truthout--2020-10-16--Republican Senate Candidate Linked to Organizer of Right-Wing Militia Rally

Michigan Republican Senate candidate John James received campaign contributions and was photographed with the organizer of the rally where conspirators accused of planning to kidnap Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer allegedly plotted with a militia to recruit more members .
James , along with Vice President Mike Pence , was photographed with Ryan D. Kelley , a Grand Rapids real estate agent who heads the American Patriot Council , in since-deleted social media images reviewed by Salon .
President Donald Trump was also pictured with Kelley in a photo posted to his Facebook profile .
Kelley was the organizer of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Michigan capitol in June .
The FBI alleged in court documents that the leader of the group who plotted the attack on Whitmer met with militia leader Ty Garbin and a confidential source at the rally to discuss a plan and recruit more members .
Federal Election Commission records also show that Kelley has donated thousands to James ’ campaign .
James , who lost his 2018 Senate bid , is virtually tied with incumbent Sen. Gary Peters , D-Mich. , in the latest New York Times/Siena College poll .
Kelley ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed members from various militias , most of them white , ” to the state capitol where they met with “ other fringe groups like Boogaloo Bois and Proud Boys , ” according to Bridge Michigan .
The FBI alleged that the rally was among the locations where members plotted to kidnap Whitmer , try her in a remote location in Wisconsin and execute her for “ treason ” after complaining that the state ’ s coronavirus lockdown had shuttered gyms .
The FBI charged 13 men , including members of the Wolverine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week .
Kelley disputed a link between the rally and the plot , noting that one of the suspects was a Black Lives Matter supporter and another suspect posted an anti-Trump video .
“ The June APC Rally was pro-law enforcement , ” he said in a statement to Salon .
“ We coordinated the entire rally with Michigan State Police [ and ] thanked them publicly for their service .
To suggest our rally was a meeting place to discuss a plot against the [ governor ] is grossly inaccurate.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions from Salon , but it sent over a statement the Republican previously made to reporters .
“ That was insane .
That ’ s like the most 2020 headline I ’ ve seen this week , ” he told reporters after the news broke .
“ Under no circumstances should we have this at all .
I condemn any domestic terrorism , and I hate it in all its forms .
I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic , and the individuals implicated in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ I took an oath to defend the Constitution and this nation against enemies foreign and DOMESTIC , ” the Army veteran added on Twitter .
“ Those who threatened our State must be prosecuted to the fullest.
” Trump , who called to “ liberate Michigan ” in April and has been accused of emboldening militias , came under fire last month after he refused to denounce the Proud Boys and white supremacists in the first presidential debate .
He also tweeted in support of protesters who stormed the Michigan capitol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns , to condemn the state ’ s coronavirus restrictions .
Trump ’ s son Eric scrapped a campaign appearance on Monday at a Michigan gun shop where one of the plot suspects previously worked .
James , who has billed himself as a unity candidate , has also echoed the rhetoric from far-right Michigan groups who have criticized Whitmer ’ s coronavirus restrictions , railing against “ socialism ” and suggesting that Whitmer was dictator at recent campaign stops .
His campaign stops have drawn members of the Proud Boys , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremist group with ties to white nationalism.
” James has also campaigned with NRA board member Ted Nugent , who has repeatedly espoused support for the militia movement .
Whitmer linked Republican rhetoric to the alleged plot against her over the weekend .
“ I do believe that there are still serious threats that groups like this group — these domestic terrorists — are finding comfort and support in the rhetoric coming out of Republican leadership from the White House to our state House , ” she told CBS News .
“ And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integrity going up to this election.
” The American Patriot Council denounced the alleged plot after the FBI announced the arrests .
“ The American Patriot Council in no way condones violence as a form of political action .
As the public is well aware , any actions taken by the American Patriot Council have been legal and lawful , ” the group said in a statement .
“ While we hold the view that many public officials are guilty of a litany of crimes , and it has been our goal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must do so lawfully.
” “ The American Patriot Council believes in law and order across the board and that no American citizen should be deprived of their right to due process of law , ” the statement added .
“ We have no affiliation with any other groups , nor will we aid or abet anyone using threats or acts of violence .
Please take note that we are on the side of law enforcement .
To this point , we have not been made aware of any plans of violence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be patriots.
” Trump , meanwhile , attacked Whitmer over the coronavirus restrictions after the arrests were announced .
He also demanded that she thank him .
“ Rather than say thank you , ” Trump tweeted , “ she calls me a White Supremacist .
”

The FBI alleged that the rally was among the locations where conspirators plotted to kidnap Michigan Gov. Whitmer.
Michigan Republican Senate candidate John James received campaign contributions and was photographed with the organizer of the rally where conspirators accused of planning to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer allegedly plotted with a militia to recruit more members.
James, along with Vice President Mike Pence, was photographed with Ryan D. Kelley, a Grand Rapids real estate agent who heads the American Patriot Council, in since-deleted social media images reviewed by Salon. President Donald Trump was also pictured with Kelley in a photo posted to his Facebook profile.
Kelley was the organizer of the “Well-Regulated Militia” rally at the Michigan capitol in June. The FBI alleged in court documents that the leader of the group who plotted the attack on Whitmer met with militia leader Ty Garbin and a confidential source at the rally to discuss a plan and recruit more members.
Federal Election Commission records also show that Kelley has donated thousands to James’ campaign. James, who lost his 2018 Senate bid, is virtually tied with incumbent Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., in the latest New York Times/Siena College poll.
Kelley’s pro-gun rally drew “dozens of armed members from various militias, most of them white,” to the state capitol where they met with “other fringe groups like Boogaloo Bois and Proud Boys,” according to Bridge Michigan.
Spokesperson for @MIAttyGen confirms these two men — seen here, armed in the Michigan Senate gallery during session on April 30 — were among the 13 charged today in the plot to kidnap and possibly kill Governor Whitmer. https://t.co/KiUeuGUo8O — Zach Gorchow (@ZachGorchow) October 8, 2020
The FBI alleged that the rally was among the locations where members plotted to kidnap Whitmer, try her in a remote location in Wisconsin and execute her for “treason” after complaining that the state’s coronavirus lockdown had shuttered gyms. The FBI charged 13 men, including members of the Wolverine Watchmen militia, in the alleged plot last week.
Kelley disputed a link between the rally and the plot, noting that one of the suspects was a Black Lives Matter supporter and another suspect posted an anti-Trump video.
“The June APC Rally was pro-law enforcement,” he said in a statement to Salon. “We coordinated the entire rally with Michigan State Police [and] thanked them publicly for their service. To suggest our rally was a meeting place to discuss a plot against the [governor] is grossly inaccurate.”
James’ campaign did not respond to questions from Salon, but it sent over a statement the Republican previously made to reporters.
“That was insane. That’s like the most 2020 headline I’ve seen this week,” he told reporters after the news broke. “Under no circumstances should we have this at all. I condemn any domestic terrorism, and I hate it in all its forms. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and the individuals implicated in this should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.”
“I took an oath to defend the Constitution and this nation against enemies foreign and DOMESTIC,” the Army veteran added on Twitter. “Those who threatened our State must be prosecuted to the fullest.”
Trump, who called to “liberate Michigan” in April and has been accused of emboldening militias, came under fire last month after he refused to denounce the Proud Boys and white supremacists in the first presidential debate. He also tweeted in support of protesters who stormed the Michigan capitol, some of whom were armed with guns, to condemn the state’s coronavirus restrictions.
Trump’s son Eric scrapped a campaign appearance on Monday at a Michigan gun shop where one of the plot suspects previously worked.
James, who has billed himself as a unity candidate, has also echoed the rhetoric from far-right Michigan groups who have criticized Whitmer’s coronavirus restrictions, railing against “socialism” and suggesting that Whitmer was dictator at recent campaign stops. His campaign stops have drawn members of the Proud Boys, which the FBI has classified as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism.” James has also campaigned with NRA board member Ted Nugent, who has repeatedly espoused support for the militia movement.
Whitmer linked Republican rhetoric to the alleged plot against her over the weekend.
“I do believe that there are still serious threats that groups like this group — these domestic terrorists — are finding comfort and support in the rhetoric coming out of Republican leadership from the White House to our state House,” she told CBS News. “And so I remain concerned about safety and integrity going up to this election.”
The American Patriot Council denounced the alleged plot after the FBI announced the arrests.
“The American Patriot Council in no way condones violence as a form of political action. As the public is well aware, any actions taken by the American Patriot Council have been legal and lawful,” the group said in a statement. “While we hold the view that many public officials are guilty of a litany of crimes, and it has been our goal to hold these officials criminally responsible, we must do so lawfully.”
“The American Patriot Council believes in law and order across the board and that no American citizen should be deprived of their right to due process of law,” the statement added. “We have no affiliation with any other groups, nor will we aid or abet anyone using threats or acts of violence. Please take note that we are on the side of law enforcement. To this point, we have not been made aware of any plans of violence, and we believe our members and followers to be patriots.”
Trump, meanwhile, attacked Whitmer over the coronavirus restrictions after the arrests were announced. He also demanded that she thank him.
“Rather than say thank you,” Trump tweeted, “she calls me a White Supremacist.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-16--Outnumbered on Supreme Court Nomination, Democrats Campaign for ACA

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee know that , barring something unexpected , they lack the votes to block President Donald Trump from installing his third justice in four years on the Supreme Court and creating a 6-3 conservative majority .
They also know that , in a normal year , by mid-October Congress would be out of session and members home campaigning .
But 2020 is obviously no normal year .
So , while the rest of Congress is home , Democratic Judiciary members are trying something very different in the hearings for nominee Amy Coney Barrett .
Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently a federal appeals court judge , they are refighting the war that helped them pick up seats in 2018 — banging on Republicans for trying to eliminate the Affordable Care Act .
Conveniently , the ACA is relevant to the Supreme Court debate because the justices are scheduled to hear a case that could invalidate the law on Nov. 10 — exactly a week after Election Day .
As California Sen. Kamala Harris , a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Democratic vice presidential candidate , put it to Barrett on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirm this nominee as fast as possible because they need one more Trump judge on the bench before Nov. 10th to win and strike down the entire Affordable Care Act .
This is not hyperbole .
This is not hypothetical .
This is happening.
” Said Sen. Richard Durbin ( D-Ill. ) , also on Tuesday : “ We really believe the Supreme Court ’ s consideration of that case is going — could literally change America for millions of people.
” To be sure , Republicans too were playing to their electorate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they expounded on her conservative credentials on issues such as gun rights .
Nonetheless , Democrats were uniformly disciplined in their assault on her potential vote in the ACA case .
They chided both Barrett and the Republicans who are rushing her nomination to the floor literally days before a presidential election .
In addition , Democrats criticized Republicans for spending time on a nonemergency nomination while continuing to ignore the need for financial and other relief for the COVID-19 pandemic .
And they raised what in more normal times would be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to abortion and other reproductive rights from Barrett , who before her elevation to the federal bench publicly opposed abortion and taught law at Notre Dame , one of the nation ’ s preeminent Catholic universities .
“ For many people , and particularly for women , this is a fundamental question , ” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-Calif. ) , the committee ’ s top Democrat .
Barrett , like every other Supreme Court nominee for the past three decades , declined to offer positions that could suggest which way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including abortion and the ACA .
She repeatedly cited what has come to be called the “ Ginsburg rule ” — after the justice she would replace , Ruth Bader Ginsburg — saying “ no hints , no previews , no forecasts.
” Still , Democrats suggested that she may have tipped her hand on the Affordable Care Act case .
In pointing out that the issues in the case , now known as California v. Texas , are different from the previous cases upholding the health law in 2012 and 2015 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on “ severability.
” She was referring to the question of whether , if one portion of a law is found to be unconstitutional , the rest of the law can stand without it .
In the current ACA case , a group of Republican attorneys general — and the Trump administration — are arguing that when Congress reduced the ACA ’ s penalty for not having insurance to zero , the requirement to be covered no longer had a tax attached , and therefore the law is now unconstitutional .
They based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid because that penalty was a constitutionally appropriate tax .
The law ’ s opponents say the rest of the law can not be “ severed ” and must therefore fall , too .
A federal district judge in Texas agreed with them .
But merely saying the case turns on severability suggests that Barrett has already prejudged major parts of the case , Democrats said .
Sen. Chris Coons ( D-Del . )
noted , “ You don ’ t get to the question of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determined the question of constitutionality.
” Barrett insisted repeatedly that despite an article she wrote in 2017 suggesting that the 2012 case upholding the law was wrongly decided , “ I have no animus to nor agenda for the ACA , ” as she told Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) on Wednesday .
In their rare show of unity of message , Democrats made clear that their primary audience in these hearings was not their Senate colleagues , but the voting public .
While this battle looks lost , they hope to @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Democrats are refighting the war that helped them pick up seats in 2018 by focusing on the threat to health care.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee know that, barring something unexpected, they lack the votes to block President Donald Trump from installing his third justice in four years on the Supreme Court and creating a 6-3 conservative majority.
They also know that, in a normal year, by mid-October Congress would be out of session and members home campaigning. But 2020 is obviously no normal year. So, while the rest of Congress is home, Democratic Judiciary members are trying something very different in the hearings for nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Rather than prosecuting their case against Barrett, currently a federal appeals court judge, they are refighting the war that helped them pick up seats in 2018 — banging on Republicans for trying to eliminate the Affordable Care Act.
Conveniently, the ACA is relevant to the Supreme Court debate because the justices are scheduled to hear a case that could invalidate the law on Nov. 10 — exactly a week after Election Day.
As California Sen. Kamala Harris, a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Democratic vice presidential candidate, put it to Barrett on Tuesday, “Republicans are scrambling to confirm this nominee as fast as possible because they need one more Trump judge on the bench before Nov. 10th to win and strike down the entire Affordable Care Act. This is not hyperbole. This is not hypothetical. This is happening.”
Said Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), also on Tuesday: “We really believe the Supreme Court’s consideration of that case is going — could literally change America for millions of people.”
To be sure, Republicans too were playing to their electorate during the questioning of Barrett, as they expounded on her conservative credentials on issues such as gun rights.
Nonetheless, Democrats were uniformly disciplined in their assault on her potential vote in the ACA case. They chided both Barrett and the Republicans who are rushing her nomination to the floor literally days before a presidential election. In addition, Democrats criticized Republicans for spending time on a nonemergency nomination while continuing to ignore the need for financial and other relief for the COVID-19 pandemic.
And they raised what in more normal times would be the featured talking point for Democrats: the threat to abortion and other reproductive rights from Barrett, who before her elevation to the federal bench publicly opposed abortion and taught law at Notre Dame, one of the nation’s preeminent Catholic universities.
“For many people, and particularly for women, this is a fundamental question,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the committee’s top Democrat.
Barrett, like every other Supreme Court nominee for the past three decades, declined to offer positions that could suggest which way she might rule on hot-button issues, including abortion and the ACA.
She repeatedly cited what has come to be called the “Ginsburg rule” — after the justice she would replace, Ruth Bader Ginsburg — saying “no hints, no previews, no forecasts.”
Still, Democrats suggested that she may have tipped her hand on the Affordable Care Act case. In pointing out that the issues in the case, now known as California v. Texas, are different from the previous cases upholding the health law in 2012 and 2015, she said the current case will turn on “severability.”
She was referring to the question of whether, if one portion of a law is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the law can stand without it. In the current ACA case, a group of Republican attorneys general — and the Trump administration — are arguing that when Congress reduced the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance to zero, the requirement to be covered no longer had a tax attached, and therefore the law is now unconstitutional. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid because that penalty was a constitutionally appropriate tax.
The law’s opponents say the rest of the law cannot be “severed” and must therefore fall, too. A federal district judge in Texas agreed with them.
But merely saying the case turns on severability suggests that Barrett has already prejudged major parts of the case, Democrats said. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) noted, “You don’t get to the question of severability if you haven’t already determined the question of constitutionality.”
Barrett insisted repeatedly that despite an article she wrote in 2017 suggesting that the 2012 case upholding the law was wrongly decided, “I have no animus to nor agenda for the ACA,” as she told Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Wednesday.
In their rare show of unity of message, Democrats made clear that their primary audience in these hearings was not their Senate colleagues, but the voting public. While this battle looks lost, they hope to win the War of Nov. 3.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-16--Wisconsin Voter Data Shows Risks of Absentee Ballot Rejection

For months , President Donald Trump has alleged without evidence that any expansion of mail-in voting in the 2020 election will lead to “ tremendous ” fraud and a “ rigged ” election .
Last month , he suggested without evidence that vote by mail might even allow citizens to vote twice , urging North Carolina voters to try voting by mail and in person to test for alleged faults in the system .
But an analysis of voter data from the April primary in the swing state of Wisconsin shows that mail-in voting may pose the opposite risk — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots were thrown out in the primary , according to an analysis by APM Reports , mostly because those voters or their witnesses missed at least one line on a form .
That figure is nearly equivalent to Trump ’ s 2016 margin of victory in Wisconsin of 22,748 votes .
And with Wisconsin voter turnout expected to double from April to more than 3 million in November , a proportionate volume of ballot rejections could be the difference in who wins the swing state and possibly the presidency .
The analysis shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot through the mail , also commonly known as absentee voting .
It also reveals how voters weighed the risk of voting in person during a pandemic with navigating the rules of absentee voting , often for the first time .
For an absentee ballot to count in Wisconsin , a voter and a witness must sign the ballot envelope and include the address of the witness .
Those safeguards — put in place to eliminate mail-in ballot fraud — in fact contributed to the rejection of 13,834 ballots , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Wisconsin ’ s ballot rejections .
They say people in states like Wisconsin that do not have high by-mail voting rates are more prone to make errors .
“ You ’ re asking folks to do something new , ” said Michael McDonald , who studies voter data as a political science professor at the University of Florida .
“ And whenever you try to do something new in the midst of unprecedented demand , you ’ re going to have problems.
” Nationally , more than 300,000 absentee ballots were rejected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission .
That number is likely to grow in November .
This year , election officials and public health experts in most states are encouraging by-mail voting to reduce the spread of the coronavirus .
The anticipated surge will come in an election already expected to have heavy turnout nationwide .
As a result , “ we could easily see a million or more ballots being rejected because of some deficiency of the ballot , ” McDonald said .
Wisconsin is among 29 “ no excuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Columbia , that allow residents to vote absentee for any reason .
Another five states send ballots to all registered voters without requiring a request for one .
Wisconsin was one of the first states to hold an in-person primary as the nation shut down to prevent the spread of the virus .
The state had low vote-by-mail participation rates before this year .
Taken together , the analysis serves as a case study of what may lie ahead for a presidential battleground state overwhelmed by applications and without the experience or systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Georgia and Pennsylvania saw increased by-mail voting in their primaries , as well as problems managing an increase in absentee ballots .
In the 2016 and 2018 Wisconsin general elections , by-mail absentee ballots made up no more than 6 % of all ballots counted .
In April , the portion jumped to more than 60 % , the result of Gov .
Tony Evers ’ stay-at-home order because of the pandemic .

The volume of ballot rejections could make the difference in who wins the swing state and possibly the presidency.
For months, President Donald Trump has alleged without evidence that any expansion of mail-in voting in the 2020 election will lead to “tremendous” fraud and a “rigged” election. Last month, he suggested without evidence that vote by mail might even allow citizens to vote twice, urging North Carolina voters to try voting by mail and in person to test for alleged faults in the system.
But an analysis of voter data from the April primary in the swing state of Wisconsin shows that mail-in voting may pose the opposite risk — rejected ballots. Slightly more than 23,000 ballots were thrown out in the primary, according to an analysis by APM Reports, mostly because those voters or their witnesses missed at least one line on a form.
That figure is nearly equivalent to Trump’s 2016 margin of victory in Wisconsin of 22,748 votes. And with Wisconsin voter turnout expected to double from April to more than 3 million in November, a proportionate volume of ballot rejections could be the difference in who wins the swing state and possibly the presidency.
The analysis shows the difficulty some voters had casting a ballot through the mail, also commonly known as absentee voting. It also reveals how voters weighed the risk of voting in person during a pandemic with navigating the rules of absentee voting, often for the first time.
For an absentee ballot to count in Wisconsin, a voter and a witness must sign the ballot envelope and include the address of the witness. Those safeguards — put in place to eliminate mail-in ballot fraud — in fact contributed to the rejection of 13,834 ballots, according to the analysis.
Election experts are not surprised by Wisconsin’s ballot rejections. They say people in states like Wisconsin that do not have high by-mail voting rates are more prone to make errors.
“You’re asking folks to do something new,” said Michael McDonald, who studies voter data as a political science professor at the University of Florida. “And whenever you try to do something new in the midst of unprecedented demand, you’re going to have problems.”
Nationally, more than 300,000 absentee ballots were rejected in the 2016 presidential election, according to data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. That number is likely to grow in November.
This year, election officials and public health experts in most states are encouraging by-mail voting to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. The anticipated surge will come in an election already expected to have heavy turnout nationwide.
As a result, “we could easily see a million or more ballots being rejected because of some deficiency of the ballot,” McDonald said.
Wisconsin is among 29 “no excuse” states, plus the District of Columbia, that allow residents to vote absentee for any reason. Another five states send ballots to all registered voters without requiring a request for one.
Wisconsin was one of the first states to hold an in-person primary as the nation shut down to prevent the spread of the virus. The state had low vote-by-mail participation rates before this year.
Taken together, the analysis serves as a case study of what may lie ahead for a presidential battleground state overwhelmed by applications and without the experience or systems to cope. Other battleground states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania saw increased by-mail voting in their primaries, as well as problems managing an increase in absentee ballots.
In the 2016 and 2018 Wisconsin general elections, by-mail absentee ballots made up no more than 6% of all ballots counted. In April, the portion jumped to more than 60%, the result of Gov. Tony Evers’ stay-at-home order because of the pandemic.
Wisconsin’s big increase of by-mail voting in April SOURCE: April 7, 2020, Absentee Voting Report, Wisconsin Elections Commission And while state officials stress the percentage of rejected ballots in the April primary is consistent with rejection rates in past elections, it’s little comfort to voters who learned that their ballots were rejected months after they thought their votes were counted. More importantly, while the rate may be similar, raw numbers will make the difference when it comes to winning or losing an election.
Number of rejected absentee ballots rose substantially The rate of rejected absentee ballots is consistent with other Wisconsin elections, around 2 percent. However, the number of rejected ballots reflects the overall increase in absentee voting and is large enough that it could impact the outcome of elections. SOURCE: April 7, 2020, Absentee Voting Report, Wisconsin Elections Commission APM Reports and Wisconsin Watch requested names of voters who had their ballots rejected in the April primary, the 2018 general election and the 2016 primary and general election. In interviews, several voters expressed surprise that their ballots were not counted. “You got the time to send me the thing,” said James Moses of Salem Lakes, who has never been notified despite having ballots rejected in more than one election. “Can’t you give me a reason why it was rejected?” Moses, a self-described conservative, said he voted absentee in April because he had shoulder surgery and could not drive. APM Reports filed an open records request to view his April ballot envelope. It was rejected because his wife, who witnessed Moses fill out the ballot and the certificate envelope, did not list their address on the form. Wisconsin requires the voter and a witness to sign the ballot envelope. It also requires the witness to fill out an address. Nine states require a witness signature to submit an absentee ballot. Another three states require at least two witnesses or a notary agent, according to the nonpartisan Brookings Institution. Voters like Moses risk having their ballot rejected in November over a technicality like a missing witness — and yet they may receive no notification of the error and may be given no opportunity to fix the problem. Moses said the rejections, along with the fact that he was never informed that his votes did not count, made him more distrustful of voting by mail. He said he will vote in person, either through early voting or at the polls, in November. “I think I’m going to make a point of going and doing it in person this time, no matter what it takes,” he said. Shannon Hahn, the clerk who ran the election in Salem Lakes, said she tried to contact voters who did not properly fill out the form. But she could only reach people who provided their phone numbers to the clerk’s office. “We acted like detectives trying to find and get a hold of these people,” Hahn said. “We would have much more rejections if it wasn’t for us contacting people.” Hahn went above and beyond. Wisconsin, along with 35 other states, does not require election officials to contact voters if they find a problem with an absentee ballot. And Wisconsin is considered the most decentralized state for election administration, with 1,850 municipal election officials and 72 county election officials. In April, Hahn and the hundreds of other election officials were managing a heavy volume of absentee ballot requests and ballot submissions due to the stay-at-home order. In Wisconsin, there were political and legal fights over whether the election should be delayed due to the pandemic. The U.S. Postal Service failed to deliver hundreds of ballots in the mail. And competing legal rulings created uncertainty over which guidelines voters and clerks had to follow. For example, a lower court waived the witness signature requirement on absentee ballots, but the ruling was later reversed. The courts also shifted the deadlines for returning absentee ballots. It was chaotic, election officials acknowledge. Today, election officials refer to the primary as the “COVID election,” Hahn said. State election officials have taken steps to ensure a better process for the August primary and the November general election: They have changed the computer system to help municipal clerks process absentee ballot applications. They are putting barcodes on mailings to help voters and officials track their ballots, and they are hoping the courts make early decisions on which rules to follow. “I certainly hope that we can get the rules down straight so everybody knows what they are, so they’re not changing very close to the deadline,” said Reid Magney, a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Elections Commission, which administers and enforces Wisconsin’s elections law. Magney also said the commission mailed out absentee ballot applications in September to every registered voter to help local election officials. Even so, Wisconsin’s election system is run by municipal and county election officials, according to the commission, and some of them juggle election administration with other municipal duties. Despite election experts saying they will be better prepared in November, Democratic attorneys are worried the rules could lead to certain groups of voters seeing their ballots rejected at higher rates than others. For example, some states require a voter’s signature to match what is on file at the election office. That could lead to wrongful rejections, because younger voters may not yet have established a signature, and older voters may have physical problems that cause their signature to deteriorate. Studies have shown that younger voters and voters of color tend to have their ballots rejected at a higher rate than older White voters because older voters tend to cast their ballots earlier. But McDonald, with the University of Florida, said he is not certain that will continue, especially if mail delivery slows in rural communities that traditionally back Republican candidates. “These rejected absentee ballots tend to break toward the Democrats,” McDonald said. “I don’t think anyone knows how these ballots will break for November, because there’s so many different moving parts.” Trump has repeatedly criticized by-mail voting, claiming that “mailed ballots are corrupt,” despite twice voting by mail himself. Republicans are actively trying to prevent any expansion of by-mail voting in several critical swing states, including a challenge to the use of election drop boxes in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Democrats are working to ease vote-by-mail restrictions, arguing for an extension of the ballot deadline in several states and requiring clerks to notify voters if there are mistakes on the ballot.
Most ballots rejected because of missing signature, witness signature or witness address NOTE: Ballots rejected for missing a deadline were mostly due to being postmarked after election day. Other reasons ballots were rejected include a damaged or resealed envelope or the voter including multiple ballots in the same certification envelope. * This chart excludes rejected ballots due to procedural reasons that don’t result in an uncounted vote, such as an initial ballot being rejected after the voter returns a subsequent ballot sent to them by officials that includes all races. It also excludes the small number of ballots rejected because a voter died or was ineligible to vote. SOURCE: Absentee Data File, Wisconsin Elections Commission A typically high voter participation rate, combined with small city staff in an area that is not used to voting by mail, are ingredients for a spike in ballot rejection. Take the city of Cedarburg. It is small — population 11,500 — and sits 23 miles northwest of Milwaukee. It has been a Republican stronghold for the past eight years. Residents take voting seriously — more than 80% of the voting-age population cast ballots in the past two presidential elections, according to state election statistics, more than 13 points higher than the state average. But nearly all those voters cast their ballots in person. That changed with the governor’s stay-at-home order. More than 60% of Cedarburg voters cast absentee ballots in April, compared to 7% in 2018. “We were just inundated,” said Tracie Sette, Cedarburg’s city clerk. “It was all we could do to just keep up with the requests.” The increase also brought a surge in rejected by-mail ballots. In April, Cedarburg had both a relatively high number of rejected ballots (209) and rate of rejected ballots (7%), according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Comparatively, just three ballots were rejected in the 2016 presidential primary and the 2016 and 2018 general elections. And of the ballots rejected in April, all but two were due to a missing voter signature, a missing witness signature or a missing witness address, voter-level records of rejected ballots from the elections commission show. Some people in Cedarburg were left wondering why their ballots were rejected and why they were not notified about the problem. Bob and Jan Capen requested and filled out their absentee ballots for the April primary because they said they were leery of voting in person. Bob Capen, who owns a garage construction business, was working from home to avoid exposure to the virus. Jan, a retired teacher, was also staying close to home. The couple signed their names as witnesses to each other’s ballots and mailed them, the first time they had not voted in person. Neither of their votes counted. Cedarburg election officials marked the Capens’ ballots as “certification insufficient,” the most common reason cited for the rejection of 23,196 absentee ballots in Wisconsin’s April 7 election. Copies of the Capens’ ballot envelopes obtained through a public records request show they both missed the yellow-highlighted line that required their addresses as witnesses. The couple signed their names as witnesses to each other’s ballots and mailed them, the first time they had not voted in person. Neither of their votes counted. Cedarburg election officials marked the Capens’ ballots as “certification insufficient,” the most common reason cited for the rejection of 23,196 absentee ballots in Wisconsin’s April 7 election. Copies of the Capens’ ballot envelopes obtained through a public records request show they both missed the yellow-highlighted line that required their addresses as witnesses. “It’s my fault,” Bob Capen said. “But based on what I’ve learned so far, it’s not an easy process for a lot of people, so I can see how it could get all clustered up.” Diane Coenen, president of the Wisconsin Municipal Clerks Association, says voters can be confused by the process, especially if they are voting absentee for the first time. She said the ballot envelope displays a lot of information and requires attention to detail. And most people do not read it from top to bottom. “Because of that, they may miss something,” Coenen said. “And if they miss something, the ballot will be rejected.” Other Cedarburg ballots suffered the same fate as the Capens. Rykki Casey is a health care worker who voted absentee because she takes care of elderly and hospice patients. “I didn’t want to spread (illness) to them,” she said. Casey was confused about why her vote did not count. Her husband witnessed her ballot, but a copy of the ballot envelope showed that he, too, missed the line for his address. “I feel very sad. I want my voice heard,” she said. Sette, the city clerk, said she tried to contact voters to tell them about the problems with the ballot envelopes in April, but stopped when she and her two colleagues became overwhelmed with managing ballot requests, submitted ballots and voter questions. Today, the goal is the same, despite what Sette calls a “learning curve.” She aims to contact voters once to tell them there is an issue with their ballot envelope in the upcoming November election. “We’re getting probably about 15 to 20 ballots back every day now,” Sette said. “And every single day, there is a little stack that is missing some information.” The Wisconsin Elections Commission prepared a public relations campaign to remind voters how to cast a mail-in ballot. The commission also created digital tools for the November election that may help voters track their ballots in the mail. Local election officials have already mailed 1.1. million absentee ballots to voters, eclipsing the total number of ballots cast through in-person and by-mail voting in the last presidential election, according to the commission. Wisconsin voters have returned 350,000 by-mail ballots through this week. “Our hope is that we will have enough time to be able to communicate with voters,” said Magney of the elections commission, “and for them to be able to communicate back and handle this process.” This story was edited by Dave Mann and Chris Worthington of American Public Media and Esther Kaplan of Reveal.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-16--GOP Is Focused on Sabotaging a Potential Biden Administration Amid a Pandemic

As Donald Trump continues to slide in the polls , losing support among seniors and in battleground states , Senate Republicans remain opposed to even a relatively narrow $ 1.8 trillion stimulus deal the White House wants .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will be bringing an even smaller $ 500 billion stimulus bill to the Senate floor , where it will almost certainly fail .
With so many Republican senators in tight races , one would imagine a stimulus deal would be in their favor .
Their intransigence on a deal makes them look resigned not just to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave where Democrats retake the Senate .
And while they remain divided over their support for a short-term stimulus , both the White House and Senate Republicans are using the levers available to them to blunt any economic recovery during a Joe Biden administration .
The White House is only interested in measures that would impact the election , and nothing after it .
This is evidenced by the expiration dates on two key administrative actions : the suspension on federal student loan payments and the evictions moratorium both end on December 31 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be ringing in 2021 with an eviction , garnishment of their wages to pay a defaulted student loan , or by re-starting student loan payments in the middle of the pandemic .
If Biden wins in November , Trump will have set up a fraught three-week gap before the new administration can act again to stop evictions and student loan payments .
If Trump or Education Secretary Betsy DeVos don ’ t act to extend the student loan suspension into January 2021 or later , low-income borrowers in default are at risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2021 .
That ’ s because many low-income borrowers file their taxes in late January in order to obtain needed funds .
The end to the federal student loan suspension will also mean the student debt collection machine will get turned back on January 1 , 2021 .
Those in default on their student loans will once again face having their wages garnished or their Social Security or earned income tax credit benefits seized .
Those who graduate in the fall will also have a particularly hard time , as they will enter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2008 .
While a Biden administration would likely act to re-suspend student loan payments , the Trump administration is sabotaging the possibility for continuity and creating the potential for real chaos and turmoil by ending the suspension three weeks before Inauguration Day .
The federal evictions moratorium is also set to expire on New Year ’ s Eve 2020 .
In addition to teeing up a flood of evictions in 2021 , should Biden win , the Trump administration is actually already working to undercut its own 2020 actions .
The Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moratorium that allows for eviction proceedings to begin , even though the eviction itself can not be executed until January .
Diane Yentel , president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition , noted that this helps landlords who may want to start eviction proceedings in October , because it allows them to pressure or intimidate renters into leaving sooner .
She points out that many renters fear eviction proceedings or “ can ’ t participate in court proceedings due to accessibility issues , ” and that this new guidance will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The Trump administration appears uninterested in helping renters in the new year , but is also actively sabotaging even the protections they created .
Senate Republicans are going even further than the Trump administration when it comes to setting up traps to imperil the economy should Biden win .
Prior to Trump ’ s latest lobbying spree for another stimulus , McConnell had been long telegraphing his opposition to another economic relief bill .
This is in spite of dire economic warnings .
Census Survey data from the end of August showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 percent of adults reported they either sometimes or often did not have enough to eat in the past week .
In October , 34 percent of small businesses couldn ’ t pay their rent .
And 25.5 million people are unemployed and receiving unemployment insurance .
The $ 1.8 trillion White House economic relief proposal , while far smaller than the $ 3 trillion of the original HEROES Act that passed the House in May , still includes measures that could help millions .
The White House proposal includes another $ 1,200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in supplemental unemployment insurance ( down from the extra $ 600 per week that ended in July ) .
But rank-and-file Senate Republicans are also uninterested in another stimulus .
On a call with the White House on October 10 , they used all manner of concerns as fig leaves for their opposition .
Sen. Marsha Blackburn ( R-Tennessee ) said supporting the deal would be the “ death knell ” of the GOP majority .
Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tennessee ) said “ There ’ s no appetite right now to spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number.
” But it was Sen. Mike Lee ( R-Utah ) who gave the game away , highlighting that a deal could complicate Senate floor timing , interfering with the GOP ’ s ability to fill the Supreme Court vacancy .
Time spent jostling on the stimulus is time not spent on their illegitimate Supreme Court nomination proceedings .
But it also shows their fear of losing the Senate itself .
Republicans , ever focused on consolidating power , would rather ram through their nomination for this Supreme Court seat than try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal , perhaps assuming that a conservative majority on the court will provide a firewall to any Democratic legislation should Republicans lose in the Senate .
Given the opposition from the Republican caucus , McConnell ’ s even narrower economic relief bill is likely just an attempt to appease the White House by going through the motions .
Democrats have long opposed Senate Republican proposals , not simply for failing to go far enough , but also because they ’ ve historically included a liability shield that not only prevents workers from suing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even allows firms to sue their own workers should they try and seek recompense if they get sick .
Meanwhile , the Trump administration is leaving the nation vulnerable to a gap in regulatory action , while the Senate GOP is blocking fiscal action — more stimulus checks and desperately needed supplemental unemployment insurance .
In the end , while the White House wants one last congressional act to try and claim victory over before the election , and the Senate GOP doesn ’ t , they both share the same goal : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic pain for at least three weeks before the new administration and new Senate is sworn in .
It doesn ’ t matter to Republicans that this economic sabotage means thousands of evictions on New Year ’ s Day or defaulted student loan borrowers losing their tax refunds .
Just as Republicans did in 2010 in relation to the Obama agenda , when Rep. John Boehner promised that “ we ’ re going to do everything we can do — to kill it , stop it , slow it down , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypothetical Biden administration , even in the middle of a raging pandemic .

As Donald Trump continues to slide in the polls, losing support among seniors and in battleground states, Senate Republicans remain opposed to even a relatively narrow $1.8 trillion stimulus deal the White House wants. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will be bringing an even smaller $500 billion stimulus bill to the Senate floor, where it will almost certainly fail. With so many Republican senators in tight races, one would imagine a stimulus deal would be in their favor. Their intransigence on a deal makes them look resigned not just to a Trump loss, but to a blue wave where Democrats retake the Senate. And while they remain divided over their support for a short-term stimulus, both the White House and Senate Republicans are using the levers available to them to blunt any economic recovery during a Joe Biden administration.
The White House is only interested in measures that would impact the election, and nothing after it. This is evidenced by the expiration dates on two key administrative actions: the suspension on federal student loan payments and the evictions moratorium both end on December 31, 2020. This means many people will be ringing in 2021 with an eviction, garnishment of their wages to pay a defaulted student loan, or by re-starting student loan payments in the middle of the pandemic. If Biden wins in November, Trump will have set up a fraught three-week gap before the new administration can act again to stop evictions and student loan payments.
If Trump or Education Secretary Betsy DeVos don’t act to extend the student loan suspension into January 2021 or later, low-income borrowers in default are at risk of having their tax refunds seized in 2021. That’s because many low-income borrowers file their taxes in late January in order to obtain needed funds. The end to the federal student loan suspension will also mean the student debt collection machine will get turned back on January 1, 2021. Those in default on their student loans will once again face having their wages garnished or their Social Security or earned income tax credit benefits seized. Those who graduate in the fall will also have a particularly hard time, as they will enter repayment in the worst job market since 2008. While a Biden administration would likely act to re-suspend student loan payments, the Trump administration is sabotaging the possibility for continuity and creating the potential for real chaos and turmoil by ending the suspension three weeks before Inauguration Day.
The federal evictions moratorium is also set to expire on New Year’s Eve 2020. In addition to teeing up a flood of evictions in 2021, should Biden win, the Trump administration is actually already working to undercut its own 2020 actions. The Trump administration just issued new guidance on its eviction moratorium that allows for eviction proceedings to begin, even though the eviction itself cannot be executed until January. Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, noted that this helps landlords who may want to start eviction proceedings in October, because it allows them to pressure or intimidate renters into leaving sooner. She points out that many renters fear eviction proceedings or “can’t participate in court proceedings due to accessibility issues,” and that this new guidance will create “new opportunities for landlord intimidation.” The Trump administration appears uninterested in helping renters in the new year, but is also actively sabotaging even the protections they created.
Senate Republicans are going even further than the Trump administration when it comes to setting up traps to imperil the economy should Biden win. Prior to Trump’s latest lobbying spree for another stimulus, McConnell had been long telegraphing his opposition to another economic relief bill. This is in spite of dire economic warnings. Census Survey data from the end of August showed that in nine states, more than 12 percent of adults reported they either sometimes or often did not have enough to eat in the past week. In October, 34 percent of small businesses couldn’t pay their rent. And 25.5 million people are unemployed and receiving unemployment insurance.
The $1.8 trillion White House economic relief proposal, while far smaller than the $3 trillion of the original HEROES Act that passed the House in May, still includes measures that could help millions. The White House proposal includes another $1,200 stimulus payment and $400 a week in supplemental unemployment insurance (down from the extra $600 per week that ended in July).
Many people will be ringing in 2021 with an eviction, garnishment of their wages to pay a defaulted student loan, or by re-starting student loan payments.
But rank-and-file Senate Republicans are also uninterested in another stimulus. On a call with the White House on October 10, they used all manner of concerns as fig leaves for their opposition. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) said supporting the deal would be the “death knell” of the GOP majority. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) said , “There’s no appetite right now to spend the White House number or the House number.” But it was Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) who gave the game away, highlighting that a deal could complicate Senate floor timing, interfering with the GOP’s ability to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Time spent jostling on the stimulus is time not spent on their illegitimate Supreme Court nomination proceedings. But it also shows their fear of losing the Senate itself. Republicans, ever focused on consolidating power, would rather ram through their nomination for this Supreme Court seat than try to save their Senate majority with a stimulus deal, perhaps assuming that a conservative majority on the court will provide a firewall to any Democratic legislation should Republicans lose in the Senate.
Given the opposition from the Republican caucus, McConnell’s even narrower economic relief bill is likely just an attempt to appease the White House by going through the motions. Democrats have long opposed Senate Republican proposals, not simply for failing to go far enough, but also because they’ve historically included a liability shield that not only prevents workers from suing their employer for coronavirus-related liability, but even allows firms to sue their own workers should they try and seek recompense if they get sick.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is leaving the nation vulnerable to a gap in regulatory action, while the Senate GOP is blocking fiscal action — more stimulus checks and desperately needed supplemental unemployment insurance. In the end, while the White House wants one last congressional act to try and claim victory over before the election, and the Senate GOP doesn’t, they both share the same goal: Ensure a potential Biden administration faces maximum economic pain for at least three weeks before the new administration and new Senate is sworn in. It doesn’t matter to Republicans that this economic sabotage means thousands of evictions on New Year’s Day or defaulted student loan borrowers losing their tax refunds. Just as Republicans did in 2010 in relation to the Obama agenda, when Rep. John Boehner promised that “we’re going to do everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down,” the GOP is already focused on sabotaging a hypothetical Biden administration, even in the middle of a raging pandemic.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-17--Billionaires Now Collectively Hold a Record-Breaking $10 Trillion in Wealth

Billionaire wealth increased to $ 10.2 trillion through the end of July , setting a new record amid the coronavirus pandemic even as millions of unemployed people fall into poverty .
Wealth held by billionaires around the world rose to $ 10.2 trillion in July , up from the previous record of $ 8.9 trillion in 2017 , according to an analysis by Swiss bank UBS and consulting firm PwC .
The number of billionaires also rose from 2,158 in 2017 to 2,189 this summer , according to the report .
Not all billionaires saw their wealth increase , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 50 % .
Health care billionaires , for example , saw their wealth increase by 50 % .
Technology billionaires saw their wealth rise by 42.5 % .
Billionaires in the entertainment , financial services , materials , and real estate sectors saw increases of 10 % or less .
While the UBS analysis looked at billionaires around the world , a separate analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness found that billionaire wealth in the United States has grown by $ 792 billion , or 27 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdowns in March .
The combined wealth of American billionaires now tops $ 3.7 trillion .
Some prominent billionaires have done particularly well .
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has seen his wealth rise more than 60 % during the pandemic to $ 195 billion through late August , according to the analysis .
Tesla CEO Elon Musk saw his wealth more than triple to $ 85 billion over that time frame .
The study pointed to President Donald Trump ’ s 2017 tax cuts , which helped billionaires keep more of their earnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s desired capital gains tax cut , billed as a pandemic-related stimulus , would overwhelmingly favor the richest Americans .
“ For billionaires , this is a heads-we win , tails-you-lose economy , boosted by Trump policies to funnel wealth to the top , ” Chuck Collins , the head of the Institute for Policy Studies ’ Program on Inequality , said in a news release .
“ The pandemic profiteering of America ’ s billionaires shows taxes on the wealthy must go up substantially to narrow the wealth gap and raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from disaster , ” added Frank Clemente , executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness .
“ By demanding even more tax cuts for the rich at this crucial moment President Trump shows he is as out of touch with our nation ’ s needs as America ’ s billionaires are disconnected from our nation ’ s misery.
” Some executives , like Zoom CEO Eric Yuan and Bezos , have profited from a boom in business caused by the lockdowns .
Others have profited directly from government aid distributed to their companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase due to rising investments , buoyed by a stock market surge propped up by government assistance .
The rising wealth amid an economically devastating pandemic threatens to deepen longstanding inequalities .
“ Extreme wealth concentration is an ugly phenomenon from a moral perspective , but it ’ s also economically and socially destructive , ” Luke Hilyard , the executive director of the High Pay Center , a think tank that focuses on excessive executive pay , told The Guardian .
“ Anyone accumulating riches on this scale could easily afford to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generate their wealth , or contribute a great deal more in taxes to support vital public services , while remaining very well rewarded for whatever successes they ’ ve achieved .
The findings from the UBS report showing that the super-rich are getting even richer are a sign that capitalism isn ’ t working as it should.
” UBS executive Josef Stadler also acknowledged that billionaires could face societal backlash over their growing wealth as many people face months if not years of struggles .
“ We ’ re at an inflection point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Wealth concentration is as high as in 1905 , this is something billionaires are concerned about .
The problem is the power of interest on interest – that makes big money bigger and , the question is to what extent is that sustainable and at what point will society intervene and strike back ?
” But it ’ s far from the first time that billionaires profited while millions suffered .
The Institute for Policy Studies found that the wealthiest 400 billionaires in the US not only recovered from the 2008 recession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 80 % over the following decade .
By comparison , the bottom 80 % of earners have still not recovered .
While government intervention has helped billionaires accumulate even more wealth , the lack of government action since the spring has resulted in an estimated 8 million Americans falling into poverty since May , according to a study from researchers at Columbia University .
The lack of additional stimulus payments and the expiration of enhanced federal unemployment benefits has resulted in 6 million Americans falling into poverty over just the last three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers at the University of Chicago and Notre Dame .
The problem has been even worse globally .
Between 88 million and 114 million people around the world have fallen into extreme poverty , defined as living on less than $ 1.90 per day , since the pandemic hit , according to the World Bank .
There are now more than 700 million people living in extreme poverty and researchers expected that number to keep rising .
“ This is the worst setback that we ’ ve witnessed in a generation , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the World Bank ’ s Poverty and Equity Global Practice , told The Wall Street Journal .
World Bank Group President David Malpass argued in a speech this month that the problem is worse in developing economies because “ rich countries ” have the resources to expand sweeping “ government spending programs ” while poorer economies have few tools to mitigate the economic damage .
The US , by contrast , should be doing better if not for Republican reluctance to increased government relief .
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell warned Congress last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing inequality would be highly damaging to the economic recovery .
“ Those are things that hold back our economy , ” he said at a news conference .
“ If we want to have the highest potential output and the best output for our economy , we need that prosperity to be very broadly spread.
” Many analysts have also faulted Powell and the Fed for contributing to the growing inequality with policies “ disproportionately benefiting stockholders , ” according to the Associated Press .
Just as the coronavirus has exposed longstanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans , the growing inequality is largely the result of a “ catastrophic failure to tackle inequality ” well before the pandemic struck , according to a report from Oxfam International .
“ Governments ’ catastrophic failure to tackle inequality meant the majority of the world ’ s countries were critically ill-equipped to weather the pandemic , ” said Oxfam interim executive director Chema Vera .
“ No country on earth was trying hard enough to reduce inequality and ordinary people are bearing the brunt of this crisis as a result .
Millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hunger and there have been countless unnecessary deaths .
”

Among the most important factors contributing to the explosion in billionaire wealth are Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.
Billionaire wealth increased to $10.2 trillion through the end of July, setting a new record amid the coronavirus pandemic even as millions of unemployed people fall into poverty.
Wealth held by billionaires around the world rose to $10.2 trillion in July, up from the previous record of $8.9 trillion in 2017, according to an analysis by Swiss bank UBS and consulting firm PwC.
The number of billionaires also rose from 2,158 in 2017 to 2,189 this summer, according to the report.
Not all billionaires saw their wealth increase, though some saw their wealth rise by close to 50%. Health care billionaires, for example, saw their wealth increase by 50%. Technology billionaires saw their wealth rise by 42.5%. Billionaires in the entertainment, financial services, materials, and real estate sectors saw increases of 10% or less.
While the UBS analysis looked at billionaires around the world, a separate analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness found that billionaire wealth in the United States has grown by $792 billion, or 27%, since the beginning of coronavirus lockdowns in March. The combined wealth of American billionaires now tops $3.7 trillion.
Some prominent billionaires have done particularly well. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has seen his wealth rise more than 60% during the pandemic to $195 billion through late August, according to the analysis. Tesla CEO Elon Musk saw his wealth more than triple to $85 billion over that time frame.
The study pointed to President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which helped billionaires keep more of their earnings. The UBS study noted that Trump’s desired capital gains tax cut, billed as a pandemic-related stimulus, would overwhelmingly favor the richest Americans.
“For billionaires, this is a heads-we win, tails-you-lose economy, boosted by Trump policies to funnel wealth to the top,” Chuck Collins, the head of the Institute for Policy Studies’ Program on Inequality, said in a news release.
“The pandemic profiteering of America’s billionaires shows taxes on the wealthy must go up substantially to narrow the wealth gap and raise revenue vital for our big climb back from disaster,” added Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. “By demanding even more tax cuts for the rich at this crucial moment President Trump shows he is as out of touch with our nation’s needs as America’s billionaires are disconnected from our nation’s misery.”
Some executives, like Zoom CEO Eric Yuan and Bezos, have profited from a boom in business caused by the lockdowns. Others have profited directly from government aid distributed to their companies. But most billionaires saw their wealth increase due to rising investments, buoyed by a stock market surge propped up by government assistance.
The rising wealth amid an economically devastating pandemic threatens to deepen longstanding inequalities.
“Extreme wealth concentration is an ugly phenomenon from a moral perspective, but it’s also economically and socially destructive,” Luke Hilyard, the executive director of the High Pay Center, a think tank that focuses on excessive executive pay, told The Guardian. “Anyone accumulating riches on this scale could easily afford to raise the pay of the employees who generate their wealth, or contribute a great deal more in taxes to support vital public services, while remaining very well rewarded for whatever successes they’ve achieved. The findings from the UBS report showing that the super-rich are getting even richer are a sign that capitalism isn’t working as it should.”
UBS executive Josef Stadler also acknowledged that billionaires could face societal backlash over their growing wealth as many people face months if not years of struggles.
“We’re at an inflection point,” he told the outlet. “Wealth concentration is as high as in 1905, this is something billionaires are concerned about. The problem is the power of interest on interest – that makes big money bigger and, the question is to what extent is that sustainable and at what point will society intervene and strike back?”
But it’s far from the first time that billionaires profited while millions suffered. The Institute for Policy Studies found that the wealthiest 400 billionaires in the US not only recovered from the 2008 recession within three years but increased their wealth by 80% over the following decade. By comparison, the bottom 80% of earners have still not recovered.
While government intervention has helped billionaires accumulate even more wealth, the lack of government action since the spring has resulted in an estimated 8 million Americans falling into poverty since May, according to a study from researchers at Columbia University. The lack of additional stimulus payments and the expiration of enhanced federal unemployment benefits has resulted in 6 million Americans falling into poverty over just the last three months, according to a study from researchers at the University of Chicago and Notre Dame.
The problem has been even worse globally. Between 88 million and 114 million people around the world have fallen into extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.90 per day, since the pandemic hit, according to the World Bank. There are now more than 700 million people living in extreme poverty and researchers expected that number to keep rising.
“This is the worst setback that we’ve witnessed in a generation,” Carolina Sánchez-Páramo, the global director of the World Bank’s Poverty and Equity Global Practice, told The Wall Street Journal.
World Bank Group President David Malpass argued in a speech this month that the problem is worse in developing economies because “rich countries” have the resources to expand sweeping “government spending programs” while poorer economies have few tools to mitigate the economic damage.
The US, by contrast, should be doing better if not for Republican reluctance to increased government relief. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell warned Congress last month that inaction in the face of growing inequality would be highly damaging to the economic recovery.
“Those are things that hold back our economy,” he said at a news conference. “If we want to have the highest potential output and the best output for our economy, we need that prosperity to be very broadly spread.”
Many analysts have also faulted Powell and the Fed for contributing to the growing inequality with policies “disproportionately benefiting stockholders,” according to the Associated Press.
Just as the coronavirus has exposed longstanding health disparities between the richest and poorest Americans, the growing inequality is largely the result of a “catastrophic failure to tackle inequality” well before the pandemic struck, according to a report from Oxfam International.
“Governments’ catastrophic failure to tackle inequality meant the majority of the world’s countries were critically ill-equipped to weather the pandemic,” said Oxfam interim executive director Chema Vera. “No country on earth was trying hard enough to reduce inequality and ordinary people are bearing the brunt of this crisis as a result. Millions of people have been pushed into poverty and hunger and there have been countless unnecessary deaths.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-17--Trump Is Set to Endanger More Lives in Another Superspreader Event in Wisconsin

With the state of Wisconsin considered “ an epicenter of the pandemic in the United States ” and an internal White House memo just days ago putting it in the “ red zone ” for Covid-19 spread , President Donald Trump is being freshly accused of “ callous disregard for the lives and health of others ” in the state by holding a Saturday rally that public health experts warn will likely lead to death and further illness that otherwise could be prevented .
Saturday ’ s rally is taking place even though top public health officials within Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events would kill more people .
As the Guardian reports : Earlier this week , Trump ’ s own White House task force issued a warning to Wisconsin , which is considered to be in the “ red zone ” for high infection rates , saying people should avoid crowds if they want do not want to cause “ preventable deaths.
” The warning was included in a weekly report issued to governors but not made public .
It was reported by the Center for Public Integrity ( CPI ) , an investigative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set to take place in a rural area outside of Janesville , it was reported that attendees would be forced to take shuttle buses — only increasing their exposure to the virus — to get to the event site .
Just days ago , the state was forced to open an emergency field hospital outside Milwaukee due to the surge in cases .
On Wednesday , Julie Willems Van Dijk , Deputy Secretary of Wisconsin Department of Health Services , explained to the Capital Times that the facility was opened because Wisconsin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in crisis ” mode .
“ Many of our ICUs are strained , ” Van Dijk said .
“ And every region of our state has one or more hospitals reporting current and imminent staff shortages.
” Rep. Mark Pocan ( D-Wis. ) , co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus , decried Trump ’ s decision to go through with the rally , calling it a potential “ super-spreader ” event that will cost people their lives .
“ Wisconsin has had over 10,000 COVID cases in three days , ” Pocan tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Why are you still holding a super-spreader rally here ?
” Pocan later tweeted a video detailing Trump ’ s callous disregard and calling on Wisconsites , regardless of political affiliation , to “ stay home ; avoid large gatherings ; wear a mask ” in order to stay healthy and prevent further spread of the virus .
Pocan was hardly alone in characterizing the Wisconsin rally this way .
Kara Purviance , chair of the Rock County Board of Supervisors in Wisconsin , appeared on CNN Friday night and also condemned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold the weekend rally despite record infection rates in the state : Speaking with CPI for its reporting on the White House ’ s internal task force memo , William Hanage , a Harvard epidemiologist said the fact that the Trump campaign is making rally attendees agree to liability waivers in case they later become sick with Covid-19 , “ indicates they know the reality because if they weren ’ t worried about it then they wouldn ’ t bother ” having people sign them .
“ Given the rates of disease currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ we can say pretty categorically this is going to produce opportunity for transmission.
” Wisconsin ’ s Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin on Friday lambasted Trump for coming to the state for a campaign stop even as he has refused her repeated requests for increased medical equipment that have been in short supply for months .
On Friday evening , she tweeted : “ On April 13 , 2020 , I wrote to you on behalf of Wisconsinites calling for the supplies needed to combat the Covid-19 pandemic , ” Baldwin wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House on Friday .
“ In my letter , I urged you to act to deliver this assistance swiftly .
It is now six months later , and Wisconsin is still experiencing supply shortages , which couldn ’ t come at a worse time .
Wisconsin is currently experiencing one of the most serious outbreaks in the nation , and health care providers continue to share concerns about supply shortages .
It is long past time for you to show leadership and take action to support our state with the supplies @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Attendees are reportedly being forced to take shuttle buses for Saturday’s rally amid the state’s major uptick in COVID.
With the state of Wisconsin considered “an epicenter of the pandemic in the United States” and an internal White House memo just days ago putting it in the “red zone” for Covid-19 spread, President Donald Trump is being freshly accused of “callous disregard for the lives and health of others” in the state by holding a Saturday rally that public health experts warn will likely lead to death and further illness that otherwise could be prevented.
Saturday’s rally is taking place even though top public health officials within Trump’s administration warned this week that such events would kill more people. As the Guardian reports:
Earlier this week, Trump’s own White House task force issued a warning to Wisconsin, which is considered to be in the “red zone” for high infection rates, saying people should avoid crowds if they want do not want to cause “preventable deaths.” The warning was included in a weekly report issued to governors but not made public. It was reported by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), an investigative non-profit in Washington.
With the rally set to take place in a rural area outside of Janesville, it was reported that attendees would be forced to take shuttle buses — only increasing their exposure to the virus — to get to the event site.
My god…they are putting anti-maskers on public transportation and shuttling them to their deaths. Unreal. https://t.co/1nMn1AV6BI — Maureen Mead (@themeadyo) October 17, 2020
Just days ago, the state was forced to open an emergency field hospital outside Milwaukee due to the surge in cases. On Wednesday, Julie Willems Van Dijk, Deputy Secretary of Wisconsin Department of Health Services, explained to the Capital Times that the facility was opened because Wisconsin’s overall health care system was “in crisis” mode. “Many of our ICUs are strained,” Van Dijk said. “And every region of our state has one or more hospitals reporting current and imminent staff shortages.”
More records we did not want to break. 3,861 confirmed #COVID19_WI cases reported since yesterday. And for the first time, the 7-day average of new confirmed cases tops 3,000. Let's work together to protect everyone in Wisconsin and #StopTheSpread: https://t.co/azIna3TqRR pic.twitter.com/PNIiEJ7NCz — WIDeptHealthServices (@DHSWI) October 16, 2020
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, decried Trump’s decision to go through with the rally, calling it a potential “super-spreader” event that will cost people their lives.
“Wisconsin has had over 10,000 COVID cases in three days,” Pocan tweeted Friday night, and asked Trump: “Why are you still holding a super-spreader rally here?”
Pocan later tweeted a video detailing Trump’s callous disregard and calling on Wisconsites, regardless of political affiliation, to “stay home; avoid large gatherings; wear a mask” in order to stay healthy and prevent further spread of the virus.
Donald Trump, keep your superspreader rally out of Wisconsin. pic.twitter.com/ac64VbuQbS — Rep. Mark Pocan (@repmarkpocan) October 16, 2020
Pocan was hardly alone in characterizing the Wisconsin rally this way. Kara Purviance, chair of the Rock County Board of Supervisors in Wisconsin, appeared on CNN Friday night and also condemned the president’s dangerous decision to hold the weekend rally despite record infection rates in the state:
“We have seen a record number of positive cases at this time.” Rock County Board Chairwoman Kara Purviance says she’s concerned that President Trump’s upcoming rally in Wisconsin “will be a superspreader event.” https://t.co/L8l2faNO9m pic.twitter.com/YAKWMBzlDo — CNN (@CNN) October 17, 2020
Speaking with CPI for its reporting on the White House’s internal task force memo, William Hanage, a Harvard epidemiologist said the fact that the Trump campaign is making rally attendees agree to liability waivers in case they later become sick with Covid-19, “indicates they know the reality because if they weren’t worried about it then they wouldn’t bother” having people sign them.
“Given the rates of disease currently in Wisconsin,” Hanage told CPI, “we can say pretty categorically this is going to produce opportunity for transmission.”
Wisconsin’s Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin on Friday lambasted Trump for coming to the state for a campaign stop even as he has refused her repeated requests for increased medical equipment that have been in short supply for months. On Friday evening, she tweeted:
Today, Wisconsin broke another record for new coronavirus cases. The third time this week, and Trump comes to our state tomorrow. We cannot afford more empty promises and a failure to deliver the medical supplies we need to #StopTheSpread.https://t.co/vPbCqAqdPB — Sen. Tammy Baldwin (@SenatorBaldwin) October 16, 2020
“On April 13, 2020, I wrote to you on behalf of Wisconsinites calling for the supplies needed to combat the Covid-19 pandemic,” Baldwin wrote to Trump in a letter sent to the White House on Friday. “In my letter, I urged you to act to deliver this assistance swiftly. It is now six months later, and Wisconsin is still experiencing supply shortages, which couldn’t come at a worse time. Wisconsin is currently experiencing one of the most serious outbreaks in the nation, and health care providers continue to share concerns about supply shortages. It is long past time for you to show leadership and take action to support our state with the supplies that we need and deserve.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-17--12 States Have Racist Laws Denying Cash Aid to Families Having Another Child

New Jersey passed the country ’ s first “ family cap ” law of recent decades in 1992 .
The state halted the policy in its 2019 and 2020 budgets , but it remained on the books until Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation in late September to repeal it permanently .
National and state lawmakers began pushing for family caps in the early 1990s , and House Republicans included the concept in their 1994 Contract With America .
Eventually , 22 states passed family cap laws .
While presented as a way to discourage births to unmarried mothers , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other women of color as lazy , irresponsible individuals who have more children to collect additional benefits .
In fact , family cap policies extended a legacy of reproductive control and punishment of Black women in cash assistance programs .
Many states sought to restrict access to Aid to Families with Dependent Children ( AFDC ) , TANF ’ s predecessor , for women who had a child outside of marriage or lived with a man who was not their husband .
The most punitive of these “ suitable home ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were in the South , where most Black people lived , and they often targeted Black families .
The head of Georgia ’ s Department of Public Welfare , for example , said in 1951 that the state ’ s proposal to limit cash aid to unmarried mothers who had a child while on the program would save money “ mainly by limiting aid to children of unwed Negro mothers.
” ( Georgia backed off this proposal due to federal opposition but enacted another law in 1952 that denied aid to unwed mothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state adopted a family cap in 1993 . )
And of the more than 6,000 families kicked off Louisiana ’ s program under a 1960 “ suitable home ” law , 95 percent were Black .
Some states sought even more drastic measures to control Black women ’ s reproductive decisions , such as criminal punishment or sterilization for women receiving or seeking AFDC who had “ illegitimate ” children .
More recently , at least two states found that their family cap policies ( since repealed ) were likelier to affect families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Social Services found that families of color made up more than three-quarters of affected cases , while Minnesota ’ s Department of Human Services found that families of color made up 70 percent of those affected .
Family caps also are just bad policy .
They are based on the faulty assumption that mothers of any race decide to have a child based on receiving public assistance ; research indicates they have no effect on birth rates among cash assistance families .
Moreover , family cap laws deny critical assistance to families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefits — which are at or below 60 percent of the poverty line in every state — to cover the significant expenses for an infant .
New Jersey ’ s just-repealed law denied AFDC and then TANF assistance to 20,000 babies .
Nationwide , family cap policies have blocked aid to hundreds of thousands of children .
Providing more resources to low-income families with young children can have a critical impact on children ’ s development and future well-being , as National Academy of Sciences findings show .
Since the early 2000s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies , including Virginia , which repealed its law this year .
But these policies are still on the books in 12 other states , many of which provide the lowest cash assistance benefits , serve the fewest families in need , and historically limited women of color ’ s access to the program .
During the 2021 state legislative sessions , those 12 states should repeal their family cap laws and close this dark chapter in TANF ’ s history for good .

New Jersey passed the country’s first “family cap” law of recent decades in 1992. The state halted the policy in its 2019 and 2020 budgets, but it remained on the books until Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation in late September to repeal it permanently.
National and state lawmakers began pushing for family caps in the early 1990s, and House Republicans included the concept in their 1994 Contract With America. Eventually, 22 states passed family cap laws. While presented as a way to discourage births to unmarried mothers, they are rooted in stereotypes of Black women and other women of color as lazy, irresponsible individuals who have more children to collect additional benefits.
In fact, family cap policies extended a legacy of reproductive control and punishment of Black women in cash assistance programs. Many states sought to restrict access to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), TANF’s predecessor, for women who had a child outside of marriage or lived with a man who was not their husband.
The most punitive of these “suitable home” or “man in the house” policies were in the South, where most Black people lived, and they often targeted Black families. The head of Georgia’s Department of Public Welfare, for example, said in 1951 that the state’s proposal to limit cash aid to unmarried mothers who had a child while on the program would save money “mainly by limiting aid to children of unwed Negro mothers.” (Georgia backed off this proposal due to federal opposition but enacted another law in 1952 that denied aid to unwed mothers while getting around federal rules. The state adopted a family cap in 1993.) And of the more than 6,000 families kicked off Louisiana’s program under a 1960 “suitable home” law, 95 percent were Black.
Some states sought even more drastic measures to control Black women’s reproductive decisions, such as criminal punishment or sterilization for women receiving or seeking AFDC who had “illegitimate” children.
More recently, at least two states found that their family cap policies (since repealed) were likelier to affect families of color. California’s Department of Social Services found that families of color made up more than three-quarters of affected cases, while Minnesota’s Department of Human Services found that families of color made up 70 percent of those affected.
Family caps also are just bad policy. They are based on the faulty assumption that mothers of any race decide to have a child based on receiving public assistance; research indicates they have no effect on birth rates among cash assistance families.
Moreover, family cap laws deny critical assistance to families who already have to stretch meager TANF benefits — which are at or below 60 percent of the poverty line in every state — to cover the significant expenses for an infant. New Jersey’s just-repealed law denied AFDC and then TANF assistance to 20,000 babies. Nationwide, family cap policies have blocked aid to hundreds of thousands of children. Providing more resources to low-income families with young children can have a critical impact on children’s development and future well-being, as National Academy of Sciences findings show.
Since the early 2000s, several states have repealed their family cap policies, including Virginia, which repealed its law this year. But these policies are still on the books in 12 other states, many of which provide the lowest cash assistance benefits, serve the fewest families in need, and historically limited women of color’s access to the program. During the 2021 state legislative sessions, those 12 states should repeal their family cap laws and close this dark chapter in TANF’s history for good.
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.