truthout--2020-04-17--Trump Tells States to “LIBERATE!” Contradicting Own Administration’s Guidance

A day after President Donald Trump unveiled a three-phase approach to ending stay-in-place orders across the country , he voiced support for right-wing protesters in a number of states who are themselves urging a quicker — and potentially more dangerous — approach .
On Friday , Trump sent a triad of tweets in which he called for voters to “ liberate ” themselves .
“ LIBERATE MINNESOTA !
” he wrote in one of his tweets .
“ LIBERATE MICHIGAN !
” he wrote in another post .
In his third tweet , Trump followed the same motif for Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ save ” gun rights as well .
“ LIBERATE VIRGINIA , and save your great 2nd Amendment .
It is under siege !
” the president wrote .
Virginia recently passed gun laws that put new regulations on owning and purchasing weaponry , including expanding background checks and implementing “ red flag ” laws , which allow local law enforcement to confiscate weapons from people deemed to be a danger to others or themselves .
Trump ’ s tweets on Friday appear to be focusing on states that have held or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay-in-place measures designed to curb the spread of COVID-19 .
Although a sizable number of individuals are against those measures , favoring instead for the “ reopening ” of their respective state economies , polling across the nation shows a vast majority of Americans would rather preserve stay-in-place orders to diminish the disease ’ s spread , even if it comes with economic consequences .
Trump ’ s calls to “ liberate ” states from such orders stand in direct contrast to his own recommendations .
According to the three-phase plan he announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considers moving in that direction , it ’ s advised that a “ downward trajectory of documented cases within a 14-day period ” be evident .
Even if states are showing a trajectory in that direction , they must do so for another two weeks , according to the president ’ s plan .
The measures laid out by Trump this week also lack a means for increasing testing in the states to demonstrate things are improving .
Trump ’ s tweets appear to some to be wholly partisan , as they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors .
The mentioning of the Second Amendment in his third tweet — an issue that ’ s unrelated in any way to the coronavirus crisis — also suggests a more political tone in his tweets .
And just minutes after sending out his three “ liberate ” messages , he criticized Gov .
Andrew Cuomo of New York ; suggested that states , not the federal government , need to “ step up ” testing for the disease ; and called the Obama administration a “ disaster ” because “ 17,000 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ H1N1 crisis .
( The actual figure is 12,469 . )
At the time of publication , more than 34,000 Americans have died from coronavirus , double the amount Trump falsely claimed had died during H1N1 .

Trump sent a barrage of political tweets on Friday, including an attack against former President Barack Obama.
A day after President Donald Trump unveiled a three-phase approach to ending stay-in-place orders across the country, he voiced support for right-wing protesters in a number of states who are themselves urging a quicker — and potentially more dangerous — approach.
On Friday, Trump sent a triad of tweets in which he called for voters to “liberate” themselves.
“LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” he wrote in one of his tweets. “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” he wrote in another post.
In his third tweet, Trump followed the same motif for Virginia, but added that the state ought to “save” gun rights as well.
“LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!” the president wrote.
Virginia recently passed gun laws that put new regulations on owning and purchasing weaponry, including expanding background checks and implementing “red flag” laws, which allow local law enforcement to confiscate weapons from people deemed to be a danger to others or themselves.
LIBERATE MINNESOTA! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 17, 2020
LIBERATE MICHIGAN! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 17, 2020
LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 17, 2020
Trump’s tweets on Friday appear to be focusing on states that have held or are planning to hold mass protests against stay-in-place measures designed to curb the spread of COVID-19. Although a sizable number of individuals are against those measures, favoring instead for the “reopening” of their respective state economies, polling across the nation shows a vast majority of Americans would rather preserve stay-in-place orders to diminish the disease’s spread, even if it comes with economic consequences.
Trump’s calls to “liberate” states from such orders stand in direct contrast to his own recommendations. According to the three-phase plan he announced on Thursday, before any state even considers moving in that direction, it’s advised that a “downward trajectory of documented cases within a 14-day period” be evident.
Even if states are showing a trajectory in that direction, they must do so for another two weeks, according to the president’s plan. The measures laid out by Trump this week also lack a means for increasing testing in the states to demonstrate things are improving.
Trump’s tweets appear to some to be wholly partisan, as they were only sent messages to states with Democratic governors. The mentioning of the Second Amendment in his third tweet — an issue that’s unrelated in any way to the coronavirus crisis — also suggests a more political tone in his tweets.
And just minutes after sending out his three “liberate” messages, he criticized Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York; suggested that states, not the federal government, need to “step up” testing for the disease; and called the Obama administration a “disaster” because “17,000 people died” in the U.S. during the H1N1 crisis. (The actual figure is 12,469.)
At the time of publication, more than 34,000 Americans have died from coronavirus, double the amount Trump falsely claimed had died during H1N1.
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--2020-04-17--NYC Medical Workers Protest New Policy Demanding Doctor’s Notes for Ill Staffers

A new policy at New York City ’ s public hospitals requires medical workers who call in sick to produce @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We know that people just need a mental health day , ” says @ @ @ @ @ nurse at a public hospital in the Bronx who is organizing a protest against the @ @ @ @ @ us have been exposed .
Health workers are the least tested group of people in @ @ @ @ @ a member of the board of directors of the New York State Nurses Association .
@ @ @ @ @ full transcript .

A new policy at New York City’s public hospitals requires medical workers who call in sick to produce a doctor’s note. “We know that people just need a mental health day,” says Sean Petty, a registered nurse at a public hospital in the Bronx who is organizing a protest against the policy. “Thousands of us have been exposed. Health workers are the least tested group of people in this city.” Petty is a member of the board of directors of the New York State Nurses Association.
Please check back later for full transcript.


truthout--2020-04-17--Trump’s COVID-19 Plan Aims to Shift Blame to Governors If Things Worsen

President Donald Trump has laid out a three-phase approach for how states can end stay-in-place orders over the next several weeks or so , with hopes that doing so can help send people back to work , revitalizing an economy that has been significantly harmed by the spread of the coronavirus .
The president ’ s plan , unveiled on Thursday , provides a framework for states to follow in order to move from one phase to the next .
The first phase is the situation most states find themselves in presently , where strict standards for social distancing should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of COVID-19 .
The second phase starts when there appears to be no resurgence of cases throughout a given state .
It allows for some non-essential travel to resume , including the reopening of schools , restaurants and bars , with some limits .
The final phase begins when there appears to be a downward trend in symptoms within the general populace .
It allows for greater public interactions to commence , and for work to resume for most .
Visitations to healthcare facilities , including hospitals , are allowed .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisory in nature , putting the onus on states to determine when they should move forward or not .
“ You ’ re going to call your own shots , ” the president said .
The decision to design things in that manner , according to several current and former senior administration officials who spoke to The Washington Post about the plan , is partially to allow Trump to stave off future criticisms about the disease ’ s spread .
If a resurgence happens in a state that moved ahead too quickly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blame toward that governor .
The plan is also missing an important aspect to it : a nationwide strategy for increasing testing for coronavirus .
Without such testing , experts largely agree , no plan to end stay-in-place orders to “ reopen the economy ” can be feasible .
Many on social media have noted that the approach appears to be a way for Trump to blame others going forward if things go wrong .
“ Americans are staying home and sacrificing in order to give the federal government time to come up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is refusing to do so in order to blame governors for whatever happens next , ” Jon Favreau , podcast host and former Obama speechwriter , said .
The three-phase plan that shifts focus to the states is a political risk for Trump , even if it allows him to assign blame elsewhere if things go wrong .
Polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates that the vast majority of Americans , 60 percent , want to see a federal response to the disease , not a state-by-state approach .
So far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government has handled things .
A CNN/SSRS poll published last week revealed that 55 percent of Americans believe the feds have done a poor job of responding to the crisis .

The three-phase plan appears to many to be more about Trump having the ability to place blame elsewhere.
President Donald Trump has laid out a three-phase approach for how states can end stay-in-place orders over the next several weeks or so, with hopes that doing so can help send people back to work, revitalizing an economy that has been significantly harmed by the spread of the coronavirus.
The president’s plan, unveiled on Thursday, provides a framework for states to follow in order to move from one phase to the next. The first phase is the situation most states find themselves in presently, where strict standards for social distancing should be followed in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
The second phase starts when there appears to be no resurgence of cases throughout a given state. It allows for some non-essential travel to resume, including the reopening of schools, restaurants and bars, with some limits.
The final phase begins when there appears to be a downward trend in symptoms within the general populace. It allows for greater public interactions to commence, and for work to resume for most. Visitations to healthcare facilities, including hospitals, are allowed.
Trump’s plan, however, is advisory in nature, putting the onus on states to determine when they should move forward or not. “You’re going to call your own shots,” the president said.
The decision to design things in that manner, according to several current and former senior administration officials who spoke to The Washington Post about the plan, is partially to allow Trump to stave off future criticisms about the disease’s spread. If a resurgence happens in a state that moved ahead too quickly, for example, the president can shift blame toward that governor.
The plan is also missing an important aspect to it: a nationwide strategy for increasing testing for coronavirus. Without such testing, experts largely agree, no plan to end stay-in-place orders to “reopen the economy” can be feasible.
Many on social media have noted that the approach appears to be a way for Trump to blame others going forward if things go wrong.
“Americans are staying home and sacrificing in order to give the federal government time to come up with a post-lockdown plan, but Trump is refusing to do so in order to blame governors for whatever happens next,” Jon Favreau, podcast host and former Obama speechwriter, said.
Americans are staying home and sacrificing in order to give the federal government time to come up with a post-lockdown plan, but Trump is refusing to do so in order to blame governors for whatever happens next. https://t.co/0NGUI9j1n1 — Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) April 10, 2020
The three-phase plan that shifts focus to the states is a political risk for Trump, even if it allows him to assign blame elsewhere if things go wrong. Polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates that the vast majority of Americans, 60 percent, want to see a federal response to the disease, not a state-by-state approach.
So far, Americans have been less-than-thrilled with the way the federal government has handled things. A CNN/SSRS poll published last week revealed that 55 percent of Americans believe the feds have done a poor job of responding to the crisis.
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--2020-04-17--Noam Chomsky: Trump Blaming WHO for COVID-19 Deaths Is Dictator-Like Behavior

We continue our conversation with world-renowned political dissident , linguist and author Noam Chomsky .
He responds to President Trump ’ s cuts to U.S. support for the World Health Organization and the surge in deaths in the United States to another record high , and discusses conditions in Gaza , the rise of authoritarianism around the world , and the progressive response .
“ This is typical behavior of autocrats and dictators .
When you make colossal errors which are killing thousands of people , find somebody else to blame , ” say Chomsky .
“ In the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , for well over a century , century and a half , that it ’ s always easy to blame the ‘ yellow peril.
’ ” 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 .
The death rate from the coronavirus pandemic continues to accelerate , with worldwide confirmed deaths topping 145,000 .
In the United States , deaths surged to another record high Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record set just a day before , at 4,591 , U.S. residents died over a single 24-hour period .
Well , today we continue my conversation with Noam Chomsky , the world-renowned political dissident , linguist and author of more than a hundred books .
He ’ s a laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona , Tucson , and professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology , where he taught for more than half a century .
Professor Chomsky joined us last week from his home in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheltering in place his wife Valeria .
We spoke just after President Donald Trump foreshadowed this week ’ s announcement that he would cut off U.S. support for the World Health Organization .
This is Trump addressing reporters last week .
I ’ m old enough to remember as a child listening to Hitler ’ s speeches over the radio , Nuremberg rallies .
I couldn ’ t understand the words , but the tone and the reaction of the crowd , the adoring crowd , was very clear and very frightening .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s hard to — it comes to mind at once when you listen to Trump ’ s ravings and the crowd .
I don ’ t suggest that he ’ s anything like Hitler .
Hitler had an ideology , horrible ideology , not only massacring all the Jews and 30 million Slavs and the Roma , and conquering much of the world , but also an internal ideology : The state , under control of the Nazi Party , should control every aspect of life , should even control the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world we ’ re in .
In fact , it ’ s almost the opposite , business controlling the government .
And as far as Trump is concerned , the only detectable ideology is pure narcissism .
Me , that ’ s the ideology .
As long as I am smart enough to keep serving the real masters , pour money into the pockets of the very wealthy and the corporate sector , and they ’ ll let you get away with your antics .
Trump came along and gave the keynote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
His vulgarity is incompatible with the image that they ’ re trying to project of cultivated humanism .
But they wildly applauded him , lustily applauded every word , because they know that he does recognize which pockets you have to fill with dollars and how to do it .
And as long as he does that , as long as he serves his major constituency , they ’ ll let him get away with the antics — in fact , like it , because he mobilizes a crowd that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Main one is a tax scam that pours money into the hands of the corporate coffers and harms everyone else .
The deregulation is great for business .
They love it .
They can destroy the environment and harm people as much as they want .
Very harmful to the population .
And there are ways to try to destroy everything — what President Trump is leading , with the support of the Murdoch echo chamber , Fox News and others .
And amazingly , this conjuring act is working .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand to heaven : “ I ’ m the chosen one .
I ’ m your savior .
I ’ m going to rebuild America , make it great again for you , because I ’ m the servant .
I ’ m the loyal servant of the working class , ” and so on .
Meanwhile , with the other hand , you ’ re stabbing them all in the back .
And to carry this off is an act of political genius .
You have to recognize that serious talent is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s devastating .
We ’ ve seen it before .
We see it now in dictators , autocrats , sociopaths who happen to get into leadership positions .
And it ’ s now happening in the richest , most important country in world history .
AMY GOODMAN : World-renowned political dissident , linguist and author Noam Chomsky .
When we come back , he ’ ll discuss conditions in Gaza during the pandemic , and the rise of authoritarianism around the world , and the progressive response .
Stay with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rican rapper Residente , performing the “ Quarantine Edition ” of his new song “ René.
” This version includes his mom and about 30 other musicians who joined him from their homes .
This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , as we return to Part 2 of our conversation with Noam Chomsky , world-renowned linguist , political dissident and author .
I asked him about Gaza , one of the most densely populated places on Earth , where at least 13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The World Health Organization reports there are just 87 ventilators for Gaza ’ s 2 million residents .
Nearly 300 cases and two deaths have been confirmed in the West Bank .
This is Professor Chomsky .
Now , if you look at the level of states , this looks like an extremely unequal competition .
But states are not the only things that exist .
If you look at the level of people , it ’ s not impossible .
It ’ s possible to construct a Progressive International based on people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have been proliferating , that have gotten a huge shot in the arm from the Sanders campaign , ranging from them to self-help mutual aid , self-help organizations that are rising in communities all over the world , in the most impoverished areas of Brazil , for example , and even this astonishing fact that I mentioned , that the murderous crime gangs are taking responsibility for bringing some form of decent protection against the pandemic in the favelas , the miserable slums , in Rio .
All of this is happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expands and develops , if people don ’ t just give up in despair but work to change the world , as they ’ ve done in the past under much worse conditions , if they do that , there ’ s a chance for a Progressive International .
AMY GOODMAN : World-renowned political dissident , linguist and author Noam Chomsky , laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona , Tucson , professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology , where he taught for more than half a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week from his home in Tucson , Arizona , where he ’ s sheltering in place with his wife Valeria .
Go to our website at Democracy Now !
to see Part 1 of our conversation .
When we come back , a new policy at New York ’ s public hospitals requires medical workers who call in sick to produce a doctor ’ s note .
Stay with us .
AMY GOODMAN : “ Lean on Me ” by Bill Withers .
The legendary singer-songwriter Bill Withers died last month at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We were showing , during that music break , nurses dancing around the world to give strength to each other , themselves and their patients .

We continue our conversation with world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author Noam Chomsky. He responds to President Trump’s cuts to U.S. support for the World Health Organization and the surge in deaths in the United States to another record high, and discusses conditions in Gaza, the rise of authoritarianism around the world, and the progressive response. “This is typical behavior of autocrats and dictators. When you make colossal errors which are killing thousands of people, find somebody else to blame,” say Chomsky. “In the United States, it’s unfortunately the case, for well over a century, century and a half, that it’s always easy to blame the ‘yellow peril.’”
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. The death rate from the coronavirus pandemic continues to accelerate, with worldwide confirmed deaths topping 145,000. In the United States, deaths surged to another record high Thursday, nearly doubling to surpass the previous record set just a day before, at 4,591, U.S. residents died over a single 24-hour period.
Well, today we continue my conversation with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author of more than a hundred books. He’s a laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than half a century. Professor Chomsky joined us last week from his home in Tucson, Arizona, where he is sheltering in place his wife Valeria. We spoke just after President Donald Trump foreshadowed this week’s announcement that he would cut off U.S. support for the World Health Organization. This is Trump addressing reporters last week.
REPORTER 1: Is the time to freeze funding to the WHO during a pandemic of this magnitude? Related Story Interview | Economy & Labor Chomsky and Pollin: To Heal From COVID-19, We Must Imagine a Different World Will the coronavirus crisis lead to a new way of organizing society? Truthout PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, maybe not. I mean, I’m not saying I’m going to do it, but we’re going to look at it. REPORTER 2: You did say that you’re going to do it. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We give a tremendous — no, I didn’t. I said we’re going to look at it. We’re going to investigate it. We’re going to look at it.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what he’s threatening to do right now? First they reject the WHO tests, that would have been critical, and now saying they’re going to defund the World Health Organization.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, this is typical behavior of autocrats and dictators. When you make colossal errors which are killing thousands of people, find somebody else to blame. And in the United States, it’s unfortunately the case, for well over a century, century and a half, that it’s always easy to blame the “yellow peril.” The yellow — “They’re coming after us.” We’ve seen this all through my life, in fact way before. So, blame the World Health Organization, blame China, claim that the World Health Organization has insidious relations with China, is practically working for them. And that sells to a population that’s been deeply indoctrinated for a long time, way back to the Chinese Exclusion Acts in the 19th century, to say, “Yeah, those yellow barbarians are coming over to destroy us.” That’s almost instinctive.
And it’s backed up by the echo chamber, so, you know, say, Rush Limbaugh. Science is one of the four corners of deceit, along with the media, academia — I forget one of the others, but they’re the four corners of deceit. They live on deceit. You keep driving that into people’s heads. They say, “Why should we believe anything? Why should we believe the news? It’s just fake news. They’re all trying to destroy our savior, our president, the greatest president ever.”
I’m old enough to remember as a child listening to Hitler’s speeches over the radio, Nuremberg rallies. I couldn’t understand the words, but the tone and the reaction of the crowd, the adoring crowd, was very clear and very frightening. We know what it led to. It’s hard to — it comes to mind at once when you listen to Trump’s ravings and the crowd. I don’t suggest that he’s anything like Hitler. Hitler had an ideology, horrible ideology, not only massacring all the Jews and 30 million Slavs and the Roma, and conquering much of the world, but also an internal ideology: The state, under control of the Nazi Party, should control every aspect of life, should even control the business community. That’s not the world we’re in. In fact, it’s almost the opposite, business controlling the government. And as far as Trump is concerned, the only detectable ideology is pure narcissism. Me, that’s the ideology. As long as I am smart enough to keep serving the real masters, pour money into the pockets of the very wealthy and the corporate sector, and they’ll let you get away with your antics.
It’s pretty striking to see what happened at the Davos conference this January. That’s the meeting of the people who are called the “masters of the universe” — CEOs of the major corporations, you know, big media stars and so on. They get together in Davos once a year, congratulate each other on how wonderful they are, put on a pose of dedicated humanists who couldn’t do — you know, just totally devoted to the welfare of the people of the world. “You’re safe leaving your fate in our hands because we’re such good guys.”
Trump came along and gave the keynote address. They don’t like Trump. His vulgarity is incompatible with the image that they’re trying to project of cultivated humanism. But they wildly applauded him, lustily applauded every word, because they know that he does recognize which pockets you have to fill with dollars and how to do it. And as long as he does that, as long as he serves his major constituency, they’ll let him get away with the antics — in fact, like it, because he mobilizes a crowd that will back policies like his legislative achievements. Main one is a tax scam that pours money into the hands of the corporate coffers and harms everyone else. The deregulation is great for business. They love it. They can destroy the environment and harm people as much as they want. Very harmful to the population.
You cut back on pollution constraints, on auto emission regulations, what happens? People die of pollution, of mercury poisoning. The waters are poisoned. And the world, it goes, is facing disaster. You’re accelerating the disaster. As I said, even in the February 10th budget, while cutting back on protection against diseases in the midst of a raging pandemic, increases funding for fossil fuel production, which is going to destroy us all. Of course, a lot more money for the Pentagon and for his famous wall. But that’s the world we’re living in — here, not everywhere. As I said, the Asian countries have been acting sensibly. New Zealand actually seems to have killed it also. Taiwan is doing very well. In Europe, Germany has maybe the lowest death rate in the world, Norway, as well. There are ways to react.
And there are ways to try to destroy everything — what President Trump is leading, with the support of the Murdoch echo chamber, Fox News and others. And amazingly, this conjuring act is working. So, with one hand, you raise your hand to heaven: “I’m the chosen one. I’m your savior. I’m going to rebuild America, make it great again for you, because I’m the servant. I’m the loyal servant of the working class,” and so on. Meanwhile, with the other hand, you’re stabbing them all in the back. And to carry this off is an act of political genius. You have to recognize that serious talent is involved, whether intuitive or conscious planning. It’s devastating. We’ve seen it before. We see it now in dictators, autocrats, sociopaths who happen to get into leadership positions. And it’s now happening in the richest, most important country in world history.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you have this situation in the United States where the economy has been brought to a standstill because of the absolute catastrophe of this pandemic, that people have to isolate — although isolation is a luxury. For so many essential workers, they have to come out into this pandemic and face enormous threat to their own lives. If you can talk about whether you see this pandemic perhaps threatening global capitalism overall or shoring it up, and how the trillions of dollars that are being put into these stimulus packages are going to simply intensify inequality or actually going to help people at the bottom?
NOAM CHOMSKY: That’s a choice, not an inevitability. I mean, the corporate sector is working hard to plan for a future of the kind that you’re describing. The question is whether popular organizations will be able to impose enough pressure to make sure that this doesn’t happen.
And there are ways. Take the corporate — what you just described. The corporations right now are hiding their copies of Ayn Rand and rushing to the nanny state and asking for benefits from the public to overcome the results of their criminal behavior. What have they been doing for the last years? Profits have been going sky high. They’ve been indulging in an orgy of stock buybacks, which are devices to increase the wealth for the rich shareholders and for management while undermining the productive capacity of the enterprise at a huge scale, setting their offices somewhere in a little room in Ireland so they don’t have to pay taxes, using tax havens. This is not small change. This is tens of trillions of dollars, robbing the taxpayer. Does that have to be the case?
Take the current giveaway to corporations. It should be accompanied by conditionalities — term we’re familiar with from the IMF. They should be required to ensure that there will be no more use of tax havens, there will be no more stock buybacks, period. If they don’t do that, with a firm guarantee, no money from the public.
Is that utopian? Not at all. That was the law, and the law was enforced, up until Ronald Reagan, who turned on the spigot to rob as much as you like, with Milton Friedman and other luminaries in the background telling him, “That’s liberty.” “Liberty” means rob the public massively by things like tax havens and stock buybacks. So there’s nothing utopian about these conditions. It says, “Let’s go back to a period of pretty much regimented capitalism,” which developed since Roosevelt, was carried through ’til the ’70s, when it began to erode, and, with Reagan, just ended.
There should be further conditionalities, should be working people should be placed — part of management should be representatives of workers. Is that impossible? No, it’s done in other countries, Germany, for example. There should be a requirement that they guarantee a living wage — not just minimum wage, a living wage. That’s a conditionality that can be imposed.
Now, we can move further and recognize — notice that all of this is pre-Trump. Trump is taking a failing, lethal system and turning it into a monstrosity, but the roots were before him. Just think back to the reason why the pandemic occurred in the first place. Drug companies are following capitalist logic. They don’t want to do anything. The neoliberal hammer says the government can’t do anything the way it did in the past. You’re caught in a vise. Then comes along Trump and makes it incomparably worse. But the roots of the crisis are pre-Trump.
The same with the healthcare system. Like we know that — everyone knows — they should know the basic facts. It’s an international scandal: twice the costs of comparable countries, some of the worst outcomes. The costs were recently estimated by a study in The Lancet, one of the world’s leading medical journals. They estimated that the costs, the annual — annual costs to Americans are close to half a trillion dollars and 68,000 lives lost. That’s not so small.
AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned political dissident, linguist and author Noam Chomsky. When we come back, he’ll discuss conditions in Gaza during the pandemic, and the rise of authoritarianism around the world, and the progressive response. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: The Puerto Rican rapper Residente, performing the “Quarantine Edition” of his new song “René.” This version includes his mom and about 30 other musicians who joined him from their homes.
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we return to Part 2 of our conversation with Noam Chomsky, world-renowned linguist, political dissident and author. I asked him about Gaza, one of the most densely populated places on Earth, where at least 13 cases of COVID-19 have been reported. The World Health Organization reports there are just 87 ventilators for Gaza’s 2 million residents. Nearly 300 cases and two deaths have been confirmed in the West Bank. This is Professor Chomsky.
AMY GOODMAN: If you can talk for a moment, globally, about what’s happening on an issue that has been close to your heart for decades, and that is the Occupied Territories, Gaza and the West Bank, what it means for a place like Gaza, called by the U.N. and people around the world a kind of “open-air prison” of almost 2 million people, what the pandemic could mean there?
NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s almost impossible to think about. Gaza is 2 million people who are in the — living in a prison, open-air prison, under constant attack. Israel, which is the occupying power, recognized by everyone in the world except Israel — Israel is imposing — has been imposing very harsh sanctions ever since the Palestinians made the mistake of carrying out the first free election in the Arab world and electing the wrong people. The United States and Israel came down on them like a ton of bricks.
Israel’s policy, as was explained by Dov Weissglas, the person in charge of the withdrawal of Israeli troops, the withdrawal of the settlers and imposition of the new regime — he explained frankly, “We are putting the people of Gaza on a diet, just enough to keep them alive,” meaning wouldn’t look good if they all die, but not anything more than that. So, not a piece of chocolate or a toy for a child. That’s out. Just enough to stay alive. And if you have a serious health problem, maybe you can apply to go to the hospital in East Jerusalem. Maybe after a couple of weeks, you’ll be allowed to go. Maybe a child is allowed to go, but his mother is not allowed to come.
If the pandemic — there are now a couple of cases in Gaza. If that extends, it’s a total disaster. International institutions have pointed out that by 2020 — that’s now — Gaza will probably become barely livable. About 95% of the water is totally polluted. The place is a disaster. And Trump has made sure that it will get worse. He withdrew funding from the support systems for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank — UNRWA, killed the funding; Palestinian hospitals, killed the funding. And he had a reason. They weren’t praising him enough. They weren’t respectful of the god, so, therefore, we’ll strangle them, even when they’re barely surviving under a harsh and brutal regime.
Incidentally, this extends to Palestinians in Israel, as well. Human rights activists in Israel pointed out recently — there’s articles about it in Haaretz — that Israel finally began to set up a few drive-by testing areas only in Jewish areas, not in the areas with Palestinian population. And to make sure that the intended results would follow, they announced it only in Hebrew, not in Arabic, so Palestinians wouldn’t even know. Well, that’s within Israel. In the Occupied Territories, far worse.
And the Trump hammer came in saying, “We’re not even going to give you a penny, because you’re not respectful enough of me.” I don’t know how to describe this kind of thing. I can’t find words for it.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, what do you think is required in an international response to stop the rise of authoritarianism in response to this pandemic? For example, in the Philippines, where the authoritarian leader, Trump ally, Duterte, talks about killing people; the massive crackdown, without support of the people of India, 1.3 billion people, with Narendra Modi. President Trump was in India as the pandemic was taking off, never saying a word about it, packing a stadium of 100,000 people. You have Orbán in Hungary, who is now ruling by decree. What would it take to turn that around to be a progressive response?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, actually, what’s happening, to the extent that you can find some coherent policy in the madness in the White House, one thing does emerge with considerable clarity — namely, an effort to construct an international of the most reactionary states and oppressive states, led by the gangster in the White House. Now, this is taking shape.
I can run through it, but since you mentioned India, Modi, who is a Hindu nationalist extremist, is systematically moving to destroy Indian secular democracy and to crush the Muslim population. What’s happening in Kashmir is horrifying. It was bad enough before, now getting much worse. Same with the Muslim population, a huge population in India. The current lockdown is almost — you can almost describe it as genocidal. Modi gave, I think, a four-hour warning saying total lockdown. That’s over a billion people. Some of them have nowhere to go. People in the informal economy, which is a huge number of people, are just cast out. “Go walk back to your village,” which may be a thousand miles away. “Die on the roadside.” This is a huge catastrophe in the making, right on top of the strong efforts to impose the ultra-right Hindutva doctrines that are at the core of Modi’s thinking and background.
What’s happening in — quite apart from this, India — in fact, South Asia generally — is going to become unlivable pretty soon, if current climate policies persist. Last summer, the temperature in Rajasthan went up to 50 degrees centigrade. And it’s increasing. There’s hundreds of millions of people in India that don’t have access to water. It’s going to get much worse, could lead to a nuclear war between the two powers that basically rely on the same water resources, which are declining under global warming: Pakistan and India. I mean, the horror story that’s developing is, again, indescribable. You can’t find words for it. And some people are cheering about it, like Donald Trump and his friend Bolsonaro in Brazil, a couple of other sociopaths.
But how do you counter a reactionary international? By developing a Progressive International. And there are steps to that. They don’t get much publicity, but this — I think it’s this coming December, there will be a formal announcement of what has been in process for some time. Yanis Varoufakis, the founder and leading figure in DiEM25, the progressive movement in Europe, very important — Varoufakis and Bernie Sanders came out with a declaration calling for a Progressive International to combat and, we hope, overcome the reactionary international based in the White House.
Now, if you look at the level of states, this looks like an extremely unequal competition. But states are not the only things that exist. If you look at the level of people, it’s not impossible. It’s possible to construct a Progressive International based on people, ranging from the organized political groups that have been proliferating, that have gotten a huge shot in the arm from the Sanders campaign, ranging from them to self-help mutual aid, self-help organizations that are rising in communities all over the world, in the most impoverished areas of Brazil, for example, and even this astonishing fact that I mentioned, that the murderous crime gangs are taking responsibility for bringing some form of decent protection against the pandemic in the favelas, the miserable slums, in Rio. All of this is happening on the popular level. If it expands and develops, if people don’t just give up in despair but work to change the world, as they’ve done in the past under much worse conditions, if they do that, there’s a chance for a Progressive International.
And notice, bear in mind, that there are also striking cases of internationalism, progressive internationalism, at the state level. So, take a look at the European Union. The rich countries in Europe, like Germany, have recently given us a lesson in just what the union means. Right? Germany is managing pretty well. They probably have the lowest death rate in the world, in organized society. Right next door, northern Italy is suffering miserably. Is Germany giving them any aid? No. In fact, Germany even blocked the effort to develop euro bonds, general bonds in Europe which could be used to alleviate the suffering in the countries under the worst conditions. But fortunately for Italy, it can look across the Atlantic for aid from the superpower on the Western Hemisphere, Cuba. Cuba is, once again, as before, exhibiting extraordinary internationalism, sending doctors to Italy. Germany won’t do it, but Cuba can. China is providing material aid. So, these are steps towards progressive internationalism at the state level.
AMY GOODMAN: World-renowned political dissident, linguist and author Noam Chomsky, laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than half a century. Noam Chomsky joined us last week from his home in Tucson, Arizona, where he’s sheltering in place with his wife Valeria. Go to our website at Democracy Now! to see Part 1 of our conversation.
When we come back, a new policy at New York’s public hospitals requires medical workers who call in sick to produce a doctor’s note. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Lean on Me” by Bill Withers. The legendary singer-songwriter Bill Withers died last month at the age of 81 from heart complications. We were showing, during that music break, nurses dancing around the world to give strength to each other, themselves and their patients.


truthout--2020-04-17--Texas Atty. General Threatens Criminal Charges for Groups Promoting Mail Voting

A Texas judge said on Wednesday that all voters afraid of contracting the coronavirus should be allowed to cast absentee ballots in the coming election .
Republicans immediately vowed to fight the ruling .
Travis County Judge Tim Sulak announced on Wednesday that he would issue a temporary injunction that would allow voters who are concerned about becoming infected through in-person voting to qualify for mail ballots under the disability clause in the state ’ s election law , according to The Dallas Morning News .
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an order requiring the state to allow all voters to cast mail ballots .
Currently , only people over 65 , the disabled , travelers outside the country and those who are in jail but have not been convicted are allowed to vote using absentee ballots .
“ Today is a victory for all Texans .
The right to vote is central to our democracy , ” state party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa said in a statement .
“ Voters should not have to choose between their lives or their right to vote.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Republican , vowed to appeal the ruling , arguing that mail voting could lead to fraud .
Many states rely heavily on mail-in ballots and have had no significant issues with voter fraud .
Five states already plan to run all-mail elections this year , and 28 other states allow voters to request a mail ballot for any reason .
The Brennan Center for Justice found that the threat of voter fraud is “ infinitesimally small.
” Paxton argued that the court “ ignored the plain text of the Texas election code @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage of special protections made available to Texans with actual illness or disabilities.
” “ This unlawful expansion of mail-in voting will only serve to undermine the security and integrity of our elections and to facilitate fraud , ” Paxton said , pushing a debunked claim .
“ Mail ballots based on disability are specifically reserved for those who are legitimately ill and can not vote in-person without needing assistance or jeopardizing their health… My office will continue to defend Texas ’ s election laws to ensure that our elections are fair and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There is no evidence that voting by mail results in significant fraud , ” said a report from the Brennan Center .
“ Twenty-three percent of ballots were cast by mail in 2016 , and twenty-six percent of ballots were cast by mail in 2018.
” Paxton went even further earlier this week , threatening to bring felony charges against voting rights groups that promote mail voting .
“ To the extent that third parties advise voters to apply for a mail-in ballot based solely on fear of contracting Covid-19 , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal sanctions , ” Paxton ’ s office said in an advisory .
“ However , whether specific activity constitutes an offense under these provisions will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
” Paxton ’ s claims about voter fraud echoed those made by President Trump , who has argued with no evidence that Democrats use mail ballots to “ cheat ” even though the only recent case of systemic mail ballot fraud was orchestrated by a North Carolina Republican operative who was quickly prosecuted as the state held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments came in defense of Wisconsin Republicans , who refused to allow an all-mail election and held an in-person primary earlier this month .
Milwaukee , where the number of voting locations was slashed from 180 to five due to massive staff shortages , saw turnout plummet as voters were forced to endure hours-long lines .
“ Our state is better off when more Texans participate in our democracy , ” Hinojosa said after Wednesday ’ s decision .
“ Voting by mail is safe , secure and accessible .
It allows more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it ’ s a common sense way to run an election , especially during a public health crisis.
” Anthony Gutierrez , the head of the watchdog group Common Cause , added that Paxton ’ s threat to bring charges against voting rights groups put voters at risk .
“ Threatening to prosecute Texans who simply want to vote without endangering themselves , their families or their neighbors is just cruel , ” he told The Dallas Morning News .
“ Everyone who works on voting rights or elections in Texas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said this is a piece of law that is not clear , hence the litigation , and the judge made what we believe is the right call today .
”

A Texas judge said on Wednesday that all voters afraid of contracting the coronavirus should be allowed to cast absentee ballots in the coming election. Republicans immediately vowed to fight the ruling.
Travis County Judge Tim Sulak announced on Wednesday that he would issue a temporary injunction that would allow voters who are concerned about becoming infected through in-person voting to qualify for mail ballots under the disability clause in the state’s election law, according to The Dallas Morning News.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the state’s Democratic Party and voting rights groups seeking an order requiring the state to allow all voters to cast mail ballots. Currently, only people over 65, the disabled, travelers outside the country and those who are in jail but have not been convicted are allowed to vote using absentee ballots.
“Today is a victory for all Texans. The right to vote is central to our democracy,” state party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa said in a statement. “Voters should not have to choose between their lives or their right to vote.”
But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, vowed to appeal the ruling, arguing that mail voting could lead to fraud. Many states rely heavily on mail-in ballots and have had no significant issues with voter fraud. Five states already plan to run all-mail elections this year, and 28 other states allow voters to request a mail ballot for any reason. The Brennan Center for Justice found that the threat of voter fraud is “infinitesimally small.”
Paxton argued that the court “ignored the plain text of the Texas election code to allow perfectly healthy voters to take advantage of special protections made available to Texans with actual illness or disabilities.”
“This unlawful expansion of mail-in voting will only serve to undermine the security and integrity of our elections and to facilitate fraud,” Paxton said, pushing a debunked claim. “Mail ballots based on disability are specifically reserved for those who are legitimately ill and cannot vote in-person without needing assistance or jeopardizing their health… My office will continue to defend Texas’s election laws to ensure that our elections are fair and our democratic process is lawfully maintained.”
“There is no evidence that voting by mail results in significant fraud,” said a report from the Brennan Center. “Twenty-three percent of ballots were cast by mail in 2016, and twenty-six percent of ballots were cast by mail in 2018.”
Paxton went even further earlier this week, threatening to bring felony charges against voting rights groups that promote mail voting.
“To the extent that third parties advise voters to apply for a mail-in ballot based solely on fear of contracting Covid-19, such activity could subject those third parties to criminal sanctions,” Paxton’s office said in an advisory. “However, whether specific activity constitutes an offense under these provisions will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case.”
Paxton’s claims about voter fraud echoed those made by President Trump, who has argued with no evidence that Democrats use mail ballots to “cheat” even though the only recent case of systemic mail ballot fraud was orchestrated by a North Carolina Republican operative who was quickly prosecuted as the state held a re-do election.
Trump’s comments came in defense of Wisconsin Republicans, who refused to allow an all-mail election and held an in-person primary earlier this month. Milwaukee, where the number of voting locations was slashed from 180 to five due to massive staff shortages, saw turnout plummet as voters were forced to endure hours-long lines.
“Our state is better off when more Texans participate in our democracy,” Hinojosa said after Wednesday’s decision. “Voting by mail is safe, secure and accessible. It allows more voters to participate in our democracy, and it’s a common sense way to run an election, especially during a public health crisis.”
Anthony Gutierrez, the head of the watchdog group Common Cause, added that Paxton’s threat to bring charges against voting rights groups put voters at risk.
“Threatening to prosecute Texans who simply want to vote without endangering themselves, their families or their neighbors is just cruel,” he told The Dallas Morning News. “Everyone who works on voting rights or elections in Texas, including the secretary of state, has said this is a piece of law that is not clear, hence the litigation, and the judge made what we believe is the right call today.”
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--2020-04-17--New Trump Plan to Reopen Economy Contains No National COVID-19 Testing Strategy

President Donald Trump late Thursday released a vague plan to reopen the U.S. economy that — in a retreat from his claim of “ total ” authority — puts the onus on states to decide when to lift coronavirus prevention measures and contains no national strategy for the kind of massive testing expansion that public health experts say is necessary before any safe return to normalcy .
The new White House guidelines , titled “ Opening Up America Again ” ( pdf ) , say states should have the “ ability to quickly set up safe and efficient screening and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contacts of COVID+ results ” before reopening their economies .
But governors have repeatedly and directly warned Trump that , without federal assistance , their states do not have the capacity to expand testing on the scale that is needed .
Trump — who on almost a daily basis has pushed the misleading claim that the U.S. is ahead of the rest of the world in testing — is “ determined to reopen the country , ” one anonymous adviser to the president told the Washington Post .
“ Testing is just not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Trump told governors on a conference call Thursday that states with a “ beautifully low ” number of coronavirus cases can open more quickly — possibly before May 1 — than states with more cases , despite warnings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that lifting social distancing guidelines too swiftly and without adequate protections could result in a rapid resurgence of the virus .
“ Let ’ s get your states open and get back to work , ” Trump said on the call , according to Axios @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat , said he was encouraged that Trump ’ s guidelines urge states to reopen at their own pace , but lawmakers and critics raised alarm at the absence of a coordinated , nationwide testing strategy in the new 20-page plan .
“ The most disturbing story I ’ ve read in a while , which is saying something given the times , ” MSNBC legal analyst Matthew Miller tweeted late Thursday , linking to a Post article on the new White House guidelines .
“ There is no plan for testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the Post , “ there is no national testing strategy , but rather a patchwork of programs administered by states with limited federal guidance.
” “ Trump ’ s the-buck-stops-with-the-states posture is largely designed to shield himself from blame should there be new outbreaks after states reopen or for other problems , according to several current and former senior administration officials involved in the response , ” the Post reported .
Following the release of the White House ’ s latest guidelines , Sen. Brian Schatz ( D-Hawaii ) tweeted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporter it doesn ’ t undermine your neutrality to characterize the failure on testing as a failure.
” “ It is an objective fact that [ the administration ] failed to meet any of the metrics set by public health professionals or even their internal goals , ” said Schatz .
“ It ’ s a failure.
” Public health experts — including Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert — and business leaders have warned that the U.S. must significantly expand its testing capacity nationwide before reopening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which has officially infected more than 667,000 people and killed more than 30,000 in the United States .
“ We have to have something in place that is efficient and that we can rely on , and we ’ re not there yet , ” Fauci told the Associated Press in an interview on Tuesday .
Last week , as Common Dreams reported , Trump dismissed warnings that a functional nationwide testing system must be in place before any attempt to reopen large sectors of the U.S. economy .
“ We want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to see if we have it , ” Trump said at a press briefing .
“ Do you need it ?
No .
Is it a nice thing to do ?
Yes.
” In a conference call on Wednesday , business leaders told Trump that “ expanded testing was necessary before Americans could safely return to work , ” the Los Angeles Times reported , citing an anonymous person briefed on the call .
“ But , ” according to the Times , “ the message was largely drowned out by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the participants .
”

Public health experts and business leaders have warned that the U.S. must significantly expand its testing capacity.
President Donald Trump late Thursday released a vague plan to reopen the U.S. economy that — in a retreat from his claim of “total” authority — puts the onus on states to decide when to lift coronavirus prevention measures and contains no national strategy for the kind of massive testing expansion that public health experts say is necessary before any safe return to normalcy.
The new White House guidelines, titled “Opening Up America Again” (pdf), say states should have the “ability to quickly set up safe and efficient screening and testing sites for symptomatic individuals and trace contacts of COVID+ results” before reopening their economies. But governors have repeatedly and directly warned Trump that, without federal assistance, their states do not have the capacity to expand testing on the scale that is needed.
Trump — who on almost a daily basis has pushed the misleading claim that the U.S. is ahead of the rest of the world in testing — is “determined to reopen the country,” one anonymous adviser to the president told the Washington Post.
“Testing is just not his primary thought,” the adviser said.
Trump told governors on a conference call Thursday that states with a “beautifully low” number of coronavirus cases can open more quickly — possibly before May 1 — than states with more cases, despite warnings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that lifting social distancing guidelines too swiftly and without adequate protections could result in a rapid resurgence of the virus.
“Let’s get your states open and get back to work,” Trump said on the call, according to Axios.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, said he was encouraged that Trump’s guidelines urge states to reopen at their own pace, but lawmakers and critics raised alarm at the absence of a coordinated, nationwide testing strategy in the new 20-page plan.
“The most disturbing story I’ve read in a while, which is saying something given the times,” MSNBC legal analyst Matthew Miller tweeted late Thursday, linking to a Post article on the new White House guidelines. “There is no plan for testing. Nothing, nada, zilch.”
According to the Post, “there is no national testing strategy, but rather a patchwork of programs administered by states with limited federal guidance.”
“Trump’s the-buck-stops-with-the-states posture is largely designed to shield himself from blame should there be new outbreaks after states reopen or for other problems, according to several current and former senior administration officials involved in the response,” the Post reported.
Following the release of the White House’s latest guidelines, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) tweeted that “if you are a straight news reporter it doesn’t undermine your neutrality to characterize the failure on testing as a failure.”
“It is an objective fact that [the administration] failed to meet any of the metrics set by public health professionals or even their internal goals,” said Schatz. “It’s a failure.”
Where are the tests? — Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) April 16, 2020
On March 6 they promised 4 million tests by the end of that week. It is April 16, 41 days later, and Trump is announcing 3.5 million tests completed. And they are not even really ramping up. Last weeks number of tests was roughly the same as the week before. — Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) April 16, 2020
Public health experts — including Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert — and business leaders have warned that the U.S. must significantly expand its testing capacity nationwide before reopening to avoid a devastating rebound of Covid-19, which has officially infected more than 667,000 people and killed more than 30,000 in the United States.
“We have to have something in place that is efficient and that we can rely on, and we’re not there yet,” Fauci told the Associated Press in an interview on Tuesday.
Last week, as Common Dreams reported, Trump dismissed warnings that a functional nationwide testing system must be in place before any attempt to reopen large sectors of the U.S. economy. “We want to have it, and we’re going to see if we have it,” Trump said at a press briefing. “Do you need it? No. Is it a nice thing to do? Yes.”
In a conference call on Wednesday, business leaders told Trump that “expanded testing was necessary before Americans could safely return to work,” the Los Angeles Times reported, citing an anonymous person briefed on the call.
“But,” according to the Times, “the message was largely drowned out by Trump’s determination to solicit praise from the participants.”
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--2020-04-17--A Big Oil Bailout Would Be the Opposite of the Green New Deal We Need

It ’ s been a wild couple of weeks in the oil markets .
Following a price war between major petrostates , the price of oil has tanked .
Ever since , Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have been desperately trying to save a deeply indebted oil industry .
We can all but expect a Trump-led bailout for Big Oil .
Instead , our law and policy makers should let the oil producers fail , and devote resources to stave off the next crisis — the climate crisis — before it gets even worse .
The ongoing economic fallout of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to plunge worldwide .
On March 6 , Russia withdrew from its pact with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries ( OPEC ) , and began producing more oil , driving the price of oil down even further .
Russia may have been motivated , at least in part , by a desire to hurt U.S. shale oil producers .
And while some , like Mexico , took steps to protect themselves against just such a price collapse , U.S. oil producers were loaded up with debt and totally vulnerable to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 1 , Whiting Petroleum Corp. became the first major U.S. fracking company to file for bankruptcy since the pandemic began , with many analysts predicting more bankruptcies to come .
Trump ’ s never been shy about his love of oil and gas companies .
After all , they were major funders of his inauguration , and continue to be major donors to his campaign .
When the oil price war broke out in early March , Trump and congressional Republicans began to talk tough to try and secure the higher oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to survive .
GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy introduced a bill to withdraw U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia if the country doesn ’ t cut oil production , and 48 House Republicans sent a letter threatening to end the U.S. ’ s economic and military cooperation with Saudi Arabia if the country didn ’ t cut production .
When OPEC+ came to a deal to cut production , Trump openly thanked Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Russian President Vladimir Putin for their work to “ save hundreds of thousands of energy jobs in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal may have bought the over-leveraged U.S. oil producers some time , many analysts are predicting it won ’ t be enough .
There ’ s been so much overproduction of oil there ’ s no space to store it — leading to creative and inefficient storage methods , like loading up boats with barrels of oil .
It seems that without enormous help , more U.S. shale oil producers will go bankrupt .
Perhaps that ’ s why Trump has been increasingly vocal on Twitter about oil production , sending two market-moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
First , it was his misleading tweet promising cuts well before they were negotiated , which pumped oil prices up by nearly 50 percent at the intraday peak .
Then , when the OPEC+ deal didn ’ t seem to move oil prices much higher , Trump tweeted right before the market opened on Monday , April 13 , that he thinks OPEC+ is actually going to cut production by 20 million barrels of oil a day , not the 10 million that was reported .
Trump is eager to bail out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of vulnerable GOP senators in oil-producing states like Texas .
The White House recently hosted nine oil and gas executives for a meeting with Trump administration officials .
Which is why , should the OPEC+ deal in fact not be enough , we should expect Trump to come to Congress and ask for a Big Oil bailout .
There are a couple of ways that a bailout could play out .
It could be a traditional one , with Congress allocating money to failing oil firms .
But it could also be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And in some ways , there has already been an indirect bailout by the Fed .
On April 9 , the Fed announced that , in addition to the corporate bonds it was already buying , the Fed would also buy “ junk ” bonds : bonds that are seen as riskier by Wall Street ratings agencies .
This could indirectly benefit shale producers , since they are heavily indebted .
Energy companies make up a whopping 13 percent of the lowest-rated , riskiest kind of corporate debt .
And for 10 out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies accounted for the majority of the junk bond debt .
Why should the Fed reward a decade of bad bets by oil companies ?
This would not be the first time the Fed acted to bail out non-banks during a crisis .
During the 2008 financial crisis , the Federal Reserve gave emergency loans not just to failing U.S. banks , but also to foreign-owned banks and non-financial firms like Caterpillar and Toyota .
The Fed could also bail out the U.S. fossil fuel industry by simply letting the failing companies be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banks .
Reuters reported that some of the largest U.S. banks are already considering seizing the assets of troubled oil companies that may default on their loans .
Rather than selling off these borrowers ’ assets at depressed prices , big banks are looking into operating the oil fields and gas operations themselves .
Because of regulatory constraints , the banks may require the Fed ’ s formal approval to run these newly acquired oil and gas businesses .
It seems unlikely they ’ d oppose a bank takeover of failed oil companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the only central banks not to participate in the Network for Greening the Financial System , an international group of central banks working to integrate the risks of climate change .
Unfortunately , it seems likely that the Fed would simply let the “ too-big-to-fail ” banks to become “ too-big-to-fail ” oil titans .
And it ’ s not just the Federal Reserve that could act to allow banks to become more active in the oil and other commodity markets .
One regulator , the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waiver that allowed the company to continue to make bets in oil and other commodity markets , after Capital One ’ s trading exceeded a threshold that would normally require it to become subject to more oversight .
The company said it would not use the waiver , likely due to scrutiny from both the media and climate groups .
But there is no guarantee that the CFTC wouldn ’ t grant similar waivers to other banks .
Lawmakers and advocacy groups alike are sounding the alarm on the dangers of a coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International Environmental Law released a report summarizing the unprecedented lobbying spree fossil fuel companies are undertaking to try and exploit the global pandemic , including : pushing for regulatory rollbacks , suspension of environmental law enforcement , criminalization of protest and seeking direct bailouts .
Journalist Amy Westervelt and Drilled News have documented over two dozen ongoing lobbying efforts by the U.S. fossil fuel industry , from requests to roll back fuel efficiency standards to suspending enforcement on environmental infrastructure obligations .
And a report by Friends of the Earth warns that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be a “ big oil money pit , ” benefitting both oil giants like ExxonMobil , Chevron and Conoco , as well as 12 fracking-focused firms .
On April 15 , Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán , Sen. Ed Markey , and 39 other members of Congress wrote to the Treasury and the Fed , opposing the use of CARES Act funds to bail out the fossil fuel industry .
They point out that transferring billions to the fossil fuel industry is “ especially abhorrent during a pandemic whose burden falls heaviest on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best case , Congress should oppose any Treasury bailout money or Federal Reserve-run facilities being used by companies engaging in fossil fuel development .
At a minimum , any bailouts must be conditioned on taking steps that free the U.S. from our dependence on fossil fuels .
The work of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA , AFL-CIO union , led by President Sara Nelson , led to conditions being placed on the airline bailout — requiring money go directly to payrolls , and preventing company-enriching moves like big executive payouts , paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back their own stock to raise stock prices .
Congress should similarly place strict conditions on any energy bailouts .
For example , bailed-out energy companies should be required to retire aging coal and gas plants , invest seriously in renewables , and force the companies to undergo a climate stress test — modeled after the financial stress tests developed for banks after the last financial crisis .
A climate stress test could examine the potential economic impact of adverse climate scenarios .
For example , firms could be required to look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extreme weather events , or the impact of the market moving quickly away from oil — due either to the kind of oil price drops we ’ ve seen with coronavirus , or due to a serious shift away from oil and into renewables .
Lawmakers must stand firm against any Big Oil bailouts , be they in the form of money from the Treasury , the Fed making purchases to prop them up , or financial regulators loosening the rules to let banks take them over .
But simply rejecting bailouts isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil companies are lobbying for financial rescues right after they received a regulatory rescue .
In late March , the Trump administration announced it was temporarily halting enforcement of air and water pollution rules .
Letting companies self-monitor whether or not they are exceeding hazardous levels of air pollution is outrageous and reckless , and demands drastic action and increased oversight attention from Congress .
Unfortunately , despite the urgency needed , reporting indicates that it is unlikely House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will include measures to address the climate crisis in the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With 22 million people unemployed and many more to come , and the International Monetary Fund predicting that we are facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression , now is the time to invest in a Green New Deal .
It would not only end our current dependence on the decisions of petrostates like Saudi Arabia and Russia , it would also create needed jobs for an economy that will be shrinking for months ( if not years ) to come .
And most importantly , a Green New Deal would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again caught utterly unprepared by a crisis .
Trump saw the coronavirus pandemic coming , and decided not to act .
Congress must not repeat this mistake with the slow-motion train wreck that is the ongoing climate crisis .

It’s been a wild couple of weeks in the oil markets. Following a price war between major petrostates, the price of oil has tanked. Ever since, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have been desperately trying to save a deeply indebted oil industry. We can all but expect a Trump-led bailout for Big Oil. Instead, our law and policy makers should let the oil producers fail, and devote resources to stave off the next crisis — the climate crisis — before it gets even worse.
The ongoing economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic has caused oil demand to plunge worldwide. On March 6, Russia withdrew from its pact with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and began producing more oil, driving the price of oil down even further. Russia may have been motivated, at least in part, by a desire to hurt U.S. shale oil producers. And while some, like Mexico, took steps to protect themselves against just such a price collapse, U.S. oil producers were loaded up with debt and totally vulnerable to a sudden drop in oil prices. By April 1, Whiting Petroleum Corp. became the first major U.S. fracking company to file for bankruptcy since the pandemic began, with many analysts predicting more bankruptcies to come.
Trump’s never been shy about his love of oil and gas companies. After all, they were major funders of his inauguration, and continue to be major donors to his campaign. When the oil price war broke out in early March, Trump and congressional Republicans began to talk tough to try and secure the higher oil prices that teetering U.S. oil companies need to survive. GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy introduced a bill to withdraw U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia if the country doesn’t cut oil production, and 48 House Republicans sent a letter threatening to end the U.S.’s economic and military cooperation with Saudi Arabia if the country didn’t cut production. When OPEC+ came to a deal to cut production, Trump openly thanked Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Russian President Vladimir Putin for their work to “save hundreds of thousands of energy jobs in the U.S.”
But while the OPEC+ deal may have bought the over-leveraged U.S. oil producers some time, many analysts are predicting it won’t be enough. There’s been so much overproduction of oil there’s no space to store it — leading to creative and inefficient storage methods, like loading up boats with barrels of oil. It seems that without enormous help, more U.S. shale oil producers will go bankrupt.
Perhaps that’s why Trump has been increasingly vocal on Twitter about oil production, sending two market-moving tweets in less than a one-week period. First, it was his misleading tweet promising cuts well before they were negotiated, which pumped oil prices up by nearly 50 percent at the intraday peak. Then, when the OPEC+ deal didn’t seem to move oil prices much higher, Trump tweeted right before the market opened on Monday, April 13, that he thinks OPEC+ is actually going to cut production by 20 million barrels of oil a day, not the 10 million that was reported.
Trump is eager to bail out his donors, and protect the interests of vulnerable GOP senators in oil-producing states like Texas. The White House recently hosted nine oil and gas executives for a meeting with Trump administration officials. Which is why, should the OPEC+ deal in fact not be enough, we should expect Trump to come to Congress and ask for a Big Oil bailout.
Trump is eager to bail out his donors, and protect the interests of vulnerable GOP senators in oil-producing states like Texas .
There are a couple of ways that a bailout could play out. It could be a traditional one, with Congress allocating money to failing oil firms. But it could also be a bailout led by the Federal Reserve. And in some ways, there has already been an indirect bailout by the Fed. On April 9, the Fed announced that, in addition to the corporate bonds it was already buying, the Fed would also buy “junk” bonds: bonds that are seen as riskier by Wall Street ratings agencies. This could indirectly benefit shale producers, since they are heavily indebted. Energy companies make up a whopping 13 percent of the lowest-rated, riskiest kind of corporate debt. And for 10 out of the last 11 years, energy companies accounted for the majority of the junk bond debt. Why should the Fed reward a decade of bad bets by oil companies?
This would not be the first time the Fed acted to bail out non-banks during a crisis. During the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve gave emergency loans not just to failing U.S. banks, but also to foreign-owned banks and non-financial firms like Caterpillar and Toyota. The Fed could also bail out the U.S. fossil fuel industry by simply letting the failing companies be taken over and operated by Wall Street banks. Reuters reported that some of the largest U.S. banks are already considering seizing the assets of troubled oil companies that may default on their loans. Rather than selling off these borrowers’ assets at depressed prices, big banks are looking into operating the oil fields and gas operations themselves. Because of regulatory constraints, the banks may require the Fed’s formal approval to run these newly acquired oil and gas businesses. It seems unlikely they’d oppose a bank takeover of failed oil companies. After all, the Fed is one of the only central banks not to participate in the Network for Greening the Financial System, an international group of central banks working to integrate the risks of climate change. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the Fed would simply let the “too-big-to-fail” banks to become “too-big-to-fail” oil titans.
And it’s not just the Federal Reserve that could act to allow banks to become more active in the oil and other commodity markets. One regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), gave Capital One a waiver that allowed the company to continue to make bets in oil and other commodity markets, after Capital One’s trading exceeded a threshold that would normally require it to become subject to more oversight. The company said it would not use the waiver, likely due to scrutiny from both the media and climate groups. But there is no guarantee that the CFTC wouldn’t grant similar waivers to other banks.
It seems likely that the Fed would simply let the “too-big-to-fail” banks to become “too-big-to-fail” oil titans.
Lawmakers and advocacy groups alike are sounding the alarm on the dangers of a coming Big Oil bailout. The Center for International Environmental Law released a report summarizing the unprecedented lobbying spree fossil fuel companies are undertaking to try and exploit the global pandemic, including: pushing for regulatory rollbacks, suspension of environmental law enforcement, criminalization of protest and seeking direct bailouts. Journalist Amy Westervelt and Drilled News have documented over two dozen ongoing lobbying efforts by the U.S. fossil fuel industry, from requests to roll back fuel efficiency standards to suspending enforcement on environmental infrastructure obligations. And a report by Friends of the Earth warns that the Fed’s corporate debt purchase program could be a “big oil money pit,” benefitting both oil giants like ExxonMobil, Chevron and Conoco, as well as 12 fracking-focused firms.
On April 15, Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán, Sen. Ed Markey, and 39 other members of Congress wrote to the Treasury and the Fed, opposing the use of CARES Act funds to bail out the fossil fuel industry. They point out that transferring billions to the fossil fuel industry is “especially abhorrent during a pandemic whose burden falls heaviest on Americans with weakened respiratory systems.”
In the best case, Congress should oppose any Treasury bailout money or Federal Reserve-run facilities being used by companies engaging in fossil fuel development. At a minimum, any bailouts must be conditioned on taking steps that free the U.S. from our dependence on fossil fuels. The work of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO union, led by President Sara Nelson, led to conditions being placed on the airline bailout — requiring money go directly to payrolls, and preventing company-enriching moves like big executive payouts, paying dividends to shareholders, or companies buying back their own stock to raise stock prices. Congress should similarly place strict conditions on any energy bailouts. For example, bailed-out energy companies should be required to retire aging coal and gas plants, invest seriously in renewables, and force the companies to undergo a climate stress test — modeled after the financial stress tests developed for banks after the last financial crisis. A climate stress test could examine the potential economic impact of adverse climate scenarios. For example, firms could be required to look at risks like physical and human disruptions from extreme weather events, or the impact of the market moving quickly away from oil — due either to the kind of oil price drops we’ve seen with coronavirus, or due to a serious shift away from oil and into renewables.
Lawmakers must stand firm against any Big Oil bailouts, be they in the form of money from the Treasury, the Fed making purchases to prop them up, or financial regulators loosening the rules to let banks take them over. But simply rejecting bailouts isn’t enough. After all, oil companies are lobbying for financial rescues right after they received a regulatory rescue. In late March, the Trump administration announced it was temporarily halting enforcement of air and water pollution rules. Letting companies self-monitor whether or not they are exceeding hazardous levels of air pollution is outrageous and reckless, and demands drastic action and increased oversight attention from Congress.
Congress should oppose any Treasury bailout money or Federal Reserve-run facilities being used by companies engaging in fossil fuel development.
Unfortunately, despite the urgency needed, reporting indicates that it is unlikely House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will include measures to address the climate crisis in the next stimulus. This is the wrong approach. With 22 million people unemployed and many more to come, and the International Monetary Fund predicting that we are facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression, now is the time to invest in a Green New Deal. It would not only end our current dependence on the decisions of petrostates like Saudi Arabia and Russia, it would also create needed jobs for an economy that will be shrinking for months (if not years) to come. And most importantly, a Green New Deal would ensure that the United States is not once again caught utterly unprepared by a crisis. Trump saw the coronavirus pandemic coming, and decided not to act. Congress must not repeat this mistake with the slow-motion train wreck that is the ongoing climate crisis.
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--2020-04-17--Billionaires Have Paid 79 Percent Fewer Taxes Since 1980

Conventional economic wisdom says a time of crisis is not the moment to enact tax increases .
But , as Eric Toder at the Tax Policy Center recently pointed out : “ [ Tax experts ] can begin to think of the time after the pandemic passes and how government should respond to massive increases in the public debt , and the new tax increases that Congress will need to enact to fund them.
” Initial tax increases should hold harmless working- and middle-class families who will be the most economically vulnerable coming out the pandemic .
The first several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s wealthiest households , those who have seen their taxes slashed over past decades .
At the top of the list of new tax increases should be a wealth tax on our billionaire class .
A new Institute for Policy Studies Inequality briefing paper , authored by Bob Lord , reveals that between 1980 and 2018 , the taxes paid by America ’ s billionaires , when measured as a percentage of their wealth , decreased a staggering 79 percent .
The only appropriate metric by which to measure the tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains , is the rate of tax they pay on their wealth .
Unlike the rest of us , the living expenses of billionaires do not constrain their accumulation of wealth .
Nor do they rely on their work to generate additional wealth .
For billionaires , the accumulation of wealth is driven forward almost exclusively by the growth of their existing wealth and constrained almost exclusively by the tax they are required to pay .
No matter how the taxes imposed on billionaires are determined — by income , consumption , property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — they function only as a tax on wealth .
By allowing the tax burden of billionaires , as a percentage of their wealth , to plummet since 1980 , policy makers have caused the nation ’ s wealth to concentrate obscenely at the very top .
In the 12 years between 2006 and 2018 , IPS reports , nearly 7 percent of America ’ s real increase in wealth , measured in 2018 dollars , went to the top 400 billionaires .
If the pattern of the past four decades does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ’ s newly created wealth over the next 12 years will flow to the billionaire class .
As we emerge from this pandemic with trillions of additional debt on the nation ’ s balance sheet , substantial tax increases are inevitable .
Early out of the box should be a 10 percent surtax on the incomes of the top 0.1 percent of households , including on capital income .
We should also strengthen the estate tax to limit the intergenerational transfers of wealth of billionaires .
But central to the program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further accumulation — that is , hoarding — of wealth by the billionaire class .
That , the IPS report concluded , requires a wealth tax :

As we emerge from this pandemic, any recovery program should include a tax that limits the hoarding of wealth.
Conventional economic wisdom says a time of crisis is not the moment to enact tax increases. But, as Eric Toder at the Tax Policy Center recently pointed out: “[Tax experts] can begin to think of the time after the pandemic passes and how government should respond to massive increases in the public debt, and the new tax increases that Congress will need to enact to fund them.”
Initial tax increases should hold harmless working- and middle-class families who will be the most economically vulnerable coming out the pandemic. The first several trillion in new revenue should come from America’s wealthiest households, those who have seen their taxes slashed over past decades.
At the top of the list of new tax increases should be a wealth tax on our billionaire class.
A new Institute for Policy Studies Inequality briefing paper, authored by Bob Lord, reveals that between 1980 and 2018, the taxes paid by America’s billionaires, when measured as a percentage of their wealth, decreased a staggering 79 percent.
The only appropriate metric by which to measure the tax burden on billionaires, the briefing paper explains, is the rate of tax they pay on their wealth. Unlike the rest of us, the living expenses of billionaires do not constrain their accumulation of wealth. Nor do they rely on their work to generate additional wealth. For billionaires, the accumulation of wealth is driven forward almost exclusively by the growth of their existing wealth and constrained almost exclusively by the tax they are required to pay. No matter how the taxes imposed on billionaires are determined — by income, consumption, property ownership, transfers by gift or bequest — they function only as a tax on wealth.
By allowing the tax burden of billionaires, as a percentage of their wealth, to plummet since 1980, policy makers have caused the nation’s wealth to concentrate obscenely at the very top. In the 12 years between 2006 and 2018, IPS reports, nearly 7 percent of America’s real increase in wealth, measured in 2018 dollars, went to the top 400 billionaires. If the pattern of the past four decades does not change, an even greater share of the nation’s newly created wealth over the next 12 years will flow to the billionaire class.
As we emerge from this pandemic with trillions of additional debt on the nation’s balance sheet, substantial tax increases are inevitable. Early out of the box should be a 10 percent surtax on the incomes of the top 0.1 percent of households, including on capital income. We should also strengthen the estate tax to limit the intergenerational transfers of wealth of billionaires. But central to the program should be a tax that limits the further accumulation — that is, hoarding — of wealth by the billionaire class. That, the IPS report concluded, requires a wealth tax:
Only an annual wealth tax — a direct tax on billionaire wealth — can reliably limit the Billionaire Class rate of wealth accumulation to a level no greater than wealth accumulation for the population at large. Other forms of taxation have valid purposes. But to rein in the Billionaire Class we need something more. And rein in we must.
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.