alternet--2020-12-23--'It isn't even really a stimulus': Economists lament paltry $600 checks to citizens

On Sunday night , congressional leaders announced that they had reached an agreement on a $ 900 billion stimulus bill that would issue $ 600 checks to every American whose income fell below a certain threshold .
By Tuesday , the bill had passed .
Public reaction to the meager stimulus bill was swift and angry .
David Sirota of The Daily Poster tweeted that Biden had worked with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to `` halve '' the bill and accused him of `` longtime austerity zealotry . ''
Author and small business owner Dan Price tweeted that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small businesses , noting that the first stimulus bill did nothing to help small businesses re-open .
Forbes Advisor journalist Natalie Campisi tweeted that the bill was `` too little too late '' and that `` this was all very disappointing as so many people are struggling needlessly . ''
So why ca n't the richest country in the world do better for its struggling citizens ?
Economists speaking to Salon said the underlying problem is that America 's government does far less than many other countries to protect the working class .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed two legislative packages that provided more than $ 389 billion of relief to help small businesses negatively impacted by the pandemic .
France also worked with Germany to make sure that the European Union provided $ 608.2 billion to businesses , workers and government institutions that were financially struggling as a result of the virus .
Germany , meanwhile , is expected to supply $ 26 billion of relief to small businesses and self-employed individuals between January and June 2021 .
In November the country paid more than $ 17 billion to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But most importantly , these countries passed stimulus measures that almost completely prevented pandemic-related unemployment .
Specifically , Germany and France `` subsidized the continued employment ( or payroll status ) of most employees , '' thus avoiding a massive increase in unemployment as happened in the United States , Dr. Richard D. Wolff , professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst , wrote to Salon .
`` The latest 'stimulus ' bill adds too little to unemployment payouts to change the fact that since March over 60 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the US labor force ) have had to file for unemployment compensation for some or all of the last 9 months , '' he continued .
Wolff added that as a result of America 's inadequate protections against unemployment , `` the working class is tapped out here far worse that European countries . ''
Wolff was not alone in expressing this view .
`` In general the USA has had the largest discretionary packages passed this year , larger than the new packages passed in France or Germany , '' Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University , wrote to Salon .
`` However , partially that 's the result of a very stingy unemployment insurance program in the USA , which needed to be expanded in the crisis much more than in France , for example . ''
Constantine Yannelis , associate professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business , explained to Salon by email that while most countries have passed stimulus bills that provide direct cash payments , loan guarantees and assistance to small businesses , `` other countries had institutional advantages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ households and businesses .
For example , kurzarbeit — or short-term working arrangements in which the state makes up for part or all of lost wages for private sector workers that agree to or are forced to accept work and pay cuts — allow companies in many counties to temporarily reduce house for workers rather than laying them off . ''
He added , `` Germany and Austria have kurzarbeit programs .
Those have been in place for some time and kick in during recessions . ''
The new US stimulus bill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a larger legislative package to maintain government funding for the rest of the fiscal year , is believed to include direct payments of $ 600 to American adults and children .
In addition , it will provide businesses with $ 284 billion of relief , re-establish a federal loan program for small businesses called the Paycheck Protection Program and spend $ 25 billion on rental assistance and extending the eviction moratorium .
It also includes $ 82 billion in aid for education providers like colleges and schools and will offer unemployed Americans $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an additional 11 weeks and grant extensions to federal payments for Americans whose regular benefits have expired .
`` It is n't even really [ a ] stimulus in my opinion , '' Austan Goolsbee , who served on President Barack Obama 's Council of Economic Advisers , wrote to Salon .
`` It is n't [ going ] to jump start growth .
It 's disaster relief to prevent permanent damage and hopefully keep things from getting worse .
But if we ca n't get control of the spread of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a matter of time until we need another relief bill . ''
Michaela Pagel , associate professor of business at Columbia Business School , explained that the specific conditions of the 2020 economic crash make it more difficult for stimulus to be effective than was the case during the downturns in 2001 and 2008 .
Pagel said that the `` consumer spending response '' was different in 2020 , compared to 2001 and 2008 stimulus payments .
`` We find that individuals consumed more non-durables ( food for instance ) rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' in 2020 , Pagel wrote to Salon .
`` The reason is that mostly Americans in need spent large fractions of the checks immediately , whereas other Americans saved most of the checks . ''
She also pointed out that lockdown measures have made it so that `` Americans can not spend their stimulus money in the locked down sectors – with the people who really need it – so they can not generate income for those people who really need it . ''
Pagel noted that these conditions did not exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made a similar point , telling Salon that `` previous stimulus bills were attempting to jump start the economy in a downturn created from a normal economic cause . ''
Yet this recession was `` the first recession caused by something that had nothing to do with the economy , '' meaning that previous lessons do n't apply .
Goolsbee also said it was a mistake for stimulus to not include assistance for states , since when their revenue declines they will have to spend more money on automatic programs like Medicaid .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ force them to raise taxes and cut employment due to balanced budget requirements , and will potentially make the downturn longer and more painful . ''
According to Wolff , American policymakers should both acknowledge the new conditions created by the pandemic and learn from past economic programs that helped the working class , in particular the New Deal .
The New Deal was a series of public works programs , regulations , financial reforms , labor protections and other progressive policies passed during President Franklin Roosevelt 's administration in the 1930s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy is locked down , stimulus packages that merely focus on increasing the `` demand '' side of `` supply and demand '' will not be enough .
`` Demand expansion is not enough because the pandemic blocks the supply of goods and services because it is not safe to produce them or to distribute them , '' Wolff explained .
`` The successful federal jobs programs of the 1930s could and should have been replicated now with the proviso of safe social distancing , constant testing and disinfecting , etc .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Deal , the increase in taxes on corporation and the wealthy redistributed income and in the process increased purchasing power .
Similarly , `` the subsidization of mortgages and the minimum wage made demand stimulation also wealth redistribution . ''
The government intervened with regulations and controls to pick up the slack left by the private capitalist sector .
The mistake , Wolff says , was that the New Deal still left enterprises in the hands of private capitalists , meaning that `` they could and did push back and slow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked effectively to undo The New Deal from the moment it began .
That error should not be repeated now . ''
The current stimulus bill has its origins in a $ 908 billion package proposed by a bipartisan coalition of centrist senators earlier this month .
Their proposal would have included $ 300 a week in federal unemployment benefits for four months and $ 160 billion in funding for state and local governments .
The stimulus bill passed in March , known as the CARES Act , provided taxpayers who make less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,200 in direct cash payments , an additional $ 500 for every child in their household , expanded the eligibility criteria for unemployment relief , extended benefits by 13 weeks and increased maximum unemployment benefits by $ 600 per week .
Notably , President-elect Joe Biden has said that he will advocate for additional stimulus checks in future legislation , meaning perhaps the incoming administration has taken economists ' warnings to heart .

On Sunday night, congressional leaders announced that they had reached an agreement on a $900 billion stimulus bill that would issue $600 checks to every American whose income fell below a certain threshold. By Tuesday, the bill had passed.
Public reaction to the meager stimulus bill was swift and angry. David Sirota of The Daily Poster tweeted that Biden had worked with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to "halve" the bill and accused him of "longtime austerity zealotry." Author and small business owner Dan Price tweeted that the bill does not do enough to help small businesses, noting that the first stimulus bill did nothing to help small businesses re-open.Forbes Advisor journalist Natalie Campisi tweeted that the bill was "too little too late" and that "this was all very disappointing as so many people are struggling needlessly."
So why can't the richest country in the world do better for its struggling citizens? Economists speaking to Salon said the underlying problem is that America's government does far less than many other countries to protect the working class.
For instance, France has so far passed two legislative packages that provided more than $389 billion of relief to help small businesses negatively impacted by the pandemic. France also worked with Germany to make sure that the European Union provided $608.2 billion to businesses, workers and government institutions that were financially struggling as a result of the virus. Germany, meanwhile, is expected to supply $26 billion of relief to small businesses and self-employed individuals between January and June 2021. In November the country paid more than $17 billion to help businesses negatively impacted by the lockdown.
But most importantly, these countries passed stimulus measures that almost completely prevented pandemic-related unemployment. Specifically, Germany and France "subsidized the continued employment (or payroll status) of most employees," thus avoiding a massive increase in unemployment as happened in the United States, Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, wrote to Salon. "The latest 'stimulus' bill adds too little to unemployment payouts to change the fact that since March over 60 million US workers (more than a third of the US labor force) have had to file for unemployment compensation for some or all of the last 9 months," he continued.
Wolff added that as a result of America's inadequate protections against unemployment, "the working class is tapped out here far worse that European countries."
Wolff was not alone in expressing this view.
"In general the USA has had the largest discretionary packages passed this year, larger than the new packages passed in France or Germany," Dr. Gabriel Mathy, a macroeconomist at American University, wrote to Salon. "However, partially that's the result of a very stingy unemployment insurance program in the USA, which needed to be expanded in the crisis much more than in France, for example."
Constantine Yannelis, associate professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, explained to Salon by email that while most countries have passed stimulus bills that provide direct cash payments, loan guarantees and assistance to small businesses, "other countries had institutional advantages in terms of making payments directly to households and businesses. For example, kurzarbeit — or short-term working arrangements in which the state makes up for part or all of lost wages for private sector workers that agree to or are forced to accept work and pay cuts — allow companies in many counties to temporarily reduce house for workers rather than laying them off."
He added, "Germany and Austria have kurzarbeit programs. Those have been in place for some time and kick in during recessions."
The new US stimulus bill, which is expected to be incorporated into a larger legislative package to maintain government funding for the rest of the fiscal year, is believed to include direct payments of $600 to American adults and children. In addition, it will provide businesses with $284 billion of relief, re-establish a federal loan program for small businesses called the Paycheck Protection Program and spend $25 billion on rental assistance and extending the eviction moratorium. It also includes $82 billion in aid for education providers like colleges and schools and will offer unemployed Americans $300 in weekly supplemental federal unemployment benefits for an additional 11 weeks and grant extensions to federal payments for Americans whose regular benefits have expired.
"It isn't even really [a] stimulus in my opinion," Austan Goolsbee, who served on President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote to Salon. "It isn't [going] to jump start growth. It's disaster relief to prevent permanent damage and hopefully keep things from getting worse. But if we can't get control of the spread of the virus, it's just going to be a matter of time until we need another relief bill."
Michaela Pagel, associate professor of business at Columbia Business School, explained that the specific conditions of the 2020 economic crash make it more difficult for stimulus to be effective than was the case during the downturns in 2001 and 2008.
Pagel said that the "consumer spending response" was different in 2020, compared to 2001 and 2008 stimulus payments. "We find that individuals consumed more non-durables (food for instance) rather than durables (electronics or furniture)," in 2020, Pagel wrote to Salon. "The reason is that mostly Americans in need spent large fractions of the checks immediately, whereas other Americans saved most of the checks."
She also pointed out that lockdown measures have made it so that "Americans cannot spend their stimulus money in the locked down sectors – with the people who really need it – so they cannot generate income for those people who really need it." Pagel noted that these conditions did not exist in either 2001 or 2008.
Goolsbee made a similar point, telling Salon that "previous stimulus bills were attempting to jump start the economy in a downturn created from a normal economic cause." Yet this recession was "the first recession caused by something that had nothing to do with the economy," meaning that previous lessons don't apply. Goolsbee also said it was a mistake for stimulus to not include assistance for states, since when their revenue declines they will have to spend more money on automatic programs like Medicaid. This, in turn, "will force them to raise taxes and cut employment due to balanced budget requirements, and will potentially make the downturn longer and more painful."
According to Wolff, American policymakers should both acknowledge the new conditions created by the pandemic and learn from past economic programs that helped the working class, in particular the New Deal. The New Deal was a series of public works programs, regulations, financial reforms, labor protections and other progressive policies passed during President Franklin Roosevelt's administration in the 1930s. Wolff argued to Salon that, because the economy is locked down, stimulus packages that merely focus on increasing the "demand" side of "supply and demand" will not be enough.
"Demand expansion is not enough because the pandemic blocks the supply of goods and services because it is not safe to produce them or to distribute them," Wolff explained. "The successful federal jobs programs of the 1930s could and should have been replicated now with the proviso of safe social distancing, constant testing and disinfecting, etc." He pointed out that under the New Deal, the increase in taxes on corporation and the wealthy redistributed income and in the process increased purchasing power. Similarly, "the subsidization of mortgages and the minimum wage made demand stimulation also wealth redistribution." The government intervened with regulations and controls to pick up the slack left by the private capitalist sector. The mistake, Wolff says, was that the New Deal still left enterprises in the hands of private capitalists, meaning that "they could and did push back and slow, distort or block government stimulus. They worked effectively to undo The New Deal from the moment it began. That error should not be repeated now."
The current stimulus bill has its origins in a $908 billion package proposed by a bipartisan coalition of centrist senators earlier this month. Their proposal would have included $300 a week in federal unemployment benefits for four months and $160 billion in funding for state and local governments. The stimulus bill passed in March, known as the CARES Act, provided taxpayers who make less than $75,000 each year with $1,200 in direct cash payments, an additional $500 for every child in their household, expanded the eligibility criteria for unemployment relief, extended benefits by 13 weeks and increased maximum unemployment benefits by $600 per week.
Notably, President-elect Joe Biden has said that he will advocate for additional stimulus checks in future legislation, meaning perhaps the incoming administration has taken economists' warnings to heart.


alternet--2020-12-23--Democrats open investigation into Trump's handling of COVID as House watchdog subpoenas HHS, CDC hea

Democrats open investigation into Trump's handling of COVID as House watchdog subpoenas HHS, CDC heads

A House panel investigating the Trump administration 's coronavirus response issued subpoenas to two top health officials on Monday after finding extensive evidence of Trump political appointees interfering in scientific coronavirus reports .
Rep. Jim Clyburn , D-S.C. , the chairman of the select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis , issued subpoenas to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Robert Redfield , the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , ordering them to turn over `` full and unredacted '' documents sought by the panel for months after finding that political appointees tried to `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC reports on the coronavirus .
`` The subpoenas were necessary because the… investigation has revealed that efforts to interfere with scientific work at CDC were far more extensive and dangerous than previously known , '' Clyburn said in a letter to the two officials .
`` Top political officials at HHS and CDC not only tolerated these efforts , but in some cases aided them -- even after a senior official warned that CDC 's scientific writing 'needs to remain an independent process ' and that the Administration 's attempts to influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Clyburn said the Trump appointees targeted reports that `` provided evidence of the virus 's 'early spread ' across the country and 'massive spread ' this summer , which they believed sent 'the wrong message ' about the Administration 's policies . ''
The appointees also `` drafted rebuttals aimed at undercutting CDC 's credibility '' and `` attempted to muzzle CDC scientists by retaliating against career employees who provided truthful information to the public , '' he wrote .
The efforts came at the same time that some Trump appointees at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity '' strategy to allow the coronavirus to infect large numbers of people .
`` There is no other way , we need to establish herd [ immunity ] , and it only comes about allowing the non-high risk groups expose themselves to the virus .
PERIOD , '' Paul Alexander , who was then a science adviser to HHS spokesman Michael Caputo , wrote in a July email to top officials that was obtained by Politico .
`` Infants , kids , teens , young people , young adults , middle-aged with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to little risk … so we use them to develop herd .
… We want them infected . ''
The World Health Organization has warned that achieving herd immunity by exposing people to the virus was `` dangerous '' and `` unethical . ''
Dr. Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases , also warned that such a strategy would result in rampant death .
Clyburn said the officials must turn over all requested documents by December 30 so that investigators can determine `` who in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political pressure campaign '' and `` whether it was intended to cripple the nation 's coronavirus response in a misguided effort to achieve herd immunity '' after HHS repeatedly refused to comply with the panel 's requests and blocked lawmakers from interviewing Redfield and other top officials .
Clyburn launched the investigation in September after Politico reported that top Trump appointees sought to `` intimidate the reports ' authors '' and `` water down '' their findings because they `` would undermine President Donald Trump 's optimistic messages about the outbreak . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ official told the panel that Redfield ordered aides to delete an email showing evidence of interference from Alexander .
Alexander , who along with Caputo has since left the agency , had demanded the right to review the CDC reports and urged CDC officials to alter reports that broke with Trump 's messaging , emails obtained by Politico show .
Alexander also tried to block Fauci from warning of the risk to children regarding the coronavirus .
Clyburn 's letter detailed numerous communications in which Alexander and Caputo sought to `` influence or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Report '' and other publications as well as extensive pushback from career officials .
Despite the pushback , Alexander sought to alter reports related to the use of hydroxychloroquine and face coverings , comorbidities , child vaccination , outbreaks and deaths among children , and coronavirus transmission in primary elections , according to the letter .
Emails obtained by the committee also show Caputo threatening officials .
`` If you disobey my directions , you will be held accountable , '' he wrote to one senior official .
Another official described Caputo 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and threatening behavior directed at … communication staff at CDC . ''
Caputo ultimately took a leave of absence in September after a public meltdown over pushback at the CDC and has since left the agency .
Dr. Charlotte Kent , the editor-in-chief of the reports , testified to the committee that Alexander `` contacted her directly on numerous occasions to pressure her to make changes to Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports and to seek a larger role in the review process , in violation of longtime CDC and HHS policy to maintain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HHS officials even drafted an op-ed attacking the CDC authors of the hydroxychloroquine report as a `` disgrace to public service '' because they could `` prevent the news from giving the proper coverage of a true 'miracle cure , ' '' according to the subcommittee .
The op-ed was never published .
Trump has repeatedly pushed hydroxychloroquine , an anti-malarial drug shown to be ineffective against the coronavirus , and raised doubts about the use of masks .
He has falsely claimed that children are `` almost immune '' from the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections was safe as he waged a months-long campaign to raise doubts about mail voting .
An HHS spokesperson argued that the agency had complied with the panel 's requests and accused Clyburn of politicizing the coronavirus response .
`` While the Administration is focused on vaccination shots , the Subcommittee is focused on cheap shots to create headlines and mislead the American people , '' the spokesperson said in a statement to the Associated Press .
The CDC did not comment on the letter but Redfield previously testified to Congress that outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific integrity '' of the agency 's reports .
Clyburn argued in the letter that although CDC officials were able to beat back some of the interference , the evidence shows that Kent and other officials were forced to `` fend off more than a dozen attempts to influence CDC 's scientific publications , and in some cases were instructed to make changes recommended by political officials . ''
`` To the extent career staff were successful in limiting the damage , as Dr. Kent stated she was , that is a testament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resilience , '' Clyburn wrote , `` not an indication that the Trump Administration 's political pressure tactics were appropriate or scientifically sound . ''

A House panel investigating the Trump administration's coronavirus response issued subpoenas to two top health officials on Monday after finding extensive evidence of Trump political appointees interfering in scientific coronavirus reports.
Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., the chairman of the select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis, issued subpoenas to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Robert Redfield, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ordering them to turn over "full and unredacted" documents sought by the panel for months after finding that political appointees tried to "alter or block" at least 13 CDC reports on the coronavirus.
"The subpoenas were necessary because the… investigation has revealed that efforts to interfere with scientific work at CDC were far more extensive and dangerous than previously known," Clyburn said in a letter to the two officials. "Top political officials at HHS and CDC not only tolerated these efforts, but in some cases aided them -- even after a senior official warned that CDC's scientific writing 'needs to remain an independent process' and that the Administration's attempts to influence these reports violated 'long-standing policy.'"
Clyburn said the Trump appointees targeted reports that "provided evidence of the virus's 'early spread' across the country and 'massive spread' this summer, which they believed sent 'the wrong message' about the Administration's policies." The appointees also "drafted rebuttals aimed at undercutting CDC's credibility" and "attempted to muzzle CDC scientists by retaliating against career employees who provided truthful information to the public," he wrote.
The efforts came at the same time that some Trump appointees at HHS were pushing for a "herd immunity" strategy to allow the coronavirus to infect large numbers of people.
"There is no other way, we need to establish herd [immunity], and it only comes about allowing the non-high risk groups expose themselves to the virus. PERIOD," Paul Alexander, who was then a science adviser to HHS spokesman Michael Caputo, wrote in a July email to top officials that was obtained by Politico. "Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle-aged with no conditions, etc. have zero to little risk … so we use them to develop herd. … We want them infected."
The World Health Organization has warned that achieving herd immunity by exposing people to the virus was "dangerous" and "unethical." Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also warned that such a strategy would result in rampant death.
Clyburn said the officials must turn over all requested documents by December 30 so that investigators can determine "who in the Trump Administration was responsible for this political pressure campaign" and "whether it was intended to cripple the nation's coronavirus response in a misguided effort to achieve herd immunity" after HHS repeatedly refused to comply with the panel's requests and blocked lawmakers from interviewing Redfield and other top officials.
Clyburn launched the investigation in September after Politico reported that top Trump appointees sought to "intimidate the reports' authors" and "water down" their findings because they "would undermine President Donald Trump's optimistic messages about the outbreak."
Earlier this month, a senior CDC official told the panel that Redfield ordered aides to delete an email showing evidence of interference from Alexander.
Alexander, who along with Caputo has since left the agency, had demanded the right to review the CDC reports and urged CDC officials to alter reports that broke with Trump's messaging, emails obtained by Politico show. Alexander also tried to block Fauci from warning of the risk to children regarding the coronavirus. Clyburn's letter detailed numerous communications in which Alexander and Caputo sought to "influence or block CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" and other publications as well as extensive pushback from career officials. Despite the pushback, Alexander sought to alter reports related to the use of hydroxychloroquine and face coverings, comorbidities, child vaccination, outbreaks and deaths among children, and coronavirus transmission in primary elections, according to the letter.
Emails obtained by the committee also show Caputo threatening officials.
"If you disobey my directions, you will be held accountable," he wrote to one senior official.
Another official described Caputo's behavior as "a pattern of hostile and threatening behavior directed at … communication staff at CDC."
Caputo ultimately took a leave of absence in September after a public meltdown over pushback at the CDC and has since left the agency.
Dr. Charlotte Kent, the editor-in-chief of the reports, testified to the committee that Alexander "contacted her directly on numerous occasions to pressure her to make changes to Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports and to seek a larger role in the review process, in violation of longtime CDC and HHS policy to maintain the independence of these reports."
HHS officials even drafted an op-ed attacking the CDC authors of the hydroxychloroquine report as a "disgrace to public service" because they could "prevent the news from giving the proper coverage of a true 'miracle cure,'" according to the subcommittee. The op-ed was never published.
Trump has repeatedly pushed hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug shown to be ineffective against the coronavirus, and raised doubts about the use of masks. He has falsely claimed that children are "almost immune" from the coronavirus and insisted that in-person voting during the elections was safe as he waged a months-long campaign to raise doubts about mail voting.
An HHS spokesperson argued that the agency had complied with the panel's requests and accused Clyburn of politicizing the coronavirus response. "While the Administration is focused on vaccination shots, the Subcommittee is focused on cheap shots to create headlines and mislead the American people," the spokesperson said in a statement to the Associated Press.
The CDC did not comment on the letter but Redfield previously testified to Congress that outside actors were unsuccessful in "modulating the scientific integrity" of the agency's reports.
Clyburn argued in the letter that although CDC officials were able to beat back some of the interference, the evidence shows that Kent and other officials were forced to "fend off more than a dozen attempts to influence CDC's scientific publications, and in some cases were instructed to make changes recommended by political officials."
"To the extent career staff were successful in limiting the damage, as Dr. Kent stated she was, that is a testament to the career staff's integrity and resilience," Clyburn wrote, "not an indication that the Trump Administration's political pressure tactics were appropriate or scientifically sound."


alternet--2020-12-24--'Emblematic parting blow': Trump moves tp take $700 million per year out of tipped workers' pockets

Just hours before President Donald Trump surprised millions by pushing for enlarged stimulus checks in the new coronavirus relief package , his administration on Tuesday added to its extensive record of anti-worker policymaking by finalizing a regulatory change that enables employers to dispossess tipped workers of more than $ 700 million per year .
The new regulation ( pdf ) —long sought by the restaurant industry—expands tip pools `` from front-of-the-house employees alone to include back-of-the-house employees '' in the handful of states where servers receive the standard minimum wage .
It also relaxes limits on the amount of nontipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees earning a subminimum wage , which exists in all but eight states .
By requiring tipped workers `` to share that gratuity with nontipped staff members ... the new rules allow businesses to use tips , rather than wage increases , to compensate dishwashers , cooks , and janitors , '' critics of the changes told the Wall Street Journal Tuesday .
And by increasing the share of nontipped work that can be done by tipped workers who are paid a lower base wage , the Trump administration 's new rule `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers to their employers '' —causing employees to lose more than $ 700 million annually , wrote Heidi Shierholz and David Cooper of the Economic Policy Institute ( EPI ) , a progressive think tank whose research foregrounds the interests of low-income workers .
The `` rule change regarding tipped workers is outrageous , '' Saru Jayaraman , president of One Fair Wage , said Wednesday on Twitter .
`` It would steal more money from millions of tipped service workers who are already struggling on the brink of homelessness and starvation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tipped employees `` had been protected by the very clear '80/20 ' rule , which says they can spend a maximum of 20 % of their time on nontipped duties while still being paid the subminimum wage for tipped workers , '' Shierholz said Tuesday .
The new regulation removes the `` 80/20 '' measure , `` replacing it with vague , much less protective language , '' she noted .
As Shierholz explained , the rule modification will negatively affect the earnings of tipped employees because it allows them `` to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unlimited amount of nontipped duties—as long as those nontipped duties are performed 'contemporaneously with tipped duties or for a reasonable time [ emphasis added ] immediately before or after performing the tipped duties . '
'' The Trump administration , however , does not define `` reasonable time . ''
According to Shierholz , `` Its ambiguity will make it difficult to enforce , providing employers an immense loophole and leaving workers behind . ''
Jayaraman said that `` unscrupulous employers will take advantage of this rule , attempting to pay tipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are folding napkins , stocking shelves , or even moving tables or cleaning bathrooms . ''
She added that `` this rule change will make tipped workers even more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse , and will have far-reaching implications for working people , especially women and people of color . ''
Predicting the consequences of the rule change in November 2019 , one month after it was first proposed , Shierholz and Cooper wrote that `` the restaurant 's gain is the workers ' loss . ''
In addition to hurting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cooper wrote , the new regulation disincentivizes hiring nontipped , minimum wage-earning workers .
According to the pair of economists , `` As employers ask tipped workers to do more nontipped work as a result of this rule , employment in nontipped food service occupations will decline by 5.3 % and employment in tipped occupations will increase by 12.2 % , resulting in 243,000 jobs shifting from being nontipped to being tipped . ''
Both the projected reduction in nontipped restaurant job opportunities , which are more likely to be held by people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated $ 700 million in annual wages `` captured '' by employers were calculated before the Covid-19 pandemic .
As Shierholz put it , `` The impact of this rule will likely be much worse for workers during the Covid-19 era , since nontipped work now makes up a much greater share of work being done in establishments that employ tipped workers ( for example , restaurants have shifted their services from dine-in to takeout ) . ''
`` The Trump administration opting , in its last 29 days and during a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million out of the pockets of service workers is an emblematic parting blow from this administration to the working people of this country , '' said Shierholz .
`` The rule will not take effect until after President-elect Biden has been sworn in—the Biden administration should move immediately to postpone the effective date of this rule and use the time to develop a plan to rescind it . ''
Adding to the chorus of criticism , Jayaraman noted that One Fair Wage is strongly opposed to allowing `` restaurants to pay the subminimum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees are performing work that does not allow them to interact with customers and thus earn tips . ''
`` Our studies show that tips are already down 50-75 % , '' she added .
`` What workers need now , more than ever ... is a full , fair minimum wage for all workers with tips on top . ''

Just hours before President Donald Trump surprised millions by pushing for enlarged stimulus checks in the new coronavirus relief package, his administration on Tuesday added to its extensive record of anti-worker policymaking by finalizing a regulatory change that enables employers to dispossess tipped workers of more than $700 million per year.
The new regulation (pdf)—long sought by the restaurant industry—expands tip pools "from front-of-the-house employees alone to include back-of-the-house employees" in the handful of states where servers receive the standard minimum wage. It also relaxes limits on the amount of nontipped work that can be done by tipped employees earning a subminimum wage, which exists in all but eight states.
By requiring tipped workers "to share that gratuity with nontipped staff members... the new rules allow businesses to use tips, rather than wage increases, to compensate dishwashers, cooks, and janitors," critics of the changes told the Wall Street Journal Tuesday.
And by increasing the share of nontipped work that can be done by tipped workers who are paid a lower base wage, the Trump administration's new rule "will transfer large amounts of money from workers to their employers"—causing employees to lose more than $700 million annually, wrote Heidi Shierholz and David Cooper of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a progressive think tank whose research foregrounds the interests of low-income workers.
The "rule change regarding tipped workers is outrageous," Saru Jayaraman, president of One Fair Wage, said Wednesday on Twitter. "It would steal more money from millions of tipped service workers who are already struggling on the brink of homelessness and starvation."
Prior to Tuesday's changes, tipped employees "had been protected by the very clear '80/20' rule, which says they can spend a maximum of 20% of their time on nontipped duties while still being paid the subminimum wage for tipped workers," Shierholz said Tuesday.
The new regulation removes the "80/20" measure, "replacing it with vague, much less protective language," she noted.
As Shierholz explained, the rule modification will negatively affect the earnings of tipped employees because it allows them "to be paid the subminimum tipped wage while performing an unlimited amount of nontipped duties—as long as those nontipped duties are performed 'contemporaneously with tipped duties or for a reasonable time [emphasis added] immediately before or after performing the tipped duties.'"
The Trump administration, however, does not define "reasonable time." According to Shierholz, "Its ambiguity will make it difficult to enforce, providing employers an immense loophole and leaving workers behind."
Jayaraman said that "unscrupulous employers will take advantage of this rule, attempting to pay tipped workers a subminimum wage even when they are folding napkins, stocking shelves, or even moving tables or cleaning bathrooms." She added that "this rule change will make tipped workers even more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, and will have far-reaching implications for working people, especially women and people of color."
Predicting the consequences of the rule change in November 2019, one month after it was first proposed, Shierholz and Cooper wrote that "the restaurant's gain is the workers' loss."
In addition to hurting the income of tipped workers, Shierholz and Cooper wrote, the new regulation disincentivizes hiring nontipped, minimum wage-earning workers. According to the pair of economists, "As employers ask tipped workers to do more nontipped work as a result of this rule, employment in nontipped food service occupations will decline by 5.3% and employment in tipped occupations will increase by 12.2%, resulting in 243,000 jobs shifting from being nontipped to being tipped."
Both the projected reduction in nontipped restaurant job opportunities, which are more likely to be held by people of color, as well as the estimated $700 million in annual wages "captured" by employers were calculated before the Covid-19 pandemic. As Shierholz put it, "The impact of this rule will likely be much worse for workers during the Covid-19 era, since nontipped work now makes up a much greater share of work being done in establishments that employ tipped workers (for example, restaurants have shifted their services from dine-in to takeout)."
"The Trump administration opting, in its last 29 days and during a pandemic, to take more than $700 million out of the pockets of service workers is an emblematic parting blow from this administration to the working people of this country," said Shierholz. "The rule will not take effect until after President-elect Biden has been sworn in—the Biden administration should move immediately to postpone the effective date of this rule and use the time to develop a plan to rescind it."
Adding to the chorus of criticism, Jayaraman noted that One Fair Wage is strongly opposed to allowing "restaurants to pay the subminimum wage for tipped workers even when their employees are performing work that does not allow them to interact with customers and thus earn tips."
"Our studies show that tips are already down 50-75%," she added. "What workers need now, more than ever... is a full, fair minimum wage for all workers with tips on top."


alternet--2020-12-24--Here's why you should care about the thousands of farmers protesting in India

2020 has been a year of ongoing protests and demonstrations for change across the globe .
It has also been the year the world saw not only the largest but longest single protest to date .
For almost a month now , tens of thousands of farmers in India have marched and protested against three bills passed in India 's parliament in September .
Since their start in late November , the protests have spread from the Indian capital of New Delhi to other parts of the country and garnered global attention .
More than 250 million people across India @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest but in 24-hour strikes to show solidarity .
According to Reuters , nearly 30 people have died as a result of freezing temperatures and at least 10 have died in accidents near protest sites Despite the severe cold weather , farmers from the northern states of Punjab , Haryana , Uttar Pradesh , and Rajasthan have vowed to stay camped outside of national highways until the laws are repealed .
`` It 's very difficult to camp out in this weather , but we are n't scared , '' Balbir Singh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Punjab , told Reuters .
`` We wo n't go back until our demands are met .
Even if we have to die here , we will . ''
The bills in question include the Farmers ( Empowerment and Protection ) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act , the Farmers ' Produce Trade and Commerce ( Promotion and Facilitation ) Act , and the Essential Commodities ( Amendment ) Act .
While the first two laws expand on the marketing infrastructure provided by India 's state-level governments and enable direct marketing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wholesalers , large retailers , and exporters , the third law works to facilitate the production , movement , and distribution of farm produce by removing existing regulatory barriers .
As a result , farmers ' already depressed wealth is further reduced .
Prime Minister Narendra Modi argues that under these laws the agricultural system will be streamlined and farmers will have more freedom to sell their goods at any price directly to private businesses , as opposed to having to sell their produce through auction , known as the `` mandi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these bills will collectively privatize the agricultural system , making them vulnerable to corporate exploitation .
Additionally , under the new laws large corporations can dominate the market by driving down prices and diminishing any advantage farmers had at setting their own produce prices .
This will add to India 's growing unemployment and the debt the farming community is already facing .
According to Al Jazeera , many farmers argue the current state-controlled `` mandi system '' needs reform within the food supply chain to give farmers more options to sell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that these new laws will only further disempower farmers economically and within the agricultural system as a whole .
Despite consistent development in the tech sector , agriculture still remains the largest source of income for most Indians , employing more than one-half of the subcontinent 's workforce .
However , despite feeding a significant portion of India 's economy and people , farmers themselves have struggled for years , often bearing debts and losses as a result of not only marketed goods but severe weather changes resulting from climate change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these laws will protect farmers , these farmers , who are often elderly , refuse to stop protesting until their demands are met .
`` We 're worried no one will buy our produce , and that we 'll go into debt , '' Harinder Singh , general secretary of a Punjabi farmers union , told NPR .
`` We want the government to repeal these laws . ''
Similar to protests in the U.S. in which peaceful demonstrators are met with police-induced violence , protesters in India have faced harsh and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the start of the protest on Nov. 25 when marchers first reached New Delhi , police officials not only used tear gas and water cannons against protesters but damaged roads outside the city to prevent them from entering .
Photos and videos went viral on social media depicting the brutal tactics police officials were using , including beating protesters .
Despite this , farmers and their allies continued to march on and were even filmed feeding some of the officers who beat them .
As a result of global attention and the ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in human history , talks between representatives of a farmers union and government officials are scheduled to take place this week .
This has come as a shock to many South Asians , as the Modi government is not known to talk about issues and instead inflict violence on protesters of its policies .
While these protests are taking place mainly in India and are in favor of Indian farmers , it is important to note that they impact conditions and people outside of the country .
`` The pandemic has shown us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Simran Jeet Singh , a scholar of religion and history currently teaching at Union Seminary , told CNN .
`` Essential workers across the world are suffering .
The farmers in India represent all of them , and their resistance to unjust legislation that privileges the uber-wealthy corporations is a resistance that speaks to so many of us all over the world . ''
Not only is India one of the world 's largest producers and exporters of spices , but the places in which these protests are happening lead the world 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Outside of food , these herbs are used for homeopathy and medical practices as well .
Odds are that something in your home was made in India and would not have been had these farmers been protesting earlier .
These protests impact not only the livelihood of farmers in India but also how you receive the goods you use on a daily basis , whether it be spices or cotton found in your clothing or bed sheets .
`` Even if you do n't feel a personal connection to India or the farmers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as a human being who lives on earth you should be concerned about exploitation of the people who feed you everyday , '' Ramanpreet Kaur , a Sikh Punjabi woman in New York , told CNN .
People from all across the world including the U.S. are partaking in solidarity movements with these farmers because even if you do not consume the goods they produce , this is a humanitarian issue .
Human beings should always be valued over corporations .
A number of nonprofit organizations like Khalsa Aid are working to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other supplies .
Even if you can not protest , you can help these farmers in a number of ways , including donating to organizations that help the families impacted such as Sahaita .
Whether you are Indian or not should not matter : Exploitation should not be ignored .

2020 has been a year of ongoing protests and demonstrations for change across the globe. It has also been the year the world saw not only the largest but longest single protest to date. For almost a month now, tens of thousands of farmers in India have marched and protested against three bills passed in India's parliament in September. Since their start in late November, the protests have spread from the Indian capital of New Delhi to other parts of the country and garnered global attention. More than 250 million people across India have participated in not only the ongoing protest but in 24-hour strikes to show solidarity. According to Reuters, nearly 30 people have died as a result of freezing temperatures and at least 10 have died in accidents near protest sites
Despite the severe cold weather, farmers from the northern states of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan have vowed to stay camped outside of national highways until the laws are repealed. "It's very difficult to camp out in this weather, but we aren't scared," Balbir Singh, an octogenarian from the Patiala district of Punjab, told Reuters. "We won't go back until our demands are met. Even if we have to die here, we will."
The bills in question include the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, the Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act. While the first two laws expand on the marketing infrastructure provided by India's state-level governments and enable direct marketing of farm products to processors, aggregators, wholesalers, large retailers, and exporters, the third law works to facilitate the production, movement, and distribution of farm produce by removing existing regulatory barriers. As a result, farmers' already depressed wealth is further reduced.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi argues that under these laws the agricultural system will be streamlined and farmers will have more freedom to sell their goods at any price directly to private businesses, as opposed to having to sell their produce through auction, known as the "mandi system." However, farmers argue that these bills will collectively privatize the agricultural system, making them vulnerable to corporate exploitation.
Additionally, under the new laws large corporations can dominate the market by driving down prices and diminishing any advantage farmers had at setting their own produce prices. This will add to India's growing unemployment and the debt the farming community is already facing.
According to Al Jazeera, many farmers argue the current state-controlled "mandi system" needs reform within the food supply chain to give farmers more options to sell their crops to make a profit, and that these new laws will only further disempower farmers economically and within the agricultural system as a whole.
Despite consistent development in the tech sector, agriculture still remains the largest source of income for most Indians, employing more than one-half of the subcontinent's workforce. However, despite feeding a significant portion of India's economy and people, farmers themselves have struggled for years, often bearing debts and losses as a result of not only marketed goods but severe weather changes resulting from climate change.
While Modi and his corrupt government maintain that these laws will protect farmers, these farmers, who are often elderly, refuse to stop protesting until their demands are met. "We're worried no one will buy our produce, and that we'll go into debt," Harinder Singh, general secretary of a Punjabi farmers union, told NPR. "We want the government to repeal these laws."
Similar to protests in the U.S. in which peaceful demonstrators are met with police-induced violence, protesters in India have faced harsh and violent retaliation from the government. At the start of the protest on Nov. 25 when marchers first reached New Delhi, police officials not only used tear gas and water cannons against protesters but damaged roads outside the city to prevent them from entering. Photos and videos went viral on social media depicting the brutal tactics police officials were using, including beating protesters. Despite this, farmers and their allies continued to march on and were even filmed feeding some of the officers who beat them.
As a result of global attention and the ongoing protest being the largest and longest one in human history, talks between representatives of a farmers union and government officials are scheduled to take place this week. This has come as a shock to many South Asians, as the Modi government is not known to talk about issues and instead inflict violence on protesters of its policies.
While these protests are taking place mainly in India and are in favor of Indian farmers, it is important to note that they impact conditions and people outside of the country. "The pandemic has shown us that there are two economies," Simran Jeet Singh, a scholar of religion and history currently teaching at Union Seminary, told CNN. "Essential workers across the world are suffering. The farmers in India represent all of them, and their resistance to unjust legislation that privileges the uber-wealthy corporations is a resistance that speaks to so many of us all over the world."
Not only is India one of the world's largest producers and exporters of spices, but the places in which these protests are happening lead the world's export in Basmati rice and milk. Outside of food, these herbs are used for homeopathy and medical practices as well. Odds are that something in your home was made in India and would not have been had these farmers been protesting earlier. These protests impact not only the livelihood of farmers in India but also how you receive the goods you use on a daily basis, whether it be spices or cotton found in your clothing or bed sheets.
"Even if you don't feel a personal connection to India or the farmers out there like many of us do, as a human being who lives on earth you should be concerned about exploitation of the people who feed you everyday," Ramanpreet Kaur, a Sikh Punjabi woman in New York, told CNN.
People from all across the world including the U.S. are partaking in solidarity movements with these farmers because even if you do not consume the goods they produce, this is a humanitarian issue. Human beings should always be valued over corporations. A number of nonprofit organizations like Khalsa Aid are working to provide protesters and organizers with food and other supplies. Even if you cannot protest, you can help these farmers in a number of ways, including donating to organizations that help the families impacted such as Sahaita. Whether you are Indian or not should not matter: Exploitation should not be ignored.


alternet--2020-12-24--A top Republican's pathetic reply to Nancy Pelosi shows how the GOP got caught in her trap

Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy wrote a letter to his colleagues on Wednesday trying to outmaneuver Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the ongoing fight over the omnibus government spending bill .
But his attempt to counter the speaker 's moves appear unlikely to gain traction , revealing just how much President Donald Trump has undermined his own party .
Trump pulled the rug out from under Republicans on Tuesday when , in an abrupt turnabout from the White House , he suggested he may block the 5,000+ page spending bill that has been the subject of fierce negotiations between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted a video on Twitter detailing his objections to the bill , despite the fact that he had been essentially uninvolved in the debate for months and his deputies had indicated he would support the final draft of the legislation .
In the video , he criticized the bill for a number of obscure spending provisions , which are a common part of every such bill .
And he also demanded that the COVID-19 relief portion increase direct payments to American families from a single $ 600 payment per person to $ 2,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he 'd veto the bill without changes , but he urged Congress to amend its language , leaving the implication clear .
But Democrats have been urging the Republicans to agree to much higher spending , so instead of recoiling Trump 's demand , they decide to embrace it .
Speaker Pelosi immediately said she would move forward with a measure to increase the payments from $ 600 to $ 2,000 — though she is clearly confident that much of the Republican Party will refuse to go along with the plan .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Georgia runoffs elections approach , which could flip control of the Senate to Democrats .
Many Republicans are unwilling to spend more government money to help American families , but they know this stance is unpopular and could hurt them in the election .
So in his letter , McCarthy tried to attack Pelosi for allegedly trying to `` use the American people as leverage to make coronavirus relief contingent on government funding . ''
But the GOP leader certainly knows that it 's not Pelosi trying to exploit her leverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to leverage the stakes of the bill , and she simply called his bluff .
McCarthy also tried to frame himself as the defender of the American people , saying the `` top priority must be our families , communities , and small businesses as we get through this pandemic and restore our country . ''
But , predictably , he did n't join Pelosi and Trump 's calls for more money in the direct payments .
Instead , McCarthy said that Pelosi and the Democrats have `` selective hearing , '' because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as cutting back on foreign aid spending , that Trump included in his video other than the increased direct spending .
This is true — Democrats have acted as though Trump only made a singular demand for $ 2,000 .
McCarthy wanted to turn the tables on Pelosi , saying `` we ought to reexamine how our tax dollars are spent overseas while so many of our neighbors at home are struggling to make ends meet .
Thus , Republicans will offer a unanimous consent request to revisit the State and Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can fully address the concerns at hand . ''
But this attempt to shift the blame for any delay is unlikely to make for an effective message for the Republicans .
While it 's true that many voters dislike the idea of American tax dollars going overseas , Pelosi 's effort to simply increase the direct payments from $ 600 to $ 2,000 without any other change to the bill dispels the notion that there 's a direct trade-off between aid to foreign countries and aid to Americans .
Congress can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , is McCarthy 's suggestion that Congress reopen debate on the minutiae of government spending with only a handful of days left in the congressional calendar and a government shutdown looming .
That 's likely an unworkable ask and McCarthy knows it , whereas a quick amendment to increase the size of the direct payments actually could be done in the time remaining .
McCarthy 's ask would slow down the delivery of more pandemic relief for Americans , whereas Pelosi 's ask would increase the total amount of direct spending to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely feel much more comfortable running on that message heading into the Jan. 5 Georgia runoffs than Republicans will .

Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy wrote a letter to his colleagues on Wednesday trying to outmaneuver Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the ongoing fight over the omnibus government spending bill. But his attempt to counter the speaker's moves appear unlikely to gain traction, revealing just how much President Donald Trump has undermined his own party.
Trump pulled the rug out from under Republicans on Tuesday when, in an abrupt turnabout from the White House, he suggested he may block the 5,000+ page spending bill that has been the subject of fierce negotiations between the two parties for months.
The president posted a video on Twitter detailing his objections to the bill, despite the fact that he had been essentially uninvolved in the debate for months and his deputies had indicated he would support the final draft of the legislation. In the video, he criticized the bill for a number of obscure spending provisions, which are a common part of every such bill. And he also demanded that the COVID-19 relief portion increase direct payments to American families from a single $600 payment per person to $2,000. He didn't say explicitly that he'd veto the bill without changes, but he urged Congress to amend its language, leaving the implication clear.
But Democrats have been urging the Republicans to agree to much higher spending, so instead of recoiling Trump's demand, they decide to embrace it. Speaker Pelosi immediately said she would move forward with a measure to increase the payments from $600 to $2,000 — though she is clearly confident that much of the Republican Party will refuse to go along with the plan. This puts the party in a tough bind as the Georgia runoffs elections approach, which could flip control of the Senate to Democrats. Many Republicans are unwilling to spend more government money to help American families, but they know this stance is unpopular and could hurt them in the election.
So in his letter, McCarthy tried to attack Pelosi for allegedly trying to "use the American people as leverage to make coronavirus relief contingent on government funding." But the GOP leader certainly knows that it's not Pelosi trying to exploit her leverage — Trump's implicit veto threat sought to leverage the stakes of the bill, and she simply called his bluff.
McCarthy also tried to frame himself as the defender of the American people, saying the "top priority must be our families, communities, and small businesses as we get through this pandemic and restore our country." But, predictably, he didn't join Pelosi and Trump's calls for more money in the direct payments.
Instead, McCarthy said that Pelosi and the Democrats have "selective hearing," because they ignored all of the demands, such as cutting back on foreign aid spending, that Trump included in his video other than the increased direct spending. This is true — Democrats have acted as though Trump only made a singular demand for $2,000.
McCarthy wanted to turn the tables on Pelosi, saying "we ought to reexamine how our tax dollars are spent overseas while so many of our neighbors at home are struggling to make ends meet. Thus, Republicans will offer a unanimous consent request to revisit the State and Foreign Operations title of the Omnibus so that we can fully address the concerns at hand."
But this attempt to shift the blame for any delay is unlikely to make for an effective message for the Republicans. While it's true that many voters dislike the idea of American tax dollars going overseas, Pelosi's effort to simply increase the direct payments from $600 to $2,000 without any other change to the bill dispels the notion that there's a direct trade-off between aid to foreign countries and aid to Americans. Congress can do both.
What's not feasible, though, is McCarthy's suggestion that Congress reopen debate on the minutiae of government spending with only a handful of days left in the congressional calendar and a government shutdown looming. That's likely an unworkable ask and McCarthy knows it, whereas a quick amendment to increase the size of the direct payments actually could be done in the time remaining.
McCarthy's ask would slow down the delivery of more pandemic relief for Americans, whereas Pelosi's ask would increase the total amount of direct spending to families more than threefold. Democrats will likely feel much more comfortable running on that message heading into the Jan. 5 Georgia runoffs than Republicans will.


alternet--2020-12-24--Scientists looking for alien life are intrigued by a weird radio signal from a nearby star

Scientists at an Australian observatory have been studying a radio signal that appears to originate in Proxima Centauri , the star closest to the sun , to see if it may be a sign of intelligent life .
A narrow beam of radio waves was detected over a period of 30 hours in April and May 2019 by the Parkes telescope in Australia , according to The Guardian .
The researchers studying the wave emission have not yet been able to identify any Earthly origin , whether a satellite in or something on the ground .
As a result , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an organization based at the University of California , Berkeley that searches for radio signals from intelligent extraterrestrial life forms in the universe — believe that the radio signal could originate from extraterrestrial intelligent life .
The beam , known as BLC1 , is also attractive to E.T.-hunters because its frequency shifts in a way that is consistent with the movement of a planet .
It resembles the kind of radio waves that humans would send into space and appears to come from the direction of the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this radio beam is , therefore , `` the first serious candidate since the 'Wow !
signal ' '' that intelligent aliens may have sent a radio signal into space that was picked up by humans .
The `` Wow !
signal '' was a narrowband radio signal detected by Ohio observatory in 1977 , and was given its name because astronomer Jerry Ehman wrote `` Wow ! ''
next to the data , noting the great degree of magnitude with which the signal was stronger than background noise .
While the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been definitively determined , recent theories suggest it resulted from a quickly-moving comet , not aliens .
Likewise , the jury is still out on the origin of the 2019 signal from Proxima Centauri .
`` It has some particular properties that caused it to pass many of our checks , and we can not yet explain it , '' Andrew Siemion from the University of California , Berkeley , told Scientific American about the signal .
He also pointed to the fact that the signal is in a very narrow band @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which usually does not include transmissions from human-made spacecraft and satellites .
`` We do n't know of any natural way to compress electromagnetic energy into a single bin in frequency , '' Siemion told the magazine .
As with all news about the potential discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe , there are reasons to be skeptical .
There may be an as-of-yet unexplained human cause for the radio signal , and even if it does originate in space , there could be a scientific explanation that does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn more about whether this proves aliens exist , they will need to publish their full research and then other astronomers will have to spend an extended period of time analyzing it .
2020 has been a signal year for sensational stories about extraterrestrial life .
The most scientifically robust story involved the purported discovery of trace amounts of phosphine — a gas emitted by anaerobic bacteria on Earth — in the atmosphere of Venus .
After the initial excitement surrounding that paper 's publication , however , two subsequent scientific investigations were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's results , throwing cold water on the original flame of excitement .
Similarly , there was much buzz over videos of purported `` UFOs '' that were recorded by American military pilots , which the Pentagon announced in August it was going to investigate .
While those videos do indeed show aircraft that have not been identified , there is no evidence that the crafts are of alien origin , and the objects move in a manner consistent with human technological capabilities .
Indeed , mundane explanations range from the possibility of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a corporation that did not disclose its work to the US military .
The most out-there piece of 2020 E.T .
news involved Haim Eshed , an Israeli official who used to lead the Israeli Defense Ministry 's space directorate , and who claimed that a `` galactic federation '' had contacted human governments , that there is an `` underground base in the depths of Mars '' where American astronauts and extraterrestrials interact and that President Donald Trump knows these things but was convinced to keep them secret to avoid `` mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support his claims .

Scientists at an Australian observatory have been studying a radio signal that appears to originate in Proxima Centauri, the star closest to the sun, to see if it may be a sign of intelligent life.
A narrow beam of radio waves was detected over a period of 30 hours in April and May 2019 by the Parkes telescope in Australia, according to The Guardian. The researchers studying the wave emission have not yet been able to identify any Earthly origin, whether a satellite in or something on the ground. As a result, scientists at the Breakthrough Listen project — an organization based at the University of California, Berkeley that searches for radio signals from intelligent extraterrestrial life forms in the universe — believe that the radio signal could originate from extraterrestrial intelligent life.
The beam, known as BLC1, is also attractive to E.T.-hunters because its frequency shifts in a way that is consistent with the movement of a planet. It resembles the kind of radio waves that humans would send into space and appears to come from the direction of the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri.
Spokespeople for the Breakthrough Listen project said that this radio beam is, therefore, "the first serious candidate since the 'Wow! signal'" that intelligent aliens may have sent a radio signal into space that was picked up by humans. The "Wow! signal" was a narrowband radio signal detected by Ohio observatory in 1977, and was given its name because astronomer Jerry Ehman wrote "Wow!" next to the data, noting the great degree of magnitude with which the signal was stronger than background noise. While the origin of the Wow! signal has never been definitively determined, recent theories suggest it resulted from a quickly-moving comet, not aliens.
Likewise, the jury is still out on the origin of the 2019 signal from Proxima Centauri. "It has some particular properties that caused it to pass many of our checks, and we cannot yet explain it," Andrew Siemion from the University of California, Berkeley, told Scientific American about the signal. He also pointed to the fact that the signal is in a very narrow band of the radio spectrum, 982 megahertz, which usually does not include transmissions from human-made spacecraft and satellites. "We don't know of any natural way to compress electromagnetic energy into a single bin in frequency," Siemion told the magazine.
As with all news about the potential discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, there are reasons to be skeptical. There may be an as-of-yet unexplained human cause for the radio signal, and even if it does originate in space, there could be a scientific explanation that does not involve extraterrestrial life. For scientists to learn more about whether this proves aliens exist, they will need to publish their full research and then other astronomers will have to spend an extended period of time analyzing it.
2020 has been a signal year for sensational stories about extraterrestrial life. The most scientifically robust story involved the purported discovery of trace amounts of phosphine — a gas emitted by anaerobic bacteria on Earth — in the atmosphere of Venus. After the initial excitement surrounding that paper's publication, however, two subsequent scientific investigations were not able to replicate the original study's results, throwing cold water on the original flame of excitement.
Similarly, there was much buzz over videos of purported "UFOs" that were recorded by American military pilots, which the Pentagon announced in August it was going to investigate. While those videos do indeed show aircraft that have not been identified, there is no evidence that the crafts are of alien origin, and the objects move in a manner consistent with human technological capabilities. Indeed, mundane explanations range from the possibility of technology being developed by another country or a corporation that did not disclose its work to the US military.
The most out-there piece of 2020 E.T. news involved Haim Eshed, an Israeli official who used to lead the Israeli Defense Ministry's space directorate, and who claimed that a "galactic federation" had contacted human governments, that there is an "underground base in the depths of Mars" where American astronauts and extraterrestrials interact and that President Donald Trump knows these things but was convinced to keep them secret to avoid "mass hysteria." There is no evidence to support his claims.


alternet--2020-12-24--Trump is putting 'pathetically submissive' GOP in an impossible position — and they deserve it: NYT

Trump is putting 'pathetically submissive' GOP in an impossible position — and they deserve it: NYT columnist

President Donald Trump 's final legislative acts are to kill the Defense spending bill and threaten to veto the COVID-19 stimulus and omnibus spending bill passed Monday night by Congress and the Senate .
A Politico report called it the final loyalty test of the Republican Party , which Trump wants to see go on the record in supporting his fake 2020 election win .
The story prompted New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg remembered a poem that Trump likes to read occasionally at rallies .
It ends with a snake saying , `` you knew I was a snake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` You know , I ca n't imagine that any Republicans are actually surprised by this and if they are , you know , more shame on them , '' said Goldberg .
`` There has been nobody , nobody except maybe Ivanka Trump who is ennobled by connection with Donald Trump , right ?
He turns on everybody in the end .
In the end , no matter how much slavish , degrading loyalty you show him , he always asks for you to go one step too far and kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'no ' to him . ''
She continued : `` So , yeah , he 's putting Republicans in an impossible position but it 's an impossible position that frankly they deserve to be in .
And on this $ 2,000 stimulus , it will be really really , really interesting to see if that is a bridge too far for them .
For some Republicans , sexual assault was n't a bridge too far .
Attempting a coup was n't a bridge too far but it might well be that kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line they ca n't cross . ''
MSNBC host Ayman Mohyeldin cited a Gallup poll revealing that Trump has lost about 8 percent of GOP support since the election .
It 's something that Goldberg said she anticipated would happen once he was out of power and lost his `` sway '' over the GOP .
`` Part of the reason that Donald Trump has had such a hold over rank and file Republicans is he 's been able to make all their dreams come true and he has n't shown any kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ path over the kind of the statesmen path , '' Goldberg explained .
When Trump is out of office and a `` has-been '' golfing at Mar-a-Lago , she said that she does n't think he 'll have the kind of `` diehard cult '' that he does now .
`` There still will be QAnon , '' she said .
`` There still will be people convinced he 's the rightfully deposed president of the United States but , you know , you also will have an incentive for other Republicans who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2024 who have so far been kind of pathetically submissive .
Chris Christie is only the first -- will start to have a real incentive to challenge him more . ''
See the discussion below : Trump putting 'pathetically submissive ' GOP in an impossible position — but they deserve it

President Donald Trump's final legislative acts are to kill the Defense spending bill and threaten to veto the COVID-19 stimulus and omnibus spending bill passed Monday night by Congress and the Senate.
A Politico report called it the final loyalty test of the Republican Party, which Trump wants to see go on the record in supporting his fake 2020 election win.
The story prompted New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg remembered a poem that Trump likes to read occasionally at rallies. It ends with a snake saying, "you knew I was a snake when you took me in."
"You know, I can't imagine that any Republicans are actually surprised by this and if they are, you know, more shame on them," said Goldberg. "There has been nobody, nobody except maybe Ivanka Trump who is ennobled by connection with Donald Trump, right? He turns on everybody in the end. In the end, no matter how much slavish, degrading loyalty you show him, he always asks for you to go one step too far and kind of can't tolerate it when people say 'no' to him."
She continued: "So, yeah, he's putting Republicans in an impossible position but it's an impossible position that frankly they deserve to be in. And on this $2,000 stimulus, it will be really really, really interesting to see if that is a bridge too far for them. For some Republicans, sexual assault wasn't a bridge too far. Attempting a coup wasn't a bridge too far but it might well be that kind of demanding checks to struggling Americans is a line they can't cross."
MSNBC host Ayman Mohyeldin cited a Gallup poll revealing that Trump has lost about 8 percent of GOP support since the election. It's something that Goldberg said she anticipated would happen once he was out of power and lost his "sway" over the GOP.
"Part of the reason that Donald Trump has had such a hold over rank and file Republicans is he's been able to make all their dreams come true and he hasn't shown any kind of restraint in always taking the partisan path over the kind of the statesmen path," Goldberg explained.
When Trump is out of office and a "has-been" golfing at Mar-a-Lago, she said that she doesn't think he'll have the kind of "diehard cult" that he does now.
"There still will be QAnon," she said. "There still will be people convinced he's the rightfully deposed president of the United States but, you know, you also will have an incentive for other Republicans who think they should be the nominee in 2024 who have so far been kind of pathetically submissive. Chris Christie is only the first -- will start to have a real incentive to challenge him more."
See the discussion below:


alternet--2020-12-24--'$600 is a joke': Georgia Democrats embrace push for $2,000 direct payments as runoff nears

Democratic Senate candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock have thrown their support behind the push for a $ 2,000 direct payment to most Americans , a development that progressives hope will give a boost to the two challengers taking on Georgia 's incumbent Republican Sens .
David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in upcoming runoff contests that will determine which party controls the upper chamber of Congress .
The previously stalled effort to pass larger direct payments—led by Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) and members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—was given renewed energy by President Donald Trump 's Tuesday night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 900 billion coronavirus relief package if it is n't amended to include bigger checks .
While many of Trump 's advisers were reportedly `` stunned '' by the move , the president had previously considered publicly demanding $ 2,000 direct payments when the new relief legislation was being negotiated , according to the Washington Post .
White House aides reportedly talked him out of it .
Pointing out that Trump called for bigger checks in early December , The Daily Poster 's David Sirota suggested on Twitter that if neoliberal Democrats were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could have `` call [ ed ] his bluff then . ''
`` Now they have one more chance , '' Sirota added .
Although he had already expressed criticism of the inadequate relief bill prior to Trump 's veto threat , Ossoff has taken advantage of the the momentum generated by the president 's disapproval of the new Covid-19 package .
On Tuesday morning , Ossoff told MSNBC that `` $ 600 is a joke .
People have been waiting eight months for the United States Senate to act . ''
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate—and David Perdue my opponent who opposed even the first round of $ 1,200 checks—who have been holding this up for months , and who cut the direct stimulus payments in half as we enter the holiday season with so many families having difficulty making rent , the car payment , affording prescriptions , and putting food on the table , '' he continued .
`` We need additional , substantial direct Covid relief , '' Ossoff added , `` and the only way we 'll get it is by winning these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Following Trump 's remarks Tuesday night , the Democratic challenger capitalized on the shifting terrain created by president 's attack on the bipartisan deal , reiterating his earlier critique of Perdue 's complicity in the GOP 's months-long rejection of sorely-needed aid , which coincided with allegations that the Georgia senator illegally used knowledge obtained in early briefings on the pandemic to profit from well-timed stock trades .
When it comes to distributing more cash relief to struggling households , Trump is `` right , '' Ossoff told CNN Tuesday night .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American people right now because people are hurting . ''
Warnock on Wednesday joined Ossoff , calling for `` $ 2,000 checks now . ''
As Common Dreams reported earlier Wednesday , House Democrats have indicated that they intend to request unanimous consent this week to approve the allocation of one-time $ 2,000 checks to most Americans .
Because it is highly unlikely the amendment introduced by Reps. Rashida Tlaib ( D-Mich. ) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) to replace the current $ 600 payment with a $ 2,000 one will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislator can block it—progressives are urging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) to bring House members back for a full vote on the payment increase .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) has also expressed support for the idea .
Although the Senate is controlled by the GOP , the high-stakes runoff races combined with Trump 's curveball gives some leverage to Democrats who have an opportunity to pressure Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) by turning the Georgia election into a referendum on cash relief amid the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warnock implied as much when he tweeted Tuesday night that Loeffler—whose estimated net worth hovers close to $ 900 million— '' thinks $ 600 will cover your rent , groceries , and hospital bills . ''
Ossoff , meanwhile , made the relationship between flipping the Senate and delivering substantial relief even more explicit .
In a fundraising email sent to potential voters Wednesday , Ossoff claimed that the paltry $ 600 check only came about because Perdue and McConnell are `` desperate to stay in power ... [ and tried ] to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight months of obstruction . ''
A mere $ 600 , however , is insufficient to cover mounting bills , he said , and `` it 's certainly not enough to get back in the good graces of Georgians Perdue has neglected for far too long . ''
`` This is the people 's Senate seat , '' he continued , `` and David Perdue wo n't be able to buy it back—especially not after he ignored Georgians when they needed him the most . ''
Delivering `` real support to the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning both match-ups on January 5 .

Democratic Senate candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock have thrown their support behind the push for a $2,000 direct payment to most Americans, a development that progressives hope will give a boost to the two challengers taking on Georgia's incumbent Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in upcoming runoff contests that will determine which party controls the upper chamber of Congress.
The previously stalled effort to pass larger direct payments—led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—was given renewed energy by President Donald Trump's Tuesday night announcement that he might not sign the $900 billion coronavirus relief package if it isn't amended to include bigger checks.
While many of Trump's advisers were reportedly "stunned" by the move, the president had previously considered publicly demanding $2,000 direct payments when the new relief legislation was being negotiated, according to the Washington Post. White House aides reportedly talked him out of it.
Pointing out that Trump called for bigger checks in early December, TheDaily Poster's David Sirota suggested on Twitter that if neoliberal Democrats weren't "austerity ideologues," they could have "call[ed] his bluff then."
"Now they have one more chance," Sirota added.
Although he had already expressed criticism of the inadequate relief bill prior to Trump's veto threat, Ossoff has taken advantage of the the momentum generated by the president's disapproval of the new Covid-19 package.
On Tuesday morning, Ossoff told MSNBC that "$600 is a joke. People have been waiting eight months for the United States Senate to act."
"It's Mitch McConnell and Republicans in the Senate—and David Perdue my opponent who opposed even the first round of $1,200 checks—who have been holding this up for months, and who cut the direct stimulus payments in half as we enter the holiday season with so many families having difficulty making rent, the car payment, affording prescriptions, and putting food on the table," he continued.
"We need additional, substantial direct Covid relief," Ossoff added, "and the only way we'll get it is by winning these two Senate races in Georgia."
Following Trump's remarks Tuesday night, the Democratic challenger capitalized on the shifting terrain created by president's attack on the bipartisan deal, reiterating his earlier critique of Perdue's complicity in the GOP's months-long rejection of sorely-needed aid, which coincided with allegations that the Georgia senator illegally used knowledge obtained in early briefings on the pandemic to profit from well-timed stock trades.
When it comes to distributing more cash relief to struggling households, Trump is "right," Ossoff told CNN Tuesday night. "They should send $2,000 checks to the American people right now because people are hurting."
Warnock on Wednesday joined Ossoff, calling for "$2,000 checks now."
As Common Dreams reported earlier Wednesday, House Democrats have indicated that they intend to request unanimous consent this week to approve the allocation of one-time $2,000 checks to most Americans.
Because it is highly unlikely the amendment introduced by Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to replace the current $600 payment with a $2,000 one will pass through unanimous consent—given that any single legislator can block it—progressives are urging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to bring House members back for a full vote on the payment increase.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has also expressed support for the idea. Although the Senate is controlled by the GOP, the high-stakes runoff races combined with Trump's curveball gives some leverage to Democrats who have an opportunity to pressure Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) by turning the Georgia election into a referendum on cash relief amid the ongoing public health and economic catastrophe.
Warnock implied as much when he tweeted Tuesday night that Loeffler—whose estimated net worth hovers close to $900 million—"thinks $600 will cover your rent, groceries, and hospital bills."
Ossoff, meanwhile, made the relationship between flipping the Senate and delivering substantial relief even more explicit.
In a fundraising email sent to potential voters Wednesday, Ossoff claimed that the paltry $600 check only came about because Perdue and McConnell are "desperate to stay in power... [and tried] to buy back Georgians' votes... after eight months of obstruction."
A mere $600, however, is insufficient to cover mounting bills, he said, and "it's certainly not enough to get back in the good graces of Georgians Perdue has neglected for far too long."
"This is the people's Senate seat," he continued, "and David Perdue won't be able to buy it back—especially not after he ignored Georgians when they needed him the most."
Delivering "real support to the American people," Ossoff added, requires winning both match-ups on January 5.


alternet--2020-12-24--Watch: Texas man files lawsuit against police who pepper sprayed him for filming his son’s arrest

In the Dallas/Fort Worth area , two officers for the Keller Police Department are facing a lawsuit filed by a man who was pepper sprayed while filming his son 's arrest on August 15 .
The man filing the lawsuit , according to Complex.com , is Marco Puente , who is suing officers Ankit Tomer and Blake Shimanek .
On August 15 , those officers arrested Puente 's son , 22-year-old Dylan Puente , after seeing him make a wide turn .
A video of the younger Puente 's arrest shows the officers ordering him to exit his car ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pulling up in his truck , Marco Puente asked Tomer and Shimanek why his son was being arrested — and the offers threatened to arrest him as well for obstructing the street with his vehicle .
Marco Puente , after parking his truck , continued to film the incident with his smartphone — which the officers did n't like .
And when Tomer and Shimanek arrested Marco Puente , he was handcuffed and pepper sprayed .
Complex.com reporter Alex Galbraith explains , `` Shimanek was the officer arresting Dylan Puente and ordered Tomer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was demoted by the police department from sergeant after the incident .
Tomer was not disciplined as he was following orders of his then-superior officer . ''
Marco Puente 's attorney , Scott Palmer , told WFAA-TV ( an ABC affiliate in Dallas ) , `` Marco is not a criminal .
This is a man , a concerned father — and if this can happen to him , it can happen to anyone .
These officers knew better .
I believe they were trained better , but why did they not execute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' According to WFAA reporter Alex Rozier , `` Police records show Shimanek has had previous problems as a Keller officer .
In 2016 , an internal affairs review found that he entered a home without a search warrant and without approval from the homeowner .
In 2018 , Shimanek 's discipline file shows that he was reprimanded after he made a comment in reference to 'women not carrying guns because they would not be able to protect the children during a school shooting . '
Now , in this 2020 incident , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This time , it is has led to Shimanek 's demotion from his rank as a sergeant to officer . ''
Dylan Puente was never charged with any type of criminal offense , although he paid a fine for making a wide turn .
Marco Puente told WFAA , `` who gets pulled out of a car and cuffed for a wide right turn ?
Nobody .
Nobody . ''

In the Dallas/Fort Worth area, two officers for the Keller Police Department are facing a lawsuit filed by a man who was pepper sprayed while filming his son's arrest on August 15.
The man filing the lawsuit, according to Complex.com, is Marco Puente, who is suing officers Ankit Tomer and Blake Shimanek. On August 15, those officers arrested Puente's son, 22-year-old Dylan Puente, after seeing him make a wide turn. A video of the younger Puente's arrest shows the officers ordering him to exit his car; Dylan Puente cooperated and was handcuffed.
Pulling up in his truck, Marco Puente asked Tomer and Shimanek why his son was being arrested — and the offers threatened to arrest him as well for obstructing the street with his vehicle. Marco Puente, after parking his truck, continued to film the incident with his smartphone — which the officers didn't like. And when Tomer and Shimanek arrested Marco Puente, he was handcuffed and pepper sprayed.
Complex.com reporter Alex Galbraith explains, "Shimanek was the officer arresting Dylan Puente and ordered Tomer to arrest the older Puente. Shimanek was demoted by the police department from sergeant after the incident. Tomer was not disciplined as he was following orders of his then-superior officer."
Marco Puente's attorney, Scott Palmer, told WFAA-TV (an ABC affiliate in Dallas), "Marco is not a criminal. This is a man, a concerned father — and if this can happen to him, it can happen to anyone. These officers knew better. I believe they were trained better, but why did they not execute better? I don't know."
According to WFAA reporter Alex Rozier, "Police records show Shimanek has had previous problems as a Keller officer. In 2016, an internal affairs review found that he entered a home without a search warrant and without approval from the homeowner. In 2018, Shimanek's discipline file shows that he was reprimanded after he made a comment in reference to 'women not carrying guns because they would not be able to protect the children during a school shooting.' Now, in this 2020 incident, another internal affairs review has found misconduct. This time, it is has led to Shimanek's demotion from his rank as a sergeant to officer."
Dylan Puente was never charged with any type of criminal offense, although he paid a fine for making a wide turn.
Marco Puente told WFAA, "who gets pulled out of a car and cuffed for a wide right turn? Nobody. Nobody."