truthout--2020-10-24--Barrett Poised to Be Sixth SCOTUS Justice Hand-Picked by Federalist Society

For Americans tearing their hair out about the imminent conservative super-majority on the United States Supreme Court , we have some pointed advice for you .
Familiarize yourself with the work of the Federalist Society , a group comprising thousands of very conservative lawyers advocating a so-called “ originalist ” version of the Constitution , sanctifying private property rights at the expense of workers , consumers , the environment , social justice and the protection of individual rights .
When we published The Federalist Society : How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals in 2013 , we wrote that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the easiest way to change the law is to change the judges.
” We added that , “ They have been phenomenally successful in doing so.
” Just seven years after our warning , that success has increased by an order of judicial magnitude .
Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s inevitable confirmation will make a total of six Supreme Court justices who were hand-picked by the Federalist Society .
This astonishing feat , along with hundreds more conservative appointments to the lower federal courts , should leave Americans worrying about what rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
Despite their incessant complaining about the power that liberals supposedly wield , the Federalist Society and its conservative allies are now firmly “ the Establishment ” in the federal judiciary .
In addition , from 2010 to 2019 , the Society more than doubled its income to over $ 25 million per year , vastly expanded its programs and now sits comfortably on over $ 30 million in assets , per the group ’ s 2010 and 2019 annual reports .
The group has lawyers ’ chapters in every major city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school , holds thousands of educational programs each year , and has numerous special projects to monitor federal , state and local regulatory policies , the activities of state attorneys general , the selection of state judges , law school curriculum , and politics and policy on a global scale .
As soon as President Trump was inaugurated , the group ’ s leadership , most notably former Executive Vice President Leonard Leo , began to promote conservatives for the more than 100 lower federal court vacancies and the open Supreme Court seat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It will take a generation or more to reverse course , considering the relative youth of so many of the Federalist Society ’ s judicial choices .
The time to start , however , is now .
It is imperative that Joe Biden and his advisers appreciate the urgency of remaking the federal bench .
Neither Presidents Clinton nor Obama did so .
While Obama faced historic obstruction from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the GOP-controlled Senate , Democrats have simply not paid enough attention to selecting judges or convincing voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In stark contrast , every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has made it a priority .
It is long past time that Democrats heed the advice that former Attorney General Edwin Meese gave to Reagan : “ One fact is clear and compelling .
No President exercises any power more far-reaching , more likely to influence his legacy , than the selection of federal judges.
” If he wins , who should Biden appoint ?
The time for middle-of-the-road corporate lawyers , prosecutors , politicians and safe choices is over .
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers , public defenders , ACLU staff lawyers , and attorneys and academics who have demonstrated a commitment to human rights , a living Constitution and the administration of justice .
Biden ’ s administration should put on the bench lawyers like Pamela Karlan , the brilliant expert on voting rights at Stanford University who argued and won employment protections for LGBTQ workers in the Supreme Court this year .
Or Bryan Stevenson , one of the foremost death penalty lawyers and social justice activists in the U.S. Or Dean Erwin Chemerinsky , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lecturer on constitutional law in the country .
The Republicans will oppose these nominees .
It will take courage to make and defend such appointments .
No matter .
The next Democratic president will have to summon fortitude that his predecessors have lacked , with a vision of a judiciary that respects stare decisis and the hard-earned constitutional rights of so many who were for so long unseen .
If you are a liberal philanthropist , take a page out of the books of the Kochs and the Scaifes and the Mercers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects that you insist must be successful in three years .
Stop requiring your grantees to guarantee that every paper clip they use advances the goals of a narrow project .
Instead , make large unrestricted grants that will allow social justice advocates to build their institutions and broadly advance their ideas .
That is how the Federalist Society has become the preeminent force it is today .
In the legal arena , if you have progressive goals , support the National Lawyers Guild .
If you ’ re more comfortable with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution Society .
If you are willing to take a broader approach , support Black Lives Matter and the multitude of other social justice groups dedicated to advancing equal justice under law .
Trust your money to experienced activists who will make good use of it and build institutions that can challenge the Federalist Society ’ s influence over law and public policy .
Finally , no matter who you are , recognize that the Supreme Court is not and will not be an arena for progressive change for quite some time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down or narrow into oblivion individual rights , particularly in the arenas of LGBTQ rights and abortion .
Liberals and progressives must take an active , popular approach , seeking to secure from state legislatures and state courts the rights and opportunities that the conservatives on the Supreme Court threaten to eliminate .
You can ’ t just hire a lawyer to do this for you .
It requires collective participation in all facets of our democratic system .
After all , a citizenry committed to working together in the struggle for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections , and guarantees of liberty and justice far beyond what any nine people in black robes can .

For Americans tearing their hair out about the imminent conservative super-majority on the United States Supreme Court, we have some pointed advice for you. Familiarize yourself with the work of the Federalist Society, a group comprising thousands of very conservative lawyers advocating a so-called “originalist” version of the Constitution, sanctifying private property rights at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment, social justice and the protection of individual rights.
When we published The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals in 2013, we wrote that Federalist Society members uniquely understood “that the easiest way to change the law is to change the judges.” We added that, “They have been phenomenally successful in doing so.” Just seven years after our warning, that success has increased by an order of judicial magnitude. Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s inevitable confirmation will make a total of six Supreme Court justices who were hand-picked by the Federalist Society. This astonishing feat, along with hundreds more conservative appointments to the lower federal courts, should leave Americans worrying about what rights are in danger of being taken from them.
Despite their incessant complaining about the power that liberals supposedly wield, the Federalist Society and its conservative allies are now firmly “the Establishment” in the federal judiciary. In addition, from 2010 to 2019, the Society more than doubled its income to over $25 million per year, vastly expanded its programs and now sits comfortably on over $30 million in assets, per the group’s 2010 and 2019 annual reports. The group has lawyers’ chapters in every major city, student chapters in every accredited law school, holds thousands of educational programs each year, and has numerous special projects to monitor federal, state and local regulatory policies, the activities of state attorneys general, the selection of state judges, law school curriculum, and politics and policy on a global scale.
As soon as President Trump was inaugurated, the group’s leadership, most notably former Executive Vice President Leonard Leo, began to promote conservatives for the more than 100 lower federal court vacancies and the open Supreme Court seat wrestled from President Obama by Senate Republicans.
It will take a generation or more to reverse course, considering the relative youth of so many of the Federalist Society’s judicial choices. The time to start, however, is now.
It is imperative that Joe Biden and his advisers appreciate the urgency of remaking the federal bench. Neither Presidents Clinton nor Obama did so. While Obama faced historic obstruction from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the GOP-controlled Senate, Democrats have simply not paid enough attention to selecting judges or convincing voters of the importance of the judiciary. In stark contrast, every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has made it a priority. It is long past time that Democrats heed the advice that former Attorney General Edwin Meese gave to Reagan: “One fact is clear and compelling. No President exercises any power more far-reaching, more likely to influence his legacy, than the selection of federal judges.”
If he wins, who should Biden appoint? The time for middle-of-the-road corporate lawyers, prosecutors, politicians and safe choices is over. Instead, a President Biden should choose civil rights lawyers, public defenders, ACLU staff lawyers, and attorneys and academics who have demonstrated a commitment to human rights, a living Constitution and the administration of justice. Biden’s administration should put on the bench lawyers like Pamela Karlan, the brilliant expert on voting rights at Stanford University who argued and won employment protections for LGBTQ workers in the Supreme Court this year. Or Bryan Stevenson, one of the foremost death penalty lawyers and social justice activists in the U.S. Or Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, perhaps the most renowned and erudite professor and lecturer on constitutional law in the country. The Republicans will oppose these nominees. It will take courage to make and defend such appointments. No matter. The next Democratic president will have to summon fortitude that his predecessors have lacked, with a vision of a judiciary that respects stare decisis and the hard-earned constitutional rights of so many who were for so long unseen.
If you are a liberal philanthropist, take a page out of the books of the Kochs and the Scaifes and the Mercers. Stop making small grants for individual projects that you insist must be successful in three years. Stop requiring your grantees to guarantee that every paper clip they use advances the goals of a narrow project. Instead, make large unrestricted grants that will allow social justice advocates to build their institutions and broadly advance their ideas. That is how the Federalist Society has become the preeminent force it is today.
In the legal arena, if you have progressive goals, support the National Lawyers Guild. If you’re more comfortable with a traditional liberal agenda, support the American Constitution Society. If you are willing to take a broader approach, support Black Lives Matter and the multitude of other social justice groups dedicated to advancing equal justice under law. Trust your money to experienced activists who will make good use of it and build institutions that can challenge the Federalist Society’s influence over law and public policy.
Finally, no matter who you are, recognize that the Supreme Court is not and will not be an arena for progressive change for quite some time, and that it may in fact strike down or narrow into oblivion individual rights, particularly in the arenas of LGBTQ rights and abortion. Liberals and progressives must take an active, popular approach, seeking to secure from state legislatures and state courts the rights and opportunities that the conservatives on the Supreme Court threaten to eliminate. You can’t just hire a lawyer to do this for you. It requires collective participation in all facets of our democratic system. After all, a citizenry committed to working together in the struggle for a more just society can obtain rewards, protections, and guarantees of liberty and justice far beyond what any nine people in black robes can.
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--2020-10-24--Puerto Rico Debt Vultures Give Big to Candidates to Influence Fiscal Board Picks

The vulture funds profiting off of Puerto Rico ’ s debt crisis , and the law firms that represent them , are donating to the political campaigns of the presidential candidates and key players in Congress who are involved in the selection of the members of the oversight board .
A review of the reports submitted by these candidates ’ campaign committees to the Federal Election Commission shows that the vulture funds and their attorneys have donated just over $ 1.4 million to these candidates .
These donations could influence key elected officials as they decide who the new members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After serving for four years , one more year than what is established by PROMESA , three members of the oversight board , Carlos García , José Ramón González , and José Carrión III , resigned .
In addition to these three vacancies , the terms of the members who still remain would have to be renewed , since PROMESA establishes that the terms have a duration of three years and require renewal once that period is completed .
Thus , the oversight board is in a transitional period , characterized by uncertainty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the results of the elections , both federal and local , and the ravages of the coronavirus pandemic .
President Trump has the power to appoint new members of the oversight board before the general election in November .
However , the presidential race between Trump and Biden will determine what type of executive branch the new board members will have to deal with over the next four years .
For this reason , we also review donations to the Biden campaign .
The oversight board is made up of seven members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately rests with the president , six of the members come from lists drawn up in Congress .
According to PROMESA , the members of the board are elected as follows : • Two members of the lists presented by the Speaker of the House of Representatives , Nancy Pelosi .
• Two members of the list presented by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
• A member of the list put forward by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy .
• A member of the list presented by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , Biden , Pelosi , Schumer , McConnell , and McCarthy committees from 2019 to present .
The reports show that twelve vulture funds and nine law firms involved in the bankruptcy of the Puerto Rico government have been donating to the campaigns .
These vultures are the ones that are still active in the bankruptcy proceedings .
Companies do not make donations directly .
Most of the donations come from the employees , executives or owners of these firms .
The following table shows the donations received by key politicians with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Despite trying to project himself as the progressive candidate against Trump , Biden has received more than six times the donations from Puerto Rico ’ s vultures than the current president .
The significant difference in donations seems to point to the fact that employees of these funds feel better represented by Biden ’ s policies .
On the other hand , the Republican leaders , McConnell and McCarthy , far surpass the Democratic leadership , Pelosi and Schumer .
The Senate Leader and the House Minority Leader have between them received about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Senate Minority Leader have received $ 13,650 .
The five funds that have donated the most are BlackRock , Canyon , Mason , Oaktree , and Taconic .
BlackRock , the world ’ s largest asset manager , tops the list , surpassing $ 100,000 , mostly for the Biden campaign .
Mason Capital stands out for being the fund that has made the most contributions to Trump , with $ 81,200 .
The twelve vulture funds participate in the litigations and negotiations around Puerto Rico ’ s central government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of BlackRock and GoldenTree , they are also participating in the restructuring of the debt of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority ( PREPA ) .
Both restructuring agreements are hanging by a thread as the COVID-19 pandemic completely changed the economic landscape .
Law firms representing the vulture funds , and the oversight board ’ s attorneys , have also been donating to candidates ’ campaigns .
The following table shows their donations and the clients for whom they work .
In first place is Paul Weiss , with $ 400,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ad Hoc Group of General Obligation Bondholders , a group made up of Autonomy and Aurelius Capital .
Aurelius was the vulture fund that challenged the validity of the oversight board on the grounds that the appointments violated the appointments clause of the United States constitution .
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the oversight board .
By June 2020 Aurelius and Autonomy owned over a billion in central government bonds .
The second law firm that has donated the most in this electoral cycle – Proskauer Rose , with over $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the oversight board in the bankruptcy court .
In fact , the largest chunk of those donations comes from the board ’ s legal team leader Martin Bienenstock , totaling $ 120,600 , going to the Trump and McCarthy campaigns .
Finally , Morgan Lewis & Bockius , a firm representing the QTCB Noteholders Group , ranks third with over $ 136,000 .
This group is made up of Davidson Kempner , Canyon Capital and Sculptor Capital .
By June 2020 these three vulture funds reported to the court that they jointly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bonds .

While Biden has received far more than Trump, McConnell significantly surpassed Pelosi in donations from debt vultures.
The vulture funds profiting off of Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, and the law firms that represent them, are donating to the political campaigns of the presidential candidates and key players in Congress who are involved in the selection of the members of the oversight board.
A review of the reports submitted by these candidates’ campaign committees to the Federal Election Commission shows that the vulture funds and their attorneys have donated just over $1.4 million to these candidates. These donations could influence key elected officials as they decide who the new members of the oversight board will be.
After serving for four years, one more year than what is established by PROMESA, three members of the oversight board, Carlos García, José Ramón González, and José Carrión III, resigned. In addition to these three vacancies, the terms of the members who still remain would have to be renewed, since PROMESA establishes that the terms have a duration of three years and require renewal once that period is completed.
Thus, the oversight board is in a transitional period, characterized by uncertainty about who its next members will be, the results of the elections, both federal and local, and the ravages of the coronavirus pandemic.
President Trump has the power to appoint new members of the oversight board before the general election in November. However, the presidential race between Trump and Biden will determine what type of executive branch the new board members will have to deal with over the next four years. For this reason, we also review donations to the Biden campaign.
The oversight board is made up of seven members. While the appointment of these members ultimately rests with the president, six of the members come from lists drawn up in Congress. According to PROMESA, the members of the board are elected as follows:
Two members of the lists presented by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. Two members of the list presented by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. A member of the list put forward by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. A member of the list presented by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. A member chosen directly by the president.
Donations
We reviewed FEC reports from the Trump, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell, and McCarthy committees from 2019 to present. The reports show that twelve vulture funds and nine law firms involved in the bankruptcy of the Puerto Rico government have been donating to the campaigns. These vultures are the ones that are still active in the bankruptcy proceedings.
Companies do not make donations directly. Most of the donations come from the employees, executives or owners of these firms. The following table shows the donations received by key politicians with power to reorganize the oversight board.
2019-2020 Campaigns’ Committees Donations Candidate Position Party Donation Donald Trump President Republican $182,643 Joe Biden Presidential candidate Democrat $1,124,224 Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House Democrat $12,150 Chuck Schumer Senate Minority Leader Democrat $1,500 Mitch McConnell Senate Majority Leader Republican $81,450 Kevin McCarthy House Minority Leader Republican $71,800 Despite trying to project himself as the progressive candidate against Trump, Biden has received more than six times the donations from Puerto Rico’s vultures than the current president. The significant difference in donations seems to point to the fact that employees of these funds feel better represented by Biden’s policies. On the other hand, the Republican leaders, McConnell and McCarthy, far surpass the Democratic leadership, Pelosi and Schumer. The Senate Leader and the House Minority Leader have between them received about $153,000, while the House Speaker and the Senate Minority Leader have received $13,650.
2019-2020 Vulture Funds’ Donations Fund Candidate Donation Aristeia Capital Joe Biden $5,600 Donald Trump $1,000 Aurelius Capital Donald Trump $14,000 BlackRock Mitch McConnell $5,600 Joe Biden $100,044 Donald Trump $2,125 Brookfield Asset Management Joe Biden $2,800 Canyon Capital Mitch McConnell $30,600 Emso Asset Management Joe Biden $8,150 GoldenTree Asset Management Mitch McConnell $28,700 Mason Capital Donald Trump $81,200 Oaktree Capital Joe Biden $68,050 Sculptor Capital Joe Biden $3,550 Silver Point Capital Kevin McCarthy $16,200 Taconic Capital Joe Biden $58,900 Total N/A $426,519 The five funds that have donated the most are BlackRock, Canyon, Mason, Oaktree, and Taconic. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, tops the list, surpassing $100,000, mostly for the Biden campaign. Mason Capital stands out for being the fund that has made the most contributions to Trump, with $81,200. The twelve vulture funds participate in the litigations and negotiations around Puerto Rico’s central government’s plan of adjustment. In the case of BlackRock and GoldenTree, they are also participating in the restructuring of the debt of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). Both restructuring agreements are hanging by a thread as the COVID-19 pandemic completely changed the economic landscape. Law firms representing the vulture funds, and the oversight board’s attorneys, have also been donating to candidates’ campaigns. The following table shows their donations and the clients for whom they work.
2019-2020 Vulture Law Firms’ Donations Law Firm Client Candidate Donation Davis Polk & Wardwell Commonwealth Bondholder Group Joe Biden $77,550 Nancy Pelosi $1,000 Donald Trump $3,195 Jones Day Employees Retirement System Secured Creditors Joe Biden $57,751 Nancy Pelosi $250 Donald Trump $9,303 Kramer Levin Ad Hoc Group of PREPA Bondholders Joe Biden $47,080 Chuck Schumer $1,500 Donald Trump $70 Morgan Lewis QTCB Noteholders Group Joe Biden $134,497 Donald Trump $1,592 Morrison & Foerster Ad Hoc Group of Constitutional Debtholders Joe Biden $67,911 Donald Trump $1,187 Paul Weiss Ad Hoc Group of General Obligation Bondholders Joe Biden $381,526 Mitch McConnell $16,500 Donald Trump $1,975 Proskauer Rose Oversight Board Joe Biden $25,062 Kevin McCarthy $55,600 Mitch McConnell $50 Nancy Pelosi $10,900 Donald Trump $65,000 Quinn Emanuel Lawful Constitutional Debt Coalition Joe Biden $46,058 Donald Trump $942 Willkie Farr Ad Hoc Group of General Obligation Bondholders Joe Biden $24,653 Donald Trump $1,048 Total N/A $1,047,249
In first place is Paul Weiss, with $400,000 in donations. This firm represents the Ad Hoc Group of General Obligation Bondholders, a group made up of Autonomy and Aurelius Capital. Aurelius was the vulture fund that challenged the validity of the oversight board on the grounds that the appointments violated the appointments clause of the United States constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the oversight board.
By June 2020 Aurelius and Autonomy owned over a billion in central government bonds.
The second law firm that has donated the most in this electoral cycle – Proskauer Rose, with over $156,000 donated – is the legal representative of the oversight board in the bankruptcy court. In fact, the largest chunk of those donations comes from the board’s legal team leader Martin Bienenstock, totaling $120,600, going to the Trump and McCarthy campaigns.
Finally, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, a firm representing the QTCB Noteholders Group, ranks third with over $136,000. This group is made up of Davidson Kempner, Canyon Capital and Sculptor Capital. By June 2020 these three vulture funds reported to the court that they jointly held $1.9 billion in central government bonds.
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--2020-10-24--Candidates Focus on the Middle Class, But They Must Also Tackle Deep Poverty

Midway through Thursday night ’ s presidential debate , Joe Biden looked directly into the camera and addressed Americans struggling to pay their bills .
He talked about the challenges families face in juggling all their financial obligations at a moment of cascading economic crisis , and lambasted Trump for opposing an increased minimum wage while instead measuring the economy recovery solely by the value of the stock market .
Trump ’ s response crystalized how removed his worldview is from that of people living paycheck to paycheck .
“ IRAs , ” he shouted out .
“ IRAs.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an individual retirement account , invested heavily in the stock market , Trump wants your thanks and your votes for a rising Dow Jones .
But , as of last year , only one-third of workers had IRAs , and about half of workers in the country had no retirement savings to fall back upon .
For these workers , hard economic choices today , and potentially even harder choices as they become older and near retirement , increasingly shape their reality .
Too often , discussions of poverty that would address why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live right on the economic margins get shunted aside .
Though Biden addressed that issue more directly than Trump did at the debate , he also went out of his way to refer to the struggles faced by middle-class people in the U.S. rather than to focus on those who have never accessed the middle class in the first place .
In doing so , Biden was adhering to a time-tested script .
For it ’ s become something of a cliché in recent presidential election cycles that candidates tend to focus more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than on the problem of entrenched poverty in the United States .
After all , there ’ s usually far more political capital to be made appealing to the economic middle than to those in the bottom quartile of the economy , who tend to vote at a far lower rate than the rest of the population — a point that Bernie Sanders , who did talk about poverty a lot in both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns , but who didn ’ t end up victorious , has ruefully acknowledged .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created two distinct trends that are changing the terrain in which politicians ’ positions on poverty are evaluated : The first is that the pandemic economy has accelerated all the trends toward inequality that were already defining the 21st century U.S. economy .
Three billionaires — yes , you read that correctly — now control as much wealth as the bottom half of all Americans , more than 160 million people .
That ’ s an utterly extraordinary example of oligarchy ; in fact , it ’ s fair to say that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of wealth in human history .
The men in question — Bill Gates , Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett — have managed to consolidate unfathomable amounts of money during this time of public health and economic crises .
Bezos , in particular , has pushed a business model — selling products at a rate that undercuts competitors , delivering those products to consumers ’ homes in a way that is safe and convenient for a health-conscious public , and taking a cut of every transaction — that , in essence , channels a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the bank accounts of one Jeff Bezos .
Back in 2017 , before Bezos ’ s net worth more than doubled , his personal wealth was larger than the gross domestic product of more than 140 countries .
I haven ’ t encountered updated numbers on that particular front , but it ’ s a fair bet that the pandemic economy has resulted in Bezos ’ s wealth outstripping that of many more additional nations .
Put Bezos , Gates and Buffett together , and you practically have a G20 economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this deeply unsavory trickle-up effect is an escalating poverty crisis at the bottom of the U.S. economy — and , more generally , a global reversal of anti-poverty trends that is now resulting in hundreds of millions of people around the world falling into destitution during these pandemic months .
Despite the trillions of dollars that Congress allocated early in the pandemic to try to mitigate the effects of mass unemployment and the stagnation of large parts of the economy , by the end of the summer , the U.S. numbers on poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly a decade of economic growth , poverty rates in the U.S. , according to Census Bureau analyses , had fallen to 10.5 percent .
While that number didn ’ t tell the full story — for example , it didn ’ t account for the impact of millions losing access to health insurance as the Trump administration sought ways to undermine the Affordable Care Act — it did suggest that a low-unemployment economy was seeing some distribution of economic benefits down the income-ladder .
By this autumn , however , all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of millions of families , whose income and businesses had been impacted by the pandemic , were seeing their government assistance truncated .
Some are able to survive without the additional unemployment payments and stimulus checks , or without additional small business loans and grants .
But , with unemployment high and opportunities for new business limited , many aren ’ t .
A recent study by researchers at Columbia University estimated that , since May , an additional 8 million Americans have fallen below the poverty line .
The measure that these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis rather than via annual averages — is somewhat different from Census Bureau measures , resulting in them estimating higher numbers each month in poverty .
But , even factoring that difference in , the trends are dismal .
A year ago , by this methodology , about 15 percent of the U.S. population was in poverty in October 2019 ; today , factoring in CARES Act payments , that number is 16.7 percent .
If you factor out those payments , it is 18 percent .
That ’ s nearly one in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60 million people , struggling in any given month .
Perhaps even more concerning are the “ deep poverty ” numbers .
A family is considered to be in deep poverty if their various income streams ( from work , from government assistance ) bring them up to no more than 50 percent of the poverty line .
Anti-poverty advocates and researchers have long argued that the choices families in deep poverty have to make ( do they pay the rent or buy food , for example ) are so extreme that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacts , especially for young children .
The researchers at Columbia documented a huge spike in deep poverty from March onward .
Even taking into account CARES Act funds , they found that more than 7 percent of Americans each month since the beginning of summer have been experiencing deep poverty .
That compares with 5.8 percent before the pandemic hit .
With Congress gridlocked these past months , additional pandemic assistance funds have largely ceased to flow .
As a result , for millions of Americans , the depth of poverty and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Up to 35 million are at risk of eviction in the coming months .
The number of elderly Americans at risk of homelessness is skyrocketing .
And even if Congress and the White House do somehow hatch a stimulus deal this week , as seems at least vaguely possible , it will take weeks ( if not months ) for benefits to be distributed to needy individuals and families around the country .
Meanwhile , for those on the edge , a bad situation simply gets worse .
And , even if and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no stimulus package will be able to mitigate the consequences if a conservative majority on the Supreme Court rules the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional in the coming months .
The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that nearly 30 million Americans could lose their insurance , rendering them peculiarly vulnerable to economic devastation if they fall ill , and more than a million workers could lose their jobs in health care fields .
Of course , the cascading poverty crisis is not a crisis that is unique to the U.S. Around the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth , resulted in hundreds of millions of children losing access to education , and devastated entire industries , especially in the tourism and leisure sectors .
Recently , UNICEF estimated that 150 million children had been thrust back into poverty since the spring .
There are now roughly 1.2 billion children globally living in conditions of poverty .
UNICEF ’ s analysis concludes that these numbers will increase even more in the coming months .
The World Bank recently estimated that poverty increases around the world will results in tens of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back into deep poverty .
In other words , middle-income countries are , as a result of the pandemic , increasingly looking like lower-income countries did prior to the pandemic .
This is not just a moral crisis ; it is a vast , and growing , geopolitical crisis .
For the kind of unfettered poverty that is being unleashed will , if left unchecked , likely result in massive political turmoil over the coming years and decades .
Even if effective vaccines against the coronavirus are developed and widely distributed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way societies can fully recover from this vast upheaval , this trauma , without the crafting of meaningful , trans-national , anti-poverty initiatives .
It ’ s long past time for U.S. politicians to confront this head-on .
It is time to craft policies — such as increasing taxes on the super-wealthy so as to shore up money to invest more heavily in job-training , preschool programs , health care access and other interventions that have a proven track-record of reducing poverty — that can effectively redistribute the wealth that is now hyper-concentrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the tens of millions domestically , and hundreds of millions internationally , who have crashed through the safety net and into economic despair .
It is time to bring this conversation out of the shadows once and for all , and to recognize that the economic health not just of the “ struggling middle ” but of those at the bottom of the pyramid is of fundamental importance to the broader well-being of our global community .

Midway through Thursday night’s presidential debate, Joe Biden looked directly into the camera and addressed Americans struggling to pay their bills. He talked about the challenges families face in juggling all their financial obligations at a moment of cascading economic crisis, and lambasted Trump for opposing an increased minimum wage while instead measuring the economic recovery solely by the value of the stock market.
Trump’s response crystalized how removed his worldview is from that of people living paycheck to paycheck. “IRAs,” he shouted out. “IRAs.” In other words, if you have an individual retirement account, invested heavily in the stock market, Trump wants your thanks and your votes for a rising Dow Jones.
But, as of last year, only one-third of workers had IRAs, and about half of workers in the country had no retirement savings to fall back upon. For these workers, hard economic choices today, and potentially even harder choices as they become older and near retirement, increasingly shape their reality.
Too often, discussions of poverty that would address why so many people in this wealthy country live right on the economic margins get shunted aside. Though Biden addressed that issue more directly than Trump did at the debate, he also went out of his way to refer to the struggles faced by middle-class people in the U.S. rather than to focus on those who have never accessed the middle class in the first place.
In doing so, Biden was adhering to a time-tested script. For it’s become something of a cliché in recent presidential election cycles that candidates tend to focus more on the “struggling middle class” than on the problem of entrenched poverty in the United States. After all, there’s usually far more political capital to be made appealing to the economic middle than to those in the bottom quartile of the economy, who tend to vote at a far lower rate than the rest of the population — a point that Bernie Sanders, who did talk about poverty a lot in both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns, but who didn’t end up victorious, has ruefully acknowledged.
In 2020, however, the pandemic has created two distinct trends that are changing the terrain in which politicians’ positions on poverty are evaluated: The first is that the pandemic economy has accelerated all the trends toward inequality that were already defining the 21st century U.S. economy. Three billionaires — yes, you read that correctly — now control as much wealth as the bottom half of all Americans, more than 160 million people. That’s an utterly extraordinary example of oligarchy; in fact, it’s fair to say that this represents one of the most extreme maldistributions of wealth in human history.
The men in question — Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett — have managed to consolidate unfathomable amounts of money during this time of public health and economic crises. Bezos, in particular, has pushed a business model — selling products at a rate that undercuts competitors, delivering those products to consumers’ homes in a way that is safe and convenient for a health-conscious public, and taking a cut of every transaction — that, in essence, channels a growing proportion of American consumer spending directly into the bank accounts of one Jeff Bezos. Back in 2017, before Bezos’s net worth more than doubled, his personal wealth was larger than the gross domestic product of more than 140 countries. I haven’t encountered updated numbers on that particular front, but it’s a fair bet that the pandemic economy has resulted in Bezos’s wealth outstripping that of many more additional nations. Put Bezos, Gates and Buffett together, and you practically have a G20 economy.
Of course, the flip side to this deeply unsavory trickle-up effect is an escalating poverty crisis at the bottom of the U.S. economy — and, more generally, a global reversal of anti-poverty trends that is now resulting in hundreds of millions of people around the world falling into destitution during these pandemic months.
Despite the trillions of dollars that Congress allocated early in the pandemic to try to mitigate the effects of mass unemployment and the stagnation of large parts of the economy, by the end of the summer, the U.S. numbers on poverty were stark.
In 2019, after nearly a decade of economic growth, poverty rates in the U.S., according to Census Bureau analyses, had fallen to 10.5 percent. While that number didn’t tell the full story — for example, it didn’t account for the impact of millions losing access to health insurance as the Trump administration sought ways to undermine the Affordable Care Act — it did suggest that a low-unemployment economy was seeing some distribution of economic benefits down the income-ladder. By this autumn, however, all of those gains had gone, and tens of millions of families, whose income and businesses had been impacted by the pandemic, were seeing their government assistance truncated. Some are able to survive without the additional unemployment payments and stimulus checks, or without additional small business loans and grants. But, with unemployment high and opportunities for new business limited, many aren’t.
A recent study by researchers at Columbia University estimated that, since May, an additional 8 million Americans have fallen below the poverty line. The measure that these researchers use — measuring on a month-by-month basis rather than via annual averages — is somewhat different from Census Bureau measures, resulting in them estimating higher numbers each month in poverty. But, even factoring that difference in, the trends are dismal.
A year ago, by this methodology, about 15 percent of the U.S. population was in poverty in October 2019; today, factoring in CARES Act payments, that number is 16.7 percent. If you factor out those payments, it is 18 percent. That’s nearly one in five Americans, or somewhere north of 60 million people, struggling in any given month.
Perhaps even more concerning are the “deep poverty” numbers. A family is considered to be in deep poverty if their various income streams (from work, from government assistance) bring them up to no more than 50 percent of the poverty line. Anti-poverty advocates and researchers have long argued that the choices families in deep poverty have to make (do they pay the rent or buy food, for example) are so extreme that they result in long-lasting physical and psychological health impacts, especially for young children. The researchers at Columbia documented a huge spike in deep poverty from March onward. Even taking into account CARES Act funds, they found that more than 7 percent of Americans each month since the beginning of summer have been experiencing deep poverty. That compares with 5.8 percent before the pandemic hit.
With Congress gridlocked these past months, additional pandemic assistance funds have largely ceased to flow. As a result, for millions of Americans, the depth of poverty and economic insecurity is becoming more extreme. Up to 35 million are at risk of eviction in the coming months. The number of elderly Americans at risk of homelessness is skyrocketing. And even if Congress and the White House do somehow hatch a stimulus deal this week, as seems at least vaguely possible, it will take weeks (if not months) for benefits to be distributed to needy individuals and families around the country. Meanwhile, for those on the edge, a bad situation simply gets worse.
And, even if and when Congress does free up funds, no stimulus package will be able to mitigate the consequences if a conservative majority on the Supreme Court rules the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional in the coming months. The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that nearly 30 million Americans could lose their insurance, rendering them peculiarly vulnerable to economic devastation if they fall ill, and more than a million workers could lose their jobs in health care fields.
Of course, the cascading poverty crisis is not a crisis that is unique to the U.S. Around the world, the pandemic has obliterated years of economic growth, resulted in hundreds of millions of children losing access to education, and devastated entire industries, especially in the tourism and leisure sectors. Recently, UNICEF estimated that 150 million children had been thrust back into poverty since the spring. There are now roughly 1.2 billion children globally living in conditions of poverty. UNICEF’s analysis concludes that these numbers will increase even more in the coming months. The World Bank recently estimated that poverty increases around the world will results in tens of millions of poor people in middle-income countries falling back into deep poverty. In other words, middle-income countries are, as a result of the pandemic, increasingly looking like lower-income countries did prior to the pandemic.
This is not just a moral crisis; it is a vast, and growing, geopolitical crisis. For the kind of unfettered poverty that is being unleashed will, if left unchecked, likely result in massive political turmoil over the coming years and decades.
Even if effective vaccines against the coronavirus are developed and widely distributed in the near future, there is simply no way societies can fully recover from this vast upheaval, this trauma, without the crafting of meaningful, trans-national, anti-poverty initiatives. It’s long past time for U.S. politicians to confront this head-on. It is time to craft policies — such as increasing taxes on the super-wealthy so as to shore up money to invest more heavily in job-training, preschool programs, health care access and other interventions that have a proven track-record of reducing poverty — that can effectively redistribute the wealth that is now hyper-concentrated at the top of the economic pyramid to the tens of millions domestically, and hundreds of millions internationally, who have crashed through the safety net and into economic despair. It is time to bring this conversation out of the shadows once and for all, and to recognize that the economic health not just of the “struggling middle” but of those at the bottom of the pyramid is of fundamental importance to the broader well-being of our global community.
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--2020-10-24--New Research Shows Masks Are Helping Hold Down COVID Death Rates Significantly

The chances of dying from COVID-19 have fallen precipitously since the pandemic began , according to two new peer-reviewed studies .
One study , from researchers at New York University ’ s Grossman School of Medicine , found that the death rate has gone down substantially among all age groups .
Patients treated by NYU ’ s health system had a 25.6 % chance of dying when the pandemic began but that number has fallen to 7.6 % in recent weeks , according to the study , which will be published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine next week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop , including increased experience with the virus among health workers , lower hospital capacity , the availability of new treatments , earlier intervention , higher community awareness , and “ lower viral load exposure from increasing mask wearing and social distancing.
” The researchers added that it is also possible that “ earlier periods had a more virulent circulating strain.
” “ Our findings suggest that while COVID-19 remains a terrible disease , our efforts to improve treatment are probably working , ” co-author Leora Horwitz said in a statement .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment or vaccine , we are protecting more of our patients through a host of small changes.
” While the NYU study only looked at about 5,000 cases in a single health system in New York , another analysis by Bilal Mateen , a researcher at the Alan Turing Institute in the United Kingdom similarly found that the death rate has fallen about 20 percentage points since the pandemic began .
The study , which was released as a preprint before it is set to appear in the journal Critical Care Medicine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitalizations in the UK .
“ This trend remains after adjustment for patient demographics and comorbidities suggesting this improvement is not due to changing patient characteristics , ” the analysis said .
“ Possible causes include the introduction of effective treatments as part of clinical trials and a falling critical care burden.
” To be clear , the death rate is “ still higher than many infectious diseases , including the flu , ” Horwitz told NPR .
And many patients still have severe symptoms months after first testing positive .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmful in terms of long-term consequences for many people , ” she said .
Horwitz acknowledged that “ people who are getting hospitalized now tend to be younger ” and have fewer health conditions but even when adjusted for age and other diseases , the study found that the death rate among older patients has dropped by about 18 percentage points .
“ Clearly , there ’ s been something [ that ’ s ] gone on that ’ s improved the risk of individuals who go into these settings with COVID-19 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were not involved in the studies agreed that there were numerous reasons for the drop .
Khalilah Gates , a critical care pulmonologist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago , told NPR that patients in the early days of the pandemic were put on ventilators and breathing machines and perhaps offered enrollment into critical trials but “ six-plus months into this , we kind of have a rhythm , and so it has become an everyday standard patient for us at this point in time.
” Amesh Adalja , an infectious disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , added that doctors have also learned to quickly identify patients at risk of blood clots or “ cytokine storms , ” when the body ’ s immune system attacks itself .
“ We know that when people are getting standardized treatment , it makes it much easier to deal with the complications that occur because you already have protocols in place , ” he said .
“ And that ’ s definitely what ’ s happened in many hospitals around the country.
” Mateen stressed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the death rate in the UK because when “ staff are stretched , mistakes are made.
” “ It ’ s night and day to take care of someone with a disease you ’ ve never seen before , than taking care of someone where you ’ ve seen hundreds , ” Horwitz told The Wall Street Journal .
“ It ’ s also probably that the hospitals are not overwhelmed , but that can change.
” Indeed , the number of new cases in the United States hit a record high of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit record highs in numerous states like Ohio , Iowa , Utah , and Oklahoma .
Hospitals in Utah , Wisconsin , Idaho , and others are already nearing full capacity .
As hospitals in hot spots are stretched thin , Horwitz stressed that wearing a mask could mean the difference between life and death .
A study by researchers at the University of California , San Francisco and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that masks may reduce the amount of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ leading to higher rates of mild or asymptomatic infection.
” “ Masks , depending on the material and design , filter out a majority of viral particles , but not all , ” the study said .
The researchers found that in some cases , “ if 80 % of the population wears a moderately effective mask , nearly half of the projected deaths over the next two months could be prevented.
” Countries that had high levels of mask-wearing before the pandemic have fared better than other nations and subsequent resurgences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more virus you get into your body , the more sick you are likely to get , ” said study co-author Monica Gandhi , an infectious disease expert at UCSF .
“ Masks can prevent many infections altogether , as was seen in health care workers when we moved to universal masking .
We ’ re also saying that masks , which filter out a majority of viral particles , can lead to a less severe infection if you do get one , ” said Gandhi .
“ If you get infected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the best way you can ever get a virus.
” The study compared outbreaks on two cruise ships in the winter .
In February , 18 % of 634 people who tested positive aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan were asymptomatic .
But a cruise ship in Argentina , where workers handed out surgical masks to all passengers and N95 masks to all staff after the first passenger tested positive , had an 81 % asymptomatic rate among 128 people who tested positive .
Likewise , as hundreds of food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , plants that distributed masks to workers saw high asymptomatic rates .
A seafood processing plant in Oregon and a Tyson chicken processing plant in Arkansas had 95 % asymptomatic rates among hundreds of infections after giving workers masks .
Gandhi said that public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should stress these findings along with the current messaging that wearing a mask prevents asymptomatic people from spreading the virus to others .
“ We messaged that mask wearing will protect other people , and that did not seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we would have hoped , ” she said .
“ If you think something ’ s going to help you or your family , you are going to do it more than if you think you ’ re helping others .
”

As new cases in the U.S. hit a record high, health experts say masks are playing a tremendous role in preventing deaths.
The chances of dying from COVID-19 have fallen precipitously since the pandemic began, according to two new peer-reviewed studies.
One study, from researchers at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, found that the death rate has gone down substantially among all age groups.
Patients treated by NYU’s health system had a 25.6% chance of dying when the pandemic began but that number has fallen to 7.6% in recent weeks, according to the study, which will be published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine next week.
The researchers identified multiple reasons for the drop, including increased experience with the virus among health workers, lower hospital capacity, the availability of new treatments, earlier intervention, higher community awareness, and “lower viral load exposure from increasing mask wearing and social distancing.” The researchers added that it is also possible that “earlier periods had a more virulent circulating strain.”
“Our findings suggest that while COVID-19 remains a terrible disease, our efforts to improve treatment are probably working,” co-author Leora Horwitz said in a statement. “Even in the absence of a silver-bullet treatment or vaccine, we are protecting more of our patients through a host of small changes.”
While the NYU study only looked at about 5,000 cases in a single health system in New York, another analysis by Bilal Mateen, a researcher at the Alan Turing Institute in the United Kingdom similarly found that the death rate has fallen about 20 percentage points since the pandemic began.
The study, which was released as a preprint before it is set to appear in the journal Critical Care Medicine, looked at data from more than 20,000 hospitalizations in the UK.
“This trend remains after adjustment for patient demographics and comorbidities suggesting this improvement is not due to changing patient characteristics,” the analysis said. “Possible causes include the introduction of effective treatments as part of clinical trials and a falling critical care burden.”
To be clear, the death rate is “still higher than many infectious diseases, including the flu,” Horwitz told NPR. And many patients still have severe symptoms months after first testing positive. “It still has the potential to be very harmful in terms of long-term consequences for many people,” she said.
Horwitz acknowledged that “people who are getting hospitalized now tend to be younger” and have fewer health conditions but even when adjusted for age and other diseases, the study found that the death rate among older patients has dropped by about 18 percentage points.
“Clearly, there’s been something [that’s] gone on that’s improved the risk of individuals who go into these settings with COVID-19,” Mateen told the outlet.
Doctors who were not involved in the studies agreed that there were numerous reasons for the drop.
Khalilah Gates, a critical care pulmonologist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, told NPR that patients in the early days of the pandemic were put on ventilators and breathing machines and perhaps offered enrollment into critical trials but “six-plus months into this, we kind of have a rhythm, and so it has become an everyday standard patient for us at this point in time.”
Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease expert and emergency medicine physician at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, added that doctors have also learned to quickly identify patients at risk of blood clots or “cytokine storms,” when the body’s immune system attacks itself.
“We know that when people are getting standardized treatment, it makes it much easier to deal with the complications that occur because you already have protocols in place,” he said. “And that’s definitely what’s happened in many hospitals around the country.”
Mateen stressed that hospital capacity has been key in reducing the death rate in the UK because when “staff are stretched, mistakes are made.”
“It’s night and day to take care of someone with a disease you’ve never seen before, than taking care of someone where you’ve seen hundreds,” Horwitz told The Wall Street Journal. “It’s also probably that the hospitals are not overwhelmed, but that can change.”
Indeed, the number of new cases in the United States hit a record high of more than 77,000 on Thursday and hospitalizations hit record highs in numerous states like Ohio, Iowa, Utah, and Oklahoma. Hospitals in Utah, Wisconsin, Idaho, and others are already nearing full capacity.
As hospitals in hot spots are stretched thin, Horwitz stressed that wearing a mask could mean the difference between life and death.
A study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that masks may reduce the amount of the virus the wearer is exposed to, “leading to higher rates of mild or asymptomatic infection.”
“Masks, depending on the material and design, filter out a majority of viral particles, but not all,” the study said. The researchers found that in some cases, “if 80% of the population wears a moderately effective mask, nearly half of the projected deaths over the next two months could be prevented.”
Countries that had high levels of mask-wearing before the pandemic have fared better than other nations and subsequent resurgences have been less deadly.
“The more virus you get into your body, the more sick you are likely to get,” said study co-author Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert at UCSF.
“Masks can prevent many infections altogether, as was seen in health care workers when we moved to universal masking. We’re also saying that masks, which filter out a majority of viral particles, can lead to a less severe infection if you do get one,” said Gandhi. “If you get infected, but have no symptoms – that’s the best way you can ever get a virus.”
The study compared outbreaks on two cruise ships in the winter. In February, 18% of 634 people who tested positive aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan were asymptomatic. But a cruise ship in Argentina, where workers handed out surgical masks to all passengers and N95 masks to all staff after the first passenger tested positive, had an 81% asymptomatic rate among 128 people who tested positive. Likewise, as hundreds of food processing plant workers died from the coronavirus, plants that distributed masks to workers saw high asymptomatic rates. A seafood processing plant in Oregon and a Tyson chicken processing plant in Arkansas had 95% asymptomatic rates among hundreds of infections after giving workers masks. Gandhi said that public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should stress these findings along with the current messaging that wearing a mask prevents asymptomatic people from spreading the virus to others. “We messaged that mask wearing will protect other people, and that did not seem to convince our country as much as we would have hoped,” she said. “If you think something’s going to help you or your family, you are going to do it more than if you think you’re helping others.”
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--2020-10-24--The Squad Calls for UN Inquiry Into Alleged Human Rights Abuses at Trump’s DHS

The four first-term progressive congresswomen collectively called the Squad led a letter Friday calling for independent international investigation of “ recent , ongoing , and credible allegations of egregious human rights abuses by the United States Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) , its components , and its private contractors.
” “ From the unwanted and unnecessary hysterectomies of migrant women , to the forced separation of children from their families , to the indefinite detention of immigrants in abhorrent conditions—the cruelty and callousness of the Department of Homeland Security under [ President ] Donald Trump knows no bounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
said in a statement Friday .
“ This administration has demonstrated time and again its utter disregard for the lives of our immigrant neighbors , while our institutions of government have done little to hold it accountable—that must change .
It ’ s time we had a truly independent , external , and impartial investigation into these alleged human rights abuses by DHS , and I am proud to partner with my sisters in service in leading this call , ” she added .
Pressley was joined in demanding a probe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president by fellow Squad members Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) , Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) , and Rashida Tlaib ( D-Mich. ) as well as Reps. Mark Pocan ( D-Wis. ) , Veronica Escobar ( D-Texas ) , Alan Lowenthal ( D-Calif. ) , and Mary Gay Scanlon ( D-Pa. ) .
The lawmakers sent identical , detailed letters ( pdf ) requesting investigations to United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet , the Organization of American States ’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights , the U.N. Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that report to the council .
“ All countries , regardless of size , power , or international standing must respect the human rights of all people and the United States is no exception , ” the letters state .
“ Our government can not be allowed to commit human rights atrocities or escape investigation , oversight , or criticism based on its powerful geopolitical position , as it so often has.
” The letters come after the Los Angeles Times reported late Thursday that “ at least 19 women at a Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctor performed , or pressured them to undergo , ‘ overly aggressive ’ or ‘ medically unnecessary ’ surgery without their consent , including procedures that affect their ability to have children.
” Although the DHS inspector general already opened an investigation into the Irwin County Detention Center in Georgia after revelations from a whistleblower about medical practices at the facility , the lawmakers and supporters of their letters emphasized the need for independent reviews of those and other allegations .
“ Holding the Department of Homeland Security accountable for its long history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reproductive justice , and public health imperative—one that has been put on the backburner at the expense and detriment of our immigrant neighbors , ” declared Tlaib .
“ That they have now been accused of literally removing immigrant women ’ s wombs is perhaps the most egregious yet , ” she said .
“ As a mother , as a human being , I can no longer simply continue to call for our government to investigate itself .
We ’ ve been down that road and it has resulted in no meaningful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Omar took direct aim at the president for forcibly separating families at the southern border—a widely condemned policy which , as a court filing from the ACLU revealed earlier this week , has led to at least 545 children remaining apart from parents , who haven ’ t yet been located .
The filing says about two-thirds of the parents are believed to have been deported to their countries of origin without their children .
“ There can be no question now : The president of the United States oversaw massive human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against children no less , ” Omar said .
“ This was child abuse on a massive scale .
It is clear that the administration itself does not have the ability to hold itself accountable in a transparent or impartial matter.
” The letters are endorsed by 53 groups , including Project South and the Government Accountability Project , which represent the Georgia whistleblower .
The Government Accountability Project also represents “ eight other whistleblowers within the DHS immigration system whose disclosures about practices that endanger the lives of immigrants in detention helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Nations , ” noted staff attorney and International Program deputy director Samantha Feinstein .
“ Unfortunately their warnings not only failed to prompt accountability and reform , but the DHS and its contractors revealed their indifference at best , and willful disregard at worst , to the lives of immigrants in detention , ” Feinstein said .
“ We applaud the calls by members of Congress for the United Nations to investigate the human rights violations revealed by whistleblowers , whose disclosure [ s ] are essential to ensuring that fundamental human @ @ @ @ @

Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Omar and Tlaib were among several lawmakers calling for an international investigation.
The four first-term progressive congresswomen collectively called the Squad led a letter Friday calling for independent international investigation of “recent, ongoing, and credible allegations of egregious human rights abuses by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its components, and its private contractors.”
“From the unwanted and unnecessary hysterectomies of migrant women, to the forced separation of children from their families, to the indefinite detention of immigrants in abhorrent conditions—the cruelty and callousness of the Department of Homeland Security under [President] Donald Trump knows no bounds,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said in a statement Friday.
“This administration has demonstrated time and again its utter disregard for the lives of our immigrant neighbors, while our institutions of government have done little to hold it accountable—that must change. It’s time we had a truly independent, external, and impartial investigation into these alleged human rights abuses by DHS, and I am proud to partner with my sisters in service in leading this call,” she added.
Pressley was joined in demanding a probe of the agency’s actions under the president by fellow Squad members Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) as well as Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), and Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.).
The lawmakers sent identical, detailed letters (pdf) requesting investigations to United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the U.N. Human Rights Council, and 14 independent experts that report to the council.
“All countries, regardless of size, power, or international standing must respect the human rights of all people and the United States is no exception,” the letters state. “Our government cannot be allowed to commit human rights atrocities or escape investigation, oversight, or criticism based on its powerful geopolitical position, as it so often has.”
The letters come after the Los Angeles Times reported late Thursday that “at least 19 women at a Georgia immigration facility are now alleging that a doctor performed, or pressured them to undergo, ‘overly aggressive’ or ‘medically unnecessary’ surgery without their consent, including procedures that affect their ability to have children.”
Although the DHS inspector general already opened an investigation into the Irwin County Detention Center in Georgia after revelations from a whistleblower about medical practices at the facility, the lawmakers and supporters of their letters emphasized the need for independent reviews of those and other allegations.
We first got wind of these atrocities being committed in September and now it's a total of 19 women who say they were subjected to medical abuse in ICE custody. This is just one more reason to not only #ShutDownIrwin, but #AbolishICE altogether.https://t.co/QRK7W3HlJD — Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) October 23, 2020
“Holding the Department of Homeland Security accountable for its long history of abuses is a human rights, reproductive justice, and public health imperative—one that has been put on the backburner at the expense and detriment of our immigrant neighbors,” declared Tlaib.
“That they have now been accused of literally removing immigrant women’s wombs is perhaps the most egregious yet,” she said. “As a mother, as a human being, I can no longer simply continue to call for our government to investigate itself. We’ve been down that road and it has resulted in no meaningful change, only impunity and additional atrocities.”
Omar took direct aim at the president for forcibly separating families at the southern border—a widely condemned policy which, as a court filing from the ACLU revealed earlier this week, has led to at least 545 children remaining apart from parents, who haven’t yet been located. The filing says about two-thirds of the parents are believed to have been deported to their countries of origin without their children.
“There can be no question now: The president of the United States oversaw massive human rights abuses within our own country, against children no less,” Omar said. “This was child abuse on a massive scale. It is clear that the administration itself does not have the ability to hold itself accountable in a transparent or impartial matter.”
Trump oversaw massive human rights abuses from child separation, forced hysterectomies of women, and unconscionable treatment of immigrant detainees. I’m proud to join my sisters in service to call for an independent investigation into these atrocities. pic.twitter.com/69QfjvmNyP — Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) October 23, 2020
The letters are endorsed by 53 groups, including Project South and the Government Accountability Project, which represent the Georgia whistleblower. The Government Accountability Project also represents “eight other whistleblowers within the DHS immigration system whose disclosures about practices that endanger the lives of immigrants in detention helped spur this call for intervention by the United Nations,” noted staff attorney and International Program deputy director Samantha Feinstein.
“Unfortunately their warnings not only failed to prompt accountability and reform, but the DHS and its contractors revealed their indifference at best, and willful disregard at worst, to the lives of immigrants in detention,” Feinstein said. “We applaud the calls by members of Congress for the United Nations to investigate the human rights violations revealed by whistleblowers, whose disclosure[s] are essential to ensuring that fundamental human rights are enforced.”
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--2020-10-24--No Matter How the President Spins It, the Trump Economy Is Busted

President Donald Trump said the stock market “ will crash ” if former Vice President Joe Biden were to replace him in the White House during the final presidential debate on Thursday night .
Fact-checkers said this statement is false on its face .
The stock market is not expected to dip if Biden is elected , let alone “ crash , ” although investors are worried about the specter of a contested election raised by Trump ’ s attacks on mail-in voting .
In fact , recent analysis by independent financial experts of each candidate ’ s economic plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic takeover of the Senate would produce up to 7.4 million more jobs and a faster economic recovery from pandemic recession than a victory for Trump and the GOP .
Since his first run for office , Trump has billed himself as a boon for the economy , but his record is obscured by his rhetoric .
Trump has consistently used the stock market as a barometer of the economy ’ s health , but economists say that view is out of touch with most of the population .
The bottom 90 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only 12 percent of corporate equities and mutual fund shares , and the bottom 50 percent hold only .16 percent , according to federal data .
That may be one reason why Biden responded to Trump ’ s attacks by highlighting the economic pain middle class families are feeling as a result of the coronavirus pandemic .
“ Where I come from in Scranton and Claymont , the people don ’ t live off of the stock market , ” Biden said .
The stock market has improved overall in the months since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is good news for some investors , but millions of working Americans are still hurting .
While the number of new unemployment claims is slowly shrinking , at least 24 million people were receiving or waiting unemployment claims last week , and job growth is slowing , according to the Economic Policy Institute ( EPI ) .
Last week was the 31st straight week that total initial claims — about 1.1 million — were far greater than the worst week of the Great Recession .
Meanwhile , millions of adults and children are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refuse to take up a second pandemic relief package passed by House Democrats , and talks over a compromise bill have stalled for weeks .
More than one of four children live in households that are unable to pay for basic expenses , such as food , rent or mortgage , car payments and medical expenses , according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities .
The COVID-19 pandemic — along with the Trump administration ’ s botched response and failure to prioritize public health — are clearly the biggest factors impacting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s why Trump has consistently sought to blame the virus for economic woes and China for the virus , although China has done a much better job at controlling the spread of the virus among its people and reducing death rates than the U.S .
The economy was booming before the virus , Trump claims , when the stock market was growing and the unemployment rate rested at around 3.5 percent .
However , some progressive economists argue Trump inherited a strong economy from the Obama administration , and a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degrading the economy before COVID-19 appeared .
For example , Trump has hailed the GOP ’ s tax cuts passed in the early months of his presidency as a gift to the economy .
However , most of those tax cuts benefited the wealthy , who are more likely to save money than to spend money .
Consider a rich family that has paid off their seven cars and a poor family struggling to pay for a lease on one , not to mention mortgage payments and outstanding medical bills .
Who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a tax break and put that money back into the economy ?
Business investment plummeted under the Trump administration even before COVID-19 hit and despite Trump ’ s massive tax cuts for corporations , according to EPI research director Josh Bivens .
The administration also undercut labor rules and standards that degraded bargaining leverage for workers , sending more wealth toward upper class .
“ You don ’ t have to be an economist to know how the U.S. economy is doing today : It ’ s an utter shambles , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find the work they need to get by , and with tens of millions of families facing extreme hardship and anxiety , ” Bivens wrote in a blog post this week .
Trump claimed he would protect domestic manufacturing jobs with protectionist trade policies and lower the trade deficit , but experts say he has failed on both fronts .
The U.S. trade deficit , which is the gap between what the U.S. buys and sells abroad , reached a 14-year high in August as the domestic economy sputtered .
While it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs were lost and sent overseas during Trump ’ s tenure , he did not keep his pledge to prevent offshoring .
Claims for Trade Adjustment Assistance , which is provided to workers who lose their jobs due to trade , covered nearly 184,888 jobs in manufacturing , financial services and other sectors during Trump ’ s time in office , according to analysis by Bloomberg .
That ’ s about 12,000 more than were offshored during the eight years President Obama was in office .
An estimated 700,000 jobs were lost to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Trump administration , according to EPI .
Trump ’ s trade war with China and other major economies has also hurt U.S. businesses and consumers .
Trump initially put tariffs — essentially taxes on imports and exports between countries — on a number of products , and earlier this year the Congressional Budget Office estimated the tariffs would reduce the average household $ 1,227 in annual income this year .
While Trump has pursued an agreement with China to end trade disputes , the harm from his policies has economic ripple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post : Trump has attempted to hang his economic hat on the fossil fuel industry , saying falsely that Biden would ban fracking and his administration has unleashed a renaissance for U.S. energy by slashing regulations that protect clean air and water .
However , fracking for oil and gas had already caused a fossil fuel boom before Trump became president , and the industry was struggling before COVID-19 as prices plummeted do to overproduction .
Meanwhile , the costs of Trump ’ s failure to address the damage caused by climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the future as seas rise and climate-related natural disasters increase .
Trump argues that Obama-era regulations on the fossil fuel industry are “ job-killers , ” and warns states like Texas and Pennsylvania that produce oil and gas that Biden would destroy their economies by turning away from fossil fuels .
However , the Trump campaign uses inflated numbers when boasting about the number of jobs created by oil and gas .
Biden has only promised a slow transition to cleaner energy over decades by investing in cleaner energy and ending federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national “ ban ” on fracking that climate activists demand .
After the debate , Biden told reporters that workers in the oil and gas industry would not lose their jobs if he became president , and new jobs would be created by “ alternatives ” in the energy sector .
“ We ’ re getting rid of the subsidies for fossil fuels , but we ’ re not getting rid of fossil fuels for a long time , ” Biden said .
Biden would not crush the fossil fuel industry as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel industry is crushing itself ) .
Biden likely would , however , reinstate regulations decimated by the Trump administration that could create jobs and prevent pollution , according to the BlueGreen Alliance , a coalition of the nation ’ s largest environmental groups and labor unions .
For example , Obama-era regulations requiring oil and gas producers to prevent climate-warming methane gas from leaking into the atmosphere would have created 5,400 direct and indirect jobs if the Trump administration had not revoked the rules .
If Biden wins the election and fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new jobs could be created over a decade , according to the BlueGreen Alliance .

From his handling of COVID to his attacks on labor and environmental regulations, the president has been a job killer.
President Donald Trump said the stock market “will crash” if former Vice President Joe Biden were to replace him in the White House during the final presidential debate on Thursday night. Fact-checkers said this statement is false on its face. The stock market is not expected to dip if Biden is elected, let alone “crash,” although investors are worried about the specter of a contested election raised by Trump’s attacks on mail-in voting.
In fact, recent analysis by independent financial experts of each candidate’s economic plan predicts that a Biden victory and a Democratic takeover of the Senate would produce up to 7.4 million more jobs and a faster economic recovery from pandemic recession than a victory for Trump and the GOP. Since his first run for office, Trump has billed himself as a boon for the economy, but his record is obscured by his rhetoric.
Trump has consistently used the stock market as a barometer of the economy’s health, but economists say that view is out of touch with most of the population. The bottom 90 percent of households in terms of income hold only 12 percent of corporate equities and mutual fund shares, and the bottom 50 percent hold only .16 percent, according to federal data. That may be one reason why Biden responded to Trump’s attacks by highlighting the economic pain middle class families are feeling as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
“Where I come from in Scranton and Claymont, the people don’t live off of the stock market,” Biden said.
The stock market has improved overall in the months since COVID-19 shutdowns spurred a recession, which is good news for some investors, but millions of working Americans are still hurting. While the number of new unemployment claims is slowly shrinking, at least 24 million people were receiving or waiting unemployment claims last week, and job growth is slowing, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Last week was the 31st straight week that total initial claims — about 1.1 million — were far greater than the worst week of the Great Recession.
Meanwhile, millions of adults and children are going hungry as Republicans in the Senate refuse to take up a second pandemic relief package passed by House Democrats, and talks over a compromise bill have stalled for weeks. More than one of four children live in households that are unable to pay for basic expenses, such as food, rent or mortgage, car payments and medical expenses, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
The COVID-19 pandemic — along with the Trump administration’s botched response and failure to prioritize public health — are clearly the biggest factors impacting the economic reality for most people. That’s why Trump has consistently sought to blame the virus for economic woes and China for the virus, although China has done a much better job at controlling the spread of the virus among its people and reducing death rates than the U.S.
More than one of four children live in households that are unable to pay for basic expenses.
The economy was booming before the virus, Trump claims, when the stock market was growing and the unemployment rate rested at around 3.5 percent. However, some progressive economists argue Trump inherited a strong economy from the Obama administration, and a number of policies championed by Trump were slowly degrading the economy before COVID-19 appeared.
For example, Trump has hailed the GOP’s tax cuts passed in the early months of his presidency as a gift to the economy. However, most of those tax cuts benefited the wealthy, who are more likely to save money than to spend money. Consider a rich family that has paid off their seven cars and a poor family struggling to pay for a lease on one, not to mention mortgage payments and outstanding medical bills. Who is more likely to immediately spend the windfall of a tax break and put that money back into the economy?
Business investment plummeted under the Trump administration even before COVID-19 hit and despite Trump’s massive tax cuts for corporations, according to EPI research director Josh Bivens. The administration also undercut labor rules and standards that degraded bargaining leverage for workers, sending more wealth toward upper class.
“You don’t have to be an economist to know how the U.S. economy is doing today: It’s an utter shambles, with tens of millions of workers unable to find the work they need to get by, and with tens of millions of families facing extreme hardship and anxiety,” Bivens wrote in a blog post this week.
Trump claimed he would protect domestic manufacturing jobs with protectionist trade policies and lower the trade deficit, but experts say he has failed on both fronts. The U.S. trade deficit, which is the gap between what the U.S. buys and sells abroad, reached a 14-year high in August as the domestic economy sputtered.
While it’s difficult to gauge how many U.S. jobs were lost and sent overseas during Trump’s tenure, he did not keep his pledge to prevent offshoring. Claims for Trade Adjustment Assistance, which is provided to workers who lose their jobs due to trade, covered nearly 184,888 jobs in manufacturing, financial services and other sectors during Trump’s time in office, according to analysis by Bloomberg. That’s about 12,000 more than were offshored during the eight years President Obama was in office. An estimated 700,000 jobs were lost due to the trade deficit with China in the first two years of the Trump administration alone, according to EPI.
Trump’s trade war with China and other major economies has also hurt U.S. businesses and consumers. Trump initially put tariffs — essentially taxes on imports and exports between countries — on a number of products, and earlier this year the Congressional Budget Office estimated the tariffs would reduce the average household $1,227 in annual income this year. While Trump has pursued an agreement with China to end trade disputes, the harm from his policies has economic ripple effects. From fact-checkers at the Washington Post:
China does not pay any of these tariffs. The tariffs — essentially a tax — are paid by importers, generally U.S. companies, who in turn pass on most or all of the costs to consumers or producers (who may use Chinese materials in their products). So, ultimately, Americans are footing the bill for Trump’s tariffs, not the Chinese. The president is fooling himself if he thinks otherwise.
Trump has attempted to hang his economic hat on the fossil fuel industry, saying falsely that Biden would ban fracking and his administration has unleashed a renaissance for U.S. energy by slashing regulations that protect clean air and water. However, fracking for oil and gas had already caused a fossil fuel boom before Trump became president, and the industry was struggling before COVID-19 as prices plummeted do to overproduction. Meanwhile, the costs of Trump’s failure to address the damage caused by climate change are adding up and will only grow in the future as seas rise and climate-related natural disasters increase.
An estimated 700,000 jobs were lost to China alone in the first two years of the Trump administration.
Trump argues that Obama-era regulations on the fossil fuel industry are “job-killers,” and warns states like Texas and Pennsylvania that produce oil and gas that Biden would destroy their economies by turning away from fossil fuels. However, the Trump campaign uses inflated numbers when boasting about the number of jobs created by oil and gas. Biden has only promised a slow transition to cleaner energy over decades by investing in cleaner energy and ending federal subsidies for fossil fuel production, not a national “ban” on fracking that climate activists demand.
After the debate, Biden told reporters that workers in the oil and gas industry would not lose their jobs if he became president, and new jobs would be created by “alternatives” in the energy sector.
“We’re getting rid of the subsidies for fossil fuels, but we’re not getting rid of fossil fuels for a long time,” Biden said.
Biden would not crush the fossil fuel industry as Trump claims (observers argue the fossil fuel industry is crushing itself). Biden likely would, however, reinstate regulations decimated by the Trump administration that could create jobs and prevent pollution, according to the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of the nation’s largest environmental groups and labor unions.
For example, Obama-era regulations requiring oil and gas producers to prevent climate-warming methane gas from leaking into the atmosphere would have created 5,400 direct and indirect jobs if the Trump administration had not revoked the rules. If Biden wins the election and fully implements the rules, up to 50,000 new jobs could be created over a decade, according to the BlueGreen Alliance.
Correction: This article incorrectly stated that 700,000 jobs were lost to China. Those jobs were lost due to the trade deficit with China.
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.