motherjones--2020-07-24--The GOP Plan to Slash Unemployment Benefits Puts the Whole Economic Recovery at Risk

From her apartment in New Jersey , Elise Nussbaum has spent the past four months counseling dozens of people all over the country—in New York , California , Texas , and beyond—about their money , in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression .
Nussbaum is a financial coach with Neighborhood Trust , a New York nonprofit that offers free financial coaching to low- and middle-income people .
Before March , most of her clients wanted to work on forward-looking financial strategies , like improving credit or getting out of debt .
But as many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick relatives , or got sick themselves , they were forced to focus on the immediate moment .
If somebody had saved up to pay off a debt , she ’ d tell them to hold on to that money instead to cover the basics : rent , food , electricity .
“ Everybody ’ s mode switched from long-term to short-term , ” she says .
“ It became much more : ‘ Let ’ s figure out how we ’ re going to handle the next few months , or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out how we ’ re going to handle next week.
’ ” That changed in late March , when as part of the sweeping coronavirus relief package known as the CARES Act , Congress enacted an extra $ 600 weekly benefit for workers on unemployment .
That money , Nussbaum says , was a “ godsend ” that transformed the financial outlook of her clients .
The extra $ 600 payments , called Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation ( FPUC ) , have been the reason that many are able to cover basic needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many to put aside funds for the first time in years , or ever .
It ’ s given them a chance to think about their long-term financial health again , rather than starting each month or week at zero .
One of her coaching colleagues , Justin Enany , says that for the first time ever , he ’ s been able to help clients plan .
“ If someone ’ s fixed expenses are 95 percent of their income , like I see all the time , there ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he says .
“ You ’ re just trying to prevent the worst of the worst.
” The expiration of this $ 600 benefit is right around the corner—July 31 , absent an extension by Congress .
The Democratic-controlled House passed a bill in May to extend the benefit until January 2021 .
The GOP Senate majority has continued to debate how much , if anything , of the benefit it will leave standing .
Economists and advocates have long warned that an end or reduction of enhanced unemployment will usher in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop in monthly income and a wave of immediate household pain and financial struggle at a moment when many families ’ financial situations have not returned to pre-pandemic normal .
But there ’ s a related loss that would come with the expiration of the unemployment benefits : for individuals , a loss of the ability to put themselves on stabler financial footing in the long term , and for the economy as a whole , a retreat from exactly the kind of consumer spending that ’ s needed to create jobs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans , and of the US economy , to rebound from the current crisis when the virus finally begins to ebb .
As Americans in low-wage sectors like food service have disproportionately been the ones to lose work in this pandemic , the weekly $ 600 addition has meant that many people are bringing in more money than they once did at their regular jobs .
This has allowed legions of people like Nussbaum and Enany ’ s clients to invest in their financial health : paying off outstanding bills , working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into improving a small business that will later reap dividends .
This sort of investment , say economists , is a feature , not a bug , of the enhanced unemployment program .
Almost all spending right now—whether on short-term needs like rent or food or on longer-term ones like paying off a debt— will help stimulate the pandemic-battered economy .
“ The bottom line here is there isn ’ t necessarily a clean distinction between long term and short term in terms of the nature of the spending , ” says Greg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Center for Equitable Growth .
“ What we have writ large is scenarios where people are using funds to maintain their standard of living and improve it , and doing so with a variety of spending that can have positive spillover effects.
” As Senate Republicans race to come to an agreement about how to move forward , many have made clear they would like to see the benefit expire .
Their latest proposals include the possibility of reducing the benefit to as little as $ 100 per week , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ regular pay .
But they have yet to unveil a final plan .
As the expiration date approaches , Nussbaum says , “ everyone is sort of holding their breath.
” Republicans ’ argument for ending or reducing the additional $ 600 payment goes like this : The benefit , which amounts to at least $ 2400 in additional monthly income , is too generous and therefore discourages workers from reentering the workforce .
In their thinking , small businesses are clamoring for workers to return , but their employees would rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the $ 600 benefit akin to paying people “ a bonus not to go back to work.
” Many economists , however , point out that there are not enough jobs to go back to .
According the Bureau of Labor Statistics , in May there were 3.9 unemployed people per job opening .
“ Cutting benefits to incentivize people to take jobs that aren ’ t there is terrible economics , and just cruel , ” says Heidi Shierholz , a senior economist at the Economic Policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge amount of human suffering.
” What ’ s more , she adds , many people aren ’ t going back to work not because of unemployment checks , but due to the risk of contracting COVID-19 , or because of childcare responsibilities while schools , summer camps , and daycares remain closed .
“ It doesn ’ t matter how much you cut their benefits ; it ’ s impossible to incentivize them to take a job because they can not , ” she says .
“ So if you cut their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them.
” A number of economic analyses have found no evidence of a connection between enhanced unemployment benefits and people ’ s likelihood of taking a job .
“ I lean more and more that UI [ unemployment insurance ] generosity should be maintained , ” former Treasury economist Ernie Tedeschi wrote on Twitter , after doing his own analysis and finding no evidence that the generosity of the benefit is dragging the labor market .
If anything , the opposite is true : The extra $ 600 is likely to lower unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of family economic security policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth .
That ’ s because as the income helps people cover bills , it leads to spending that props up businesses—and eventually creates more jobs .
“ If we cut this $ 600 at a time when we ’ re seeing the worst rates of unemployment that we ’ ve seen since the Great Depression , what will happen is the unemployment that ’ s being faced by people already on the rolls is going to be contagious , much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
An Economic Policy Institute analysis found that extending the $ 600 benefit until the middle of 2021 would create 5.1 million jobs .
“ Cutting off the $ 600 doesn ’ t just hurt the people who are recipients , ” says Shierholz .
“ It hurts all of us.
” Ramona Ferreyra , one of the clients of Trust Plus , Neighborhood Trust ’ s coaching program , knows this firsthand .
Two years ago , Ferreyra started a small online retail business selling children ’ s clothes inspired by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search for “ Hispanic onesies ” while hunting for a gift for her nephew turned up baby clothes that said “ bad hombre.
” Receiving the extended unemployment , she says , has not just made up for the lost income from canceled events and an initial drop in sales ; it has allowed her to invest in expanding her business by buying Facebook and Google ads she couldn ’ t afford before and paying an intern .
The most immediate impact of losing those extra funds , she says , will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Due to a disability , Ferreyra is no longer able to work in traditional jobs .
The business , as well as government support , is what she and her 89-year-old grandmother live on , in a one-bedroom apartment in a public housing complex in the Bronx .
The unemployment income far exceeds the approximately $ 200 in discretionary spending that she holds herself to each month , and it ’ s allowed her to assemble some savings to get them through the uncertain future of the coronavirus economy .
Investing part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already boosted her sales .
“ I feel more confident and more ready for the future than I have in years , ” she says .
She ’ s expecting the benefit to expire , and she fears the consequences .
“ It ’ s unsafe for people to go back to work , ” she says .
“ Every time they try to reopen the economy , it ’ s people of color who end up paying for that .
It ’ s service workers like in my community and throughout the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” To understand the economic significance of the extra $ 600 , it is important to note that regular unemployment insurance was never intended to help people through systemic , long-running economic crises like the one wrought by the pandemic .
When the federal government created the program following the Great Depression , it was designed to replace about half of a worker ’ s regular wages , functioning as a stopgap that could supplement workers ’ savings or community help to weather a short spell of unemployment .
( In practice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average , and less in some states . )
The aim of limiting benefits was to create an incentive for workers to find a job , in order to return to their former standard of living .
“ Let ’ s say that in a normal economic climate , that kind of makes sense , ” Gould-Werth says .
“ But this is not a normal economic climate .
There aren ’ t jobs to be found right now , and it ’ s unclear when that ’ s going to get better.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ maxes out at a few hundred dollars a week ; on average , workers get $ 370 weekly .
Congress enacted the extra $ 600 in March with the idea that it would fill the gap left by this partial wage replacement—making people whole , and in doing so , ensuring that they keep spending , stimulating the economy .
“ The unemployment program right now is serving a dual role—one part social insurance , a program that alleviates hardship , and one part macroeconomic stabilizer , ” says Leiserson .
“ Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time.
” Take spending on rent and housing .
The $ 600 benefit has allowed many families to make rent , says Diane Yentel , president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition .
If it expires , paying the rent becomes a lot more difficult—just after the federal eviction moratorium enacted by the CARES Act , which applies to about 30 percent of households , expires on Saturday .
This has enormous implications .
When huge numbers of people can ’ t pay their rent , it sets off an economic chain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t pay their mortgages , and they in turn spend less on goods—and then the workers who make those goods lose their jobs .
“ We ’ re at risk of a massive collapse in spending if [ the additional ] unemployment insurance expires , ” says Leiserson .
“ Part of how that would be transmitted through the economy is missed rent payments and missed mortgage payments.
” If this gets bad enough , for long enough , across a large enough mass of people , slews of owners could default on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that lent them the money to book losses , and the economy to slide further into crisis .
The $ 600 benefit—along with federal and state eviction moratoriums and the one-time $ 1,200 stimulus checks issued following passage of the CARES Act—has been key to staving off a national wave of missed rent and evictions , says Yentel , Though not completely .
In June , nearly a third of Americans missed their housing payments .
In the more than 20 states that have already allowed their own eviction moratoriums to expire , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rise , Yentel says , while emergency rental assistance programs have been depleted in a matter of days or hours .
In Los Angeles , a program with enough funding to help 50,000 renters saw double that number of applications in its first day .
Houston ’ s program closed 90 minutes after opening , due to overwhelming demand .
New York State ’ s website crashed after only eight minutes .
“ This is with expanded unemployment still in place , ” Yentel says , predicting a housing catastrophe once that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of evictions is both entirely predictable and preventable , ” Yentel says .
Nussbaum says most of her clients who have lost their job are able to pay their rent only because of the added $ 600 benefit .
“ If the enhanced unemployment continues , then the rent is manageable , ” Nussbaum says .
“ The one-two punch of having [ the benefit and the federal eviction moratorium ] expire at the same time is going to be horrific.
” Nussbaum and Enany have been advising their clients to save their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31 expiration .
But not all of them can manage to build savings , and the funds people have been able to assemble from the $ 600 supplement that has only existed since March are not enough to ride out a long economic slump .
“ There ’ s no way you could put together a six-month emergency fund in three months when you ’ re dealing with everything else that we ’ ve been dealing with , ” Nussbaum says .
As Congress continues to debate the future of the unemployment benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best to advise their clients with the limited information they have .
“ People are asking what ’ s going to happen , and you don ’ t have an answer for them , ” Enany says .
“ You just stress how uncertain things are and recommend that they save as much as possible for uncertainty .
Because uncertainty is what we have .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
From her apartment in New Jersey, Elise Nussbaum has spent the past four months counseling dozens of people all over the country—in New York, California, Texas, and beyond—about their money, in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Nussbaum is a financial coach with Neighborhood Trust, a New York nonprofit that offers free financial coaching to low- and middle-income people. Before March, most of her clients wanted to work on forward-looking financial strategies, like improving credit or getting out of debt. But as many of them lost jobs, started caring for sick relatives, or got sick themselves, they were forced to focus on the immediate moment. If somebody had saved up to pay off a debt, she’d tell them to hold on to that money instead to cover the basics: rent, food, electricity.
“Everybody’s mode switched from long-term to short-term,” she says. “It became much more: ‘Let’s figure out how we’re going to handle the next few months, or the next month. Let’s figure out how we’re going to handle next week.’”
That changed in late March, when as part of the sweeping coronavirus relief package known as the CARES Act, Congress enacted an extra $600 weekly benefit for workers on unemployment. That money, Nussbaum says, was a “godsend” that transformed the financial outlook of her clients. The extra $600 payments, called Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC), have been the reason that many are able to cover basic needs. But the money has also allowed many to put aside funds for the first time in years, or ever. It’s given them a chance to think about their long-term financial health again, rather than starting each month or week at zero.
One of her coaching colleagues, Justin Enany, says that for the first time ever, he’s been able to help clients plan. “If someone’s fixed expenses are 95 percent of their income, like I see all the time, there’s not a whole lot you can recommend,” he says. “You’re just trying to prevent the worst of the worst.”
The expiration of this $600 benefit is right around the corner—July 31, absent an extension by Congress. The Democratic-controlled House passed a bill in May to extend the benefit until January 2021. The GOP Senate majority has continued to debate how much, if anything, of the benefit it will leave standing.
Economists and advocates have long warned that an end or reduction of enhanced unemployment will usher in an “income cliff”—an enormous drop in monthly income and a wave of immediate household pain and financial struggle at a moment when many families’ financial situations have not returned to pre-pandemic normal.
But there’s a related loss that would come with the expiration of the unemployment benefits: for individuals, a loss of the ability to put themselves on stabler financial footing in the long term, and for the economy as a whole, a retreat from exactly the kind of consumer spending that’s needed to create jobs. The combined impact could jeopardize the ability of Americans, and of the US economy, to rebound from the current crisis when the virus finally begins to ebb.
“Cutting benefits to incentivize people to take jobs that aren’t there is terrible economics, and just cruel,” says economist Heidi Shierholz.
As Americans in low-wage sectors like food service have disproportionately been the ones to lose work in this pandemic, the weekly $600 addition has meant that many people are bringing in more money than they once did at their regular jobs. This has allowed legions of people like Nussbaum and Enany’s clients to invest in their financial health: paying off outstanding bills, working down a debt, or putting money into improving a small business that will later reap dividends. This sort of investment, say economists, is a feature, not a bug, of the enhanced unemployment program. Almost all spending right now—whether on short-term needs like rent or food or on longer-term ones like paying off a debt— will help stimulate the pandemic-battered economy.
“The bottom line here is there isn’t necessarily a clean distinction between long term and short term in terms of the nature of the spending,” says Greg Leiserson, the chief economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. “What we have writ large is scenarios where people are using funds to maintain their standard of living and improve it, and doing so with a variety of spending that can have positive spillover effects.”
As Senate Republicans race to come to an agreement about how to move forward, many have made clear they would like to see the benefit expire. Their latest proposals include the possibility of reducing the benefit to as little as $100 per week, with the goal of replacing 70 percent of workers’ regular pay. But they have yet to unveil a final plan.
As the expiration date approaches, Nussbaum says, “everyone is sort of holding their breath.”
Republicans’ argument for ending or reducing the additional $600 payment goes like this: The benefit, which amounts to at least $2400 in additional monthly income, is too generous and therefore discourages workers from reentering the workforce. In their thinking, small businesses are clamoring for workers to return, but their employees would rather sit back and collect unemployment. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the $600 benefit akin to paying people “a bonus not to go back to work.”
Many economists, however, point out that there are not enough jobs to go back to. According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in May there were 3.9 unemployed people per job opening. “Cutting benefits to incentivize people to take jobs that aren’t there is terrible economics, and just cruel,” says Heidi Shierholz, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “It will cause a huge amount of human suffering.” What’s more, she adds, many people aren’t going back to work not because of unemployment checks, but due to the risk of contracting COVID-19, or because of childcare responsibilities while schools, summer camps, and daycares remain closed. “It doesn’t matter how much you cut their benefits; it’s impossible to incentivize them to take a job because they cannot,” she says. “So if you cut their benefits, you’re only hurting them.”
A number of economic analyses have found no evidence of a connection between enhanced unemployment benefits and people’s likelihood of taking a job. “I lean more and more that UI [unemployment insurance] generosity should be maintained,” former Treasury economist Ernie Tedeschi wrote on Twitter, after doing his own analysis and finding no evidence that the generosity of the benefit is dragging the labor market.
If anything, the opposite is true: The extra $600 is likely to lower unemployment rates, explains Alix Gould-Werth, the director of family economic security policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. That’s because as the income helps people cover bills, it leads to spending that props up businesses—and eventually creates more jobs.
“If we cut this $600 at a time when we’re seeing the worst rates of unemployment that we’ve seen since the Great Depression, what will happen is the unemployment that’s being faced by people already on the rolls is going to be contagious, much like the virus itself,” Gould-Werth says.
An Economic Policy Institute analysis found that extending the $600 benefit until the middle of 2021 would create 5.1 million jobs. “Cutting off the $600 doesn’t just hurt the people who are recipients,” says Shierholz. “It hurts all of us.”
“If we cut this $600…the unemployment that’s being faced by people already on the rolls is going to be contagious, much like the virus itself.”
Ramona Ferreyra, one of the clients of Trust Plus, Neighborhood Trust’s coaching program, knows this firsthand. Two years ago, Ferreyra started a small online retail business selling children’s clothes inspired by her Hispanic heritage, after a Google search for “Hispanic onesies” while hunting for a gift for her nephew turned up baby clothes that said “bad hombre.” Receiving the extended unemployment, she says, has not just made up for the lost income from canceled events and an initial drop in sales; it has allowed her to invest in expanding her business by buying Facebook and Google ads she couldn’t afford before and paying an intern. The most immediate impact of losing those extra funds, she says, will be having to let the intern go.
Due to a disability, Ferreyra is no longer able to work in traditional jobs. The business, as well as government support, is what she and her 89-year-old grandmother live on, in a one-bedroom apartment in a public housing complex in the Bronx. The unemployment income far exceeds the approximately $200 in discretionary spending that she holds herself to each month, and it’s allowed her to assemble some savings to get them through the uncertain future of the coronavirus economy.
Investing part of the unemployment money into her business has already boosted her sales. “I feel more confident and more ready for the future than I have in years,” she says. She’s expecting the benefit to expire, and she fears the consequences. “It’s unsafe for people to go back to work,” she says. “Every time they try to reopen the economy, it’s people of color who end up paying for that. It’s service workers like in my community and throughout the Bronx that are going to keep dying.”
To understand the economic significance of the extra $600, it is important to note that regular unemployment insurance was never intended to help people through systemic, long-running economic crises like the one wrought by the pandemic. When the federal government created the program following the Great Depression, it was designed to replace about half of a worker’s regular wages, functioning as a stopgap that could supplement workers’ savings or community help to weather a short spell of unemployment. (In practice, it replaces 40 percent of wages on average, and less in some states.) The aim of limiting benefits was to create an incentive for workers to find a job, in order to return to their former standard of living.
“Let’s say that in a normal economic climate, that kind of makes sense,” Gould-Werth says. “But this is not a normal economic climate. There aren’t jobs to be found right now, and it’s unclear when that’s going to get better.”
In most states, unemployment insurance maxes out at a few hundred dollars a week; on average, workers get $370 weekly. Congress enacted the extra $600 in March with the idea that it would fill the gap left by this partial wage replacement—making people whole, and in doing so, ensuring that they keep spending, stimulating the economy.
“The unemployment program right now is serving a dual role—one part social insurance, a program that alleviates hardship, and one part macroeconomic stabilizer,” says Leiserson. “Both of those are happening at the same time.”
Take spending on rent and housing. The $600 benefit has allowed many families to make rent, says Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. If it expires, paying the rent becomes a lot more difficult—just after the federal eviction moratorium enacted by the CARES Act, which applies to about 30 percent of households, expires on Saturday.
“The unemployment program right now is serving a dual role—one part social insurance, a program that alleviates hardship, and one part macroeconomic stabilizer.”
This has enormous implications. When huge numbers of people can’t pay their rent, it sets off an economic chain reaction: Suddenly their landlords can’t pay their mortgages, and they in turn spend less on goods—and then the workers who make those goods lose their jobs.
“We’re at risk of a massive collapse in spending if [the additional] unemployment insurance expires,” says Leiserson. “Part of how that would be transmitted through the economy is missed rent payments and missed mortgage payments.”
If this gets bad enough, for long enough, across a large enough mass of people, slews of owners could default on their home loans, leading the banks that lent them the money to book losses, and the economy to slide further into crisis.
The $600 benefit—along with federal and state eviction moratoriums and the one-time $1,200 stimulus checks issued following passage of the CARES Act—has been key to staving off a national wave of missed rent and evictions, says Yentel, Though not completely. In June, nearly a third of Americans missed their housing payments. In the more than 20 states that have already allowed their own eviction moratoriums to expire, eviction filings and proceedings have been on the rise, Yentel says, while emergency rental assistance programs have been depleted in a matter of days or hours. In Los Angeles, a program with enough funding to help 50,000 renters saw double that number of applications in its first day. Houston’s program closed 90 minutes after opening, due to overwhelming demand. New York State’s website crashed after only eight minutes. “This is with expanded unemployment still in place,” Yentel says, predicting a housing catastrophe once that benefit ends. “The imminent tsunami of evictions is both entirely predictable and preventable,” Yentel says.
Nussbaum says most of her clients who have lost their job are able to pay their rent only because of the added $600 benefit. “If the enhanced unemployment continues, then the rent is manageable,” Nussbaum says. “The one-two punch of having [the benefit and the federal eviction moratorium] expire at the same time is going to be horrific.”
Nussbaum and Enany have been advising their clients to save their extra unemployment dollars ahead of the July 31 expiration. But not all of them can manage to build savings, and the funds people have been able to assemble from the $600 supplement that has only existed since March are not enough to ride out a long economic slump. “There’s no way you could put together a six-month emergency fund in three months when you’re dealing with everything else that we’ve been dealing with,” Nussbaum says.
As Congress continues to debate the future of the unemployment benefit, Nussbaum and Enany have done their best to advise their clients with the limited information they have. “People are asking what’s going to happen, and you don’t have an answer for them,” Enany says. “You just stress how uncertain things are and recommend that they save as much as possible for uncertainty. Because uncertainty is what we have.”


motherjones--2020-07-24--A Magazine Story Opened Eyes to Hiroshima’s Horror. White House Allies Plotted to Shut Them Again.

This article is adapted from The Beginning or the End : How Hollywood—and America—Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb ( published earlier this month by The New Press ) .
As the world this summer marks the 75th anniversary of the US attack on two Japanese cities with a revolutionary new weapon , our opinions about those world-changing events are still being shaped by two magazine articles published a little more than a year later .
One is considered a classic , read widely today mostly in book form .
The other , a deliberate response published just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all .
Yet of the two , the latter likely has had greater lasting influence on the views and official nuclear policies of Americans ever since .
How that story came to be is part of the larger story of why the public , the media , and military and government leaders still support the world ’ s only use of the terror weapon against cities .
John Hersey ’ s “ Hiroshima , ” which filled the entire feature space of the August 31 , 1946 , issue of the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the most important and influential journalistic achievements of the past century .
Indeed , it was greeted upon publication with overwhelming praise from readers and media commentators alike , was narrated in its entirety over national radio , and soon published as a book destined to be a bestseller .
From this one might assume—and most have—that the article forever changed the views of many Americans , including top officials and editorialists , coming as it did just over a year after President Harry Truman ordered atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , about 90 percent of them civilians .
It certainly did have an immediate effect on public opinion .
The story , in gripping fashion , simply followed the aftermath of the horrific bombing as experienced by six Japanese survivors , their paths at times crossing novelistically .
But its most important legacy might have been the response it inspired among people whose opinions were resolutely unchanged .
To thwart any potential shift in public sentiment against the attack , several officials who played key roles in building or using the bomb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ L. Stimson and Truman himself , plotted to take combative action to install their version of history .
This would lead to a very different story in another leading magazine , Harper ’ s , to reinforce the Hiroshima narrative these men had promoted from the start—and which still holds sway now , more or less .
Average Americans and the media had endorsed that assault on Japan , as it seemed to help end the bloody war , but in the aftermath the US had kept hidden almost all photos , film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human effects of the bombings ( including radiation disease ) .
The Hersey article , with its unflinching account of what survivors witnessed in Hiroshima , threatened the official narrative of justification .
The view of well-respected Saturday Review editor Norman Cousins added significantly to the impact .
In an editorial titled The Literacy of Survival , he asserted that Americans , despite Hersey ’ s achievement , still did not fully comprehend what we had done .
“ Have we as a people , ” he asked , “ any sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nagasaki ?
Have we attempted to press our leaders for an answer concerning their refusal to heed the pleas of the scientists against the use of the bomb without a demonstration ?
” He concluded by calling for a national “ moratorium ” on all normal habits and routine , “ in order to acquire a basic literacy ” on the moral implications of the atomic bombings and the atomic age .
If this accomplished little it would at least “ enable the American people to recognize a crisis when they see one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same period , MGM was producing the first Hollywood movie about the creation and use of the bomb , The Beginning or the End , which posed an additional threat to the official narrative , drawing the alarmed attention of Truman and the director of the Manhattan Project , Gen. Leslie Groves .
They intervened in unprecedented fashion to order revisions and retakes to shape a new pro-bomb message .
( This is the subject of my book , The Beginning or the End : How Hollywood—and America—Learned to Stop Worrying and Love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who supported the use of the bomb against Japan had to respond in some way , as Hiroshima , now in book form , hit the bestseller lists .
James Conant , the president of Harvard University , who played a key role on the advisory committee that recommended to Truman that he deploy the new weapon , had grown so alarmed by the threat posed by Hersey and Cousins that he wrote to Harvey Bundy , former assistant to Secretary of War Stimson .
“ I am considerably disturbed about this type @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent days , ” Conant explained .
He warned of a potential “ distortion of history ” that would be passed down by “ a small minority ” to succeeding generations if the Hersey and Cousins writings were not challenged .
It was vital that someone with great authority , such as Stimson , pen a “ statement of fact , ” in the form of a popular article , and soon .
Declaring he was “ unrepentant ” about using the two bombs against Japan , Conant even outlined the points Stimson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ raised no protest ” ( actually not true ) ; a demonstration shot in a remote area before using it against people was “ not realistic ” ( debatable ) ; and it was just “ Monday morning quarterbacking ” to assert that Japan was ready to surrender ( in fact , several prominent Truman advisers had raised the issue before the attacks ) .
Stimson readily accepted the writing assignment , which he would undertake with his former aide ’ s son , McGeorge Bundy .
Soon he would come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had harbored about using the bomb against any civilian target ( especially his beloved Kyoto ) .
He had spent some sleepless nights over the decision .
If anything , Stimson was among the more dovish of Truman ’ s advisers on possibly ending the war without using the new device .
Now , more than a year later , with Stimson ambivalent about his writing assignment , McGeorge Bundy solicited rough drafts of the article from his father , from Leslie Groves , and from two others .
The White House was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved , as he had separately urged Stimson to write just such a defense .
( “ I think you know the facts of whole situation better than anybody , ” Truman advised , and Stimson should “ straighten out the record on it.
” ) Harvey Bundy argued that the main aim for dropping the bomb was simply to save lives .
Groves in his draft painted a picture of thoughtful men exercising great care in making a truly wise decision ; as usual , he took wide credit for this himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was always meant to be a city , “ primarily military.
” Stimson and McGeorge Bundy consolidated the arguments and sent a draft to Conant for comment .
Conant insisted that they eliminate any mention of the internal discussions ( of which Stimson was a part ) about modifying Truman ’ s unconditional surrender demand to allow Japan to keep its emperor—which some thought would speed a pre-bombing surrender offer .
Conant rightly called this “ the problem of the Emperor.
” And he was so concerned readers might feel that the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote an insert arguing otherwise .
Conant urged Stimson to get the article published in a major magazine as soon as possible .
But Stimson remained conflicted .
“ I have rarely been connected with a paper about which I have so much doubt at the last minute , ” he told a friend .
He feared that those who knew him and regarded him as “ a kindly minded Christian gentleman ” would , after reading such an article , “ feel I am cold blooded and cruel.
” Nevertheless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Harper ‘ s in its February 1947 issue , boosted by a cover line that promised the story would explain “ Why We Used the Atomic Bomb.
” Stimson had told Truman that he hoped the article would answer the activist “ Chicago scientists ” and “ satisfy the doubts of the rather difficult class of the community which will have charge of the education of the next generation.
” Published by Harper ’ s in a report that filled 11 pages , Stimson ’ s dispassionate treatise drew wide attention partly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the key dates , meetings , memos , and individuals surrounding the decision to drop the bomb .
Commentators on radio and in print treated it not so much as advocacy but as a statement of facts , much as Conant had hoped .
Many newspapers , including the Washington Post , reprinted the entire article—Harper ’ s made it available to any outlet for no fee—and others quoted from it at length , often on their front pages .
In many respects it was a replay of the response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Stimson ’ s estimates of one million American lives saved , the highest number ( if wildly exaggerated ) yet offered .
The New York Times , which over the preceding 18 months had occasionally raised questions in editorials about the use of the bomb and which had lauded Hersey ’ s work , now endorsed that decision completely .
It found the reasoning expressed by Stimson “ irrefutable , ” the justifications “ unchallengeable.
” The New York Herald Tribune went even further in deciding the case was closed : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much for the Hersey article .
The Harper ’ s article detailed how the decision was made by Truman only after the official advisory Interim Committee had recommended that the weapon be used as soon as possible and without specific warning against a “ dual ” target—some sort of military installation surrounded by enough houses ( “ enough ” meaning many thousands ) to show off its pure and deadly power .
A demonstration shot was judged “ impractical ” and risky ; it might be a “ dud , ” making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s surrender terms were always “ vague ” so Truman really had no choice .
Stimson stated repeatedly that the bomb and the bomb alone had ended the war .
He did not mention even once Russia ’ s critical entry into the war against Japan on August 8 , nor whether US concerns about the Soviet threat in the postwar years played any role in the decision to use the bomb .
He downplayed attempts to end the war by modifying surrender terms to allow Japan to keep its emperor ( which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later admitted in his memoirs might have ended the war sooner ) .
Nor did he disclose that a leading argument for using the bomb expressed by many insiders , from Conant to Groves , was that it was “ the only way to awaken the world to the necessity of abolishing war altogether.
” It was Stimson himself who had stated that view , although not in his article .
With the Stimson article a sensation , Truman now informed him that he had clarified the issue “ very well.
” Dean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed and…superbly done.
” McGeorge Bundy joked that the article had reduced certain annoying “ chatterers to silence.
” In a letter to Stimson , James Conant expressed a heretofore hidden reason why the article was so important : He was now firmly convinced that the Russians would agree to American proposals in the atomic field “ provided they are convinced that we would have the bomb in quantity and would be prepared to use it without hesitation in another war.
” On the other hand , “ if the propaganda against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to grow unchecked , the strength of our military position by virtue of having the bomb would have been correspondingly weakened.
” This pointed to perhaps the prime reason for shoring up the Hiroshima narrative : Not merely to provide the “ correct ” message for future Americans but to impart the proper lesson to the Soviets .
So much for the past ?
Around the same time , that MGM movie , The Beginning of the End , was released in theaters .
The movie offered an upbeat take on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different from where the script had started , thanks to dozens of changes ordered by Groves ( who had wangled script approval ) and the White House .
Truman demanded that MGM reshoot a key scene to portray his decision to drop the bombs in a warmer light .
The president even contrived to have the actor playing him fired , claiming that he lacked “ military bearing.
” Shortly after the Harper ’ s article appeared , the new Atomic Energy Commission held one of its initial meetings .
Discussions ensued about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy/reactor issues versus military/bomb applications , “ with rather general final agreement that weapons were of first priority , ” according to the minutes of the meeting .
Maximum effort would be thus directed to reviving Los Alamos , conducting more weapons tests , increasing the production of raw materials for atomic bombs—and developing new devices , such as the hydrogen bomb .
Robert Oppenheimer , the so-called “ father of the atomic bomb ” who had argued for a focus on peaceful uses , nevertheless went along quietly , telling the assembled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart of the problem has been reached with surprising speed : The making of atomic weapons is something to which we are committed.
” Leo Szilard , who ’ d played a key role in developing the bomb and had tried to stop or delay Truman from using it against Japan , now believed only a “ miracle ” from God could save the day and the era ahead .
In the broader society , however , the crisis for proponents of a nuclear buildup seemed to be at an end .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Harper ‘ s and the denuding of The Beginning or the End , they had surmounted the temporary threat posed by John Hersey ’ s popular article and book and the impassioned critiques by Norman Cousins , theologians and scientists , and some journalists and military brass .
“ The vast majority of public opinion still stood firmly behind US atomic policy and its decision to use the weapons on Japan , ” James Hershberg would observe in his biography of James Conant .
Truman ’ s image was secured as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his decision to use the bomb.
” With that established , the scientists ’ movement went into a steep spiral .
With any challenges to developing bigger and better nuclear weapons set aside , American scientists , led by Edward Teller , plunged into creating a mega-device , the hydrogen bomb .
The Soviets would invent and test their first atomic devices , then their hydrogen devices , and the arms race with the Americans was on and would last almost 50 years .
Soon there would be thousands , then tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hiroshima and Nagasaki , all the while , sank deeper into what the writer Mary McCarthy called “ a hole in human history.
” Today , many Americans still read the Hersey report while few are even aware of Stimson ’ s article .
Yet polls show most Americans continue to endorse the decision to use the bomb against Japan ; reporters and pundits in the media rarely challenge the official narrative of the attack ; and America ’ s “ first-strike ” nuclear policy remains firmly in place .
Americans are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened on the ground in Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
When this evidence is presented , inevitably it is surrounded by arguments for the dropping of the bomb—first presented , and rarely altered or expanded , since the Harper ‘ s article in early 1947 .
Sadly , the verdict of history is clear , for now : Stimson and the plotters behind his article won the argument .
Greg Mitchell has written a dozen books .
His latest , The Beginning or the End : How Hollywood—and America—Learned to Stop Worrying and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this month by The New Press .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
This article is adapted from The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood—and America—Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (published earlier this month by The New Press).
As the world this summer marks the 75th anniversary of the US attack on two Japanese cities with a revolutionary new weapon, our opinions about those world-changing events are still being shaped by two magazine articles published a little more than a year later. One is considered a classic, read widely today mostly in book form. The other, a deliberate response published just five months later, is barely remembered at all. Yet of the two, the latter likely has had greater lasting influence on the views and official nuclear policies of Americans ever since. How that story came to be is part of the larger story of why the public, the media, and military and government leaders still support the world’s only use of the terror weapon against cities.
John Hersey’s “Hiroshima,” which filled the entire feature space of the August 31, 1946, issue of the New Yorker, has been called by many one of the most important and influential journalistic achievements of the past century. Indeed, it was greeted upon publication with overwhelming praise from readers and media commentators alike, was narrated in its entirety over national radio, and soon published as a book destined to be a bestseller.
From this one might assume—and most have—that the article forever changed the views of many Americans, including top officials and editorialists, coming as it did just over a year after President Harry Truman ordered atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing upwards of 250,000 people, about 90 percent of them civilians. It certainly did have an immediate effect on public opinion. The story, in gripping fashion, simply followed the aftermath of the horrific bombing as experienced by six Japanese survivors, their paths at times crossing novelistically. But its most important legacy might have been the response it inspired among people whose opinions were resolutely unchanged.
To thwart any potential shift in public sentiment against the attack, several officials who played key roles in building or using the bomb, including former Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and Truman himself, plotted to take combative action to install their version of history. This would lead to a very different story in another leading magazine, Harper’s, to reinforce the Hiroshima narrative these men had promoted from the start—and which still holds sway now, more or less.
Average Americans and the media had endorsed that assault on Japan, as it seemed to help end the bloody war, but in the aftermath the US had kept hidden almost all photos, film footage, and first-person accounts of the human effects of the bombings (including radiation disease). The Hersey article, with its unflinching account of what survivors witnessed in Hiroshima, threatened the official narrative of justification.
The view of well-respected Saturday Review editor Norman Cousins added significantly to the impact. In an editorial titled The Literacy of Survival, he asserted that Americans, despite Hersey’s achievement, still did not fully comprehend what we had done. “Have we as a people,” he asked, “any sense of responsibility for the crime of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Have we attempted to press our leaders for an answer concerning their refusal to heed the pleas of the scientists against the use of the bomb without a demonstration?” He concluded by calling for a national “moratorium” on all normal habits and routine, “in order to acquire a basic literacy” on the moral implications of the atomic bombings and the atomic age. If this accomplished little it would at least “enable the American people to recognize a crisis when they see one and are in one.”
In the same period, MGM was producing the first Hollywood movie about the creation and use of the bomb, The Beginning or the End, which posed an additional threat to the official narrative, drawing the alarmed attention of Truman and the director of the Manhattan Project, Gen. Leslie Groves. They intervened in unprecedented fashion to order revisions and retakes to shape a new pro-bomb message. (This is the subject of my book, The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood—and America—Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.)
Clearly, those who supported the use of the bomb against Japan had to respond in some way, as Hiroshima, now in book form, hit the bestseller lists. James Conant, the president of Harvard University, who played a key role on the advisory committee that recommended to Truman that he deploy the new weapon, had grown so alarmed by the threat posed by Hersey and Cousins that he wrote to Harvey Bundy, former assistant to Secretary of War Stimson. “I am considerably disturbed about this type of comment which has been increasing in recent days,” Conant explained. He warned of a potential “distortion of history” that would be passed down by “a small minority” to succeeding generations if the Hersey and Cousins writings were not challenged. It was vital that someone with great authority, such as Stimson, pen a “statement of fact,” in the form of a popular article, and soon.
Declaring he was “unrepentant” about using the two bombs against Japan, Conant even outlined the points Stimson should explore: The atomic scientists had “raised no protest” (actually not true); a demonstration shot in a remote area before using it against people was “not realistic” (debatable); and it was just “Monday morning quarterbacking” to assert that Japan was ready to surrender (in fact, several prominent Truman advisers had raised the issue before the attacks).
Stimson readily accepted the writing assignment, which he would undertake with his former aide’s son, McGeorge Bundy. Soon he would come to regret it, recalling the doubts he had harbored about using the bomb against any civilian target (especially his beloved Kyoto). He had spent some sleepless nights over the decision. If anything, Stimson was among the more dovish of Truman’s advisers on possibly ending the war without using the new device.
Now, more than a year later, with Stimson ambivalent about his writing assignment, McGeorge Bundy solicited rough drafts of the article from his father, from Leslie Groves, and from two others. The White House was not directly involved, but Truman surely approved, as he had separately urged Stimson to write just such a defense. (“I think you know the facts of whole situation better than anybody,” Truman advised, and Stimson should “straighten out the record on it.”) Harvey Bundy argued that the main aim for dropping the bomb was simply to save lives. Groves in his draft painted a picture of thoughtful men exercising great care in making a truly wise decision; as usual, he took wide credit for this himself. He falsely asserted that the target was always meant to be a city, “primarily military.”
Stimson and McGeorge Bundy consolidated the arguments and sent a draft to Conant for comment. Conant insisted that they eliminate any mention of the internal discussions (of which Stimson was a part) about modifying Truman’s unconditional surrender demand to allow Japan to keep its emperor—which some thought would speed a pre-bombing surrender offer. Conant rightly called this “the problem of the Emperor.” And he was so concerned readers might feel that the idea of a demonstration shot seemed fair that he wrote an insert arguing otherwise.
Conant urged Stimson to get the article published in a major magazine as soon as possible. But Stimson remained conflicted. “I have rarely been connected with a paper about which I have so much doubt at the last minute,” he told a friend. He feared that those who knew him and regarded him as “a kindly minded Christian gentleman” would, after reading such an article, “feel I am cold blooded and cruel.”
Nevertheless, his article was published with great fanfare by Harper‘s in its February 1947 issue, boosted by a cover line that promised the story would explain “Why We Used the Atomic Bomb.” Stimson had told Truman that he hoped the article would answer the activist “Chicago scientists” and “satisfy the doubts of the rather difficult class of the community which will have charge of the education of the next generation.”
Published by Harper’s in a report that filled 11 pages, Stimson’s dispassionate treatise drew wide attention partly because it revealed for the first time some of the key dates, meetings, memos, and individuals surrounding the decision to drop the bomb. Commentators on radio and in print treated it not so much as advocacy but as a statement of facts, much as Conant had hoped. Many newspapers, including the Washington Post, reprinted the entire article—Harper’s made it available to any outlet for no fee—and others quoted from it at length, often on their front pages.
Truman now informed him that he had clarified the issue “very well.” Dean Acheson told him it “was badly needed and…superbly done.” McGeorge Bundy joked that the article had reduced certain annoying “chatterers to silence.”
In many respects it was a replay of the response to the John Hersey article. Some focused on Stimson’s estimates of one million American lives saved, the highest number (if wildly exaggerated) yet offered. The New York Times, which over the preceding 18 months had occasionally raised questions in editorials about the use of the bomb and which had lauded Hersey’s work, now endorsed that decision completely. It found the reasoning expressed by Stimson “irrefutable,” the justifications “unchallengeable.”
The New York Herald Tribune went even further in deciding the case was closed: “So much for the past.”
And so much for the Hersey article.
The Harper’s article detailed how the decision was made by Truman only after the official advisory Interim Committee had recommended that the weapon be used as soon as possible and without specific warning against a “dual” target—some sort of military installation surrounded by enough houses (“enough” meaning many thousands) to show off its pure and deadly power. A demonstration shot was judged “impractical” and risky; it might be a “dud,” making the US position worse. Japan’s surrender terms were always “vague” so Truman really had no choice. Stimson stated repeatedly that the bomb and the bomb alone had ended the war.
He did not mention even once Russia’s critical entry into the war against Japan on August 8, nor whether US concerns about the Soviet threat in the postwar years played any role in the decision to use the bomb. He downplayed attempts to end the war by modifying surrender terms to allow Japan to keep its emperor (which Stimson for a time had supported and later admitted in his memoirs might have ended the war sooner). Nor did he disclose that a leading argument for using the bomb expressed by many insiders, from Conant to Groves, was that it was “the only way to awaken the world to the necessity of abolishing war altogether.” It was Stimson himself who had stated that view, although not in his article.
With the Stimson article a sensation, Truman now informed him that he had clarified the issue “very well.” Dean Acheson told him it “was badly needed and…superbly done.” McGeorge Bundy joked that the article had reduced certain annoying “chatterers to silence.” In a letter to Stimson, James Conant expressed a heretofore hidden reason why the article was so important: He was now firmly convinced that the Russians would agree to American proposals in the atomic field “provided they are convinced that we would have the bomb in quantity and would be prepared to use it without hesitation in another war.” On the other hand, “if the propaganda against the use of the atomic bomb had been allowed to grow unchecked, the strength of our military position by virtue of having the bomb would have been correspondingly weakened.”
This pointed to perhaps the prime reason for shoring up the Hiroshima narrative: Not merely to provide the “correct” message for future Americans but to impart the proper lesson to the Soviets. So much for the past?
Around the same time, that MGM movie, The Beginning of the End, was released in theaters. The movie offered an upbeat take on the use of the bomb that was dramatically different from where the script had started, thanks to dozens of changes ordered by Groves (who had wangled script approval) and the White House. Truman demanded that MGM reshoot a key scene to portray his decision to drop the bombs in a warmer light. The president even contrived to have the actor playing him fired, claiming that he lacked “military bearing.”
Shortly after the Harper’s article appeared, the new Atomic Energy Commission held one of its initial meetings. Discussions ensued about the relative importance of focusing on strictly energy/reactor issues versus military/bomb applications, “with rather general final agreement that weapons were of first priority,” according to the minutes of the meeting. Maximum effort would be thus directed to reviving Los Alamos, conducting more weapons tests, increasing the production of raw materials for atomic bombs—and developing new devices, such as the hydrogen bomb. Robert Oppenheimer, the so-called “father of the atomic bomb” who had argued for a focus on peaceful uses, nevertheless went along quietly, telling the assembled: “It seems to me the heart of the problem has been reached with surprising speed: The making of atomic weapons is something to which we are committed.” Leo Szilard, who’d played a key role in developing the bomb and had tried to stop or delay Truman from using it against Japan, now believed only a “miracle” from God could save the day and the era ahead.
In the broader society, however, the crisis for proponents of a nuclear buildup seemed to be at an end. With the orchestrated publication of the Stimson article in Harper‘s and the denuding of The Beginning or the End, they had surmounted the temporary threat posed by John Hersey’s popular article and book and the impassioned critiques by Norman Cousins, theologians and scientists, and some journalists and military brass. “The vast majority of public opinion still stood firmly behind US atomic policy and its decision to use the weapons on Japan,” James Hershberg would observe in his biography of James Conant. Truman’s image was secured as “careful, informed, and deliberate in his decision to use the bomb.”
With that established, the scientists’ movement went into a steep spiral. With any challenges to developing bigger and better nuclear weapons set aside, American scientists, led by Edward Teller, plunged into creating a mega-device, the hydrogen bomb. The Soviets would invent and test their first atomic devices, then their hydrogen devices, and the arms race with the Americans was on and would last almost 50 years. Soon there would be thousands, then tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in the world. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all the while, sank deeper into what the writer Mary McCarthy called “a hole in human history.”
Today, many Americans still read the Hersey report while few are even aware of Stimson’s article. Yet polls show most Americans continue to endorse the decision to use the bomb against Japan; reporters and pundits in the media rarely challenge the official narrative of the attack; and America’s “first-strike” nuclear policy remains firmly in place. Americans are rarely confronted with facts or images of what happened on the ground in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When this evidence is presented, inevitably it is surrounded by arguments for the dropping of the bomb—first presented, and rarely altered or expanded, since the Harper‘s article in early 1947. Sadly, the verdict of history is clear, for now: Stimson and the plotters behind his article won the argument.
Greg Mitchell has written a dozen books. His latest, The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood—and America—Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, was published earlier this month by The New Press.


motherjones--2020-07-27--ICE Has to Release Kids From Detention. It Refuses to Let Their Parents Join Them.

Time has run out for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release the more than 100 children currently being held in immigration detention .
After several delays , a federal judge ’ s ruling that ICE must release minors held in the agency ’ s three family detention centers is set to go into effect today .
On Saturday , the Trump administration asked Judge Dolly Gee of the US District Court of Los Angeles to delay the order again , but Gee held firm .
Her message was clear : Release the children—but don ’ t even think about ripping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consent .
In April , Gee ordered ICE “ to make every effort to promptly and safely ” release children in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic as part of her oversight of the Flores settlement , which set standards for the treatment of children in immigration custody .
The settlement states that children can be held by ICE for no longer than 20 days .
But it says nothing about the parents detained alongside their children .
So following Gee ’ s decision , ICE presented parents with an unthinkable decision : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separated , or remain together in detention and risk contracting COVID-19 .
As my colleagues Fernanda Echavarri and Noah Lanard reported : Judge Gee would follow up her April order with an even stronger one in June , likening the threat of coronavirus in the family residential facilities to a house “ on fire ” and putting a firm deadline on the kids ’ release : July 17 .
( This deadline was then delayed by 10 days after both sides asked for more time . )
In the meantime , RAICES and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release of entire families by way of a separate lawsuit , also citing the imminent threat of COVID-19 .
On Wednesday , they filed a preliminary injunction requesting the immediate release of families , but it was denied by a different judge .
Amy Maldonado , a lawyer representing some of the detained families , emphasized that the government ’ s decision to continue to hold people is arbitrary .
“ They could let people out tomorrow , ” she said .
“ They could have let people out six months ago.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing to the inevitability that detained families might once again be faced with the “ binary choice ” of releasing children to a sponsor and facing indefinite separation , or staying together inside .
Another indicator ?
An influential attorney representing child detainees has come out in support of asking parents to make this choice .
As Tina Vasquez at Prism lays out , Peter Schey—the veteran LA lawyer who has argued Flores on behalf of children since the case ’ s inception in 1985—has clashed in recent years with other immigration lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protocol that amounts to family separation .
On July 21 , RAICES and ALDEA lawyers filed a motion to intervene in the Flores case , saying the interests of the children “ are not adequately represented and irretrievably at odds ” with Schey ’ s opinion .
They say that especially in the wake of a pandemic , any policy forcing parents to make such a choice is inherently coercive , and that ICE should release entire families to protect them from the virus .
Schey replied by saying he didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was necessary .
The government took this internal division among child immigration attorneys as an opportunity to request another delay in the deadline , but Judge Gee rejected it .
In a last-minute order issued Saturday , she said in no uncertain terms that the deadline for release would remain firm , and that ICE has been expressly forbidden from separating children from their parents without their consent .
Until a process for waiving that consent is established , things remain at a standstill .
Though reports submitted to the courts indicate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detention centers , the threat of the coronavirus is still very real .
Forty-seven cases of the virus have been documented at the Karnes family detention center and one at the Dilley detention center , both located in Texas .
And lawyers say their clients still aren ’ t being adequately protected .
On a video conference hosted by RAICES , Shalyn Fluharty , the director of Proyecto Dilley , a group that offers pro bono legal representation to families detained inside the South Texas family detention center , described the practice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive for COVID-19 together in an isolated part of the facility , as a “ failure ” at the center .
Maldonado described a Fourth of July celebration of over 100 people at Dilley where there was “ not consistent mask-wearing.
” As of July 22 , 3,781 people in ICE custody have tested positive for the virus since February , and four detainees and four guards have died .
Maldonado believes that the pandemic should be enough to compel the government to release people , but doubts that it will .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting to detain families—some with children as young as one year—simply to be cruel .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Time has run out for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release the more than 100 children currently being held in immigration detention. After several delays, a federal judge’s ruling that ICE must release minors held in the agency’s three family detention centers is set to go into effect today. On Saturday, the Trump administration asked Judge Dolly Gee of the US District Court of Los Angeles to delay the order again, but Gee held firm. Her message was clear: Release the children—but don’t even think about ripping them away from their parents without their consent.
ICE presented parents with an unthinkable decision.
In April, Gee ordered ICE “to make every effort to promptly and safely” release children in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic as part of her oversight of the Flores settlement, which set standards for the treatment of children in immigration custody. The settlement states that children can be held by ICE for no longer than 20 days. But it says nothing about the parents detained alongside their children. So following Gee’s decision, ICE presented parents with an unthinkable decision: Release their children to sponsors and be separated, or remain together in detention and risk contracting COVID-19. As my colleagues Fernanda Echavarri and Noah Lanard reported:
Lawyers with the legal-aid groups RAICES, ALDEA, and Proyecto Dilley say ICE effectively ambushed their clients and blocked parents from consulting attorneys before answering that question. In some cases, parents were asked if they would want to put their children up for adoption or send them to foster homes, said Andrea Meza, RAICES’ director of family detention services. “Our clients were appalled that this would even be a question posed to them,” Meza added. “One client stated that he and his family expected more coming to the United States and seeking protection.”
Judge Gee would follow up her April order with an even stronger one in June, likening the threat of coronavirus in the family residential facilities to a house “on fire” and putting a firm deadline on the kids’ release: July 17. (This deadline was then delayed by 10 days after both sides asked for more time.)
In the meantime, RAICES and ALDEA lawyers have tried to secure the release of entire families by way of a separate lawsuit, also citing the imminent threat of COVID-19. On Wednesday, they filed a preliminary injunction requesting the immediate release of families, but it was denied by a different judge.
Amy Maldonado, a lawyer representing some of the detained families, emphasized that the government’s decision to continue to hold people is arbitrary. “They could let people out tomorrow,” she said. “They could have let people out six months ago.”
For advocates, it was another sign pointing to the inevitability that detained families might once again be faced with the “binary choice” of releasing children to a sponsor and facing indefinite separation, or staying together inside. Another indicator? An influential attorney representing child detainees has come out in support of asking parents to make this choice. As Tina Vasquez at Prism lays out, Peter Schey—the veteran LA lawyer who has argued Flores on behalf of children since the case’s inception in 1985—has clashed in recent years with other immigration lawyers over his support for a child release protocol that amounts to family separation.
On July 21, RAICES and ALDEA lawyers filed a motion to intervene in the Flores case, saying the interests of the children “are not adequately represented and irretrievably at odds” with Schey’s opinion. They say that especially in the wake of a pandemic, any policy forcing parents to make such a choice is inherently coercive, and that ICE should release entire families to protect them from the virus. Schey replied by saying he didn’t believe any intervention by the other lawyers was necessary.
The government took this internal division among child immigration attorneys as an opportunity to request another delay in the deadline, but Judge Gee rejected it. In a last-minute order issued Saturday, she said in no uncertain terms that the deadline for release would remain firm, and that ICE has been expressly forbidden from separating children from their parents without their consent. Until a process for waiving that consent is established, things remain at a standstill.
Though reports submitted to the courts indicate that ICE has improved sanitary conditions inside its detention centers, the threat of the coronavirus is still very real. Forty-seven cases of the virus have been documented at the Karnes family detention center and one at the Dilley detention center, both located in Texas. And lawyers say their clients still aren’t being adequately protected.
On a video conference hosted by RAICES, Shalyn Fluharty, the director of Proyecto Dilley, a group that offers pro bono legal representation to families detained inside the South Texas family detention center, described the practice of cohorting, keeping people who have tested positive for COVID-19 together in an isolated part of the facility, as a “failure” at the center. Maldonado described a Fourth of July celebration of over 100 people at Dilley where there was “not consistent mask-wearing.”
As of July 22, 3,781 people in ICE custody have tested positive for the virus since February, and four detainees and four guards have died.
Maldonado believes that the pandemic should be enough to compel the government to release people, but doubts that it will. “I believe they are going to continue fighting to detain families—some with children as young as one year—simply to be cruel.”


motherjones--2020-07-27--The Republican Unemployment Plan Could Delay Payments by Months

After weeks of debate and delay , Republicans unveiled a summary of their proposal for a new coronavirus relief bill on Monday .
And not only will millions of Americans see their weekly unemployment payments drop by hundreds of dollars if the proposal becomes law ; they may not even get those payments for months .
The summary , shared by Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-Iowa ) , includes Republicans ’ much-anticipated changes to the weekly $ 600 unemployment boost that has kept millions of jobless Americans afloat since Congress enacted it in March .
It calls on Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 200 through September .
After that , states would have to pay unemployed workers 70 percent of the wages they made at their last jobs .
The plan will create layers of administrative headache that threaten to tax already strapped state unemployment systems even further , and to delay benefits for months , says Michele Evermore , a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project .
In a memo circulated among lawmakers , the National Association of State Workforce Agencies ( NASWA ) warned that the plan would take state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implement .
That clock would start ticking only after the bill is officially passed and the Department of Labor issues its guidance on how exactly the benefits should be distributed .
These long delays stem from the mechanics of unemployment insurance .
When Congress first passed the weekly $ 600 unemployment boost in March , state labor departments had to reprogram their unemployment systems to dole out this additional money , which comes from federal , rather than state , coffers , and thus must be tracked separately , explains Evermore .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given that the final week that workers were eligible for the extra $ 600 ended over the weekend .
Still , state systems for doling out the same lump-sum payment to everyone now exist , and they could be reprogrammed to disburse $ 200 payments in a matter of weeks , notes the NASWA memo .
But this Senate proposal won ’ t allow state systems to simply return to flat payments .
They ’ ll have to revisit individual unemployment recipients , calculate what constitutes 70 percent of their past wages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out and track those distributions from two separate places : regular unemployment from state funds , and the rest of the payments from federal dollars .
“ State unemployment systems are already so overwhelmed , ” says Evermore .
“ Now we ’ re telling them , ‘ By the way , you have to rework your system to pay benefits in a way that we ’ ve never paid them before , good luck.
’ ” The NASWA memo warned lawmakers that the requirement that payments be individualized for each recipient would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sing a calculation based on individual wage records will necessarily require additional time to program , ” notes the memo .
This burden will come on top of a long list of challenges that is already bogging down state unemployment systems .
First , states are facing record numbers of unemployment claims ; more than 40 million Americans have applied for unemployment since the pandemic began .
The latest Department of Labor data shows 1.4 million new claims were filed across the country during the week ending July 18 .
The record numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some of which called in the National Guard to help process their unemployment backlogs .
On top of this , many states have had to apply additional layers of verification and red tape to unemployment claims , as they attempt to weed out sophisticated fraudsters who have tried to siphon off millions in US unemployment dollars by impersonating American workers .
The result has been more work for these agencies , and paused or slow benefits for many recipients .
What ’ s more , as many people refuse to return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsibilities , state unemployment systems are faced with the additional work of verifying their reasons for not returning to ensure compliance with the terms of the expanded federal unemployment program .
The program allows people who wouldn ’ t otherwise be eligible for regular unemployment to qualify when they ’ re not working for a number of virus-related reasons .
The Labor Department has recently asked dozens of state agencies to verify that their recipients still qualify for the benefit .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
After weeks of debate and delay, Republicans unveiled a summary of their proposal for a new coronavirus relief bill on Monday. And not only will millions of Americans see their weekly unemployment payments drop by hundreds of dollars if the proposal becomes law; they may not even get those payments for months.
The summary, shared by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), includes Republicans’ much-anticipated changes to the weekly $600 unemployment boost that has kept millions of jobless Americans afloat since Congress enacted it in March. It calls on Congress to cut the $600 weekly benefit to $200 through September. After that, states would have to pay unemployed workers 70 percent of the wages they made at their last jobs.
The plan will create layers of administrative headache that threaten to tax already strapped state unemployment systems even further, and to delay benefits for months, says Michele Evermore, a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project.
In a memo circulated among lawmakers, the National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) warned that the plan would take state agencies between 8 and 20 weeks to implement. That clock would start ticking only after the bill is officially passed and the Department of Labor issues its guidance on how exactly the benefits should be distributed.
These long delays stem from the mechanics of unemployment insurance. When Congress first passed the weekly $600 unemployment boost in March, state labor departments had to reprogram their unemployment systems to dole out this additional money, which comes from federal, rather than state, coffers, and thus must be tracked separately, explains Evermore. Many states have now turned off that programming, given that the final week that workers were eligible for the extra $600 ended over the weekend. Still, state systems for doling out the same lump-sum payment to everyone now exist, and they could be reprogrammed to disburse $200 payments in a matter of weeks, notes the NASWA memo.
But this Senate proposal won’t allow state systems to simply return to flat payments. They’ll have to revisit individual unemployment recipients, calculate what constitutes 70 percent of their past wages, and program a way to dole out and track those distributions from two separate places: regular unemployment from state funds, and the rest of the payments from federal dollars.
“State unemployment systems are already so overwhelmed,” says Evermore. “Now we’re telling them, ‘By the way, you have to rework your system to pay benefits in a way that we’ve never paid them before, good luck.’”
The NASWA memo warned lawmakers that the requirement that payments be individualized for each recipient would cause delays. “[U]sing a calculation based on individual wage records will necessarily require additional time to program,” notes the memo.
This burden will come on top of a long list of challenges that is already bogging down state unemployment systems. First, states are facing record numbers of unemployment claims; more than 40 million Americans have applied for unemployment since the pandemic began. The latest Department of Labor data shows 1.4 million new claims were filed across the country during the week ending July 18.
The record numbers of claims have flooded state labor departments, some of which called in the National Guard to help process their unemployment backlogs.
On top of this, many states have had to apply additional layers of verification and red tape to unemployment claims, as they attempt to weed out sophisticated fraudsters who have tried to siphon off millions in US unemployment dollars by impersonating American workers. The result has been more work for these agencies, and paused or slow benefits for many recipients.
What’s more, as many people refuse to return to jobs due to coronavirus risk or caregiving responsibilities, state unemployment systems are faced with the additional work of verifying their reasons for not returning to ensure compliance with the terms of the expanded federal unemployment program. The program allows people who wouldn’t otherwise be eligible for regular unemployment to qualify when they’re not working for a number of virus-related reasons. The Labor Department has recently asked dozens of state agencies to verify that their recipients still qualify for the benefit.


motherjones--2020-07-27--Biden’s Vice Presidential Search Is Surfacing Sexist Tropes About Ambitious Women. Kamala Harris Cou

Biden’s Vice Presidential Search Is Surfacing Sexist Tropes About Ambitious Women. Kamala Harris Could Be the Victim.

When Joe Biden announced in March that he would select a woman as his running mate , it was hailed as a milestone .
At 77 , Biden might not run for reelection or even finish his first term , but he could play an instrumental role in breaking the highest glass ceiling by making a woman his most likely successor .
“ I view myself as a transition candidate , ” Biden told donors this spring : “ You got to get more people on the bench that are ready to go in— ‘ Put me in coach , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , there ’ s a lot of people that are ready to play , women and men.
” Good for him .
But with the vice presidential selection finally around the corner , the conversation no longer sounds anything like progress .
Instead , reporting on deliberations inside the campaign suggests their decision-making is being shaped by the same sexist concerns about women in leadership that helped keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House four years ago .
While it ’ s unclear if the accounts are accurate or present a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is deflating , familiar , and harmful—that the campaign is distrustful of women who are ambitious or who otherwise display leadership traits that somehow don ’ t seem to bother people when exhibited by men .
They want a woman , just not that kind of woman .
Sound familiar ?
The issue seems to mainly come up in talk of Kamala Harris , the California senator and former presidential contender .
Harris has been the most obvious choice for months because she checks so many boxes ; she has plenty of experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spotlight , and she ’ s a woman of color just like the base of the Democratic Party .
But this spring ’ s protests against police brutality changed the political landscape , suddenly giving wider salience to standing progressive criticism of Harris ’ s record as a former prosecutor and California attorney general .
The Biden campaign widened its search .
But today , Harris remains a top contender , and the hesitation , according to anonymous sources quoted in Politico , is not Harris ’ s criminal justice record .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , campaign insiders fret , might drive her somehow to be disloyal to Biden , meaning she can ’ t be trusted .
In one Politico article , someone described as a “ close Biden ally ” explained that the problem with Harris ( and , for that matter , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ) is that she is not a team player .
The story does not attempt to explain why she isn ’ t a team player , and instead just takes for granted that the junior senator from California , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators , is somehow not a team player .
This designation , without any explanation , sounds a lot like a euphemism for female ambition and the fears tied up in it .
According to Politico ‘ s sources , Biden has decided he doesn ’ t want an ambitious vice president , despite previously stating that he needs someone who will be ready to jump into the job .
An ambitious woman sounds good on paper , but in reality is somehow not .
Here ’ s how one Biden adviser put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If you assume Biden isn ’ t going to run for reelection you don ’ t want someone who is only paying attention to 2024…The decisions that need to be made are not going to be easy .
Biden ’ s vice president might want to dodge a lot of tough issues if they only have an eye on 2024.
” Biden is one of the most ambitious politicians alive ; he served in the Senate for decades , ran for president twice , served as vice president , and then in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president again .
Now , somehow , he reportedly thinks that an ambitious woman won ’ t support him even as he desires—as his confidants whisper to the press—a vice president like he was to President Barack Obama .
Some of the distrust of Harris appears to be coming from former Sen. Chris Dodd , a Democrat from Connecticut whom Biden tapped to assist the vice presidential search process .
According to another Politico story on Monday , Dodd can not get over the fact that Harris attacked Biden during a presidential primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school busing in the 1970s and isn ’ t sorry about it .
“ She laughed and said , ‘ That ’ s politics.
’ She had no remorse , ” Dodd reportedly told a donor .
Dodd , a veteran politician , apparently so dislikes Harris that he has pushed instead for Rep. Karen Bass of California , who , though a powerful lawmaker , has not sought the national spotlight nor the vice presidential nod .
A Dodd confidant told Politico that Dodd is pushing Bass because “ she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s what Biden really wants.
” Bass is a progressive stalwart and impressive legislator who does not deserve to be trumpeted as the non-threatening Black woman alternative to Harris ’ s scary ambition .
But apparently that ’ s how she is seen by some .
Meanwhile , Harris allies are busy trying to convince Biden ’ s team and the press that Harris is trustworthy .
It seems like the ultimate insult to a woman vice presidential pick that in order to clinch the post she has to convince the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of ambition—enough to rise to the top tier of American politics but not so much that she can not be trusted to actually do the vice president ’ s job of putting the president first .
Whether such accounts of Biden ’ s decision-making are an accurate portrayal of his worries about Harris and other potential picks or a projection of other people ’ s biases against women , they ’ ve ensured a longstanding sexist narrative is again part of the news cycle : Ambitious women can not be trusted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be the best choice for vice president .
There are also legitimate reasons to question whether the constant worrying about loyalty , ambition , and trustworthiness are actually more about the biases of the people carrying out this process and talking to the press about it .
It ’ s hard , for example , to think about Dodd ’ s objections to Harris and not flash to his own treatment of women decades ago as the drinking buddy of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy .
Picking and electing a woman as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest barrier to putting a woman in the White House has long been our own collective sexist hangups about ambitious women—and not any actual problem with a woman president or vice president .
That progress is significant , but the selection process is a reminder that it is still being shaped by the same hangups that hold women back .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When Joe Biden announced in March that he would select a woman as his running mate, it was hailed as a milestone. At 77, Biden might not run for reelection or even finish his first term, but he could play an instrumental role in breaking the highest glass ceiling by making a woman his most likely successor. “I view myself as a transition candidate,” Biden told donors this spring: “You got to get more people on the bench that are ready to go in—‘Put me in coach, I’m ready to play.’ Well, there’s a lot of people that are ready to play, women and men.” Good for him.
Stories about Biden’s choice have put a longstanding sexist narrative back in the news: Ambitious women cannot be trusted.
But with the vice presidential selection finally around the corner, the conversation no longer sounds anything like progress. Instead, reporting on deliberations inside the campaign suggests their decision-making is being shaped by the same sexist concerns about women in leadership that helped keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House four years ago. While it’s unclear if the accounts are accurate or present a complete picture, the story they tell is deflating, familiar, and harmful—that the campaign is distrustful of women who are ambitious or who otherwise display leadership traits that somehow don’t seem to bother people when exhibited by men. They want a woman, just not that kind of woman. Sound familiar?
The issue seems to mainly come up in talk of Kamala Harris, the California senator and former presidential contender. Harris has been the most obvious choice for months because she checks so many boxes; she has plenty of experience, she’s endured the national spotlight, and she’s a woman of color just like the base of the Democratic Party. But this spring’s protests against police brutality changed the political landscape, suddenly giving wider salience to standing progressive criticism of Harris’s record as a former prosecutor and California attorney general. The Biden campaign widened its search.
But today, Harris remains a top contender, and the hesitation, according to anonymous sources quoted in Politico, is not Harris’s criminal justice record. The real issue is her ambition. Ambition, campaign insiders fret, might drive her somehow to be disloyal to Biden, meaning she can’t be trusted. In one Politico article, someone described as a “close Biden ally” explained that the problem with Harris (and, for that matter, Sen. Elizabeth Warren) is that she is not a team player. The story does not attempt to explain why she isn’t a team player, and instead just takes for granted that the junior senator from California, who has co-sponsored lots of legislation alongside other senators, is somehow not a team player. This designation, without any explanation, sounds a lot like a euphemism for female ambition and the fears tied up in it.
According to Politico‘s sources, Biden has decided he doesn’t want an ambitious vice president, despite previously stating that he needs someone who will be ready to jump into the job. An ambitious woman sounds good on paper, but in reality is somehow not. Here’s how one Biden adviser put it in the same Politico story: “If you assume Biden isn’t going to run for reelection you don’t want someone who is only paying attention to 2024…The decisions that need to be made are not going to be easy. Biden’s vice president might want to dodge a lot of tough issues if they only have an eye on 2024.” Biden is one of the most ambitious politicians alive; he served in the Senate for decades, ran for president twice, served as vice president, and then in his seventh decade decided to run for president again. Now, somehow, he reportedly thinks that an ambitious woman won’t support him even as he desires—as his confidants whisper to the press—a vice president like he was to President Barack Obama.
Some of the distrust of Harris appears to be coming from former Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut whom Biden tapped to assist the vice presidential search process. According to another Politico story on Monday, Dodd cannot get over the fact that Harris attacked Biden during a presidential primary debate last summer for his stance on school busing in the 1970s and isn’t sorry about it. “She laughed and said, ‘That’s politics.’ She had no remorse,” Dodd reportedly told a donor. Dodd, a veteran politician, apparently so dislikes Harris that he has pushed instead for Rep. Karen Bass of California, who, though a powerful lawmaker, has not sought the national spotlight nor the vice presidential nod. A Dodd confidant told Politico that Dodd is pushing Bass because “she’s a loyal No. 2. And that’s what Biden really wants.”
Bass is a progressive stalwart and impressive legislator who does not deserve to be trumpeted as the non-threatening Black woman alternative to Harris’ scary ambition. But apparently that’s how she is seen by some. Meanwhile, Harris allies are busy trying to convince Biden’s team and the press that Harris is trustworthy. It seems like the ultimate insult to a woman vice presidential pick that in order to clinch the post she has to convince the campaign that she possesses just the right amount of ambition—enough to rise to the top tier of American politics but not so much that she cannot be trusted to actually do the vice president’s job of putting the president first.
Whether such accounts of Biden’s decision-making are an accurate portrayal of his worries about Harris and other potential picks or a projection of other people’s biases against women, they’ve ensured a longstanding sexist narrative is again part of the news cycle: Ambitious women cannot be trusted.
There are legitimate reasons why Harris may not be the best choice for vice president. There are also legitimate reasons to question whether the constant worrying about loyalty, ambition, and trustworthiness are actually more about the biases of the people carrying out this process and talking to the press about it. It’s hard, for example, to think about Dodd’s objections to Harris and not flash to his own treatment of women decades ago as the drinking buddy of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Picking and electing a woman as vice president would help demonstrate that the biggest barrier to putting a woman in the White House has long been our own collective sexist hangups about ambitious women—and not any actual problem with a woman president or vice president. That progress is significant, but the selection process is a reminder that it is still being shaped by the same hangups that hold women back.