truthout--2020-12-07--Argentina Approves Tax on Millionaires to Fund COVID-19 Recovery

Lawmakers in Argentina on Friday approved a new one-time levy on the country ’ s richest citizens to raise money to address the devastating health and economic consequences of the ongoing coronavirus crisis .
Senators passed the bill , which imposes a tax of at least 2 % on individuals with assets worth more than $ 2.45 million , by a margin of 42 to 26 , Reuters reported Saturday .
Government revenue has declined amid the Covid-19 outbreak and resulting lockdown measures , and proponents of the legislation — dubbed the “ millionaire ’ s tax ” — hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic recovery process .
“ This is a unique , one-time contribution , ” said Senator Carlos Caserio , a member of the committee responsible for the bill , according to a statement on the Senate ’ s website , Bloomberg reported Saturday .
“ We ’ re coming out of this pandemic like countries come out of world wars , with thousands of dead and devastated economies , ” Cesario added .
According to the BBC , the funds will be used to pay for medical supplies , emergency aid for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for students and social programs , and natural gas development .
“ We must find points of connection between those who have the most to contribute and those who are in need , ” said Senator Anabel Fernandez Sagasti .
While Argentina is unique for having passed a coronavirus-specific wealth tax to confront the current crisis , people in other countries are clamoring for similar measures , although most politicians have so far opposed such efforts .
As Christo Aivalis explained in Jacobin on Friday , there is “ massive support ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but 90 % of the country ’ s parliamentarians last month voted against a proposal to establish one .
“ A policy supported by nearly 80 % of Canadians can not muster 10 % of the vote in the national parliament , ” Aivalis pointed out , arguing that this demonstrates how politicians in the North American country are “ just as much in thrall to big money as their U.S. counterparts.
” “ There is no reason U.S. billionaires should hold more than $ 1 trillion in wealth while food lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the brink of eviction .
Tax the rich.
” — Robert Reich A recent poll conducted last week by the New York Times and Survey Monkey found that two-thirds of the U.S. electorate support a tax hike on individuals with annual incomes of more than $ 400,000 .
In August , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) and Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) introduced a Senate version and a House version of the Make Billionaires Pay Act , legislation that would establish a 60 % tax on the wealth increases enjoyed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 1 , 2021 in order to pay for all medical expenses for every person in the U.S. for a year .
Unlike their counterparts in other wealthy countries , millions of Americans have lost healthcare coverage since the pandemic began .
Months after Sanders and Omar introduced their bills to tax a portion of the wealth amassed by U.S. billionaires during the pandemic , the Institute for Policy Studies found in late November that the nation ’ s 650 billionaires had collectively gained more than $ 1 trillion since March , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no reason U.S. billionaires should hold more than $ 1 trillion in wealth while food lines stretch for miles and millions are on the brink of eviction , ” tweeted Robert Reich last week .
“ Tax the rich .
”

Senators passed a bill imposing a tax of at least 2 percent on individuals with assets worth more than $2.45 million.
Lawmakers in Argentina on Friday approved a new one-time levy on the country’s richest citizens to raise money to address the devastating health and economic consequences of the ongoing coronavirus crisis.
Senators passed the bill, which imposes a tax of at least 2% on individuals with assets worth more than $2.45 million, by a margin of 42 to 26, Reuters reported Saturday.
Government revenue has declined amid the Covid-19 outbreak and resulting lockdown measures, and proponents of the legislation — dubbed the “millionaire’s tax” — hope it will generate $3.7 billion for the pandemic recovery process.
“This is a unique, one-time contribution,” said Senator Carlos Caserio, a member of the committee responsible for the bill, according to a statement on the Senate’s website, Bloomberg reported Saturday.
“We’re coming out of this pandemic like countries come out of world wars, with thousands of dead and devastated economies,” Cesario added.
According to the BBC, the funds will be used to pay for medical supplies, emergency aid for small and medium-sized businesses, financial support for students and social programs, and natural gas development.
“We must find points of connection between those who have the most to contribute and those who are in need,” said Senator Anabel Fernandez Sagasti.
While Argentina is unique for having passed a coronavirus-specific wealth tax to confront the current crisis, people in other countries are clamoring for similar measures, although most politicians have so far opposed such efforts.
As Christo Aivalis explained in Jacobin on Friday, there is “massive support” for a tax on Canada’s super-rich, but 90% of the country’s parliamentarians last month voted against a proposal to establish one.
“A policy supported by nearly 80% of Canadians cannot muster 10% of the vote in the national parliament,” Aivalis pointed out, arguing that this demonstrates how politicians in the North American country are “just as much in thrall to big money as their U.S. counterparts.”
“There is no reason U.S. billionaires should hold more than $1 trillion in wealth while food lines stretch for miles and millions are on the brink of eviction. Tax the rich.”
— Robert Reich
A recent poll conducted last week by the New York Times and Survey Monkey found that two-thirds of the U.S. electorate support a tax hike on individuals with annual incomes of more than $400,000.
In August, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced a Senate version and a House version of the Make Billionaires Pay Act, legislation that would establish a 60% tax on the wealth increases enjoyed by billionaires between March 18, 2020 and January 1, 2021 in order to pay for all medical expenses for every person in the U.S. for a year.
Unlike their counterparts in other wealthy countries, millions of Americans have lost healthcare coverage since the pandemic began.
Number of citizens who lost health care coverage since the pandemic began: 14,600,000 United States
0 Australia
0 Belgium
0 Canada
0 Denmark
0 Finland
0 France
0 Germany
0 Italy
0 Japan
0 Norway
0 South Korea
0 Spain
0 UK — Gravel Institute (@GravelInstitute) December 3, 2020
Months after Sanders and Omar introduced their bills to tax a portion of the wealth amassed by U.S. billionaires during the pandemic, the Institute for Policy Studies found in late November that the nation’s 650 billionaires had collectively gained more than $1 trillion since March, as Common Dreams reported.
It’s shameful that billionaires profit off the suffering of working families as the pandemic ravages the economy and kills thousands every day. I introduced the Make Billionaires Pay Act to address our massive wealth inequality and ensure the .001% pay their fair share in taxes. https://t.co/9js0MEmcyQ — Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) December 3, 2020
“There is no reason U.S. billionaires should hold more than $1 trillion in wealth while food lines stretch for miles and millions are on the brink of eviction,” tweeted Robert Reich last week. “Tax the rich.”
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--2020-12-07--Five Women in Sanctuary Call on Biden to Free Them Through Executive Actions

We are five immigrant women living in sanctuary , sheltered in houses of worship across the U.S. that value the sanctity of our lives and the lives of our children .
Although we come from different countries , speak different languages and have never met each other in person , we have one thing in common .
We are members of the National Sanctuary Collective/Colectivo Santuario a group of immigrants in sanctuary and their supporters across the U.S. Each one of us has taken sanctuary as a last resort ; we know that if we leave our houses of worship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face immediate deportation .
We are united by both fear and hope : the fear that drove us to take sanctuary , and the hope that President-elect Joe Biden will unlock the doors to our freedom through executive action .
When Donald Trump was elected into office , then-Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) Thomas Homan told undocumented immigrants to look over their shoulders .
We have spent our entire lives looking over our shoulders .
First in the countries of our birth , where we fled state-sanctioned violence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats of torture .
And now in the U.S. , where ICE seeks to deport us back to our persecutors and threatens us with arrests on church grounds , detention , and egregious civil fines when we speak up about injustice .
Under the Trump administration , U.S. immigration policy became more punitive and violent , leaving us and countless other immigrants in a precarious position .
The Biden administration has committed to helping the U.S. “ build back better ” and undoing Trump ’ s punitive policies .
For immigrants living in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better means welcoming us back into our communities and protecting our right to raise our families without fear .
We do not know yet what Biden ’ s transition team plans for us , and until then , we must remain in sanctuary .
We are deeply grateful for the faith communities that have sustained us in this time of struggle .
But each day we spend inside , we miss out on so many opportunities to be with our loved ones , from holiday gatherings to milestones like weddings and graduations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can not leave to be with them in the hospital or support them as they recover .
Some of our children have spent most of their lives in sanctuary , and we can ’ t do many of the things that parents recognize as commonplace , like take them to the park or attend meetings at their schools .
Since the COVID-19 pandemic began , we have grown lonelier because our supporters can no longer visit us safely .
Some in our group even suffered through COVID-19 illness without proper medical attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wings have been clipped to keep them from flying .
This is why we are fighting for our freedom and calling on President-elect Biden to make a commitment to make this his fight too .
The U.S. is facing a moral crossroads as a people , but we now have an opportunity to change for the better .
If we choose to reject a politics of fear and xenophobia , and instead take a lesson from people of faith to welcome the stranger , we can chart a more humane path forward .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ position to ensure that no one need look over their shoulder simply because they weren ’ t born here .
A new administration could bring us back to our homes and families outside of sanctuary .
The reality is , without decisive action from the Biden administration , the precarity and isolation we ’ ve endured will continue unabated .
We are asking Joe Biden to side with us and every other person living in sanctuary to help make this a reality .
We are in sanctuary because the U.S. immigration system is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an uphill battle to achieve the far-reaching , structural immigration reform that our communities so badly need .
Still , executive actions like prosecutorial discretion fall squarely under the president ’ s powers and can happen immediately after Biden takes office .
The road ahead toward affirming the inherent dignity and worth of all immigrants is long , but executive action to free and protect sanctuary leaders would be a key first step on this path .
Some of us have been in sanctuary for years , but we still dream of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave .
We have lives worth fighting for in this country ; we want to finish school , watch our children grow up , remain active members of our faith communities , and encourage other people to fight against oppression .
Mr. Biden , we are calling on you to commit now to set us free by granting immediate legal protection to each person in sanctuary on your first day in office , lifting the deportation orders against those in sanctuary within your first 100 days as president and signing into law any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctuary .
Supporting sanctuary leaders is a vital first step , but we will continue to raise our voice until all of our immigrant communities can live in safety and freedom .

We are five immigrant women living in sanctuary, sheltered in houses of worship across the U.S. that value the sanctity of our lives and the lives of our children. Although we come from different countries, speak different languages and have never met each other in person, we have one thing in common. We are members of the National Sanctuary Collective/Colectivo Santuario , a group of immigrants in sanctuary and their supporters across the U.S. Each one of us has taken sanctuary as a last resort; we know that if we leave our houses of worship even for a moment, we will face immediate deportation. We are united by both fear and hope: the fear that drove us to take sanctuary, and the hope that President-elect Joe Biden will unlock the doors to our freedom through executive action.
When Donald Trump was elected into office, then-Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Thomas Homan told undocumented immigrants to look over their shoulders. We have spent our entire lives looking over our shoulders. First in the countries of our birth, where we fled state-sanctioned violence, intimate partner violence, anti-Indigenous discrimination and threats of torture. And now in the U.S., where ICE seeks to deport us back to our persecutors and threatens us with arrests on church grounds, detention, and egregious civil fines when we speak up about injustice.
Under the Trump administration, U.S. immigration policy became more punitive and violent, leaving us and countless other immigrants in a precarious position. The Biden administration has committed to helping the U.S. “build back better” and undoing Trump’s punitive policies. For immigrants living in sanctuary across the country, building back better means welcoming us back into our communities and protecting our right to raise our families without fear. We do not know yet what Biden’s transition team plans for us, and until then, we must remain in sanctuary.
We are deeply grateful for the faith communities that have sustained us in this time of struggle. But each day we spend inside, we miss out on so many opportunities to be with our loved ones, from holiday gatherings to milestones like weddings and graduations. When our family members get sick, we cannot leave to be with them in the hospital or support them as they recover. Some of our children have spent most of their lives in sanctuary, and we can’t do many of the things that parents recognize as commonplace, like take them to the park or attend meetings at their schools. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, we have grown lonelier because our supporters can no longer visit us safely. Some in our group even suffered through COVID-19 illness without proper medical attention. We often feel like birds whose wings have been clipped to keep them from flying. This is why we are fighting for our freedom and calling on President-elect Biden to make a commitment to make this his fight too.
The U.S. is facing a moral crossroads as a people, but we now have an opportunity to change for the better. If we choose to reject a politics of fear and xenophobia, and instead take a lesson from people of faith to welcome the stranger, we can chart a more humane path forward. A new administration will be in the position to ensure that no one need look over their shoulder simply because they weren’t born here. A new administration could bring us back to our homes and families outside of sanctuary. The reality is, without decisive action from the Biden administration, the precarity and isolation we’ve endured will continue unabated. We are asking Joe Biden to side with us and every other person living in sanctuary to help make this a reality.
We are in sanctuary because the U.S. immigration system is broken. The Biden administration will face an uphill battle to achieve the far-reaching, structural immigration reform that our communities so badly need. Still, executive actions like prosecutorial discretion fall squarely under the president’s powers and can happen immediately after Biden takes office. The road ahead toward affirming the inherent dignity and worth of all immigrants is long, but executive action to free and protect sanctuary leaders would be a key first step on this path.
Each one of us has taken sanctuary as a last resort; we know that if we leave our houses of worship even for a moment, we will face immediate deportation.
Some of us have been in sanctuary for years, but we still dream of what our lives will be like when we leave. We have lives worth fighting for in this country; we want to finish school, watch our children grow up, remain active members of our faith communities, and encourage other people to fight against oppression. Mr. Biden, we are calling on you to commit now to set us free by granting immediate legal protection to each person in sanctuary on your first day in office, lifting the deportation orders against those in sanctuary within your first 100 days as president and signing into law any bills granting relief to specific people in sanctuary. Supporting sanctuary leaders is a vital first step, but we will continue to raise our voice until all of our immigrant communities can live in safety and freedom.
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--2020-12-08--Texas AG Sues 4 States, Asking Supreme Court to Toss Out Election Results

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing four states over their 2020 presidential election results , submitting his complaint directly to the United States Supreme Court with hopes that justices will invalidate legitimate votes by residents in those states on the baseless and unsubstantiated argument that election fraud took place .
Paxton ’ s lawsuit alleges that changes to election law ( made to allow residents to vote under conditions created by a pandemic ) in the states he ’ s suing were made in violation of federal statutes .
Those changes , the Texas attorney general goes on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a claim that President Donald Trump and his allies have made countless times in the past several weeks without any evidence .
The complaint Paxton submitted to the Supreme Court requests that the election results in four states — Georgia , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania and Michigan — be tossed out completely , and that the state legislatures of those states determine instead which candidate ( Trump , or President-elect Joe Biden ) should win their Electoral College votes .
Perhaps by design , the lawsuit does not target or seek to overturn election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been changed but where Trump secured a victory .
The four jurisdictions listed in the suit are also states where legislatures are currently controlled by the Republican Party .
The lawsuit , if successful , would almost assuredly result in Trump winning the 62 Electoral College votes those four states represent , in turn giving the incumbent president a victory instead of a loss in the 2020 presidential election .
Attorneys general from both parties representing the states listed in the lawsuit were quick to denounce the blatant attempt to thwart the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paxton ’ s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas , ” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel , a Democrat , said in a statement , adding that she viewed Paxton ’ s lawsuit as a “ publicity stunt.
” Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr , a Republican , echoed Nessel ’ s sentiments .
“ With all due respect , the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally , legally and factually wrong about Georgia , ” Carr said .
Josh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state of Wisconsin , expressed his sympathy for Paxton ’ s constituents .
“ I feel sorry for Texans that their tax dollars are being wasted on such a genuinely embarrassing lawsuit , ” Kaul said .
And Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro , also a Democrat , lashed out at the claims made in Paxton ’ s lawsuit .
“ These continued attacks on our fair and free election system are beyond meritless , beyond reckless — they are a scheme by the President of the United States and some in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the people — and name their own victors , ” Shapiro wrote in a tweet .
The chances of the Supreme Court hearing the lawsuit from Texas ( or any other lawsuit disputing the election outcome ) are very slim , especially given how frequently errant claims of voter fraud affecting the race ’ s outcome have failed to gain any traction whatsoever in lower appellate courts .
For the High Court to accept a case , at least four justices must vote to grant a writ of certiorari which amounts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And while Trump has appointed three of the nine justices on the Court , such a move absent evidence of actual fraud would be an extraordinary move for members of the bench to make .
Indeed , University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck expressed skepticism of the Supreme Court accepting the case .
“ Spoiler alert : The Court is *never* going to hear this one , ” Vladeck tweeted on Tuesday .

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing four states over their 2020 presidential election results, submitting his complaint directly to the United States Supreme Court with hopes that justices will invalidate legitimate votes by residents in those states on the baseless and unsubstantiated argument that election fraud took place.
Paxton’s lawsuit alleges that changes to election law (made to allow residents to vote under conditions created by a pandemic) in the states he’s suing were made in violation of federal statutes. Those changes, the Texas attorney general goes on to say, resulted in voter fraud, a claim that President Donald Trump and his allies have made countless times in the past several weeks without any evidence.
The complaint Paxton submitted to the Supreme Court requests that the election results in four states — Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan — be tossed out completely, and that the state legislatures of those states determine instead which candidate (Trump, or President-elect Joe Biden) should win their Electoral College votes.
Perhaps by design, the lawsuit does not target or seek to overturn election results in states where laws may also have been changed but where Trump secured a victory. The four jurisdictions listed in the suit are also states where legislatures are currently controlled by the Republican Party.
The lawsuit, if successful, would almost assuredly result in Trump winning the 62 Electoral College votes those four states represent, in turn giving the incumbent president a victory instead of a loss in the 2020 presidential election.
Attorneys general from both parties representing the states listed in the lawsuit were quick to denounce the blatant attempt to thwart the will of voters.
“Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said in a statement, adding that she viewed Paxton’s lawsuit as a “publicity stunt.”
Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr, a Republican, echoed Nessel’s sentiments. “With all due respect, the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia,” Carr said.
Josh Kaul, the Democratic attorney general from the state of Wisconsin, expressed his sympathy for Paxton’s constituents. “I feel sorry for Texans that their tax dollars are being wasted on such a genuinely embarrassing lawsuit,” Kaul said.
And Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, also a Democrat, lashed out at the claims made in Paxton’s lawsuit.
“These continued attacks on our fair and free election system are beyond meritless, beyond reckless — they are a scheme by the President of the United States and some in the Republican party to disregard the will of the people — and name their own victors,” Shapiro wrote in a tweet.
The chances of the Supreme Court hearing the lawsuit from Texas (or any other lawsuit disputing the election outcome) are very slim, especially given how frequently errant claims of voter fraud affecting the race’s outcome have failed to gain any traction whatsoever in lower appellate courts.
For the High Court to accept a case, at least four justices must vote to grant a writ of certiorari which amounts to the court agreeing to review the case. And while Trump has appointed three of the nine justices on the Court, such a move absent evidence of actual fraud would be an extraordinary move for members of the bench to make.
Indeed, University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck expressed skepticism of the Supreme Court accepting the case. “Spoiler alert: The Court is *never* going to hear this one,” Vladeck tweeted on Tuesday.
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--2020-12-08--At Midnight Tonight, the Election Will Finally Be Over — Maybe

Is the election finally over ?
Is it really over ?
Is it over over , or just mostly over ?
I ’ m asking for a friend who is so totally over this headache that won ’ t quit , this seemingly eternal telethon raising funds for skating rinks in Hell .
Answer : It ’ s pretty much over except for the shouting , which will probably never stop anyway because 2020 has broken everything , and this is what we ’ re left with .
Today is “ Safe Harbor Day , ” and its explanation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First of all , people technically did not vote for Joe Biden or Donald Trump last November .
They voted for Electoral College electors who will soon represent those voters in the final certification of the results .
This is important , because the nightmare presidential election of 1876 exposed the lack of any legal mechanism to deal with rogue slates of electors being presented as legitimate by states disputing the outcome of an election .
To fix this , Congress passed the Electoral Count Act in 1887 .
“ Under the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News , “ Congress must count the electoral votes from states that chose their electors and resolve any legal disputes over the choices by the act ’ s deadline , which is six days before the electors meet to vote.
” The electors meet on December 14 , six days from now .
All but three states have certified , and the absence of those three does not alter the outcome of the election .
No more court cases will be allowed now that this deadline is upon us ; the results of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ safe harbor , ” where they will await final certification .
That smells a lot like “ over ” to me .
The Electoral Count Act isn ’ t some pushover piece of legislation ; in fact , it has a notoriously muscular bit of recent history .
It was this Act in 2000 that gave the Supreme Court the legal cause it needed to stop the recount in Bush v. Gore .
According to the high court and its reading of the Act , Florida had run out of time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed… well , history .
Next up came 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq .
Pretty impressive for a poorly written 133-year-old law .
Twenty years after the court said Florida was out of time , so — it would overwhelmingly seem — is Donald Trump .
“ From a political perspective , Donald Trump ’ s claim that he won the 2020 presidential election will probably never die , ” writes Ed Kilgore for New York Magazine .
“ But the extremely slim viability of his legal challenges to Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into farce some time ago , will all but vanish on December 8 , when the ‘ Safe Harbor ’ deadline for certification of state results should cut off any further efforts to steal the election.
” In the whiplash-inducing reality bubble that serves as Trump ’ s personal terrarium , ideas tend to have the shelf life of a mouse fart .
Just yesterday , CNN was reporting on “ a sense developing ” within the bedraggled , battered Trump camp — both his legal team and his campaign — that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Between lead attorney Rudy Giuliani ’ s COVID infection and the arrival of the “ Safe Harbor ” deadline , there don ’ t appear to be any more open spots on the checkerboard , and all Trump ’ s kings have been jumped .
Comes the dawn , however , and with it another quixotic charge by Trump into the legal windmills that have been batting his arguments aside like a World Cup goalie .
“ President Trump called the speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives twice during the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help reversing his loss in the state , ” reports The Washington Post this morning , “ reflecting a broadening pressure campaign by the president and his allies to try to subvert the 2020 election result.
” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — who is himself under indictment for multiple counts of fraud — is also getting into the act , suing Georgia , Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin directly in the Supreme Court .
His argument ?
Paxton is accusing those battleground states of “ exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to illegally enact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” according to Bloomberg News .
Upon reviewing the merits of the Texas case , legal experts rolled their eyes so hard they sprained their faces .
I also find it highly unlikely that Chief Justice Roberts will hang his hat on this bent hook by granting cert to the case , but again , it ’ s 2020 .
And , of course , Trump ’ s hard-right minions in the House of Representatives have no interest in being left out of the fun , or the fundraising .
Rep. Jim Jordan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Freedom Caucus are going to kick up all the dust they can between now and January 6 , when the electors are set to be finally certified by Congress .
On that day , if a Senator joins a House member ’ s official complaint about the validity of the vote , the process stops .
I was in the House gallery with a group of activists in January of 2004 when precisely this scenario unfolded .
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones rose to object to the brazen election fraud that had taken place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objection was seconded by Sen. Barbara Boxer .
In such an instance , the rules dictate that the House and Senate return to their respective chambers for two hours of debate , after which they reconvene .
In 2004 , the objection was raised and seconded , the Congress divided and debated for two hours , reconvened , and George W. Bush ’ s victory was certified and confirmed not long after .
There is every reason to believe the same thing will happen this year , assuming Rep. Jordan or one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP Senator willing to play along .
Would Mitch McConnell allow it ?
Doubtful , but possible .
As Esquire blogger Charles P. Pierce has said , “ I am not going to be comfortable until Joe Biden ’ s hand comes off the Bible.
” So , yeah , happy “ Safe Harbor Day.
” Is it over ?
Yes .
No .
Sort of .
Soon .
Never .
My head hurts .

Is the election finally over? Is it really over? Is it over over, or just mostly over? I’m asking for a friend who is so totally over this headache that won’t quit, this seemingly eternal telethon raising funds for skating rinks in Hell.
Answer: It’s pretty much over except for the shouting, which will probably never stop anyway because 2020 has broken everything, and this is what we’re left with.
Today is “Safe Harbor Day,” and its explanation is a little long in the telling. First of all, people technically did not vote for Joe Biden or Donald Trump last November. They voted for Electoral College electors who will soon represent those voters in the final certification of the results. This is important, because the nightmare presidential election of 1876 exposed the lack of any legal mechanism to deal with rogue slates of electors being presented as legitimate by states disputing the outcome of an election.
To fix this, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act in 1887. “Under the law,” reports Pete Williams for NBC News, “Congress must count the electoral votes from states that chose their electors and resolve any legal disputes over the choices by the act’s deadline, which is six days before the electors meet to vote.”
The electors meet on December 14, six days from now. All but three states have certified, and the absence of those three does not alter the outcome of the election. No more court cases will be allowed now that this deadline is upon us; the results of the election have been brought into a “safe harbor,” where they will await final certification. That smells a lot like “over” to me.
The Electoral Count Act isn’t some pushover piece of legislation; in fact, it has a notoriously muscular bit of recent history. It was this Act in 2000 that gave the Supreme Court the legal cause it needed to stop the recount in Bush v. Gore. According to the high court and its reading of the Act, Florida had run out of time to do anything further. That decision only changed… well, history. Next up came 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pretty impressive for a poorly written 133-year-old law.
Twenty years after the court said Florida was out of time, so — it would overwhelmingly seem — is Donald Trump.
“From a political perspective, Donald Trump’s claim that he won the 2020 presidential election will probably never die,” writes Ed Kilgore for New York Magazine. “But the extremely slim viability of his legal challenges to Joe Biden’s win, which descended into farce some time ago, will all but vanish on December 8, when the ‘Safe Harbor’ deadline for certification of state results should cut off any further efforts to steal the election.”
Twenty years after the court said Florida was out of time, so — it would overwhelmingly seem — is Donald Trump.
In the whiplash-inducing reality bubble that serves as Trump’s personal terrarium, ideas tend to have the shelf life of a mouse fart. Just yesterday, CNN was reporting on “a sense developing” within the bedraggled, battered Trump camp — both his legal team and his campaign — that it’s pretty much all over now. Between lead attorney Rudy Giuliani’s COVID infection and the arrival of the “Safe Harbor” deadline, there don’t appear to be any more open spots on the checkerboard, and all Trump’s kings have been jumped.
Comes the dawn, however, and with it another quixotic charge by Trump into the legal windmills that have been batting his arguments aside like a World Cup goalie. “President Trump called the speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives twice during the past week to make an extraordinary request for help reversing his loss in the state,” reports The Washington Post this morning, “reflecting a broadening pressure campaign by the president and his allies to try to subvert the 2020 election result.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton — who is himself under indictment for multiple counts of fraud — is also getting into the act, suing Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin directly in the Supreme Court. His argument? Paxton is accusing those battleground states of “exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to illegally enact last-minute changes to mail-in voting rules,” according to Bloomberg News.
Upon reviewing the merits of the Texas case, legal experts rolled their eyes so hard they sprained their faces. I also find it highly unlikely that Chief Justice Roberts will hang his hat on this bent hook by granting cert to the case, but again, it’s 2020.
And, of course, Trump’s hard-right minions in the House of Representatives have no interest in being left out of the fun, or the fundraising. Rep. Jim Jordan and his wreckers’ brigade in the Freedom Caucus are going to kick up all the dust they can between now and January 6, when the electors are set to be finally certified by Congress. On that day, if a Senator joins a House member’s official complaint about the validity of the vote, the process stops.
I was in the House gallery with a group of activists in January of 2005 when precisely this scenario unfolded. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones rose to object to the brazen election fraud that had taken place in Ohio that November, and her objection was seconded by Sen. Barbara Boxer. In such an instance, the rules dictate that the House and Senate return to their respective chambers for two hours of debate, after which they reconvene.
In 2005, the objection was raised and seconded, the Congress divided and debated for two hours, reconvened, and George W. Bush’s victory was certified and confirmed not long after. There is every reason to believe the same thing will happen this year, assuming Rep. Jordan or one of his cohorts even manages to find a GOP Senator willing to play along. Would Mitch McConnell allow it? Doubtful, but possible. As Esquire blogger Charles P. Pierce has said, “I am not going to be comfortable until Joe Biden’s hand comes off the Bible.”
So, yeah, happy “Safe Harbor Day.” Is it over? Yes. No. Sort of. Soon. Never. My head hurts.
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--2020-12-08--The Senate’s Latest COVID Stimulus Won’t Solve the Hunger and Housing Crisis

After months of fruitless negotiations , the latest COVID relief package is emerging from Congress as a stopgap measure meant to hold the nation over until President-elect Joe Biden takes office and Congress begins a new session next year .
For the time being , hopes are pinned on a $ 908 billion proposal drawn up by a bipartisan group of moderate lawmakers that includes only a fraction of the funding that advocates say is necessary to contain a widespread hunger and housing crisis in the middle of a pandemic that has claimed more than 280,000 lives in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the country — are already struggling to afford basic necessities such as food and rent as job growth slows and dozens of pandemic relief provisions are set to expire before the end of the month , including emergency unemployment insurance and paid sick leave .
If Congress does not act , 12 million people could have their unemployment payments cut off the day after Christmas .
Analysts say nearly 12 million people are thousands of dollars behind on rent .
Between 30 million and 40 million renters are at risk of losing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) expires at the end of the year , according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition .
While the moratorium has helped keep people in their homes , housing activists say it contains loopholes exploited by landlords .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pushed for an even slimmer $ 500 billion package and had not signaled support for the compromise bill by Tuesday morning , raising fears that no relief may be coming at all , according to Bloomberg .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ government before year-end deadlines , and lawmakers are moving to pass a one-week funding bill to buy more time for budget and coronavirus negotiations that are coming down to the wire .
By the end of the year , an estimated 50 million Americans will experience food insecurity , according to Feeding America , a national anti-hunger organization .
That ’ s about one in six people .
Across the country , lines of cars waiting for food donations and stretching for miles have underscored the severity of the unfolding crisis .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half the cost of the $ 2.2 trillion CARES Act passed in March that provided stimulus checks starting at $ 1,200 to most taxpayers .
House Democrats passed another $ 2.2 trillion package in October after passing a $ 3 trillion package in May , but both went nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate .
The latest bipartisan deal does not include another round of $ 1,200 stimulus checks as many had hoped .
The first round of checks approved by Congress in the spring temporarily kept millions of people out of poverty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other leading Democrats have thrown their support behind the compromise package and promised to pass more comprehensive legislation next year .
Some Republicans are also reportedly coalescing around the proposal .
“ This is long overdue , and it ’ s not enough , ” said Sarah Saadian , the vice president of public policy at the National Low Income Housing Coalition , in an interview .
The compromise package is a stopgap relief bill , not a stimulus , and progressives say Congress must provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and protect struggling households from financial ruin .
On Friday , Sen. Bernie Sanders said the package must be improved to gain his support .
Sanders said the proposal does not come close to providing enough financial relief for struggling households and contains liability protections for corporations and other employers whose workers are sickened by COVID-19 on the job .
Critics say the liability protections would provide legal cover for nursing homes and meatpacking plants where COVID has quickly spread and killed workers , but the protections are a top priority for Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the job despite a terrifying surge of infections nationwide .
“ Tens of millions of Americans living in desperation today would receive absolutely no financial help from this proposal , ” Sanders said in a statement Friday .
“ That is not acceptable.
” Currently , 12 percent of adults report that their households do not have enough to eat , and 40 percent of children live in households that either can not afford enough food or are behind on rent , according to analysis of census data by the Center on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial hardship are higher among households of color , and 49 percent of Black households reported that it was somewhat or very difficult to pay for household expenses in recent weeks .
That ’ s nearly twice the rate of white households and a reflection of longstanding inequities in employment , education and housing .
The $ 908 billion compromise does contain several of the relief priorities for which Democrats have been pushing .
The legislation would temporarily extend emergency unemployment benefits until March with a $ 300 weekly bonus , preventing millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cliff .
The package also contains $ 160 billion in badly needed funding for state , local and tribal governments , which have struggled to maintain services and tax revenue through the pandemic .
“ Cities and states are going to use these funds to keep people in their homes and that ’ s a really important critical resource , but Congress and the incoming Biden administration need to make it a top priority to come back after the New Year and work on a real , comprehensive bill , ” Saadian said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end-all be-all of COVID relief , it ’ s just not enough.
” The compromise package contains $ 25 billion for housing assistance for renters , but the National Low Income Housing Coalition says at least $ 100 billion is ultimately needed to combat a housing crisis that is only growing during the pandemic .
Nearly 19 million low-income renter households were already cost-burdened before the pandemic hit , and now millions of people have lost jobs and other forms of income .
Kamau Walton , an organizer with Right to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grassroots housing justice groups , said Democrats must also push for a much stronger eviction moratorium than the one currently put in place by the CDC .
Housing justice activists across the country have been busy fighting evictions despite the moratorium , and evictions have already led to hundreds of thousands of additional COVID-19 cases , according to recently published research .
Some people “ don ’ t want to deal with facing a sheriff if they are physically evicted , so they are being harassed by landlords and decide that the better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Walton said in an interview .
Walton said a broad coalition of housing justice groups is demanding that Democrats push for a “ blanket ” eviction moratorium that prevents all evictions until after the pandemic is over , along with a national moratorium on utility shutoffs .
Under the current moratorium , Walton said , renters must preemptively file paperwork to stop an eviction .
Congress should change that to put the burden of proof on landlords , Walton said .
Walton said renters also need help paying rent and utility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passes with only $ 25 billion in renter assistance , Saadian said funding should be targeted toward the lowest-income renters who are at greatest risk of becoming homeless .

Hopes are pinned on a $908 billion proposal that includes only a fraction of what is necessary to contain these crises.
After months of fruitless negotiations, the latest COVID relief package is emerging from Congress as a stopgap measure meant to hold the nation over until President-elect Joe Biden takes office and Congress begins a new session next year.
For the time being, hopes are pinned on a $908 billion proposal drawn up by a bipartisan group of moderate lawmakers that includes only a fraction of the funding that advocates say is necessary to contain a widespread hunger and housing crisis in the middle of a pandemic that has claimed more than 280,000 lives in the U.S.
About 83 million adults — 34 percent of the country — are already struggling to afford basic necessities such as food and rent as job growth slows and dozens of pandemic relief provisions are set to expire before the end of the month, including emergency unemployment insurance and paid sick leave. If Congress does not act, 12 million people could have their unemployment payments cut off the day after Christmas.
Analysts say nearly 12 million people are thousands of dollars behind on rent. Between 30 million and 40 million renters are at risk of losing their homes when a moratorium on evictions set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) expires at the end of the year, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. While the moratorium has helped keep people in their homes, housing activists say it contains loopholes exploited by landlords.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pushed for an even slimmer $500 billion package and had not signaled support for the compromise bill by Tuesday morning, raising fears that no relief may be coming at all, according to Bloomberg. Congress must also vote to fund the government before year-end deadlines, and lawmakers are moving to pass a one-week funding bill to buy more time for budget and coronavirus negotiations that are coming down to the wire.
By the end of the year, an estimated 50 million Americans will experience food insecurity, according to Feeding America, a national anti-hunger organization. That’s about one in six people. Across the country, lines of cars waiting for food donations and stretching for miles have underscored the severity of the unfolding crisis.
The $908 billion package is less than half the cost of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act passed in March that provided stimulus checks starting at $1,200 to most taxpayers. House Democrats passed another $2.2 trillion package in October after passing a $3 trillion package in May, but both went nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.
The latest bipartisan deal does not include another round of $1,200 stimulus checks as many had hoped. The first round of checks approved by Congress in the spring temporarily kept millions of people out of poverty, but the pandemic has dragged on since.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other leading Democrats have thrown their support behind the compromise package and promised to pass more comprehensive legislation next year. Some Republicans are also reportedly coalescing around the proposal.
“This is long overdue, and it’s not enough,” said Sarah Saadian, the vice president of public policy at the National Low Income Housing Coalition, in an interview.
The compromise package is a stopgap relief bill, not a stimulus, and progressives say Congress must provide direct cash payments to stimulate the economy and protect struggling households from financial ruin.
Show my residents that stimulus check. — Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) December 7, 2020
On Friday, Sen. Bernie Sanders said the package must be improved to gain his support. Sanders said the proposal does not come close to providing enough financial relief for struggling households and contains liability protections for corporations and other employers whose workers are sickened by COVID-19 on the job. Critics say the liability protections would provide legal cover for nursing homes and meatpacking plants where COVID has quickly spread and killed workers, but the protections are a top priority for Republicans, who are eager to keep people on the job despite a terrifying surge of infections nationwide.
“Tens of millions of Americans living in desperation today would receive absolutely no financial help from this proposal,” Sanders said in a statement Friday. “That is not acceptable.”
Currently, 12 percent of adults report that their households do not have enough to eat, and 40 percent of children live in households that either cannot afford enough food or are behind on rent, according to analysis of census data by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Rates of financial hardship are higher among households of color, and 49 percent of Black households reported that it was somewhat or very difficult to pay for household expenses in recent weeks. That’s nearly twice the rate of white households and a reflection of longstanding inequities in employment, education and housing.
The $908 billion compromise does contain several of the relief priorities for which Democrats have been pushing. The legislation would temporarily extend emergency unemployment benefits until March with a $300 weekly bonus, preventing millions of households from falling off a fiscal cliff. The package also contains $160 billion in badly needed funding for state, local and tribal governments, which have struggled to maintain services and tax revenue through the pandemic.
“Cities and states are going to use these funds to keep people in their homes and that’s a really important critical resource, but Congress and the incoming Biden administration need to make it a top priority to come back after the New Year and work on a real, comprehensive bill,” Saadian said. “This can’t be the end-all be-all of COVID relief, it’s just not enough.”
The compromise package contains $25 billion for housing assistance for renters, but the National Low Income Housing Coalition says at least $100 billion is ultimately needed to combat a housing crisis that is only growing during the pandemic. Nearly 19 million low-income renter households were already cost-burdened before the pandemic hit, and now millions of people have lost jobs and other forms of income.
Kamau Walton, an organizer with Right to the City Alliance, a national coalition of grassroots housing justice groups, said Democrats must also push for a much stronger eviction moratorium than the one currently put in place by the CDC. Housing justice activists across the country have been busy fighting evictions despite the moratorium, and evictions have already led to hundreds of thousands of additional COVID-19 cases, according to recently published research.
Some people “don’t want to deal with facing a sheriff if they are physically evicted, so they are being harassed by landlords and decide that the better option for them is just to leave,” Walton said in an interview.
Walton said a broad coalition of housing justice groups is demanding that Democrats push for a “blanket” eviction moratorium that prevents all evictions until after the pandemic is over, along with a national moratorium on utility shutoffs. Under the current moratorium, Walton said, renters must preemptively file paperwork to stop an eviction. Congress should change that to put the burden of proof on landlords, Walton said.
Walton said renters also need help paying rent and utility bills. If the stopgap relief package passes with only $25 billion in renter assistance, Saadian said funding should be targeted toward the lowest-income renters who are at greatest risk of becoming homeless.
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--2020-12-08--After Uber and Lyft’s Prop 22 Win, Big Tech Could Push Wave of Anti-Worker Laws

Ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft scored a major victory with the passage of Proposition 22 in California , and worker rights advocates fear they will push similar measures in other states .
Prop 22 will exempt companies in the so-called gig economy from having to classify their workers in the state as employees rather than as independent contractors .
Uber , Lyft and other companies that rely on gig workers spent more than $ 200 million to promote Prop 22 , and a survey of California voters who voted “ yes ” on the measure showed 40 % thought they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earn a living wage , even though critics say the measure will do the opposite .
“ The law will now exempt drivers like me from basic wage and labor protections afforded to most workers in the state in the middle of a pandemic and recession , ” says Cherri Murphy , a Lyft driver and organizer with Gig Workers Rising .
We also speak with Veena Dubal , professor of law at the University of California , Hastings , who says measures like Prop 22 pose “ extreme danger ” to American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California , we are headed for an even worse situation of inequality than we are already experiencing , ” Dubal says .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González , as we look now at how ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft scored a major victory against worker rights in the election with the passage of Prop 22 in California , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures in other states .
During the campaign to pass Prop 22 , Uber and Lyft spent a record-setting $ 205 million to bombard voters and their own workers with misleading advertisements and messages that promised minimum wage , healthcare and protections that are typically consistent with a full-time job .
One ad appropriated the words of the legendary poet Maya Angelou as it showed images of Black and Brown workers getting ready for their morning drive to pick up passengers .
AMY GOODMAN : One survey of California voters who voted yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were supporting gig workers ’ ability to earn a living wage .
But the measure will actually stop gig workers from being eligible for job protections and prevent them from accessing the benefits of being on the payroll , such as contributions for Social Security and Medicare benefits and overtime pay .
Prop 22 overrides AB 5 , a major labor law passed in California in 2019 that extended employee classification to gig workers .
Now critics worry the proposition could have dire implications for labor rights across the country .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instacart and Postmates , which Uber now owns .
It was also pushed by Tony West , the brother-in-law of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris , who is Uber ’ s chief legal officer .
For more , we go to California .
In Oakland , we ’ re joined by Cherri Murphy .
She is a Lyft driver and organizer with Gig Workers Rising .
She wrote a piece for The Guardian headlined “ Uber bought itself a law .
Here ’ s why that ’ s dangerous for struggling drivers like me.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor of law at University of California , Hastings , who writes extensively about the gig economy and says , during the campaign for Prop 22 , she was one of many critics subjected to online and offline attacks , including a massive Public Records Act request for her emails and text messages from one of the campaign ’ s PR firms .
We welcome you both to Democracy Now !
Cherri Murphy , let ’ s begin with you .
You ’ re a Lyft driver for a few years .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial security to people like you .
Is it financial security that you ’ re in fact getting , or do you feel that this is subverting your ability to make a living and be secure ?
CHERRI MURPHY : Amy , thanks for having me .
As you mentioned , along with Lyft , Instacart , DoorDash and Postmates , these app companies spent more than over $ 200 million , some say $ 220 million — the most spent in any ballot campaign in U.S. history — to purchase Proposition 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the law will now exempt drivers like me from basic wage and labor protections afforded to most workers in the state , in the middle of a pandemic and recession .
And because of that , we will be afforded no paid sick leave , no family leave , no workmen ’ s compensation , no unemployment insurance , no overtime , and no protective equipment in the middle of a pandemic .
Most of the drivers are communities of color .
Fifty-six percent of them are immigrants .
No protection from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traits to race .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Cherri Murphy , what ’ s your response to what these companies are constantly promoting in their advertisements , that these kinds of jobs offer a freedom and flexibility that normal workers would not be able to have , a way to realize your economic dreams ?
CHERRI MURPHY : So , these billion-dollar corporations can afford to provide workers flexibility and benefits , like I mentioned , unemployment insurance .
And there is nothing in the law that is taking away the drivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was a major threat from these companies , because they know that it scared drivers .
We had a UC Berkeley economics professor , in fact , say that these companies would still need the type of flexibility considering .
And there ’ s nothing flexible about cutting wages and healthcares for workers or weakening safety regulations or chipping away workers ’ rights , or even putting drivers and riders at risk .
These companies fought hard and ruthlessly to get here .
In your show , you mentioned that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor , these companies included various platitudes about their commitment to racial justice in the Black community .
And many of us know that their lip service was in support of Black lives , and complete of hollow words by well-paid public relations teams and absent of any real change .
And we rejected these attempts , because we know that racial justice is economic justice , and we saw this as an attempt to dodge their responsibility for the exploitation of Black and Brown workers every day .
Many of us know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police killings and terror , but it ’ s about every institution that exploits and abuses Black and Brown people .
And when it comes to Lyft and Uber and their corporate cronies , they ’ re experts .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : I ’ d like to , if possible , bring in Veena Dubal , the professor of law at the University of California , Hastings .
I wanted to ask you about the role of these corporate Democrats with some of these key gig economy firms .
I think of , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to be one of Obama ’ s closest friends and aides , who first went to work for Uber , then eventually left Uber and went to work for Mark Zuckerberg ’ s charity .
You also had Anthony Foxx , the former Obama secretary of transportation , who became a top official at Lyft .
There ’ s Matthew Wing , who was a spokesman for Andrew Cuomo , who also became the spokesman for Uber .
All of these corporate Democrats ’ top aides going to work for these firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Yeah .
It ’ s striking that the law that is probably the most dangerous law to workers that we ’ ve seen since Taft-Hartley , that it was architected and heralded by corporate Democrats and not Republicans .
It is a far-right law .
The way that it was passed was anti-democratic .
It is extremely , extremely dangerous to the future , poses an extreme danger to American workers .
And yet , you are exactly right that the people behind it , including Tony West , who is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were corporate Democrats .
AMY GOODMAN : So , can you talk , Professor Dubal , about what you think was most misleading about this campaign ?
I mean , 58 % of Californians voted — or , of those who voted , voted for it .
AMY GOODMAN : And talk about it being used as a model .
You see this as one of the most serious attacks on labor in all of your studying of labor law in the United States .
VEENA DUBAL : Yes .
So , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack on labor is because it dismantles — it ’ s this corporate fantasy that they ’ ve been trying to accomplish for the past century .
It dismantles all of the New Deal protections .
Workers no longer have access to a minimum wage , to overtime compensation , to unemployment insurance , to workers ’ compensation , to all the things that we know — you know , the very limited protections that working people have in the United States .
Those are all completely gone .
And these are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Cherri articulated .
These are low-wage , mostly people of color workers .
During the campaign — and I should say , these $ 200 million , they were spent on a variety of things , but they were mostly spent on bombarding the California electorate , or the voters of California , with misleading advertising on YouTube , on Facebook , on Instagram , on — you know , even when you were searching on Google , sort of the ad that popped up — emails , in-app messages .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bombardment of messaging , that was just inaccurate .
In California , it is legal to be misleading in political advertisements .
And probably the most misleading thing that I saw was that the advertisements alleged that workers would be making a minimum wage .
And that is the most important thing for your viewers and listeners to understand about Prop 22 and the danger that it poses , is that it takes away access to a time-based minimum wage , so people are no longer getting paid for all the time that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid when they have an assignment .
So , all of the risks and liabilities traditionally associated with doing business are now on the workers themselves .
Drivers like Cherri can not , therefore , predict how much they will make in a given day or a given week .
It is at the whim and whimsy of both demand and the corporations themselves .
And if that spreads to other sectors , we are going to face increasing inequality , increasing precarity , the growth of the contingent workforce .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult for working families to survive , to put food on the table .
And , you know , as we all are anticipating , we may be facing a big economic depression in the coming years .
And this is the absolute worst time for workers to not have access to just that very basic protection that we ’ ve come to understand is a limited right that Americans have , that ’ s just a time-based minimum wage .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Cherri , I ’ m wondering if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially during the pandemic , of Uber or Lyft drivers and others in the gig economy ?
CHERRI MURPHY : Yeah , certainly .
So , what I know is , is that my views of Lyft were shifting prior to COVID-19 .
The past three years , Lyft has been my primary source of income , and I ’ ve driven over 12,000 rides .
And over the years , as the numbers of bonuses decreased while the demands to complete rides increased , making major cuts to take-home pay , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living .
And signs of a good deal , with that so-called flexibility , became painfully clear .
And my views of Lyft were shifting .
And so , COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter movement have pulled back the curtain and showed Americans diseases for which there still is no vaccine .
And I know about COVID-19 .
While we were seeking solace in our troubled land of Lyft and Uber , were nowhere to be found .
Drivers attempted to secure masks , hand sanitizers , sick time off , unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we found obstacles and lack of transparency processes .
I couldn ’ t even find a place that was open at the time .
So I know what it ’ s like to work for Lyft and Uber and these corporate greed app-based companies .
I ’ ve worked long hours with no guaranteed wage , no work breaks , no restroom facilities , no overtime , no protective equipment , no paid sick time .
I know what it ’ s like to always have the looming threat of an accident with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on retaliation or discrimination , with no protections , no remedies in place .
I know what it ’ s like to be in the middle of a pandemic now , when you have your employer who ’ s denying you unemployment insurance in the middle of a pandemic .
I know what it ’ s like to have your company threaten to shut down because they can ’ t get what they want .
There are stories of drivers who have lost their lives in an effort to pay their bills .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptomatic of the virus but yet continued to drive for fear of financial ruin .
AMY GOODMAN : Cherri , Prop 22 eliminates required sexual harassment training and Uber and Lyft to investigate customers ’ and drivers ’ harassment claims ?
CHERRI MURPHY : Yes , it does .
It eliminates required sexual harassment training , as well as the obligations on Uber and Lyft to investigate both customers ’ and drivers ’ harassment claims .
And a lot of us know that there are at least 6,000 claims for 2017 and 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more disturbing , as Veena mentioned , is that these companies are promising to roll out this model nationwide , foretelling a grim future for gig workers across this country .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Veena Dubal , about this effort to roll it out nationwide , there has been discussion of trying to get a federal law passed .
Could you talk about that ?
VEENA DUBAL : Yeah , they have announced that they are ready and willing to take this really dangerous law to the federal level .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a number of states , including New York state .
They have — rolling out advertisements , similarly misleading advertisements to the campaign in California .
And , you know , over the past — since Lyft hit the streets of San Francisco in 2012 , 2013 , over the past seven years , almost a decade , they have — at the company ’ s behest , a number of bills have been written , and even introduced , to do exactly what Prop 22 does , which is create a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
And I think they think they have a blueprint now .
They got this passed in California .
And as we all know , what happens in California tends to spread all over the country and even the world .
And so , I think that we are going to see a flood of misinformation in states and on the federal level about what gig work is , the kinds of benefits supposedly that it offers .
We ’ re going to hear a lot of dishonest representations of what freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need this work .
And it ’ s so important for people to understand , for voters , for Americans to understand , that this law takes away all of the hard-won protections that workers have .
We are at a point in technology and history where we should be expanding workers ’ rights .
And instead , this law has completely stripped them away .
AMY GOODMAN : And , Veena Dubal , in just 30 seconds , if you can explain what happened to you as you campaigned against Prop 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of you ?
VEENA DUBAL : Yeah .
I had extreme forms of harassment from the PR campaign , which is — again , this proposition , it passed as a result of disinformation and harassment .
It was very Trumpian in that sense .
I got massive text and email Public Records Act requests .
I was constantly harassed online and offline .
Someone put my home address up on Twitter .
I was doxxed .
It was a lot of misinformation on the right-wing blogosphere .
It was really something .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I had to say .
And I will continue to say it , because if this spreads past California , we are headed for an even worse situation of inequality than we are already experiencing .
AMY GOODMAN : Finally , Professor Dubal , we at Democracy Now !
wanted to extend our deepest condolences to you on the loss of your brother , Sam Dubal — AMY GOODMAN : — the University of Washington anthropology professor .
He has been missing since early October , when he embarked on a solo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington state .
Friends and family say he ’ ll be remembered for his deep commitment to antiracism in medicine .
In late October , you tweeted a photo of your family , saying , quote , “ We carry your prayers , thoughts & good wishes for Sam Dubal as we begin to grieve & celebrate his remarkable life & kind soul .
After a thorough search , the outer limits of time for survivability have passed .
Our deepest gratitude to all , including the brave searchers & community.
” Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academic .
If you want to share a few final thoughts about your brother ?
VEENA DUBAL : So kind of you .
He would be so honored to have his name mentioned on Democracy Now !
Sam was the kindest , most brilliant , most dedicated , ethical researcher , friend , community member , advocate that I have ever met in my life .
He was — truly , truly had the spirit of social justice lit his life and lit his soul .
He loved Democracy Now !
He loved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And we miss him so , so very much .
I will do everything I can , with every day of my life , to continue his spirit and to work in his memory , and that includes fighting this kind of economic injustice and inequality .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Veena , thanks again .
And again , our condolences to everyone in your family .
VEENA DUBAL : Thank you very much .
AMY GOODMAN : Veena Dubal , law professor at the University of California , Hastings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Cherri Murphy , Lyft driver with Gig Workers Rising .
Well , next , we will continue to look at ballot initiatives around the country and the historic vote Friday by the House to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level .
We ’ ll be back in 30 seconds .

Ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft scored a major victory with the passage of Proposition 22 in California, and worker rights advocates fear they will push similar measures in other states. Prop 22 will exempt companies in the so-called gig economy from having to classify their workers in the state as employees rather than as independent contractors. Uber, Lyft and other companies that rely on gig workers spent more than $200 million to promote Prop 22, and a survey of California voters who voted “yes” on the measure showed 40% thought they were supporting gig workers’ ability to earn a living wage, even though critics say the measure will do the opposite. “The law will now exempt drivers like me from basic wage and labor protections afforded to most workers in the state in the middle of a pandemic and recession,” says Cherri Murphy, a Lyft driver and organizer with Gig Workers Rising. We also speak with Veena Dubal, professor of law at the University of California, Hastings, who says measures like Prop 22 pose “extreme danger” to American workers. “If this spreads past California, we are headed for an even worse situation of inequality than we are already experiencing,” Dubal says.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we look now at how ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft scored a major victory against worker rights in the election with the passage of Prop 22 in California, and how they’re now pushing similar measures in other states.
During the campaign to pass Prop 22, Uber and Lyft spent a record-setting $205 million to bombard voters and their own workers with misleading advertisements and messages that promised minimum wage, healthcare and protections that are typically consistent with a full-time job. One ad appropriated the words of the legendary poet Maya Angelou as it showed images of Black and Brown workers getting ready for their morning drive to pick up passengers.
MAYA ANGELOU: Lift up your eyes upon
This day breaking for you.
Give birth again
To the dream. Related Story News | Economy & Labor Uber and Lyft Stocks Soar as California Overturns Protections for Gig Workers Proposition 22 overturns a California state law that required gig workers to be treated as employees with benefits. Truthout Women, children, men,
Take it into the palms of your hands,
Mold it into the shape of your most
Private need. Sculpt it into
The image of your most public self.
Lift up your hearts
Each new hour holds new chances
For a new beginning.
AMY GOODMAN: One survey of California voters who voted yes to Prop 22 showed 40% thought they were supporting gig workers’ ability to earn a living wage. But the measure will actually stop gig workers from being eligible for job protections and prevent them from accessing the benefits of being on the payroll, such as contributions for Social Security and Medicare benefits and overtime pay. Prop 22 overrides AB 5, a major labor law passed in California in 2019 that extended employee classification to gig workers. Now critics worry the proposition could have dire implications for labor rights across the country.
The proposition was also backed by DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates, which Uber now owns. It was also pushed by Tony West, the brother-in-law of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, who is Uber’s chief legal officer.
For more, we go to California. In Oakland, we’re joined by Cherri Murphy. She is a Lyft driver and organizer with Gig Workers Rising. She wrote a piece for The Guardian headlined “Uber bought itself a law. Here’s why that’s dangerous for struggling drivers like me.”
And Veena Dubal joins us, professor of law at University of California, Hastings, who writes extensively about the gig economy and says, during the campaign for Prop 22, she was one of many critics subjected to online and offline attacks, including a massive Public Records Act request for her emails and text messages from one of the campaign’s PR firms.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Cherri Murphy, let’s begin with you. You’re a Lyft driver for a few years. This was billed as a way to bring financial security to people like you. Is it financial security that you’re in fact getting, or do you feel that this is subverting your ability to make a living and be secure?
CHERRI MURPHY: Amy, thanks for having me.
As you mentioned, along with Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash and Postmates, these app companies spent more than over $200 million, some say $220 million — the most spent in any ballot campaign in U.S. history — to purchase Proposition 22 in California. And with its passage, the law will now exempt drivers like me from basic wage and labor protections afforded to most workers in the state, in the middle of a pandemic and recession. And because of that, we will be afforded no paid sick leave, no family leave, no workmen’s compensation, no unemployment insurance, no overtime, and no protective equipment in the middle of a pandemic. Most of the drivers are communities of color. Fifty-six percent of them are immigrants. No protection from discrimination based on immigration status or historical traits to race.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Cherri Murphy, what’s your response to what these companies are constantly promoting in their advertisements, that these kinds of jobs offer a freedom and flexibility that normal workers would not be able to have, a way to realize your economic dreams?
CHERRI MURPHY: So, these billion-dollar corporations can afford to provide workers flexibility and benefits, like I mentioned, unemployment insurance. And there is nothing in the law that is taking away the drivers’ flexibility. But during the campaign, it was a major threat from these companies, because they know that it scared drivers. We had a UC Berkeley economics professor, in fact, say that these companies would still need the type of flexibility considering. And there’s nothing flexible about cutting wages and healthcares for workers or weakening safety regulations or chipping away workers’ rights, or even putting drivers and riders at risk. These companies fought hard and ruthlessly to get here.
In your show, you mentioned that in the wake of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, these companies included various platitudes about their commitment to racial justice in the Black community. And many of us know that their lip service was in support of Black lives, and complete of hollow words by well-paid public relations teams and absent of any real change. And we rejected these attempts, because we know that racial justice is economic justice, and we saw this as an attempt to dodge their responsibility for the exploitation of Black and Brown workers every day. Many of us know that this fight is not only about police killings and terror, but it’s about every institution that exploits and abuses Black and Brown people. And when it comes to Lyft and Uber and their corporate cronies, they’re experts.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’d like to, if possible, bring in Veena Dubal, the professor of law at the University of California, Hastings. I wanted to ask you about the role of these corporate Democrats with some of these key gig economy firms. I think of, for instance, David Plouffe, who used to be one of Obama’s closest friends and aides, who first went to work for Uber, then eventually left Uber and went to work for Mark Zuckerberg’s charity. You also had Anthony Foxx, the former Obama secretary of transportation, who became a top official at Lyft. There’s Matthew Wing, who was a spokesman for Andrew Cuomo, who also became the spokesman for Uber. All of these corporate Democrats’ top aides going to work for these firms in the gig economy.
VEENA DUBAL: Yeah. It’s striking that the law that is probably the most dangerous law to workers that we’ve seen since Taft-Hartley, that it was architected and heralded by corporate Democrats and not Republicans. It is a far-right law. The way that it was passed was anti-democratic. It is extremely, extremely dangerous to the future, poses an extreme danger to American workers. And yet, you are exactly right that the people behind it, including Tony West, who is now being potentially considered for attorney general, were corporate Democrats.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk, Professor Dubal, about what you think was most misleading about this campaign? I mean, 58% of Californians voted — or, of those who voted, voted for it.
VEENA DUBAL: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about it being used as a model. You see this as one of the most serious attacks on labor in all of your studying of labor law in the United States.
VEENA DUBAL: Yes. So, the reason that it is such a huge attack on labor is because it dismantles — it’s this corporate fantasy that they’ve been trying to accomplish for the past century. It dismantles all of the New Deal protections. Workers no longer have access to a minimum wage, to overtime compensation, to unemployment insurance, to workers’ compensation, to all the things that we know — you know, the very limited protections that working people have in the United States. Those are all completely gone. And these are the workers who most need those basic protections, as Cherri articulated. These are low-wage, mostly people of color workers.
During the campaign — and I should say, these $200 million, they were spent on a variety of things, but they were mostly spent on bombarding the California electorate, or the voters of California, with misleading advertising on YouTube, on Facebook, on Instagram, on — you know, even when you were searching on Google, sort of the ad that popped up — emails, in-app messages. I mean, just constant bombarding, bombardment of messaging, that was just inaccurate. In California, it is legal to be misleading in political advertisements.
And probably the most misleading thing that I saw was that the advertisements alleged that workers would be making a minimum wage. And that is the most important thing for your viewers and listeners to understand about Prop 22 and the danger that it poses, is that it takes away access to a time-based minimum wage, so people are no longer getting paid for all the time that they work. They are only getting paid when they have an assignment. So, all of the risks and liabilities traditionally associated with doing business are now on the workers themselves. Drivers like Cherri cannot, therefore, predict how much they will make in a given day or a given week. It is at the whim and whimsy of both demand and the corporations themselves.
And if that spreads to other sectors, we are going to face increasing inequality, increasing precarity, the growth of the contingent workforce. It is going to make it extremely, extremely difficult for working families to survive, to put food on the table. And, you know, as we all are anticipating, we may be facing a big economic depression in the coming years. And this is the absolute worst time for workers to not have access to just that very basic protection that we’ve come to understand is a limited right that Americans have, that’s just a time-based minimum wage.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Cherri, I’m wondering if you could talk about the experiences, especially during the pandemic, of Uber or Lyft drivers and others in the gig economy?
CHERRI MURPHY: Yeah, certainly. So, what I know is, is that my views of Lyft were shifting prior to COVID-19. The past three years, Lyft has been my primary source of income, and I’ve driven over 12,000 rides. And over the years, as the numbers of bonuses decreased while the demands to complete rides increased, making major cuts to take-home pay, it was becoming increasingly difficult to sustain a living. And signs of a good deal, with that so-called flexibility, became painfully clear. And my views of Lyft were shifting.
And so, COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter movement have pulled back the curtain and showed Americans diseases for which there still is no vaccine. And I know about COVID-19. While we were seeking solace in our troubled land of Lyft and Uber, were nowhere to be found. Drivers attempted to secure masks, hand sanitizers, sick time off, unemployment insurance and other protective measures, and we found obstacles and lack of transparency processes. I couldn’t even find a place that was open at the time. So I know what it’s like to work for Lyft and Uber and these corporate greed app-based companies.
I’ve worked long hours with no guaranteed wage, no work breaks, no restroom facilities, no overtime, no protective equipment, no paid sick time. I know what it’s like to always have the looming threat of an accident with no coverage, or a deactivation based on retaliation or discrimination, with no protections, no remedies in place. I know what it’s like to be in the middle of a pandemic now, when you have your employer who’s denying you unemployment insurance in the middle of a pandemic. I know what it’s like to have your company threaten to shut down because they can’t get what they want. There are stories of drivers who have lost their lives in an effort to pay their bills. There are stories of drivers who were symptomatic of the virus but yet continued to drive for fear of financial ruin.
AMY GOODMAN: Cherri , Prop 22 eliminates required sexual harassment training and Uber and Lyft to investigate customers’ and drivers’ harassment claims?
CHERRI MURPHY: Yes, it does. It eliminates required sexual harassment training, as well as the obligations on Uber and Lyft to investigate both customers’ and drivers’ harassment claims. And a lot of us know that there are at least 6,000 claims for 2017 and 2018 that went untouched. What’s even more disturbing, as Veena mentioned, is that these companies are promising to roll out this model nationwide, foretelling a grim future for gig workers across this country.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Veena Dubal, about this effort to roll it out nationwide, there has been discussion of trying to get a federal law passed. Could you talk about that?
VEENA DUBAL: Yeah, they have announced that they are ready and willing to take this really dangerous law to the federal level. They are already trying to replicate it in a number of states, including New York state. They have — rolling out advertisements, similarly misleading advertisements to the campaign in California. And, you know, over the past — since Lyft hit the streets of San Francisco in 2012, 2013, over the past seven years, almost a decade, they have — at the company’s behest, a number of bills have been written, and even introduced, to do exactly what Prop 22 does, which is create a substandard category of worker under the U.S. law.
And I think they think they have a blueprint now. They got this passed in California. And as we all know, what happens in California tends to spread all over the country and even the world. And so, I think that we are going to see a flood of misinformation in states and on the federal level about what gig work is, the kinds of benefits supposedly that it offers. We’re going to hear a lot of dishonest representations of what freedom and flexibility it offers and how people need this work.
And it’s so important for people to understand, for voters, for Americans to understand, that this law takes away all of the hard-won protections that workers have. We are at a point in technology and history where we should be expanding workers’ rights. And instead, this law has completely stripped them away.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Veena Dubal, in just 30 seconds, if you can explain what happened to you as you campaigned against Prop 22, the mass investigation that was done of you?
VEENA DUBAL: Yeah. I had extreme forms of harassment from the PR campaign, which is — again, this proposition, it passed as a result of disinformation and harassment. It was very Trumpian in that sense. I got massive text and email Public Records Act requests. I was constantly harassed online and offline. Someone put my home address up on Twitter. I was doxxed. It was a lot of misinformation on the right-wing blogosphere. It was really something. You know, they were scared of what I had to say. And I will continue to say it, because if this spreads past California, we are headed for an even worse situation of inequality than we are already experiencing.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Professor Dubal, we at Democracy Now! wanted to extend our deepest condolences to you on the loss of your brother, Sam Dubal —
VEENA DUBAL: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: — the University of Washington anthropology professor. He has been missing since early October, when he embarked on a solo 17-mile overnight hike on Mount Rainier in Washington state. Friends and family say he’ll be remembered for his deep commitment to antiracism in medicine. In late October, you tweeted a photo of your family, saying, quote, “We carry your prayers, thoughts & good wishes for Sam Dubal as we begin to grieve & celebrate his remarkable life & kind soul. After a thorough search, the outer limits of time for survivability have passed. Our deepest gratitude to all, including the brave searchers & community.” Your brother was an amazing researcher, antiracist academic. If you want to share a few final thoughts about your brother?
VEENA DUBAL: So kind of you. He would be so honored to have his name mentioned on Democracy Now! Sam was the kindest, most brilliant, most dedicated, ethical researcher, friend, community member, advocate that I have ever met in my life. He was — truly, truly had the spirit of social justice lit his life and lit his soul. He loved Democracy Now! He loved you, Amy Goodman and Juan González. And we miss him so, so very much. I will do everything I can, with every day of my life, to continue his spirit and to work in his memory, and that includes fighting this kind of economic injustice and inequality.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Veena, thanks again. And again, our condolences to everyone in your family.
VEENA DUBAL: Thank you very much.
AMY GOODMAN: Veena Dubal, law professor at the University of California, Hastings, who writes about the gig economy, and Cherri Murphy, Lyft driver with Gig Workers Rising.
Well, next, we will continue to look at ballot initiatives around the country and the historic vote Friday by the House to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. We’ll be back in 30 seconds.