustle Republicans on the ground.
As usual, we start with our baseline map.
STATE ELECTORAL
VOTES ECONOMIST
POLL AGGREGATE WEEKLY
CHANGE TOTAL BASELINE - - 232-125 MICHIGAN 16 Biden +8.0 +1.0 248-125 WISCONSIN 10 Biden +8.0 +1.4 258-125 NEBRASKA-01 1 Biden +6.5 - 259-125 PENNSYLVANIA 20 Biden +6.2 +0.4 279-125 FLORIDA 29 Biden +3.2 -0.2 308-125 ARIZONA 11 Biden +3.0 -0.2 319-125 NORTH CAROLINA 15 Biden +2.4 - 334-125 MAINE-02 1 Biden +3.0 +1.0 335-125 GEORGIA 16 Biden +0.6 +0.6 351-125 IOWA 6 Biden +0.2 +2.0 357-125 OHIO 18 Trump +1.4 -0.2 357-143 TEXAS 38 Trump +2.2 -0.2 357-181
As I say every week, I think Alaska is a battleground, but the polling isn't validating my gut instinct, so it remains red on this map.
All in all, a great week for Biden in the key battlegrounds. Iowa flipped (barely) from a narrow Trump win to the narrowest Biden one. More importantly, the Big Three—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all trended up for him. If Biden wins these three, it's over. He's got it. So as things currently stand, Trump would have to overcome a six-point deficit in Pennsylvania merely to stay in the game.
After Pennsylvania, things get closer, and this is where we really need to work hard to nail these states down. Political Campaigning 101 says that a good ground game can be worth three points in the final results. Look at all these states—everything from Florida on down is within that three-point spread.
The work we put in to get the final vote out can be the difference between a 279-259 victory, with Trump's lawyers trying to sow chaos and discord in Pennsylvania, trying to throw out legitimately cast votes hoping their illegitimate Supreme Court pulls another Bush v. Gore, or a 413-125 historic walloping that puts an early end to the night and squashes any conservative efforts to steal the election.
Not to mention, there are seven Senate pickups possible in those presidential battlegrounds. Given that we need to pick up net-three seats, the more we maximize our performance in those states, the better our chances to have a real and transformative Senate majority.
Finally, I really want to highlight the GOP's dilemma heading into future cycles.
The top six 2016 red states, by electoral votes, are all battlegrounds: Texas (38), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Georgia (16), and North Carolina (15). Their largest safe red state is Indiana (11).
Of those, it's safe to say that Ohio is trending red, and maybe Pennsylvania. But Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina are clearly trending blue, and Florida is Florida. I'm just going to assume it'll remain 50-50 forever, but really, demographically, it's a blue state.
The modern GOP can't function as a national party if Ohio and Pennsylvania are their anchors, particularly since they're both likely losing seats during reapportionment. Who will gain? Texas, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina … you get the point.
There is something real and special happening this year. We are all part of history. And the hard work of every single one of us, of you, has gotten us to this point, on the precipice of transformative change. So don't let up now, so close to the finish line. Let's finish strong.
Leave nothing on the road.


alternet--2020-11-01--Here are the key 2020 court battles that are taking shape as Supreme Court threat to mail votes loom

Here are the key 2020 court battles that are taking shape as Supreme Court threat to mail votes looms

● Supreme Court : This week , the Supreme Court set the stage for what could be the most important legal battle of the 2020 elections with its rulings in major cases over whether mail ballots may count if they are postmarked by Election Day but received afterward .
These cases rely on a radical constitutional theory that would effectively overturn the foundation of federalism and eliminate state-level judicial review when state courts try to safeguard voting rights from hostile GOP legislatures .
In a worst-case scenario , this approach could allow the Supreme Court 's far-right majority to throw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee ballots and potentially change the outcome of the election .
The conservative justices first reversed a lower court ruling in Wisconsin allowing postmarked ballots to count while refusing to overturn a state Supreme Court ruling in Pennsylvania that did permit such ballots count and a settlement by North Carolina officials extending the deadline by when postmarked ballots must be received after Election Day .
Shortly after those rulings came down , a panel of mostly conservative judges on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued one of the most flagrantly partisan and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots in Minnesota—a ruling that experts lambasted as `` outrageous '' and `` indefensibly wrong '' as we 'll explain below .
While North Carolina and Pennsylvania decisions appear on the surface to be victories for voting rights , they may be short lived , because the issues of postmarked ballots could swiftly return to the Supreme Court after Election Day .
It 's very possible the court 's new hardline right-wing majority could invalidate votes after Election Day even though they were properly cast at the time voters mailed them , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abrogation of the right to vote .
If voters have not already voted , they should forget about returning their absentee ballots by mail and risk them not arriving on time .
To mitigate the impact of a hostile judiciary , they should instead return their mail ballots at a drop-box , polling place , or local elections office if their state or locality allows it , and if that is n't an option , voters should vote in-person and do it early if that 's allowed where they live .
Common to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal principles , once of which stems from a 2006 Supreme Court ruling called Purcell v. Gonzales that gave rise to the so-called `` Purcell principle . ''
That principle says courts should be sternly reluctant to change election laws or procedures close to an election in an effort to avoid voter confusion or strains on election administration .
Even when some election rules may be unconstitutional , federal courts are supposed to apply a much higher burden for overturning them to avoid creating chaos ( state courts operate under different procedures varying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Citing Purcell , the Supreme Court 's conservatives refused to overturn a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that overturned a lower court ruling requiring postmarked ballots to count in Wisconsin .
But while the Supreme Court in Purcell did not say that no changes may ever be made when an election is near , many conservative judges have interpreted that guideline this year to block any relief for plaintiffs no matter how egregious the alleged constitutional violations .
The extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic , combined with Donald Trump 's ongoing sabotage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mail delivery service , could very well have entitled the plaintiffs to relief in Wisconsin and many related lawsuits .
Yet in case after case where lower federal courts have blocked GOP voting restrictions due to the pandemic , the conservatives on the Supreme Court and courts of appeals have overturned such rulings by citing Purcell regardless of how serious the violation of constitutional rights , with the high court often granting emergency stays that do n't require it to provide any written explanation .
Right-wing judges over the last few weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cudgel against Democrats by selectively enforcing it to almost-consistently benefit Republicans and hurt voters .
The Minnesota ruling in particular offers a stark illustration .
In that case , an 8th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 along ideological lines that Democratic Secretary of State Seve Simon had likely exceeded his powers and usurped the legislature 's authority when he agreed three months ago in a lawsuit to count postmarked ballots received up to Nov. 10 .
The 8th Circuit directed Simon to segregate any postmarked ballots that arrive after Election Day as the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlawful , strongly implying that the judges will toss out those ballots after Election Day when they issue a final ruling on the merits .
Granting a GOP lawsuit filed in September with just weeks to go , the court in Minnesota itself changed election procedures with just five days left until Election Day and after some mail voters had already voted with the postmark provision in mind .
That outcome makes a mockery of Purcell by treating it as a one-way partisan ratchet for the GOP in which Republicans are allowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changing the rules after ballots have been cast—but Democrats are n't allowed to do so to protect them .
Likely anticipating the catastrophic effects of an adverse ruling that could come from a potential appeal , Simon and Minnesota Democrats announced on Friday that they would hold off on trying to overturn the 8th Circuit ruling .
Simon emphasized that `` there is no ruling yet saying those ballots are invalid '' and that Minnesota reserves `` the right to make every argument after Election Day that protects voters . ''
While Purcell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts operate under different rules due to two centuries of precedents establishing the guidelines of federalism , the second principle common to these cases .
For that reason , it 's particularly alarming that the Supreme Court has even considered potentially overturning state Supreme Court rulings in Pennsylvania and North Carolina where those courts were adjudicating issues based solely on state constitutional concerns without any questions of federal law at issue in good faith .
The Supreme Court left a ruling by the Democratic majority on Pennsylvania 's Supreme Court in place when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks , it refused the GOP 's request for a stay that would block ballots postmarked by Election Day and received up to three days later .
In two separate lawsuits over a settlement where the Democratic majority on North Carolina 's state Board of Elections extended the deadline by when postmarked ballots must be received from Nov. 6 to Nov. 12 , the Supreme Court refused to overturn a federal lower court ruling and refused to reverse a ruling by the majority-Democratic state Supreme Court that had upheld the settlement just days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain ongoing , and their fates appear ominous for voting rights based on how the justices ruled on the requests for the stays and Justice Brett Kavanaugh 's separate opinion in the Wisconsin case .
Three justices , Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , and Neil Gorsuch all would have gone nuclear in North Carolina and Pennsylvania by granting the stays , accepting an extreme and unprecedented view of the U.S. Constitution 's Elections Clause .
The Elections Clause gives the `` legislature '' in each state the power to set the `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding '' federal elections ( though Congress `` may at any time make or alter such regulations '' ) .
Republicans argue in these cases and in Minnesota that this clause only empowers the state legislature itself , not those who hold the power to set laws under state constitutions such as state courts , voters ( via the ballot initiative process ) , or potentially even governors when they exercise their veto powers .
The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation of the Elections Clause in a 5-4 ruling in 2015 upholding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP-run legislature of the power to control redistricting by using a 2000 ballot initiative to create an independent redistricting commission .
However , two of the justices in the majority in that ruling , Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy , are no longer on the court and have since been replaced by justices much further to their right .
While Thomas , Alito , and Gorsuch are not a majority on their own , Kavanaugh strongly cast doubt on the legality of counting postmarked ballots that arrive after Election Day in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fierce criticism over factual inaccuracies and Kavanaugh 's having concocted a notion that `` states also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night , or as soon as possible thereafter . ''
Especially worrisome is that Kavanaugh approvingly cited a theory in the Supreme Court 's infamous case Bush v. Gore , which decided the 2000 election for George W. Bush .
Kavanaugh 's statement appears to support Trump 's bogus claims that votes counted after Election Day , potentially even those that were received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are somehow illegitimate , and it 's at odds with two key facts .
First , no state does or ever has had official declarations of a winner on Election Night , and every state counts ballots such as provisionals and military ballots from abroad in the days or even weeks afterward .
Federal law acknowledges as much by setting Dec. 8 as the last day to certify votes ahead of the Dec. 14 vote by Electoral College electors .
Second , the Republican legislatures in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania , both of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 but the GOP win gerrymandered majorities anyway , have refused to pass laws that would allow election workers to even begin preparing absentee mail ballots for counting ahead of Election Day .
Nearly every other state lets workers begin processing such votes early even if they may still have to wait until Election Day to count them , and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin 's inability to do so could drag out the vote counting past Election Night .
Because Trump 's demagoguery against mail voting has meant that Democrats are voting by mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has made it clear that he plans to try to overturn an election loss by claiming victory on Election Night based on a partial count even in the likely event that late-counted mail ballots ultimately cause him to lose .
While Kavanaugh did not side with his three colleagues who would have granted these stays , he left little doubt where his inclinations lie on the merits .
That leaves new Justice Amy Coney Barrett , who did not weigh in on the requests for the stays .
However , Barrett made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not recusing herself but had simply not had time to get caught up to speed on the briefings , something that wo n't necessarily be the case if these cases return to the Supreme Court in the coming days .
Trump himself has let slip that he rushed Barrett 's appointment to the court just eight days before Election Day precisely because he wanted her to decide the election in his favor .
Consequently , there is a dire risk that all of the Supreme Court 's conservatives aside from Chief Justice John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counting these postmarked ballots .
Such a ruling would be an unprecedented assault on the sanctity of the election and a denial of due process afforded to voters in countless past cases , and such an outcome could spark a historic public backlash against the court itself .
If there 's one silver lining , it may be that the potential for backlash could give the conservative hardliners pause to avoid giving congressional Democrats the public standing they would need to expand the Supreme Court by adding new justices in response .
Furthermore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeat itself may play into Kavanaugh and Barrett 's willingness or lack thereof to brazenly discard votes , and if the polls are anywhere near close to the mark , Trump is poised to decisively lose next week .
Nevertheless , the fact that five justices on the Supreme Court appear very open if not eagerly willing to upend two centuries of established law , all to help a historically unpopular and authoritarian president cling to power in the face of a looming decisive defeat , is itself ample reason for Democrats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overcome these barriers and win the presidency and Senate on Tuesday .
If they do n't , the Supreme Court 's conservative hardliners could make nakedly partisan rulings attacking the right to vote for years if not decades to come .
● Tennessee : A state court has dealt a setback to voting rights advocates by ruling that Tennessee is not required to alter its felony disenfranchisement regime to restore voting rights to people with felony convictions from other states based on how the state where they were convicted treats voting rights for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictive in Tennessee than almost anywhere else in the country , requiring voters to have completely served all parts of their sentence including prison , parole , and probation , and some of the most serious offenses result in lifetime disenfranchisement .
Furthermore , Tennessee requires the payment of court fines and fees before voters may regain their rights , which results in post-sentence disenfranchisement potentially for life for those unable to pay off such assessments .
Consequently , 9 % of Tennesseans are banned from voting , nearly the highest rate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black voters , which is the highest rate in the country after several states have adopted reforms to lessen their disenfranchisement rates in the last several years .
It 's unclear how many of those affected would see their rights restored if Tennessee treated out-of-state convictions similarly to how those voters would have been treated in their native states .
Please bookmark our litigation tracker for a complete summary of the latest developments in every lawsuit regarding changes to elections and voting procedures as a result of the coronavirus .
● Alaska : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a GOP-appointed majority , has rejected a lawsuit asking that voters be notified of any problems with their mail ballots and be given a chance to fix them before Election Day .
The state already requires officials to notify voters of any issues after the election .
● Arkansas : A federal court has rejected a lawsuit asking that Arkansas voters be notified of any problems with their mail ballots and be given a chance to fix them .
Arkansas is one of only four states that does not give voters the opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Separately , voting rights advocates have filed a lawsuit in state court challenging a state law that says that absentee ballots may only be counted on Election Day .
Election officials say they plan to keep counting such ballots `` regardless of how long it takes to complete the process . ''
It appears that the case has since been transferred to a federal court .
● Georgia : Republican-appointed judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals have stayed a lower court ruling that required election officials to maintain paper backups of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the event of failures with the state 's electronic voter check-in system that marred Georgia 's June primary .
● Missouri : A Missouri state court has rejected a lawsuit seeking to count mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within a few days .
The court also declined to block a pair of state laws : one requiring that only voters under 65 have mail ballots notarized ( elderly voters , who are exempt , typically lean Republican ) and another prohibiting voters from returning mail ballots in person .
● @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordered election officials not to reject mail ballots due to alleged signature mismatches and says that officials must also review any ballots that were previously rejected on such grounds .
Ballots with missing signatures from voters or witnesses , however , will still not be accepted .
● Texas : Conservative judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have blocked a lower court ruling that held that an exemption in Texas ' mask mandate for voters and poll workers violated the Voting Rights Act .
Separately , the Texas Supreme Court upheld @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limiting election officials to just one mail return location per county .
Taken together , it 's particularly cynical of Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton to argue that the mask mandate violates voters ' right to vote when he has personally ensured that many such voters have no alternative but to vote in-person after Paxton successfully fought in court against efforts to liberalize access to mail voting .
Meanwhile , a group of Republican activists and candidates have asked the state Supreme Court to throw out all ballots cast at curbside voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously rejected similar challenges filed by Republicans , but an adverse ruling here could disenfranchise over 100,000 voters if the high court grants this request .
● Virginia : A Virginia state court has ruled that ballots lacking a postmark ca n't count if they arrive after Election Day .
● Wisconsin : A Wisconsin state court has dismissed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that mass ballot dropoff events in Madison were legal , saying that organizers who brought the suit and the city officials named as defendants were not in disagreement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the events , known as `` Democracy in the Park , '' but no such lawsuit ever came .

LEADING OFF
●Supreme Court: This week, the Supreme Court set the stage for what could be the most important legal battle of the 2020 elections with its rulings in major cases over whether mail ballots may count if they are postmarked by Election Day but received afterward.
These cases rely on a radical constitutional theory that would effectively overturn the foundation of federalism and eliminate state-level judicial review when state courts try to safeguard voting rights from hostile GOP legislatures. In a worst-case scenario, this approach could allow the Supreme Court's far-right majority to throw out thousands if not millions of valid absentee ballots and potentially change the outcome of the election.
The conservative justices first reversed a lower court ruling in Wisconsin allowing postmarked ballots to count while refusing to overturn a state Supreme Court ruling in Pennsylvania that did permit such ballots count and a settlement by North Carolina officials extending the deadline by when postmarked ballots must be received after Election Day.
Shortly after those rulings came down, a panel of mostly conservative judges on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued one of the most flagrantly partisan and undemocratic decisions in years to disqualify postmarked ballots in Minnesota—a ruling that experts lambasted as "outrageous" and "indefensibly wrong" as we'll explain below.
While North Carolina and Pennsylvania decisions appear on the surface to be victories for voting rights, they may be short lived, because the issues of postmarked ballots could swiftly return to the Supreme Court after Election Day. It's very possible the court's new hardline right-wing majority could invalidate votes after Election Day even though they were properly cast at the time voters mailed them, an outcome that would be an unprecedented judicial abrogation of the right to vote.
If voters have not already voted, they should forget about returning their absentee ballots by mail and risk them not arriving on time. To mitigate the impact of a hostile judiciary, they should instead return their mail ballots at a drop-box, polling place, or local elections office if their state or locality allows it, and if that isn't an option, voters should vote in-person and do it early if that's allowed where they live.
Common to many of these cases above are two legal principles, once of which stems from a 2006 Supreme Court ruling called Purcell v. Gonzales that gave rise to the so-called "Purcell principle." That principle says courts should be sternly reluctant to change election laws or procedures close to an election in an effort to avoid voter confusion or strains on election administration. Even when some election rules may be unconstitutional, federal courts are supposed to apply a much higher burden for overturning them to avoid creating chaos (state courts operate under different procedures varying based on state constitutional law).
Citing Purcell, the Supreme Court's conservatives refused to overturn a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that overturned a lower court ruling requiring postmarked ballots to count in Wisconsin. But while the Supreme Court in Purcelldid not say that no changes may ever be made when an election is near, many conservative judges have interpreted that guideline this year to block any relief for plaintiffs no matter how egregious the alleged constitutional violations.
The extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, combined with Donald Trump's ongoing sabotage of the postal service creating unprecedented delays in mail delivery service, could very well have entitled the plaintiffs to relief in Wisconsin and many related lawsuits. Yet in case after case where lower federal courts have blocked GOP voting restrictions due to the pandemic, the conservatives on the Supreme Court and courts of appeals have overturned such rulings by citing Purcell regardless of how serious the violation of constitutional rights, with the high court often granting emergency stays that don't require it to provide any written explanation.
Right-wing judges over the last few weeks have brazenly wielded Purcell as a partisan cudgel against Democrats by selectively enforcing it to almost-consistently benefit Republicans and hurt voters. The Minnesota ruling in particular offers a stark illustration.
In that case, an 8th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 along ideological lines that Democratic Secretary of State Seve Simon had likely exceeded his powers and usurped the legislature's authority when he agreed three months ago in a lawsuit to count postmarked ballots received up to Nov. 10. The 8th Circuit directed Simon to segregate any postmarked ballots that arrive after Election Day as the case proceeds in case it finds his actions unlawful, strongly implying that the judges will toss out those ballots after Election Day when they issue a final ruling on the merits.
Granting a GOP lawsuit filed in September with just weeks to go, the court in Minnesota itself changed election procedures with just five days left until Election Day and after some mail voters had already voted with the postmark provision in mind. That outcome makes a mockery of Purcell by treating it as a one-way partisan ratchet for the GOP in which Republicans are allowed to wage last-minute challenges to attack voting rights—even changing the rules after ballots have been cast—but Democrats aren't allowed to do so to protect them.
Likely anticipating the catastrophic effects of an adverse ruling that could come from a potential appeal, Simon and Minnesota Democrats announced on Friday that they would hold off on trying to overturn the 8th Circuit ruling. Simon emphasized that "there is no ruling yet saying those ballots are invalid" and that Minnesota reserves "the right to make every argument after Election Day that protects voters."
While Purcell has largely guided federal courts, state courts operate under different rules due to two centuries of precedents establishing the guidelines of federalism, the second principle common to these cases. For that reason, it's particularly alarming that the Supreme Court has even considered potentially overturning state Supreme Court rulings in Pennsylvania and North Carolina where those courts were adjudicating issues based solely on state constitutional concerns without any questions of federal law at issue in good faith.
The Supreme Court left a ruling by the Democratic majority on Pennsylvania's Supreme Court in place when, for the second time in recent weeks, it refused the GOP's request for a stay that would block ballots postmarked by Election Day and received up to three days later. In two separate lawsuits over a settlement where the Democratic majority on North Carolina's state Board of Elections extended the deadline by when postmarked ballots must be received from Nov. 6 to Nov. 12, the Supreme Court refused to overturn a federal lower court ruling and refused to reverse a ruling by the majority-Democratic state Supreme Court that had upheld the settlement just days prior.
But each of these cases remain ongoing, and their fates appear ominous for voting rights based on how the justices ruled on the requests for the stays and Justice Brett Kavanaugh's separate opinion in the Wisconsin case. Three justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch all would have gone nuclear in North Carolina and Pennsylvania by granting the stays, accepting an extreme and unprecedented view of the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause.
The Elections Clause gives the "legislature" in each state the power to set the "times, places, and manner of holding" federal elections (though Congress "may at any time make or alter such regulations"). Republicans argue in these cases and in Minnesota that this clause only empowers the state legislature itself, not those who hold the power to set laws under state constitutions such as state courts, voters (via the ballot initiative process), or potentially even governors when they exercise their veto powers.
The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation of the Elections Clause in a 5-4 ruling in 2015 upholding the right of Arizona voters to strip their GOP-run legislature of the power to control redistricting by using a 2000 ballot initiative to create an independent redistricting commission. However, two of the justices in the majority in that ruling, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy, are no longer on the court and have since been replaced by justices much further to their right.
While Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are not a majority on their own, Kavanaugh strongly cast doubt on the legality of counting postmarked ballots that arrive after Election Day in his Wisconsin ruling, a decision that drew fierce criticism over factual inaccuracies and Kavanaugh's having concocted a notion that "states also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter." Especially worrisome is that Kavanaugh approvingly cited a theory in the Supreme Court's infamous case Bush v. Gore, which decided the 2000 election for George W. Bush.
Kavanaugh's statement appears to support Trump's bogus claims that votes counted after Election Day, potentially even those that were received and not just postmarked by Election Day, are somehow illegitimate, and it's at odds with two key facts. First, no state does or ever has had official declarations of a winner on Election Night, and every state counts ballots such as provisionals and military ballots from abroad in the days or even weeks afterward. Federal law acknowledges as much by setting Dec. 8 as the last day to certify votes ahead of the Dec. 14 vote by Electoral College electors.
Second, the Republican legislatures in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, both of which saw Democrats win more votes in 2018 but the GOP win gerrymandered majorities anyway, have refused to pass laws that would allow election workers to even begin preparing absentee mail ballots for counting ahead of Election Day. Nearly every other state lets workers begin processing such votes early even if they may still have to wait until Election Day to count them, and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin's inability to do so could drag out the vote counting past Election Night.
Because Trump's demagoguery against mail voting has meant that Democrats are voting by mail at much higher rates than Republicans, Trump has made it clear that he plans to try to overturn an election loss by claiming victory on Election Night based on a partial count even in the likely event that late-counted mail ballots ultimately cause him to lose. While Kavanaugh did not side with his three colleagues who would have granted these stays, he left little doubt where his inclinations lie on the merits.
That leaves new Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who did not weigh in on the requests for the stays. However, Barrett made clear via a spokesperson that she was not recusing herself but had simply not had time to get caught up to speed on the briefings, something that won't necessarily be the case if these cases return to the Supreme Court in the coming days. Trump himself has let slip that he rushed Barrett's appointment to the court just eight days before Election Day precisely because he wanted her to decide the election in his favor.
Consequently, there is a dire risk that all of the Supreme Court's conservatives aside from Chief Justice John Roberts could rule after Election Day against counting these postmarked ballots. Such a ruling would be an unprecedented assault on the sanctity of the election and a denial of due process afforded to voters in countless past cases, and such an outcome could spark a historic public backlash against the court itself.
If there's one silver lining, it may be that the potential for backlash could give the conservative hardliners pause to avoid giving congressional Democrats the public standing they would need to expand the Supreme Court by adding new justices in response. Furthermore, the potential margin of Trump's defeat itself may play into Kavanaugh and Barrett's willingness or lack thereof to brazenly discard votes, and if the polls are anywhere near close to the mark, Trump is poised to decisively lose next week.
Nevertheless, the fact that five justices on the Supreme Court appear very open if not eagerly willing to upend two centuries of established law, all to help a historically unpopular and authoritarian president cling to power in the face of a looming decisive defeat, is itself ample reason for Democrats to reform the court itself should they nevertheless overcome these barriers and win the presidency and Senate on Tuesday.
If they don't, the Supreme Court's conservative hardliners could make nakedly partisan rulings attacking the right to vote for years if not decades to come.
(Note: Daily Kos Elections contributing editor Arjun Jaikumar is representing a party in this Pennsylvania litigation. He took no part in the production of this writeup.)
FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT
●Tennessee: A state court has dealt a setback to voting rights advocates by ruling that Tennessee is not required to alter its felony disenfranchisement regime to restore voting rights to people with felony convictions from other states based on how the state where they were convicted treats voting rights for such individuals.
Felony disenfranchisement is more restrictive in Tennessee than almost anywhere else in the country, requiring voters to have completely served all parts of their sentence including prison, parole, and probation, and some of the most serious offenses result in lifetime disenfranchisement. Furthermore, Tennessee requires the payment of court fines and fees before voters may regain their rights, which results in post-sentence disenfranchisement potentially for life for those unable to pay off such assessments.
Consequently, 9% of Tennesseans are banned from voting, nearly the highest rate of any state, including 22% of Black voters, which is the highest rate in the country after several states have adopted reforms to lessen their disenfranchisement rates in the last several years. It's unclear how many of those affected would see their rights restored if Tennessee treated out-of-state convictions similarly to how those voters would have been treated in their native states.
ELECTION CHANGES
Please bookmark our litigation tracker for a complete summary of the latest developments in every lawsuit regarding changes to elections and voting procedures as a result of the coronavirus.
●Alaska: The Alaska Supreme Court, which has a GOP-appointed majority, has rejected a lawsuit asking that voters be notified of any problems with their mail ballots and be given a chance to fix them before Election Day. The state already requires officials to notify voters of any issues after the election.
●Arkansas: A federal court has rejected a lawsuit asking that Arkansas voters be notified of any problems with their mail ballots and be given a chance to fix them. Arkansas is one of only four states that does not give voters the opportunity to address any alleged signature mismatches.
Separately, voting rights advocates have filed a lawsuit in state court challenging a state law that says that absentee ballots may only be counted on Election Day. Election officials say they plan to keep counting such ballots "regardless of how long it takes to complete the process." It appears that the case has since been transferred to a federal court.
●Georgia: Republican-appointed judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals have stayed a lower court ruling that required election officials to maintain paper backups of voter registration records at polling sites in the event of failures with the state's electronic voter check-in system that marred Georgia's June primary.
●Missouri: A Missouri state court has rejected a lawsuit seeking to count mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within a few days. The court also declined to block a pair of state laws: one requiring that only voters under 65 have mail ballots notarized (elderly voters, who are exempt, typically lean Republican) and another prohibiting voters from returning mail ballots in person.
●South Carolina: A federal court has ordered election officials not to reject mail ballots due to alleged signature mismatches and says that officials must also review any ballots that were previously rejected on such grounds. Ballots with missing signatures from voters or witnesses, however, will still not be accepted.
●Texas: Conservative judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have blocked a lower court ruling that held that an exemption in Texas' mask mandate for voters and poll workers violated the Voting Rights Act. Separately, the Texas Supreme Court upheld Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's order limiting election officials to just one mail return location per county.
Taken together, it's particularly cynical of Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton to argue that the mask mandate violates voters' right to vote when he has personally ensured that many such voters have no alternative but to vote in-person after Paxton successfully fought in court against efforts to liberalize access to mail voting.
Meanwhile, a group of Republican activists and candidates have asked the state Supreme Court to throw out all ballots cast at curbside voting locations in Harris County. The court previously rejected similar challenges filed by Republicans, but an adverse ruling here could disenfranchise over 100,000 voters if the high court grants this request.
●Virginia: A Virginia state court has ruled that ballots lacking a postmark can't count if they arrive after Election Day.
●Wisconsin: A Wisconsin state court has dismissed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that mass ballot dropoff events in Madison were legal, saying that organizers who brought the suit and the city officials named as defendants were not in disagreement. Republicans had threatened to sue to block the events, known as "Democracy in the Park," but no such lawsuit ever came.


alternet--2020-11-01--GOP planted a time bomb in their 2017 tax cut bill that will actually raise most people’s taxes: Nob

GOP planted a time bomb in their 2017 tax cut bill that will actually raise most people’s taxes: Nobel economist

On Saturday , writing for The New York Times , Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz warned that many people 's taxes are about to go up .
But it 's not because Joe Biden 's campaign plan raises taxes , as President Donald Trump has repeatedly and falsely claimed .
It 's because the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — the controversial tax cut bill passed by Republicans on a party-line vote in 2017 — has a provision that will start slowly raising taxes next year .
And ultimately , Stiglitz warned , many low and middle income people will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill passed in the first place .
`` President Trump and his congressional allies hoodwinked us , '' wrote Stiglitz .
`` The law they passed initially lowered taxes for most Americans , but it built in automatic , stepped tax increases every two years that begin in 2021 and that by 2027 would affect nearly everyone but people at the top of the economic hierarchy .
All taxpayer income groups with incomes of $ 75,000 and under — that 's about 65 percent of taxpayers — will face a higher tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' `` For most , in fact , it 's a delayed tax increase dressed up as a tax cut , '' wrote Stiglitz .
`` How many times have you heard Trump and his allies mention that ?
They surmised — correctly , so far — that if they waited to add the tax increases until after the 2020 election , few of the people most affected were likely to remember who was responsible . ''
Starting next year , `` The C.B.O .
and Joint Committee estimated that those with an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would owe an extra $ 365 next year — these are people who are struggling just to pay rent and put food on the table , '' wrote Stiglitz .
`` By 2027 , when the law 's provisions are set to be fully enacted , with the stealth tax increases complete , the country will be neatly divided into two groups : Those making over $ 100,000 will on average get a tax cut .
Those earning under $ 100,000 — an income bracket encompassing three-quarters of taxpayers — will not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the job creation Republicans promised from the tax bill did n't happen .
Most of the savings went into stock buybacks that enhanced executive pay .
By contrast , Stiglitz wrote , Biden 's plan would reverse much of that damage .
`` Mark Zandi and Bernard Yaros of Moody 's Analytics have done the most credible and thorough analysis comparing the Biden and Trump plans , including Mr. Trump 's stealth increases and other promised tax and expenditure changes .
Mr. Biden 's plan wins by an enormous margin : 7.4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recovery from this recession .
That means higher wages and incomes for most Americans . ''
`` Elections gave Republicans the power to enact these tax shenanigans .
Neither conscience nor principles stopped them , '' wrote Stiglitz .
And unless Biden and a Democratic Senate are elected to stop it , he warned , `` The increases , unfairly aimed at the vast majority of Americans who are disproportionately suffering in the pandemic , will cause even more hardship . ''
You can read more here .

On Saturday, writing for The New York Times, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz warned that many people's taxes are about to go up.
But it's not because Joe Biden's campaign plan raises taxes, as President Donald Trump has repeatedly and falsely claimed. It's because the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — the controversial tax cut bill passed by Republicans on a party-line vote in 2017 — has a provision that will start slowly raising taxes next year. And ultimately, Stiglitz warned, many low and middle income people will actually pay more than they did before the bill passed in the first place.
"President Trump and his congressional allies hoodwinked us," wrote Stiglitz. "The law they passed initially lowered taxes for most Americans, but it built in automatic, stepped tax increases every two years that begin in 2021 and that by 2027 would affect nearly everyone but people at the top of the economic hierarchy. All taxpayer income groups with incomes of $75,000 and under — that's about 65 percent of taxpayers — will face a higher tax rate in 2027 than in 2019."
"For most, in fact, it's a delayed tax increase dressed up as a tax cut," wrote Stiglitz. "How many times have you heard Trump and his allies mention that? They surmised — correctly, so far — that if they waited to add the tax increases until after the 2020 election, few of the people most affected were likely to remember who was responsible."
Starting next year, "The C.B.O. and Joint Committee estimated that those with an income of $20,000 to $30,000 would owe an extra $365 next year — these are people who are struggling just to pay rent and put food on the table," wrote Stiglitz. "By 2027, when the law's provisions are set to be fully enacted, with the stealth tax increases complete, the country will be neatly divided into two groups: Those making over $100,000 will on average get a tax cut. Those earning under $100,000 — an income bracket encompassing three-quarters of taxpayers — will not."
Making matters worse, Stiglitz wrote, the job creation Republicans promised from the tax bill didn't happen. Most of the savings went into stock buybacks that enhanced executive pay.
By contrast, Stiglitz wrote, Biden's plan would reverse much of that damage. "Mark Zandi and Bernard Yaros of Moody's Analytics have done the most credible and thorough analysis comparing the Biden and Trump plans, including Mr. Trump's stealth increases and other promised tax and expenditure changes. Mr. Biden's plan wins by an enormous margin: 7.4 million more jobs and a much quicker recovery from this recession. That means higher wages and incomes for most Americans."
"Elections gave Republicans the power to enact these tax shenanigans. Neither conscience nor principles stopped them," wrote Stiglitz. And unless Biden and a Democratic Senate are elected to stop it, he warned, "The increases, unfairly aimed at the vast majority of Americans who are disproportionately suffering in the pandemic, will cause even more hardship."
You can read more here.


alternet--2020-11-01--Texas GOP asks state Supreme Court to trash over 117,000 votes

A Texas Republican legislator and three other GOP members have asked the state Supreme Court to throw out over 117,000 votes collected in drive-thru early voting centers in Harris County , a state Democratic stronghold .
The Republicans allege that the centers violate state laws requiring voters to submit their own ballots and that the expansion of drive-thru voting sites in Harris County `` amounts to an illegal expansion of curbside voting , '' according to Forbes .
A Texas Republican legislator and three other GOP members have asked the state Supreme Court to throw out over 117,000 votes collected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County , a state Democratic stronghold .
The Republicans allege that the centers violate state laws requiring voters to submit their own ballots and that the expansion of drive-thru voting sites in Harris County `` amounts to an illegal expansion of curbside voting , '' according to Forbes .
Democrats believe that Texas has enough Democratic voters to possibly turn the state blue .
As such , it 's no wonder that state Governor Greg Abbott got the state Supreme Court to approve of his last-minute plan to restrict drop-off ballot boxes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each county 's size or population .
Democratic voters are largely expected to vote early and use drop-off voting to help avoid contracting COVID-19 at in-person polling places on Election Day .

A Texas Republican legislator and three other GOP members have asked the state Supreme Court to throw out over 117,000 votes collected in drive-thru early voting centers in Harris County, a state Democratic stronghold.
The Republicans allege that the centers violate state laws requiring voters to submit their own ballots and that the expansion of drive-thru voting sites in Harris County "amounts to an illegal expansion of curbside voting," according to Forbes.
A Texas Republican legislator and three other GOP members have asked the state Supreme Court to throw out over 117,000 votes collected in drive-thru early voting centers in Harris County, a state Democratic stronghold.
The Republicans allege that the centers violate state laws requiring voters to submit their own ballots and that the expansion of drive-thru voting sites in Harris County "amounts to an illegal expansion of curbside voting," according to Forbes.
Democrats believe that Texas has enough Democratic voters to possibly turn the state blue. As such, it's no wonder that state Governor Greg Abbott got the state Supreme Court to approve of his last-minute plan to restrict drop-off ballot boxes to just one per county, regardless of each county's size or population.
Democratic voters are largely expected to vote early and use drop-off voting to help avoid contracting COVID-19 at in-person polling places on Election Day.