truthout--2020-12-28--US Must Commit to Arms Reduction If It Wants North Korea to Do So

For decades , U.S. policy makers have asked , “ How do we get North Korea to give up nuclear weapons ?
” and have come up empty-handed .
As the Biden administration prepares to take office , perhaps it ’ s time to ask a different question : “ How do we get to peace with North Korea ?
” Here ’ s the dilemma facing Washington .
On the one hand , the U.S. doesn ’ t want to allow North Korea to have nuclear weapons because that may encourage other countries to do the same .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran ’ s nuclear ambition , while a growing number of conservative voices in Japan and South Korea are also calling for acquiring their own nukes . )
The U.S. has tried to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons through pressure and sanctions , but that approach has backfired , hardening Pyongyang ’ s resolve to hone its nuclear and missile technology .
North Korea says the only way it will give up its nuclear weapons is if the U.S. “ abandons its hostile policy , ” — in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduction — but so far , Washington has made no moves nor indicated any intention of moving toward that goal .
In fact , the Trump administration continued to conduct joint war drills with South Korea and tightened enforcement of sanctions against North Korea despite its commitment in Singapore to make peace with Pyongyang .
Enter Joe Biden .
How will his team resolve this dilemma ?
Repeating the same failed approach and expecting a different result would be — well , you know how the saying goes .
Biden ’ s advisers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ all or nothing ” approach — demanding upfront that North Korea give up all its weapons — has failed .
Instead , they recommend an “ arms control approach ” : first freezing North Korea ’ s plutonium and uranium nuclear operations and then taking incremental steps toward the ultimate goal of complete denuclearization .
This is the preferred approach of secretary of state nominee Anthony Blinken , who advocates an interim deal to cap North Korea ’ s nuclear weapons to buy time to work out a long-term agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and China on board to pressure North Korea : “ squeeze North Korea to get it to the negotiating table.
” “ We need to cut off its various avenues and access to resources , ” he says , and advocates telling countries with North Korean guest workers to send them home .
If China won ’ t cooperate , Blinken suggests that the U.S. threaten it with more forward-deployed missile defense and military exercises .
Blinken ’ s proposal is barely different from the failed approach of the past .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolation to get to the ultimate goal of unilaterally disarming North Korea — the only difference being that the Biden administration is willing to take more time getting there .
In this case , North Korea will likely continue to press forward on its nuclear weapons and missile capability .
Unless the U.S. drastically shifts its position , renewed tension between the U.S. and North Korea is inevitable .
Instead of focusing on how to get North Korea to give up its nukes , asking how to reach permanent peace in Korea may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set of answers .
All parties — not just North Korea — have a responsibility to take steps toward mutual arms reduction .
After all , the U.S. still has 28,000 troops in South Korea , and until recently , regularly conducted massive war exercises that included plans for preemptive strikes on North Korea .
Past joint war drills have included flying B-2 bombers , which are designed to drop nuclear bombs and cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $ 130,000 an hour to fly .
Although the U.S. and South Korea have scaled back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , the Commander of U.S .
Forces Korea , Gen. Robert B. Abrams , has called for the resumption of the large-scale joint war drills .
If the Biden administration moves ahead with the war drills next March , it would renew dangerous military tension on the Korean Peninsula and harm any chance for diplomatic engagement with North Korea in the near future .
How to Get to Peace on the Korean Peninsula To reduce the threat of nuclear war with North Korea and preserve the option of resuming talks in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two things in its first 100 days : one , continue the suspension of the large-scale U.S.-South Korean joint war drills ; and two , start a strategic review of its North Korea policy that begins with the question , “ How do we get to permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula ?
” An essential part of establishing permanent peace is ending the Korean War , which has remained unresolved for 70 years , and replacing the armistice ( a temporary ceasefire ) with a permanent peace agreement .
This is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their historic Panmunjom Summit in 2018 , and the idea has the support of 52 members of the U.S. Congress who co-sponsored House Resolution 152 , calling for a formal end of the Korean War .
Seventy years of unresolved war has not only fueled a perpetual arms race among the parties to the conflict , it has also created an impenetrable border between the two Koreas that has kept millions of families apart .
A peace agreement that commits all parties to a gradual process of laying down their arms would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resume cooperation and reunite separated families .
Many people in the U.S. think North Korea doesn ’ t want peace , but looking back at its past statements reveals otherwise .
For example , following the Korean War , which had ended in an armistice in 1953 , North Korea was part of the Geneva Conference , convened by the Four Powers — the United States , the former U.S.S.R. , the United Kingdom and France — to discuss the future of Korea .
According to a declassified report by the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Il stated at this conference that the “ Principal task is achieving Korean unity by converting [ the ] armistice into lasting peaceful reunification [ of ] Korea on democratic principles.
” He blamed the U.S. “ for responsibilities in the division of Korea as well as for holding separate elections under ‘ police pressure.
’ ” ( U.S. officers Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel had divided Korea along the 38th parallel in 1945 without consulting any Koreans , and the U.S. had pushed for a separate election in the south even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent Korea . )
Nevertheless , Nam continued , the “ 1953 armistice now opened [ the ] way to peaceful unification.
” He recommended the withdrawal of all foreign forces within six months and an “ agreement on all-Korea elections to establish a government representing the whole country.
” The Geneva Conference unfortunately ended without an agreement on Korea , due in large part to U.S. opposition to Nam ’ s proposal .
Consequently , the Demilitarized Zone ( DMZ ) between the Koreas hardened into an international border .
North Korea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armistice should be replaced by a peace agreement that “ opens the way to peaceful unification ” — has been consistent for the past 70 years .
That ’ s what the Supreme People ’ s Assembly of North Korea proposed to the U.S. Senate back in 1974 .
That ’ s what was contained in a North Korean letter delivered by former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev to U.S. President Ronald Reagan in their summit in Washington in 1987 .
That ’ s also what the North Koreans repeatedly brought up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and George W. Bush administrations .
The Biden administration should look back at — and acknowledge — the agreements the U.S. has already signed with North Korea .
The U.S.-DPRK Joint Communique ( signed by the Clinton administration in 2000 ) , the Six-Party Joint Statement ( signed by the Bush administration in 2005 ) and the Singapore Joint Statement ( signed by President Trump in 2018 ) all have three goals in common : establish normal relations , build a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula and denuclearize the Korean Peninsula @ @ @ @ @ @ @ map that clearly outlines the relationship between these three important goals .
The Biden administration certainly faces many pressing issues that will demand its immediate attention , but ensuring that the U.S.-North Korea relationship doesn ’ t slide back to the brinkmanship that brought us to the edge of the nuclear abyss in 2017 should be a top priority .

For decades, U.S. policy makers have asked, “How do we get North Korea to give up nuclear weapons?” and have come up empty-handed. As the Biden administration prepares to take office, perhaps it’s time to ask a different question: “How do we get to peace with North Korea?”
Here’s the dilemma facing Washington. On the one hand, the U.S. doesn’t want to allow North Korea to have nuclear weapons because that may encourage other countries to do the same. (Washington is already busy trying to halt Iran’s nuclear ambition, while a growing number of conservative voices in Japan and South Korea are also calling for acquiring their own nukes.)
The U.S. has tried to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons through pressure and sanctions, but that approach has backfired, hardening Pyongyang’s resolve to hone its nuclear and missile technology. North Korea says the only way it will give up its nuclear weapons is if the U.S. “abandons its hostile policy,” — in other words, takes reciprocal steps toward arms reduction — but so far, Washington has made no moves nor indicated any intention of moving toward that goal. In fact, the Trump administration continued to conduct joint war drills with South Korea and tightened enforcement of sanctions against North Korea despite its commitment in Singapore to make peace with Pyongyang.
Enter Joe Biden. How will his team resolve this dilemma? Repeating the same failed approach and expecting a different result would be — well, you know how the saying goes.
Biden’s advisers are in consensus that the Trump administration’s “all or nothing” approach — demanding upfront that North Korea give up all its weapons — has failed. Instead, they recommend an “arms control approach”: first freezing North Korea’s plutonium and uranium nuclear operations and then taking incremental steps toward the ultimate goal of complete denuclearization.
This is the preferred approach of secretary of state nominee Anthony Blinken, who advocates an interim deal to cap North Korea’s nuclear weapons to buy time to work out a long-term agreement. He says we should get allies and China on board to pressure North Korea: “squeeze North Korea to get it to the negotiating table.” “We need to cut off its various avenues and access to resources,” he says, and advocates telling countries with North Korean guest workers to send them home. If China won’t cooperate, Blinken suggests that the U.S. threaten it with more forward-deployed missile defense and military exercises.
Blinken’s proposal is barely different from the failed approach of the past. It’s still a policy of pressure and isolation to get to the ultimate goal of unilaterally disarming North Korea — the only difference being that the Biden administration is willing to take more time getting there. In this case, North Korea will likely continue to press forward on its nuclear weapons and missile capability. Unless the U.S. drastically shifts its position, renewed tension between the U.S. and North Korea is inevitable.
All parties — not just North Korea — have a responsibility to take steps toward mutual arms reduction.
Instead of focusing on how to get North Korea to give up its nukes, asking how to reach permanent peace in Korea may lead to a different and more fundamental set of answers. All parties — not just North Korea — have a responsibility to take steps toward mutual arms reduction.
After all, the U.S. still has 28,000 troops in South Korea, and until recently, regularly conducted massive war exercises that included plans for preemptive strikes on North Korea. Past joint war drills have included flying B-2 bombers, which are designed to drop nuclear bombs and cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $130,000 an hour to fly. Although the U.S. and South Korea have scaled back their exercises since the Trump-Kim summit in 2018, the Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, Gen. Robert B. Abrams, has called for the resumption of the large-scale joint war drills.
If the Biden administration moves ahead with the war drills next March, it would renew dangerous military tension on the Korean Peninsula and harm any chance for diplomatic engagement with North Korea in the near future.
How to Get to Peace on the Korean Peninsula
To reduce the threat of nuclear war with North Korea and preserve the option of resuming talks in the future, the Biden administration can do two things in its first 100 days: one, continue the suspension of the large-scale U.S.-South Korean joint war drills; and two, start a strategic review of its North Korea policy that begins with the question, “How do we get to permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula?”
An essential part of establishing permanent peace is ending the Korean War, which has remained unresolved for 70 years, and replacing the armistice (a temporary ceasefire) with a permanent peace agreement. This is what the two Korean leaders agreed to do in their historic Panmunjom Summit in 2018, and the idea has the support of 52 members of the U.S. Congress who co-sponsored House Resolution 152, calling for a formal end of the Korean War. Seventy years of unresolved war has not only fueled a perpetual arms race among the parties to the conflict, it has also created an impenetrable border between the two Koreas that has kept millions of families apart. A peace agreement that commits all parties to a gradual process of laying down their arms would create peaceful conditions for the two Koreas to resume cooperation and reunite separated families.
A peace agreement that commits all parties to a gradual process of laying down their arms would create peaceful conditions for the two Koreas to resume cooperation and reunite separated families .
Many people in the U.S. think North Korea doesn’t want peace, but looking back at its past statements reveals otherwise. For example, following the Korean War, which had ended in an armistice in 1953, North Korea was part of the Geneva Conference, convened by the Four Powers — the United States, the former U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom and France — to discuss the future of Korea. According to a declassified report by the U.S. Delegation, then-North Korean Foreign Minister Nam Il stated at this conference that the “Principal task is achieving Korean unity by converting [the] armistice into lasting peaceful reunification [of] Korea on democratic principles.” He blamed the U.S. “for responsibilities in the division of Korea as well as for holding separate elections under ‘police pressure.’” (U.S. officers Dean Rusk and Charles Bonesteel had divided Korea along the 38th parallel in 1945 without consulting any Koreans, and the U.S. had pushed for a separate election in the south even though most Koreans had desired a unified, independent Korea.) Nevertheless, Nam continued, the “1953 armistice now opened [the] way to peaceful unification.” He recommended the withdrawal of all foreign forces within six months and an “agreement on all-Korea elections to establish a government representing the whole country.”
The Geneva Conference unfortunately ended without an agreement on Korea, due in large part to U.S. opposition to Nam’s proposal. Consequently, the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between the Koreas hardened into an international border.
North Korea’s basic position — that the armistice should be replaced by a peace agreement that “opens the way to peaceful unification” — has been consistent for the past 70 years. That’s what the Supreme People’s Assembly of North Korea proposed to the U.S. Senate back in 1974. That’s what was contained in a North Korean letter delivered by former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev to U.S. President Ronald Reagan in their summit in Washington in 1987. That’s also what the North Koreans repeatedly brought up in their nuclear negotiations with the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
The Biden administration should look back at — and acknowledge — the agreements the U.S. has already signed with North Korea. The U.S.-DPRK Joint Communique (signed by the Clinton administration in 2000), the Six-Party Joint Statement (signed by the Bush administration in 2005) and the Singapore Joint Statement (signed by President Trump in 2018) all have three goals in common: establish normal relations, build a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula and denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. The Biden team needs a road map that clearly outlines the relationship between these three important goals.
The Biden administration certainly faces many pressing issues that will demand its immediate attention, but ensuring that the U.S.-North Korea relationship doesn’t slide back to the brinkmanship that brought us to the edge of the nuclear abyss in 2017 should be a top priority.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-12-29--The DOJ’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google Is Gaining Ground

Janine Jackson : There is such a thing as a company simply having too much power ; even without evidence of malign intent , it just isn ’ t healthy .
That ’ s the basic thinking behind antitrust law in this country .
And if the power is over something so critical as our ability to obtain and share information ?
Well , that ’ s the concern behind the push to break up Big Tech .
And while it may seem quixotic , it ’ s at least a step away from the notion that the internet is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t–or shouldn ’ t–be regulated to serve the public interest .
Several corporations are in the spotlight , each with different issues of concern , but right now , an antitrust lawsuit against Google appears to be gaining ground that our guest says has the potential to be very important indeed .
Mitch Stoltz is a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation .
He joins us now by phone from the Bay Area .
Welcome to “ CounterSpin , ” Mitch Stoltz .
Mitch Stoltz : Thank you , happy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of background first : This antitrust lawsuit is coming from the Justice Department and state attorney generals , based on their own investigations .
In layperson ’ s terms , what is the complaint ?
The complaint is under something called Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act , and that ’ s a law that says if you are a monopoly — that is , if you have power over the market for some good or service — then there are things you can ’ t do .
You can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power , you can ’ t try to gain monopoly power in other markets , various other things .
But what this suit says is , they ’ re claiming that Google has monopoly power in internet search and in search advertising .
So those are the two markets they ’ re talking about .
And they ’ re claiming that Google has illegally maintained that monopoly power , particularly through the contracts that it makes with various other companies — so phone vendors and web browser makers , and various other companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often requires that those companies put Google Search in a prominent position , and not allow rival search engines to occupy such a prominent position .
From my point of view as a user , Google is free to me , so how would I be made aware , or aware at all , of any monopolistic power going on ?
How can a free service also be a monopoly ?
Well , “ monopoly ” just means they have the dominant position in the market , and the ability to set price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so when you ’ re talking about a free service , often then what the courts will look at is : Can they stop innovating ?
Can they actually provide an inferior product that people will still use because there isn ’ t really an alternative ?
I wanted to ask you about one thing that I know that EFF has thought about .
We think about privacy a lot .
I think if folks think about , “ Who can see my searches , what I do on the internet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend say , “ You know , I just assume everything I say online is observed.
” And I think there ’ s this acceptance of a tradeoff : You just trade away your privacy and your civil liberties , and there ’ s no way to get what the internet would give you without doing that .
And you ’ ve been thinking about different ways to think about privacy as a value .
I wonder , could you talk a little about that ?
Sure .
In the context of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the monopoly price , essentially .
If you ’ re talking about groceries or gasoline , if there ’ s a monopoly situation , you ’ ll be paying more than you would otherwise .
But with Search , because it ’ s a free product , the issue is you ’ re not paying more in cash ; you ’ re paying more in loss of privacy than , presumably , you would if there were competition .
And there is , by the way , there is competition ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flourish , because of some of these exclusive contracts , or preferential contracts , that Google uses .
For example , there ’ s a search engine called DuckDuckGo which does not track its users ; they ’ re not based on the user ’ s browsing history , but only on the search that they ’ re making at that moment , and it doesn ’ t track them from search to search .
And that exists , but it has a real hard time competing against Google because of — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the conduct that Google does in a way to maintain its monopoly .
We have to think about — and you note this as well — the power of the default .
An alternative might be out there , but if when I turn on the screen , this is what comes up , well , then that ’ s going to be what I ’ m going to tend to use , and I may not even know that those alternatives are out there at all .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the specific things that DoJ and the states are complaining about are the defaults that Google insists on , on things like the homescreen of a phone , even Apple phones , as far as the placement of Google Search .
Right .
It ’ s kind of like if your waiter says , “ Do you want Coke or Pepsi ?
” and , well , you should have somehow sensed that you could have asked for milk , but it ’ s going to be people ’ s tendency to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them .
A lot of folks express frustration about lawsuits against mega-companies , because often what comes out of it is a fine , and we know that these companies just factor fines into the cost of doing business .
But this Google antitrust suit isn ’ t talking about damages .
What is it asking for ?
It ’ s pretty broad .
What it ’ s asking for is basically a court order to stop the illegal conduct .
So at this point in a lawsuit , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want in very specific terms , because it ’ s going to be connected to exactly what the court finds was the illegal conduct .
They talk about “ injunctive remedy , ” which means an order not to do something , and they talk about “ structural remedy , ” which could mean a breakup of the company , but in Google ‘ s case , and in the case of this lawsuit , it ’ s not really clear what a breakup would look like .
I mean , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Android operating system , or Google Search from Google web advertising , or something like that , but none of those really flow directly from the things that the governments are accusing Google of here .
So probably most likely what this is moving towards is an ongoing monitoring of Google ’ s conduct , and some rules about what they can and can ’ t do .
In that sense , it ’ s very much like the government ’ s lawsuit against Microsoft , back in 1998 , where they actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications company and an operating system company , and the trial judge actually ordered that to happen .
But then the court of appeals said , “ We ’ re not going to break up the company , but we are going to put limits on its behavior.
” A lot of folks think that it was those limits , and just being monitored by the enforcement authorities at that point , that caused Microsoft to shelve its plans to maybe squash some new and upcoming rivals–like Google , which was a brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make clear in your writings , and as you ’ re saying here , that this lawsuit doesn ’ t touch everything .
Folks are going to say , “ Wait , when I think about problems with Google , I think about , you know , the way they treat their workers , or algorithmic bias.
” The story right now is the firing of Timnit Gebru , the AI researcher .
You make clear that there ’ s plenty that this suit doesn ’ t touch , but that doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still a valuable effort ; you think that it could still bring some things to light that could be useful ?
Absolutely .
One of the trickiest parts of any antitrust suit is called defining the market .
If Google really only competes with Bing and DuckDuckGo , then Google ’ s pretty clearly a monopolist .
But if you define the market more broadly , such that Google Search competes with the telephone book and Amazon ’ s product search and various travel search companies , suddenly it starts to look like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s often the really fundamental question in an antitrust case .
Just getting to that question , and having a court resolve that question , will really change the legal landscape for the tech world , because the information that gets brought to light , and the court ’ s conclusions , are things that can then get used down the line in other things , in private suits , in challenges to all those things , to their employment practices , to their various other company policies .
Each one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I ’ m saying .
Antitrust law is narrow .
Antitrust is focused on the harms caused to consumers by a monopoly .
It ’ s not necessarily a vehicle for things like employment concerns or environmental concerns , although those do get brought in sometimes .
Right .
Well , it can do what it can do , and then it ’ s for others to take the information that is brought to light and use it in various ways .
Let me ask you , finally : CNN ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands after one of the House Judiciary Committee Hearings that folks may have seen over the summer and into the fall .
And he wrote : Now , I understand that frustration with the hearings , after watching [ Tennessee ’ s Sen. ] Marsha Blackburn use a congressional hearing to ask [ Google CEO Sundar ] Pichai , “ Hey , did you fire that guy that said those mean things about me ?
” But Congress is one arena , the courts are another arena .
We don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these arguments for transparency , for equity , in terms of the internet , do we ?
We ’ ve got multiple fronts here .
We do .
And I think the states are also going to be an increasingly important arena for this kind of oversight .
You know , when I tried to look up media coverage about the antitrust suit , I saw allusions to Google as “ used to be cuddly , used to be scrappy , but then it lost its soul and grew up , ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses in a way that I don ’ t necessarily think is all that helpful .
Maybe we need some better frames to talk about how we can improve these systems that don ’ t make it sound like , you know , Rock ‘ Em Sock ‘ Em Robots .
I feel like the tech companies , they defied gravity for 10+ years there ; they got an exemption from the public ’ s general hostility towards big business that sort of came crashing to Earth in the last three years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because they should be treated with skepticism ; as much as we love their products , as much as we depend on them — and so many of us still do — it ’ s also healthy to cast a skeptical eye on them .
And to recognize the problems that technology can ’ t solve , the problems that are human problems that show up at Google , and Facebook and other places , just as they do in tobacco or oil or other industries that have been in the spotlight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitch Stoltz .
He ’ s a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation ; you can find their work online at EFF.org .
Mitch Stoltz , thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin .
Thank you very much .

An antitrust lawsuit against Google brought forward by the Justice Department appears to be gaining ground. Leon Neal / Getty Images; Edited: Truthout
Janine Jackson interviewed EFF’s Mitch Stoltz about breaking up Google for the December 18, 2020, episode of “CounterSpin.” This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: There is such a thing as a company simply having too much power; even without evidence of malign intent, it just isn’t healthy.
That’s the basic thinking behind antitrust law in this country. And if the power is over something so critical as our ability to obtain and share information? Well, that’s the concern behind the push to break up Big Tech. And while it may seem quixotic, it’s at least a step away from the notion that the internet is such categorically new territory that it can’t–or shouldn’t–be regulated to serve the public interest.
Several corporations are in the spotlight, each with different issues of concern, but right now, an antitrust lawsuit against Google appears to be gaining ground that our guest says has the potential to be very important indeed.
Mitch Stoltz is a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He joins us now by phone from the Bay Area. Welcome to “CounterSpin,” Mitch Stoltz.
Mitch Stoltz: Thank you, happy to be here.
A quick bit of background first: This antitrust lawsuit is coming from the Justice Department and state attorney generals, based on their own investigations. In layperson’s terms, what is the complaint?
The complaint is under something called Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and that’s a law that says if you are a monopoly — that is, if you have power over the market for some good or service — then there are things you can’t do. You can’t use improper means to maintain that monopoly power, you can’t try to gain monopoly power in other markets, various other things.
But what this suit says is, they’re claiming that Google has monopoly power in internet search and in search advertising. So those are the two markets they’re talking about. And they’re claiming that Google has illegally maintained that monopoly power, particularly through the contracts that it makes with various other companies — so phone vendors and web browser makers, and various other companies that it does deals with — it often requires that those companies put Google Search in a prominent position, and not allow rival search engines to occupy such a prominent position.
From my point of view as a user, Google is free to me, so how would I be made aware, or aware at all, of any monopolistic power going on? How can a free service also be a monopoly?
Well, “monopoly” just means they have the dominant position in the market, and the ability to set price or to set the level of quality. And so when you’re talking about a free service, often then what the courts will look at is: Can they stop innovating? Can they actually provide an inferior product that people will still use because there isn’t really an alternative?
I wanted to ask you about one thing that I know that EFF has thought about. We think about privacy a lot. I think if folks think about, “Who can see my searches, what I do on the internet?” I had a very smart friend say, “You know, I just assume everything I say online is observed.” And I think there’s this acceptance of a tradeoff: You just trade away your privacy and your civil liberties, and there’s no way to get what the internet would give you without doing that. And you’ve been thinking about different ways to think about privacy as a value. I wonder, could you talk a little about that?
Sure. In the context of an antitrust suit, that loss of privacy is the monopoly price, essentially. If you’re talking about groceries or gasoline, if there’s a monopoly situation, you’ll be paying more than you would otherwise. But with Search, because it’s a free product, the issue is you’re not paying more in cash; you’re paying more in loss of privacy than, presumably, you would if there were competition.
And there is, by the way, there is competition; it just has not been really able to flourish, because of some of these exclusive contracts, or preferential contracts, that Google uses. For example, there’s a search engine called DuckDuckGo which does not track its users; they’re not based on the user’s browsing history, but only on the search that they’re making at that moment, and it doesn’t track them from search to search. And that exists, but it has a real hard time competing against Google because of — and this is according to the lawsuit — some of the conduct that Google does in a way to maintain its monopoly.
We have to think about — and you note this as well — the power of the default. An alternative might be out there, but if when I turn on the screen, this is what comes up, well, then that’s going to be what I’m going to tend to use, and I may not even know that those alternatives are out there at all.
That’s really central to this lawsuit. Many of the specific things that DoJ and the states are complaining about are the defaults that Google insists on, on things like the homescreen of a phone, even Apple phones, as far as the placement of Google Search.
Right. It’s kind of like if your waiter says, “Do you want Coke or Pepsi?” and, well, you should have somehow sensed that you could have asked for milk, but it’s going to be people’s tendency to choose from what is put in front of them.
A lot of folks express frustration about lawsuits against mega-companies, because often what comes out of it is a fine, and we know that these companies just factor fines into the cost of doing business. But this Google antitrust suit isn’t talking about damages. What is it asking for?
It’s pretty broad. What it’s asking for is basically a court order to stop the illegal conduct. So at this point in a lawsuit, it’s pretty common not to specify what remedy you want in very specific terms, because it’s going to be connected to exactly what the court finds was the illegal conduct.
Right.
They talk about “injunctive remedy,” which means an order not to do something, and they talk about “structural remedy,” which could mean a breakup of the company, but in Google‘s case, and in the case of this lawsuit, it’s not really clear what a breakup would look like. I mean, you could potentially separate Google Search from the Android operating system, or Google Search from Google web advertising, or something like that, but none of those really flow directly from the things that the governments are accusing Google of here.
So probably most likely what this is moving towards is an ongoing monitoring of Google’s conduct, and some rules about what they can and can’t do. In that sense, it’s very much like the government’s lawsuit against Microsoft, back in 1998, where they actually had pursued breaking up Microsoft into an applications company and an operating system company, and the trial judge actually ordered that to happen.
But then the court of appeals said, “We’re not going to break up the company, but we are going to put limits on its behavior.” A lot of folks think that it was those limits, and just being monitored by the enforcement authorities at that point, that caused Microsoft to shelve its plans to maybe squash some new and upcoming rivals–like Google, which was a brand new company at the time.
That’s very interesting.
Yeah.
You make clear in your writings, and as you’re saying here, that this lawsuit doesn’t touch everything. Folks are going to say, “Wait, when I think about problems with Google, I think about, you know, the way they treat their workers, or algorithmic bias.” The story right now is the firing of Timnit Gebru, the AI researcher. You make clear that there’s plenty that this suit doesn’t touch, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not still a valuable effort; you think that it could still bring some things to light that could be useful?
Absolutely. One of the trickiest parts of any antitrust suit is called defining the market. If Google really only competes with Bing and DuckDuckGo, then Google’s pretty clearly a monopolist. But if you define the market more broadly, such that Google Search competes with the telephone book and Amazon’s product search and various travel search companies, suddenly it starts to look like less of a monopoly. And that’s often the really fundamental question in an antitrust case.
Just getting to that question, and having a court resolve that question, will really change the legal landscape for the tech world, because the information that gets brought to light, and the court’s conclusions, are things that can then get used down the line in other things, in private suits, in challenges to all those things, to their employment practices, to their various other company policies. Each one of these is a building block, is what I’m saying.
Right.
Antitrust law is narrow. Antitrust is focused on the harms caused to consumers by a monopoly. It’s not necessarily a vehicle for things like employment concerns or environmental concerns, although those do get brought in sometimes.
Right. Well, it can do what it can do, and then it’s for others to take the information that is brought to light and use it in various ways.
Let me ask you, finally: CNN’s Brian Fung seemed to throw up his hands after one of the House Judiciary Committee Hearings that folks may have seen over the summer and into the fall. And he wrote:
The Big Tobacco moment isn’t coming; there will be no damning self-incrimination on camera that leads to a dramatic and wholesale reversal of fortunes for Big Tech. The reason is simple: Nobody can agree on what the problem is, let alone the solution. And the companies are so large, and touch so many aspects of our lives, that it has been nearly impossible for lawmakers to focus on a single issue for more than a few minutes at a time.
Now, I understand that frustration with the hearings, after watching [Tennessee’s Sen.] Marsha Blackburn use a congressional hearing to ask [Google CEO Sundar] Pichai, “Hey, did you fire that guy that said those mean things about me?” But Congress is one arena, the courts are another arena. We don’t have to choose just one place to make these arguments for transparency, for equity, in terms of the internet, do we? We’ve got multiple fronts here.
We do. And I think the states are also going to be an increasingly important arena for this kind of oversight.
You know, when I tried to look up media coverage about the antitrust suit, I saw allusions to Google as “used to be cuddly, used to be scrappy, but then it lost its soul and grew up,” or whatever. News media tend to anthropomorphize businesses in a way that I don’t necessarily think is all that helpful. Maybe we need some better frames to talk about how we can improve these systems that don’t make it sound like, you know, Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots.
I feel like the tech companies, they defied gravity for 10+ years there; they got an exemption from the public’s general hostility towards big business that sort of came crashing to Earth in the last three years. And ultimately, that’s healthy, because they should be treated with skepticism; as much as we love their products, as much as we depend on them — and so many of us still do — it’s also healthy to cast a skeptical eye on them. And to recognize the problems that technology can’t solve, the problems that are human problems that show up at Google, and Facebook and other places, just as they do in tobacco or oil or other industries that have been in the spotlight.
We’ve been speaking with Mitch Stoltz. He’s a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation; you can find their work online at EFF.org. Mitch Stoltz, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
Thank you very much.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-12-29--Getting COVID Vaccines to Rural Areas Is Harder Than It Looks

The enormous job of vaccinating the nation is underway , but for rural Americans , getting a COVID-19 vaccine becomes harder the farther they are from urban centers .
The current vaccines ’ cold storage requirements and shipping rules mean many rural hospitals can ’ t serve as vaccination distribution hubs .
That can leave rural residents — about 20 % of the U.S. population in all — traveling long distances , if they ’ re able to travel at all .
Getting the word to rural residents about when they can be vaccinated isn ’ t easy either , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risk of the coronavirus this past year has had an impact on rural residents ’ willingness to get the vaccine .
We work in rural health care settings and have been examining the barriers to health care for these patients to find ways to ensure health and safety .
The Problem With Big Batches and Cold Storage The first two authorized vaccines — one made by Pfizer and BioNTech and the other by Moderna — are mRNA vaccines .
It ’ s a new type of vaccine that uses the molecular instructions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the weakened virus itself .
Both must be kept in very cold temperatures .
To ensure stability , the vaccine doses are shipped in special containers with dry ice , and for now , vaccines are being delivered only in large batches .
The Pfizer vaccine is shipped in increments of 975 doses at a time , which creates a challenge for small hospitals .
Urban areas will be able to quickly distribute those doses , but finding enough patients to vaccinate quickly in rural areas may prove more difficult .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ manageable , with a minimum order of 100 doses .
Both vaccines also require two doses per person , with the second dose of Pfizer ’ s vaccine given 21 days later and Moderna ’ s 28 days .
As a result , the vaccine distribution efforts will favor hubs that cater to more populated areas to avoid wasting any vaccine or leaving patients unable to get their second dose .
Cold storage is another challenge , since small hospitals are less likely to have expensive freezers .
The Pfizer vaccine must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minus 70 Celsius ) and Moderna ’ s at minus 4 Fahrenheit .
There are limits on how many times the vaccine shipping containers can be opened and how quickly the vaccines must be distributed .
Once thawed and prepared , the Pfizer vaccine must be used within five days and Moderna ’ s within 30 days .
Each patient must receive both doses of the vaccine from the same manufacturer to ensure safety and effectiveness , adding to the challenge .
Manufacturers have included personal dosing cards for patients to carry with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Rural U.S ’ s Take on COVID-19 and Vaccines Rural America already has difficult barriers to health care access .
It has fewer health care providers serving a more geographically diverse population than in metropolitan communities .
And in many of these areas , rural hospitals have been closing at an alarming rate , leaving people to travel farther for care .
The population is also older .
Public transportation that could help poor or elderly residents reach hospitals is rare , and distance and geography , such as mountain roads , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
Getting accurate information about the vaccine and how to receive it into rural areas has also proved difficult .
Many rural counties still have limited access to broadband internet connections , smartphone service and other technologies .
That often means residents rely on television , newspapers and radio for news , which can limit the depth and scope of information .
While some rural counties have started getting the word out , many don ’ t not seem to have specific plans on how to inform their residents about how and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , let alone specific plans for actually giving it .
They often rely just on local press releases that many residents never see .
Rural nonprofit health care organizations have tried to bridge that gap and improve rural communications about vaccines and the pandemic .
Care Compass Network , which coordinates organizations across southern New York , has offered educational webinars with the latest information about the virus and the vaccines , for example .
But there is still much work to do .
Rural Americans ’ views on vaccines are influenced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and religion , as well as previous experience with vaccinations and , perhaps most importantly , the difficulty of accessing health care .
In a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in December , about 35 % of rural Americans said they probably or definitely would not get the vaccine , higher than the 27 % nationwide .
Getting enough of the U.S. vaccinated to eventually end the pandemic will require more work in all of these areas .
That includes improving shipping and storage processes so orders can be broken up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more vaccine doses , and improving communication .
With Moderna ’ s vaccine arriving in smaller batches and not requiring such low temperatures for stability , it may prove to be more accessible for rural areas in the near future .
Utah has already taken advantage of those characteristics to get initial doses to smaller hospitals outside its urban areas and has started vaccinating health care providers .
Pfizer has said it may be able to offer smaller batches by April .
Other vaccines on the horizon are also expected to have less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivered in a one-shot method rather than a two-dose series .
The falling number of rural hospitals still remains a challenge for getting vaccines to patients , though .
Allowing community pharmacies to offer the vaccine — particularly if independent pharmacies are included — could eventually help expand the distribution network in rural areas .

Getting accurate information about the vaccine and how to receive it into rural areas has proved difficult.
The enormous job of vaccinating the nation is underway, but for rural Americans, getting a COVID-19 vaccine becomes harder the farther they are from urban centers.
The current vaccines’ cold storage requirements and shipping rules mean many rural hospitals can’t serve as vaccination distribution hubs. That can leave rural residents — about 20% of the U.S. population in all — traveling long distances, if they’re able to travel at all.
Getting the word to rural residents about when they can be vaccinated isn’t easy either, and the extraordinary amount of misinformation downplaying the risk of the coronavirus this past year has had an impact on rural residents’ willingness to get the vaccine.
We work in rural health care settings and have been examining the barriers to health care for these patients to find ways to ensure health and safety.
The Problem With Big Batches and Cold Storage
The first two authorized vaccines — one made by Pfizer and BioNTech and the other by Moderna — are mRNA vaccines. It’s a new type of vaccine that uses the molecular instructions for building virus proteins rather than injecting parts of the weakened virus itself. Both must be kept in very cold temperatures.
To ensure stability, the vaccine doses are shipped in special containers with dry ice, and for now, vaccines are being delivered only in large batches. The Pfizer vaccine is shipped in increments of 975 doses at a time, which creates a challenge for small hospitals.
Urban areas will be able to quickly distribute those doses, but finding enough patients to vaccinate quickly in rural areas may prove more difficult.
Moderna’s vaccine is somewhat more manageable, with a minimum order of 100 doses.
Both vaccines also require two doses per person, with the second dose of Pfizer’s vaccine given 21 days later and Moderna’s 28 days.
As a result, the vaccine distribution efforts will favor hubs that cater to more populated areas to avoid wasting any vaccine or leaving patients unable to get their second dose.
Cold storage is another challenge, since small hospitals are less likely to have expensive freezers. The Pfizer vaccine must be stored at minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 70 Celsius) and Moderna’s at minus 4 Fahrenheit. There are limits on how many times the vaccine shipping containers can be opened and how quickly the vaccines must be distributed. Once thawed and prepared, the Pfizer vaccine must be used within five days and Moderna’s within 30 days.
Each patient must receive both doses of the vaccine from the same manufacturer to ensure safety and effectiveness, adding to the challenge. Manufacturers have included personal dosing cards for patients to carry with them to help address this challenge.
The Rural U.S’s Take on COVID-19 and Vaccines
Rural America already has difficult barriers to health care access.
It has fewer health care providers serving a more geographically diverse population than in metropolitan communities. And in many of these areas, rural hospitals have been closing at an alarming rate, leaving people to travel farther for care. The population is also older. Public transportation that could help poor or elderly residents reach hospitals is rare, and distance and geography, such as mountain roads, can mean driving to those sites takes time.
Getting accurate information about the vaccine and how to receive it into rural areas has also proved difficult. Many rural counties still have limited access to broadband internet connections, smartphone service and other technologies. That often means residents rely on television, newspapers and radio for news, which can limit the depth and scope of information.
While some rural counties have started getting the word out, many don’t not seem to have specific plans on how to inform their residents about how and when each person can get the vaccine, let alone specific plans for actually giving it. They often rely just on local press releases that many residents never see.
Rural nonprofit health care organizations have tried to bridge that gap and improve rural communications about vaccines and the pandemic. Care Compass Network, which coordinates organizations across southern New York, has offered educational webinars with the latest information about the virus and the vaccines, for example. But there is still much work to do.
Rural Americans’ views on vaccines are influenced by media and word of mouth, politics and religion, as well as previous experience with vaccinations and, perhaps most importantly, the difficulty of accessing health care.
In a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in December, about 35% of rural Americans said they probably or definitely would not get the vaccine, higher than the 27% nationwide.
Small Batches, New Vaccines and Pharmacies
Getting enough of the U.S. vaccinated to eventually end the pandemic will require more work in all of these areas. That includes improving shipping and storage processes so orders can be broken up and distributed to smaller hospitals, distributing more vaccine doses, and improving communication.
With Moderna’s vaccine arriving in smaller batches and not requiring such low temperatures for stability, it may prove to be more accessible for rural areas in the near future. Utah has already taken advantage of those characteristics to get initial doses to smaller hospitals outside its urban areas and has started vaccinating health care providers. Pfizer has said it may be able to offer smaller batches by April.
Other vaccines on the horizon are also expected to have less stringent storage requirements and may potentially be delivered in a one-shot method rather than a two-dose series. The falling number of rural hospitals still remains a challenge for getting vaccines to patients, though. Allowing community pharmacies to offer the vaccine — particularly if independent pharmacies are included — could eventually help expand the distribution network in rural areas.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-12-29--Fauci Describes Vaccine Rollout as “Below Where We Want to Be” Right Now

Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of President Donald Trump ’ s coronavirus task force , warned on Tuesday that the number of Americans vaccinated for the virus is much lower than where his organization wants it to be at this point .
Speaking on CNN about the matter , Fauci , who is also slated to be a part of President-elect Joe Biden ’ s COVID-19 advisory team , explained that the U.S. is “ certainly not at the numbers that we wanted to be at the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many in the country have received their first round of vaccinations .
The original goal of Operation Warp Speed , a public-private partnership between the federal government and private industries to accelerate the production and distribution of coronavirus vaccines , was for 20 million Americans to be vaccinated by the end of the year .
However , as of December 28 , just 2.1 million vaccinations have been administered , with 11.5 million doses of the vaccine being distributed as of this week .
“ Even if you undercount , two million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could it be , ” Fauci said during his interview .
“ So , we are below where we want to be.
” Fauci expressed hopeful optimism for what will come about in January , in terms of vaccine distribution .
“ I believe that as we get into January , we are going to see an increase in the momentum which , I hope , allows us to catch up to the projected pace that we had spoken about a month or two ago when we were talking about the planned rollout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden has set forth an ambitious plan to vaccinate 100 million Americans within his first 100 days of office .
Even if that feat is accomplished , however , some on his coronavirus advisory panel have said we should be prepared for troubling days ahead , particularly in the next few weeks .
Celine Gounder , an epidemiologist who is set to be among those advising Biden on COVID-19 , warned that Americans should ready themselves for “ one of the worst months in this nation ’ s history in January ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past week .
“ There is no doubt about that , ” Gounder said in an interview with CNBC earlier this week .
“ That cake is in the oven already , with the travel that has happened over the holidays.
” Chief on Gounder ’ s mind , beyond getting people vaccinated , was ensuring there would be enough hospital staff in various places across the country in order to deal with the impending crisis .
“ It ’ s not just about the vaccines .
You have to also get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to administer the vaccines , ” Gounder explained .
“ And when staff are all tied up in ICUs that are overflowing with sick patients , it ’ s very difficult to siphon off those staff away to do vaccination.
” Trump has previously claimed that distribution of the coronavirus vaccine has gone well , in spite of various missteps that have been documented .
On December 17 , for instance , he tweeted that the rollout of the vaccine was “ getting the best of reviews , ” and on December 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going very smoothly.
” But many states ’ governors contradicted Trump ’ s rosy outlook on the rollout , noting that they were promised a certain number of vaccines but then told to expect significantly fewer doses , with reduction rates as high as 40 percent in some places of the country , compared to what they originally had been told they ’ d receive .
The administration ’ s response to such claims was to initially blame Pfizer for not producing enough of the vaccines .
The company later explained in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to be sent , but that the White House hadn ’ t coordinated with them on where they had to go .
On the weekend after Trump ’ s December 17 tweet bragging about the vaccine rollout , Army Gen. Gustave Perna , who is heading the distribution of the vaccines , apologized for what he called a “ miscommunication ” to states ’ leaders about the rollout .
“ I failed .
I ’ m adjusting .
I am fixing and we will move forward from there , ” Perna said @

Operation Warp Speed sought to vaccinate 20 million before December 31. So far, just 2.1 million have been vaccinated.
Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of President Donald Trump’s coronavirus task force, warned on Tuesday that the number of Americans vaccinated for the virus is much lower than where his organization wants it to be at this point.
Speaking on CNN about the matter, Fauci, who is also slated to be a part of President-elect Joe Biden’s COVID-19 advisory team, explained that the U.S. is “certainly not at the numbers that we wanted to be at the end of December” when it comes to how many in the country have received their first round of vaccinations.
The original goal of Operation Warp Speed, a public-private partnership between the federal government and private industries to accelerate the production and distribution of coronavirus vaccines, was for 20 million Americans to be vaccinated by the end of the year. However, as of December 28, just 2.1 million vaccinations have been administered, with 11.5 million doses of the vaccine being distributed as of this week.
“Even if you undercount, two million as an undercount, how much undercount could it be,” Fauci said during his interview. “So, we are below where we want to be.”
Fauci expressed hopeful optimism for what will come about in January, in terms of vaccine distribution.
“I believe that as we get into January, we are going to see an increase in the momentum which, I hope, allows us to catch up to the projected pace that we had spoken about a month or two ago when we were talking about the planned rollout of the vaccinations,” Fauci said.
“I believe that as we get into January, we are going to see an increase in the momentum which…I hope allows us to catch up to the projected pace,” Dr. Anthony Fauci says about the lower-than-projected vaccination numbers in the US. https://t.co/xB0HFzoxGX pic.twitter.com/ORvrz51K8f — New Day (@NewDay) December 29, 2020
Biden has set forth an ambitious plan to vaccinate 100 million Americans within his first 100 days of office. Even if that feat is accomplished, however, some on his coronavirus advisory panel have said we should be prepared for troubling days ahead, particularly in the next few weeks.
Celine Gounder, an epidemiologist who is set to be among those advising Biden on COVID-19, warned that Americans should ready themselves for “one of the worst months in this nation’s history in January” as a result of continued travel during the past week.
“There is no doubt about that,” Gounder said in an interview with CNBC earlier this week. “That cake is in the oven already, with the travel that has happened over the holidays.”
Chief on Gounder’s mind, beyond getting people vaccinated, was ensuring there would be enough hospital staff in various places across the country in order to deal with the impending crisis.
“It’s not just about the vaccines. You have to also get the vaccines distributed and you need staff to administer the vaccines,” Gounder explained. “And when staff are all tied up in ICUs that are overflowing with sick patients, it’s very difficult to siphon off those staff away to do vaccination.”
Trump has previously claimed that distribution of the coronavirus vaccine has gone well, in spite of various missteps that have been documented. On December 17, for instance, he tweeted that the rollout of the vaccine was “getting the best of reviews,” and on December 22 he added that vaccine distribution “is going very smoothly.”
But many states’ governors contradicted Trump’s rosy outlook on the rollout, noting that they were promised a certain number of vaccines but then told to expect significantly fewer doses, with reduction rates as high as 40 percent in some places of the country, compared to what they originally had been told they’d receive.
The administration’s response to such claims was to initially blame Pfizer for not producing enough of the vaccines. The company later explained in a statement that it had plenty of doses ready to be sent, but that the White House hadn’t coordinated with them on where they had to go.
On the weekend after Trump’s December 17 tweet bragging about the vaccine rollout, Army Gen. Gustave Perna, who is heading the distribution of the vaccines, apologized for what he called a “miscommunication” to states’ leaders about the rollout.
“I failed. I’m adjusting. I am fixing and we will move forward from there,” Perna said.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-12-29--McConnell Rejects Initial Moves to Pass $2,000 Stimulus Bill

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Kentucky ) blocked initial attempts by Democrats in the Senate on Tuesday to hold a vote on increasing coronavirus stimulus check payments to Americans from $ 600 to $ 2,000 , halting for the time being a bill that has already been passed in the House of Representatives .
As part of a bill that passed earlier this month addressing the economic hardships many are dealing with as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic , payments of $ 600 were planned to be sent to every eligible adult in the country , plus $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain income levels earned by individuals and couples .
The $ 600 figure was the result of months of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans , with members of the latter party wanting a lower amount due to concerns about deficits .
President Donald Trump , however , called the dollar figure a “ disgrace , ” and demanded the amount be increased to $ 2,000 last week , threatening the possibility of vetoing the bill if it wasn ’ t changed .
He was later persuaded to sign the bill with the $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least that amount , but urged Congress to pass a new bill for him to sign that would increase the payments .
Democrats were fast to agree to the increase , and passed a bill in the House doing so .
Up until Tuesday , McConnell had not indicated his position on the bill .
A number of Republicans in the Senate have said they would support the measure if brought up for a vote , including Georgia Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue .
Alongside those two senators , at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-Florida ) , Lindsey Graham ( R-South Carolina ) , Deb Fischer ( R-Nebraska ) , and the bill ’ s co-sponsor , Josh Hawley ( R-Missouri ) — have also said they ’ d vote in favor of the bill if it ’ s put up for a vote .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-New York ) has said that every member of the Democratic Party caucus would support it , too .
Yet McConnell ’ s actions on Tuesday indicated he did not want the bill to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wanted other issues to be considered alongside the bill , including huge restrictions on internet tech companies that Trump has called for , as well as investigations into unsubstantiated claims of election fraud in last month ’ s elections .
“ Those are the three important subjects the President has linked together , ” McConnell said .
“ This week , the Senate will begin a process to bring these three priorities into focus.
” Schumer made the request for the bill to be passed during a session of the Senate on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to reporting from Politico ’ s Burgess Everett .
Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vermont ) then requested the House bill be considered following a veto override vote on the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) that was scheduled for Wednesday .
McConnell also objected to that request as well .
Sanders has promised to object to passage of the NDAA , using parliamentary procedure , if the House bill to increase stimulus payments is not given a proper vote .
The Vermont senator noted that Republicans concerned with the costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were being hypocritical , due to the costs of the NDAA being much higher .
“ We have just passed the largest military budget in the history of our country .
$ 740 billion , ” Sanders said on the Senate floor on Tuesday .
According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation , the increase in stimulus payments to $ 2,000 would cost around $ 464 billion to fund , or close to $ 276 billion less than what the NDAA would cost .
Sanders pointed out in his statement that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ size ” of the NDAA ’ s costs , and that Trump ’ s veto of that bill had to do with “ other issues .
”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) blocked initial attempts by Democrats in the Senate on Tuesday to hold a vote on increasing coronavirus stimulus check payments to Americans from $600 to $2,000, halting for the time being a bill that has already been passed in the House of Representatives.
As part of a bill that passed earlier this month addressing the economic hardships many are dealing with as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, payments of $600 were planned to be sent to every eligible adult in the country, plus $600 per dependent child, up to certain income levels earned by individuals and couples. The $600 figure was the result of months of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, with members of the latter party wanting a lower amount due to concerns about deficits.
President Donald Trump, however, called the dollar figure a “disgrace,” and demanded the amount be increased to $2,000 last week, threatening the possibility of vetoing the bill if it wasn’t changed. He was later persuaded to sign the bill with the $600 figure to ensure Americans would receive at least that amount, but urged Congress to pass a new bill for him to sign that would increase the payments.
Democrats were fast to agree to the increase, and passed a bill in the House doing so. Up until Tuesday, McConnell had not indicated his position on the bill.
A number of Republicans in the Senate have said they would support the measure if brought up for a vote, including Georgia Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue.
Alongside those two senators, at least four other Republicans — Senators Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska), and the bill’s co-sponsor, Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) — have also said they’d vote in favor of the bill if it’s put up for a vote. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has said that every member of the Democratic Party caucus would support it, too.
Yet McConnell’s actions on Tuesday indicated he did not want the bill to move forward. His words also insinuated that he wanted other issues to be considered alongside the bill, including huge restrictions on internet tech companies that Trump has called for, as well as investigations into unsubstantiated claims of election fraud in last month’s elections.
“Those are the three important subjects the President has linked together,” McConnell said. “This week, the Senate will begin a process to bring these three priorities into focus.”
Schumer made the request for the bill to be passed during a session of the Senate on Tuesday. McConnell objected to that request, according to reporting from Politico’s Burgess Everett.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) then requested the House bill be considered following a veto override vote on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was scheduled for Wednesday. McConnell also objected to that request as well.
Sanders has promised to object to passage of the NDAA, using parliamentary procedure, if the House bill to increase stimulus payments is not given a proper vote. The Vermont senator noted that Republicans concerned with the costs of $2,000 payments to most Americans were being hypocritical, due to the costs of the NDAA being much higher.
“We have just passed the largest military budget in the history of our country. $740 billion,” Sanders said on the Senate floor on Tuesday.
According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the increase in stimulus payments to $2,000 would cost around $464 billion to fund, or close to $276 billion less than what the NDAA would cost. Sanders pointed out in his statement that “there was almost no debate about the size” of the NDAA’s costs, and that Trump’s veto of that bill had to do with “other issues.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-12-29--Purge of 4,000 Georgia Voters Violated Federal Law, Judge Rules

After two counties in Georgia sought to purge thousands of voters from registration rolls using unreliable data from national change-of-address forms , a federal judge ruled that the attempt to disenfranchise these voters was improper and illegal .
U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner ( who is also the sister of former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams ) issued a decision on Monday against the moves by officials in Muscogee County and Ben Hill County to displace residents from being registered to vote .
Her decision ensures that more than 4,000 voters will remain registered in those counties , allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections in the state scheduled for next week .
Most of those 4,000 voters are from the heavily Democratic-leaning Muscogee County .
President-elect Joe Biden , who won the state overall by less than 12,000 votes , won that county by a margin of 24 percent over President Donald Trump .
Around 150 voters will see their names restored to registration rolls in Ben Hill County , which Trump won over Biden by a margin of around 16 percent .
Both counties ’ boards relied on purging voters from the rolls under dubious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address data proved residents had moved from the state without giving proper notice to those who had been affected .
Indeed , the attorney advising the Ben Hill County board said at the time when voters were purged that the purged names “ could not be confirmed , the list would not be admissible in court , and there were better remedies available ” for confirming if voters were properly registered or not , Gardner noted in her opinion .
Gardner also stated that the purge was improper for another reason : according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar types of removals from voter registration rolls can not happen within 90 days of an upcoming election .
The case that Gardner ruled on is separate from another effort by four civil rights groups seeking to restore voting rights for nearly 200,000 other residents in Georgia , who were purged from registration rolls prior to this year ’ s races using similar tactics .
That lawsuit is hoping to restore those registrations in time for the January 5 runoff elections .
Though the decision by Gardner only affects around 4,000 voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the runoff races , which feature Republican incumbent Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue facing off against Democratic challengers Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff , respectively .
Recent polling for both races is very tight , with aggregated numbers from FiveThirtyEight.com demonstrating they are statistical ties at the moment .
According to that site ’ s calculations , Perdue is currently ahead of Ossoff by a margin of 0.8 percent , while Warnock leads Loeffler by just 0.1 percent .
Both races are well within the margins of error that the site used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Georgia surpassed records set for in-person voting for the runoff races .
As of this week , around 2.1 million residents in the state have already voted .
The two races are of great national importance , as they will determine which political party will be in control of the U.S. Senate next term .
If both Democratic candidates win , there will be a 50-50 tie in the upper chamber of Congress , with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote .
If just one of the two Republican candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain with the GOP .

After two counties in Georgia sought to purge thousands of voters from registration rolls using unreliable data from national change-of-address forms, a federal judge ruled that the attempt to disenfranchise these voters was improper and illegal.
U.S. District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner (who is also the sister of former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams) issued a decision on Monday against the moves by officials in Muscogee County and Ben Hill County to displace residents from being registered to vote. Her decision ensures that more than 4,000 voters will remain registered in those counties, allowing them to vote in upcoming Senate runoff elections in the state scheduled for next week.
Most of those 4,000 voters are from the heavily Democratic-leaning Muscogee County. President-elect Joe Biden, who won the state overall by less than 12,000 votes, won that county by a margin of 24 percent over President Donald Trump. Around 150 voters will see their names restored to registration rolls in Ben Hill County, which Trump won over Biden by a margin of around 16 percent.
Both counties’ boards relied on purging voters from the rolls under dubious grounds, baselessly arguing that change of address data proved residents had moved from the state without giving proper notice to those who had been affected. Indeed, the attorney advising the Ben Hill County board said at the time when voters were purged that the purged names “could not be confirmed, the list would not be admissible in court, and there were better remedies available” for confirming if voters were properly registered or not, Gardner noted in her opinion.
Gardner also stated that the purge was improper for another reason: according to the National Voter Registration Act, similar types of removals from voter registration rolls cannot happen within 90 days of an upcoming election.
The case that Gardner ruled on is separate from another effort by four civil rights groups seeking to restore voting rights for nearly 200,000 other residents in Georgia, who were purged from registration rolls prior to this year’s races using similar tactics. That lawsuit is hoping to restore those registrations in time for the January 5 runoff elections.
Though the decision by Gardner only affects around 4,000 voters, it could prove to be critical in the runoff races, which feature Republican incumbent Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue facing off against Democratic challengers Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, respectively. Recent polling for both races is very tight, with aggregated numbers from FiveThirtyEight.com demonstrating they are statistical ties at the moment.
According to that site’s calculations, Perdue is currently ahead of Ossoff by a margin of 0.8 percent, while Warnock leads Loeffler by just 0.1 percent. Both races are well within the margins of error that the site used to make their calculations.
Weeks ago, Georgia surpassed records set for in-person voting for the runoff races. As of this week, around 2.1 million residents in the state have already voted.
The two races are of great national importance, as they will determine which political party will be in control of the U.S. Senate next term. If both Democratic candidates win, there will be a 50-50 tie in the upper chamber of Congress, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote. If just one of the two Republican candidates win, control of the Senate will remain with the GOP.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-12-29--Trump’s Stimulus and Defense Shenanigans Are Having Ripple Effects in Georgia

If Donald Trump is looking for a new line of work once they broom him out of the Oval Office , he should strongly consider becoming a Democratic Party strategist .
At present , he ’ s the best one in town , and I ’ m not at all sure he knows why .
Imagine what he could accomplish if he really applied himself .
Wait , right .
Not happening .
Too bad ; anyone who can squeeze Mitch McConnell ’ s shoes like this should be on somebody ’ s payroll .
The best part ?
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no lesser light than democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders .
It all started with two pieces of legislation that Trump tried to blow up .
He vetoed the Defense Authorization bill ostensibly because of his love for Confederate-named bases and his hatred for his internet enemies , but his motives likely ran deeper .
The defense bill carries provisions that make it harder to set up shell companies and launder money .
If Trump were in the baking business , this would be like outlawing dough .
The other bill , the combination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment immediately after Congress finally reached an agreement on the terms .
They stapled the stimulus bill to the government funding bill to ensure Trump would sign it ; failure to do so would lead to a quadruple calamity — no stimulus checks , no unemployment benefits , no eviction protection and a federal government gone dark in the middle of a pandemic — that everyone assumed the president would want to avoid .
Everyone assumed wrong .
Trump denounced as “ disgraceful ” the very bill his own Treasury Secretary Mnuchin had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of the $ 600 in the deal , and told Congress to get rid of the “ pork ” in the legislation that is actually a laundry list of items his own administration requested be included in the package .
The needle screeched off the record , and for the entire Christmas holiday week , the nation waited to see what Trump would do .
Finally , with much grumbling and a few demands that McConnell resolutely ignored , he signed the stimulus/shutdown bill into law , and everyone took a breath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pounced .
Seeing a king-sized opportunity to paint Republicans as a bunch of parsimonious Scrooges , Pelosi brought a stand-alone bill called the CASH Act to a vote that set the direct stimulus payment at the $ 2,000 Trump had insisted on .
The bill passed with a hefty bipartisan margin on Monday .
Trump cared not a fig for that money or the people who needed it ; he wanted some attention and he got it .
Pelosi and the Democrats , however , saw an opportunity not only to get that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also to paint the GOP in the worst possible light on the eve of the all-important Senate runoff elections in Georgia .
The bill is already affecting those races ; both GOP incumbents have publicly declared their support for the $ 2,000 payments .
As a bit of political theater , it was beautiful .
If it wanted to actually have an impact , however , it needed help .
There is no living reason for McConnell to allow a vote on the CASH Act ; he has a signed stimulus bill in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House ’ s two-grand bill was destined to die a solitary death in the loneliest place in Washington : The far corner of the majority leader ’ s desk .
Enter the defense bill veto , which the House successfully voted to override on Monday by a comfortable margin .
The override now goes to the Senate .
These are incredibly perilous political waters for Republicans : Behind curtain # 1 is a stinging rebuke of their president , and behind curtain # 2 is the failure to pass a military funding bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their resume .
… and then Bernie Sanders came down the mountain .
The Vermont senator is threatening to filibuster the veto override unless McConnell allows a straight up-or-down vote on the CASH Act .
Classic pincer move , and it ’ s all thanks to Trump .
“ This week on the Senate floor , Mitch McConnell wants to vote to override Trump ’ s veto of the $ 740 billion defense funding bill and then head home for the New Year , ” Sanders said in a statement .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a vote on legislation to provide a $ 2,000 direct payment to the working class .
Let me be clear : If Senator McConnell doesn ’ t agree to an up or down vote to provide the working people of our country a $ 2,000 direct payment , Congress will not be going home for New Year ’ s Eve .
Let ’ s do our job.
” It does not sound like he is bluffing , and now Trump is getting all kinds of attention in all the wrong ways .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough call of barring a vote as Democrats bang away in TV ads in Georgia against GOP incumbents David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler .
Or he can hold a vote , which would split the GOP caucus and upset fiscally conservative voters , ” fumed a Wall Street Journal editorial .
“ Mr .
Trump ’ s narcissism isn ’ t news .
But if Republicans lose the two Georgia seats and their majority , Republicans across the country should know to thank Mr. Trump for their 2021 tax increase.
” Scenarios like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McConnell and the GOP are in a very tight box today .
Every decision is fraught with peril , and they can thank their president for the lot of it .
Trump ’ s veto , combined with his 11th-hour meddling with the stimulus bill , created this seamless opportunity , and the Democrats shot the gap like a party that actually knows what it ’ s doing .
It ’ s been a while .
McConnell finally addressed these issues at noon today .
The veto override vote has been pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimate fate of the CASH Act .
There is no clarity on whether McConnell will allow a vote on the Act , and if he does not , Bernie Sanders has vowed to filibuster the veto override .
Per The Washington Post : “ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( Ky. ) on Tuesday blocked consideration of a House bill that would deliver a $ 2,000 stimulus payments to most Americans — spurning a request made by President Trump even as more Senate Republicans voiced support for the dramatically larger checks .
McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a saga that is likely to engulf the Senate for the rest of the week .
Democrats are pushing for an up-or-down vote on the House bill , while more Republicans acknowledge a need for larger stimulus checks.
” If McConnell loses his leadership seat because these shenanigans tip Georgia ’ s races into the Democratic column , I might laugh for a thousand years .
That ’ s what you get , what you always get , for trusting Donald Trump .
This article has been updated .

If Donald Trump is looking for a new line of work once they broom him out of the Oval Office, he should strongly consider becoming a Democratic Party strategist. At present, he’s the best one in town, and I’m not at all sure he knows why. Imagine what he could accomplish if he really applied himself.
Wait, right. Not happening. Too bad; anyone who can squeeze Mitch McConnell’s shoes like this should be on somebody’s payroll. The best part? Trump’s partner in all this is no lesser light than democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders.
It all started with two pieces of legislation that Trump tried to blow up. He vetoed the Defense Authorization bill ostensibly because of his love for Confederate-named bases and his hatred for his internet enemies, but his motives likely ran deeper. The defense bill carries provisions that make it harder to set up shell companies and launder money. If Trump were in the baking business, this would be like outlawing dough.
The other bill, the combination stimulus/government funding bill, got the Trump treatment immediately after Congress finally reached an agreement on the terms. They stapled the stimulus bill to the government funding bill to ensure Trump would sign it; failure to do so would lead to a quadruple calamity — no stimulus checks, no unemployment benefits, no eviction protection and a federal government gone dark in the middle of a pandemic — that everyone assumed the president would want to avoid.
Everyone assumed wrong. Trump denounced as “disgraceful” the very bill his own Treasury Secretary Mnuchin had negotiated, demanded $2,000 direct payments instead of the $600 in the deal, and told Congress to get rid of the “pork” in the legislation that is actually a laundry list of items his own administration requested be included in the package.
The needle screeched off the record, and for the entire Christmas holiday week, the nation waited to see what Trump would do. Finally, with much grumbling and a few demands that McConnell resolutely ignored, he signed the stimulus/shutdown bill into law, and everyone took a breath.
And then, Speaker Nancy Pelosi pounced. Seeing a king-sized opportunity to paint Republicans as a bunch of parsimonious Scrooges, Pelosi brought a stand-alone bill called the CASH Act to a vote that set the direct stimulus payment at the $2,000 Trump had insisted on. The bill passed with a hefty bipartisan margin on Monday.
Trump cared not a fig for that money or the people who needed it; he wanted some attention and he got it. Pelosi and the Democrats, however, saw an opportunity not only to get that needed money to the people, but also to paint the GOP in the worst possible light on the eve of the all-important Senate runoff elections in Georgia. The bill is already affecting those races; both GOP incumbents have publicly declared their support for the $2,000 payments.
Classic pincer move, and it’s all thanks to Trump.
As a bit of political theater, it was beautiful. If it wanted to actually have an impact, however, it needed help. There is no living reason for McConnell to allow a vote on the CASH Act; he has a signed stimulus bill in hand, ready to go. The House’s two-grand bill was destined to die a solitary death in the loneliest place in Washington: The far corner of the majority leader’s desk.
Enter the defense bill veto, which the House successfully voted to override on Monday by a comfortable margin. The override now goes to the Senate. These are incredibly perilous political waters for Republicans: Behind curtain #1 is a stinging rebuke of their president, and behind curtain #2 is the failure to pass a military funding bill, something no good Republican wants on their resume.
… and then Bernie Sanders came down the mountain. The Vermont senator is threatening to filibuster the veto override unless McConnell allows a straight up-or-down vote on the CASH Act. Classic pincer move, and it’s all thanks to Trump.
“This week on the Senate floor, Mitch McConnell wants to vote to override Trump’s veto of the $740 billion defense funding bill and then head home for the New Year,” Sanders said in a statement. “I’m going to object until we get a vote on legislation to provide a $2,000 direct payment to the working class. Let me be clear: If Senator McConnell doesn’t agree to an up or down vote to provide the working people of our country a $2,000 direct payment, Congress will not be going home for New Year’s Eve. Let’s do our job.”
It does not sound like he is bluffing, and now Trump is getting all kinds of attention in all the wrong ways. “That leaves Mr. McConnell with a tough call of barring a vote as Democrats bang away in TV ads in Georgia against GOP incumbents David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler. Or he can hold a vote, which would split the GOP caucus and upset fiscally conservative voters,” fumed a Wall Street Journal editorial. “Mr. Trump’s narcissism isn’t news. But if Republicans lose the two Georgia seats and their majority, Republicans across the country should know to thank Mr. Trump for their 2021 tax increase.”
Scenarios like this do not come along very often. McConnell and the GOP are in a very tight box today. Every decision is fraught with peril, and they can thank their president for the lot of it. Trump’s veto, combined with his 11th-hour meddling with the stimulus bill, created this seamless opportunity, and the Democrats shot the gap like a party that actually knows what it’s doing. It’s been a while.
McConnell finally addressed these issues at noon today. The veto override vote has been pushed to tomorrow, taking with it the ultimate fate of the CASH Act. There is no clarity on whether McConnell will allow a vote on the Act, and if he does not, Bernie Sanders has vowed to filibuster the veto override.
Per The Washington Post: “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on Tuesday blocked consideration of a House bill that would deliver a $2,000 stimulus payments to most Americans — spurning a request made by President Trump even as more Senate Republicans voiced support for the dramatically larger checks. McConnell’s move was just the beginning of a saga that is likely to engulf the Senate for the rest of the week. Democrats are pushing for an up-or-down vote on the House bill, while more Republicans acknowledge a need for larger stimulus checks.”
If McConnell loses his leadership seat because these shenanigans tip Georgia’s races into the Democratic column, I might laugh for a thousand years. That’s what you get, what you always get, for trusting Donald Trump.
This article has been updated.
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.