truthout--2020-08-02--We Should Invoke the Genocide Convention in Response to Fatal Police Shootings

Over 100 years ago , W.E.B .
Du Bois famously predicted that , “ The problem of the 20th century would be the problem of the color line.
” His prognosis was audacious when he uttered those words , but the sentiment takes on a more ominous warning today .
The problem facing the 21st century is the problem of genocide .
The enormity of the problem suggests that even terms such as “ racial bias ” or “ racial injustice ” are too limiting .
In today ’ s environment , it is getting easier to talk about racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but what we should be thinking and talking about is the possible extermination of a people .
This is because the United States has moved beyond both overt Jim Crow and beyond unconscious bias in its criminal punishment system to what I call “ institutionalized genocide.
” This is an arguably contentious phrase , but it represents a scientific framework which allows us to analyze conditions and appropriately characterize what is happening to Black people in the 21st century , ostensibly through the criminal legal system .
Therefore , the gross impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and should be examined .
Institutionalized genocide offers an analytical frame to understand systemic destructive treatment of Black people .
While genocide appears to many to singularly denote killings through massacre and annihilation , its definition also includes the creation of “ conditions of life calculated to bring about destruction , in whole or in part.
” Unfortunately , seldom do people examine the internationally adopted parameters of the term genocide and then compare them with the treatment of Black people in the United States by the criminal legal system .
If one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Black people , particularly as it relates to police killings , is at least plausible , if not undeniable .
We must question why Philonise Floyd , the brother of George Floyd , went to the United Nations to obtain justice .
Was it because he did not believe he could obtain accountability here in the United States ?
In the same way that he sought the international arena for relief , Black people must also seek to use the international law around genocide in U.S. courts as a means of preventing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our communities .
In 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide .
It said whether committed in times of peace or war , genocide is a crime under international law .
International law , as outlined by the United Nations in the Geneva Convention , defines genocide as “ acts committed with the intent to destroy , in whole or in part , a national , ethnical , racial or religious group , as such.
” Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group ; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group ; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group ; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
” Pursuant to the Convention , genocide is not the only punishable act .
Related acts — such as conspiracy to commit genocide , direct and public incitement to commit genocide , attempt to commit genocide and complicity in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The international definition of genocide reminded us that those who commit genocide or related acts shall be punished , whether they are constitutional rulers , private individuals or elected officials .
It took the United States 38 years from the time of the first hearing to ratify the convention .
I believe the delay was rooted in fear that African Americans would use the treaty to their advantage .
Segregationists believed that the ratification of the agreement would subject the United States to punishment based on its treatment of Indigenous and Black peoples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1948 , and in 1951 , W.E.B .
Du Bois and others presented the United Nations with a heavily documented petition chronicling the genocidal suffering , mental assaults and crimes against humanity inflicted on Black people .
These accounts were detailed in the book , We Charge Genocide .
The Genocide Convention set a record for being the most scrutinized non-military treaty ever to be considered by the U.S. Senate .
The hearing took place over 13 days and the transcript was over 2,000 pages , according to Stephen Klitzman , the chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chronicled the history of the Genocide Convention ’ s ratification process .
Four decades after its adoption by the United Nations , and amidst a belief that civil rights progress addressed challenges , the U.S. Senate finally consented to ratification in 1988 .
What is significant is that it is the only international human rights treaty adopted by the United States that is self-executing , meaning it has the ability to be directly enforced in court .
The Convention against Torture , the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination , and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the U.S. as they require the adoption of specific legislation for enforcement .
Indeed , legislation implementing the Convention against Torture limits its scope to civil suits against one acting in an official capacity for a foreign nation , or acts of torture committed outside the country .
Since there is already legal standing to punish perpetrators of genocide in the U.S. , why are we not considering this law as the basis for lawsuits and legal action against law enforcement , state governments and federal bodies ?
Based on the definition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument that the U.S. is guilty of genocide against Black people .
There is a rise of killer cops who prey on Black people , including children .
The world is shocked by the horrific , unjustified and disproportionate murders , violence and abuse of Black people by law enforcement .
These instances constitute a violation of Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination , which guarantees “ the right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any individual , group or institution.
” Likewise , the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , Article 9 , guarantees the “ right to liberty and security of person , ” and Article 14 guarantees “ equality before the courts and tribunals.
” These treaties , however , ratified by the U.S. in 1994 and 1992 , respectively , are limited in that they each included upon signing a declaration that the provisions would not be actionable in U.S. law absent implementing legislation , among numerous other limiting provisions .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , continue to be ) victims of kidnapping and enslavement , convict leasing , Jim Crow , lynching , redlining , educational and health disparities , and mass incarceration .
Each of these acts are human rights violations which have never been remedied .
We have experienced the trauma of cases like Oscar Grant in Oakland , Trayvon Martin in Florida , Sandra Bland in Texas , Freddie Gray in Baltimore , Akai Gurley in Brooklyn , Breonna Taylor in Kentucky and Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia to the seemingly unending list of Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ color of law .
In 1951 , extrajudicial killings of Black people were framed under the banner of genocide , and that frame must be resurrected today .
I submit there is no other way to truly examine the systematic and routine killings of Black people across the country other than genocide .
If we do not take the killing of Black people seriously and hold killer cops accountable , we will knowingly tolerate the wiping out of generations of Black people by the state .
Advocates and lawyers should go to court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to challenge those who have attempted to destroy , in whole or part , a national , ethnic or racial group of people .
Police killings under color of law , and the damaging conditions of life negatively impacting generations , constitutes genocide – the human rights crisis facing 21st-century Black America .
Those who commit genocide must be held accountable .

Over 100 years ago, W.E.B. Du Bois famously predicted that, “The problem of the 20th century would be the problem of the color line.” His prognosis was audacious when he uttered those words, but the sentiment takes on a more ominous warning today. The problem facing the 21st century is the problem of genocide. The enormity of the problem suggests that even terms such as “racial bias” or “racial injustice” are too limiting.
In today’s environment, it is getting easier to talk about racial injustice. We talk about systemic racism, but what we should be thinking and talking about is the possible extermination of a people. This is because the United States has moved beyond both overt Jim Crow and beyond unconscious bias in its criminal punishment system to what I call “institutionalized genocide.” This is an arguably contentious phrase, but it represents a scientific framework which allows us to analyze conditions and appropriately characterize what is happening to Black people in the 21st century, ostensibly through the criminal legal system.
Therefore, the gross impact of the broader criminal punishment system could and should be examined. Institutionalized genocide offers an analytical frame to understand systemic destructive treatment of Black people. While genocide appears to many to singularly denote killings through massacre and annihilation, its definition also includes the creation of “conditions of life calculated to bring about destruction, in whole or in part.” Unfortunately, seldom do people examine the internationally adopted parameters of the term genocide and then compare them with the treatment of Black people in the United States by the criminal legal system. If one were to do so, state-sponsored genocide against Black people, particularly as it relates to police killings, is at least plausible, if not undeniable.
We must question why Philonise Floyd, the brother of George Floyd, went to the United Nations to obtain justice. Was it because he did not believe he could obtain accountability here in the United States? In the same way that he sought the international arena for relief, Black people must also seek to use the international law around genocide in U.S. courts as a means of preventing and punishing the police violence and abuse of our communities.
In 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It said whether committed in times of peace or war, genocide is a crime under international law. International law, as outlined by the United Nations in the Geneva Convention, defines genocide as “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” Those actions include “killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Pursuant to the Convention, genocide is not the only punishable act. Related acts — such as conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide and complicity in its commission — are also punishable. The international definition of genocide reminded us that those who commit genocide or related acts shall be punished, whether they are constitutional rulers, private individuals or elected officials. It took the United States 38 years from the time of the first hearing to ratify the convention. I believe the delay was rooted in fear that African Americans would use the treaty to their advantage. Segregationists believed that the ratification of the agreement would subject the United States to punishment based on its treatment of Indigenous and Black peoples.
The genocide convention was passed in 1948, and in 1951, W.E.B. Du Bois and others presented the United Nations with a heavily documented petition chronicling the genocidal suffering, mental assaults and crimes against humanity inflicted on Black people. These accounts were detailed in the book, We Charge Genocide.
The Genocide Convention set a record for being the most scrutinized non-military treaty ever to be considered by the U.S. Senate. The hearing took place over 13 days and the transcript was over 2,000 pages, according to Stephen Klitzman, the chair of an American Bar Association committee that chronicled the history of the Genocide Convention’s ratification process. Four decades after its adoption by the United Nations, and amidst a belief that civil rights progress addressed challenges, the U.S. Senate finally consented to ratification in 1988.
What is significant is that it is the only international human rights treaty adopted by the United States that is self-executing, meaning it has the ability to be directly enforced in court. The Convention against Torture, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and others, are largely symbolic gestures as applied to the U.S. as they require the adoption of specific legislation for enforcement. Indeed, legislation implementing the Convention against Torture limits its scope to civil suits against one acting in an official capacity for a foreign nation, or acts of torture committed outside the country.
Since there is already legal standing to punish perpetrators of genocide in the U.S., why are we not considering this law as the basis for lawsuits and legal action against law enforcement, state governments and federal bodies? Based on the definition of genocide, we can make an argument that the U.S. is guilty of genocide against Black people.
There is a rise of killer cops who prey on Black people, including children. The world is shocked by the horrific, unjustified and disproportionate murders, violence and abuse of Black people by law enforcement. These instances constitute a violation of Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which guarantees “the right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual, group or institution.” Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9, guarantees the “right to liberty and security of person,” and Article 14 guarantees “equality before the courts and tribunals.” These treaties, however, ratified by the U.S. in 1994 and 1992, respectively, are limited in that they each included upon signing a declaration that the provisions would not be actionable in U.S. law absent implementing legislation, among numerous other limiting provisions.
In 1951, extrajudicial killings of Black people were framed under the banner of genocide, and that frame must be resurrected today.
Our ancestors were (and in some cases, continue to be) victims of kidnapping and enslavement, convict leasing, Jim Crow, lynching, redlining, educational and health disparities, and mass incarceration. Each of these acts are human rights violations which have never been remedied. We have experienced the trauma of cases like Oscar Grant in Oakland, Trayvon Martin in Florida, Sandra Bland in Texas, Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Akai Gurley in Brooklyn, Breonna Taylor in Kentucky and Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia to the seemingly unending list of Black people killed by whites operating under the color of law.
In 1951, extrajudicial killings of Black people were framed under the banner of genocide, and that frame must be resurrected today. I submit there is no other way to truly examine the systematic and routine killings of Black people across the country other than genocide. If we do not take the killing of Black people seriously and hold killer cops accountable, we will knowingly tolerate the wiping out of generations of Black people by the state.
Advocates and lawyers should go to court and use provisions of the Genocide Convention to challenge those who have attempted to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnic or racial group of people. Police killings under color of law, and the damaging conditions of life negatively impacting generations, constitutes genocide – the human rights crisis facing 21st-century Black America. Those who commit genocide must be held accountable.
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--2020-08-02--If the Fed Can Bail Out Wall Street, It Can Rescue Public Education

Public education in the U.S. has been under severe attack for many years now , thanks to the dominance of neoliberal thinking and policies across the societal spectrum .
However , the coronavirus pandemic has sparked a new crisis in the nation ’ s public education system as a result of having created huge holes in school budgets , especially in high-poverty areas .
Yet , there are ways to prevent the collapse of the public education system in the U.S. , if there is a will to do so .
And the rescue can come directly through the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading progressive economist Gerald Epstein , professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst .
In this exclusive interview for Truthout , Epstein discusses how the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated funding deficits for public education and how the Federal Reserve can step in to save schools .
C.J .
Polychroniou : Is the crisis facing public education systems today simply a question of the fall-off in tax revenues on account of the pandemic ?
Gerald Epstein : The shortfall is not due only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is a significant part of it .
It is also because of the large extra costs that schools and universities will face to operate safely in the COVID world : the extra spacing , cleaning , masks , technology needs , and so on .
No one knows exactly how much these extra costs will amount to , but various organizations have estimated them to be somewhere between $ 116 billion and $ 245 billion .
These immediate problems are made immeasurably worse in many school districts and for many colleges because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , K-12 and higher education .
Many school systems — and especially those in poor communities , communities of color and rural communities — have been faced with serious cut-backs for more than a decade , punctuated , only occasionally and inadequately , with compensating increases .
Indeed , since the 2007-08 Great Recession , states have been devoting even less money to public education .
Is this because of the peculiarities of the current model of education , which essentially leaves matters of funding education largely to the states , or because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal and state levels ?
It is true that public education funding in the U.S. comes primarily from the states and local governments .
For example , according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , in 2016 , 47 percent of K-12 funding came from the states , 45 percent from local governments , and only 8 percent from the federal government .
This dependence on states and local governments does contribute to inequalities in school funding among states .
But , to get to your question about neoliberalism , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primarily by Republicans , has had a devastating effect on school funding , especially for poorer communities and communities of color .
As Gordon Lafer shows in his brilliant book The One Percent Solution , state and local networks funded by the Koch brothers and others were able to elect state and local officials committed to a litany of neoliberal attacks on unions , public and social goods , and the state , all in the interests of corporations .
The result in many states was a cut in taxes and education funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through charter schools and similar tricks .
There was also an attack on teachers ’ unions and public-school teachers ’ pay .
These anti-public school measures were greatly exacerbated by the fallout from the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 ( GFC ) , which itself was largely due to neoliberal policies of financial deregulation ( which exacerbated long-growing deeper problems in the economy that we have no time to discuss here ) .
Most states cut school funding severely when the GFC hit ; and despite the long ( but slow ) economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended with the pandemic , state funding per student remains below pre-crisis levels .
This is especially true of states that cut deeply during the crisis .
At the local level , the collapse of the housing market led to a decline in property values in many communities .
Since the primary source of local funds for public schools are property taxes , this led to lower local revenues for education .
The federal government did increase funding for the states temporarily , but it was not enough and it did not last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some states had finally recovered much of the lost ground in educational expenditures , but many teacher salaries , which had been deeply cut over the neoliberal period , remained below their previous levels and were falling behind wage growth in other professions .
In response , there have been a number of teachers ’ strikes across the country , where teachers have demanded not only an increase in their pay , but also an increase in funding for their schools .
Many of these have been successful .
Similar forces played out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education .
State funding of public higher education declined significantly over the last 20 years or more , and students and their families were more and more saddled with the bills .
The huge rise in student debt , more than $ 1.6 trillion worth , is wreaking havoc on a generation of students that has now been confronted with two near-depression level meltdowns in the course of little more than a decade .
The important point is that all these problems were there prior to the onset of the pandemic .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have come up with a proposal to use the Federal Reserve to rescue public education in the U.S. , called the Federal Reserve Public Education Finance Facility .
Can you briefly explain what it would do ?
The motivation for my proposal is that public education — K-12 and public higher education — is facing massive financial shortfalls from the COVID crisis on top of all the financial problems many institutions had been facing even before the crisis hit .
The Republican-controlled Senate under the leadership of Mitch McConnell has expressed very little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the help they need .
In fact , in the Senate Republican bill that was released on July 28 , there is basically no funding for state and local governments , whereas the HEROES Act had $ 1 trillion earmarked , and only $ 105 billion for K-12 and higher education .
Even if this gets increased through negotiation with Democrats , it is unlikely to fill the holes in the public education budget .
Knowing this , political scientist Dean Robinson — a colleague of mine who is on the National Education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Massachusetts Teachers Association — told me he is concerned that direct federal stimulus is falling far short of requirements , especially for the public sector , given that the Republican-led Senate can curtail whatever the Democratic-led House offers by way of a package ( this has been borne out ) .
Given the historic intervention that the Fed is making with respect to private debt , he said he wonders whether we could reimagine a type of bond under the Fed ’ s expanded facilities .
I told him I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short answer is yes .
There is a lot the Fed is already doing for Wall Street and corporate bond holders , hedge funds and private equity firms .
If the Fed can do all that , then there is certainly a lot more it could do for students and teachers who are likely to find themselves in deep austerity mode .
So , first , some background : The Federal Reserve , the United States ’ central bank , has promised to provide a huge amount of credit — “ whatever it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fed ’ s chair , put it — to keep the U.S. economy afloat through the national emergency of the COVID-19 crisis .
This pledge follows by just a decade the massive amount of credit the Federal Reserve provided during the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 to avoid a global financial meltdown .
In that episode , the Fed used the money to mostly bail out mega-financial institutions like Goldman Sachs , Citigroup , Wells Fargo and AIG , whose very actions had caused the meltdown in the first place .
The estimates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from $ 12-22 trillion .
Virtually none of this was provided to workers , small businesses or homeowners who were about to lose their homes .
This time around , when funds were being appropriated in Congress under the CARES Act to underwrite special Federal Reserve financial support for the economy , congressional Democrats , unions and other pro-worker organizations lobbied to make sure that some of that Federal Reserve money would be allocated to small business and workers .
At the same time , they made sure that funds would be available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be facing catastrophic losses in revenue from the crisis .
The result of this labor union and Democratic pressure was the creation of a Municipal Liquidity Facility ( MLF ) whose purpose is to help support state and local government borrowing so they can provide important services , including public education , during the crisis .
The U.S. Treasury seeded this facility with $ 35 billion in capital .
On this basis , the Federal Reserve has the capacity to lend out up to $ 450 billion to state and local governments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has borrowed from this facility so far .
The lion ’ s share of the funds is just sitting there , unused .
Why ?
The answer is that the Fed put so many restrictions on the use of funds and made them so expensive , that the other states and municipalities are finding they can not benefit from the funds , even while many of them are in the process of planning massive cuts to programs , including education .
There are three constraints here .
One is how long the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term ) .
The maximum length of time for which funds can be borrowed is three years .
This is shorter than the terms for other Fed credit actions — some are five years , some are indefinite ( i.e.
, permanent ) .
Three years are not enough for states , municipal borrowers and school districts to get through the crisis without devastating cuts and then find the funds to repay the loan from the Fed ( or to find some financial institutions to buy the debt at a reasonable cost ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be necessary to make this useful — 5 to 10 years .
Second , the cost of borrowing is way too high .
The Fed evidently wanted their facility to be used only as a last resort and they succeeded all too well .
The Fed is charging 3 , 4 , 5 percent interest rates when interest rates on federal government short-term debt is close to zero .
The Fed should lower the cost of borrowing for states and municipal governments from this facility much closer to the Fed ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero .
Some progressive Democrats and pro-worker organizations such as unions were able to get these improvements into the follow up “ stimulus bill , ” the HEROES Act .
These provisions passed but now the bill is blocked because the Senate is refusing to take it up .
A third problem centers on how the states borrow .
Most states must balance their “ current ” budgets , year to year .
Current budgets reflect year-to-year costs like wages , services , and so forth .
On the other hand , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ capital ” budgets for longer-term investment , such as building bridges , highways and school buildings .
These capital budgets have limits of course , but they are less binding than the requirement to balance the current budget year by year .
In this situation , most states limit very severely the degree to which they can borrow to pay teacher salaries and other educational expenses .
Is there a fix for this problem ?
In my proposal , I suggest that states and school districts issue “ Human Capital Bonds ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current educational expenses .
Economists have long recognized that among its other important benefits , education represents a long-term investment in developing a human ’ s capacities for achievement .
This is a creation of “ capital , ” using mainstream economists ’ term for it , that has long-term payoffs for not only that individual but for society as a whole .
At least a portion of such expenditures , especially in a crisis such as this , can and should be put under the capital budgets of states and state authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Reserve would give a legitimacy and stamp of approval to these new financial instruments , and would make it much more likely that these would receive a good credit rating and not harm the overall credit rating facing the state , a prospect that deeply worries state treasurers and politicians .
What other institutions and interests that will be competing for access to these funds ?
How could we ensure that public education receives its proper due in a country where neoliberalism still reigns supreme ?
First of all , this competition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for budget expenditures , and then also for Federal Reserve funds , is a natural part of the political process .
There are many critical needs emerging in this massive pandemic economy , which has greatly worsened pre-existing inequalities and accumulated disinvestment and failings .
But borrowing from the state and municipal bond markets is one that is especially foreign to public education , apart from building schools and dorms and gyms .
Even if the states were to borrow from the Fed facility , public education , a newcomer in this field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out by the big infrastructure , development and medical operators who are experienced in this space .
That is one of the reasons I proposed a special Fed facility just for funding public education : The Federal Reserve Public Education Emergency Finance Facility .
This facility would dedicate Federal Reserve funds to lending money for public education to states , municipalities and school districts , at low interest rates and long terms .
It would be a welcome buyer of human capital bonds from states that want to issue them to fund education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public education would not have to compete with the big and experienced capital market borrowing state , municipal developers and other borrowers .
In your view , how would you assess the chances of your proposal rescuing public education in the post-COVID era ?
Well , I hope it is not needed .
It would be far better to have the federal and state governments properly fund public education .
In the current crisis , it would be much better to have the federal government give billions of dollars of budget support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services and investments , such as public education .
But if there is not enough federal aid forthcoming , then a plan B is necessary to prevent a near collapse of our public education system .
I think there is a decent chance that through the active work of unions and Democratic congressional leaders , the Federal Reserve will eventually loosen up its requirements and make funds more available for state and local support , including for education .
We must try to organize and lobby the Federal Reserve and , more specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 all over the country , to loosen their restrictions and lower the costs of credit for states and municipalities , and to make the credit longer term .
This is what they are doing for banks and hedge funds .
They should end or cut way back on their support for Wall Street and , instead , help the public , the workers and unemployed and core social functions like public education .
The money is there !
It has already been set aside by the Federal Reserve .
And they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high unemployment and rock-bottom interest rates .
What are they waiting for ?
We have to make them use it , and use it to serve the needs of the people , and not the banks .
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity .

Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
Public education in the U.S. has been under severe attack for many years now, thanks to the dominance of neoliberal thinking and policies across the societal spectrum. However, the coronavirus pandemic has sparked a new crisis in the nation’s public education system as a result of having created huge holes in school budgets, especially in high-poverty areas. Yet, there are ways to prevent the collapse of the public education system in the U.S., if there is a will to do so. And the rescue can come directly through the power of the Federal Reserve, according to leading progressive economist Gerald Epstein, professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. In this exclusive interview for Truthout, Epstein discusses how the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated funding deficits for public education and how the Federal Reserve can step in to save schools.
C.J. Polychroniou: Is the crisis facing public education systems today simply a question of the fall-off in tax revenues on account of the pandemic?
Gerald Epstein: The shortfall is not due only to the fall-off in revenues, though that is a significant part of it. It is also because of the large extra costs that schools and universities will face to operate safely in the COVID world: the extra spacing, cleaning, masks, technology needs, and so on. No one knows exactly how much these extra costs will amount to, but various organizations have estimated them to be somewhere between $116 billion and $245 billion.
These immediate problems are made immeasurably worse in many school districts and for many colleges because of longstanding funding shortfalls facing public education, K-12 and higher education. Many school systems — and especially those in poor communities, communities of color and rural communities — have been faced with serious cut-backs for more than a decade, punctuated, only occasionally and inadequately, with compensating increases.
Indeed, since the 2007-08 Great Recession, states have been devoting even less money to public education. Is this because of the peculiarities of the current model of education, which essentially leaves matters of funding education largely to the states, or because of the domination of neoliberalism at the federal and state levels?
It is true that public education funding in the U.S. comes primarily from the states and local governments. For example, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in 2016, 47 percent of K-12 funding came from the states, 45 percent from local governments, and only 8 percent from the federal government.
This dependence on states and local governments does contribute to inequalities in school funding among states. But, to get to your question about neoliberalism, the neoliberal turn of state governments, led primarily by Republicans, has had a devastating effect on school funding, especially for poorer communities and communities of color. As Gordon Lafer shows in his brilliant book The One Percent Solution, state and local networks funded by the Koch brothers and others were able to elect state and local officials committed to a litany of neoliberal attacks on unions, public and social goods, and the state, all in the interests of corporations. The result in many states was a cut in taxes and education funding, and a push to privatize education through charter schools and similar tricks. There was also an attack on teachers’ unions and public-school teachers’ pay.
These anti-public school measures were greatly exacerbated by the fallout from the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 (GFC), which itself was largely due to neoliberal policies of financial deregulation (which exacerbated long-growing deeper problems in the economy that we have no time to discuss here).
The Federal Reserve has the capacity to lend out up to $450 billion to state and local governments.
Most states cut school funding severely when the GFC hit; and despite the long (but slow) economic expansion that occurred after the GFC and ended with the pandemic, state funding per student remains below pre-crisis levels. This is especially true of states that cut deeply during the crisis. At the local level, the collapse of the housing market led to a decline in property values in many communities. Since the primary source of local funds for public schools are property taxes, this led to lower local revenues for education. The federal government did increase funding for the states temporarily, but it was not enough and it did not last.
Just prior to the pandemic, some states had finally recovered much of the lost ground in educational expenditures, but many teacher salaries, which had been deeply cut over the neoliberal period, remained below their previous levels and were falling behind wage growth in other professions. In response, there have been a number of teachers’ strikes across the country, where teachers have demanded not only an increase in their pay, but also an increase in funding for their schools. Many of these have been successful.
Similar forces played out with respect to funding of public higher education. State funding of public higher education declined significantly over the last 20 years or more, and students and their families were more and more saddled with the bills. The huge rise in student debt, more than $1.6 trillion worth, is wreaking havoc on a generation of students that has now been confronted with two near-depression level meltdowns in the course of little more than a decade.
The important point is that all these problems were there prior to the onset of the pandemic. Now they have been greatly exacerbated.
You have come up with a proposal to use the Federal Reserve to rescue public education in the U.S., called the Federal Reserve Public Education Finance Facility. Can you briefly explain what it would do?
The motivation for my proposal is that public education — K-12 and public higher education — is facing massive financial shortfalls from the COVID crisis on top of all the financial problems many institutions had been facing even before the crisis hit. The Republican-controlled Senate under the leadership of Mitch McConnell has expressed very little support for giving states and local governments the help they need. In fact, in the Senate Republican bill that was released on July 28, there is basically no funding for state and local governments, whereas the HEROES Act had $1 trillion earmarked, and only $105 billion for K-12 and higher education. Even if this gets increased through negotiation with Democrats, it is unlikely to fill the holes in the public education budget.
Knowing this, political scientist Dean Robinson — a colleague of mine who is on the National Education Association and on the board of directors of the Massachusetts Teachers Association — told me he is concerned that direct federal stimulus is falling far short of requirements, especially for the public sector, given that the Republican-led Senate can curtail whatever the Democratic-led House offers by way of a package (this has been borne out). Given the historic intervention that the Fed is making with respect to private debt, he said he wonders whether we could reimagine a type of bond under the Fed’s expanded facilities.
The lion’s share of the funds is just sitting there, unused.
I told him I would look into this question. And the short answer is yes. There is a lot the Fed is already doing for Wall Street and corporate bond holders, hedge funds and private equity firms. If the Fed can do all that, then there is certainly a lot more it could do for students and teachers who are likely to find themselves in deep austerity mode.
So, first, some background: The Federal Reserve, the United States’ central bank, has promised to provide a huge amount of credit — “whatever it takes” as Jerome Powell, the Fed’s chair, put it — to keep the U.S. economy afloat through the national emergency of the COVID-19 crisis. This pledge follows by just a decade the massive amount of credit the Federal Reserve provided during the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 to avoid a global financial meltdown. In that episode, the Fed used the money to mostly bail out mega-financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and AIG, whose very actions had caused the meltdown in the first place. The estimates for the amount of credit provided run from $12-22 trillion. Virtually none of this was provided to workers, small businesses or homeowners who were about to lose their homes.
This time around, when funds were being appropriated in Congress under the CARES Act to underwrite special Federal Reserve financial support for the economy, congressional Democrats, unions and other pro-worker organizations lobbied to make sure that some of that Federal Reserve money would be allocated to small business and workers. At the same time, they made sure that funds would be available to states and local governments that would be facing catastrophic losses in revenue from the crisis.
The result of this labor union and Democratic pressure was the creation of a Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) whose purpose is to help support state and local government borrowing so they can provide important services, including public education, during the crisis. The U.S. Treasury seeded this facility with $35 billion in capital. On this basis, the Federal Reserve has the capacity to lend out up to $450 billion to state and local governments.
Unfortunately, only one state, Illinois, has borrowed from this facility so far. The lion’s share of the funds is just sitting there, unused.
Why? The answer is that the Fed put so many restrictions on the use of funds and made them so expensive, that the other states and municipalities are finding they cannot benefit from the funds, even while many of them are in the process of planning massive cuts to programs, including education.
There are three constraints here. One is how long the funds can be borrowed for (the term). The maximum length of time for which funds can be borrowed is three years. This is shorter than the terms for other Fed credit actions — some are five years, some are indefinite (i.e., permanent). Three years are not enough for states, municipal borrowers and school districts to get through the crisis without devastating cuts and then find the funds to repay the loan from the Fed (or to find some financial institutions to buy the debt at a reasonable cost). A much longer maximum available term will be necessary to make this useful — 5 to 10 years.
Second, the cost of borrowing is way too high. The Fed evidently wanted their facility to be used only as a last resort and they succeeded all too well. The Fed is charging 3, 4, 5 percent interest rates when interest rates on federal government short-term debt is close to zero. The Fed should lower the cost of borrowing for states and municipal governments from this facility much closer to the Fed’s policy rate, which is close to zero.
Some progressive Democrats and pro-worker organizations such as unions were able to get these improvements into the follow up “stimulus bill,” the HEROES Act. These provisions passed but now the bill is blocked because the Senate is refusing to take it up.
A third problem centers on how the states borrow. Most states must balance their “current” budgets, year to year. Current budgets reflect year-to-year costs like wages, services, and so forth. On the other hand, most states are allowed to borrow on their “capital” budgets for longer-term investment, such as building bridges, highways and school buildings. These capital budgets have limits of course, but they are less binding than the requirement to balance the current budget year by year. In this situation, most states limit very severely the degree to which they can borrow to pay teacher salaries and other educational expenses.
If there is not enough federal aid forthcoming, then a plan B is necessary to prevent a near collapse of our public education system.
Is there a fix for this problem? In my proposal, I suggest that states and school districts issue “Human Capital Bonds” to pay teachers’ salaries and other current educational expenses. Economists have long recognized that among its other important benefits, education represents a long-term investment in developing a human’s capacities for achievement. This is a creation of “capital,” using mainstream economists’ term for it, that has long-term payoffs for not only that individual but for society as a whole. At least a portion of such expenditures, especially in a crisis such as this, can and should be put under the capital budgets of states and state authorities.
Purchasing of these bonds by the Federal Reserve would give a legitimacy and stamp of approval to these new financial instruments, and would make it much more likely that these would receive a good credit rating and not harm the overall credit rating facing the state, a prospect that deeply worries state treasurers and politicians.
What about other institutions and interests that will be competing for access to these funds? How could we ensure that public education receives its proper due in a country where neoliberalism still reigns supreme?
First of all, this competition among various constituencies in states and municipalities for budget expenditures, and then also for Federal Reserve funds, is a natural part of the political process. There are many critical needs emerging in this massive pandemic economy, which has greatly worsened pre-existing inequalities and accumulated disinvestment and failings.
But borrowing from the state and municipal bond markets is one that is especially foreign to public education, apart from building schools and dorms and gyms. Even if the states were to borrow from the Fed facility, public education, a newcomer in this field, is likely to get substantially crowded out by the big infrastructure, development and medical operators who are experienced in this space.
That is one of the reasons I proposed a special Fed facility just for funding public education: The Federal Reserve Public Education Emergency Finance Facility. This facility would dedicate Federal Reserve funds to lending money for public education to states, municipalities and school districts, at low interest rates and long terms. It would be a welcome buyer of human capital bonds from states that want to issue them to fund education during this crisis. This way, public education would not have to compete with the big and experienced capital market borrowing state, municipal developers and other borrowers.
In your view, how would you assess the chances of your proposal rescuing public education in the post-COVID era?
Well, I hope it is not needed. It would be far better to have the federal and state governments properly fund public education. In the current crisis, it would be much better to have the federal government give billions of dollars of budget support for state and local governments to fund necessary services and investments, such as public education.
But if there is not enough federal aid forthcoming, then a plan B is necessary to prevent a near collapse of our public education system. I think there is a decent chance that through the active work of unions and Democratic congressional leaders, the Federal Reserve will eventually loosen up its requirements and make funds more available for state and local support, including for education. We must try to organize and lobby the Federal Reserve and, more specifically, the Regional Federal Reserve Banks, 12 all over the country, to loosen their restrictions and lower the costs of credit for states and municipalities, and to make the credit longer term. This is what they are doing for banks and hedge funds. They should end or cut way back on their support for Wall Street and, instead, help the public, the workers and unemployed and core social functions like public education. The money is there! It has already been set aside by the Federal Reserve. And they can easily create more in this era of high unemployment and rock-bottom interest rates. What are they waiting for? We have to make them use it, and use it to serve the needs of the people, and not the banks.
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--2020-08-03--Manhattan DA Seeks Trump’s Tax Returns to Investigate Possible Fraud

Documents filed on Monday in a high-profile legal case centered on President Donald Trump ’ s taxes revealed that the investigation is likely searching for evidence of banking or insurance fraud performed by the former business mogul .
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. is seeking eight years of the president ’ s tax filings in order to discern whether funds were illegally used or obtained by Trump in the past .
While the prosecutor ’ s office doesn ’ t state outright the specific allegations made against the president , they do make mention in a court filing made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting in 2019 regarding Trump ’ s former business practices as a legal basis to subpoena his tax records .
Prior to today ’ s filings , it was believed Vance was looking specifically into hush-money payments , allegedly made from Trump to adult entertainers in exchange for their silence about his extramarital liaisons with them .
But based on the assertions made in today ’ s court filing , it appears that the investigation is looking into other matters as well , including possibly whether Trump in the past has ever inflated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to secure huge loans from banks — something his former lawyer Michael Cohen asserted he had done during congressional testimony in February of last year .
Vance ’ s filing states it ’ s a “ false premise ” that his inquiry is focused on the hush-money payments issue alone .
The document said that news reports of other questionable financial practices were also of concern , making it likely that Cohen ’ s allegations will also be examined .
The records that Vance ’ s office filed today seek to explain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s legal team , why the district attorney ’ s office should be allowed access to Trump ’ s financial information .
“ These reports describe transactions involving individual and corporate actors based in New York County , but whose conduct at times extended beyond New York ’ s borders , ” Vance wrote in the filing seeking Trump ’ s taxes , further describing the president ’ s actions as “ possible criminal activity.
” Last month , the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vance ’ s office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep his tax records hidden during an inquiry into his previous financial actions .
The Court asserted in a 7-2 ruling that “ no citizen , not even the President , is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.
” While The High Court did find that the chief executive held no such privilege , it did not rule that the president could not use other legal means to attempt to keep the records sealed away , unrelated to his office .
Because of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower courts where those challenges will likely be hashed out for the next several months , making it incredibly unlikely that Trump ’ s taxes would be viewable by the public before the presidential election , if they ever get publicly released at all .
During the 2016 presidential race , Trump had promised he would release his taxes for examination , as most modern presidential candidates have since the 1970s , upon completion of an audit .
Yet he never fulfilled that promise , and later reneged on it completely , eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in them near the time of his inauguration .
Polling around the time he made that claim indicated he was wrong , that the vast majority of voters were still interested in knowing about his finances .
Indeed , polling to this day demonstrates that the American people are still eager to know more about Trump ’ s finances , as evidenced by the response from more than two-thirds of the participants in a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll from last month .

Documents filed on Monday in a high-profile legal case centered on President Donald Trump’s taxes revealed that the investigation is likely searching for evidence of banking or insurance fraud performed by the former business mogul.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. is seeking eight years of the president’s tax filings in order to discern whether funds were illegally used or obtained by Trump in the past. While the prosecutor’s office doesn’t state outright the specific allegations made against the president, they do make mention in a court filing made on Monday of “undisputed” news reporting in 2019 regarding Trump’s former business practices as a legal basis to subpoena his tax records.
Prior to today’s filings, it was believed Vance was looking specifically into hush-money payments, allegedly made from Trump to adult entertainers in exchange for their silence about his extramarital liaisons with them. But based on the assertions made in today’s court filing, it appears that the investigation is looking into other matters as well, including possibly whether Trump in the past has ever inflated claims of his net worth in order to secure huge loans from banks — something his former lawyer Michael Cohen asserted he had done during congressional testimony in February of last year.
Vance’s filing states it’s a “false premise” that his inquiry is focused on the hush-money payments issue alone. The document said that news reports of other questionable financial practices were also of concern, making it likely that Cohen’s allegations will also be examined.
The records that Vance’s office filed today seek to explain, in response to more challenges by Trump’s legal team, why the district attorney’s office should be allowed access to Trump’s financial information.
“These reports describe transactions involving individual and corporate actors based in New York County, but whose conduct at times extended beyond New York’s borders,” Vance wrote in the filing seeking Trump’s taxes, further describing the president’s actions as “possible criminal activity.”
Last month, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vance’s office, finding that the president could not keep his tax records hidden during an inquiry into his previous financial actions. The Court asserted in a 7-2 ruling that “no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.”
While The High Court did find that the chief executive held no such privilege, it did not rule that the president could not use other legal means to attempt to keep the records sealed away, unrelated to his office. Because of that possibility, the case was sent to lower courts where those challenges will likely be hashed out for the next several months, making it incredibly unlikely that Trump’s taxes would be viewable by the public before the presidential election, if they ever get publicly released at all.
During the 2016 presidential race, Trump had promised he would release his taxes for examination, as most modern presidential candidates have since the 1970s, upon completion of an audit. Yet he never fulfilled that promise, and later reneged on it completely, eventually claiming the American people had lost interest in them near the time of his inauguration.
Polling around the time he made that claim indicated he was wrong, that the vast majority of voters were still interested in knowing about his finances. Indeed, polling to this day demonstrates that the American people are still eager to know more about Trump’s finances, as evidenced by the response from more than two-thirds of the participants in a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll from last month.
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--2020-08-03--White House Testing Czar Says It’s Time to “Move On” From Hydroxychloroquine

President Donald Trump ’ s COVID-19 “ testing czar ” has implied it ’ s time for the commander in chief and other officials to stop promoting hydroxychloroquine , an anti-malarial drug , as a possible treatment for coronavirus .
“ The evidence just doesn ’ t show that hydroxychloroquine is effective right now , ” Brett Giroir , assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services , said on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” on Sunday .
“ I think we need to move on from that and talk about what is effective.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country agree with his conclusions about the efficacy of the drug .
“ I think most physicians and prescribers are evidence-based , and they ’ re not influenced by whatever is on Twitter or anything else , ” Giroir said .
Trump has pushed hydroxychloroquine since March , however , as a possible way to treat patients stricken with COVID-19 .
In response , health experts , including White House coronavirus task force member Anthony Fauci , have long argued that there is no evidence for its use in treating the disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those who challenge his position on hydroxychloroquine .
Just last week , the president retweeted a controversial video that was highly critical of Fauci , saying he was misleading the American people on a number of subjects , including the anti-malarial drug .
The video that Trump had promoted has many false and misleading claims .
Trump announced in May that he was using it himself to prevent contracting COVID-19 , despite the absence of evidence for that particular use .
In early July , Trump also touted a study that purported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The highly respected Henry Ford Health System just reported , based on a large sampling , that HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE cut the death rate in certain sick patients very significantly , ” Trump tweeted .
Last week , however , Fauci challenged the conclusions of that study , which he described as “ flawed.
” “ The Henry Ford Hospital study that was published was a non-controlled retrospective cohort study that was confounded by a number of issues , including the fact that many people who were receiving hydroxychloroquine were also using corticosteroids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives a clear benefit in reducing deaths with advanced disease , ” Fauci said during a congressional hearing .
The study was not randomized , and did not include a placebo group to demonstrate any differences in those who were treated with or without the drug , he added .
Despite medical experts saying it doesn ’ t work — or , in some cases , that it may cause more harm to patients than good — a number of Trump ’ s political allies in Congress have also latched onto hydroxychloroquine as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-Texas ) , an anti-mask lawmaker who tested positive for coronavirus last week , spun his diagnosis to suggest his mask was responsible for his illness by trapping the virus inside his facial covering .
Gohmert , who had rarely worn a mask to stop the spread of coronavirus , failed to provide any scientific backing for his claim .
On Fox News last week , Gohmert also said he was using hydroxychloroquine as a treatment .
“ My doctor and I are all in ” for the drug , he told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s testimony last week , Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer ( R-Missouri ) attempted to defend the use of the drug for treating COVID-19 .
He blasted Fauci ’ s criticisms of the Henry Ford Health Systems study , arguing that it was valid since it was peer-reviewed .

President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 “testing czar” has implied it’s time for the commander in chief and other officials to stop promoting hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug, as a possible treatment for coronavirus.
“The evidence just doesn’t show that hydroxychloroquine is effective right now,” Brett Giroir, assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “I think we need to move on from that and talk about what is effective.”
Giroir also suggested that medical professionals across the country agree with his conclusions about the efficacy of the drug.
“I think most physicians and prescribers are evidence-based, and they’re not influenced by whatever is on Twitter or anything else,” Giroir said.
Trump has pushed hydroxychloroquine since March, however, as a possible way to treat patients stricken with COVID-19. In response, health experts, including White House coronavirus task force member Anthony Fauci, have long argued that there is no evidence for its use in treating the disease.
Trump has often attacked the credibility of those who challenge his position on hydroxychloroquine. Just last week, the president retweeted a controversial video that was highly critical of Fauci, saying he was misleading the American people on a number of subjects, including the anti-malarial drug. The video that Trump had promoted has many false and misleading claims.
Trump announced in May that he was using it himself to prevent contracting COVID-19, despite the absence of evidence for that particular use.
In early July, Trump also touted a study that purported hydroxychloroquine was effective at treating the disease. “The highly respected Henry Ford Health System just reported, based on a large sampling, that HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE cut the death rate in certain sick patients very significantly,” Trump tweeted.
Last week, however, Fauci challenged the conclusions of that study, which he described as “flawed.”
“The Henry Ford Hospital study that was published was a non-controlled retrospective cohort study that was confounded by a number of issues, including the fact that many people who were receiving hydroxychloroquine were also using corticosteroids, which we know from another study gives a clear benefit in reducing deaths with advanced disease,” Fauci said during a congressional hearing.
The study was not randomized, and did not include a placebo group to demonstrate any differences in those who were treated with or without the drug, he added.
Despite medical experts saying it doesn’t work — or, in some cases, that it may cause more harm to patients than good — a number of Trump’s political allies in Congress have also latched onto hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), an anti-mask lawmaker who tested positive for coronavirus last week, spun his diagnosis to suggest his mask was responsible for his illness by trapping the virus inside his facial covering. Gohmert, who had rarely worn a mask to stop the spread of coronavirus, failed to provide any scientific backing for his claim.
On Fox News last week, Gohmert also said he was using hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. “My doctor and I are all in” for the drug, he told host Sean Hannity.
During Fauci’s testimony last week, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri) attempted to defend the use of the drug for treating COVID-19. He blasted Fauci’s criticisms of the Henry Ford Health Systems study, arguing that it was valid since it was peer-reviewed.
“It doesn’t matter,” Fauci replied. “You can peer review something that’s a bad study.”
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.