thenation--2020-05-29--It’s Time to Cancel the Rent

It’s Time to Cancel the Rent

How can you stay home if you can ’ t make rent ?
Already , nearly a third of the United States ’ 44 million renter households couldn ’ t pay their rent in April .
Even after the federal government distributed its one-time stimulus checks , 20 percent still hadn ’ t paid by the first week of May .
The maximum payout of $ 1,200 isn ’ t enough to cover the median rent for a two-bedroom anywhere in the country , or a one-bedroom in the 30 most expensive US cities .
The Federal Housing Administration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts , and even police departments have woven a patchwork of eviction moratoriums across the country , intended to prevent renters from losing their homes until shelter-in-place orders lift .
But as evictions restart in cities such as Houston , it ’ s clear that temporary bans on evictions don ’ t protect tenants , because no city or state has canceled rent .
When the bans expire—as they will in Kansas City , Missouri , and Florida next week—all back rent comes due .
Millions of tenants are continuing to lose their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can only stall the coming eviction tide .
So far , no level of government in the United States has passed legislation that will protect tenants long-term .
No lawmakers ’ actions or proposals will accomplish what tenants across the country actually need : to make rent disappear .
Congress Democrats have introduced two separate bills that each claim to address the depth of tenants ’ need .
One , the Emergency Rental Assistance and Rental Market Stabilization Act , introduced by Washington Representative Denny Heck , offers $ 100 billion in rental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and municipalities—who will then dole it out to tenants who can demonstrate need .
The other , the Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act , introduced by Representative Ilhan Omar , would cancel both rents and mortgages for the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic .
Landlords would be able to apply to a special HUD program to recoup the total amount their tenants owed .
There ’ s one point on which both proposals agree : Despite the pandemic , which has shuttered businesses and severed millions from their jobs , rent is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tab .
Both proposals offer rent relief , not rent cancellation .
Some cities and states launched their own rent relief programs in March and April .
Chicago ’ s Housing Department offered one-time , $ 1,000 grants for tenants to use to pay rent .
Eighty-three thousand households applied ; only 2,000 saw a dime .
In Santa Clara , Ca.
, a $ 11 million assistance fund dried up in just three days .
Washington state ’ s assistance fund will help 5,000 families ; there are 360,00 renter households @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given tenants 12 months to pay back rent once its state of emergency ends .
When that time is up , tenants will be asked to draw on nonexistent savings and income from permanently lost jobs .
In May , the City offered preloaded debit cards with up to $ 1,500 to residents who could prove their low-income status and lost work .
Of the more than 185,000 people who applied , only 15,000 received aid .
The city also announced an Emergency Renters Assistance Fund , with a proposed budget of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cover LA ’ s estimated 365,000 renter households that are now in urgent need .
These examples demonstrate the flaws of a market-based approach .
Rent-relief funds are not entitlements : As funds ’ budgets are drained , even tenants who qualify can ’ t count on receiving aid , turning public assistance into a lottery .
These city- and state-run programs are also means-tested , which tends to exclude the undocumented and those working in the informal economy .
And all of these funds put the burden on tenants to apply—turning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends up in landlords ’ pockets .
Existing relief programs don ’ t even prioritize the “ mom-and-pop ” landlord , that paragon who , increasingly , does not exist outside of housing policy .
Rent-relief funds will largely benefit America ’ s corporate and Wall Street landlords , who are notorious for poor housing conditions and monopoly rents .
Relief funds subsidize landlords ’ profits while leaving rent prices intact , eliminating the possibility of collective bargaining on tenants ’ behalf .
In this way , rent relief or rent assistance is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Section 8 program .
A framework championed in 1973 by President Nixon , these federally funded housing vouchers are notorious for decade-long wait lists , redlining , and chronic lack of funds : For every five households that qualify , just one will receive any aid .
Like Section 8 , rent relief provides public subsidies for private profit .
Is it any wonder that rent relief is supported by the National Association of Realtors , consistently a top-three spender among national lobbying groups ?
There are parts of Omar ’ s bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small rather than corporate landlords .
It makes landlords , not tenants , apply for the funding , since it ’ s landlords , not tenants , who will ultimately receive the money .
It directs unlimited money to municipalities to cover all costs .
And it attaches regulatory strings , including a five-year rent freeze and restrictions on evictions .
Yet neither Omar ’ s nor Heck ’ s proposal actually suspends or reduces rent .
Rather , while every other economic sector grinds to a halt , both would guarantee passive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and racialized , inequalities .
Tenants don ’ t need a bailout .
They need jubilee .
As renters across the country go on both organized and de facto rent strike , they lay claim ( if temporarily ) to housing as a human right—to shelter , no matter their ability to pay for it .
Rent strikes prefigure a system where the speculative housing market can no longer wreak havoc on people ’ s lives .
A recent report from Harvard ’ s Joint Center for Housing Studies warned that at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States spend over 50 percent of their income on rent .
According to 2018 data from Economic Roundtable , almost 600,000 Los Angeles residents spent 90 percent of what they earned keeping a roof over their heads .
Canceling rent is a call not for charity but for justice .
As unemployment soars , the stock market celebrates .
The violators of our human right to housing—the developers and landlords who have financialized cities into landscapes of homelessness and luxury blight—should be made to pay .
We could call back the billions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to real estate developers and real estate investment trusts .
We could levy a real estate billionaire ’ s tax .
We could postpone current mortgage payments to the end of their terms and cancel rent now , allowing many years of future profit to make up landlords ’ missed costs .
Multiple polls have found rent cancellation during the pandemic to have bipartisan support .
Still , it ’ s doubtful politicians will follow through ; tenant suffering has done little to sway lawmakers in years past .
That ’ s why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this change .
Rent relief won ’ t lead to more rights , and it won ’ t happen on our terms .
But cancellation would rewrite the script of power relations , and it could happen building by building , through collective work—and organized rent strikes .
Mass rent strikes can both make the movement visible to politicians and be used as a collective bargaining tool .
The LA Tenants Union—which I helped start—has a history of successful rent strikes and eviction blockades .
This week , a tenant who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of her apartment : Her landlord changed her locks , turned off her power , and threw her belongings onto the street .
A rapid mobilization by LATU members ensured that she could return to her apartment and quarantine in peace .
In 2018 , after a year-long rent strike bolstered by direct action and community support , an LATU Tenants Association won a collective bargaining agreement for their building in Boyle Heights .
These tenants were able to roll back legal rent increases , push their landlord to guarantee needed repairs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withheld during the strike .
It shouldn ’ t take a pandemic to make this clear : We must prioritize the use of housing as homes over its value as an investment , and put basic needs before profit motives .
While legislative action stalls , we turn to what we can do ourselves .
Tenant organizing can politicize and leverage the nonpayment of rent—alchemizing shared vulnerability into shared power .

How can you stay home if you can’t make rent?
Already, nearly a third of the United States’ 44 million renter households couldn’t pay their rent in April. Even after the federal government distributed its one-time stimulus checks, 20 percent still hadn’t paid by the first week of May. The maximum payout of $1,200 isn’t enough to cover the median rent for a two-bedroom anywhere in the country, or a one-bedroom in the 30 most expensive US cities.
The Federal Housing Administration, as well as cities, states, courts, and even police departments have woven a patchwork of eviction moratoriums across the country, intended to prevent renters from losing their homes until shelter-in-place orders lift.
But as evictions restart in cities such as Houston, it’s clear that temporary bans on evictions don’t protect tenants, because no city or state has canceled rent. When the bans expire—as they will in Kansas City, Missouri, and Florida next week—all back rent comes due. Millions of tenants are continuing to lose their jobs and accumulate debt. These bans can only stall the coming eviction tide. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Related Article Los Angeles’s ‘Eviction Ban’ Doesn’t Protect Tenants Jacob Woocher
So far, no level of government in the United States has passed legislation that will protect tenants long-term. No lawmakers’ actions or proposals will accomplish what tenants across the country actually need: to make rent disappear.
Congress Democrats have introduced two separate bills that each claim to address the depth of tenants’ need. One, the Emergency Rental Assistance and Rental Market Stabilization Act, introduced by Washington Representative Denny Heck, offers $100 billion in rental assistance, to be granted to states and municipalities—who will then dole it out to tenants who can demonstrate need. The other, the Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act, introduced by Representative Ilhan Omar, would cancel both rents and mortgages for the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic. Landlords would be able to apply to a special HUD program to recoup the total amount their tenants owed.
There’s one point on which both proposals agree: Despite the pandemic, which has shuttered businesses and severed millions from their jobs, rent is still owed. And someone—the government—should pick up the tab. Both proposals offer rent relief, not rent cancellation. Current Issue View our current issue
Some cities and states launched their own rent relief programs in March and April. Chicago’s Housing Department offered one-time, $1,000 grants for tenants to use to pay rent. Eighty-three thousand households applied; only 2,000 saw a dime. In Santa Clara, Ca., a $11 million assistance fund dried up in just three days. Washington state’s assistance fund will help 5,000 families; there are 360,00 renter households in Seattle alone.
Los Angeles has given tenants 12 months to pay back rent once its state of emergency ends. When that time is up, tenants will be asked to draw on nonexistent savings and income from permanently lost jobs. In May, the City offered preloaded debit cards with up to $1,500 to residents who could prove their low-income status and lost work. Of the more than 185,000 people who applied, only 15,000 received aid. The city also announced an Emergency Renters Assistance Fund, with a proposed budget of a $100 million. That would need to cover LA’s estimated 365,000 renter households that are now in urgent need.
These examples demonstrate the flaws of a market-based approach. Rent-relief funds are not entitlements: As funds’ budgets are drained, even tenants who qualify can’t count on receiving aid, turning public assistance into a lottery. These city- and state-run programs are also means-tested, which tends to exclude the undocumented and those working in the informal economy. And all of these funds put the burden on tenants to apply—turning tenants into pass-throughs, for money that ends up in landlords’ pockets.
Existing relief programs don’t even prioritize the “mom-and-pop” landlord, that paragon of housing policy who, increasingly, does not exist. Rent-relief funds will largely benefit America’s corporate and Wall Street landlords, who are notorious for poor housing conditions and monopoly rents.
Relief funds subsidize landlords’ profits while leaving rent prices intact, eliminating the possibility of collective bargaining on tenants’ behalf. In this way, rent relief or rent assistance is a pandemic response modeled on the failing Section 8 program. A framework championed in 1973 by President Nixon, these federally funded housing vouchers are notorious for decade-long wait lists, redlining, and chronic lack of funds: For every five households that qualify, just one will receive any aid. Like Section 8, rent relief provides public subsidies for private profit. Is it any wonder that rent relief is supported by the National Association of Realtors, consistently a top-three spender among national lobbying groups?
There are parts of Omar’s bill that we should praise: It prioritizes small rather than corporate landlords. It makes landlords, not tenants, apply for the funding, since it’s landlords, not tenants, who will ultimately receive the money. It directs unlimited money to municipalities to cover all costs. And it attaches regulatory strings, including a five-year rent freeze and restrictions on evictions.
Yet neither Omar’s nor Heck’s proposal actually suspends or reduces rent. Rather, while every other economic sector grinds to a halt, both would guarantee passive income on real-estate investments, cementing long-standing racist inequalities.
Tenants don’t need a bailout. They need jubilee. As renters across the country go on both organized and de facto rent strike, they lay claim (if temporarily) to housing as a human right—to shelter, no matter their ability to pay for it. Rent strikes prefigure a system where the speculative housing market can no longer wreak havoc on people’s lives.
A recent report from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies warned that at least 10 million people in the United States spend over 50 percent of their income on rent. According to 2018 data from Economic Roundtable, almost 600,000 Los Angeles residents spent 90 percent of what they earned keeping a roof over their heads. Related Article Seattle Destroyed Homeless Encampments as the Pandemic Raged Dae Shik Kim Jr. and Guy Oron
Canceling rent is a call not for charity but for justice. As unemployment soars, the stock market celebrates. The violators of our human right to housing—the developers and landlords who have financialized cities into landscapes of homelessness and luxury blight—should be made to pay.
We could call back the billions in loophole tax breaks the CARES Act offered to real estate developers and real estate investment trusts. We could levy a real estate billionaire’s tax. We could postpone current mortgage payments to the end of their terms and cancel rent now, allowing many years of future profit to make up landlords’ missed costs.
Multiple polls have found rent cancellation during the pandemic to have bipartisan support. Still, it’s doubtful politicians will follow through; tenant suffering has done little to sway lawmakers in years past. That’s why tenants must view themselves as the agents of this change. Rent relief won’t lead to more rights, and it won’t happen on our terms. But cancellation would rewrite the script of power relations, and it could happen building by building, through collective work—and organized rent strikes.
Mass rent strikes can both make the movement visible to politicians and be used as a collective bargaining tool. The LA Tenants Union—which I helped start—has a history of successful rent strikes and eviction blockades. This week, a tenant who had just been diagnosed with Covid-19 was kicked out of her apartment: Her landlord changed her locks, turned off her power, and threw her belongings onto the street. A rapid mobilization by LATU members ensured that she could return to her apartment and quarantine in peace. In 2018, after a year-long rent strike bolstered by direct action and community support, an LATU Tenants Association won a collective bargaining agreement for their building in Boyle Heights. These tenants were able to roll back legal rent increases, push their landlord to guarantee needed repairs, and keep the rent they had withheld during the strike.
It shouldn’t take a pandemic to make this clear: We must prioritize the use of housing as homes over its value as an investment, and put basic needs before profit motives. While legislative action stalls, we turn to what we can do ourselves. Tenant organizing can politicize and leverage the nonpayment of rent—alchemizing shared vulnerability into shared power.


thenation--2020-05-29--Trump’s Twitter Tirade Is the Tantrum of a Troll

The Signal : More than 40 million Americans have now filed for unemployment since the pandemic took hold .
With roughly one-quarter of the work force officially unemployed and millions more , in the informal and gig economies , having seen their work also evaporate , America is facing an economic crisis unlike any since the Great Depression .
All this economic pain—a predictable side effect of shutting down the economy so as to slow the spread of Covid-19—was supposed to buy enough time for the federal government to mount an effective response to the pandemic .
But under this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t happened .
There is still no national strategy for testing , for contact tracing , or for recreating and reimagining the parts of the economy that , for the foreseeable future at least , will have to operate in dramatically different ways from how they did pre-pandemic .
There is still no plan to prevent successive waves of this awful disease from sweeping the country over the years to come .
As the deaths have mounted , passing 100,000 this week , Trump—almost certainly the least empathetic leader in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be nothing more than a one-man Noise machine , a vuvuzela of vituperation .
He spends his days not governing but rather tweeting out conspiracy theories , insults , threats .
What must the rest of the world think as they watch the president of the United States peddle nonsense in lieu of crafting policies intended to benefit the public ?
This week Twitter finally did what it should have been doing for the past four years : It slapped a fact-check warning on one of Trump ’ s idiotic tweets about mail-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s thin-skinned , autocratic response ?
His team immediately readied an executive order for him to sign that will , if it withstands the inevitable barrage of lawsuits , make it easier for the Federal Communications Commission and other government agencies to go after social media sites for alleged political bias in how they operate .
Trump ’ s Gutter Politics Just Keep Getting Nastier Here ’ s What We ’ re Doing With Your Check , Donald Now , don ’ t get me wrong : It ’ s hard to argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than profit-at-all-cost machines .
They have become sites where conspiracy theories and disinformation systematically crowd out real news , where those who shout the loudest get the most attention , the haunts of trolls and threat-makers and virtual mobs .
There ’ s certainly a rationale for arguing that Congress should study the problem and enact careful reforms , perhaps via antitrust legislation , to corral the power of the handful of huge social media companies that shape so many people ’ s understanding of reality .
But that ’ s very different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rushed end-run , yet again , around the legislative authority of Congress , with a vindictive executive order cloaked in hypocritical homilies on a freedom of speech that he himself has never respected .
His move is intended not to deal with a problem but to take revenge for a perceived personal slight .
Trump doesn ’ t give a fig about fairness .
He is at center stage among the trolls and conspiracy-mongers who have made social media such an unpleasant space .
He has played the medium like a maestro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and damaging our understanding of the truth .
He has used his Twitter platform to label the media “ the enemy of the people ” and whip up crowds to commit acts of violence against journalists they perceive as hostile to Trump ’ s agenda .
Trump is preparing to unleash the power of the federal government against social media sites not because he wants a vibrant arena for intellectual and philosophical discourse but because he wants a servile media—one where , as in the former Soviet Union and in China today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This isn ’ t the mark of a man confident of his reelection prospects .
It ’ s the action of a temperamentally dictatorial politician watching events spiral beyond his control , a Hail Mary by a corrupt and incompetent man increasingly desperate about his chances in November amid a public health and economic calamity .
That ’ s the Signal .
Stay healthy , stay righteously angry , and above all stay focused on the big issues .
It ’ s becoming clearer by the day that everything is now on @ @ @

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
The Signal: More than 40 million Americans have filed for unemployment since the pandemic took hold. With roughly one-quarter of the workforce officially unemployed and millions more in the informal and gig economies also having seen their work evaporate, America is facing an economic crisis unlike any other since the Great Depression.
All this economic pain—a predictable side effect of shutting down the economy to slow the spread of Covid-19—was supposed to buy enough time for the federal government to mount an effective response to the pandemic. But under this feckless, cultist federal government, that hasn’t happened. There is still no national strategy for testing, for contact tracing, or for re-creating and reimagining the parts of the economy that, for the foreseeable future at least, will have to operate in dramatically different ways from how they did prepandemic. There is still no plan to prevent successive waves of this awful disease from sweeping the country over the years to come.
As the deaths have mounted, passing 100,000 this week, Trump—almost certainly the least empathetic leader in American history—has time and again shown himself to be nothing more than a one-man Noise machine, a vuvuzela of vituperation. He spends his days not governing but rather tweeting conspiracy theories, insults, threats. What must the rest of the world think as they watch the president of the United States peddle nonsense in lieu of crafting policies intended to benefit the public?
This week Twitter finally did what it should have been doing for the past four years: It slapped a fact-check warning on one of Trump’s idiotic tweets, about mail-in voting and ballot fraud. Trump’s thin-skinned, autocratic response? His team immediately readied an executive order for him to sign that will, if it withstands the inevitable barrage of lawsuits, make it easier for the Federal Communications Commission and other government agencies to go after social media sites for alleged political bias in how they operate. More Signal:Noise Trump’s Gutter Politics Just Keep Getting Nastier Sasha Abramsky Here’s What We’re Doing With Your Check, Donald Sasha Abramsky
Now, don’t get me wrong: It’s hard to argue that social media platforms are anything other than profit-at-all-cost machines. They have become sites where conspiracy theories and disinformation systematically crowd out real news, where those who shout the loudest get the most attention, the haunts of trolls and threat-makers and virtual mobs. There’s certainly a rationale for arguing that Congress should study the problem and enact careful reforms, perhaps via antitrust legislation, to corral the power of the handful of huge social media companies that shape so many people’s understanding of reality.
But that’s very different from what Trump is proposing: a rushed end-run, yet again, around the legislative authority of Congress, with a vindictive executive order cloaked in hypocritical homilies on freedom of speech that he himself has never respected. His move is intended not to deal with a problem but to take revenge for a perceived personal slight.
Trump doesn’t give a fig about fairness. He is at center stage among the trolls and conspiracymongers who have made social media such an unpleasant space. He has played the medium like a maestro, manipulating his base, sowing discord, and damaging our understanding of the truth. He has used his Twitter platform to label the media “the enemy of the people” and whip up crowds to commit acts of violence against journalists they perceive as hostile to Trump’s agenda. Current Issue View our current issue
Trump is preparing to unleash the power of the federal government against social media sites not because he wants a vibrant arena for intellectual and philosophical discourse but because he wants a servile media—one in which, as in the former Soviet Union and in China today, only the official view gets heard.
This isn’t the mark of a man confident of his reelection prospects. It’s the action of a temperamentally dictatorial politician watching events spiral beyond his control, a Hail Mary by a corrupt and incompetent man increasingly desperate about his chances in November amid a public health and economic calamity.
That’s the Signal. Stay healthy, stay righteously angry, and above all, stay focused on the big issues. It’s becoming clearer by the day that everything is now on the line.


thenation--2020-05-29--Trump’s Social Media Executive Order Shows Just How Low He’ll Go to Win

Donald Trump claims that fact-checking is an assault on free speech .
He is—it should go without saying—wrong .
Indeed , the whole point of writing the First Amendment was to establish the right of the people and the media to object to claims by presidents and other powerful officials—especially when those claims are lies .
Unfortunately , Trump needs his lies .
Desperately .
The president understands that at a point when his approval ratings are collapsing because of a jarringly awful response to the coronavirus pandemic and mass unemployment , only a campaign based on false premises and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2020 presidential race .
So this president is ready to use the power of his position to attack the basic underpinnings of the First Amendment .
Furious that Twitter attached a clarifying link to a false tweet he sent about mail-in voting , Trump on Wednesday tweeted , “ Big Tech is doing everything in their very considerable power to CENSOR in advance of the 2020 Election .
If that happens , we no longer have our freedom .
I will never let it happen !
They tried hard in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going absolutely CRAZY .
Stay Tuned !
!
!
” On Thursday , in what The Hill described as “ a marked escalation of his lengthy feud with Silicon Valley over allegations of anti-conservative bias , ” Trump signed an executive order that seeks to increase the authority of the government to regulate social media platforms .
Trump ’ s order would strip liability protection from companies that give a platform to controversial content , have Attorney General William Barr work with states to develop regulations , and ensure that government funding does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppress ” speech that the administration favors .
Anti-War Groups Push Biden and the Democrats to Rethink Foreign Policy Scott Walker Is Peddling the Deadly Snake Oil of Austerity ‘ America Needs a Coronavirus Cure , Not More War ’ Trump declared , “ We ’ re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers.
” Trump ’ s statement twisted the truth to the breaking point—as he acknowledged even as he signed the order , saying , “ I guess it ’ s going to be challenged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the First Amendment .
He is proposing a fiercely unconstitutional reinterpretation of it that serves his political interests .
“ Much as he might wish otherwise , Donald Trump is not the president of Twitter , ” declared the American Civil Liberties Union as a draft of the president ’ s order circulated early Thursday .
“ This order , if issued , would be a blatant and unconstitutional threat to punish social media companies.
” That ’ s true .
But this is about more than Trump ’ s feud with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe reminds us , “ The unconstitutional character of his threats doesn ’ t prevent them from undermining everyone ’ s liberties.
” Trump is playing politics .
He knows he has to discredit even mild assertions of the facts because , as he prepares for a difficult reelection race , he has nothing but lies to offer the American people .
So he is not merely attacking fact-checking but trying to revoke the right to speak truth to power .
The specifics of what Trump proposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Free Press reviewed the draft of the president ’ s order and labeled it an “ unconstitutional attempt to silence critics and fact checkers.
” Of deepest concern were plans to : • require the Federal Communications Commission to craft a rule that would potentially exempt social-media companies from protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , a federal law that shields companies from legal liability for the material their users post online .
• call on the White House Office of Digital Strategy to “ reactivate ” a tool through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ online censorship and other potentially unfair or deceptive acts or practices by online platforms.
” The tool would collect complaints of online censorship and submit them to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission for potential follow-up .
• prohibit all federal agencies and offices from spending government money on advertising with platforms that allegedly “ violate free speech principles.
” Free Press senior policy counsel Gaurav Laroia argued on Thursday that the draft order represents “ a naked attempt by the president to bully into silence Twitter , other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct or criticize Trump .
This blatant and bungling attempt at censorship is outrageous and unconstitutional.
” It is also a political strategy .
Trump has a base of core supporters who are likely to embrace whatever he says , no matter how outrageous it may be .
But that base is insufficient to reelect him .
To get the votes he needs , he has to be able to convince a wider portion of the electorate that factual reports of his wrongdoing and incompetence are part of a media conspiracy to dislodge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why the president keeps claiming that media outlets and individual journalists are “ enemies of the people.
” And that ’ s why he and his campaign are now going after Twitter and other social media platforms .
When Twitter finally got around to some mild fact-checking of Trump , the president ’ s campaign manager , Brad Parscale , reacted by saying , “ We always knew that Silicon Valley would pull out all the stops to obstruct and interfere with President Trump getting his message through to voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ fact checkers ’ is only a smoke screen Twitter is using to try to lend their obvious political tactics some false credibility.
” Trump has charted his course .
The question now is whether presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his campaign will counter Trump effectively .
To do that , the Democratic campaign must provide a robust defense of freedom of speech , freedom of the press , and net neutrality—the First Amendment of the Internet .
One statement won ’ t do .
Biden and his supporters have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign and explain what ’ s at stake .
They do not have to defend media monopolies or tech titans .
They have to defend the Constitution itself—boldly , and in explicit detail .
Trump has made the First Amendment an issue by attacking it .
Democrats must mount a campaign that champions freedom of speech , freedom of the press , and the right to tell presidents they are wrong .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Donald Trump claims that fact-checking is an assault on free speech.
He is—it should go without saying—wrong. Indeed, the whole point of the First Amendment was to establish the right of the people and the media to object to claims by presidents and other powerful officials—especially when those claims are lies.
Unfortunately, Trump needs his lies. Desperately. The president understands that at a point when his approval ratings are collapsing because of a jarringly awful response to the coronavirus pandemic and mass unemployment, only a campaign based on false premises and the crudest deceits can keep him competitive in the 2020 presidential race. So this president is ready to use the power of his position to attack the basic underpinnings of the First Amendment. Furious that Twitter attached a clarifying link to a false tweet he sent about mail-in voting, Trump on Wednesday tweeted, “Big Tech is doing everything in their very considerable power to CENSOR in advance of the 2020 Election. If that happens, we no longer have our freedom. I will never let it happen! They tried hard in 2016, and lost. Now they are going absolutely CRAZY. Stay Tuned!!!”
On Thursday, in what The Hill described as “a marked escalation of his lengthy feud with Silicon Valley over allegations of anti-conservative bias,” Trump signed an executive order that seeks to increase the authority of the government to regulate social media platforms. The order would strip liability protection from companies that give a platform to controversial content, have Attorney General William Barr work with states to develop regulations, and ensure that government funding does not go to news outlets that “suppress” speech that the administration favors. More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
Trump declared, “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers.”
His statement twisted the truth to the breaking point—as even he seemed to acknowledge when he admitted during the signing of the order, “I guess it’s going to be challenged in court.”
The president is not defending the First Amendment. He is proposing a fiercely unconstitutional reinterpretation of it that serves his political interests. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
“Much as he might wish otherwise, Donald Trump is not the president of Twitter,” declared the American Civil Liberties Union as a draft of the order circulated early Thursday. “This order, if issued, would be a blatant and unconstitutional threat to punish social media companies.”
That’s true. But this is about more than Trump’s feud with the managers of a social media platform.
As Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe reminds us, “The unconstitutional character of his threats doesn’t prevent them from undermining everyone’s liberties.”
Trump is playing politics. He knows he has to discredit even mild assertions of the facts because, as he prepares for a difficult reelection race, he has nothing but lies to offer the American people. So he is not merely attacking fact-checking but trying to revoke the right to speak truth to power.
The specifics of what Trump proposes are draconian. The media advocacy group Free Press reviewed the draft of the president’s order and labeled it an “unconstitutional attempt to silence critics and fact checkers.” Of deepest concern were plans to:
require the Federal Communications Commission to craft a rule that would potentially exempt social-media companies from protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that shields companies from legal liability for the material their users post online.
call on the White House Office of Digital Strategy to “reactivate” a tool through which people can report cases of “online censorship and other potentially unfair or deceptive acts or practices by online platforms.” The tool would collect complaints of online censorship and submit them to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission for potential follow-up.
prohibit all federal agencies and offices from spending government money on advertising with platforms that allegedly “violate free speech principles.”
Free Press senior policy counsel Gaurav Laroia argued on Thursday that the order is “a naked attempt by the president to bully into silence Twitter, other social-media sites and anyone who attempts to correct or criticize Trump. This blatant and bungling attempt at censorship is outrageous and unconstitutional.”
It is also a political strategy. Current Issue View our current issue
Trump has core supporters who are likely to embrace whatever he says, no matter how outrageous it may be. But that base is insufficient to reelect him. To get the votes he needs, he has to convince a wider portion of the electorate that factual reports of his wrongdoing and incompetence are part of a media conspiracy to dislodge him from the White House. That’s why the president keeps claiming that media outlets and individual journalists are “enemies of the people.” And that’s why he and his campaign are now going after Twitter and other social media platforms. When Twitter finally got around to some mild fact-checking of Trump, his campaign manager, Brad Parscale, reacted by saying, “We always knew that Silicon Valley would pull out all the stops to obstruct and interfere with President Trump getting his message through to voters. Partnering with the biased fake news media ‘fact checkers’ is only a smoke screen Twitter is using to try to lend their obvious political tactics some false credibility.”
Trump has charted his course. The question now is whether presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his campaign will counter Trump effectively. To do that, the Democratic campaign must provide a robust defense of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and Net neutrality—the First Amendment of the Internet. One statement won’t do. Biden and his supporters have to make this fight central to their 2020 campaign and explain what’s at stake. They do not have to defend media monopolies or tech titans. They have to defend the Constitution itself—boldly and in explicit detail. Trump has made the First Amendment an issue by attacking it. Democrats must mount a campaign that champions freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to tell presidents they are wrong.


thenation--2020-05-29--Unemployment Insurance Is a Vital Part of Economic Freedom

It is a tragedy that the most progressive part of the CARES Act , Congress ’ s $ 2 trillion response to the coronavirus crisis , is administered through one of our most broken systems .
Increasing unemployment insurance is a standard response to any recession , and with so much of the economy shut down , it is particularly essential now .
The CARES Act designed an unemployment insurance expansion to match the size of the economic fallout , but there have been significant problems in getting that money to workers .
Those problems are slowly being solved , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The expansion expires at the end of July , and conservatives have said they will fight any extension of it .
This should be expected .
Republicans understand the stakes involved , even if many liberals do not .
Increasing unemployment insurance not only moves money to the lowest-wage workers , who need it the most , but it also empowers employees and builds the case for social insurance .
The expansion of unemployment insurance hit two structural hurdles .
First , many states do not want the program to work well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stigmatize the unemployed .
According to the National Employment Law Center , over the past decade many states have changed things so that fewer people qualify for unemployment insurance and get less of their income replaced when they do .
The CARES Act overcame this by extending such insurance to contractors and gig workers and adding $ 600 per week to each applicant ’ s benefits , increasing how much income is replaced .
The second problem pertains to how many people are losing their jobs .
Some 30 million people applied for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast that with the nearly 3 million people who applied each month during the peak of the Great Recession .
Such an explosion in numbers would overwhelm any state system that hasn ’ t been upgraded—and almost none of them have .
Yet the program ’ s administration has been improving .
In May , according to an analysis from the Hamilton Project , states accounting for 88 percent of the labor force have been able to implement the expanded benefits , compared with only 24 percent a few weeks earlier .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it through the system , the process will get faster , and workers will receive the payments they were due from earlier weeks .
That money will be absolutely crucial in dealing with this depression .
According to estimates , unemployment insurance payments replaced roughly half of all worker income lost in April , and that share is likely increasing as the system keeps improving .
By allowing workers to hold out until their jobs start again , this insurance will help the nation transition to a recovery—but only if the program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Need Now Finally , a Bipartisan Bill That Would Help All Families This One Weird Trick Makes Economies More Fair !
The structure of this expansion disproportionately benefits lower-wage workers , especially those employed in the service industries .
The extra $ 600 in each weekly payment was an administrative workaround intended to compensate for the inability to quickly increase the amount of unemployment insurance state by state .
For the lowest-wage workers , this supplemented insurance replaces income at 100 percent or more of previous wages .
It also forces employers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to keep employees , and it gives workers another option—one that they can imagine themselves exercising in the future .
If extended , it would give workers real leverage to demand better conditions and higher wages .
It ’ s precisely this angle that has conservatives and bosses so adamant about preventing an extension .
Finally , if this expansion of unemployment insurance continues , it may help reorient ideas about social insurance more generally .
The idea of increasing , modernizing , and even federalizing unemployment insurance has disappeared from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the focus moving instead toward a universal basic income and free public services .
But unemployment insurance remains a vital part of economic freedom that only the public itself can provide .
If it continues to be extended , more people will understand that it could and should be expanded even further , especially to those workers whom our social insurance system doesn ’ t cover well .
Finding a way to provide economic security to our fractured labor force is one of the central goals of our time .
Unemployment insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that ’ s why it is worth fighting for .

This article appears in the June 15/22, 2020 issue.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
It is a tragedy that the most progressive part of the CARES Act, Congress’s $2 trillion response to the coronavirus crisis, is administered through one of our most broken systems. Increasing unemployment insurance is a standard response to any recession, and with so much of the economy shut down, it is particularly essential now. The CARES Act designed an unemployment insurance expansion to match the size of the economic fallout, but there have been significant problems in getting that money to workers. Those problems are slowly being solved, but there is now a second issue: The expansion expires at the end of July, and conservatives have said they will fight any extension of it. This should be expected. Republicans understand the stakes involved, even if many liberals do not. Increasing unemployment insurance not only moves money to the lowest-wage workers, who need it the most, but it also empowers employees and builds the case for social insurance.
The expansion of unemployment insurance hit two structural hurdles. First, many states do not want the program to work well; they want to save money and stigmatize the unemployed. According to the National Employment Law Project, over the past decade many states have changed things so that fewer people qualify for unemployment insurance and get less of their income replaced when they do. The CARES Act overcame this by extending such insurance to contractors and gig workers and adding $600 per week to each applicant’s benefits, increasing how much income is replaced. The second problem pertains to how many people are losing their jobs. Some 30 million people applied for unemployment insurance in March and April; contrast that with the nearly 3 million people who applied each month during the peak of the Great Recession. Such an explosion in numbers would overwhelm any state system that hasn’t been upgraded—and almost none of them have.
Yet the program’s administration has been improving. In May, according to an analysis from the Hamilton Project, states accounting for 88 percent of the labor force have been able to implement the expanded benefits, compared with only 24 percent a few weeks earlier. As the backlog clears, more people will make it through the system, the process will get faster, and workers will receive the payments they were due from earlier weeks.
That money will be absolutely crucial in dealing with this depression. According to estimates, unemployment insurance payments replaced roughly half of all worker income lost in April, and that share is likely increasing as the system keeps improving. By allowing workers to hold out until their jobs start again, this insurance will help the nation transition to a recovery—but only if the program continues. More From Mike Konczal “Bidenomics” vs. “Reaganomics” July 21, 2023 The Revolutionary Potential of the Inflation Reduction Act April 28, 2023 The Tradeoffs in the Fight Against Inflation February 20, 2023
The structure of this expansion disproportionately benefits lower-wage workers, especially those employed in the service industries. The extra $600 in each weekly payment was an administrative workaround intended to compensate for the inability to quickly increase the amount of unemployment insurance state by state. For the lowest-wage workers, this supplemented insurance replaces income at 100 percent or more of previous wages. It also forces employers to raise wages and make working conditions better in order to keep employees, and it gives workers another option—one that they can imagine themselves exercising in the future. If extended, it would give workers real leverage to demand better conditions and higher wages. It’s precisely this angle that has conservatives and bosses so adamant about preventing an extension.
Finally, if this expansion of unemployment insurance continues, it may help reorient ideas about social insurance more generally. The idea of increasing, modernizing, and even federalizing unemployment insurance has disappeared from cutting-edge policy discussions in recent decades, with the focus moving instead toward a universal basic income and free public services. But unemployment insurance remains a vital part of economic freedom that only the public itself can provide. If it continues to be extended, more people will understand that it could and should be expanded even further, especially to those workers whom our social insurance system doesn’t cover well. Finding a way to provide economic security to our fractured labor force is one of the central goals of our time. Unemployment insurance will be part of that solution, and that’s why it is worth fighting for.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this article misstated the name of an organization providing analysis of unemployment insurance. It is the National Employment Law Project, not the National Employment Law Center.


thenation--2020-05-29--Workers Need a ‘Newer Deal’ to Tackle This Crisis

Many economists believe that a recession is already underway .
So do millions of Americans struggling with bills and job losses .
While the ghosts of the 2008 financial crisis that sent inequality soaring to new heights in this country are still with us , it ’ s become abundantly clear that the economic disaster brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic has already left the initial shock of that crisis in the dust .
While the world has certainly experienced its share of staggering jolts in the past , this cycle of events is likely to prove unparalleled .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives and crippled the economy has been both devastating and unprecedented in living memory .
Whatever happens from this moment on , a new and defining chapter in the history of the world is being written right now and we are that history .
Still , to get our bearings , it ’ s worth glancing back nearly a century , to a time when another economic crisis ravaged the country .
While the United States has come a long way since the Great Depression , there are still lessons to be learned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heading today .
Four key factors from that era—unemployment , the economy , the market , and the Federal Reserve ’ s response—can provide us with a roadmap for putting this era into historical context .
Unemployment Then and Now In 1933 , the height of the Great Depression , the US unemployment rate reached a stunning 24.9 percent .
In an eerie parallel with today , that double-digit increase had leapt from an era of remarkably low unemployment , 3.2 percent in the crash year of 1929 .
By mid-1931 , mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was acute and widespread .
Fast forward to the present .
In February , the unemployment rate stood at a similar 3.5 percent .
Yet , by May 22 , in the aftermath of city and state shutdowns and coronavirus shocks , including the collapse of the airline industry and professional sports , new filings for unemployment claims hit an estimated 40 million in 10 weeks , the most jobs lost in the shortest period in American history .
In April , the official unemployment rate reached 14.7 percent , the worst since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure doesn ’ t even account for the full scope of the disaster underway .
It excludes workers the Bureau of Labor Statistics considers “ marginally attached ” to the workforce , meaning those not looking for a job because the prospects are so dim , or those who were only laboring part-time .
If you factor them in , the unemployment rate already stands at a Great Depression-level 22.8 percent .
Some industries , of course , felt more pain than others .
Employment in the leisure and hospitality sector , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million , or 47 percent .
Worse yet , low-wage workers have taken the hardest hit .
According to a recent Federal Reserve survey , although one in five American workers have lost their jobs , among the lowest-earning Americans , 40 percent have done so .
Among the highest-earning American workers ( many of whom could work from home ) , the rate was “ only ” 9 percent .
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard has already predicted that the unemployment rate could reach 30 percent before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have suggested that it could go even higher , exceeding Great Depression levels , a chilling thought .
As the country , pushed by President Trump ’ s reelection desires , “ reopens ” relatively quickly ( at whatever cost in further Covid-19 deaths ) , many workers will undoubtedly be brought back or rehired , but there ’ s no avoiding the obvious reality that any number of “ temporary ” layoffs will become permanent realities .
The Economy : A Century Apart Yet Much the Same When Covid-19 first hit and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plunged and many businesses were forced to shut down normal operations .
Various economists and media commentators then began musing about a V-shaped economic rebound—that is , a quick drop followed by a quick recovery .
As the fallout and uncertainty only expanded , however , it ’ s become increasingly evident that such a pattern was a fantasy .
At this point , the best recovery outcome imaginable would be U-shaped in which the bottoming-out period lasted significantly longer before we started heading up again .
But don ’ t count on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an elongated L , in which for the vast majority of Americans the economy just limps along for endless months , if not years ( even if the stock market rallies ) .
In 1930 , the American gross domestic product ( GDP ) shrank by 8.5 percent as the economy contracted in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 .
It would shrink a further 6.4 percent in 1931 and another 12.9 percent in 1932 .
It wasn ’ t just the crash that did in that economy .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ borrowing that supported it were also responsible .
Money funneled into the stock market in a previous age of inequality fueled grotesque financial speculation .
Instead of financing productive investments , the markets provided only the illusion of stability and prosperity while enriching the few at the top .
( Sound familiar in the age of Donald Trump ? )
Yet the Republican president of that moment , Herbert Hoover , didn ’ t want to admit that the bottom had truly fallen out on his watch .
On May Day 1930 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have now passed the worst , and with continued unity of effort , we shall rapidly recover.
” ( Such a claim , too , should ring a few bells in 2020 America . )
That statement became the marker for a nearly two-year Dow Jones average dive to a Depression-low of a mere 41 points on July 8 , 1932 .
His inability to truly take in what was right in front of his eyes only lengthened the Great Depression .
Turning to the present , the CARES Act , signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 27 , unleashed an estimated $ 2.2 trillion in government relief ( significant parts of which were aimed at giant corporations and the wealthy ) .
That , combined with the Federal Reserve ’ s backing of the economy , could add up to perhaps $ 6.2 trillion .
What promptly transpired for Wall Street , which had previously seen the Dow plunge 34 percent , was one of the best months for the stock market in more than 33 years .
Beltway leaders had learned the pivotal lesson of the moment : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy , it always craves more .
They stood ready to green-light Wall Street with yet another stimulus package skewed to help corporate interests , even as the majority of Americans on Main Street were simply left further behind .
Meanwhile , the gross domestic product had fallen 4.8 percent in the first quarter of 2020 , before Covid-19 and the corresponding social shutdown really hit hard .
In other words , GDP for the second quarter of this year is guaranteed to be truly awful .
Estimates of its contraction range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either of which would eclipse the contractions of the Great Depression era .
The Roaring Twenties claimed that moniker not just thanks to the free-flowing bootlegged booze but rampant financial speculation—and the lack of rules to protect citizens from nefarious Wall Street shenanigans .
Having hit record highs in the summer of 1929 , stock prices began their decline that September .
By mid-October , the fall had gained steam .
On October 24 , as panic set in on what would become known as “ Black Thursday , ” a then-record 12,894,650 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking to lock in profits before the bottom fell out of the market .
By the next Monday— “ Black Monday ” —it had gone into free fall .
And that would be followed by “ Black Tuesday , ” when stock prices plummeted yet further amid record trading volume .
Billions of dollars were lost and thousands of investors wiped out .
( Once upon a time , I even wrote a novel about that era called—you guessed it— Black Tuesday . )
By then , the Dow had dropped 24.8 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks thereafter stock prices would partially recover and bond prices rise on rumors that the Federal Reserve was going to purchase government securities .
( Again , that should sound familiar in 2020 . )
Bankers , then fortified by the Fed , did indeed inject yet more speculative money into the market in the post-crash moment , yet none of this could hide what were by then obvious systemic problems in the economy , which meant that prices soon headed south again .
By July 1932 , stocks were worth only 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country had plunged into the Great Depression .
It would take years , substantive federal action , and ultimately an industrial mobilization for World War II to truly turn the situation around .
Fast forward to 2020 .
By March 23 , when the coronavirus sell-off was underway , the Dow had lost about 35 percent of its value .
Since then , equity markets , though down significantly from their February peaks , have rallied and the Dow has risen about 30 percent .
As in 1929-1930 , this could all prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the market ’ s April rally did not reflect the longer-term economic issues that lie ahead .
It was in large part a response to something that didn ’ t exist during those crash years of the Great Depression : an extremely amped up Federal Reserve .
The Fed : A Revamped Mechanism from the Last Depression In the wake of the Crash of 1929 , Wall Street bankers pushed the Fed to keep interest rates low so they could borrow money more easily to make up for their losses .
In May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive bond-buying program , agreeing to purchase $ 26 million of them from its member banks each week .
The idea was that those banks would sell their US Treasury bonds to the Fed and use that money to pay off their debts .
They could then lend out the remaining cash to a desperate Main Street .
As it happened , however , they didn ’ t launch such a generous loan program ( another Great Depression reality that might ring a bell today ) .
The Fed eventually lowered rates from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent in September 1937 to inject more money into the system .
That did not , however , inspire an outpouring of lending either , nor did rates make it down to zero .
In the wake of the Covid-19 shutdowns , the Fed has indeed cut rates to zero .
As Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said on May 13 , “ The scope and speed of this downturn are without modern precedent , significantly worse than any recession since World War II.
” He added : “ We have acted with unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , even termed what was going on “ a war.
” Because of quantitative easing—the Fed ’ s purchasing of securities , a term that didn ’ t exist in the Great Depression era—its balance sheet now sits at nearly $ 7 trillion spent .
That ’ s almost double the figure from just last summer and equivalent to one-third of the $ 21.5 trillion gross domestic product .
The Fed has been injecting money into the markets and scarfing up securities backed by debt at—to steal a term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coronavirus vaccine— “ warp speed.
” With a genuine arsenal at its disposal to fight this “ war , ” the Fed ’ s activities are jacked up on the financial equivalent of steroids .
The nation ’ s central bank is prepared to provide money to the financial system in quantities and ways unimaginable in the Great Depression era .
What ’ s happening today is not , of course , a replica of the Great Depression .
That nightmare was catalyzed by a prolonged market crash , thanks to banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ securities and too much debt in the system .
Today ’ s crisis has been catalyzed by a viral pandemic spreading across the planet , by supply-and-demand shocks the world over , and by the collapse of a global economic system , as well as widespread lockdowns .
Yet certain factors are common to both eras in which economic disaster was exacerbated by too much corporate debt , a Fed-stoked market rally , and grotesque levels of inequality .
A century ago , the Fed put just a financial toe in the water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this would be enough to sustain the economy .
Today , it has jumped in big time and Chairman Powell has vowed that it “ is not going to run out of ammunition.
” The result could be a financial tug of war that lasts years .
The Fed can electronically print money , but it can ’ t print jobs .
It can buy bonds , but it can ’ t cure a virus .
It can continue to try to stimulate the market , but it can ’ t banish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy needs much more than Fed-style monetary support .
As even Powell noted on May 13 , “ Additional fiscal support could be costly , but worth it if it helps avoid long-term economic damage and leaves us with a stronger recovery .
This trade-off is one for our elected representatives , who wield powers of taxation and spending.
” What ’ s needed , above all , is greater strategic action from Washington politicians who are more desperately divided and tribalized than ever in the Trump era .
History tells us that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of crisis .
During the Great Depression , the state of the country became so bad that , in 1932 , Herbert Hoover lost the presidential vote to Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a landslide .
However , it took until 1934 , even with a president ready to do much to help Americans in trouble , for the country to slowly emerge from the malaise .
Though unemployment remained near 22 percent then , the national mood lifted ( and people started to spend again ) in part thanks to growing confidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programs .
Those included the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority —the nation ’ s first regional supplier of public power—numerous jobs programs , and the passage of the Social Security Act .
Add to that the regulation of the banking system through the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 , which protected ordinary people ’ s bank deposits and note as well that such forward-looking , economy-stabilizing programs were bipartisan acts .
In the face of devastation today , despite multitrillion-dollar federal stimulus packages , real political action has been lackluster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skewed toward helping banks and big corporations rather than the Main Street economy .
No substantive plan has been offered for real national action to get people working again in ways that would reflect the new norms of the Covid-19 era .
Roosevelt saw such an opportunity to bolster confidence by taking on banking reform ( with the surprising help of bankers ) , launching public works initiatives , and establishing infrastructure programs meant to build up the nation , the very opposite of the speculative activity that enflamed the Crash of 1929 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thing that ’ s needed to sustain the economy in our truly bad times ( whether the coronavirus becomes seasonal or not ) .
Floating trillions to Wall Street banks and big corporations might push their share prices up , but it won ’ t solve the issues that truly matter .
Struggling small businesses , stranded high school and college graduates with nowhere to land , and workers in devastated businesses that won ’ t see their jobs return any time soon are now guaranteed one thing : They ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of an attempted bipartisan “ recovery.
” For them , a Newer Deal is desperately needed , one that provides a cushion for workers , new openings for the young , better health care prospects for all , and infrastructure projects that meet the challenges of a post-Covid-19 world .
As President Roosevelt told Americans in the midst of the Great Depression : “ There is a mysterious cycle in human events .
To some generations much is given .
Of other generations much is expected .
This generation of Americans has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Donald Trump is in the White House , focusing on optimizing his reelection prospects , he alone has a rendezvous with destiny .
But it ’ s crucial , now more than ever , not to lose sight of the dream that tomorrow can be better than today .
The only real way forward , in the end , is to meet the complex challenges of the Covid-19 moment with creative and long-lasting solutions .

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Many economists believe that a recession is already underway. So do millions of Americans struggling with bills and job losses. While the ghosts of the 2008 financial crisis that sent inequality soaring to new heights in this country are still with us, it’s become abundantly clear that the economic disaster brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic has already left the initial shock of that crisis in the dust. While the world has certainly experienced its share of staggering jolts in the past, this cycle of events is likely to prove unparalleled.
The swiftness with which the coronavirus has stolen lives and crippled the economy has been both devastating and unprecedented in living memory. Whatever happens from this moment on, a new and defining chapter in the history of the world is being written right now and we are that history.
Still, to get our bearings, it’s worth glancing back nearly a century, to a time when another economic crisis ravaged the country. While the United States has come a long way since the Great Depression, there are still lessons to be learned from it about where we might be heading today. Four key factors from that era—unemployment, the economy, the market, and the Federal Reserve’s response—can provide us with a roadmap for putting this era into historical context.
Unemployment Then and Now
In 1933, the height of the Great Depression, the US unemployment rate reached a stunning 24.9 percent. In an eerie parallel with today, that double-digit increase had leapt from an era of remarkably low unemployment, 3.2 percent in the crash year of 1929. By mid-1931, mass layoffs were the new norm and despair was acute and widespread.
Fast-forward to the present. In February, the unemployment rate stood at a similar 3.5 percent. Yet, by May 22, in the aftermath of city and state shutdowns and coronavirus shocks, including the collapse of the airline industry and professional sports, new filings for unemployment claims hit an estimated 40 million in 10 weeks, the most jobs lost in the shortest period in American history.
In April, the official unemployment rate reached 14.7 percent, the worst since the Great Depression, and that official figure doesn’t even account for the full scope of the disaster underway. It excludes workers the Bureau of Labor Statistics considers “marginally attached” to the workforce, meaning those not looking for a job because the prospects are so dim, or those who were only laboring part-time. If you factor them in, the unemployment rate already stands at a Great Depression-level 22.8 percent. Some industries, of course, felt more pain than others. Employment in the leisure and hospitality sector, for instance, fell in April by 7.7 million, or 47 percent. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Worse yet, low-wage workers have taken the hardest hit. According to a recent Federal Reserve survey, although one in five American workers have lost their jobs, among the lowest-earning Americans, 40 percent have done so. Among the highest-earning American workers (many of whom could work from home), the rate was “only” 9 percent. Current Issue View our current issue
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard has already predicted that the unemployment rate could reach 30 percent before the end of June. Other Fed economists have suggested that it could go even higher, exceeding Great Depression levels, a chilling thought. As the country, pushed by President Trump’s reelection desires, “reopens” relatively quickly (at whatever cost in further Covid-19 deaths), many workers will undoubtedly be brought back or rehired, but there’s no avoiding the obvious reality that any number of “temporary” layoffs will become permanent realities.
The Economy: A Century Apart Yet Much the Same
When Covid-19 first hit and self-isolation set in, the stock market plunged and many businesses were forced to shut down normal operations. Various economists and media commentators then began musing about a V-shaped economic rebound—that is, a quick drop followed by a quick recovery.
As the fallout and uncertainty only expanded, however, it’s become increasingly evident that such a pattern was a fantasy. At this point, the best recovery outcome imaginable would be U-shaped in which the bottoming-out period lasted significantly longer before we started heading up again. But don’t count on that either. Consider the possibility of an elongated L, in which for the vast majority of Americans the economy just limps along for endless months, if not years (even if the stock market rallies).
In 1930, the American gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 8.5 percent as the economy contracted in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929. It would shrink a further 6.4 percent in 1931 and another 12.9 percent in 1932. It wasn’t just the crash that did in that economy. The economic excesses of the 1920s and the borrowing that supported it were also responsible. Money funneled into the stock market in a previous age of inequality fueled grotesque financial speculation. Instead of financing productive investments, the markets provided only the illusion of stability and prosperity while enriching the few at the top. (Sound familiar in the age of Donald Trump?)
Yet the Republican president of that moment, Herbert Hoover, didn’t want to admit that the bottom had truly fallen out on his watch. On May Day 1930, for instance, he declared, “We have now passed the worst, and with continued unity of effort, we shall rapidly recover.” (Such a claim, too, should ring a few bells in 2020 America.) That statement became the marker for a nearly two-year Dow Jones average dive to a Depression-low of a mere 41 points on July 8, 1932. His inability to truly take in what was right in front of his eyes only lengthened the Great Depression.
Turning to the present, the CARES Act, signed into law by President Trump on March 27, unleashed an estimated $2.2 trillion in government relief (significant parts of which were aimed at giant corporations and the wealthy). That, combined with the Federal Reserve’s backing of the economy, could add up to perhaps $6.2 trillion. What promptly transpired for Wall Street, which had previously seen the Dow plunge 34 percent, was one of the best months for the stock market in more than 33 years.
Beltway leaders had learned the pivotal lesson of the moment: Even if the market’s not the economy, it always craves more. They stood ready to green-light Wall Street with yet another stimulus package skewed to help corporate interests, even as the majority of Americans on Main Street were simply left further behind.
Meanwhile, the gross domestic product had fallen 4.8 percent in the first quarter of 2020, before Covid-19 and the corresponding social shutdown really hit hard. In other words, GDP for the second quarter of this year is guaranteed to be truly awful. Estimates of its contraction range from 20 percent to 30%, either of which would eclipse the contractions of the Great Depression era.
The Stock Market: A Casino Shadowing an Economic Problem
The Roaring Twenties claimed that moniker not just thanks to the free-flowing bootlegged booze but rampant financial speculation—and the lack of rules to protect citizens from nefarious Wall Street shenanigans. Having hit record highs in the summer of 1929, stock prices began their decline that September. By mid-October, the fall had gained steam. On October 24, as panic set in on what would become known as “Black Thursday,” a then-record 12,894,650 shares were traded by investors and speculators seeking to lock in profits before the bottom fell out of the market.
By the next Monday—“Black Monday”—it had gone into free fall. And that would be followed by “Black Tuesday,” when stock prices plummeted yet further amid record trading volume. Billions of dollars were lost and thousands of investors wiped out. (Once upon a time, I even wrote a novel about that era called—you guessed it— Black Tuesday.)
By then, the Dow had dropped 24.8 percent in three days, though for several weeks thereafter stock prices would partially recover and bond prices rise on rumors that the Federal Reserve was going to purchase government securities. (Again, that should sound familiar in 2020.)
Bankers, then fortified by the Fed, did indeed inject yet more speculative money into the market in the post-crash moment, yet none of this could hide what were by then obvious systemic problems in the economy, which meant that prices soon headed south again. By July 1932, stocks were worth only 20 percent of their 1929 values and the country had plunged into the Great Depression. It would take years, substantive federal action, and ultimately an industrial mobilization for World War II to truly turn the situation around.
Fast forward to 2020. By March 23, when the coronavirus sell-off was underway, the Dow had lost about 35 percent of its value. Since then, equity markets, though down significantly from their February peaks, have rallied and the Dow has risen about 30 percent.
As in 1929-1930, this could all prove to be an illusion, especially since the market’s April rally did not reflect the longer-term economic issues that lie ahead. It was in large part a response to something that didn’t exist during those crash years of the Great Depression: an extremely amped up Federal Reserve.
The Fed: A Revamped Mechanism from the Last Depression
In the wake of the Crash of 1929, Wall Street bankers pushed the Fed to keep interest rates low so they could borrow money more easily to make up for their losses. In May 1932, the Fed finally initiated a massive bond-buying program, agreeing to purchase $26 million of them from its member banks each week.
The idea was that those banks would sell their US Treasury bonds to the Fed and use that money to pay off their debts. They could then lend out the remaining cash to a desperate Main Street. As it happened, however, they didn’t launch such a generous loan program (another Great Depression reality that might ring a bell today).
The Fed eventually lowered rates from to 2.5 percent in 1934 to 1.5 percent in September 1937 to inject more money into the system. That did not, however, inspire an outpouring of lending either, nor did rates make it down to zero.
In the wake of the Covid-19 shutdowns, the Fed has indeed cut rates to zero. As Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said on May 13, “The scope and speed of this downturn are without modern precedent, significantly worse than any recession since World War II.” He added: “We have acted with unprecedented speed and force.” His counterpart, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, even termed what was going on “a war.”
Because of quantitative easing—the Fed’s purchasing of securities, a term that didn’t exist in the Great Depression era—its balance sheet now sits at nearly $7 trillion spent. That’s almost double the figure from just last summer and equivalent to one-third of the $21.5 trillion gross domestic product. The Fed has been injecting money into the markets and scarfing up securities backed by debt at—to steal a term the president only recently applied toward developing a coronavirus vaccine—“warp speed.”
With a genuine arsenal at its disposal to fight this “war,” the Fed’s activities are jacked up on the financial equivalent of steroids. The nation’s central bank is prepared to provide money to the financial system in quantities and ways unimaginable in the Great Depression era.
Why History Matters
What’s happening today is not, of course, a replica of the Great Depression. That nightmare was catalyzed by a prolonged market crash, thanks to banks lying about the real value of certain securities and too much debt in the system. Today’s crisis has been catalyzed by a viral pandemic spreading across the planet, by supply-and-demand shocks the world over, and by the collapse of a global economic system, as well as widespread lockdowns. Yet certain factors are common to both eras in which economic disaster was exacerbated by too much corporate debt, a Fed-stoked market rally, and grotesque levels of inequality.
A century ago, the Fed put just a financial toe in the water to support the markets on the assumption that this would be enough to sustain the economy. Today, it has jumped in big time and Chairman Powell has vowed that it “is not going to run out of ammunition.” The result could be a financial tug of war that lasts years.
The Fed can electronically print money, but it can’t print jobs. It can buy bonds, but it can’t cure a virus. It can continue to try to stimulate the market, but it can’t banish fear. As it happens, the economy needs much more than Fed-style monetary support. As even Powell noted on May 13, “Additional fiscal support could be costly, but worth it if it helps avoid long-term economic damage and leaves us with a stronger recovery. This trade-off is one for our elected representatives, who wield powers of taxation and spending.”
What’s needed, above all, is greater strategic action from Washington politicians who are more desperately divided and tribalized than ever in the Trump era. History tells us that political actions matter even more in times of crisis. During the Great Depression, the state of the country became so bad that, in 1932, Herbert Hoover lost the presidential vote to Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a landslide. However, it took until 1934, even with a president ready to do much to help Americans in trouble, for the country to slowly emerge from the malaise.
Though unemployment remained near 22 percent then, the national mood lifted (and people started to spend again) in part thanks to growing confidence in President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. Those included the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority —the nation’s first regional supplier of public power—numerous jobs programs, and the passage of the Social Security Act. Add to that the regulation of the banking system through the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which protected ordinary people’s bank deposits and note as well that such forward-looking, economy-stabilizing programs were bipartisan acts.
In the face of devastation today, despite multitrillion-dollar federal stimulus packages, real political action has been lackluster at best. Relief efforts have been skewed toward helping banks and big corporations rather than the Main Street economy. No substantive plan has been offered for real national action to get people working again in ways that would reflect the new norms of the Covid-19 era.
Roosevelt saw such an opportunity to bolster confidence by taking on banking reform (with the surprising help of bankers), launching public works initiatives, and establishing infrastructure programs meant to build up the nation, the very opposite of the speculative activity that enflamed the Crash of 1929. That’s just the sort of thing that’s needed to sustain the economy in our truly bad times (whether the coronavirus becomes seasonal or not).
Floating trillions to Wall Street banks and big corporations might push their share prices up, but it won’t solve the issues that truly matter. Struggling small businesses, stranded high school and college graduates with nowhere to land, and workers in devastated businesses that won’t see their jobs return any time soon are now guaranteed one thing: They’ll be left behind by just about any version of an attempted bipartisan “recovery.” For them, a Newer Deal is desperately needed, one that provides a cushion for workers, new openings for the young, better health care prospects for all, and infrastructure projects that meet the challenges of a post-Covid-19 world.
As President Roosevelt told Americans in the midst of the Great Depression: “There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.”
As long as Donald Trump is in the White House, focusing on optimizing his reelection prospects, he alone has a rendezvous with destiny. But it’s crucial, now more than ever, not to lose sight of the dream that tomorrow can be better than today. The only real way forward, in the end, is to meet the complex challenges of the Covid-19 moment with creative and long-lasting solutions.