therealnews--2020-03-20--Corporations Are Protecting Their Profits From COVID-19, Not Their Workers

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Marc Steiner : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Marc Steiner , good to have you all with us .
Donald Trump , with Congress ’ acquiescence , wants to send every family in America $ 1000 , while banks , oil companies and other large businesses , are given millions with no strings attached .
The poorest workers in our country , like in the service industry , living paycheck to paycheck , and companies are now denying workers unemployment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quoted Moody ’ s Analytics today in a report saying 80 million workers could lose their jobs and benefits .
That ’ s more than half of all the workers in our country .
Why are we trimming around the edges ?
Why are Democrats going along with this ?
What should we really be doing ?
We ’ re joined now by Dr. William Spriggs .
He ’ s a professor and former chair of the Department of Economics at the Howard University , and serves as the chief economist at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have you with us Dr. Spriggs .
William Spriggs : Thank you for having me , I ’ m glad to be here .
Marc Steiner : So , let ’ s begin at the top here .
When you look at the response that Congress has made and Trump has made , a lot of folks think this is pretty inadequate , especially when it comes to $ 1000 per worker , per family .
That barely covers groceries for two weeks for most people .
We ’ re talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they live paycheck to paycheck .
Some are losing their healthcare benefits , and if Moody ’ s is right , this could be a huge crisis if 80 million workers actually lose their jobs .
Right now we ’ re seeing in Seattle , they ’ re saying that 400,000 workers could lose their jobs in Seattle alone , and they ’ re two weeks ahead of us .
So , talk a bit about what you think ’ s happening , and whether you think the response is adequate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think we have to back up .
It ’ s unfortunate during the H1N1 crisis in 2009 , we didn ’ t put in place paid sick leave , and didn ’ t put in place unemployment insurance to capture the problem we knew we faced then .
We knew we would face it again , and here we are , totally unprepared .
Had we had policies in place , it would have been easier to have started this earlier with certainty for everyone how it would play out .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
Here ’ s the big problem .
For the workers who are affected , they ’ re going to lose huge amounts of money .
$ 1000 simply does not begin to make up for what they ’ re about to lose .
But this is not a problem of aggregate demand simply shrinking .
Yes , aggregate demand is falling , but it ’ s falling in very specific sectors because we ’ re trying to be safe and avoid the virus .
So , we know we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to malls , any large gathering .
If I give you $ 1000 , you ’ re still not going to go to a mall .
You ’ re still not going to go to a bar .
You ’ re still not going to go to a hotel or fly .
So , we should not fool ourselves that this is a normal recession , and I ’ m trying to make up for that demand by simply giving people money so they can spend it .
And in fact , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are going to do is use the money to consume substitutes for the things they can ’ t do .
So , you can ’ t go to the mall .
That means you go on to Amazon .
You can ’ t go to the gym , you buy an exercise bike .
You can no longer go to the coffee shop , so you buy a more expensive , upgraded coffee machine .
So , coming out of this , if you made that investment in a better coffee machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ re not going back to the movies , the gym or the coffee shop .
Companies that are making investments understanding that their infrastructure wasn ’ t adequate for online meeting , they ’ re buying more Zoom licenses , they ’ re upgrading their own equipment .
Well , those companies , sooner or later , after 12 months or 12 weeks of not traveling , are going to say , “ Why were we traveling before ?
Couldn ’ t we save money by doing this on Zoom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” So , a danger of simply increasing demand as a response is that you could have this perverse , making situations worse for the companies that are going to be most affected , without having compensated the workers adequately for their lost income .
So , that ’ s the danger here .
And the other danger becomes to encourage firms to retain their workers has to be the number one objective .
If firms separate from their workers , and we know this from natural disasters where this has happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we ’ ve got the flood waters down and the streets are clean and people are coming back , how do those companies relocate their workers ?
How do they recruit ?
How do they get training in place so they can go back up to speed ?
And that ’ s what we don ’ t want to have happen here , because if those workers aren ’ t continually attached to their firm , coming out of this , there ’ s going to be all the frictions we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not good at in the United States that are going to prolong unemployment periods .
Marc Steiner : So , I wanted to kind of talk a bit about what ’ s happening at the moment and what the responses are from this government at the moment .
It seems to me , as I was talking about earlier , that long term , this could be a continuing disaster , and I think the points you ’ re raising are very critical and clear .
At the moment , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not working .
If you look out my window right here , there ’ s nobody in the streets .
Nothing is happening .
People are locked down , and understandably so .
This is a very potentially dangerous virus .
But it seems the response from our government is , in itself , inadequate at this moment , just to have people survive this moment .
That is something that I think that some of the major media are kind of missing in terms of the effect of what these trillions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting out , they ’ re mostly going to large corporations .
They ’ re not going to working families that are trying to survive and get through this .
And when you look at the numbers of people in the service industry , those people living paycheck to paycheck .
We heard that Marriott was denying some workers benefits when they went to get their unemployment benefits , coming off health insurance .
These things of immediacy that could have a huge effect .
What should be the political response and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s happening at the moment ?
William Spriggs : So , there are two problems at the same time .
I think , again , we ’ re looking at this through the wrong lens .
Economists have a hammer .
They see demand fall , they want to increase demand .
That ’ s not what ’ s happening here .
If the government ask a business for public interest needs , that should be viewed as the same , if the government says , “ Want to build a highway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go through your business.
” We know , under law , the government would have to declare eminent domain and compensate me .
The same thing holds here .
If the mayor says , “ I need you to shut down , ” then the mayor needs to say , “ What I really mean is I ’ m going to buy out your restaurant .
And so , your workers will stay , you will stay , and we ’ re all going to be healthier because of this , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government needs to say to that mayor , “ I know that you ’ re losing sales tax revenue vital for your city , and I ’ m going to compensate you for that.
” So , we keep people whole through this , and it ’ s important that we have the workers who are directly affected not have their anxiety level go up .
And that ’ s what happening right now , because if you ’ re one of those workers , your anxiety ’ s through the roof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , there ’ s the issue of the workers being connected , and the compensation for the workers and for the business , but then , you ’ ve got to think through , why didn ’ t we have paid sick days anyway ?
Why didn ’ t we have an unemployment insurance system that was better prepared anyway ?
There are 12.4 million Americans , roughly speaking , who are in food service and drinking establishments .
12.4 million .
That ’ s the size of our manufacturing workforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little bit bigger than manufacturing , but only a little bit bigger , it ’ s like 400,000 more people .
So , it ’ s roughly the same size .
So , [ inaudible 00:10:09 ] all American manufacturers shut down .
That ’ s equivalent to what ’ s happening here .
So , this is not a small sector .
If even one-fourth of those workers lose their jobs , and that ’ s a very generous thing to say , it ’ s only going to be one-fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who just this week stopped getting a pay check .
So , the size of this is very large .
The vision that ’ s necessary here needs to be equally as large .
And so , we have to keep it centered on the workers and the workforce .
The other way that we like to look at it in the labor movement is , we have been making a case about just transition as part of a global Green Deal .
We know that we have to get greenhouses emissions down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We know that .
But we know that you can ’ t just say to a bunch of workers , “ You take the sacrifice.
” You have to tell them , well , what are you going to do about it ?
How are we going to be fair about this ?
That ’ s the same situation here .
We ’ re asking a sector to take a big hit .
People in entertainment , people who do travel , people who have public-facing service industries , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone ’ s safety , and for the nation ’ s economy to even survive , for us to survive .
Good , fine .
Let ’ s do that .
But let ’ s be fair about it .
And so , those same principles of a just transition have to apply in this case .
If we do it properly , then coming out of this , those companies will be ready to operate the moment we ’ re safe again .
Their workers will be in place , and those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anxiety .
Many of them do not have health insurance .
And so , we have to deal with that problem .
And our normal unemployment insurance system , last year in the United States , fewer than 17 % of unemployed workers got unemployment insurance .
If you were in leisure and hospitality , the industry we ’ re talking about , accommodations , food service and drinking establishment , those people had only 8 % getting unemployment insurance if they were unemployed .
So , the system was broken coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we shouldn ’ t leave with a broken system .
We should leave better prepared to handle the next time this happens , and in a global world , we should be assured it will happen again .
You had the H1N1 in 2009 .
Here we are 11 years later , another bug .
So , anybody that thinks , “ Oh , this isn ’ t going to happen again , ” it ’ s going to happen again .
You have to have things in place .
Marc Steiner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m really interested in what you think , how Democrats and others should be responding to what we ’ re doing now .
I said in the beginning here , it appears that to get this bill through , to get these bills through Congress at the moment , that many people have acquiesced to say , “ Okay , we ’ re just going to send $ 1000 , and with all these millions of billions of dollars into these companies , ” large companies , fossil fuel industry and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re not going to take care of the workers or what could happen next.
” So , what do you think , in short , should be implemented now , at this moment , to ensure that people get through and to ensure that when we come out of this , that we ’ re moving ahead ?
William Spriggs : Every dollar that goes to a business has to go with a directive that it must , the company must retain its existing workers and it must be using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , make sure that they have benefits , and make sure that they ’ re going to have sick days and health coverage .
That ’ s how the money has to be attached .
We gave money to the airline industry after 9/11 , back in 2001 , and the rest of us saw what happened .
They got the bailout money , and instead of saying to workers , “ We got this money , we ’ re going to keep you whole , ” they asked the unions for concessions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that the companies could survive .
The companies turned around and declared bankruptcy anyway , took away pension funds .
The point of them going bankrupt was so that they could take away the pension funds of those workers .
it is only now , it ’ s only now , 20 years later , that flight attendants , airline pilots , are getting the pay they had in 2000 .
And the workers who are the caterers and the janitors who come in and clean the planes , who provide the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get back to 2000 .
The concessions that workers gave them to succeed , the tax cut that these corporations got just two years ago , they spent it on boosting their stock prices .
They didn ’ t give raises to their workers .
They didn ’ t invest in themselves , and now they want a bailout .
The bailout must be conditioned absolutely on , this is not for stock buy backs .
You may not declare bankruptcy .
You may not boost executive pay .
You may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things are back to normal , and your workers must be retained .
You must keep the workers , keep their benefits .
That has to be the number one priority .
And I don ’ t think Democrats are caving on that .
Marc Steiner : You don ’ t think Democrats are what , I ’ m sorry ?
William Spriggs : I do not think Democrats are caving on that .
I do not think Nancy Pelosi had budged an inch .
They ’ ve locked Nancy Pelosi out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s true , they ’ ve done that , though the bill that Congress sent to the Senate didn ’ t have some of the things that the Democrats wanted in it when they first started talking about this .
William Spriggs : The Democrats on the House side passed legislation which they thought they had bargained in good faith with Steven Mnuchin , who said he was representing the president , only to find out that , well , the president wasn ’ t exactly giving Mnuchin that kind of authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just got signed yesterday .
But there was compromise after it got to the Senate .
And so , I think Nancy Pelosi is certainly going to require some compromise for the House to be able to pass a bailout for the industries that are asking for a bailout .
I do not think Nancy Pelosi , the Speaker of the House , will want to write a blank check .
She knows the record that the airline industry has .
They ’ re a leper , they got the spots , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show you what they are , believe them .
Marc Steiner : And they are showing what they are .
So , Dr. William Spriggs , it ’ s always a pleasure to talk with you .
Again , there ’ s a depth of issues , and I appreciate you taking the time with Real News today , and look forward to many more conversations as we plow away through this crisis and see what happens next .
William Spriggs : Thank you very much for having me .
Marc Steiner : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And I ’ m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network .
Thank you all for joining us , let us know what you think .
Take care .

Trump is offering big business billions of dollars as the pandemic spreads, and almost nothing for their stranded employees. But real protection for workers has to be much more than a $1000 check.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Marc Steiner: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner, good to have you all with us. Donald Trump, with Congress’ acquiescence, wants to send every family in America $1000, while banks, oil companies and other large businesses, are given millions with no strings attached. The poorest workers in our country, like in the service industry, living paycheck to paycheck, and companies are now denying workers unemployment, shutting down their healthcare. The Guardian quoted Moody’s Analytics today in a report saying 80 million workers could lose their jobs and benefits. That’s more than half of all the workers in our country. Why are we trimming around the edges? Why are Democrats going along with this? What should we really be doing? We’re joined now by Dr. William Spriggs. He’s a professor and former chair of the Department of Economics at the Howard University, and serves as the chief economist at the AFL-CIO. And welcome back, good to have you with us Dr. Spriggs.
William Spriggs: Thank you for having me, I’m glad to be here.
Marc Steiner: So, let’s begin at the top here. When you look at the response that Congress has made and Trump has made, a lot of folks think this is pretty inadequate, especially when it comes to $1000 per worker, per family. That barely covers groceries for two weeks for most people. We’re talking about people who are losing their pay checks, and they live paycheck to paycheck. Some are losing their healthcare benefits, and if Moody’s is right, this could be a huge crisis if 80 million workers actually lose their jobs. Right now we’re seeing in Seattle, they’re saying that 400,000 workers could lose their jobs in Seattle alone, and they’re two weeks ahead of us. So, talk a bit about what you think’s happening, and whether you think the response is adequate.
William Spriggs: So, I think we have to back up. It’s unfortunate during the H1N1 crisis in 2009, we didn’t put in place paid sick leave, and didn’t put in place unemployment insurance to capture the problem we knew we faced then. We knew we would face it again, and here we are, totally unprepared. Had we had policies in place, it would have been easier to have started this earlier with certainty for everyone how it would play out. Now, we’re trying to play catch up. Here’s the big problem. For the workers who are affected, they’re going to lose huge amounts of money. $1000 simply does not begin to make up for what they’re about to lose.
But this is not a problem of aggregate demand simply shrinking. Yes, aggregate demand is falling, but it’s falling in very specific sectors because we’re trying to be safe and avoid the virus. So, we know we’re avoiding restaurants, movie theaters, going to malls, any large gathering. If I give you $1000, you’re still not going to go to a mall. You’re still not going to go to a bar. You’re still not going to go to a hotel or fly. So, we should not fool ourselves that this is a normal recession, and I’m trying to make up for that demand by simply giving people money so they can spend it. And in fact, you could make things much worse because what people are going to do is use the money to consume substitutes for the things they can’t do. So, you can’t go to the mall. That means you go on to Amazon. You can’t go to the gym, you buy an exercise bike. You can no longer go to the coffee shop, so you buy a more expensive, upgraded coffee machine.
So, coming out of this, if you made that investment in a better coffee machine, exercise equipment, a better TV, you’re not going back to the movies, the gym or the coffee shop. Companies that are making investments understanding that their infrastructure wasn’t adequate for online meeting, they’re buying more Zoom licenses, they’re upgrading their own equipment. Well, those companies, sooner or later, after 12 months or 12 weeks of not traveling, are going to say, “Why were we traveling before? Couldn’t we save money by doing this on Zoom? Do you really need to travel?” So, a danger of simply increasing demand as a response is that you could have this perverse, making situations worse for the companies that are going to be most affected, without having compensated the workers adequately for their lost income.
So, that’s the danger here. And the other danger becomes to encourage firms to retain their workers has to be the number one objective. If firms separate from their workers, and we know this from natural disasters where this has happened, then when the disaster is abated and we’ve got the flood waters down and the streets are clean and people are coming back, how do those companies relocate their workers? How do they recruit? How do they get training in place so they can go back up to speed? And that’s what we don’t want to have happen here, because if those workers aren’t continually attached to their firm, coming out of this, there’s going to be all the frictions we know are in our labor market and we’re not good at in the United States that are going to prolong unemployment periods.
Marc Steiner: So, I wanted to kind of talk a bit about what’s happening at the moment and what the responses are from this government at the moment. It seems to me, as I was talking about earlier, that long term, this could be a continuing disaster, and I think the points you’re raising are very critical and clear. At the moment, we’re facing this coronavirus and people not working. If you look out my window right here, there’s nobody in the streets. Nothing is happening. People are locked down, and understandably so. This is a very potentially dangerous virus. But it seems the response from our government is, in itself, inadequate at this moment, just to have people survive this moment.
That is something that I think that some of the major media are kind of missing in terms of the effect of what these trillions of dollars the government says it’s putting out, they’re mostly going to large corporations. They’re not going to working families that are trying to survive and get through this. And when you look at the numbers of people in the service industry, those people living paycheck to paycheck. We heard that Marriott was denying some workers benefits when they went to get their unemployment benefits, coming off health insurance. These things of immediacy that could have a huge effect. What should be the political response and the response from unions and others to what’s happening at the moment?
William Spriggs: So, there are two problems at the same time. I think, again, we’re looking at this through the wrong lens. Economists have a hammer. They see demand fall, they want to increase demand. That’s not what’s happening here. If the government ask a business for public interest needs, that should be viewed as the same, if the government says, “Want to build a highway through the street, I want to go through your business.” We know, under law, the government would have to declare eminent domain and compensate me. The same thing holds here. If the mayor says, “I need you to shut down,” then the mayor needs to say, “What I really mean is I’m going to buy out your restaurant. And so, your workers will stay, you will stay, and we’re all going to be healthier because of this, and we need to have this happen.” The federal government needs to say to that mayor, “I know that you’re losing sales tax revenue vital for your city, and I’m going to compensate you for that.”
So, we keep people whole through this, and it’s important that we have the workers who are directly affected not have their anxiety level go up. And that’s what happening right now, because if you’re one of those workers, your anxiety’s through the roof. Here’s the other problem. So, there’s the issue of the workers being connected, and the compensation for the workers and for the business, but then, you’ve got to think through, why didn’t we have paid sick days anyway? Why didn’t we have an unemployment insurance system that was better prepared anyway?
There are 12.4 million Americans, roughly speaking, who are in food service and drinking establishments. 12.4 million. That’s the size of our manufacturing workforce, roughly speaking. It’s a little bit bigger than manufacturing, but only a little bit bigger, it’s like 400,000 more people. So, it’s roughly the same size. So, [inaudible 00:10:09] all American manufacturers shut down. That’s equivalent to what’s happening here. So, this is not a small sector. If even one-fourth of those workers lose their jobs, and that’s a very generous thing to say, it’s only going to be one-fourth, that’s three million workers who just this week stopped getting a pay check. So, the size of this is very large. The vision that’s necessary here needs to be equally as large. And so, we have to keep it centered on the workers and the workforce.
The other way that we like to look at it in the labor movement is, we have been making a case about just transition as part of a global Green Deal. We know that we have to get greenhouses emissions down or human beings won’t survive. We know that. But we know that you can’t just say to a bunch of workers, “You take the sacrifice.” You have to tell them, well, what are you going to do about it? How are we going to be fair about this? That’s the same situation here. We’re asking a sector to take a big hit. People in entertainment, people who do travel, people who have public-facing service industries, we’re taking you out because this is for everyone’s safety, and for the nation’s economy to even survive, for us to survive. Good, fine. Let’s do that. But let’s be fair about it. And so, those same principles of a just transition have to apply in this case.
If we do it properly, then coming out of this, those companies will be ready to operate the moment we’re safe again. Their workers will be in place, and those workers will be whole without huge levels of anxiety. Many of them do not have health insurance. And so, we have to deal with that problem. And our normal unemployment insurance system, last year in the United States, fewer than 17% of unemployed workers got unemployment insurance. If you were in leisure and hospitality, the industry we’re talking about, accommodations, food service and drinking establishment, those people had only 8% getting unemployment insurance if they were unemployed. So, the system was broken coming into this.
And so leaving this, we shouldn’t leave with a broken system. We should leave better prepared to handle the next time this happens, and in a global world, we should be assured it will happen again. You had the H1N1 in 2009. Here we are 11 years later, another bug. So, anybody that thinks, “Oh, this isn’t going to happen again,” it’s going to happen again. You have to have things in place.
Marc Steiner: So, before we conclude, I’m really interested in what you think, how Democrats and others should be responding to what we’re doing now. I said in the beginning here, it appears that to get this bill through, to get these bills through Congress at the moment, that many people have acquiesced to say, “Okay, we’re just going to send $1000, and with all these millions of billions of dollars into these companies,” large companies, fossil fuel industry and auto and other places. “And we’re not going to take care of the workers or what could happen next.” So, what do you think, in short, should be implemented now, at this moment, to ensure that people get through and to ensure that when we come out of this, that we’re moving ahead?
William Spriggs: Every dollar that goes to a business has to go with a directive that it must, the company must retain its existing workers and it must be using the money to retain them, pay them, make sure that they have benefits, and make sure that they’re going to have sick days and health coverage. That’s how the money has to be attached. We gave money to the airline industry after 9/11, back in 2001, and the rest of us saw what happened. They got the bailout money, and instead of saying to workers, “We got this money, we’re going to keep you whole,” they asked the unions for concessions, which the unions gave them, so that the companies could survive. The companies turned around and declared bankruptcy anyway, took away pension funds. The point of them going bankrupt was so that they could take away the pension funds of those workers.
it is only now, it’s only now, 20 years later, that flight attendants, airline pilots, are getting the pay they had in 2000. And the workers who are the caterers and the janitors who come in and clean the planes, who provide the food, they’re still waiting to get back to 2000. The concessions that workers gave them to succeed, the tax cut that these corporations got just two years ago, they spent it on boosting their stock prices. They didn’t give raises to their workers. They didn’t invest in themselves, and now they want a bailout. The bailout must be conditioned absolutely on, this is not for stock buy backs. You may not declare bankruptcy. You may not boost executive pay. You may not do anything to raise executive pay until things are back to normal, and your workers must be retained. You must keep the workers, keep their benefits. That has to be the number one priority. And I don’t think Democrats are caving on that.
Marc Steiner: You don’t think Democrats are what, I’m sorry?
William Spriggs: I do not think Democrats are caving on that. I do not think Nancy Pelosi had budged an inch. They’ve locked Nancy Pelosi out of the conversation.
Marc Steiner: It’s true, they’ve done that, though the bill that Congress sent to the Senate didn’t have some of the things that the Democrats wanted in it when they first started talking about this.
William Spriggs: The Democrats on the House side passed legislation which they thought they had bargained in good faith with Steven Mnuchin, who said he was representing the president, only to find out that, well, the president wasn’t exactly giving Mnuchin that kind of authority, and it delayed the bill that just got signed yesterday. But there was compromise after it got to the Senate. And so, I think Nancy Pelosi is certainly going to require some compromise for the House to be able to pass a bailout for the industries that are asking for a bailout. I do not think Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, will want to write a blank check. She knows the record that the airline industry has. They’re a leper, they got the spots, as Maya Angelou famously said. If they show you what they are, believe them.
Marc Steiner: And they are showing what they are. So, Dr. William Spriggs, it’s always a pleasure to talk with you. Again, there’s a depth of issues, and I appreciate you taking the time with Real News today, and look forward to many more conversations as we plow away through this crisis and see what happens next.
William Spriggs: Thank you very much for having me.
Marc Steiner: Our pleasure completely, thank you. And I’m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Thank you all for joining us, let us know what you think. Take care.
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Marc Steiner
Post-Production: Will Arenas
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-20--OAS Failed To Prove Fraud In Bolivian Election

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Bolivia is in the midst of a second presidential election campaign in less than six months , for a do-over election that is scheduled for May 3rd .
The election is meant to replace the canceled October 20th presidential election of last year .
Back then , Bolivia ’ s opposition refused to recognize the official results , which gave the incumbent president , Evo Morales , at 10.5 percentage point lead over his nearest challenger , Carlos Mesa , and this would have avoided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mobilized and organized many violent protests against Morales , leading to significant upheaval in Bolivia .
To calm things down , Morales agreed to let the Organization of American States , the OAS , to conduct an audit of the October 20th election , and to abide by their findings .
The OAS report , released on November 10th , claimed that there were serious irregularities in the votes tallying process , and recommended a new election .
In reaction to the OAS report , Bolivia ’ s military urged Morales to step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Alvaro Garcia Linera , and his cabinet , resigned the same day , and Morales fled to into exile , first to Mexico and later to Argentina where he remains at the moment .
Since then a far right , and little known member of Bolivia ’ s legislature , Jeanine Anez , took over the presidency and engaged in a massive wave of repression against Evo Morales ’ supporters .
In December , the OAS provided a more detailed analysis of the election in which it doubled down on the claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , two independent analyses of the OAS reports , one conducted by John Curiel and Jack Williams of the MIT Data and Science Lab , and the other by Jake Johnson and David Rosnick at the Center for Economic and Policy Research , found that the OAS audits were deeply flawed and that they do not prove that fraud took place in last year ’ s election in Bolivia .
Joining me now is one of the researchers who analyzed the OAS report , Jake Johnson .
He ’ s a senior research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy Research .
His analysis of the OAS report is titled Observing the Observers : The OAS in the 2019 Bolivian Elections , which was released last week .
Thanks for joining us again , Jake .
Jake Johnson : Thanks for having me .
Greg Wilpert : So it bears repeating , the OAS audit of the October 20th election in Bolivia was instrumental in enabling the coup against president , Evo Morales .
Before we get into the flaws of the audit , we need to look at what their main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what basis do they say that there was fraud ?
Since it ’ s a rather complicated issue , focus just on their main arguments .
Jake Johnson : Yeah , that ’ s exactly right .
It ’ s complicated .
It involves multiple steps here , right ?
And so I think it ’ s important to start really with the election itself and the actions in the days right after the election by the Organization of American States , their observation mission themselves .
This is before the audit ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself , on October 20th , the Electoral Authority in Bolivia announced preliminary results with about 84 % of the vote counted , and the margin between Evo Morales and Carlos Mesa was below 10 percentage point threshold , which would be the barrier for avoiding a second round and just winning the election outright in the first round .
Now , the preliminary count stopped , and that is sort of the beginning , or the initiation , of this entire conflict .
So the next day when new numbers were provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 percentage points .
Enough to win in the first round for Evo Morales .
And the OAS almost immediately issued a press release denouncing this drastic and inexplicable change in trend of the vote , that undermined the credibility of the election .
And that really was the moment , and the original sin of the OAS actions in this election .
The theory of fraud that this was supporting was that the electoral authority had shut down the vote counting system , again this is just the preliminary vote counting system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to change the outcome of the election .
And that is what was reported across the world in major newspapers and news outlets .
Everyone ’ s just sort of repeating these OAS claims that there had been this drastic and inexplicable trend change .
So that was really the initial claim , and that claim came before any audit had been requested or undertaken , but was the observation mission itself , the day after the election .
Greg Wilpert : And so when they analyze the result , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of… I know that there are a number of different issues that they raised , for example , that servers hadn ’ t been used properly or that the… Aside from that vote tallying , the tally sheets had been altered .
Talk a little bit more about that .
Jake Johnson : Yeah , exactly .
So as this crisis went on and the audit started to take place , there was originally a preliminary audit released November 10th .
As you mentioned , this was the day of the coup .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ resign .
That had some information but we really didn ’ t get the full picture until December when the final audit came out .
And now that repeated these claims around the change in the trend of the vote , but also encompassed additional aspects of the vote counting process .
So as you mentioned , the presence of computer servers that were not in the originally planned schematics of the day .
Things like the chain of custody over electoral materials as they were being transported from departments and rural areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and various issues in terms of the actual thing .
And the OAS audit was really sort of categorical that there was these issues across the board in all of these different areas .
And I think what ’ s really important is when you ’ re analyzing an election you have to differentiate between irregularities and fraud , right ?
Any election , when you look close enough , you ’ re going to find examples of irregularities , right ?
So procedural problems not followed perfectly well , maybe because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the real question , and the question that the audit was attempting to answer was , did these issues actually rise to the level of impacting the results of the election , and were they actually an intentional effort to do so ?
Greg Wilpert : Now let ’ s turn to the flaws in the OAS audit itself .
What did you find , and why does it fail to prove that fraud actually took place in the October 20th election ?
Jake Johnson : Yeah , exactly .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s really important to differentiate between these initial claims right after the election and then this entire picture that we ’ ve got with the audit in the end , right ?
And so I think , for us , it was very clear .
The OAS put this press release out on October 21st saying there was an inexplicable change in the trend of the vote .
Looking at the publicly available data , and the electoral authority did make data available in three minute updates throughout this period , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressing as it was going .
And when we looked at that , it was quite clear that the votes that were remaining to be counted when the preliminary result system was stopped with 84 % of the vote counted , those outstanding votes came from areas that had already expressed a clear preference for Morales .
And so it was not surprising in the least that as those remaining votes were counted , the margin between the two candidates increased .
And now this was just abundantly clear in the publicly available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the assertion from the OAS really from the day after the election , was clearly false .
Greg Wilpert : And so you mentioned also that there was an issue with proof… That there ’ s no direct connection necessarily between the kind of irregularities or mistakes that were made , and the fraud .
Give us some examples of how they ’ re jumping , basically , from these irregularities to the claim of fraud .
Jake Johnson : Yeah , exactly .
So I mean , I think here there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the computer systems involved with this preliminary results system .
The trap , as it ’ s referred to .
And so the question then is , “ Okay , if they didn ’ t follow the security procedures as designed , A , why not ?
But B , did that actually impact the results ?
” Now , if you say that there was a drastic trend change , one might think that that means that the computer problems did impact the results .
But in fact , the OAS never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there was any change to the actual results due to these procedural problems .
I think that ’ s a really key point .
I mean , the OAS , as a neutral multilateral organization made up of the hemispheric countries themselves , really has to have an unimpeachable credibility here , right ?
They have to be operating in extremely neutral and unbiased manner .
And I think what ’ s quite clear is that that was just not the case at all , with very damaging implications for Bolivian democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy across the hemisphere , if the OAS does not have the credibility to operate as a neutral election observer in other countries as well .
Greg Wilpert : Now has there been a reaction from the OAS itself to your analysis , or to the MIT analysis which looked more at the statistical issues , and have they at all responded to these criticisms of their reports or their audits ?
Jake Johnson : Yeah , so the OAS for months now has been extremely resistant to any sort of debate or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Mexican government , their representative to the Organization of American States , in fact , invited myself and the Center for Economic and Policy Research to present at the OAS Permanent Council in December when the OAS presented their own findings .
The Permanent Council prevented that from happening , despite procedurally Mexico being allowed to grant their time to us .
Journalists , members of Congress , people who ’ ve continued to ask questions of the OAS , have failed to receive a response .
More recently , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work of Curiel and Williams from the MIT Elections Lab , but interestingly enough they didn ’ t actually deal with the specifics of their analysis , but rather just repeated some of the analysis from their final audit report itself .
And as we were documented in his last report that you mentioned , Observing the Observers , there were significant flaws in that final report .
So one thing that the OAS has said is that the actual trend change was over the last 5 % of the vote .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the votes on one side of 95 % look very different from the votes on the other side of 95 % .
And this has been repeated .
It was repeated in their response in the Washington Post .
Now when you look at the actual OAS audit itself , while we don ’ t have their full data series , they did include a data extract in the report .
And when you look at that , it actually directly contradicts their claim .
In fact , Morales ’ margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the vote , as compared to the 5 % directly before it .
So even based on their own data , right ?
Even based on their own findings , they ’ re simply just misrepresenting what exists in their own audit .
Greg Wilpert : Now , what about players in Bolivia itself , such as , well , the electoral authorities or also the government , or other election observers from the UN or Europe ?
I don ’ t know if they were participating , but what impact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the OAS report had in Bolivia itself ?
Jake Johnson : Well certainly there ’ s been a strong reaction from the Bolivian government , extremely critical of anyone raising questions around this .
And I think that ’ s because the issue of electoral fraud has been used to justify this non-democratic usurpation of power and the repression and persecution that we ’ ve seen afterwards .
One reason why I think this is so critically important is today in Bolivia you ’ ve got dozens of former electoral officials , former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the crime of electoral fraud .
And the prosecutors have openly said that the basis of this investigation , this case , is the OAS report itself .
But that report is deeply , deeply flawed , and that has significant impacts in terms of what we can expect in terms of the judicial process going forward , and the human rights of these people who are being persecuted by this non-democratic government .
Greg Wilpert : Now finally , how does the OAS analysis in Bolivia compare to other election analyses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m particularly thinking about the 2010 election in Haiti which you have also looked at .
What does it say about the reliability of OAS election observers , more generally ?
Jake Johnson : Yeah , it ’ s a critically important question , right ?
As I mentioned earlier , this has implications not just in Bolivia , but for the entire hemisphere in terms of having a neutral organization that can actually be called upon to provide an independent opinion on these elections , right ?
So when you look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a new thing , this is a repeated pattern .
We saw it in 2010 in Haiti when there was a deeply problematic election , and rather than redoing that election where there was almost a quarter of the vote never simply counted because of election day problems , massive problems .
This was held right after the earthquake with more than a million people still displaced .
And the OAS had a special audit mission that went to Haiti and actually recommended overturning the results of the election , replacing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate , and moving to a runoff on this thing , without any statistical inference or analysis that would actually lead that , or without any recount of the votes .
And so we ’ ve seen this sort of political intervention under the guise of election monitoring , time and again from the OAS .
So one more recent example of this sort of activity by the OAS was the 2017 election in Honduras , which on the face of it sort of looked and involved some similar issues as this Bolivia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counting system being shut down for a period of time , and when it come back on there being this apparent change in the trend .
Now , we looked in-depth at that 2017 election , and one of the big differences with Bolivia was that even within small geographic areas , so a small town where you would not expect to see any differences between voting time of the day or anything like that , there was this big change in the trend .
And we saw a very different thing happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier , was a change that was explainable by just geographic voting patterns , right ?
And so in 2017 in Honduras , the OAS did raise issues with this change in trend , but it was not followed through with .
The US quickly recognized the results of the election and really nothing happened , and the president resulting from that remains the president recognized by the OAS today .
And you can contrast that with what happened in Bolivia , but I think the key difference here is , when we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw that it was an entirely different dynamic in terms of this change in the trend .
In fact , I directly pointed this out to somebody inside the OAS on October 22nd , just a day after their press release , saying , “ Hey , this is not the same situation as Honduras 2017.
” And their response to me was quite telling .
It was simple .
It said , “ We know.
” And to us , that was quite clear .
They knew that this wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t an inexplicable change in the trend , and yet they repeated it anyway .
And it ’ s been the repetition of that falsehood for months and months and months , and then the justification of it through this grossly misleading final audit , that really just shows how deeply compromised the OAS has been in the situation in Bolivia most recently .
Greg Wilpert : Well , we ’ re going to leave it there for now , but of course we ’ re going see what else is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hopefully it ’ s going to lead to some real implications and changes in the way the OAS conducts its election observers .
I was speaking to Jake Johnson , senior research associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research , and co-author of the study , Observing the Observers : The OAS in the 2019 Bolivian Elections .
Thanks again , Jake , for having joined us today .
Jake Johnson : Thanks for having me .
Always a pleasure .
Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining the @ @ @ @

A detailed new analysis conducted by researchers at the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows that the OAS election observers’ audit of Bolivia’s 2019 presidential election failed to prove that the official result was fraudulent.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: It’s the Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.
Bolivia is in the midst of a second presidential election campaign in less than six months, for a do-over election that is scheduled for May 3rd. The election is meant to replace the canceled October 20th presidential election of last year. Back then, Bolivia’s opposition refused to recognize the official results, which gave the incumbent president, Evo Morales, at 10.5 percentage point lead over his nearest challenger, Carlos Mesa, and this would have avoided a runoff election.
The opposition then mobilized and organized many violent protests against Morales, leading to significant upheaval in Bolivia. To calm things down, Morales agreed to let the Organization of American States, the OAS, to conduct an audit of the October 20th election, and to abide by their findings. The OAS report, released on November 10th, claimed that there were serious irregularities in the votes tallying process, and recommended a new election.
In reaction to the OAS report, Bolivia’s military urged Morales to step down. Morales, his vice president, Alvaro Garcia Linera, and his cabinet, resigned the same day, and Morales fled to into exile, first to Mexico and later to Argentina where he remains at the moment. Since then a far right, and little known member of Bolivia’s legislature, Jeanine Anez, took over the presidency and engaged in a massive wave of repression against Evo Morales’ supporters.
In December, the OAS provided a more detailed analysis of the election in which it doubled down on the claim that there had been fraud. However, two independent analyses of the OAS reports, one conducted by John Curiel and Jack Williams of the MIT Data and Science Lab, and the other by Jake Johnson and David Rosnick at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, found that the OAS audits were deeply flawed and that they do not prove that fraud took place in last year’s election in Bolivia.
Joining me now is one of the researchers who analyzed the OAS report, Jake Johnson. He’s a senior research associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. His analysis of the OAS report is titled Observing the Observers: The OAS in the 2019 Bolivian Elections, which was released last week. Thanks for joining us again, Jake.
Jake Johnson: Thanks for having me.
Greg Wilpert: So it bears repeating, the OAS audit of the October 20th election in Bolivia was instrumental in enabling the coup against president, Evo Morales. Before we get into the flaws of the audit, we need to look at what their main claims and findings were. So on what basis do they say that there was fraud? Since it’s a rather complicated issue, focus just on their main arguments.
Jake Johnson: Yeah, that’s exactly right. It’s complicated. It involves multiple steps here, right? And so I think it’s important to start really with the election itself and the actions in the days right after the election by the Organization of American States, their observation mission themselves. This is before the audit ever took place.
So on election day itself, on October 20th, the Electoral Authority in Bolivia announced preliminary results with about 84% of the vote counted, and the margin between Evo Morales and Carlos Mesa was below 10 percentage point threshold, which would be the barrier for avoiding a second round and just winning the election outright in the first round.
Now, the preliminary count stopped, and that is sort of the beginning, or the initiation, of this entire conflict. So the next day when new numbers were provided, that margin had increased to over 10 percentage points. Enough to win in the first round for Evo Morales. And the OAS almost immediately issued a press release denouncing this drastic and inexplicable change in trend of the vote, that undermined the credibility of the election.
And that really was the moment, and the original sin of the OAS actions in this election. The theory of fraud that this was supporting was that the electoral authority had shut down the vote counting system, again this is just the preliminary vote counting system, and had somehow manipulated the results in order to change the outcome of the election. And that is what was reported across the world in major newspapers and news outlets. Everyone’s just sort of repeating these OAS claims that there had been this drastic and inexplicable trend change.
So that was really the initial claim, and that claim came before any audit had been requested or undertaken, but was the observation mission itself, the day after the election.
Greg Wilpert: And so when they analyze the result, what did they find exactly, in terms of… I know that there are a number of different issues that they raised, for example, that servers hadn’t been used properly or that the… Aside from that vote tallying, the tally sheets had been altered. Talk a little bit more about that.
Jake Johnson: Yeah, exactly. So as this crisis went on and the audit started to take place, there was originally a preliminary audit released November 10th. As you mentioned, this was the day of the coup. The day that Evo was forced to resign. That had some information but we really didn’t get the full picture until December when the final audit came out. And now that repeated these claims around the change in the trend of the vote, but also encompassed additional aspects of the vote counting process. So as you mentioned, the presence of computer servers that were not in the originally planned schematics of the day. Things like the chain of custody over electoral materials as they were being transported from departments and rural areas back to where they were being counted, and various issues in terms of the actual thing.
And the OAS audit was really sort of categorical that there was these issues across the board in all of these different areas. And I think what’s really important is when you’re analyzing an election you have to differentiate between irregularities and fraud, right? Any election, when you look close enough, you’re going to find examples of irregularities, right? So procedural problems not followed perfectly well, maybe because of lack of training, et cetera. But the real question, and the question that the audit was attempting to answer was, did these issues actually rise to the level of impacting the results of the election, and were they actually an intentional effort to do so?
Greg Wilpert: Now let’s turn to the flaws in the OAS audit itself. What did you find, and why does it fail to prove that fraud actually took place in the October 20th election?
Jake Johnson: Yeah, exactly. So I think here’s where it’s really important to differentiate between these initial claims right after the election and then this entire picture that we’ve got with the audit in the end, right? And so I think, for us, it was very clear. The OAS put this press release out on October 21st saying there was an inexplicable change in the trend of the vote.
Looking at the publicly available data, and the electoral authority did make data available in three minute updates throughout this period, so you could see how the vote was progressing as it was going. And when we looked at that, it was quite clear that the votes that were remaining to be counted when the preliminary result system was stopped with 84% of the vote counted, those outstanding votes came from areas that had already expressed a clear preference for Morales. And so it was not surprising in the least that as those remaining votes were counted, the margin between the two candidates increased. And now this was just abundantly clear in the publicly available data, and really just shows that the assertion from the OAS really from the day after the election, was clearly false.
Greg Wilpert: And so you mentioned also that there was an issue with proof… That there’s no direct connection necessarily between the kind of irregularities or mistakes that were made, and the fraud. Give us some examples of how they’re jumping, basically, from these irregularities to the claim of fraud.
Jake Johnson: Yeah, exactly. So I mean, I think here there’s been a lot of focus on the computer systems involved with this preliminary results system. The trap, as it’s referred to. And so the question then is, “Okay, if they didn’t follow the security procedures as designed, A, why not? But B, did that actually impact the results?”
Now, if you say that there was a drastic trend change, one might think that that means that the computer problems did impact the results. But in fact, the OAS never presented any information or any evidence whatsoever that there was any change to the actual results due to these procedural problems. I think that’s a really key point.
I mean, the OAS, as a neutral multilateral organization made up of the hemispheric countries themselves, really has to have an unimpeachable credibility here, right? They have to be operating in extremely neutral and unbiased manner. And I think what’s quite clear is that that was just not the case at all, with very damaging implications for Bolivian democracy, and I think moving forward for democracy across the hemisphere, if the OAS does not have the credibility to operate as a neutral election observer in other countries as well.
Greg Wilpert: Now has there been a reaction from the OAS itself to your analysis, or to the MIT analysis which looked more at the statistical issues, and have they at all responded to these criticisms of their reports or their audits?
Jake Johnson: Yeah, so the OAS for months now has been extremely resistant to any sort of debate or discussion around these issues. In fact, the Mexican government, their representative to the Organization of American States, in fact, invited myself and the Center for Economic and Policy Research to present at the OAS Permanent Council in December when the OAS presented their own findings. The Permanent Council prevented that from happening, despite procedurally Mexico being allowed to grant their time to us.
Journalists, members of Congress, people who’ve continued to ask questions of the OAS, have failed to receive a response. More recently, they did issue a partial response to the work of Curiel and Williams from the MIT Elections Lab, but interestingly enough they didn’t actually deal with the specifics of their analysis, but rather just repeated some of the analysis from their final audit report itself. And as we were documented in his last report that you mentioned, Observing the Observers, there were significant flaws in that final report.
So one thing that the OAS has said is that the actual trend change was over the last 5% of the vote. That there was this rupture at 95%, and the votes on one side of 95% look very different from the votes on the other side of 95%. And this has been repeated. It was repeated in their response in the Washington Post.
Now when you look at the actual OAS audit itself, while we don’t have their full data series, they did include a data extract in the report. And when you look at that, it actually directly contradicts their claim. In fact, Morales’ margin actually decreases in the last 5% of the vote, as compared to the 5% directly before it. So even based on their own data, right? Even based on their own findings, they’re simply just misrepresenting what exists in their own audit.
Greg Wilpert: Now, what about players in Bolivia itself, such as, well, the electoral authorities or also the government, or other election observers from the UN or Europe? I don’t know if they were participating, but what impact, if any, have these critiques of the OAS report had in Bolivia itself?
Jake Johnson: Well certainly there’s been a strong reaction from the Bolivian government, extremely critical of anyone raising questions around this. And I think that’s because the issue of electoral fraud has been used to justify this non-democratic usurpation of power and the repression and persecution that we’ve seen afterwards.
One reason why I think this is so critically important is today in Bolivia you’ve got dozens of former electoral officials, former government officials, who are being persecuted for the crime of electoral fraud. And the prosecutors have openly said that the basis of this investigation, this case, is the OAS report itself. But that report is deeply, deeply flawed, and that has significant impacts in terms of what we can expect in terms of the judicial process going forward, and the human rights of these people who are being persecuted by this non-democratic government.
Greg Wilpert: Now finally, how does the OAS analysis in Bolivia compare to other election analyses that the OAS has conducted? I’m particularly thinking about the 2010 election in Haiti which you have also looked at. What does it say about the reliability of OAS election observers, more generally?
Jake Johnson: Yeah, it’s a critically important question, right? As I mentioned earlier, this has implications not just in Bolivia, but for the entire hemisphere in terms of having a neutral organization that can actually be called upon to provide an independent opinion on these elections, right?
So when you look at the OAS history, this is not a new thing, this is a repeated pattern. We saw it in 2010 in Haiti when there was a deeply problematic election, and rather than redoing that election where there was almost a quarter of the vote never simply counted because of election day problems, massive problems. This was held right after the earthquake with more than a million people still displaced. And the OAS had a special audit mission that went to Haiti and actually recommended overturning the results of the election, replacing the third place candidate with the second place candidate, and moving to a runoff on this thing, without any statistical inference or analysis that would actually lead that, or without any recount of the votes. And so we’ve seen this sort of political intervention under the guise of election monitoring, time and again from the OAS.
So one more recent example of this sort of activity by the OAS was the 2017 election in Honduras, which on the face of it sort of looked and involved some similar issues as this Bolivia election, in terms of a vote counting system being shut down for a period of time, and when it come back on there being this apparent change in the trend. Now, we looked in-depth at that 2017 election, and one of the big differences with Bolivia was that even within small geographic areas, so a small town where you would not expect to see any differences between voting time of the day or anything like that, there was this big change in the trend. And we saw a very different thing happen in Bolivia, which as I mentioned earlier, was a change that was explainable by just geographic voting patterns, right?
And so in 2017 in Honduras, the OAS did raise issues with this change in trend, but it was not followed through with. The US quickly recognized the results of the election and really nothing happened, and the president resulting from that remains the president recognized by the OAS today. And you can contrast that with what happened in Bolivia, but I think the key difference here is, when we were looking at this again, we saw that it was an entirely different dynamic in terms of this change in the trend.
In fact, I directly pointed this out to somebody inside the OAS on October 22nd, just a day after their press release, saying, “Hey, this is not the same situation as Honduras 2017.” And their response to me was quite telling. It was simple. It said, “We know.” And to us, that was quite clear. They knew that this wasn’t a problem. They knew that there wasn’t an inexplicable change in the trend, and yet they repeated it anyway. And it’s been the repetition of that falsehood for months and months and months, and then the justification of it through this grossly misleading final audit, that really just shows how deeply compromised the OAS has been in the situation in Bolivia most recently.
Greg Wilpert: Well, we’re going to leave it there for now, but of course we’re going see what else is going to come out of this analysis. Hopefully it’s going to lead to some real implications and changes in the way the OAS conducts its election observers.
I was speaking to Jake Johnson, senior research associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and co-author of the study, Observing the Observers: The OAS in the 2019 Bolivian Elections. Thanks again, Jake, for having joined us today.
Jake Johnson: Thanks for having me. Always a pleasure.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.
Studio: Will Arenas, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Production: Genevieve Montinar
Post-Production: Oscar León
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-21--The Real News in the Time of Covid-19

The Real News in the Time of Covid-19

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Close window X
We encourage republication of our original content. Please copy the HTML code in the textbox below, preserving the attribution and link to the article's original location, and only make minor cosmetic edits to the content on your site.


therealnews--2020-03-21--Senators Choose Stock Portfolio Over Public Health


therealnews--2020-03-21--Climate Crisis: COVID-19 Hits Mass Transit, Aviation, Fossil Fuel Industry

Welcome back to TRNN ’ s Climate Crisis News Roundup .
There ’ s probably no need to say it , but this week was no ordinary one .
The coronavirus pandemic has already made day-to-day life far different than it was just a week ago .
In the coming weeks , this column will increasingly focus on the intersection between COVID-19 and the climate crisis .
If you have a story you think deserves to show up here , get in touch with me at [ email protected ] You can read last week ’ s edition here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee on the Climate Crisis—originally set for release in late March as mandated in the legislation creating the committee—is being held for release indefinitely due to the coronavirus pandemic .
Formed in response to the climate justice movement ’ s demand for a Select Committee on a Green New Deal , the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis has met regularly since last year to discuss climate impacts and potential policies .
The Select Committee had come under criticism for not putting a Green New Deal on the table and many doubted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the report .
Still , climate advocates expected the report ’ s release to show where mainstream congressional Democrats stood on the climate crisis going into the 2020 election cycle .
Has the climate movement made a dent in the debate ?
It may be a while until we find out the answer to that question .
“ For the past year , our Select Committee has been working on a congressional action plan to solve the climate crisis .
We ’ ve met with more than 1,000 stakeholders , reviewed more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for information , and were planning to release our comprehensive climate policy recommendations at the end of March , ” said Select Committee Chairwoman U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor ( D-FL ) in a press release .
“ However , as Congress focuses on the important mission of protecting Americans from the threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic , we have decided today to postpone the release of our climate action plan.
” The U.S. Department of State has issued a level four warning against air travel abroad , a category usually reserved for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially a ban , and a similar paradigm could be in place for domestic travel soon , CNN has reported .
CNN ’ s story goes on to say that domestic air travel has ground to a “ virtual shutdown ” already as the country moves into an era of “ social distancing.
” This has led to panic in the aviation industry , which seeks a $ 58 billion bailout from the federal government to compensate for its almost certain upcoming financial loss .
The amount is three times what the industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for America is leading the lobbying charge for the bailout , whose member companies include American Airlines , United , Delta , UPS , FedEx and others .
Airports are also seeking a $ 10 billion bailout from the federal government .
“ As far as the airlines are concerned , the airlines , we ’ re going to back the airlines 100 percent , ” Trump said of a potential bailout on March 16 .
“ It ’ s not their fault .
We ’ ve told the airlines we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to be helping them very much .
It ’ s very important.
” So , what makes this a climate story ?
The aviation sector is one of the top emitters of greenhouse gases , currently 2.5 % of the global portfolio .
Its emissions are expected to grow 700 % by the year 2050 .
If the aviation sector were a country , it would be one of the top ten greenhouse gas emitters .
Reuters reports that the aviation industry uses about 8 million barrels of jet fuel a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 20 % , and manufacturers are looking for storage for the excess fuel .
One current less-than-ideal solution for BP and Shell is to hold the surplus on offshore tankers for up to 120 days , but its relatively short shelf life means the industry might soon be rushing to store billions of barrels of rapidly degrading jet fuel .
Eight Democratic senators , including Sens .
Sheldon Whitehouse ( D-RI ) , Ed Markey ( D-MA ) , and Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) , wrote in a March 18 letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal dollars unless it ’ s contingent on a commitment to cut down on emissions .
“ Given the poor environmental records of some of the companies … we believe that any such financial assistance should be paired with requirements that companies act in a more responsible fashion , ” they wrote .
“ Requiring reduction in carbon emissions would represent a major step in curbing our nation ’ s greenhouse gas emissions.
” Yet Whitehouse has said on Twitter that one tool the industry should use to cut down on those emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be a condition for any such bailouts , ” he tweeted .
“ Airlines that want public support should live public values.
” Climate justice groups have called offsets , which allow a business-as-usual level of emissions to continue as long as they are ‘ offset ’ through other levers , a false solution .
And they wrote in a letter that any aviation sector deal that includes such offsets would be unacceptable .
“ Congress must cap total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. airline fleets at 2020 levels , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 % per decade thereafter , ” reads the letter , now signed by over 200 groups .
“ These emission reduction targets must be absolute , and not employ dubious accounting mechanisms such as offsets.
” The 2020 level is key .
A new report by the Airports Council International North America concludes that due to the coronavirus , “ passenger traffic is forecast to drop by 49 percent , or 222 million enplanements in the first half of 2020 , ” The Washington Post reported .
This means reduced emissions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much more difficult emissions target to hit , and the industry will almost assuredly fight it .
Despite President Trump ’ s initial words of support , it appears the government will only provide airlines $ 50 billion as loans , not grants .
In response , Aviation for America wrote a letter to the Trump administration and congressional leadership asking for “ grants , unsecured loans and limited tax measures , ” saying “ the survival of our industry depends on it.
” It ’ s not just air transit under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financially suffering in the coronavirus pandemic .
In the United States , transit usage was down 60 % on March 19 compared to 2019 , and down 40 % in Baltimore , where TRNN is headquartered .
In San Diego , where this writer is from , it ’ s down 69.5 % .
New York City ’ s subway ridership is down 66 % .
The San Francisco Bay Area ’ s is down 86 % , with the city under an enforced stay at home order .
This is all according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lost ridership means lost revenue , so public transit is another industry asking for federal dollars .
The American Public Transportation Association seeks $ 12.88 billion in federal money to recoup its losses .
The advocacy group Transportation for America agrees with this figure .
“ Public transit agencies provide essential mobility to millions of Americans .
For many people , transit service is the only way to access a doctor , pharmacy , job ( including health care jobs ) , or childcare , ” the group wrote in a letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies , and organizations .
“ This is especially true for many low-income people , communities of color , and people with significant cognitive and physical disabilities that rely on door-to-door paratransit service provided by local transit authorities .
It is also true for people who can not afford to own a car , and seniors , youth , and others who can not operate a vehicle.
” Amtrak may get $ 500 million from the federal government , as well .
Their request comes as Transportation for America releases a report calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transportation to beef up the country ’ s mass transit system .
“ We can use the transportation sector as a strategic lever toward a Green New Deal by tackling our highest sources of carbon emissions , putting millions of people to work upgrading and repairing existing infrastructure rather than building new roads , ” Transportation for America wrote in a blog post .
“ Bringing our road and transit systems into a state of good repair over the next 10 years could support or create over 6.6 million jobs across the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report on March 5 titled “ The Congestion Con : How More Lanes and More Money Equals More Traffic.
” The report says expanding the nation ’ s interstate highway system doesn ’ t reduce highway congestion , and leads to even more traffic over time .
Right now that traffic causes 28.9 % of all emissions in the United States , according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data .
As the coronavirus spreads and the United States economy spirals into a recession , climate advocates have said that the only way out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate crisis—will be a Green New Deal .
China , the first country to be hit hard by COVID-19 and suffer economically as a result , appears to be taking the opposite approach , pumping money into building gas pipelines , oil refineries , and other heavy industry .
The country is also considering easing automobile emissions regulations .
The United States might follow China ’ s lead , with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin recommending spending $ 20 billion to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve .
The plan requires congressional approval , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chairwoman Castor , in a March 20 letter addressed to House leadership , wrote that this moment of crisis should not be used to boost the fortunes of the fossil fuel industry , saying “ investing in public transit and electric vehicles would create new jobs and reduce carbon pollution from the transportation sector.
” “ We must strongly oppose misguided or surreptitious attempts to boost polluters at the expense of the public health , ” she wrote .
“ Instead , we should look for solutions that can also move us toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthier , stronger and more just America.
” That ’ s it for this week .
Stay safe out there , and if you can , stay at home .
Thank you for reading and please come back next week for another edition of the Climate Crisis News Roundup .

Welcome back to TRNN’s Climate Crisis News Roundup. There’s probably no need to say it, but this week was no ordinary one. The coronavirus pandemic has already made day-to-day life far different than it was just a week ago. In the coming weeks, this column will increasingly focus on the intersection between COVID-19 and the climate crisis. If you have a story you think deserves to show up here, get in touch with me at steve@therealnews.com. You can read last week’s edition here.
Select Committee Report Delayed
The much-anticipated report by the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis—originally set for release in late March as mandated in the legislation creating the committee—is being held for release indefinitely due to the coronavirus pandemic. Formed in response to the climate justice movement’s demand for a Select Committee on a Green New Deal, the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis has met regularly since last year to discuss climate impacts and potential policies. The Select Committee had come under criticism for not putting a Green New Deal on the table and many doubted the level of ambition that would be found in the report.
Still, climate advocates expected the report’s release to show where mainstream congressional Democrats stood on the climate crisis going into the 2020 election cycle. Has the climate movement made a dent in the debate? It may be a while until we find out the answer to that question.
“For the past year, our Select Committee has been working on a congressional action plan to solve the climate crisis. We’ve met with more than 1,000 stakeholders, reviewed more than 700 detailed responses to our request for information, and were planning to release our comprehensive climate policy recommendations at the end of March,” said Select Committee Chairwoman U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) in a press release. “However, as Congress focuses on the important mission of protecting Americans from the threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, we have decided today to postpone the release of our climate action plan.”
Aviation Bailout, Climate Concerns
The U.S. Department of State has issued a level four warning against air travel abroad, a category usually reserved for travel into war zones. It is essentially a ban, and a similar paradigm could be in place for domestic travel soon, CNN has reported. CNN’s story goes on to say that domestic air travel has ground to a “virtual shutdown” already as the country moves into an era of “social distancing.”
This has led to panic in the aviation industry, which seeks a $58 billion bailout from the federal government to compensate for its almost certain upcoming financial loss. The amount is three times what the industry received after 9/11. The group Aviation for America is leading the lobbying charge for the bailout, whose member companies include American Airlines, United, Delta, UPS, FedEx and others. Airports are also seeking a $10 billion bailout from the federal government.
“As far as the airlines are concerned, the airlines, we’re going to back the airlines 100 percent,” Trump said of a potential bailout on March 16. “It’s not their fault. We’ve told the airlines we’re going to help them. We’re going to be helping them very much. It’s very important.”
So, what makes this a climate story?
The aviation sector is one of the top emitters of greenhouse gases, currently 2.5% of the global portfolio. Its emissions are expected to grow 700% by the year 2050. If the aviation sector were a country, it would be one of the top ten greenhouse gas emitters. Reuters reports that the aviation industry uses about 8 million barrels of jet fuel a day, but that average has dropped about 20%, and manufacturers are looking for storage for the excess fuel. One current less-than-ideal solution for BP and Shell is to hold the surplus on offshore tankers for up to 120 days, but its relatively short shelf life means the industry might soon be rushing to store billions of barrels of rapidly degrading jet fuel.
Eight Democratic senators, including Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ), wrote in a March 18 letter that the industry should not get any federal dollars unless it’s contingent on a commitment to cut down on emissions.
“Given the poor environmental records of some of the companies … we believe that any such financial assistance should be paired with requirements that companies act in a more responsible fashion,” they wrote. “Requiring reduction in carbon emissions would represent a major step in curbing our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.”
Yet Whitehouse has said on Twitter that one tool the industry should use to cut down on those emissions is carbon offsets. “Carbon offsets should be a condition for any such bailouts,” he tweeted. “Airlines that want public support should live public values.”
Climate justice groups have called offsets, which allow a business-as-usual level of emissions to continue as long as they are ‘offset’ through other levers, a false solution. And they wrote in a letter that any aviation sector deal that includes such offsets would be unacceptable.
“Congress must cap total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. airline fleets at 2020 levels, and overall emissions must fall at least 20% per decade thereafter,” reads the letter, now signed by over 200 groups. “These emission reduction targets must be absolute, and not employ dubious accounting mechanisms such as offsets.”
The 2020 level is key. A new report by the Airports Council International North America concludes that due to the coronavirus, “passenger traffic is forecast to drop by 49 percent, or 222 million enplanements in the first half of 2020,” The Washington Post reported. This means reduced emissions. The greatly reduced traffic level will create a much more difficult emissions target to hit, and the industry will almost assuredly fight it.
Despite President Trump’s initial words of support, it appears the government will only provide airlines $50 billion as loans, not grants. In response, Aviation for America wrote a letter to the Trump administration and congressional leadership asking for “grants, unsecured loans and limited tax measures,” saying “the survival of our industry depends on it.”
Public Transit Trouble
It’s not just air transit under financial duress. Mass transit is also financially suffering in the coronavirus pandemic.
In the United States, transit usage was down 60% on March 19 compared to 2019, and down 40% in Baltimore, where TRNN is headquartered. In San Diego, where this writer is from, it’s down 69.5%. New York City’s subway ridership is down 66%. The San Francisco Bay Area’s is down 86%, with the city under an enforced stay at home order. This is all according to data collected by the Transit App.
Lost ridership means lost revenue, so public transit is another industry asking for federal dollars. The American Public Transportation Association seeks $12.88 billion in federal money to recoup its losses. The advocacy group Transportation for America agrees with this figure.
“Public transit agencies provide essential mobility to millions of Americans. For many people, transit service is the only way to access a doctor, pharmacy, job (including health care jobs), or childcare,” the group wrote in a letter co-signed by 220 elected officials, transit agencies, and organizations. “This is especially true for many low-income people, communities of color, and people with significant cognitive and physical disabilities that rely on door-to-door paratransit service provided by local transit authorities. It is also true for people who cannot afford to own a car, and seniors, youth, and others who cannot operate a vehicle.”
Amtrak may get $500 million from the federal government, as well. Their request comes as Transportation for America releases a report calling for a Green New Deal for suburban transportation to beef up the country’s mass transit system.
“We can use the transportation sector as a strategic lever toward a Green New Deal by tackling our highest sources of carbon emissions, putting millions of people to work upgrading and repairing existing infrastructure rather than building new roads,” Transportation for America wrote in a blog post. “Bringing our road and transit systems into a state of good repair over the next 10 years could support or create over 6.6 million jobs across the U.S. economy.”
The group also released a report on March 5 titled “The Congestion Con: How More Lanes and More Money Equals More Traffic.” The report says expanding the nation’s interstate highway system doesn’t reduce highway congestion, and leads to even more traffic over time. Right now that traffic causes 28.9% of all emissions in the United States, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data.
Fossil Fuel Bailouts
As the coronavirus spreads and the United States economy spirals into a recession, climate advocates have said that the only way out of the crisis—and out of the ongoing climate crisis—will be a Green New Deal.
China, the first country to be hit hard by COVID-19 and suffer economically as a result, appears to be taking the opposite approach, pumping money into building gas pipelines, oil refineries, and other heavy industry. The country is also considering easing automobile emissions regulations.
The United States might follow China’s lead, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin recommending spending $20 billion to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The plan requires congressional approval, though.
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis Chairwoman Castor, in a March 20 letter addressed to House leadership, wrote that this moment of crisis should not be used to boost the fortunes of the fossil fuel industry, saying “investing in public transit and electric vehicles would create new jobs and reduce carbon pollution from the transportation sector.”
“We must strongly oppose misguided or surreptitious attempts to boost polluters at the expense of the public health,” she wrote. “Instead, we should look for solutions that can also move us toward a clean energy economy and to a healthier, stronger and more just America.”
That’s it for this week. Stay safe out there, and if you can, stay at home. Thank you for reading and please come back next week for another edition of the Climate Crisis News Roundup.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.