truthout--2020-08-22--Prosecutors Have No Place in Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commissions

As abolitionist organizers on the ground in Boston , Philadelphia and San Francisco , we are appalled and angered by the announcement by three district attorneys ( DAs ) — in partnership with Shaun King ’ s “ Grassroots Law Project ” — to pilot “ Truth , Justice and Reconciliation Commissions ” ( TJRC ) in our cities .
These commissions , according to the announcement , will hold hearings on state violence committed in these cities in the hopes of moving toward community healing .
Yet placing district attorneys — those leading offices that helped to imprison large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the head of these TJRCs ensures that they will fail to produce the change which harmed parties seek .
The racism and violence of law enforcement demands a community-led quest for reparations , not a prosecutor-led quest for reconciliation .
The model of truth and reconciliation is fundamentally opposed to prosecution at its root — it is an entirely different notion of justice .
And we take issue with these DAs modeling their TJRC after South Africa ’ s , where some ( but not all ) people addressed harms done to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tribunal .
While the process aimed to heal apartheid ’ s violence to enable South Africa to move forward , police violence , among other inequities , persists today and is still distributed on the basis of race .
In short , the South African TJRC did not transform the root causes of harm ( and , in many cases , it did not provide the optimal compensation for victims , leading some to form a People ’ s Tribunal ) .
It is not a model that we should even be trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement in control .
As we and our partners have articulated countless times elsewhere , DAs are top cops : Police hand DAs the baton after an arrest so that the DA can continue enacting state violence on the person who was arrested , from charging to sentencing .
The police are the DAs ’ star witnesses in their grand juries and trials ; they are the anchor of their credibility in court .
DAs shield police from scrutiny and they insulate police from consequences .
Further , prosecuting offices sanction racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target Black and Brown people , by appealing cases to make law that expands the power and scope of policing , and by litigating in ways that restrict or undermine the rights of people who are criminalized .
The fundamental role of the prosecuting office is to collaborate with police to take cases from arrest to sentencing , to send people to and keep people in jail and prison , to break up families , to cut off sources of stability , and to erect permanent barriers to health , housing , education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even these self-proclaimed “ progressive prosecutors ” — can not lead a process to reckon with the racism and violence of law enforcement .
Prosecuting the police will not end the violence of policing .
Abolishing the police , the prosecuting office and all other tentacles of the prison-industrial complex are the only things that will .
While the elected DAs in Boston ( Rachael Rollins ) , Philadelphia ( Larry Krasner ) and San Francisco ( Chesa Boudin ) speak publicly about their commitments to fight racism , their office policies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfortunate truth : As prosecutors , their job in the criminal punishment system is to disproportionately punish Black and Brown people , contributing to generational trauma in those communities .
Just like all other DAs , Krasner , Boudin and Rollins disproportionately prosecute Black and Brown people ; they coerce pleas ; they work with police to rob people of their property ; they fight the disclosure of racist policing data ; they disproportionately seek unattainable bail and pretrial detention against Black and Brown people ; they expand the surveillance state ; they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enhance prosecutions and partner with federal prosecutors in gang sweeps that target young Black and Brown men ; they prosecute noncitizens and place them at risk for removal and separation from their families ; they seek to expand their budgets and suck up even more state and nonprofit resources to continue enacting state harm , at the expense of funding what people need to thrive .
Even their adopted reforms reinforce damaging narratives about “ safety ” and may enhance the power of the system while doubling down on its racism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ timing of the call for Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commissions led by prosecutors comes at the very time that increasing numbers of people are calling for the abolition of the prison-industrial complex ( which includes prosecutors ) .
People are taking to the streets demanding the defunding of the police , not a DA-led TJRC .
Holding a TJRC will , ultimately , legitimize the prosecuting office and , by extension , the prison-industrial complex , as the only means for holding people accountable and producing safety .
If these so-called “ progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the people , they would : first , cease the harms they bring to people every day ( by bringing charges , among other things ) ; and second , work toward the dismantling of the police and shrinking their own offices , not improving their own PR .
We are part of a legacy of abolitionist organizers who , for decades , have been working to end all forms of criminalization , incarceration and surveillance , as well as build alternative community-based models for addressing , repairing and transforming harm .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the resources that keep our people and communities safe : housing , health care , jobs with living wages , access to healthy food and water .
We don ’ t need any regular old DAs , and we don ’ t need any progressive DAs .
We don ’ t need any more resources routed through prosecuting or policing offices , or through other carceral , punitive , or coercive state or nonprofit agencies .
We need resources directly distributed to our communities so that our communities can create safety outside the @ @ @ @ @ @

Part of the Series The Road to Abolition
As abolitionist organizers on the ground in Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco, we are appalled and angered by the announcement by three district attorneys (DAs) — in partnership with Shaun King’s “Grassroots Law Project” — to pilot “Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commissions” (TJRC) in our cities. These commissions, according to the announcement, will hold hearings on state violence committed in these cities in the hopes of moving toward community healing. Yet placing district attorneys — those leading offices that helped to imprison large swaths of people in those cities — at the head of these TJRCs ensures that they will fail to produce the change which harmed parties seek.
The racism and violence of law enforcement demands a community-led quest for reparations, not a prosecutor-led quest for reconciliation. The model of truth and reconciliation is fundamentally opposed to prosecution at its root — it is an entirely different notion of justice. And we take issue with these DAs modeling their TJRC after South Africa’s, where some (but not all) people addressed harms done to them under apartheid in front of a tribunal. While the process aimed to heal apartheid’s violence to enable South Africa to move forward, police violence, among other inequities, persists today and is still distributed on the basis of race. In short, the South African TJRC did not transform the root causes of harm (and, in many cases, it did not provide the optimal compensation for victims, leading some to form a People’s Tribunal). It is not a model that we should even be trying to replicate, and certainly not with law enforcement in control.
As we and our partners have articulated countless times elsewhere, DAs are top cops: Police hand DAs the baton after an arrest so that the DA can continue enacting state violence on the person who was arrested, from charging to sentencing. The police are the DAs’ star witnesses in their grand juries and trials; they are the anchor of their credibility in court. DAs shield police from scrutiny and they insulate police from consequences. Further, prosecuting offices sanction racist policing by prosecuting criminal cases that disproportionately target Black and Brown people, by appealing cases to make law that expands the power and scope of policing, and by litigating in ways that restrict or undermine the rights of people who are criminalized. The fundamental role of the prosecuting office is to collaborate with police to take cases from arrest to sentencing, to send people to and keep people in jail and prison, to break up families, to cut off sources of stability, and to erect permanent barriers to health, housing, education and employment.
Prosecutors — yes, even these self-proclaimed “progressive prosecutors” — cannot lead a process to reckon with the racism and violence of law enforcement. Prosecuting the police will not end the violence of policing. Abolishing the police, the prosecuting office and all other tentacles of the prison-industrial complex are the only things that will.
While the elected DAs in Boston (Rachael Rollins), Philadelphia (Larry Krasner) and San Francisco (Chesa Boudin) speak publicly about their commitments to fight racism, their office policies and records of prosecutions and appeals belie an unfortunate truth: As prosecutors, their job in the criminal punishment system is to disproportionately punish Black and Brown people, contributing to generational trauma in those communities. Just like all other DAs, Krasner, Boudin and Rollins disproportionately prosecute Black and Brown people; they coerce pleas; they work with police to rob people of their property; they fight the disclosure of racist policing data; they disproportionately seek unattainable bail and pretrial detention against Black and Brown people; they expand the surveillance state; they use racist gang databases in their cities to enhance prosecutions and partner with federal prosecutors in gang sweeps that target young Black and Brown men; they prosecute noncitizens and place them at risk for removal and separation from their families; they seek to expand their budgets and suck up even more state and nonprofit resources to continue enacting state harm, at the expense of funding what people need to thrive. Even their adopted reforms reinforce damaging narratives about “safety” and may enhance the power of the system while doubling down on its racism.
The racism and violence of law enforcement demands a community-led quest for reparations, not a prosecutor-led quest for reconciliation.
Finally, we must note that the timing of the call for Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commissions led by prosecutors comes at the very time that increasing numbers of people are calling for the abolition of the prison-industrial complex (which includes prosecutors). People are taking to the streets demanding the defunding of the police, not a DA-led TJRC. Holding a TJRC will, ultimately, legitimize the prosecuting office and, by extension, the prison-industrial complex, as the only means for holding people accountable and producing safety. If these so-called “progressive” prosecutors were truly on the side of the people, they would: first, cease the harms they bring to people every day (by bringing charges, among other things); and second, work toward the dismantling of the police and shrinking their own offices, not improving their own PR.
We are part of a legacy of abolitionist organizers who, for decades, have been working to end all forms of criminalization, incarceration and surveillance, as well as build alternative community-based models for addressing, repairing and transforming harm. We have been fighting for investments in the resources that keep our people and communities safe: housing, health care, jobs with living wages, access to healthy food and water. We don’t need any regular old DAs, and we don’t need any progressive DAs. We don’t need any more resources routed through prosecuting or policing offices, or through other carceral, punitive, or coercive state or nonprofit agencies. We need resources directly distributed to our communities so that our communities can create safety outside the same state that targets us.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-08-22--If Trump Had Followed Vietnam’s Lead on COVID, US Would Have Fewer Than 100 Dead

As the coronavirus pandemic rages on , exposing to the fullest the glaring weakness of our inequitable health system , and as the unemployment situation goes largely unaddressed , it ’ s becoming more than obvious that the U.S. is in dire need of fixing .
An advanced social welfare state , with a full employment agenda , is the way out , argues world-renowned progressive economist Robert Pollin in this exclusive interview with Truthout .
Pollin is distinguished professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst , and co-author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the forthcoming book The Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal : The Political Economy of Saving the Planet .
C.J .
Polychroniou : Bob , the coronavirus crisis is wreaking havoc on the economy , but it has also revealed how poorly equipped the United States is in dealing with major economic crises .
In fact , as economist Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out , “ We built an economy with no shock absorbers.
” With that in mind , and with millions of Americans unemployed and even struggling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us a straightforward assessment of the Trump administration ’ s economic response to the coronavirus crisis ?
Robert Pollin : The short answer is unequivocal : The Trump administration ’ s response has been nothing short of disastrous .
Let ’ s begin with figures on lives that have been needlessly lost in the U.S. due to Trump ’ s toxic combination of indifference , hostility to science , and racism .
As of August 17 , we are approaching 170,000 deaths from COVID in the U.S. , more than triple the total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have no evidence that the death rate will be declining significantly anytime soon .
This level of U.S. deaths from COVID amounts to 514 per 1 million people .
By comparison , Canada ’ s death rate is less than half that of the U.S. , at around 239 deaths per million , even while Canada itself is also a relatively poor performer .
Germany ’ s death rate , at 110 per million , is 80 percent lower than the U.S. , but Germany is still only a middling performer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death rates are 15 per million in Australia , 9 per million in Japan , 6 per million in South Korea and 3 per million in China , even though the virus first emerged in China .
If the U.S. had managed the COVID pandemic at the level of , say , Australia , fewer than 5,000 people would have died as of today as opposed to nearly 170,000 .
Vietnam is the most extraordinary case .
It has experienced a total of 22 deaths in a country of 95 million people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.25 per million .
This is for a country in which the average per capita income is about 3 percent of that in the U.S .
It is also a country , of course , that U.S. imperialists tried to destroy a generation ago .
If the U.S. had handled COVID at Vietnam ’ s level of competence over the past eight months , then fewer than 100 U.S. residents in total would be dead today from the pandemic .
In terms of managing the pandemic-induced economic collapse , the massive $ 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) stimulus program that Congress passed and Trump signed in March , the CARES Act , did provide substantial support for unemployed workers .
Fifty-six million people — 35 percent of the entire U.S. labor force — filed unemployment claims between March and August .
For the most part , they all received $ 600 per week in supplemental support , which more than doubled what most would have received otherwise .
The CARES Act did also deliver huge bailouts for big corporations and Wall Street .
Adding everything up , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the CARES Act was not close to meeting the magnitude of the oncoming crisis .
Among other features , it provided only minimal support for hospitals on the front lines fighting the pandemic , and even less support for state and local governments .
The Upjohn Institute economist Timothy Bartik estimates that state and local governments are staring at upward of $ 1 trillion in budget shortfalls through the end of 2021 , equal to between 20-25 percent of their entire budgets .
If these budget gaps are not filled in short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mass layoffs of nurses , teachers , school custodians and firefighters .
Of course , these budget cuts will only spread and deepen the ongoing economic crisis .
The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives did pass a second , and even larger , $ 3 trillion stimulus measure , the HEROES Act , back in May .
It included $ 1 trillion in support for state and local governments .
But Trump and the Senate Republican majority have blocked action on this for the past three months .
Meanwhile , 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 600 per week in supplemental benefits and state and local governments are teetering on collapse .
Trump appears to want to make unemployed workers and public sector programs starve , perhaps so he can appear to swoop in and bail them out right before November ’ s election .
Trump has held out a “ compromise ” proposal with Democrats .
This would feature a payroll tax cut that would permanently decimate Social Security and Medicare .
Trump also wants any new stimulus program to also incorporate his current top priority , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Service in time to prevent people from voting against him through mail balloting .
The U.S. and Europe have addressed coronavirus-induced unemployment in fundamentally different ways , with the European approach seeking to maintain a stable work environment through subsidies to companies and by effectively nationalizing payrolls , while the U.S. approach seeks to foster a flexible labor market , and in fact , encourage workers , as Ivanka Trump put it , to “ find something new ” because old jobs are not coming back .
The end result is that while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to the coronavirus pandemic , many European countries have seen an increase of less than 1 percentage point in the jobless rate .
Isn ’ t this strong enough reason why the U.S. needs a European-style social-welfare state ?
Back in April , Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal of Washington , a leader of the House Progressive Caucus , introduced the Paycheck Guarantee Act .
Under this proposal , the federal government would provide grants to all private- and public-sector employers of all sizes to enable them to maintain their operations and keep all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the falloff in revenues these entities will have experienced resulting from the pandemic and lockdown .
Through this program , there would not have been significant increases in unemployment .
Workers would also not have lost their employer-based health care coverage .
This plan was similar in design and scope to policies that were in place in several European economies , including Germany , the U.K. , Denmark and France .
Four months later , the results of the failure of the U.S. to pass the Jayapal proposal are before us .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past June and July , U.S. unemployment was at 10.2 percent , while the rates for countries that had Jayapal-type programs in place included the U.K. at 3.9 percent , Germany at 4.2 percent , Denmark at 5.8 percent and France with the highest rate , at 7.7 percent .
The average for the full European Union was 6.2 percent .
For the U.S. economy , the difference between having an unemployment rate of 10.2 percent versus 6.2 percent translates into 6.4 million people without work — i.e .
more people than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combined .
In addition , a minimum of 15 million people — including unemployed workers and their family members — lost their employer-sponsored health insurance as U.S. unemployment rose .
So yes , certainly , on average , Europe has handled the unemployment crisis much better than the U.S .
But this is not the time to be making sweeping endorsements of recent policies [ and ] actions in Europe .
In terms of managing the COVID crisis , the U.K. , France , Italy , Spain and even Sweden have death rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is 15.6 percent in Spain under a Socialist government , and is at 9.2 percent in Sweden under the Social Democrats .
In fact , European policymakers have been undermining their welfare state policies for 40 years now , since the ascendance of neoliberalism , beginning with the election of Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. in 1979 .
It is a valuable exercise for us to envision what the late , great economist Robert Heilbroner used to call “ slightly imaginary Sweden.
” But in doing so , we need to recognize that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a weak resemblance to the robust welfare state that operated 40 years ago .
According to many health experts , coronavirus may never go away even when vaccines arrive , and the coronavirus recession may indeed become a long depression .
In such a case , how can we best combat cyclical unemployment and ensure that there is no precipitous decline in the standard of living for working-class and middle-class Americans ?
I am certainly no expert for assessing how long it is likely to take to bring COVID-19 under control in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could remain as a public health threat indefinitely .
But in the event that we are faced with a virus that we can not adequately control , even through universal vaccinations , then I would say it is time to start learning from Australia , Japan , South Korea , China , and — in a great historic irony — maybe especially Vietnam about how to create a public health system that minimizes the spread of the illness .
Step one would be to establish Medicare for All , so that every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , without having to fear financial ruin should they get sick with COVID or anything else .
Creating something resembling a minimally effective public health system through Medicare for All would , in turn , enable us in the U.S. to advance a sustainable recovery on the foundation of a Green New Deal .
Over the longer-term horizon , the Green New Deal can equally serve as the foundation for building a full employment economy .
As a technical matter , it is not hard to figure out a policy framework that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European countries , after all , ran near-full employment economies from roughly the end of World War II to the mid-1970s .
Indeed , the main accomplishment of neoliberalism in Europe , starting with Margaret Thatcher , was to break the back of this then-dominant full employment policy framework .
To sustain full employment over the long-term , we first and foremost need government policies committed to maintaining levels of public investment that will be sufficient to create an abundance of decent jobs at all levels of society .
It is also obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we desperately need large-scale public investments for at least a generation to build a green economy .
As such , the full employment policy framework merges fully with the matter of saving the planet .
Should the Biden-Harris ticket win in November , do you expect that we will see fundamental changes in government response to the quadruple crises of health , climate change , racial injustice and a ravaged economy ?
It is no secret that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are both corporate- and Wall Street-friendly Democrats .
If we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental changes in U.S. government policies , it is going to be an awfully long wait .
But it is also clear that the Democratic Party can be pushed to the left — or , to put it more accurately — the Democrats can be pushed to support , among other things , a public health system that can save lives and deliver quality health care at much lower costs than we now pay , and a Green New Deal program that can prevent a climate catastrophe while also serving as the foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out racism and sexism will also have to be central to any such agenda .
Making progress in fighting racism and sexism will , in turn , also be greatly strengthened within a broad agenda advancing equality and ecological policy .
We know that the Democrats can be pushed in this direction by comparing the official platform they are enacting this week relative to what they passed in 2016 .
The current platform is far more progressive than the 2016 version under Hillary Clinton .
It ’ s true that such platforms are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become ratified at the party ’ s conventions , if not sooner .
But that brings us to the real question , which is : Who is capable of effectively pushing the Democratic Party to embrace the truly progressive features of the party platform ?
It will have to be the range of organizations and people that have been committed to such projects for a long time — including grassroots groups , such as the Labor Network for Sustainability , Jobs with Justice , and many more , as well as progressive groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the House Progressive Caucus .
If we are going to succeed in building a transformative political project emerging out of our current historic moment of multiple and severe crises , grassroots and progressive groups are the ones who will make it happen — certainly not Joe Biden or Kamala Harris .
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity .

As the coronavirus pandemic rages on, exposing to the fullest the glaring weakness of our inequitable health system, and as the unemployment situation goes largely unaddressed, it’s becoming more than obvious that the U.S. is in dire need of fixing. An advanced social welfare state, with a full employment agenda, is the way out, argues world-renowned progressive economist Robert Pollin in this exclusive interview with Truthout. Pollin is distinguished professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and co-author (with Noam Chomsky and me) of the forthcoming book The Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet.
C.J. Polychroniou: Bob, the coronavirus crisis is wreaking havoc on the economy, but it has also revealed how poorly equipped the United States is in dealing with major economic crises. In fact, as economist Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, “We built an economy with no shock absorbers.” With that in mind, and with millions of Americans unemployed and even struggling to meet basic needs, can you offer us a straightforward assessment of the Trump administration’s economic response to the coronavirus crisis?
Robert Pollin: The short answer is unequivocal: The Trump administration’s response has been nothing short of disastrous. Let’s begin with figures on lives that have been needlessly lost in the U.S. due to Trump’s toxic combination of indifference, hostility to science, and racism. As of August 17, we are approaching 170,000 deaths from COVID in the U.S., more than triple the total U.S. death toll from fighting in Vietnam. We have no evidence that the death rate will be declining significantly anytime soon. This level of U.S. deaths from COVID amounts to 514 per 1 million people. By comparison, Canada’s death rate is less than half that of the U.S., at around 239 deaths per million, even while Canada itself is also a relatively poor performer. Germany’s death rate, at 110 per million, is 80 percent lower than the U.S., but Germany is still only a middling performer. Among the strong performers, the death rates are 15 per million in Australia, 9 per million in Japan, 6 per million in South Korea and 3 per million in China, even though the virus first emerged in China. If the U.S. had managed the COVID pandemic at the level of, say, Australia, fewer than 5,000 people would have died as of today as opposed to nearly 170,000.
Vietnam is the most extraordinary case. It has experienced a total of 22 deaths in a country of 95 million people, which amounts to a death rate of 0.25 per million. This is for a country in which the average per capita income is about 3 percent of that in the U.S. It is also a country, of course, that U.S. imperialists tried to destroy a generation ago. If the U.S. had handled COVID at Vietnam’s level of competence over the past eight months, then fewer than 100 U.S. residents in total would be dead today from the pandemic.
In terms of managing the pandemic-induced economic collapse, the massive $2 trillion (10 percent of U.S. GDP) stimulus program that Congress passed and Trump signed in March, the CARES Act, did provide substantial support for unemployed workers. Fifty-six million people — 35 percent of the entire U.S. labor force — filed unemployment claims between March and August. For the most part, they all received $600 per week in supplemental support, which more than doubled what most would have received otherwise.
The CARES Act did also deliver huge bailouts for big corporations and Wall Street. Adding everything up, it was clear even at the time of passage that the CARES Act was not close to meeting the magnitude of the oncoming crisis. Among other features, it provided only minimal support for hospitals on the front lines fighting the pandemic, and even less support for state and local governments. The Upjohn Institute economist Timothy Bartik estimates that state and local governments are staring at upward of $1 trillion in budget shortfalls through the end of 2021, equal to between 20-25 percent of their entire budgets. If these budget gaps are not filled in short order, we will begin to see mass layoffs of nurses, teachers, school custodians and firefighters. Of course, these budget cuts will only spread and deepen the ongoing economic crisis.
If the U.S. had handled COVID at Vietnam’s level of competence over the past eight months, then fewer than 100 U.S. residents in total would be dead today from the pandemic.
The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives did pass a second, and even larger, $3 trillion stimulus measure, the HEROES Act, back in May. It included $1 trillion in support for state and local governments. But Trump and the Senate Republican majority have blocked action on this for the past three months. Meanwhile, 16 million workers have now lost their $600 per week in supplemental benefits and state and local governments are teetering on collapse. Trump appears to want to make unemployed workers and public sector programs starve, perhaps so he can appear to swoop in and bail them out right before November’s election. Trump has held out a “compromise” proposal with Democrats. This would feature a payroll tax cut that would permanently decimate Social Security and Medicare. Trump also wants any new stimulus program to also incorporate his current top priority, which is to destroy the U.S. Postal Service in time to prevent people from voting against him through mail balloting.
The U.S. and Europe have addressed coronavirus-induced unemployment in fundamentally different ways, with the European approach seeking to maintain a stable work environment through subsidies to companies and by effectively nationalizing payrolls, while the U.S. approach seeks to foster a flexible labor market, and in fact, encourage workers, as Ivanka Trump put it, to “find something new” because old jobs are not coming back. The end result is that while unemployment levels have skyrocketed in the U.S. due to the coronavirus pandemic, many European countries have seen an increase of less than 1 percentage point in the jobless rate. Isn’t this strong enough reason why the U.S. needs a European-style social-welfare state?
Back in April, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal of Washington, a leader of the House Progressive Caucus, introduced the Paycheck Guarantee Act. Under this proposal, the federal government would provide grants to all private- and public-sector employers of all sizes to enable them to maintain their operations and keep all of their workers on payroll, despite the falloff in revenues these entities will have experienced resulting from the pandemic and lockdown. Through this program, there would not have been significant increases in unemployment. Workers would also not have lost their employer-based health care coverage. This plan was similar in design and scope to policies that were in place in several European economies, including Germany, the U.K., Denmark and France.
Four months later, the results of the failure of the U.S. to pass the Jayapal proposal are before us. As of the most recent figures of this past June and July, U.S. unemployment was at 10.2 percent, while the rates for countries that had Jayapal-type programs in place included the U.K. at 3.9 percent, Germany at 4.2 percent, Denmark at 5.8 percent and France with the highest rate, at 7.7 percent. The average for the full European Union was 6.2 percent. For the U.S. economy, the difference between having an unemployment rate of 10.2 percent versus 6.2 percent translates into 6.4 million people without work — i.e. more people than the entire populations of Los Angeles and Chicago combined. In addition, a minimum of 15 million people — including unemployed workers and their family members — lost their employer-sponsored health insurance as U.S. unemployment rose.
35 percent of the entire U.S. labor force filed unemployment claims between March and August.
So yes, certainly, on average, Europe has handled the unemployment crisis much better than the U.S. But this is not the time to be making sweeping endorsements of recent policies [and] actions in Europe. In terms of managing the COVID crisis, the U.K., France, Italy, Spain and even Sweden have death rates comparable to that in the U.S. Unemployment is 15.6 percent in Spain under a Socialist government, and is at 9.2 percent in Sweden under the Social Democrats.
In fact, European policymakers have been undermining their welfare state policies for 40 years now, since the ascendance of neoliberalism, beginning with the election of Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. in 1979. It is a valuable exercise for us to envision what the late, great economist Robert Heilbroner used to call “slightly imaginary Sweden.” But in doing so, we need to recognize that egalitarian policies in Sweden today bear only a weak resemblance to the robust welfare state that operated 40 years ago.
According to many health experts, coronavirus may never go away even when vaccines arrive, and the coronavirus recession may indeed become a long depression. In such a case, how can we best combat cyclical unemployment and ensure that there is no precipitous decline in the standard of living for working-class and middle-class Americans?
I am certainly no expert for assessing how long it is likely to take to bring COVID-19 under control in the U.S., or assessing the likelihood that it could remain as a public health threat indefinitely. But in the event that we are faced with a virus that we cannot adequately control, even through universal vaccinations, then I would say it is time to start learning from Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, and — in a great historic irony — maybe especially Vietnam about how to create a public health system that minimizes the spread of the illness. Step one would be to establish Medicare for All, so that every U.S. resident has access to good-quality health care, without having to fear financial ruin should they get sick with COVID or anything else. Creating something resembling a minimally effective public health system through Medicare for All would, in turn, enable us in the U.S. to advance a sustainable recovery on the foundation of a Green New Deal.
It is time to start learning from Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, and maybe especially Vietnam about how to create a public health system that minimizes the spread of the illness.
Over the longer-term horizon, the Green New Deal can equally serve as the foundation for building a full employment economy. As a technical matter, it is not hard to figure out a policy framework that can deliver full employment. The Western European countries, after all, ran near-full employment economies from roughly the end of World War II to the mid-1970s. Indeed, the main accomplishment of neoliberalism in Europe, starting with Margaret Thatcher, was to break the back of this then-dominant full employment policy framework. To sustain full employment over the long-term, we first and foremost need government policies committed to maintaining levels of public investment that will be sufficient to create an abundance of decent jobs at all levels of society. It is also obvious that, at this historical juncture, we desperately need large-scale public investments for at least a generation to build a green economy. As such, the full employment policy framework merges fully with the matter of saving the planet.
Should the Biden-Harris ticket win in November, do you expect that we will see fundamental changes in government response to the quadruple crises of health, climate change, racial injustice and a ravaged economy?
It is no secret that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are both corporate- and Wall Street-friendly Democrats. If we are going to wait for them to enact fundamental changes in U.S. government policies, it is going to be an awfully long wait. But it is also clear that the Democratic Party can be pushed to the left — or, to put it more accurately — the Democrats can be pushed to support, among other things, a public health system that can save lives and deliver quality health care at much lower costs than we now pay, and a Green New Deal program that can prevent a climate catastrophe while also serving as the foundation of a full employment economy. Stamping out racism and sexism will also have to be central to any such agenda. Making progress in fighting racism and sexism will, in turn, also be greatly strengthened within a broad agenda advancing equality and ecological policy.
We know that the Democrats can be pushed in this direction by comparing the official platform they are enacting this week relative to what they passed in 2016. The current platform is far more progressive than the 2016 version under Hillary Clinton. It’s true that such platforms are almost entirely ignored the day after they become ratified at the party’s conventions, if not sooner. But that brings us to the real question, which is: Who is capable of effectively pushing the Democratic Party to embrace the truly progressive features of the party platform? It will have to be the range of organizations and people that have been committed to such projects for a long time — including grassroots groups, such as the Labor Network for Sustainability, Jobs with Justice, Maine’s People’s Alliance and many more, as well as progressive groups, such as Progressive Democrats of America, Our Revolution and the House Progressive Caucus. If we are going to succeed in building a transformative political project emerging out of our current historic moment of multiple and severe crises, grassroots and progressive groups are the ones who will make it happen — certainly not Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-08-23--Bannon Indictment Shines Light on Commonly Abused Campaign Finance Loophole

Federal prosecutors charged former White House strategist Steve Bannon and three others with fraud Thursday for allegedly siphoning money from an online fundraising effort meant to build a wall on the southern border for President Donald Trump .
The indictment alleges Bannon , Brian Kolfage , Andrew Badolato and Timothy Shea routed crowdfunded money for the “ We Build The Wall ” campaign to their personal accounts using a number of nonprofits and shell companies .
The group raised $ 25 million on GoFundMe , but never disclosed how it was spending its money .
Kolfage later launched an identically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) tax-exempt nonprofit called “ We Build the Wall ” with a similar stated aim to fund a southern border wall and an ambitious $ 5 billion goal .
Kolfage wrote on the GoFundMe page that money would be redirected to the nonprofit and said its administrators would “ not take a penny in salary or compensation.
” However , prosecutors say Kolfage pocketed over $ 350,000 through a network of opaque shell companies and nonprofits meant to keep the payments confidential .
Prosecutors claim Bannon steered $ 1 million from WeBuildTheWall to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money was then used to pay Bannon ’ s personal expenses , prosecutors said .
According to investigations from Buzzfeed News and NBC News , Kolfage has used GoFundMe to scam donors in the past , allegedly taking money meant to go to a veteran mentorship program for himself .
Several well known Republicans with ties to Trump serve on the group ’ s advisory board , according to its website .
They include Blackwater founder Erik Prince , an informal advisor to Trump ’ s campaign and the brother of Education Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Clarke ; and former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach .
Kobach reportedly used the We Build The Wall email list to raise money for his Senate campaign .
He lost his Republican primary bid in July , despite national Democrats ’ apparent efforts to elevate his campaign using “ pop-up ” super PACs .
Because We Build The Wall is organized as a 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) nonprofit rather than a political committee , it is not legally required to disclose its donors or file regular campaign finance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules governing such nonprofits , We Build the Wall would not be required to divulge details of its spending until after the 2020 presidential election due to its December 2018 incorporation date .
Even then , the group would only be required to disclose limited details of transactions with closely-tied entities or operatives and payments to its top contractors .
Routing spending through shell companies and other nonprofits would further obscure what little financial information the group is required to disclose .
Incorporation records list WeBuildTheWall ’ s agent as Cogency Global , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political groups reported in FEC filings .
The firm has a history of ties to other ‘ dark money ’ operations ranging from the limited-liability company behind a mystery $ 1 million donation to Trump ’ s inauguration .
Cogency Global was recently listed as the agent on record for Kanye West ’ s presidential campaign and a dark money group launched by allies of Sen. Tom Cotton ( R-Ark. )
.
WeBuildTheWall spent nearly $ 1 million on digital ads with around $ 600,000 targeted through Google ads while the rest was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ page and a page affiliated with Kolfage .
The “ Brian Kolfage ” Facebook page is listed as a nonprofit organization and primarily redirects users to WeBuildTheWall ’ s website .
But its ads all include a disclaimer they are paid for by “ Brian Kolfage Fans ” or “ Supporters Of Brian Kolfage For America.
” Online political advertising is another area of federal campaign finance disclosure brimming with loopholes leaving it largely unregulated by the FEC but technology companies and watchdogs have filled some of those gaps .
The nonprofit Bannon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not named in the indictment but notes it is controlled by Bannon and has a stated mission of “ promoting economic nationalism and american sovereignty.
” A nonprofit Bannon founded in 2017 to “ advance the ideals of Economic Nationalism and American Sovereignty , ” Citizens of the American Republic , is listed in the indictment among entities federal prosecutors are forcing to forfeit funds .
Citizens of the American Republic reported taking in less than $ 200,000 to the IRS during its initial fiscal year but its most recent tax return obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 4.4 million in 2018 .
Since then , Citizens of the American Republic ’ s Facebook page has spent nearly $ 20,000 on digital ads , including ads promoting We Build The Wall and its event featuring Donald Trump , Jr. , while $ 600 in Google ads were removed from the platform for violating its advertising policies .
Unlike We Build The Wall ’ s crowdfunding effort and nonprofit operation , political campaigns and groups registered with the FEC are required to promptly disclose their spending .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shell companies to conceal where exactly its money is going .
Last month , the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging the Trump campaign concealed $ 170 million in spending by routing the money through two firms that then funneled the money to undisclosed vendors .
The complaint alleged the pass-through companies hid payments to Trump ’ s family members , among others .
The group ’ s president and former Republican FEC commissioner Trevor Potter said the tactic “ flies in the face of transparency requirements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves voters and donors in the dark about where the campaign ’ s funds are actually going.
” The Trump campaign funneled massive sums of money to firms owned by former campaign manager Brad Parscale , who Trump demoted last month .
Trump reportedly questioned whether Parscale was “ getting rich ” off of the campaign after watching an ad from the anti-Trump Lincoln Project super PAC .
The Lincoln Project also pays sub-vendors through layers of shell companies that hide the specifics of its spending , leaving a number of undisclosed vendors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PAC .
The Campaign Legal Center filed another complaint against Democratic congressional candidate Antone Melton-Meaux for deploying similar tactics in his House race challenging Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) by using shell companies to disguise the ultimate recipients of campaign money in order to pay a firm on the Democratic Party ’ s “ blacklist.
” Political groups and campaigns leveraging this loophole can hide details about who may be profiting from their operations , which leaves information on how money flows kept behind closed doors .
Federal campaign finance law imposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an opaque firm or shell company that steers money to the vendors actually doing the work .
That tactic leaves the American public in the dark about how much operatives may be profiting from a group ’ s fundraising .
The FEC , the agency dedicated to enforcing campaign finance laws , currently does not have enough members to hold meetings or take action on complaints .
Trump nominated a fourth member to restore the commission ’ s quorum but the confirmation has not been taken up by the Senate .

Existing laws allow political groups and campaigns to hide details about who may be profiting from their operations.
Federal prosecutors charged former White House strategist Steve Bannon and three others with fraud Thursday for allegedly siphoning money from an online fundraising effort meant to build a wall on the southern border for President Donald Trump.
The indictment alleges Bannon, Brian Kolfage, Andrew Badolato and Timothy Shea routed crowdfunded money for the “We Build The Wall” campaign to their personal accounts using a number of nonprofits and shell companies.
The group raised $25 million on GoFundMe, but never disclosed how it was spending its money. Kolfage later launched an identically named 501(c)(4) tax-exempt nonprofit called “We Build the Wall” with a similar stated aim to fund a southern border wall and an ambitious $5 billion goal.
Kolfage wrote on the GoFundMe page that money would be redirected to the nonprofit and said its administrators would “not take a penny in salary or compensation.” However, prosecutors say Kolfage pocketed over $350,000 through a network of opaque shell companies and nonprofits meant to keep the payments confidential.
Prosecutors claim Bannon steered $1 million from WeBuildTheWall to an unnamed nonprofit he controls. That money was then used to pay Bannon’s personal expenses, prosecutors said.
According to investigations from Buzzfeed News and NBC News, Kolfage has used GoFundMe to scam donors in the past, allegedly taking money meant to go to a veteran mentorship program for himself.
Several well known Republicans with ties to Trump serve on the group’s advisory board, according to its website. They include Blackwater founder Erik Prince, an informal advisor to Trump’s campaign and the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos; former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke; and former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. Kobach reportedly used the We Build The Wall email list to raise money for his Senate campaign. He lost his Republican primary bid in July, despite national Democrats’ apparent efforts to elevate his campaign using “pop-up” super PACs.
Because We Build The Wall is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit rather than a political committee, it is not legally required to disclose its donors or file regular campaign finance reports to the FEC. Under IRS rules governing such nonprofits, We Build the Wall would not be required to divulge details of its spending until after the 2020 presidential election due to its December 2018 incorporation date.
Even then, the group would only be required to disclose limited details of transactions with closely-tied entities or operatives and payments to its top contractors. Routing spending through shell companies and other nonprofits would further obscure what little financial information the group is required to disclose.
Incorporation records list WeBuildTheWall’s agent as Cogency Global, a firm that received payments from conservative political groups reported in FEC filings. The firm has a history of ties to other ‘dark money’ operations ranging from the limited-liability company behind a mystery $1 million donation to Trump’s inauguration. Cogency Global was recently listed as the agent on record for Kanye West’s presidential campaign and a dark money group launched by allies of Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).
WeBuildTheWall spent nearly $1 million on digital ads with around $600,000 targeted through Google ads while the rest was spread across the group’s Facebook page and a page affiliated with Kolfage. The “Brian Kolfage” Facebook page is listed as a nonprofit organization and primarily redirects users to WeBuildTheWall’s website. But its ads all include a disclaimer they are paid for by “Brian Kolfage Fans” or “Supporters Of Brian Kolfage For America.”
Online political advertising is another area of federal campaign finance disclosure brimming with loopholes leaving it largely unregulated by the FEC but technology companies and watchdogs have filled some of those gaps.
The nonprofit Bannon used to funnel $1 million is not named in the indictment but notes it is controlled by Bannon and has a stated mission of “promoting economic nationalism and american sovereignty.” A nonprofit Bannon founded in 2017 to “advance the ideals of Economic Nationalism and American Sovereignty,” Citizens of the American Republic, is listed in the indictment among entities federal prosecutors are forcing to forfeit funds.
Citizens of the American Republic reported taking in less than $200,000 to the IRS during its initial fiscal year but its most recent tax return obtained by OpenSecrets shows the group brought in more than $4.4 million in 2018. Since then, Citizens of the American Republic’s Facebook page has spent nearly $20,000 on digital ads, including ads promoting We Build The Wall and its event featuring Donald Trump, Jr., while $600 in Google ads were removed from the platform for violating its advertising policies.
Unlike We Build The Wall’s crowdfunding effort and nonprofit operation, political campaigns and groups registered with the FEC are required to promptly disclose their spending. Trump’s reelection effort, however, uses shell companies to conceal where exactly its money is going.
Last month, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging the Trump campaign concealed $170 million in spending by routing the money through two firms that then funneled the money to undisclosed vendors. The complaint alleged the pass-through companies hid payments to Trump’s family members, among others. The group’s president and former Republican FEC commissioner Trevor Potter said the tactic “flies in the face of transparency requirements mandated by federal law, and it leaves voters and donors in the dark about where the campaign’s funds are actually going.”
The Trump campaign funneled massive sums of money to firms owned by former campaign manager Brad Parscale, who Trump demoted last month. Trump reportedly questioned whether Parscale was “getting rich” off of the campaign after watching an ad from the anti-Trump Lincoln Project super PAC. The Lincoln Project also pays sub-vendors through layers of shell companies that hide the specifics of its spending, leaving a number of undisclosed vendors who have done work for the super PAC.
The Campaign Legal Center filed another complaint against Democratic congressional candidate Antone Melton-Meaux for deploying similar tactics in his House race challenging Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) by using shell companies to disguise the ultimate recipients of campaign money in order to pay a firm on the Democratic Party’s “blacklist.”
Political groups and campaigns leveraging this loophole can hide details about who may be profiting from their operations, which leaves information on how money flows kept behind closed doors.
Federal campaign finance law imposes few restrictions on groups disclosing payments to an opaque firm or shell company that steers money to the vendors actually doing the work. That tactic leaves the American public in the dark about how much operatives may be profiting from a group’s fundraising.
The FEC, the agency dedicated to enforcing campaign finance laws, currently does not have enough members to hold meetings or take action on complaints. Trump nominated a fourth member to restore the commission’s quorum but the confirmation has not been taken up by the Senate.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-08-23--Trump Administration Erases LGBTQ People From Major Foreign Aid Policy

The lead U.S. foreign aid agency has proposed a new policy on gender and women ’ s empowerment that eliminates any mention of transgender people or contraceptives , running counter to its own long-standing practices in deciding what programs to support .
The draft policy released by the U.S. Agency for International Development on Wednesday was billed as an update and replacement to the original 2012 policy , released under the Obama administration .
Though written subtly , the agency ’ s gender policy is parsed closely by experts and grantees as a clue to the kind of initiatives the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USAID ’ s grant-making and development work worldwide .
The updated policy has been in the works for months and has been the subject of much scrutiny and internal controversy .
It states its goal as “ a prosperous and peaceful world in which women , girls , men , and boys enjoy equal economic , social , cultural , civil , and political rights and are equally empowered to secure better lives for themselves , their families , their communities , and their countries.
” USAID did not immediately respond to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference is how the old and new policies refer to lesbian , gay , bisexual and transgender people — indeed , whether those populations are mentioned at all .
The 2012 policy mentions LGBT people twice — once in a footnote and once in a reference to partnering with LGBT advocates to advance gender equity .
It also used the phrase “ gender identity ” eight times , in recognition of the transgender experience , in which a person ’ s assigned sex does not accord with their own gender identiity .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acronym LGBT or its more inclusive variants or the words “ lesbian , ” “ gay , ” “ bisexual , ” “ transgender ” or “ identity ” at all .
“ It sends a message when an overarching umbrella policy that is supposed to inform all of USAID ’ s practices and initiatives is missing those factors , ” said Gayatri Patel , director of gender advocacy at CARE , a humanitarian organization , though she added it is difficult to know yet how the new policy will impact future USAID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email exchange among USAID officials this week , which was seen by ProPublica .
A USAID official passed along a comment from a colleague , noting the exclusion of those words .
In a response sent around an hour later , Timothy Meisburger , USAID ’ s director of the Center of Excellence on Democracy , Human Rights , and Governance , wrote that while staff should feel free to comment on the policy , they should “ keep in mind that the policies of the current Administration may differ from those of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our duty as civil servants to faithfully execute the policy of the current Administration.
” Meisburger , a political appointee who joined the agency in 2017 , did not respond to a text message and email requesting comment .
In a section on inclusivity , the 2012 policy is specific , saying it applies to people “ regardless of age , sexual orientation , gender identity , disability status , religion , ethnicity , socioeconomic status , geographic area , migratory status , forced displacement or HIV/AIDS status.
” The new policy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inclusivity section that the agency wants to ensure “ all people , including those who face discrimination and thus may have limited access to a country ’ s benefits , legal protections , or social participation , are fully included and can actively participate in and benefit from development processes and activities.
” In a section on maternal health , the new draft policy mentions only “ fertility awareness ” and “ healthy timing and spacing of pregnancies ” as family planning methods , even though USAID has funded the provision of contraceptives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2012 policy discussed the global lack of access to contraceptives .
That change is in line with the Trump administration ’ s yearslong effort to advance its socially conservative views on family planning in the global arena .
“ For the gender policy to be silent on that is another glaring omission , ” Patel said .
Gender experts and advocates said the new policy falls far short of providing the up-to-date technical expertise that the agency needs to grapple with gender issues in development .
“ The field has progressed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Susan Markham , USAID ’ s former senior coordinator for gender equality and women ’ s empowerment .
“ But this document does not do that .
It is not based on technical advances or knowledge .
It ’ s clearly a political document about the word gender.
” The proposed USAID policy also adopts the phrase “ unalienable rights , ” which did not appear in the 2012 version .
That phrase mirrors the State Department ’ s Commission on Unalienable Rights , a panel launched by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commission ’ s draft report in July , Pompeo derided the “ proliferation of rights.
” Critics say establishing such a hierarchy of rights endangers the lives and safety of vulnerable groups like LGBT people and women around the world .
The commission ’ s draft report asserted that the two foremost unalienable rights , in the view of America ’ s founders , were the right to property and religious liberty , and describes same-sex marriage as a “ divisive social and political ” controversy .
The new policy is in tension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Automated Directives System , which lays out the agency ’ s organization and functions .
A section of that rulebook dealing with gender , updated in 2017 , addresses lesbian , gay , bisexual , transgender and intersex people and emphasizes the importance of gender identity when conducting analysis .
Officials at USAID have repeatedly pushed back release of the revised gender policy .
It was originally slated for release in late 2019 , said three people familiar with the process , and was delayed in part by the coronavirus pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in secrecy , with outside advocates and even gender experts within the agency getting little chance to offer input until the very final stages .
Members of the public have until early next week to submit comments on the draft .
One official involved in the policy update process was Bethany Kozma , the USAID deputy chief of staff .
Before joining the Trump administration in 2017 , Kozma advocated against Obama-era guidelines that schools allow transgender students to use bathrooms that match their gender identity .
During her time in the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in advancing conservative causes globally , such as opposing references to sexual and reproductive health in United Nations documents .
In the last few months , USAID ’ s leadership has been seeded with several right-wing political appointees , including Mark Kevin Lloyd , a Tea Party activist with a history of making and sharing anti-Islamic comments , who was named the agency ’ s new religious freedom adviser ; Kozma , who was elevated to a higher position as the agency ’ s deputy chief of staff ; and Merritt Corrigan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House liaison , who had made repeated anti-LGBT statements on social media .
Corrigan left USAID this month after she unleashed a tirade against the agency on Twitter , though she later claimed she did not send those tweets .

The lead U.S. foreign aid agency has proposed a new policy on gender and women’s empowerment that eliminates any mention of transgender people or contraceptives, running counter to its own long-standing practices in deciding what programs to support.
The draft policy released by the U.S. Agency for International Development on Wednesday was billed as an update and replacement to the original 2012 policy, released under the Obama administration. Though written subtly, the agency’s gender policy is parsed closely by experts and grantees as a clue to the kind of initiatives the agency will prioritize, and it guides USAID’s grant-making and development work worldwide.
The updated policy has been in the works for months and has been the subject of much scrutiny and internal controversy. It states its goal as “a prosperous and peaceful world in which women, girls, men, and boys enjoy equal economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights and are equally empowered to secure better lives for themselves, their families, their communities, and their countries.”
USAID did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Perhaps the starkest difference is how the old and new policies refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people — indeed, whether those populations are mentioned at all. The 2012 policy mentions LGBT people twice — once in a footnote and once in a reference to partnering with LGBT advocates to advance gender equity. It also used the phrase “gender identity” eight times, in recognition of the transgender experience, in which a person’s assigned sex does not accord with their own gender identiity.
The new policy doesn’t use the acronym LGBT or its more inclusive variants or the words “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “transgender” or “identity” at all.
“It sends a message when an overarching umbrella policy that is supposed to inform all of USAID’s practices and initiatives is missing those factors,” said Gayatri Patel, director of gender advocacy at CARE, a humanitarian organization, though she added it is difficult to know yet how the new policy will impact future USAID programming.
That omission sparked an internal email exchange among USAID officials this week, which was seen by ProPublica. A USAID official passed along a comment from a colleague, noting the exclusion of those words. In a response sent around an hour later, Timothy Meisburger, USAID’s director of the Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance, wrote that while staff should feel free to comment on the policy, they should “keep in mind that the policies of the current Administration may differ from those of previous Administrations, and that it is our duty as civil servants to faithfully execute the policy of the current Administration.”
Meisburger, a political appointee who joined the agency in 2017, did not respond to a text message and email requesting comment.
In a section on inclusivity, the 2012 policy is specific, saying it applies to people “regardless of age, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability status, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic area, migratory status, forced displacement or HIV/AIDS status.”
The new policy is far more vague, saying in its inclusivity section that the agency wants to ensure “all people, including those who face discrimination and thus may have limited access to a country’s benefits, legal protections, or social participation, are fully included and can actively participate in and benefit from development processes and activities.”
In a section on maternal health, the new draft policy mentions only “fertility awareness” and “healthy timing and spacing of pregnancies” as family planning methods, even though USAID has funded the provision of contraceptives in developing countries for decades. The 2012 policy discussed the global lack of access to contraceptives.
That change is in line with the Trump administration’s yearslong effort to advance its socially conservative views on family planning in the global arena.
“For the gender policy to be silent on that is another glaring omission,” Patel said.
Gender experts and advocates said the new policy falls far short of providing the up-to-date technical expertise that the agency needs to grapple with gender issues in development.
“The field has progressed in the eight years since 2012,” said Susan Markham, USAID’s former senior coordinator for gender equality and women’s empowerment. “But this document does not do that. It is not based on technical advances or knowledge. It’s clearly a political document about the word gender.”
The proposed USAID policy also adopts the phrase “unalienable rights,” which did not appear in the 2012 version. That phrase mirrors the State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights, a panel launched by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2019.
When he unveiled the commission’s draft report in July, Pompeo derided the “proliferation of rights.” Critics say establishing such a hierarchy of rights endangers the lives and safety of vulnerable groups like LGBT people and women around the world. The commission’s draft report asserted that the two foremost unalienable rights, in the view of America’s founders, were the right to property and religious liberty, and describes same-sex marriage as a “divisive social and political” controversy.
The new policy is in tension with another set of USAID rules, the Automated Directives System, which lays out the agency’s organization and functions. A section of that rulebook dealing with gender, updated in 2017, addresses lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people and emphasizes the importance of gender identity when conducting analysis.
Officials at USAID have repeatedly pushed back release of the revised gender policy. It was originally slated for release in late 2019, said three people familiar with the process, and was delayed in part by the coronavirus pandemic. The policy rewrite has also been shrouded in secrecy, with outside advocates and even gender experts within the agency getting little chance to offer input until the very final stages.
Members of the public have until early next week to submit comments on the draft.
One official involved in the policy update process was Bethany Kozma, the USAID deputy chief of staff. Before joining the Trump administration in 2017, Kozma advocated against Obama-era guidelines that schools allow transgender students to use bathrooms that match their gender identity. During her time in the administration, she has played a key role in advancing conservative causes globally, such as opposing references to sexual and reproductive health in United Nations documents.
In the last few months, USAID’s leadership has been seeded with several right-wing political appointees, including Mark Kevin Lloyd, a Tea Party activist with a history of making and sharing anti-Islamic comments, who was named the agency’s new religious freedom adviser; Kozma, who was elevated to a higher position as the agency’s deputy chief of staff; and Merritt Corrigan, the agency’s former deputy White House liaison, who had made repeated anti-LGBT statements on social media. Corrigan left USAID this month after she unleashed a tirade against the agency on Twitter, though she later claimed she did not send those tweets.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-08-23--New Tennessee Law Will Disenfranchise Protesters Who Camp on State Property

Tennessee protesters will face harsh penalties , including losing the right to vote , as punishment for participating in protests under a law enacted by the Tennessee GOP-dominant General Assembly .
Right-wing Governor Bill Lee quietly signed off on the bill Thursday , AP reports .
Under the new law , demonstrators who camp on state property can now be charged with a Class E felony , punishable by up to six years in prison , rather than a misdemeanor it was previously .
Since George Floyd ’ s killing earlier this year , protesters have camped outside the Tennessee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the governor to discuss racial inequality and police brutality .
The protesters set up camp in War Memorial Plaza near the Capitol , naming it the “ People ’ s Plaza ” and “ Ida B .
Wells Plaza , ” after the civil rights leader .
They stayed there 24 hours a day for more than two months .
Tennessee is one of 21 states that punish people charged with felonies by taking away their right to vote , and Gov .
Lee made it clear that this threat is meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matter protestors who have called for racial justice in the state .
“ The racial motivation underlying this law is undeniable .
This is a direct response to the Black Lives Matter movement and to those who are resolutely opposed to racial injustice and police violence , ” said Kristen Clarke , president and executive director of the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law .
“ To criminalize protest activity and disenfranchise voters on top of it defies principles that lie at the heart of our democracy .
This is abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dissent from the streets to the ballot box.
” “ We are very disappointed in Governor Lee ’ s decision to sign this bill , which chills free speech , undermines criminal justice reform and fails to address the very issues of racial justice and police violence raised by the protesters who are being targeted , ” ACLU of Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg said in a statement .
“ While the governor often speaks about sentencing reform , this bill contradicts those words and wastes valuable taxpayer funds to severely criminalize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 , told The Washington Post : “ There was no violent behavior by the protesters , but there was violence by the state troopers who dragged us down the Capitol stairs .
This is all about criminalizing peaceful protesting .
Everything we ’ ve done is the spirit of nonviolence .
This will not deter us from pushing forward in challenging these laws , both in the courts and in the streets , ” Jones said .
“ This just confirms that we must continue .
”

Tennessee protesters will face harsh penalties, including losing the right to vote, as punishment for participating in protests under a law enacted by the Tennessee GOP-dominant General Assembly. Right-wing Governor Bill Lee quietly signed off on the bill Thursday, AP reports.
Under the new law, demonstrators who camp on state property can now be charged with a Class E felony, punishable by up to six years in prison, rather than a misdemeanor it was previously.
Since George Floyd’s killing earlier this year, protesters have camped outside the Tennessee Capitol in Nashville, demanding a meeting with the governor to discuss racial inequality and police brutality. The protesters set up camp in War Memorial Plaza near the Capitol, naming it the “People’s Plaza” and “Ida B. Wells Plaza,” after the civil rights leader. They stayed there 24 hours a day for more than two months.
Tennessee is one of 21 states that punish people charged with felonies by taking away their right to vote, and Gov. Lee made it clear that this threat is meant as a warning to the Black Lives Matter protestors who have called for racial justice in the state.
“The racial motivation underlying this law is undeniable. This is a direct response to the Black Lives Matter movement and to those who are resolutely opposed to racial injustice and police violence,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “To criminalize protest activity and disenfranchise voters on top of it defies principles that lie at the heart of our democracy. This is abuse of state power intended to silence voices of dissent from the streets to the ballot box.”
“We are very disappointed in Governor Lee’s decision to sign this bill, which chills free speech, undermines criminal justice reform and fails to address the very issues of racial justice and police violence raised by the protesters who are being targeted,” ACLU of Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg said in a statement. “While the governor often speaks about sentencing reform, this bill contradicts those words and wastes valuable taxpayer funds to severely criminalize dissent.”
Protest organizer Justin Jones, 24, told The Washington Post: “There was no violent behavior by the protesters, but there was violence by the state troopers who dragged us down the Capitol stairs. This is all about criminalizing peaceful protesting. Everything we’ve done is the spirit of nonviolence. This will not deter us from pushing forward in challenging these laws, both in the courts and in the streets,” Jones said. “This just confirms that we must continue.”
Voting is an act of resistance. If our votes didn't matter they wouldn't work so hard to silence us. By the way, this is unconstitutional and against the law. https://t.co/WmS406bbBu — Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) August 22, 2020
This is the opposite of what Americans fought a revolution for. https://t.co/UHYoasMrzJ — Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) August 22, 2020
Republicans in Tennessee have passed a law that makes several methods of peaceful protest into felonies — which means protesters who are arrested could lose their right to vote. The fascism is getting less subtle every day. https://t.co/9Og7nfcL2J — David Roberts (@drvox) August 22, 2020
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.