motherjones--2020-04-22--Progressives Want Congress to Stop Bailing out the Pentagon During the Pandemic

Since the coronavirus crisis first took hold in the United States , the Defense Department has received $ 10.5 billion in emergency funding from Congress .
Despite national security spending for this fiscal year now exceeding $ 756 billion , the Pentagon isn ’ t finished making requests .
The department is already asking for “ billions and billions ” in any future stimulus funding that Congress considers .
On Wednesday , more than 50 mostly liberal advocacy groups , including Win Without War , 350.org , and the Arms Control Association , urged congressional leaders in a letter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Pentagon this fiscal year .
“ As every family around this country has had to do , the Pentagon should not be immune from making tough decisions on how to reallocate its resources in light of this crisis , ” a letter signed by the groups states .
“ If taxpayers are being asked to adjust their budgets , surely the recipient of three quarters of a trillion of our tax dollars can be asked to do the same.
” The letter , signed by groups that are among the most influential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a willingness from the left to relitigate the conventional wisdom that defense spending must rise during a crisis .
Defense spending has skyrocketed in the post-9/11 era , and only rarely have lawmakers from either party seriously threatened to curtail it .
Not even a series of budget caps imposed during the Obama administration could turn off the spigot from Congress , which increased the Pentagon ’ s budget by more than $ 150 billion between 2015 and 2020 .
House Democrats , as part of the annual debate over the defense spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security spending to $ 733 billion last year , $ 17 billion less than what Republicans wanted , but the compromise bill that eventually reached President Trump ’ s desk tacked on an additional $ 5 billion .
Two additional bursts of emergency funds—one for the damage caused by extreme weather , the other for the department ’ s coronavirus response—have made the defense budget nearly $ 20 billion greater than what Congress initially approved in December .
Even as lawmakers hand the Pentagon fatter budgets , the department routinely finds ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received .
Between 2013 and 2019 , the Pentagon returned more than $ 80 billion in unspent funds to the Treasury Department , sparking criticism from Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , who said at a Senate Budget Committee hearing last year , “ We ’ re throwing so much money at the Pentagon that they literally do not know what to do with it.
” Last year , the department gave back nearly $ 15 billion , according to data compiled by researchers at the Friends Committee on National Legislation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Action for New Directions .
Pentagon leaders have also dug up more than $ 10 billion in the past 18 months from funds originally intended for construction projects and other programs to steer toward Trump ’ s border wall .
For these reasons , the letter states , “ any arguments that the Pentagon can not use existing resources to respond to the crisis should be met with considerable skepticism.
” The annual defense policy bill , known as the NDAA , has generally been a bipartisan product that clears both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But since Democrats assumed control of the House in 2018 , the party ’ s progressive wing has worked to break the two-party consensus that has made rising levels of defense spending the norm .
Rep. Ro Khanna ( D-Calif. ) , a House Armed Services Committee member who recently served as a national co-chair for Sanders ’ unsuccessful presidential campaign , has been one of the most vocal progressives in favor of reducing defense spending .
On Tuesday night , he tweeted in favor of leaving the Pentagon out of future coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series of progressive amendments to last year ’ s NDAA that , among other things , would have prevented Trump from starting an unauthorized war with Iran .
The resulting bill was stripped of nearly every progressive provision as part of a compromise with Senate Republicans , but Khanna vowed earlier this month to reignite that fight .
“ The leadership is going to have to make a choice , ” Khanna told reporters in a conference call .
“ They ’ ll either pass a progressive NDAA or pass a bill with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it will have to reckon with how to assess the Pentagon ’ s ongoing response to the coronavirus pandemic .
In recent weeks , the Defense Department has spent millions of dollars on field hospitals , N95 masks , and ventilators while also propping up its defense industry allies with substantial cash infusions .
On April 2 , the Air Force agreed to give $ 882 million to Boeing for a set of flawed KC-46 tankers , which the Air Force ’ s top general David Goldfein has acknowledged are practically unusable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boeing until the flaws in the planes were fixed , but given the economic threat posed by the virus , Pentagon officials agreed to supply the aviation giant with a de facto subsidy .
( On Wednesday , Goldfein said he is “ as confident as I ever have been ” that Boeing now has a plan in place to fix the planes . )
The department has also begun paying its contractors sooner than it normally would as part of an adjusted pay schedule , ensuring roughly $ 3 billion reaches the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Pentagon and the defense industry , the advocacy groups ’ letter encouraged Congress to “ focus your attention on the national pandemic response and economic relief for people across the United States rather than providing more money for the Pentagon ’ s already overflowing coffers .
”

Since the coronavirus crisis first took hold in the United States, the Defense Department has received $10.5 billion in emergency funding from Congress. Despite national security spending for this fiscal year now exceeding $756 billion, the Pentagon isn’t finished making requests. The department is already asking for “billions and billions” in any future stimulus funding that Congress considers.
On Wednesday, more than 50 mostly liberal advocacy groups, including Win Without War, 350.org, and the Arms Control Association, urged congressional leaders in a letter to not allocate a single extra dollar to the Pentagon this fiscal year. “As every family around this country has had to do, the Pentagon should not be immune from making tough decisions on how to reallocate its resources in light of this crisis,” a letter signed by the groups states. “If taxpayers are being asked to adjust their budgets, surely the recipient of three quarters of a trillion of our tax dollars can be asked to do the same.” The letter, signed by groups that are among the most influential drivers of progressive defense policy, shows a willingness from the left to relitigate the conventional wisdom that defense spending must rise during a crisis.
Defense spending has skyrocketed in the post-9/11 era, and only rarely have lawmakers from either party seriously threatened to curtail it. Not even a series of budget caps imposed during the Obama administration could turn off the spigot from Congress, which increased the Pentagon’s budget by more than $150 billion between 2015 and 2020. House Democrats, as part of the annual debate over the defense spending authorization bill, tried to reduce overall national security spending to $733 billion last year, $17 billion less than what Republicans wanted, but the compromise bill that eventually reached President Trump’s desk tacked on an additional $5 billion. Two additional bursts of emergency funds—one for the damage caused by extreme weather, the other for the department’s coronavirus response—have made the defense budget nearly $20 billion greater than what Congress initially approved in December.
Even as lawmakers hand the Pentagon fatter budgets, the department routinely finds ways to not spend the money it has received. Between 2013 and 2019, the Pentagon returned more than $80 billion in unspent funds to the Treasury Department, sparking criticism from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who said at a Senate Budget Committee hearing last year, “We’re throwing so much money at the Pentagon that they literally do not know what to do with it.” Last year, the department gave back nearly $15 billion, according to data compiled by researchers at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Project on Government Oversight, and Women’s Action for New Directions. Pentagon leaders have also dug up more than $10 billion in the past 18 months from funds originally intended for construction projects and other programs to steer toward Trump’s border wall.
For these reasons, the letter states, “any arguments that the Pentagon cannot use existing resources to respond to the crisis should be met with considerable skepticism.”
The annual defense policy bill, known as the NDAA, has generally been a bipartisan product that clears both chambers of Congress with huge majorities. But since Democrats assumed control of the House in 2018, the party’s progressive wing has worked to break the two-party consensus that has made rising levels of defense spending the norm. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a House Armed Services Committee member who recently served as a national co-chair for Sanders’ unsuccessful presidential campaign, has been one of the most vocal progressives in favor of reducing defense spending. On Tuesday night, he tweeted in favor of leaving the Pentagon out of future coronavirus relief bills.
The Pentagon shouldn’t get any more COVID relief money. If the DoD needs more cash, some quick ideas I have for saving money: ✖End endless wars
✖Stop nuclear arms races
✖No more giveaways to defense contractors. https://t.co/nua3EbnV2j — Rep. Ro Khanna (@RepRoKhanna) April 21, 2020
Khanna pushed for a series of progressive amendments to last year’s NDAA that, among other things, would have prevented Trump from starting an unauthorized war with Iran. The resulting bill was stripped of nearly every progressive provision as part of a compromise with Senate Republicans, but Khanna vowed earlier this month to reignite that fight. “The leadership is going to have to make a choice,” Khanna told reporters in a conference call. “They’ll either pass a progressive NDAA or pass a bill with Republican votes.”
When Congress eventually reconvenes, it will have to reckon with how to assess the Pentagon’s ongoing response to the coronavirus pandemic. In recent weeks, the Defense Department has spent millions of dollars on field hospitals, N95 masks, and ventilators while also propping up its defense industry allies with substantial cash infusions. On April 2, the Air Force agreed to give $882 million to Boeing for a set of flawed KC-46 tankers, which the Air Force’s top general David Goldfein has acknowledged are practically unusable. The money had been withheld from Boeing until the flaws in the planes were fixed, but given the economic threat posed by the virus, Pentagon officials agreed to supply the aviation giant with a de facto subsidy. (On Wednesday, Goldfein said he is “as confident as I ever have been” that Boeing now has a plan in place to fix the planes.) The department has also begun paying its contractors sooner than it normally would as part of an adjusted pay schedule, ensuring roughly $3 billion reaches the industry.
In lieu of further money for the Pentagon and the defense industry, the advocacy groups’ letter encouraged Congress to “focus your attention on the national pandemic response and economic relief for people across the United States rather than providing more money for the Pentagon’s already overflowing coffers.”


motherjones--2020-04-23--ICE Detainees Terrified of the Coronavirus Wanted to Be Deported. Guards Pepper-Sprayed Them.

On Monday morning , the roughly 80 men detained in one unit of the Catahoula Correctional Center had a simple request : They wanted to talk to someone from Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
With their legal options exhausted and one COVID-19 case already confirmed at their Louisiana detention center , they wanted out as quickly as possible—even if that meant deportation .
Instead of getting ICE to answer their questions , guards doused them with pepper spray .
ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox confirmed that 83 people “ came in contact ” with pepper spray at Catahoula on Monday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday involving 40 people detained at the Winn Correctional Center , another Louisiana immigration jail run by the same private prison company , LaSalle Corrections .
The incidents are part of a clear pattern that has emerged in the past month : People in ICE custody demand protection from the new coronavirus and end up getting pepper-sprayed instead .
Sofia Casini , the southern regional coordinator for the advocacy group Freedom for Immigrants , said , “ Across the nation we are documenting instances of ICE retaliating against people in immigrant prisons for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denial of release.
” A Mother Jones feature and podcast recently showed how one of those uses of force left 79 women trapped in a room filled with pepper spray at GEO Group ’ s Jena , Louisiana , detention center last month .
As of Wednesday , 287 of the approximately 30,000 people in ICE custody had tested positive for COVID-19 .
Catahoula is unusual in that it serves as a holding place for people who ’ ve exhausted their legal options and are awaiting deportation .
Even absent a pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can take even longer as countries resist accepting deportation flights from the United States , a coronavirus hot spot with a record of deporting people who are infected .
In ICE ’ s version of what happened at Catahoula on Monday , detainees became confrontational , refused to obey orders , and threw things at detention center staff .
Men who were in the dorm that day tell a much different story .
( LaSalle Corrections directed questions to ICE . )
In calls from Catahoula this week , five men who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s incident began when they refused to get into their bunks so guards could count them off after breakfast .
It was a form of protest .
They hadn ’ t seen anyone from ICE in weeks and wanted someone from the agency to answer questions about their pending deportations .
A Guatemalan man , who requested anonymity , said the jail is completely unprepared to deal with COVID-19 , noting that his unit didn ’ t have masks or disinfectant .
“ We don ’ t have any of that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s what concerns us.
” After agreeing to return to Guatemala , he has been waiting to be flown back since March 3 .
“ What we want is to get out of here , ” he said .
“ We don ’ t care where we go because coronavirus is going to get into our dorm any moment and we ’ ll all be infected.
” But for now , Guatemala is refusing deportation flights after the United States deported dozens of Guatemalans with COVID-19 .
Francis , a pseudonym for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guards began threatening them with force after they refused to be counted .
He recalled one saying , “ Let us count , or we ’ re going to use our own way of counting and you may not like it.
” After the threat , they still didn ’ t go back to their bunks , but Francis and others stressed that the protest remained peaceful .
Nevertheless , guards began shooting them with pepper spray–filled paintballs and unleashing large cans of pepper spray , multiple men in the dorm said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the Guatemalan man said .
“ We know we can ’ t assault anyone.
” The men remembered at least two people being violently subdued by guards .
A Honduran man recalled guards busting open the forehead of a fellow detainee before lifting another into the air , throwing him to the ground , and dragging him away .
Mark Langmar , who came to the United States from Hungary when he was three and has been detained at Catahoula for the past three months , said there was “ blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit in the head .
( Unlike most people in ICE detention who don ’ t have criminal records , Langmar said he was sent to Catahoula after serving seven years of prison time for a range of offenses relating to drug and weapons charges . )
The men said that guards left them in the pepper-spray filled room rather than taking them outside .
“ We couldn ’ t breathe , ” the Honduran man said .
“ We were suffocating.
” Langmar explained that the guards were using large cans of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spray that left the room looking “ like a smoke chamber.
” “ Every time you breathe , ” Langmar said , “ you were just choking even more.
” He described people hiding under bunks , praying , and running to the sinks to wash off the spray to protect themselves .
The Honduran man said many vomited , including one who threw up blood .
Francis went to the medical unit on Tuesday to deal with the lingering pain .
He was told that it was a normal effect that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking asylum in the United States , Francis made it to the United States by trekking through the Darién Gap , an often fatal stretch of jungle between Colombia and Panama .
He has now been detained for 11 months .
After losing his asylum case in November and choosing not to appeal , he was only able to sign his deportation paperwork in early March .
His mom has a heart problem , and he wants to be with her , not stuck in Catahoula , where he ’ s come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this is affecting my health , ” Francis said .
“ I ’ ve never been detained .
Not for one day in my life.
” He stressed that if he isn ’ t going to be released , ICE should send him home .
“ That ’ s all that we are asking .
”

On Monday morning, the roughly 80 men detained in one unit of the Catahoula Correctional Center had a simple request: They wanted to talk to someone from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. With their legal options exhausted and one COVID-19 case already confirmed at their Louisiana detention center, they wanted out as quickly as possible—even if that meant deportation. Instead of getting ICE to answer their questions, guards doused them with pepper spray.
ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox confirmed that 83 people “came in contact” with pepper spray at Catahoula on Monday. He also confirmed two pepper-spraying incidents on Friday involving 40 people detained at the Winn Correctional Center, another Louisiana immigration jail run by the same private prison company, LaSalle Corrections.
The incidents are part of a clear pattern that has emerged in the past month: People in ICE custody demand protection from the new coronavirus and end up getting pepper-sprayed instead. Sofia Casini, the southern regional coordinator for the advocacy group Freedom for Immigrants, said, “Across the nation we are documenting instances of ICE retaliating against people in immigrant prisons for protesting medical neglect, virus exposure, and denial of release.” A Mother Jones feature and podcast recently showed how one of those uses of force left 79 women trapped in a room filled with pepper spray at GEO Group’s Jena, Louisiana, detention center last month. As of Wednesday, 287 of the approximately 30,000 people in ICE custody had tested positive for COVID-19.
Catahoula is unusual in that it serves as a holding place for people who’ve exhausted their legal options and are awaiting deportation. Even absent a pandemic, that process can take months. Now it can take even longer as countries resist accepting deportation flights from the United States, a coronavirus hot spot with a record of deporting people who are infected.
In ICE’s version of what happened at Catahoula on Monday, detainees became confrontational, refused to obey orders, and threw things at detention center staff. Men who were in the dorm that day tell a much different story. (LaSalle Corrections directed questions to ICE.)
In calls from Catahoula this week, five men who witnessed the pepper spraying told me Monday’s incident began when they refused to get into their bunks so guards could count them off after breakfast. It was a form of protest. They hadn’t seen anyone from ICE in weeks and wanted someone from the agency to answer questions about their pending deportations.
A Guatemalan man, who requested anonymity, said the jail is completely unprepared to deal with COVID-19, noting that his unit didn’t have masks or disinfectant. “We don’t have any of that,” he said. “That’s what concerns us.” After agreeing to return to Guatemala, he has been waiting to be flown back since March 3. “What we want is to get out of here,” he said. “We don’t care where we go because coronavirus is going to get into our dorm any moment and we’ll all be infected.” But for now, Guatemala is refusing deportation flights after the United States deported dozens of Guatemalans with COVID-19.
Francis, a pseudonym for a West African asylum seeker, told me guards began threatening them with force after they refused to be counted. He recalled one saying, “Let us count, or we’re going to use our own way of counting and you may not like it.” After the threat, they still didn’t go back to their bunks, but Francis and others stressed that the protest remained peaceful. Nevertheless, guards began shooting them with pepper spray–filled paintballs and unleashing large cans of pepper spray, multiple men in the dorm said. “We didn’t do anything,” the Guatemalan man said. “We know we can’t assault anyone.”
The men remembered at least two people being violently subdued by guards. A Honduran man recalled guards busting open the forehead of a fellow detainee before lifting another into the air, throwing him to the ground, and dragging him away. Mark Langmar, who came to the United States from Hungary when he was three and has been detained at Catahoula for the past three months, said there was “blood everywhere” after the first man was hit in the head. (Unlike most people in ICE detention who don’t have criminal records, Langmar said he was sent to Catahoula after serving seven years of prison time for a range of offenses relating to drug and weapons charges.)
The men said that guards left them in the pepper-spray filled room rather than taking them outside. “We couldn’t breathe,” the Honduran man said. “We were suffocating.” Langmar explained that the guards were using large cans of pepper spray that emitted 8-to-10-foot jets of spray that left the room looking “like a smoke chamber.”
“Every time you breathe,” Langmar said, “you were just choking even more.” He described people hiding under bunks, praying, and running to the sinks to wash off the spray to protect themselves. The Honduran man said many vomited, including one who threw up blood. Francis went to the medical unit on Tuesday to deal with the lingering pain. He was told that it was a normal effect that would pass with time.
Like many Africans seeking asylum in the United States, Francis made it to the United States by trekking through the Darién Gap, an often fatal stretch of jungle between Colombia and Panama. He has now been detained for 11 months. After losing his asylum case in November and choosing not to appeal, he was only able to sign his deportation paperwork in early March.
His mom has a heart problem, and he wants to be with her, not stuck in Catahoula, where he’s come to rely on sleeping pills. “All of this is affecting my health,” Francis said. “I’ve never been detained. Not for one day in my life.” He stressed that if he isn’t going to be released, ICE should send him home. “That’s all that we are asking.”


motherjones--2020-04-23--Donald Trump Is Exploiting the Coronavirus Pandemic to Sell Campaign Swag

Though President Donald Trump has been not big in the empathy department during the coronavirus pandemic—he more often talks about his own TV ratings than the tens of thousands Americans who have died during the crisis—the Trump campaign wants his supporters to know that Trump truly cares about them during this time of tragedy and hardship .
As proof of Trump ’ s deeply felt concern , his campaign is offering to send his devotees a set of Trump-Pence pint glasses .
All for just a contribution of $ 31 .
Yes , the Trump campaign is exploiting the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it is claiming this is a beneficent act on the part of Trump himself .
This week , the Trump campaign sent out a bizarre email to its lists of supporters .
“ Friend , ” it began , “ We have some exciting news to tell you.
” It noted that Trump “ knows the past few weeks have been extremely difficult for Americans from all across the Nation.
” Trump , the email said , appreciated those who have stood with him and “ wanted to do something special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” act Trump wished to perform for his supporter during this difficult stretch was to offer them “ EXCLUSIVE ACCESS ” to “ Official Trump-Pence Pint Glasses.
” Isn ’ t that special ?
Though you may be suffering due to the coronavirus , you now can buy Trump junk .
But , the email pointed out , you have to send in $ 31 for the set of these glasses by midnight .
( That was a crock—because the campaign zapped out this email two days in a row .
There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sounds like a bad joke .
But it ’ s not .
While tens of thousands of Americans are dying , Trump and his campaign decided he could console his supporters and show them he ’ s on their side by peddling them campaign tchotchkes .
And this email—sent out with the subject heading “ Cheers ” —also requested contributions of $ 250 and more .
What could be more Trumpian ?
I will recognize this is a difficult period for you and other Americans by offering you the opportunity to help me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails often have the whiff of grift .
They frequently tell supporters they can join an exclusive group of donors—become part of the Trump Gold Card Member circle !
—and be placed on a list of names that Trump will review personally , as long as they send in a donation immediately .
( It can be as small of $ 35 . )
This is all bunk and goes above and beyond the usual political sales pitches .
Now the coronavirus pandemic has been seized upon by the Trump campaign as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many Americans are currently self-isolating in their homes .
In other recent fundraising solicitations , the campaign has peddled “ BRAND NEW Trump-Pence 2020 Playing Cards.
” Two decks for “ only ” $ 30 .
And the email for this offer proclaimed this was another special deal , for Trump has “ requested that we give you EARLY ACCESS to get these iconic cards before anyone else.
” Moreover , the email stated , this is the perfect time to buy playing cards : “ We know you ’ re at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Keep America Safe , and there is no better way to keep yourself entertained AND support your President than by purchasing our Official Trump-Pence 2020 Playing Cards.
” Another campaign email offered an “ Official Trump Puzzle ” for $ 45 .
This note , too , declared that during a time of social isolation “ there is no better way to pass the time with family AND show your support for President Trump than by purchasing a Trump Puzzle.
” Trump glasses , Trump cards , Trump puzzles .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump Steaks , Trump Vodka , Trump University .
If there ’ s a chance to sell something , Trump will give it a try .
( Another recent email from the campaign promoted Trump-Pence welcome mats . )
Blatant commercialism and self-promotion is no surprise for Trump .
That is his brand .
But this week he and his campaign showed that they can surpass the usual Trumpish crassness by using the horrific coronavirus nightmare to make a buck by selling pint glasses bearing the campaign ’ s logo .
How long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign attempts to raise money by hawking MAGA face masks ?

Though President Donald Trump has been not big in the empathy department during the coronavirus pandemic—he more often talks about his own TV ratings than the tens of thousands Americans who have died during the crisis—the Trump campaign wants his supporters to know that Trump truly cares about them during this time of tragedy and hardship. As proof of Trump’s deeply felt concern, his campaign is offering to send his devotees a set of Trump-Pence pint glasses. All for just a contribution of $31.
Yes, the Trump campaign is exploiting the coronavirus to sell campaign swag to Trump supporters. And it is claiming this is a beneficent act on the part of Trump himself.
This week, the Trump campaign sent out a bizarre email to its lists of supporters. “Friend,” it began, “We have some exciting news to tell you.” It noted that Trump “knows the past few weeks have been extremely difficult for Americans from all across the Nation.” Trump, the email said, appreciated those who have stood with him and “wanted to do something special” for them.
That “special” act Trump wished to perform for his supporter during this difficult stretch was to offer them “EXCLUSIVE ACCESS” to “Official Trump-Pence Pint Glasses.” Isn’t that special? Though you may be suffering due to the coronavirus, you now can buy Trump junk. But, the email pointed out, you have to send in $31 for the set of these glasses by midnight. (That was a crock—because the campaign zapped out this email two days in a row. There was no actual midnight deadline.)
This sounds like a bad joke. But it’s not. While tens of thousands of Americans are dying, Trump and his campaign decided he could console his supporters and show them he’s on their side by peddling them campaign tchotchkes. And this email—sent out with the subject heading “Cheers”—also requested contributions of $250 and more. What could be more Trumpian? I will recognize this is a difficult period for you and other Americans by offering you the opportunity to help me.
The Trump campaign’s fundraising emails often have the whiff of grift. They frequently tell supporters they can join an exclusive group of donors—become part of the Trump Gold Card Member circle!—and be placed on a list of names that Trump will review personally, as long as they send in a donation immediately. (It can be as small of $35.) This is all bunk and goes above and beyond the usual political sales pitches.
Now the coronavirus pandemic has been seized upon by the Trump campaign as a marketing opportunity. Especially, given that so many Americans are currently self-isolating in their homes. In other recent fundraising solicitations, the campaign has peddled “BRAND NEW Trump-Pence 2020 Playing Cards.” Two decks for “only” $30. And the email for this offer proclaimed this was another special deal, for Trump has “requested that we give you EARLY ACCESS to get these iconic cards before anyone else.” Moreover, the email stated, this is the perfect time to buy playing cards: “We know you’re at home right now, doing your part to Keep America Safe, and there is no better way to keep yourself entertained AND support your President than by purchasing our Official Trump-Pence 2020 Playing Cards.” Another campaign email offered an “Official Trump Puzzle” for $45. This note, too, declared that during a time of social isolation “there is no better way to pass the time with family AND show your support for President Trump than by purchasing a Trump Puzzle.”
Trump glasses, Trump cards, Trump puzzles. They’re part of a long tradition: Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump University. If there’s a chance to sell something, Trump will give it a try. (Another recent email from the campaign promoted Trump-Pence welcome mats.) Blatant commercialism and self-promotion is no surprise for Trump. That is his brand. But this week he and his campaign showed that they can surpass the usual Trumpish crassness by using the horrific coronavirus nightmare to make a buck by selling pint glasses bearing the campaign’s logo. How long can it be before Trump and his campaign attempts to raise money by hawking MAGA face masks?


motherjones--2020-04-24--Dreamer. Essential Worker. And Anxious About the Supreme Court’s Impending Decision.

For most of his life , Victor Garcia lived in two closets .
As a teen growing up in Houston , Garcia came out as queer to their friends and family , but it wasn ’ t until years later when Donald Trump became president that they came out as undocumented .
By then , Garcia had too much at stake not to tell the people in their life .
In the summer of 2012 , when Garcia was 18 , President Barack Obama launched the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) program , which allowed young-adult immigrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States as children and who didn ’ t otherwise have legal status to apply for a two-year work permit that also protected them from deportation .
Garcia was quick to apply for and receive DACA , and they later renewed it twice before the 2016 election—all without telling people about his status as a so-called Dreamer .
But once Trump took office and began dismantling DACA , Garcia finally told their friends and coworkers .
“ If the current administration was to come for me , people were going to find out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I wanted people to know they knew someone that was being affected.
” DACA changed Garcia ’ s life and the lives of nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as kids .
Deportation relief under DACA had , for years , been seemingly the one thing that had support across party lines when it came to immigration reform .
DACA recipients have been able to attend college and fill jobs that are often unattainable to those without legal status in the United States .
They ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while “ they ’ ve planned their lives in two-year increments , it ’ s important to recognize that they have planted roots here , ” said Jose Muñoz , national communications manager with the advocacy group United We Dream .
( DACA recipients are parents to some 250,000 US citizen children . )
But thanks to the hardliners behind Trump ’ s draconian immigration policies , the program ’ s future could be decided by the Supreme Court as early as next week—right in the middle of a pandemic that has put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s response .
On Monday , the Supreme Court agreed to consider a brief that urges the court to think about the “ life-sustaining role played by over 200,000 DACA recipients who are frontline workers in essential services ” An estimated 29,000 DACA recipients are health care workers , about 15,000 are educators , and 80,000 , like Garcia , are employed in the food service industry—essential workers who have become the unexpected heroes of the crisis .
“ Termination of DACA during this national emergency , ” the brief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For Garcia and hundreds of thousands of other DACA recipients , it would mean navigating life in a completely new way .
Garcia , 26 , was born in Mexico City and , when they were four years old , migrated with their family to Houston .
Garcia grew up there and considers it home ; when I first asked them where they were from , they said , “ I ’ m originally from Houston .
I mean , Mexico City.
” Last summer , Garcia and their mother moved to Jackson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work at a ski resort and at a local grocery store .
Garcia ’ s job at the resort , though , was cut after the resort closed to prevent the spread of the coronavirus , and while they were “ fortunate enough ” to keep the grocery store gig , the last month has become both physically and emotionally exhausting .
Garcia told me that they try to remind themselves during their shifts that it ’ s important “ to be alert , not anxious.
” Since Garcia first learned of COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nerd ” started sharing information with coworkers at the grocery store .
Sometimes it was news articles ; other times it was memes , to keep things light .
Then when cases started popping up nearby , they started to worry .
“ I was less worried about myself , but I worried about my older coworkers , as well as my parents , and my customers , because a lot of them are elderly , ” Garcia said .
“ So I immediately started sanitizing everything : the carts , the baskets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people touched every 10 minutes.
” Garcia feels proud of the work they do every day and told me they like the small town feel of Jackson and “ how beautiful it is up here.
” Still , Garcia admitted they have had customers “ look at me from head to toe , and just completely be judgmental before .
Right now , it definitely goes a long way to be nicer to ( grocery store clerks ) , to just say a few kind words like , ‘ Thank you for coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garcia said , they ’ ve been thinking about the impending Supreme Court decision , and that has added to the stress of living through the pandemic .
According to United We Dream ’ s Muñoz , DACA recipients across the country have been experiencing heightened anxiety—something they ’ ve been feeling on and off ever since Trump threatened to end DACA while on the campaign trail in 2016 .
As I wrote last year : Immediately after Trump ’ s election , DACA recipients felt scared and confused by their uncertain future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the event that Trump took away their status ; the government already had all of their information .
Many were also afraid for their undocumented family members , who were now also exposed .
In office , Trump turned the rhetoric down a bit , saying he would treat DACA recipients “ with heart ” and work with Congress on the matter , and that their information wouldn ’ t be sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
But in September 2017 , the Trump administration announced it would cancel DACA .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have the authority to end DACA so abruptly and without adequate explanation , and the government was compelled to renew the program for those who had already been granted temporary protected status .
Since then lower courts have ruled against the Trump administration , saying his move was “ arbitrary and capricious.
” It ’ s been two years of limbo for DACA recipients .
The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Department of Homeland Security ’ s decision to wind down DACA was lawful and judicially reviewable back in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out with a decision as early as Monday .
Meanwhile , presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden expressed support for DACA recipients last month , warning that if the Supreme Court sides with Trump , it “ will leave a gaping hole in our health care system that is liable to cost American lives.
” He added that Dreamers are ingrained in every aspect of our society and are “ American in every way that matters.
” “ It ’ s a false choice to think that in the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court to potentially decide the fate of the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and their families , ” Muñoz said .
“ Trump didn ’ t have to end DACA .
That ’ s a choice he made , and he took it to the Supreme Court.
” If the looming possibility of a Supreme Court decision in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic weren ’ t enough , DACA holders learned Tuesday that the Department of Homeland Security had gone back on its promise to keep their personal information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As first reported by ProPublica , internal administration emails obtained under a lawsuit filed by Make the Road New York show that ICE already has their information and could access it if necessary .
I texted with Garcia after they heard the news Tuesday .
They told me that their biggest fear had always been that they put their undocumented parents at risk by applying for DACA .
Garcia ’ s parents don ’ t have protection , and when Garcia filled out DACA forms with US Citizenship and Immigration Services , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their parents .
“ Now knowing that ICE has that information , ” they said , “ it fills me with anger and an even bigger drive to keep fighting for my undocumented community.
” The timing of it all is horrible , Garcia told me , but they still feel privileged to even have qualified for DACA in the first place—especially when so many other essential workers during this pandemic are undocumented .
“ I remember when I was still living in both of those closets .
I didn ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ queer , or if my friends would love me being undocumented , ” Garcia said .
“ With all the support that I ’ ve had from so many people who have loved me and accept me as both queer and undocumented , it ’ d be hard if I would ever have to say goodbye to them .
”

For most of their life, Victor Garcia lived in two closets. As a teen growing up in Houston, Garcia came out as queer to their friends and family, but it wasn’t until years later when Donald Trump became president that they came out as undocumented.
By then, Garcia had too much at stake not to tell the people in their life. In the summer of 2012, when Garcia was 18, President Barack Obama launched the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which allowed young-adult immigrants who’d been brought to the United States as children and who didn’t otherwise have legal status to apply for a two-year work permit that also protected them from deportation. Garcia was quick to apply for and receive DACA, and they later renewed it twice before the 2016 election—all without telling people about their status as a so-called Dreamer. But once Trump took office and began dismantling DACA, Garcia finally told their friends and coworkers. “If the current administration was to come for me, people were going to find out,” they told me recently. “I wanted people to know they knew someone that was being affected.”
DACA changed Garcia’s life and the lives of nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as kids. Deportation relief under DACA had, for years, been seemingly the one thing that had support across party lines when it came to immigration reform. DACA recipients have been able to attend college and fill jobs that are often unattainable to those without legal status in the United States. They’ve formed families, bought homes, and while “they’ve planned their lives in two-year increments, it’s important to recognize that they have planted roots here,” said Jose Muñoz, national communications manager with the advocacy group United We Dream. (DACA recipients are parents to some 250,000 US citizen children.)
But thanks to the hardliners behind Trump’s draconian immigration policies, the program’s future could be decided by the Supreme Court as early as next week—right in the middle of a pandemic that has put many DACA recipients at the center of the country’s response.
“If the current administration was to come for me, people were going to find out. I wanted people to know they knew someone that was being affected.”
On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to consider a brief that urges the court to think about the “life-sustaining role played by over 200,000 DACA recipients who are frontline workers in essential services.” An estimated 29,000 DACA recipients are health care workers, about 15,000 are educators, and 80,000, like Garcia, are employed in the food service industry—essential workers who have become the unexpected heroes of the crisis. “Termination of DACA during this national emergency,” the brief notes, “would be catastrophic.”
For Garcia and hundreds of thousands of other DACA recipients, it would mean navigating life in a completely new way. Garcia, 26, was born in Mexico City and, when they were four years old, migrated with their family to Houston. Garcia grew up there and considers it home; when I first asked them where they were from, they said, “I’m originally from Houston. I mean, Mexico City.”
Last summer, Garcia and their mother moved to Jackson, Wyoming, where Garcia found part-time work at a ski resort and at a local grocery store. Garcia’s job at the resort, though, was cut after the resort closed to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, and while they were “fortunate enough” to keep the grocery store gig, the last month has become both physically and emotionally exhausting. Garcia told me that they try to remind themselves during their shifts that it’s important “to be alert, not anxious.”
“I was less worried about myself, but I worried about my older coworkers, as well as my parents, and my customers, because a lot of them are elderly.”
Since Garcia first learned of COVID-19, the self-described “pathogens and microbiology nerd” started sharing information with coworkers at the grocery store. Sometimes it was news articles; other times it was memes, to keep things light. Then when cases started popping up nearby, they started to worry.
“I was less worried about myself, but I worried about my older coworkers, as well as my parents, and my customers, because a lot of them are elderly,” Garcia said. “So I immediately started sanitizing everything: the carts, the baskets, the handles, and everything else people touched every 10 minutes.”
Garcia feels proud of the work they do every day and told me they like the small town feel of Jackson and “how beautiful it is up here.” Still, Garcia admitted they have had customers “look at me from head to toe, and just completely be judgmental before. Right now, it definitely goes a long way to be nicer to (grocery store clerks), to just say a few kind words like, ‘Thank you for coming to work.'”
Lately, Garcia said, they’ve been thinking about the impending Supreme Court decision, and that has added to the stress of living through the pandemic. According to United We Dream’s Muñoz, DACA recipients across the country have been experiencing heightened anxiety—something they’ve been feeling on and off ever since Trump threatened to end DACA while on the campaign trail in 2016. As I wrote last year:
Immediately after Trump’s election, DACA recipients felt scared and confused by their uncertain future. They were particularly vulnerable to deportation in the event that Trump took away their status; the government already had all of their information. Many were also afraid for their undocumented family members, who were now also exposed. In office, Trump turned the rhetoric down a bit, saying he would treat DACA recipients “with heart” and work with Congress on the matter, and that their information wouldn’t be sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But in September 2017, the Trump administration announced it would cancel DACA. Courts quickly ruled that the administration did not have the authority to end DACA so abruptly and without adequate explanation, and the government was compelled to renew the program for those who had already been granted temporary protected status. Since then lower courts have ruled against the Trump administration, saying his move was “arbitrary and capricious.” It’s been two years of limbo for DACA recipients. The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down DACA was lawful and judicially reviewable back in November. And now, it could come out with a decision as early as Monday.
Meanwhile, presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden expressed support for DACA recipients last month, warning that if the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it “will leave a gaping hole in our health care system that is liable to cost American lives.” He added that Dreamers are ingrained in every aspect of our society and are “American in every way that matters.”
“It’s a false choice to think that in the middle of a pandemic we have to wait on the Supreme Court to potentially decide the fate of the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and their families,” Muñoz said. “Trump didn’t have to end DACA. That’s a choice he made, and he took it to the Supreme Court.”
“It’s a false choice to think that in the middle of a pandemic we have to wait on the Supreme Court to potentially decide the fate of the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and their families.”
If the looming possibility of a Supreme Court decision in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic weren’t enough, DACA holders learned Tuesday that the Department of Homeland Security had gone back on its promise to keep their personal information separate from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. As first reported by ProPublica, internal administration emails obtained under a lawsuit filed by Make the Road New York show that ICE already has their information and could access it if necessary.
I texted with Garcia after they heard the news Tuesday. They told me that their biggest fear had always been that they put their undocumented parents at risk by applying for DACA. Garcia’s parents don’t have protection, and when Garcia filled out DACA forms with US Citizenship and Immigration Services, they entered information about themselves but also about their parents. “Now knowing that ICE has that information,” they said, “it fills me with anger and an even bigger drive to keep fighting for my undocumented community.”
The timing of it all is horrible, Garcia told me, but they still feel privileged to even have qualified for DACA in the first place—especially when so many other essential workers during this pandemic are undocumented.
“I remember when I was still living in both of those closets. I didn’t know whether my family would love me being queer, or if my friends would love me being undocumented,” Garcia said. “With all the support that I’ve had from so many people who have loved me and accept me as both queer and undocumented, it’d be hard if I would ever have to say goodbye to them.”


motherjones--2020-04-24--“You’re Just Screwed”: Why Black-Owned Businesses Are Struggling to Get Coronavirus Relief Loans

K.B .
Brown hasn ’ t opened the doors of his North Minneapolis print shop since March 27 , the day Minnesota Gov .
Tim Walz issued stay-at-home orders that forced non-essential businesses to close .
A few thousand dollars ’ worth of merchandise is sitting in his shuttered storefront , and he won ’ t be paid for most of it until customers can safely retrieve it .
To keep some money coming in , Brown ’ s wife took a job at the local Amazon warehouse sorting packages four days a week , working double shifts on two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re…scared , ” Brown tells me .
He chooses the word slowly and deliberately before releasing a nervous laugh .
Brown and his wife started the business , Wolfpack Promotionals , in 2014 .
After limping along for a few years , they earned $ 200,000 in revenue in 2019 , their best year yet .
“ We were looking at 2020 as a very big year for us , ” he says .
“ At this point , I want a redo.
” Like other small business owners , Brown hoped to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , the $ 2 trillion pandemic relief package Congress passed last month .
He asked Wells Fargo—a banking behemoth he ’ s done business with for years—about applying for a Small Business Administration disaster loan or the Paycheck Protection Program , a pot of money meant to help small businesses cover payroll and other expenses during the coronavirus crisis .
( Money for both types of loans comes from the SBA , but the government relies on commercial banks and other lenders to process the PPP loans . )
Brown says Wells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he hasn ’ t applied for the financing .
“ For a lot of the SBA stuff and other loans , you have to be ‘ bankable , ’ ” Brown tells me .
“ So if you couldn ’ t get a loan from the bank before , you ’ re just screwed .
And many of us are in that position.
” By “ us , ” Brown is referring to fellow Twin Cities entrepreneurs who , like Brown , are black .
Many have less-than-stellar credit , a side effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to in order to start their businesses .
Technically , the PPP doesn ’ t require a minimum credit score , but some potential borrowers aren ’ t convinced the program will live up to that promise .
The distrust is no surprise : Discriminatory government policies , dating back to Reconstruction , have made connecting black business owners with financing a daunting task .
“ The system has never served them and has been the cause of a lot of harm , ” says Felicia Perry , the executive director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group that supports businesses in Brown ’ s neighborhood .
“ There ’ s a real trust gap there.
” In a statement , Wells Fargo said it is “ working as quickly as possible to assist small business customers with the Paycheck Protection Program…in compliance with the regulations and guidance provided by US Treasury and the SBA.
” When the pandemic took hold in the United States , lawmakers rushed to protect entrepreneurs in a manner that was swift , bipartisan , and—on its face—equitable .
“ All loan terms will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declares the Treasury Department ’ s PPP fact sheet .
But we now know that those equal “ terms ” did not translate into equal access to the federal funds .
Banks screened out businesses that they hadn ’ t previously lent money to and reportedly gave preferential treatment to wealthier clients .
After just two weeks , the PPP fund ran out of money altogether .
On Tuesday , congressional leaders announced a $ 310 billion deal to replenish it .
But the additional money may not be enough to rescue people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the pandemic with smaller savings accounts , more debt , and less access to banks and capital than their white counterparts .
The results could be catastrophic .
“ If you focus just on this moment , you miss the big picture , ” says Mehrsa Baradaran , a wealth inequality expert and law professor at the University of California , Irvine .
“ You have to understand the history of how we got here.
” Walz ’ s formal decree late last month didn ’ t actually make much of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In March 2019 , Wolfpack had pulled in $ 18,000 dollars in revenue .
This March , as fear spread and the economy ground to a halt , it took in just $ 2,500 .
When Brown officially closed his shop following the governor ’ s order , he divvied up the company ’ s 2020 profits among himself and his four employees , all of whom are now collecting unemployment .
The Phillips Family Foundation , a Minnesota non-profit run by the family of Rep. Dean Phillips ( D-Minn. ) , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resumes .
“ It ’ s not plugging the hole , but it ’ s slowing down the leak , ” Brown says .
Brown ’ s current circumstances are all the more heartbreaking when you learn what he went through to open his shop—which is to say , in his words , “ hell.
” In April 2014 , he says , he consulted a financial adviser to secure seed money for $ 40,000 in printing and embroidery equipment .
In the end , he only got $ 25,000—and the adviser charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped them reverse that payment , but Brown ’ s wife ’ s credit score plummeted as the couple struggled to pay the manufacturer .
To raise funds , Brown and his wife took out a loan against their home equity ; eventually they were threatened with foreclosure .
Brown ’ s wife tapped her state employee retirement account to pay off the debt , but the owner of the loan claims the Browns still owe roughly $ 2,000 in taxes and fees .
These days , Brown ignores their calls—as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit card issuer , all clamoring for overdue bills .
The obstacles Brown faced are common among African American entrepreneurs .
They tend to rely heavily on their own personal finances to start businesses , despite the fact that the median black household has just one-tenth the wealth that the median white household has .
These circumstances make it unlikely that would-be black business owners have liquid capital to spare—or know others who do .
“ In the case of most African American nascent small businesses owners , there isn ’ t going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ round of financing , ” says Rachel Atkins , an assistant professor at New York University who studies racial disparities in entrepreneurship .
“ They don ’ t have those resources in their personal networks.
” That makes bank loans even more important for black-owned businesses to get off the ground , though their prospects of actually getting the money they need are dim .
A 2017 study from the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta and Cleveland found that black businesses owners apply for funds at a 10 percent higher rate than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are nearly 20 percent lower .
When black entrepreneurs do get approved for financing , only 40 percent receive the full amount they requested , compared to 70 percent of white business owners .
Forty percent of black business owners surveyed are so pessimistic about their chances of being approved for bank loans that they don ’ t even bother to apply .
A recent study by the New York Fed classified nearly three-quarters of white-owned firms as “ healthy ” or “ stable , ” while only 43 percent of black-owned businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment W.E.B .
DuBois started collecting data through today , most black businesses are tiny— ‘ pebbles on the shore of business enterprise , ’ he called them , ” UC Irvine ’ s Baradaran explains .
“ They ’ re undercapitalized and highly vulnerable to any dip or sway in the economy.
” These factors are now conspiring against black businesses as they struggle to obtain PPP loans .
Black-owned firms often rely on community-development financial institutions—lenders focused on underserved populations—many of which still lacked access to the SBA system as of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large banks have closed more branches in majority-black communities than elsewhere , an exodus that ’ s stymied the flow of credit into local small businesses .
And because banks receive bigger fees for bigger loans , they ’ re incentivized to prioritize the applications of larger firms .
“ It makes total sense that black-owned firms would end up at the bottom of the list , ” NYU ’ s Atkins says .
“ We ’ re now witnessing the layering effect of these decisions in the midst of a crisis.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in the majority-black North Minneapolis neighborhood , where she spends much of her time reaching out to businesses to explain the SBA loans ’ eligibility criteria .
Some business owners she speaks to tell her they haven ’ t looked at the applications yet .
There ’ s a variety of reasons : Some are dealing with the acute trauma of loved ones dying from the disease .
Some don ’ t feel like they have the information they need to submit an application .
Others feel too discouraged by past financing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know of any that have successfully received federal funding .
The structure of the loans is also an issue .
Though a PPP loan can be forgiven if it ’ s used to cover payroll , rent , and utility costs , it ’ s likely that only 25 percent of it can be used for non-payroll expenses .
Most black-owned firms are like Brown ’ s—they have just a handful of employees , making them eligible for a much smaller slice of the pie .
Any part of a PPP loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid back within two years , which could pose a hardship for entrepreneurs like Brown who are dealing with other forms of debt .
And the terms of debt relief offered to black Americans have historically put them at a disadvantage .
Amanda Fischer , the policy director for the Washington Center for Equitable Growth , cites the Home Affordable Modification Program , a federal initiative to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure during the Great Recession .
“ There were studies showing that black and brown borrowers were less likely to get loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modifications , the terms were more punitive than white borrowers , ” Fischer explains .
“ I ’ m thinking about businesses working ad hoc with debt collectors and landlords to work out deals to bridge the gap .
There ’ s probably going to be discrimination that plays out that way , too.
” The disparity is grounded in a legacy of discriminatory policy .
Baradaran points to the systematic exclusion of blacks from government-backed programs—such as the GI Bill and Federal Housing Administration loans—that allowed white families to build wealth over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left black families further behind .
And she compares the potential for an extinction-level event among black businesses to the higher COVID-19 death rates among black Americans—a result of segregation , economic inequality , and environmental injustice .
“ Coronavirus is clearly not racist : It ’ s a big , dumb virus that we ’ re all susceptible to , ” she explains .
“ But any colorblind policy , whether one that deals with public health or access to credit , is going to be unfair to black communities ” —because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of racial inequality .
Right now , colorblind policy is the only policy Congress has .
Democrats had initially demanded $ 125 billion be set aside for small and mid-size banks , in hopes of reaching more vulnerable entrepreneurs .
They also called for “ improvements to ensure all eligible small businesses can access this critical funding and are not turned away by banks.
” The final package earmarked just $ 60 billion for smaller lenders , and no such improvements were included .
So what else can be done ?
Bharat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( D-Mass . )
who serves on the congressional panel overseeing coronavirus relief funds—recommends paying banks a flat fee for each transaction and connecting them with applicants via independent clearinghouses , in order to prevent smaller , less-connected firms from getting shut out .
Fischer wants to see aggressive oversight of the lending and a moratorium on debt collection .
In a paper published this month , she also advocates for the elimination of the rules governing how the PPP funds can be used .
She warns that if the loans that do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modest to help them retain their employees , those businesses could be stuck with debts they can ’ t pay back .
The end result , she predicts , will be that a widening wealth gap as industries shrink and consolidate around a few key players .
Brown worries this is already happening in his Minneapolis neighborhood .
“ The African American population has little or nothing when it comes to commercial stores , businesses , housing—you know , in terms of ownership , ” he says , and the coronavirus crisis is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing population is losing ground.
” For now , Brown is making masks out of discarded T-shirt samples and donating them to the Hennepin County Medical Center , local police officers , and some elderly neighbors .
He volunteers with his local business association to distribute hand sanitizer to the few intrepid business owners whose doors remain open .
He doesn ’ t have a lot of faith that the government will do much to help him .
“ Until those senators and representatives are put in the same boat as the population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ ll never get anywhere , ” Brown says .
“ They have to struggle like we are struggling before they can actually understand .
”

K.B. Brown hasn’t opened the doors of his North Minneapolis print shop since March 27, the day Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz issued stay-at-home orders that forced nonessential businesses to close. A few thousand dollars’ worth of merchandise is sitting in his shuttered storefront, and he won’t be paid for most of it until customers can safely retrieve it. To keep some money coming in, Brown’s wife took a job at the local Amazon warehouse sorting packages four days a week, working double shifts on two of those days.
“We’re…scared,” Brown tells me. He chooses the word slowly and deliberately before releasing a nervous laugh. Brown and his wife started the business, Wolfpack Promotionals, in 2014. After limping along for a few years, they earned $200,000 in revenue in 2019, their best year yet. “We were looking at 2020 as a very big year for us,” he says. “At this point, I want a redo.”
“If you couldn’t get a loan from the bank before, you’re just screwed. And many of us are in that position.”
Like other small business owners, Brown hoped to take advantage of provisions in the CARES Act, the $2 trillion pandemic relief package Congress passed last month. He asked Wells Fargo—a banking behemoth he’s done business with for years—about applying for a Small Business Administration disaster loan or the Paycheck Protection Program, a pot of money meant to help small businesses cover payroll and other expenses during the coronavirus crisis. (Money for both types of loans comes from the SBA, but the government relies on commercial banks and other lenders to process the PPP loans.)
Brown says Wells Fargo provided no helpful details, and he hasn’t applied for the financing. “For a lot of the SBA stuff and other loans, you have to be ‘bankable,’” Brown tells me. “So if you couldn’t get a loan from the bank before, you’re just screwed. And many of us are in that position.”
By “us,” Brown is referring to fellow Twin Cities entrepreneurs who, like Brown, are black. Many have less-than-stellar credit, a side effect of the lengths they had to go to in order to start their businesses. Technically, the PPP doesn’t require a minimum credit score, but some potential borrowers aren’t convinced the program will live up to that promise. The distrust is no surprise: Discriminatory government policies, dating back to Reconstruction, have made connecting black business owners with financing a daunting task.
“The system has never served them and has been the cause of a lot of harm,” says Felicia Perry, the executive director of the West Broadway Business and Area Coalition, a group that supports businesses in Brown’s neighborhood. “There’s a real trust gap there.”
In a statement, Wells Fargo said it is “working as quickly as possible to assist small business customers with the Paycheck Protection Program…in compliance with the regulations and guidance provided by US Treasury and the SBA.”
When the pandemic took hold in the United States, lawmakers rushed to protect entrepreneurs in a manner that was swift, bipartisan, and—on its face—equitable. “All loan terms will be the same for everyone,” declares the Treasury Department’s PPP fact sheet. But we now know that those equal “terms” did not translate into equal access to the federal funds. Banks screened out businesses that they hadn’t previously lent money to and reportedly gave preferential treatment to wealthier clients.
After just two weeks, the PPP fund ran out of money altogether. On Tuesday, congressional leaders announced a $310 billion deal to replenish it. But the additional money may not be enough to rescue people like Brown. Black business owners headed into the pandemic with smaller savings accounts, more debt, and less access to banks and capital than their white counterparts. The results could be catastrophic. “If you focus just on this moment, you miss the big picture,” says Mehrsa Baradaran, a wealth inequality expert and law professor at the University of California, Irvine. “You have to understand the history of how we got here.”
Walz’s formal decree late last month didn’t actually make much of a difference in Brown’s finances: In March 2019, Wolfpack had pulled in $18,000 dollars in revenue. This March, as fear spread and the economy ground to a halt, it took in just $2,500. When Brown officially closed his shop following the governor’s order, he divvied up the company’s 2020 profits among himself and his four employees, all of whom are now collecting unemployment. The Phillips Family Foundation, a Minnesota non-profit run by the family of Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), has placed a few preorders for when business resumes. “It’s not plugging the hole, but it’s slowing down the leak,” Brown says.
Brown’s current circumstances are all the more heartbreaking when you learn what he went through to open his shop—which is to say, in his words, “hell.” In April 2014, he says, he consulted a financial adviser to secure seed money for $40,000 in printing and embroidery equipment. In the end, he only got $25,000—and the adviser charged a $15,000 fee. A lawyer helped them reverse that payment, but Brown’s wife’s credit score plummeted as the couple struggled to pay the manufacturer. To raise funds, Brown and his wife took out a loan against their home equity; eventually they were threatened with foreclosure. Brown’s wife tapped her state employee retirement account to pay off the debt, but the owner of the loan claims the Browns still owe roughly $2,000 in taxes and fees. These days, Brown ignores their calls—as well as those from his cable provider and his credit card issuer, all clamoring for overdue bills.
“Any colorblind policy…is going to be unfair to black communities.”
The obstacles Brown faced are common among African American entrepreneurs. They tend to rely heavily on their own personal finances to start businesses, despite the fact that the median black household has just one-tenth the wealth that the median white household has. These circumstances make it unlikely that would-be black business owners have liquid capital to spare—or know others who do. “In the case of most African American nascent small businesses owners, there isn’t going to be a ‘friends and family’ round of financing,” says Rachel Atkins, an assistant professor at New York University who studies racial disparities in entrepreneurship. “They don’t have those resources in their personal networks.”
That makes bank loans even more important for Black-owned businesses to get off the ground, though their prospects of actually getting the money they need are dim. A 2017 study from the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta and Cleveland found that black businesses owners apply for funds at a 10 percent higher rate than white-owned firms, but their approval rates are nearly 20 percent lower. When black entrepreneurs do get approved for financing, only 40 percent receive the full amount they requested, compared to 70 percent of white business owners. Forty percent of black business owners surveyed are so pessimistic about their chances of being approved for bank loans that they don’t even bother to apply.
A recent study by the New York Fed classified nearly three-quarters of white-owned firms as “healthy” or “stable,” while only 43 percent of Black-owned businesses earned those ratings. “From the moment W.E.B. DuBois started collecting data through today, most black businesses are tiny—‘pebbles on the shore of business enterprise,’ he called them,” UC Irvine’s Baradaran explains. “They’re undercapitalized and highly vulnerable to any dip or sway in the economy.”
These factors are now conspiring against black businesses as they struggle to obtain PPP loans. Black-owned firms often rely on community-development financial institutions—lenders focused on underserved populations—many of which still lacked access to the SBA system as of last week. In recent years, large banks have closed more branches in majority-black communities than elsewhere, an exodus that’s stymied the flow of credit into local small businesses. And because banks receive bigger fees for bigger loans, they’re incentivized to prioritize the applications of larger firms. “It makes total sense that Black-owned firms would end up at the bottom of the list,” NYU’s Atkins says. “We’re now witnessing the layering effect of these decisions in the midst of a crisis.”
Perry says those dynamics are already playing out in the majority-black North Minneapolis neighborhood, where she spends much of her time reaching out to businesses to explain the SBA loans’ eligibility criteria. Some business owners she speaks to tell her they haven’t looked at the applications yet. There’s a variety of reasons: Some are dealing with the acute trauma of loved ones dying from the disease. Some don’t feel like they have the information they need to submit an application. Others feel too discouraged by past financing failures to try. She doesn’t know of any that have successfully received federal funding.
The structure of the loans is also an issue. Though a PPP loan can be forgiven if it’s used to cover payroll, rent, and utility costs, it’s likely that only 25 percent of it can be used for non-payroll expenses. Most Black-owned firms are like Brown’s—they have just a handful of employees, making them eligible for a much smaller slice of the pie.
Any part of a PPP loan that isn’t forgiven must be paid back within two years, which could pose a hardship for entrepreneurs like Brown who are dealing with other forms of debt. And the terms of debt relief offered to black Americans have historically put them at a disadvantage. Amanda Fischer, the policy director for the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, cites the Home Affordable Modification Program, a federal initiative to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure during the Great Recession. “There were studies showing that black and brown borrowers were less likely to get loan modifications, and when they got loan modifications, the terms were more punitive than white borrowers,” Fischer explains. “I’m thinking about businesses working ad hoc with debt collectors and landlords to work out deals to bridge the gap. There’s probably going to be discrimination that plays out that way, too.”
The disparity is grounded in a legacy of discriminatory policy. Baradaran points to the systematic exclusion of blacks from government-backed programs—such as the GI Bill and Federal Housing Administration loans—that allowed white families to build wealth over the course of the 20th century but left black families further behind. And she compares the potential for an extinction-level event among black businesses to the higher COVID-19 death rates among black Americans—a result of segregation, economic inequality, and environmental injustice.
“Coronavirus is clearly not racist: It’s a big, dumb virus that we’re all susceptible to,” she explains. “But any colorblind policy, whether one that deals with public health or access to credit, is going to be unfair to black communities”—because colorblind policies fail to account for the impact of racial inequality.
Right now, colorblind policy is the only policy Congress has. Democrats had initially demanded $125 billion be set aside for small and mid-size banks, in hopes of reaching more vulnerable entrepreneurs. They also called for “improvements to ensure all eligible small businesses can access this critical funding and are not turned away by banks.” The final package earmarked just $60 billion for smaller lenders, and no such improvements were included.
“The existing population is losing ground.”
So what else can be done? Bharat Ramamurti—a former staffer for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) who serves on the congressional panel overseeing coronavirus relief funds—recommends paying banks a flat fee for each transaction and connecting them with applicants via independent clearinghouses, in order to prevent smaller, less-connected firms from getting shut out.
Fischer wants to see aggressive oversight of the lending and a moratorium on debt collection. In a paper published this month, she also advocates for the elimination of the rules governing how the PPP funds can be used. She warns that if the loans that do reach smaller firms end up being too modest to help them retain their employees, those businesses could be stuck with debts they can’t pay back. The end result, she predicts, will be that a widening wealth gap as industries shrink and consolidate around a few key players.
Brown worries this is already happening in his Minneapolis neighborhood. “The African American population has little or nothing when it comes to commercial stores, businesses, housing—you know, in terms of ownership,” he says, and the coronavirus crisis is only making things worse. “The existing population is losing ground.”
For now, Brown is making masks out of discarded T-shirt samples and donating them to the Hennepin County Medical Center, local police officers, and some elderly neighbors. He volunteers with his local business association to distribute hand sanitizer to the few intrepid business owners whose doors remain open. He doesn’t have a lot of faith that the government will do much to help him.
“Until those senators and representatives are put in the same boat as the population they’re supposed to be representing, we’ll never get anywhere,” Brown says. “They have to struggle like we are struggling before they can actually understand.”


motherjones--2020-04-27--A New Account Bolsters Tara Reade’s Allegation Against Joe Biden

New evidence has emerged to support the sexual assault allegation against former Vice President Joe Biden , who was accused last month by a former staff assistant , Tara Reade , of sexually assaulting her when he was a senator in 1993 .
Today , Business Insider reported that Reade ’ s former next-door neighbor recalls that Reade described an incident in detail in the mid-1990s .
According to the Business Insider report , written by Rich McHugh , a former NBC News producer who worked with Ronan Farrow on his investigation of Harvey Weinstein , Lynda LaCasse says Reade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night while they were talking : LaCasse told Insider that in 1995 or 1996 , Reade told her she had been assaulted by Biden .
“ I remember her saying , here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him , ” LaCasse said .
“ And he kind of put her up against a wall .
And he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her .
She felt like she was assaulted , and she really didn ’ t feel there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she remembers Reade getting emotional as she told the story .
“ She was crying , ” she said .
“ She was upset .
And the more she talked about it , the more she started crying .
I remember saying that she needed to file a police report.
” LaCasse said she does not recall whether Reade supplied any other details , like the location of the alleged assault or anything Biden may have said .
“ I don ’ t remember all the details , ” LaCasse said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember the fingers .
I remember she was devastated.
” LaCasse told McHugh she is speaking now because of the scrutiny Reade has faced since she came forward .
Last year , Reade was one of eight women who publicly accused Biden of having kissed or touched them in ways that made them uncomfortable .
( In response to the stories , Biden acknowledged that his “ gestures of support ” made some people uncomfortable and promised to change his behavior . )
Reade told a Nevada newspaper that he used to touch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was asked to serve drinks at an event because Biden liked her legs .
She said that she reported the alleged harassment , but not assault , to her supervisors .
But those supervisors , as well as other Biden staffers at the time , have told reporters they have no memory of Reade ’ s complaints , and media outlets have been unable to locate the complaint Reade says she filed with the Senate .
( If it exists , that complaint might be stored in Biden ’ s closed Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The university has said it will not open those records until two years after Biden “ retires from public life.
” ) The Biden campaign has denied the allegation , referring Business Insider to a statement issued earlier this month .
“ Women have a right to tell their story , and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims , ” deputy Biden campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said .
“ We encourage them to do so , because these accusations are false.
” LaCasse is the second person who says Reade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-1990s .
The other is an unnamed friend interviewed by journalists from outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post .
( Reade ’ s brother and another friend also told reporters that Reade told them “ over the years about a traumatic sexual incident , ” according to the New York Times . )
McHugh also spoke to Lorraine Sanchez , who worked with Reade after she left Biden ’ s office .
Sanchez recalled Reade saying “ she had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voicing her concerns to her supervisors , she was let go , fired.
” She could not remember if Reade named Biden at the time .
The Business Insider story follows the discovery of another new detail that supports Reade ’ s account .
Last Friday , The Intercept reported that it had located an August 1993 clip of “ Larry King Live , ” in which an anonymous woman called to ask for advice on behalf of her daughter , who had experienced “ problems ” working in a senator ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she had a story to tell but , out of respect for the person she worked for , she didn ’ t tell it ?
” King asked .
“ That ’ s true , ” the caller replied .
Reade identified the caller as her mother , Jeanette Altimus , who died in 2016 .
It remains to be seen whether Reade ’ s story will significantly shake up the 2020 presidential race or change public opinion about Biden .
Some sexual assault survivor advocates have said that the allegation complicates their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has been accused of sexual assault and harassment by multiple women .
The presumptive Democratic nominee has yet to personally address the allegation , and his campaign did not respond to Business Insider ‘ s request for an interview .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
New evidence has emerged to support the sexual assault allegation against former Vice President Joe Biden, who was accused last month by a former staff assistant, Tara Reade, of sexually assaulting her when he was a senator in 1993. Today, Business Insider reported that Reade’s former next-door neighbor recalls that Reade described an incident in detail in the mid-1990s.
According to the Business Insider report, written by Rich McHugh, a former NBC News producer who worked with Ronan Farrow on his investigation of Harvey Weinstein, Lynda LaCasse says Reade told her about the alleged assault one night while they were talking:
LaCasse told Insider that in 1995 or 1996, Reade told her she had been assaulted by Biden. “I remember her saying, here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him,” LaCasse said. “And he kind of put her up against a wall. And he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her. She felt like she was assaulted, and she really didn’t feel there was anything she could do.” LaCasse said that she remembers Reade getting emotional as she told the story. “She was crying,” she said. “She was upset. And the more she talked about it, the more she started crying. I remember saying that she needed to file a police report.” LaCasse said she does not recall whether Reade supplied any other details, like the location of the alleged assault or anything Biden may have said. “I don’t remember all the details,” LaCasse said. “I remember the skirt. I remember the fingers. I remember she was devastated.”
LaCasse told McHugh she is speaking now because of the scrutiny Reade has faced since she came forward. Last year, Reade was one of eight women who publicly accused Biden of having kissed or touched them in ways that made them uncomfortable. (In response to the stories, Biden acknowledged that his “gestures of support” made some people uncomfortable and promised to change his behavior.) Reade told a Nevada newspaper that he used to touch her shoulder and neck, and that she was asked to serve drinks at an event because Biden liked her legs. She said that she reported the alleged harassment, but not assault, to her supervisors.
But those supervisors, as well as other Biden staffers at the time, have told reporters they have no memory of Reade’s complaints, and media outlets have been unable to locate the complaint Reade says she filed with the Senate. (If it exists, that complaint might be stored in Biden’s closed Senate files at the University of Delaware. The university has said it will not open those records until two years after Biden “retires from public life.”)
The Biden campaign has denied the allegation, referring Business Insider to a statement issued earlier this month. “Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims,” deputy Biden campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said. “We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false.”
LaCasse is the second person who says Reade detailed the alleged sexual assault in the mid-1990s. The other is an unnamed friend interviewed by journalists from outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post. (Reade’s brother and another friend also told reporters that Reade told them “over the years about a traumatic sexual incident,” according to the New York Times.)
McHugh also spoke to Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade after she left Biden’s office. Sanchez recalled Reade saying “she had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in DC…and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors, she was let go, fired.” She could not remember if Reade named Biden at the time.
The Business Insider story follows the discovery of another new detail that supports Reade’s account. Last Friday, The Intercept reported that it had located an August 1993 clip of “Larry King Live,” in which an anonymous woman called to ask for advice on behalf of her daughter, who had experienced “problems” working in a senator’s office. “In other words, she had a story to tell but, out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn’t tell it?” King asked. “That’s true,” the caller replied. Reade identified the caller as her mother, Jeanette Altimus, who died in 2016.
It remains to be seen whether Reade’s story will significantly shake up the 2020 presidential race or change public opinion about Biden. Some sexual assault survivor advocates have said that the allegation complicates their wish to replace President Donald Trump, who has been accused of sexual assault and harassment by multiple women. The presumptive Democratic nominee has yet to personally address the allegation, and his campaign did not respond to Business Insider‘s request for an interview.


motherjones--2020-04-27--The Supreme Court’s Punt on a Second Amendment Case Is a Short-Term Victory for Gun Control Groups

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to issue a ruling on a New York City gun regulation , scoring a big victory for gun control groups , but potentially setting up for a bigger Second Amendment battle in the future .
The case stems from a 2013 lawsuit by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association against the city of New York over a law that barred the transportation of legally owned firearms from the city to anywhere outside of it—like shooting ranges , shooting competitions , or second homes .
After two lower courts ruled in favor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court ’ s 2008 ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller , which clarified that the transportation of any weapons outside one ’ s home could be regulated , the NYSRPA—which is affiliated with the National Rifle Association—appealed to the Supreme Court .
Had the Supreme Court ruled on the case , it would have been the court ’ s first ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment in a decade .
Instead , the court declared the issue moot .
Ahead of oral arguments New York City had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a Supreme Court ruling could threaten gun control laws across the nation .
The Supreme Court ’ s sidestepping of the issue is certainly a blow to gun rights groups like the NRA , who were hoping a definitive opinion by the conservative-majority court would greatly expand where gun owners could carry firearms .
Three of the Court ’ s conservative justices—Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Clarence Thomas—dissented with their colleagues , with Alito writing that , “ by incorrectly dismissing this case as moot , the Court permits our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that should not be countenanced.
” But in a two-paragraph concurring opinion , Justice Brett Kavanaugh hinted that the court might be taking up the issue sooner rather than later .
“ The Court should address that issue soon , ” he wrote , “ perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.
” For gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence , the court ’ s punting of the issue is a victory—for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court just thwarted the gun lobby ’ s hope for a broad ruling that could slow the gun safety movement ’ s growing momentum , ” said John Feinblatt , Everytown ’ s president .
A technicality may have prevented the Supreme Court from ruling on the Second Amendment , but Jonathan Lowy , Brady ’ s chief counsel , knows that that may happen sooner than later , pointing to Kavanaugh ’ s words .
“ We know that this fight is not over , ” Lowy says .
“ The gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , and there are a number of cases that are before the Supreme Court right now that the court could take very soon.
” Among the cases is Gould v. O ’ Leary , a lawsuit that challenges Massachusetts ’ concealed carry licensing system , which is currently being considered by the Supreme Court .
If that case , or another one similar to it , does get picked by the Supreme Court , it could be the Second Amendment doomsday scenario that gun control advocates fear and gun rights activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidenced by his previous record on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia , is keen to expand the Second Amendment .
“ Brett Kavanaugh just officially put everyone on notice that no gun safety measures are safe now that he is on the Supreme Court , ” says Christopher Kang , the chief counsel for Demand Justice , a progressive judicial advocacy group .
“ At a time when the American people are demanding solutions to the gun violence epidemic , the Republican majority on the Supreme Court is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solutions .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to issue a ruling on a New York City gun regulation, scoring a big victory for gun control groups, but potentially setting up for a bigger Second Amendment battle in the future.
The case stems from a 2013 lawsuit by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association against the city of New York over a law that barred the transportation of legally owned firearms from the city to anywhere outside of it—like shooting ranges, shooting competitions, or second homes. After two lower courts ruled in favor of the New York City law, citing the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller, which clarified that the transportation of any weapons outside one’s home could be regulated, the NYSRPA—which is affiliated with the National Rifle Association—appealed to the Supreme Court. Had the Supreme Court ruled on the case, it would have been the court’s first ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment in a decade.
Instead, the court declared the issue moot. Ahead of oral arguments New York City had reversed the law, out of fear that a Supreme Court ruling could threaten gun control laws across the nation. The Supreme Court’s sidestepping of the issue is certainly a blow to gun rights groups like the NRA, who were hoping a definitive opinion by the conservative-majority court would greatly expand where gun owners could carry firearms. Three of the Court’s conservative justices—Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas—dissented with their colleagues, with Alito writing that, “by incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced.” But in a two-paragraph concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh hinted that the court might be taking up the issue sooner rather than later. “The Court should address that issue soon,” he wrote, “perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”
For gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the court’s punting of the issue is a victory—for now. “Fortunately, the Supreme Court just thwarted the gun lobby’s hope for a broad ruling that could slow the gun safety movement’s growing momentum,” said John Feinblatt, Everytown’s president. A technicality may have prevented the Supreme Court from ruling on the Second Amendment, but Jonathan Lowy, Brady’s chief counsel, knows that that may happen sooner than later, pointing to Kavanaugh’s words. “We know that this fight is not over,” Lowy says. “The gun lobby will continue challenge gun laws across the country, and there are a number of cases that are before the Supreme Court right now that the court could take very soon.”
Among the cases is Gould v. O’Leary, a lawsuit that challenges Massachusetts’ concealed carry licensing system, which is currently being considered by the Supreme Court. If that case, or another one similar to it, does get picked by the Supreme Court, it could be the Second Amendment doomsday scenario that gun control advocates fear and gun rights activists are hoping for. Kavanaugh, as evidenced by his previous record on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is keen to expand the Second Amendment.
“Brett Kavanaugh just officially put everyone on notice that no gun safety measures are safe now that he is on the Supreme Court,” says Christopher Kang, the chief counsel for Demand Justice, a progressive judicial advocacy group. “At a time when the American people are demanding solutions to the gun violence epidemic, the Republican majority on the Supreme Court is an existential threat to any and all commonsense solutions.”


motherjones--2020-04-27--The Supreme Court Just Issued an Unexpected Order in the Trump Taxes Case

The Supreme Court issued a request Monday for more arguments in the fight over whether Donald Trump ’ s bank and accountant should be required to comply with congressional subpoenas for the president ’ s personal financial records , adding an odd new wrinkle to the fight—one in which , so far , there is no clear winner .
Since Democrats took over the House in 2018 , Trump has refused to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking more information about the ins and outs of his finances .
Last year , he extended the fight beyond his own personal refusal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two of his banks—Germany ’ s Deutsche Bank and Capital One—and his accounting firm , Mazars , demanding that they not comply with subpoenas asking for copies of his financial statements , including of his tax returns .
Lower courts have upheld the subpoenas , but Trump appealed to the Supreme Court in December , saying that there was no legitimate legislative purpose for members of Congress to demand the documents .
On Monday , the Supreme Court issued a new ruling , asking that all of the parties in the case submit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political question doctrine or related justiciability principles ” —a fancy way to say the Court wants to know whether this is a real legal question or just a political bickering match that doesn ’ t deserve a Supreme Court decision .
It was an odd request , and not one that had been widely expected—and it ’ s not clear exactly how it would play out .
The Court may well determine that it is not a political question and that it can go on to address the president ’ s appeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to step back—and among the early reactions to the latest ruling , some have suggested that the Court is looking for a way out of having to answer the question—it might not be great for Trump .
For starters , Trump is the one arguing that the Supreme Court step in to help him .
If it backs away from this case , it means the Court is refusing to interfere with the Congressional subpoeanas .
Also , the banks being targeted by congressional investigators have indicated they will comply with legal subpoenas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday that “ we remain committed to cooperating with authorized investigations.
” Steve Vladeck , a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas–Austin law school , says that if the Court opts out of this question , it clears the way for the banks and Mazar to comply—but it might also set a bad precedent for Congress ’ future ability to subpoena anyone who is not as willing to respond to an investigating committee ’ s subpoeana :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Supreme Court issued a request Monday for more arguments in the fight over whether Donald Trump’s bank and accountant should be required to comply with congressional subpoenas for the president’s personal financial records, adding an odd new wrinkle to the fight—one in which, so far, there is no clear winner.
Since Democrats took over the House in 2018, Trump has refused to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking more information about the ins and outs of his finances. Last year, he extended the fight beyond his own personal refusal to cooperate and filed a lawsuit against two of his banks—Germany’s Deutsche Bank and Capital One—and his accounting firm, Mazars, demanding that they not comply with subpoenas asking for copies of his financial statements, including of his tax returns. Lower courts have upheld the subpoenas, but Trump appealed to the Supreme Court in December, saying that there was no legitimate legislative purpose for members of Congress to demand the documents.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a new ruling, asking that all of the parties in the case submit new arguments on the issue of “the political question doctrine or related justiciability principles”—a fancy way to say the Court wants to know whether this is a real legal question or just a political bickering match that doesn’t deserve a Supreme Court decision. It was an odd request, and not one that had been widely expected—and it’s not clear exactly how it would play out. The Court may well determine that it is not a political question and that it can go on to address the president’s appeal. But if the court does decide to step back—and among the early reactions to the latest ruling, some have suggested that the Court is looking for a way out of having to answer the question—it might not be great for Trump.
For starters, Trump is the one arguing that the Supreme Court step in to help him. If it backs away from this case, it means the Court is refusing to interfere with the Congressional subpoeanas. Also, the banks being targeted by congressional investigators have indicated they will comply with legal subpoenas; a spokesman for Deutsche Bank reaffirmed Monday that “we remain committed to cooperating with authorized investigations.”
Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas–Austin law school, says that if the Court opts out of this question, it clears the way for the banks and Mazar to comply—but it might also set a bad precedent for Congress’ future ability to subpoena anyone who is not as willing to respond to an investigating committee’s subpoeana:
I don't think there's any obstacle to #SCOTUS reaching the merits of these cases. But if the Court says that there is, that's actually bad for *Trump*—as he's the one who's suing to try to block Mazars/Deutsche Bank from *voluntarily* complying with these congressional subpoenas. https://t.co/F2QO2l4YJx — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) April 27, 2020