motherjones--2020-06-29--A Question That Won’t Go Away: Why Does Trump Love Putin So Much?

In the wake of the bombshell story that President Trump failed to act on intelligence that Russia had offered to pay Afghan militants to kill American soldiers , the nation once again confronts a crucial question : Why does Trump have such an affinity for Vladimir Putin , the tyrannical leader of Russia ?
There ’ s one obvious potential answer : Trump is grateful for the assistance he received in 2016 from Putin , who ordered a multi-front covert attack on the presidential election that year that was designed in part to help Trump win .
And according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kremlin is at it again , attempting to interfere in the 2020 campaign—an action that Trump has not publicly acknowledged or taken measures to thwart .
But Trump ’ s fondness for Putin began years before Putin helped this reality TV star reach the White House .
In June 2013 , after announcing that his Miss Universe pageant would be held that year in Moscow , Trump tweeted , “ Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow – if so , will he become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was an odd message to send .
Putin ’ s thuggishness was no secret .
A former KGB official , Putin was in the midst of overseeing a crackdown on dissent within Russia .
( In part , this was a response to the widespread protests that exploded in response to corrupt elections held in late 2011 . )
The country had also adopted vicious anti-gay laws .
A few years earlier , Putin had managed a brutal war in Chechnya that resulted in 25,000 dead civilians .
And during his tenure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murdered .
The record was clear by the spring of 2013 : Putin was a violent authoritarian .
( Through all the years of his tweeting , Trump has not once referred to any person besides Putin as an actual or possible “ best friend.
” ) Months later , when Trump was in Moscow for the Miss Universe contest , he was obsessed with the prospect of meeting Putin .
As Michael Isikoff and I chronicled in Russian Roulette : The Inside Story of Putin ’ s War on America and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of that trip anxiously asking his handlers if Putin would attend the Miss Universe broadcast or if he would get to meet Putin elsewhere .
Alas , Putin was a no-show , and a top Putin aide told Trump that the Russian leader would not be able to see him .
Trump was crushed .
But Putin , the aide said , had a gift for him .
Weeks later , Putin sent Trump a black lacquered box .
Inside was a sealed letter .
Though Trump has boasted about this gift—in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent me a present , beautiful present , with a beautiful note ” —he has never disclosed the contents of this note from Putin .
Why was Trump so enthralled with Putin at this point ?
Perhaps it was purely a business matter .
For decades , Trump had been trying to score big in Russia .
In 1987 , he almost cut a deal with the Soviet government to develop a tower in Moscow .
In 1996 , after the collapse of the Soviet Union , he came close again .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Russian authorities about renovating the Hotel Moskva , across from the Kremlin .
That also didn ’ t happen .
In the mid-2000s , Trump teamed up with real estate developers to pursue a Moscow venture .
Once more , nothing .
He also endeavored to sell Trump Vodka in Russia .
Another bust .
The Miss Universe event was Trump ’ s first big win in Russia , after years of striving .
And one goal of that project was to pave the way to the long-sought Trump Tower in Moscow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he discussed this deal with potential Russian partners .
When he returned to the United States , he excitedly tweeted , “ TRUMP TOWER-MOSCOW is next.
” His company signed a letter of intent with Aras Agalarov , a Russian billionaire developer who had partnered with Trump on the Miss Universe event .
Soon after that , Ivanka Trump toured potential sites in Moscow .
But this project fizzled , after the United States and the European Union hit Russia with economic sanctions following Putin ’ s military intervention in Ukraine and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been buttering up Putin to get his tower in Moscow .
But it has often seemed that Trump has a psychological affinity for him—as he does for autocratic rulers around the world .
On the campaign trail , Trump admiringly called Putin “ a strong leader.
” When asked in December 2015 about the allegation that Putin had journalists killed , Trump defended him and said , “ He ’ s running his country , and at least he ’ s a leader.
” At that time , Trump was working on yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeping this project secret from the American voters .
His personal lawyer at the time , Michael Cohen , even reached out to Putin ’ s office for assistance with the venture .
So it ’ s still possible that Trump was sweet-talking Putin in order to make hundreds of millions of dollars in Russia .
( You can ’ t do a billion-dollar deal in Moscow if you get on Putin ’ s wrong side . )
But Trump ’ s embrace of Putin always seemed enthusiastic and heartfelt .
This continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia was mounting information warfare against the US election in a way that benefitted Trump .
Trump and his campaign publicly denied Kremlin involvement in the election and privately sought behind-the-scenes contacts with Russia .
It was a signal to Moscow : We ’ re fine with Putin ’ s assault on the United States .
Following the election , Trump refused to acknowledge that Putin was an enemy who had attacked American democracy .
Instead , he invited two of Putin ’ s pals—the Russian ambassador to the United States and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after his inauguration , and the three of them were photographed laughing together .
Trump even told the pair he was not concerned about the Russian intervention in the election .
When Trump has met Putin , he has greeted him warmly .
He has never criticized the Russian .
He has refused to share with US officials details of his private chats with Putin .
( He ’ s all mine ! )
Most famously , during a joint press conference in Helsinki , Trump indicated that he accepted Putin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
( The US intelligence community had concluded that Putin ordered the attack . )
At the time , CNN published a list of all the “ nice things ” Trump had uttered about Putin since becoming president .
Trump dumps on US allies constantly .
He viciously attacks political foes .
He shows no concern for common courtesies .
He likes to play the tough guy .
But he melts for Putin .
This has been a constant of his presidency .
Even when US intelligence reports Putin ’ s intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murder of US soldiers , Trump…does nothing .
The White House , not convincingly , has claimed Trump was not briefed on this .
Still , after the news reports emerged , Trump said nothing about this Russian operation .
He has not expressed outrage .
He has not blasted Putin .
He has not declared that he will protect American troops .
What accounts for Trump ’ s fanboy approach to Putin ?
Does he still hope one day to erect a tower in Moscow ?
Can he just not quit a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are saying that Putin has something blackmail-ish on Trump ( even if the pee tape doesn ’ t exist—and that particular allegation remains unlikely ) .
Does Trump believe he can forge some grand geostrategic accord with Putin ?
( Trump certainly doesn ’ t seem to have the attention span or vision for that . )
In any event , there is no one key for cracking the Putin code .
But for years , Trump ’ s actions have spoken clearly : He ’ s really into Putin .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bounty program , Trump is once again standing by his man .
Even though US soldiers have been endangered by this alleged Russian operation , even though Trump ’ s own election prospects are further undermined by this revelation , Trump has so far declined to take any action that would threaten his prized relationship with Putin .
It ’ s puzzling , but it ’ s not complicated .
For at least seven years , Trump has wanted to be Putin ’ s BFF .
Whatever the reason , Trump always puts @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In the wake of the bombshell story that President Trump failed to act on intelligence that Russia had offered to pay Afghan militants to kill American soldiers, the nation once again confronts a crucial question: Why does Trump have such an affinity for Vladimir Putin, the tyrannical leader of Russia?
There’s one obvious potential answer: Trump is grateful for the assistance he received in 2016 from Putin, who ordered a multi-front covert attack on the presidential election that year that was designed in part to help Trump win. And according to top Trump administration intelligence officials, the Kremlin is at it again, attempting to interfere in the 2020 campaign—an action that Trump has not publicly acknowledged or taken measures to thwart.
But Trump’s fondness for Putin began years before Putin helped this reality TV star reach the White House. In June 2013, after announcing that his Miss Universe pageant would be held that year in Moscow, Trump tweeted, “Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow – if so, will he become my new best friend?”
Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow – if so, will he become my new best friend? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 19, 2013
That was an odd message to send. Putin’s thuggishness was no secret. A former KGB official, Putin was in the midst of overseeing a crackdown on dissent within Russia. (In part, this was a response to the widespread protests that exploded in response to corrupt elections held in late 2011.) The country had also adopted vicious anti-gay laws. A few years earlier, Putin had managed a brutal war in Chechnya that resulted in 25,000 dead civilians. And during his tenure, a series of Russian journalists had been murdered. The record was clear by the spring of 2013: Putin was a violent authoritarian. (Through all the years of his tweeting, Trump has not once referred to any person besides Putin as an actual or possible “best friend.”)
Months later, when Trump was in Moscow for the Miss Universe contest, he was obsessed with the prospect of meeting Putin. As Michael Isikoff and I chronicled in Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, Trump spent much of that trip anxiously asking his handlers if Putin would attend the Miss Universe broadcast or if he would get to meet Putin elsewhere. Alas, Putin was a no-show, and a top Putin aide told Trump that the Russian leader would not be able to see him. Trump was crushed. But Putin, the aide said, had a gift for him. Weeks later, Putin sent Trump a black lacquered box. Inside was a sealed letter. Though Trump has boasted about this gift—in 2014 he said, “Putin even sent me a present, beautiful present, with a beautiful note”—he has never disclosed the contents of this note from Putin.
Trump’s fondness for Putin began years before Putin helped this reality TV star reach the White House.
Why was Trump so enthralled with Putin at this point? Perhaps it was purely a business matter. For decades, Trump had been trying to score big in Russia. In 1987, he almost cut a deal with the Soviet government to develop a tower in Moscow. In 1996, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, he came close again. But no project materialized. He also talked to Russian authorities about renovating the Hotel Moskva, across from the Kremlin. That also didn’t happen. In the mid-2000s, Trump teamed up with real estate developers to pursue a Moscow venture. Once more, nothing. He also endeavored to sell Trump Vodka in Russia. Another bust.
The Miss Universe event was Trump’s first big win in Russia, after years of striving. And one goal of that project was to pave the way to the long-sought Trump Tower in Moscow. While Trump was in Moscow, he discussed this deal with potential Russian partners. When he returned to the United States, he excitedly tweeted, “TRUMP TOWER-MOSCOW is next.” His company signed a letter of intent with Aras Agalarov, a Russian billionaire developer who had partnered with Trump on the Miss Universe event. Soon after that, Ivanka Trump toured potential sites in Moscow. But this project fizzled, after the United States and the European Union hit Russia with economic sanctions following Putin’s military intervention in Ukraine and his annexation of Crimea.
Trump may have been buttering up Putin to get his tower in Moscow. But it has often seemed that Trump has a psychological affinity for him—as he does for autocratic rulers around the world. On the campaign trail, Trump admiringly called Putin “a strong leader.” When asked in December 2015 about the allegation that Putin had journalists killed, Trump defended him and said, “He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader.”
At that time, Trump was working on yet another deal to develop a Moscow tower—and keeping this project secret from the American voters. His personal lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, even reached out to Putin’s office for assistance with the venture. So it’s still possible that Trump was sweet-talking Putin in order to make hundreds of millions of dollars in Russia. (You can’t do a billion-dollar deal in Moscow if you get on Putin’s wrong side.) But Trump’s embrace of Putin always seemed enthusiastic and heartfelt.
This continued after it became apparent in 2016 that Russia was mounting information warfare against the US election in a way that benefitted Trump. Trump and his campaign publicly denied Kremlin involvement in the election and privately sought behind-the-scenes contacts with Russia. It was a signal to Moscow: We’re fine with Putin’s assault on the United States. Following the election, Trump refused to acknowledge that Putin was an enemy who had attacked American democracy. Instead, he invited two of Putin’s pals—the Russian ambassador to the United States and the Russian foreign minister—to the Oval Office weeks after his inauguration, and the three of them were photographed laughing together. Trump even told the pair he was not concerned about the Russian intervention in the election.
Trump was sending a signal to Moscow: We’re fine with Putin’s assault on the United States.
When Trump has met Putin, he has greeted him warmly. He has never criticized the Russian. He has refused to share with US officials details of his private chats with Putin. (He’s all mine!) Most famously, during a joint press conference in Helsinki, Trump indicated that he accepted Putin’s denial of any interference in the 2016 election. (The US intelligence community had concluded that Putin ordered the attack.) At the time, CNN published a list of all the “nice things” Trump had uttered about Putin since becoming president.
Trump dumps on US allies constantly. He viciously attacks political foes. He shows no concern for common courtesies. He likes to play the tough guy. But he melts for Putin. This has been a constant of his presidency. Even when US intelligence reports Putin’s intelligence service is offering bounties to encourage the murder of US soldiers, Trump…does nothing. The White House, not convincingly, has claimed Trump was not briefed on this. Still, after the news reports emerged, Trump said nothing about this Russian operation. He has not expressed outrage. He has not blasted Putin. He has not declared that he will protect American troops.
What accounts for Trump’s fanboy approach to Putin? Does he still hope one day to erect a tower in Moscow? Can he just not quit a brutal strongman? Of course, many people are saying that Putin has something blackmail-ish on Trump (even if the pee tape doesn’t exist—and that particular allegation remains unlikely). Does Trump believe he can forge some grand geostrategic accord with Putin? (Trump certainly doesn’t seem to have the attention span or vision for that.) In any event, there is no one key for cracking the Putin code. But for years, Trump’s actions have spoken clearly: He’s really into Putin.
With his refusal to decry Russia’s bounty program, Trump is once again standing by his man. Even though US soldiers have been endangered by this alleged Russian operation, even though Trump’s own election prospects are further undermined by this revelation, Trump has so far declined to take any action that would threaten his prized relationship with Putin. It’s puzzling, but it’s not complicated. For at least seven years, Trump has wanted to be Putin’s BFF. Whatever the reason, Trump always puts Putin first.


motherjones--2020-06-29--The Supreme Court Lets the President Fire the Country’s Top Wall Street Watchdog

The Supreme Court on Monday dealt a blow to the independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , created on the heels of the 2008 recession to go after abusive financial actors .
In a 5–4 ruling , the conservative justices , led by Chief Justice John Roberts , struck down the part of the agency ’ s structure limiting the president ’ s ability to fire the CFPB director .
The ruling allows the president to fire the director of the CFPB at will , and it could have implications for other independent federal agencies .
But the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as requested by the plaintiff in the case , a debt relief firm called Seila Law that was under investigation by the CFPB .
The agency can continue to operate , Roberts wrote , “ but its Director , in light of our decision , must be removable by the President at will.
” The CFPB was established in 2011 with the goal of cracking down on the abusive practices in the banking and financial sectors that precipitated the crisis .
The legislation that created the body stipulated that its director , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate , would serve a five-year term and could only be fired by the president “ for cause ” —specifically , “ inefficiency , neglect of duty , or malfeasance in office.
” Members of the multi-person boards leading the Federal Reserve , the Securities and Exchange Commission , the Federal Communications Commission , and many other agencies are subject to the same “ for cause ” firing limitation , to protect those agencies ’ independence .
It wasn ’ t clear from Monday ’ s ruling the extent to which this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the CFPB ’ s leadership could be applied to other agencies ’ directors and board members .
But ever since the case was heard in court in March , advocates and lawyers have argued that a ruling striking down the CFPB ’ s directorship structure could poke holes in these other agencies ’ independence .
Following Monday ’ s ruling , University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck tweeted that the ruling is “ a very big deal for the separation of powers insofar as it makes it harder to have ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unlikely that President Trump will fire the CFPB director , Kathleen Kraninger , anytime soon ; she was nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate in 2018 .
The ruling could actually end up being a boon for Democrats .
Should Joe Biden win the presidency in November , he would be able to replace Kraninger before the end of her five-year term .
As the director of the CFPB , Kraninger has herself argued that the established CFPB structure gives her too much independence and should be ruled unconstitutional .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling below :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Supreme Court on Monday dealt a blow to the independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created on the heels of the 2008 recession to go after abusive financial actors.
In a 5–4 ruling, the conservative justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, struck down the part of the agency’s structure limiting the president’s ability to fire the CFPB director. The ruling allows the president to fire the director of the CFPB at will, and it could have implications for other independent federal agencies.
But the court declined to declare the entire agency unconstitutional, as requested by the plaintiff in the case, a debt relief firm called Seila Law that was under investigation by the CFPB. The agency can continue to operate, Roberts wrote, “but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will.”
The CFPB was established in 2011 with the goal of cracking down on the abusive practices in the banking and financial sectors that precipitated the crisis. The legislation that created the body stipulated that its director, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, would serve a five-year term and could only be fired by the president “for cause”—specifically, “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Members of the multi-person boards leading the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and many other agencies are subject to the same “for cause” firing limitation, to protect those agencies’ independence.
It wasn’t clear from Monday’s ruling the extent to which this decision to give the president more power over the CFPB’s leadership could be applied to other agencies’ directors and board members. But ever since the case was heard in court in March, advocates and lawyers have argued that a ruling striking down the CFPB’s directorship structure could poke holes in these other agencies’ independence.
Following Monday’s ruling, University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck tweeted that the ruling is “a very big deal for the separation of powers insofar as it makes it harder to have ‘independent’ Executive Branch agencies.”
It is unlikely that President Trump will fire the CFPB director, Kathleen Kraninger, anytime soon; she was nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate in 2018.
The ruling could actually end up being a boon for Democrats. Should Joe Biden win the presidency in November, he would be able to replace Kraninger before the end of her five-year term. As the director of the CFPB, Kraninger has herself argued that the established CFPB structure gives her too much independence and should be ruled unconstitutional.
You can read the full Supreme Court ruling below:


motherjones--2020-06-29--The Supreme Court Just Ruled 5–4 to Protect Abortion Rights

The Supreme Court just handed down a major win for abortion rights groups , striking down a Louisiana law that would have left just one doctor able to provide abortions in the entire state .
The court ruled 5–4 with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court ’ s liberal wing .
June Medical Services v. Russo considered a law that required physicians who provide abortion care to secure admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice .
This is what ’ s known as a TRAP—or Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers—law , because it applies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care and it ’ s medically unnecessary .
A near-identical Texas law was considered in a major 2016 ruling , in Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt , which deemed admitting privilege requirements unconstitutional because they essentially created an undue burden on people seeking abortion access ; the decision in June Medical affirms that precedent .
Abortion rights activists were worried that the court may take a different approach to June Medical since Justice Brett Kavanaugh has since tipped the bench to a conservative majority .
Last year , Kavanaugh defended the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medical despite the Whole Woman ’ s Health decision because , he argued , the plaintiffs had not proven that the Louisiana restriction created a burden equal to the one in Texas .
Chief Justice John Roberts had been considered the potential swing vote in this case ; legal experts have speculated that the consideration of his legacy after he leaves the bench might be enough to motivate him to tread carefully on such a hot-button issue , especially in an election year .
It clearly was , as Robert explicitly says he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court ’ s previous decision—a decision he actually disagreed with .
He wrote : “ I joined the dissent in Whole Woman ’ s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided .
The question today however is not whether Whole Woman ’ s Health was right or wrong , but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.
” Another significant matter at stake in June Medical was the issue of third-party standing , a more obscure but crucial legal provision that has allowed abortion providers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients for nearly 50 years .
In its decision , the court declined to rule on the issue , meaning third-party standing will remain in place and abortion litigation can continue as it has for decades—another significant win for abortion rights advocates .
As my former colleague Jessica Washington and I reported back in February : The Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo next week .
The case centers on a 2014 Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medical Services , the state of Louisiana is questioning the entire basis of the case , specifically the right of abortion providers to file lawsuits that challenge abortion restrictions .
If the justices decide that abortion providers do not , in fact , have third-party standing , pregnant plaintiffs will likely be required to file suit themselves , almost certainly resulting in fewer abortion-related lawsuits .
That , in turn , would take the pressure off states that are unconstitutionally regulating the procedure .
Advocates would be forced to fight against an onslaught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those seen in 2019 , under great personal and financial strain .
And given how long these cases take , it ’ s likely they ’ d end up in the same position as McCorvey : fighting a long legal battle that no longer has anything to do with their individual ability to get an abortion .
Now the Louisiana law is officially dead .
But this loss will not deter states from continuing to pass anti-abortion legislation in hopes of getting another shot at the Supreme Court and a potentially different outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Supreme Court just handed down a major win for abortion rights groups, striking down a Louisiana law that would have left just one doctor able to provide abortions in the entire state. The court ruled 5–4 with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court’s liberal wing.
June Medical Services v. Russo considered a law that required physicians who provide abortion care to secure admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice. This is what’s known as a TRAP—or Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers—law, because it applies only to physicians who also provide abortion care and it’s medically unnecessary. A near-identical Texas law was considered in a major 2016 ruling, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which deemed admitting privilege requirements unconstitutional because they essentially created an undue burden on people seeking abortion access; the decision in June Medical affirms that precedent.
Abortion rights activists were worried that the court may take a different approach to June Medical since Justice Brett Kavanaugh has since tipped the bench to a conservative majority. Last year, Kavanaugh defended the court’s decision to consider June Medical despite the Whole Woman’s Health decision because, he argued, the plaintiffs had not proven that the Louisiana restriction created a burden equal to the one in Texas.
Chief Justice John Roberts had been considered the potential swing vote in this case; legal experts have speculated that the consideration of his legacy after he leaves the bench might be enough to motivate him to tread carefully on such a hot-button issue, especially in an election year. It clearly was, as Robert explicitly says he joined the majority out of deference to the court’s previous decision—a decision he actually disagreed with. He wrote: “I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.”
Another significant matter at stake in June Medical was the issue of third-party standing, a more obscure but crucial legal provision that has allowed abortion providers to bring suit in place of abortion patients for nearly 50 years. In its decision, the court declined to rule on the issue, meaning third-party standing will remain in place and abortion litigation can continue as it has for decades—another significant win for abortion rights advocates. As my former colleague Jessica Washington and I reported back in February:
The Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo next week. The case centers on a 2014 Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. But in a counter-petition, Russo v. June Medical Services, the state of Louisiana is questioning the entire basis of the case, specifically the right of abortion providers to file lawsuits that challenge abortion restrictions. If the justices decide that abortion providers do not, in fact, have third-party standing, pregnant plaintiffs will likely be required to file suit themselves, almost certainly resulting in fewer abortion-related lawsuits. That, in turn, would take the pressure off states that are unconstitutionally regulating the procedure. Advocates would be forced to fight against an onslaught of abortion bans, like many of those seen in 2019, under great personal and financial strain. And given how long these cases take, it’s likely they’d end up in the same position as McCorvey: fighting a long legal battle that no longer has anything to do with their individual ability to get an abortion.
Now the Louisiana law is officially dead. But this loss will not deter states from continuing to pass anti-abortion legislation in hopes of getting another shot at the Supreme Court and a potentially different outcome.
Read the full decision here:
This piece has been updated.


motherjones--2020-07-01--Congressional Democrats Are Tying Themselves Into Knots About Whether to Restrict Aid to Israel

Rank and file Democrats are trying to walk a thin line on Israel .
Almost all Democrats want to discourage Israel from moving ahead with a plan to begin taking control of parts West Bank as soon as this month .
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears eager to rush forward to capitalize on a “ peace plan ” backed by Donald Trump that allows Netanyahu to annex up to 30 percent of the West Bank , despite Palestinian opposition , before Trump ’ s potential defeat in November .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , who boasts a growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says he will “ reverse Trump ’ s undercutting of peace.
” Most House Democrats , 191 of them , have signed a letter opposing Netanyahu ’ s plans .
In May , 19 Senate Democrats signed off a letter warning Netanyahu that he risks losing bipartisan support .
“ We caution you against taking unilateral steps that would fray our unique bonds , imperil Israel ’ s future and place out of reach the prospect of a lasting peace , ” the senators wrote .
“ If you move forward with unilateral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action.
” That is straightforward enough .
But congressional Democrats are less clear on using their power over spending to enforce that view .
Most Democrats are unwilling to flatly threaten to limit the billions of dollars in annual US financial aid to Israel if Netanyahu proceeds .
Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) has circulated a letter , reportedly signed by a dozen progressive lawmakers , that threatens “ legislation that conditions the $ 3.8 billion in US military funding to Israel to ensure that US taxpayers are not supporting annexation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not especially clear .
But before the letter was finalized , it drew denunciation from the hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee .
And most Democrats want to stop short of progressives ’ position .
Yet some Democrats also want to cite the potential threat to discourage Israel from moving ahead .
That leaves some members attempting to explain that annexation would endanger US aid to Israel without themselves explicitly supporting such a condition .
During a Zoom call Wednesday hosted by J Street , AIPAC ’ s liberal rival , the result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schakowsky ( D-Ill. ) said that unilateral annexation “ will jeopardize bipartisan support for Israel and it will put on the table the issue of withholding money from Israel.
” It would be “ very bad timing…not heed what Joe Biden is saying , what Congress is saying , ” she said .
But Schakowsky said that is her advice to Israelis on the political circumstances in the US , not her own position .
Sen. Chris Van Hollen ( D-Md . )
expressed a similar sentiment .
But Van Hollen , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then hastened to “ clarify ” that he was was not altering his longstanding support for “ robust security funding ” for Israel .
Instead , he said : “ It is important to draw the line with respect to those dollars being used to advance unilateral annexation.
” Schakowsky endorsed this suggestion .
“ We want to make it clear that there are certain places we don ’ t we don ’ t want the money to go , ” she said .
The Democrats here seemed to suggest that legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel , but would specify funds not be used to annex territory .
That may make sense politically .
But it was left to Ofer Shelah , an Israeli legislator from the centrist Yesh Atid party who was also on the call , to point out that in practice US lawmakers can not effectively dictate how aid money , once appropriated , is spent .
Money is fungible .
“ That ’ s very difficult for Congress to say once the money is gone , ” Shelah said .
Shelah urged Democrats against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If a Democratic president is coming in [ saying ] ‘ I will have second thoughts about military aid to Israel ’ , it will be construed in a very negative way , ” he said .
He probably need not worry .
Democrats have gotten that message .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Rank and file Democrats are trying to walk a thin line on Israel. Almost all Democrats want to discourage Israel from moving ahead with a plan to begin taking control of parts West Bank as soon as this month. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears eager to rush forward to capitalize on a “peace plan” backed by Donald Trump that allows Netanyahu to annex up to 30 percent of the West Bank, despite Palestinian opposition, before Trump’s potential defeat in November. Former Vice President Joe Biden, who boasts a growing lead in polls, opposes annexation and says he will “reverse Trump’s undercutting of peace.”
Most House Democrats, 191 of them, have signed a letter opposing Netanyahu’s plans. In May, 19 Senate Democrats signed off a letter warning Netanyahu that he risks losing bipartisan support. “We caution you against taking unilateral steps that would fray our unique bonds, imperil Israel’s future and place out of reach the prospect of a lasting peace,” the senators wrote. “If you move forward with unilateral annexation, we would not support that action.”
That is straightforward enough. But congressional Democrats are less clear on using their power over spending to enforce that view. Most Democrats are unwilling to flatly threaten to limit the billions of dollars in annual US financial aid to Israel if Netanyahu proceeds. Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has circulated a letter, reportedly signed by a dozen progressive lawmakers, that threatens “legislation that conditions the $3.8 billion in US military funding to Israel to ensure that US taxpayers are not supporting annexation in any way.” Even that language is not especially clear. But before the letter was finalized, it drew denunciation from the hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee. And most Democrats want to stop short of progressives’ position.
Yet some Democrats also want to cite the potential threat to discourage Israel from moving ahead. That leaves some members attempting to explain that annexation would endanger US aid to Israel without themselves explicitly supporting such a condition. During a Zoom call Wednesday hosted by J Street, AIPAC’s liberal rival, the result was a bit muddled. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said that unilateral annexation “will jeopardize bipartisan support for Israel and it will put on the table the issue of withholding money from Israel.” It would be “very bad timing…not heed what Joe Biden is saying, what Congress is saying,” she said. But Schakowsky said that is her advice to Israelis on the political circumstances in the US, not her own position.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) expressed a similar sentiment. But Van Hollen, one of the signers of the Senate letter, then hastened to “clarify” that he was not altering his longstanding support for “robust security funding” for Israel. Instead, he said: “It is important to draw the line with respect to those dollars being used to advance unilateral annexation.” Schakowsky endorsed this suggestion. “We want to make it clear that there are certain places we don’t we don’t want the money to go,” she said.
The Democrats here seemed to suggest that legislation would not limit US financial support for Israel, but would specify funds not be used to annex territory. That may make sense politically. But it was left to Ofer Shelah, an Israeli legislator from the centrist Yesh Atid party who was also on the call, to point out that in practice US lawmakers cannot effectively dictate how aid money, once appropriated, is spent. Money is fungible. “That’s very difficult for Congress to say once the money is gone,” Shelah said.
Shelah urged Democrats against even hinting at restrictions on aid. “If a Democratic president is coming in [saying] ‘I will have second thoughts about military aid to Israel’, it will be construed in a very negative way,” he said.
He probably need not worry. Democrats have gotten that message.


motherjones--2020-07-01--Biden Wants to Desegregate the Suburbs. Naturally, Trump Is Furious.

During the 2020 Democratic primary , housing policy played a far more prominent role than in any presidential contest in recent memory , as candidates released aggressive plans to combat rising costs , exclusionary zoning , and a wave of evictions .
But the issue seemed destined to be relegated to the margins in the general election , amid more politically potent crises like the pandemic , police brutality and the push for racial justice , the economic collapse , and President Trump ’ s brutal crackdown on immigration .
And then , on Tuesday night , with a tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject right back to center stage .
There ’ s a lot to unpack here , but the first question is : Where did this tweet come from ?
After all , Joe Biden released his housing plan back in February , and it ’ s unlikely that the president just happened to decide , late in the evening four months later , to peruse the details .
Generally , when Trump publishes a seemingly out-of-the-blue tweet , it turns out there was a Fox and Friends or Sean Hannity segment on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s information appears to have come from a Tuesday story by Stanley Kurtz in the National Review with the headline “ Biden and Dems Are Set to Abolish the Suburbs.
” At the heart of the story , and of Trump ’ s tweet , is an Obama-era housing regulation .
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing was actually a provision of the 1968 Fair Housing Act designed to combat housing segregation , but compliance and enforcement were weak until the Obama administration released a rule in 2015 strengthening AFFH by tying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by communities to integrate neighborhoods .
Trump is now threatening to end the AFFH regulation , but , effectively , he already has .
In 2018 , the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced a two-year suspension of the requirement that localities submit plans to undo residential segregation .
And earlier this year , HUD issued a proposal to take the teeth out of AFFH by essentially freeing communities from any obligation to tackle segregation .
Unsurprisingly for a candidate who has pretty much staked his campaign on the successes of President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the AFFH rule .
But the former vice president ’ s plan goes further—or , in Trump ’ s words , gets “ MUCH WORSE.
” Biden draws from the housing proposals of his erstwhile Democratic rivals , such as Sen. Cory Booker ( D-N.J. ) , in adding sticks to the carrots of inclusionary housing enforcement .
One of the country ’ s biggest housing challenges , especially in high-cost cities and wealthy suburbs , is local zoning policies that make it impossible to build enough housing to meet demand , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden ’ s plan would withhold transportation funds from jurisdictions that don ’ t reform their zoning codes to encourage more and fairer housing .
That ’ s a much more powerful tool than the community block grants currently tied to AFFH : Suburbs may be content to forgo funds to promote equity and integration , but they really don ’ t want potholes ruining their roads .
It ’ s this proposal that Kurtz thinks would eradicate the ‘ burbs .
“ I don ’ t see how the suburbs can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he writes .
“ It will mean the end of local control , the end of a style of living that many people prefer to the city , and therefore the end of meaningful choice in how Americans can live.
” Minneapolis and Oregon both recently ended urban single-family zoning , allowing multi-unit buildings on lots previously reserved for solo houses , and thus far the American way of life doesn ’ t appear to have come to an end there .
Nor is there any indication , as Trump suggests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who , after all , might not see much reason to complain if the new ability to build extra housing units on their lots makes their land that much more valuable .
The main fear is not actually the depreciation of assets but what ’ s long been summed up as “ neighborhood character.
” For many decades , white homeowners—and the local lawmakers who represent them—have insisted that no , of course they have nothing against people of other races or income levels ; they just want to maintain neighborhood character .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing start to arrive , that character might change .
Some concerns are legitimately aesthetic : Certain people don ’ t want an extra story on their neighbor ’ s house , even if it creates more affordable housing .
But AFFH hasn ’ t changed zoning rules .
So when Trump tweets that it ’ s “ having a devastating impact on these once thriving Suburban areas , ” he can only be referring to fact that suburbs have been forced to examine the ways they ’ re keeping poor and nonwhite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devastating , it ’ s a kind of devastation that Biden—and many Americans—would presumably welcome .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
During the 2020 Democratic primary, housing policy played a far more prominent role than in any presidential contest in recent memory, as candidates released aggressive plans to combat rising costs, exclusionary zoning, and a wave of evictions. But the issue seemed destined to be relegated to the margins in the general election, amid more politically potent crises like the pandemic, police brutality and the push for racial justice, the economic collapse, and President Trump’s brutal crackdown on immigration.
And then, on Tuesday night, with a tweet (naturally), Trump pushed the subject right back to center stage.
At the request of many great Americans who live in the Suburbs, and others, I am studying the AFFH housing regulation that is having a devastating impact on these once thriving Suburban areas. Corrupt Joe Biden wants to make them MUCH WORSE. Not fair to homeowners, I may END! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2020
There’s a lot to unpack here, but the first question is: Where did this tweet come from? After all, Joe Biden released his housing plan back in February, and it’s unlikely that the president just happened to decide, late in the evening four months later, to peruse the details. Generally, when Trump publishes a seemingly out-of-the-blue tweet, it turns out there was a Fox and Friends or Sean Hannity segment on the subject just beforehand. This time, the president’s information appears to have come from a Tuesday story by Stanley Kurtz in the National Review with the headline “Biden and Dems Are Set to Abolish the Suburbs.”
At the heart of the story, and of Trump’s tweet, is an Obama-era housing regulation. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing was actually a provision of the 1968 Fair Housing Act designed to combat housing segregation, but compliance and enforcement were weak until the Obama administration released a rule in 2015 strengthening AFFH by tying federal community development grants to proactive efforts by communities to integrate neighborhoods.
Trump is now threatening to end the AFFH regulation, but, effectively, he already has. In 2018, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced a two-year suspension of the requirement that localities submit plans to undo residential segregation. And earlier this year, HUD issued a proposal to take the teeth out of AFFH by essentially freeing communities from any obligation to tackle segregation.
Unsurprisingly for a candidate who has pretty much staked his campaign on the successes of President Obama, Biden has pledged to restore the AFFH rule. But the former vice president’s plan goes further—or, in Trump’s words, gets “MUCH WORSE.” Biden draws from the housing proposals of his erstwhile Democratic rivals, such as Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), in adding sticks to the carrots of inclusionary housing enforcement. One of the country’s biggest housing challenges, especially in high-cost cities and wealthy suburbs, is local zoning policies that make it impossible to build enough housing to meet demand, with the result of sending housing prices skyward. Biden’s plan would withhold transportation funds from jurisdictions that don’t reform their zoning codes to encourage more and fairer housing. That’s a much more powerful tool than the community block grants currently tied to AFFH: Suburbs may be content to forgo funds to promote equity and integration, but they really don’t want potholes ruining their roads.
It’s this proposal that Kurtz thinks would eradicate the ‘burbs. “I don’t see how the suburbs can retain their ability to govern themselves,” he writes. “It will mean the end of local control, the end of a style of living that many people prefer to the city, and therefore the end of meaningful choice in how Americans can live.”
Minneapolis and Oregon both recently ended urban single-family zoning, allowing multi-unit buildings on lots previously reserved for solo houses, and thus far the American way of life doesn’t appear to have come to an end there. Nor is there any indication, as Trump suggests, that the change has hurt homeowners, who, after all, might not see much reason to complain if the new ability to build extra housing units on their lots makes their land that much more valuable.
The main fear is not actually the depreciation of assets but what’s long been summed up as “neighborhood character.” For many decades, white homeowners—and the local lawmakers who represent them—have insisted that no, of course they have nothing against people of other races or income levels; they just want to maintain neighborhood character. And if new types of people and housing start to arrive, that character might change. Some concerns are legitimately aesthetic: Certain people don’t want an extra story on their neighbor’s house, even if it creates more affordable housing. But AFFH hasn’t changed zoning rules. So when Trump tweets that it’s “having a devastating impact on these once thriving Suburban areas,” he can only be referring to fact that suburbs have been forced to examine the ways they’re keeping poor and nonwhite people out. If that counts as devastating, it’s a kind of devastation that Biden—and many Americans—would presumably welcome.


motherjones--2020-07-01--Oklahoma Just Voted to Expand Medicaid as the Coronavirus Ravages the State

The deep red state of Oklahoma voted Tuesday to expand Medicaid , which could end up offering 200,000 low-income residents access to health care .
The measure , which passed with 50.5 percent , a margin of just 6 , 488 votes , will expand Medicaid access to adults whose income is at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level .
Medicaid expansion was a provision of the Affordable Care Act , but a 2012 Supreme Court ruling let individual states decide whether to adopt it .
Even though the federal government foots 90 percent of the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states had not expanded Medicaid as of late June .
Oklahoma ’ s decision brought that number down to 13 .
While Republican lawmakers have remained opposed to Medicaid expansion thanks to its association with President Obama , voters in many red states have turned to ballot initiatives to enact the provision , proving the popularity of increased health care access regardless of voters ’ political affiliation .
Tuesday ’ s vote comes as coronavirus case counts are on the rise in Oklahoma , and high unemployment could increase the number of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s Republican Gov .
Kevin Stitt remains a staunch opponent to Medicaid expansion , arguing that the state can ’ t afford it given its budget deficit .
The state is required to expand Medicaid by July 1 , 2021 , during which time Stitt ’ s administration will have to decide whether to withdraw from its block grant plan , a strategy espoused by the Trump administration which would loosen state coverage requirements in exchange for a lump sum , rather than an entitlement , from the federal government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ part in the controversial plan and will likely face legal challenges from Medicaid advocates if it does not withdraw .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The deep red state of Oklahoma voted Tuesday to expand Medicaid, which could end up offering 200,000 low-income residents access to health care.
The measure, which passed with 50.5 percent, a margin of just 6, 488 votes, will expand Medicaid access to adults whose income is at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Medicaid expansion was a provision of the Affordable Care Act, but a 2012 Supreme Court ruling let individual states decide whether to adopt it. Even though the federal government foots 90 percent of the bill for the health care program, 14 states had not expanded Medicaid as of late June. Oklahoma’s decision brought that number down to 13.
While Republican lawmakers have remained opposed to Medicaid expansion thanks to its association with President Obama, voters in many red states have turned to ballot initiatives to enact the provision, proving the popularity of increased health care access regardless of voters’ political affiliation.
Tuesday’s vote comes as coronavirus case counts are on the rise in Oklahoma, and high unemployment could increase the number of people eligible for Medicaid. Meanwhile, the state’s Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt remains a staunch opponent to Medicaid expansion, arguing that the state can’t afford it given its budget deficit. The state is required to expand Medicaid by July 1, 2021, during which time Stitt’s administration will have to decide whether to withdraw from its block grant plan, a strategy espoused by the Trump administration which would loosen state coverage requirements in exchange for a lump sum, rather than an entitlement, from the federal government. Oklahoma is the first state to take part in the controversial plan and will likely face legal challenges from Medicaid advocates if it does not withdraw.


motherjones--2020-07-01--Support for More Immigration Reaches a Record High. Thank Donald Trump.

For the first time in more than 50 years of polling , Gallup has found that more Americans want to increase immigration than reduce it .
The obvious person to thank is President Donald Trump .
His administration ’ s goal has been to slash immigration , both legal and unauthorized , but his persistently racist remarks and xenophobic actions have driven support for immigration among Democrats and independents to record highs .
In a survey released Wednesday , Gallup found that a record-high 34 percent of Americans want more immigration to the United States , compared to 27 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cut immigration fell from 35 percent to 28 percent during that period , the lowest level since Gallup began asking the question in 1965 .
A little more that a third of people believe immigration should stay at the current level , a proportion that ’ s remained relatively stable during Trump ’ s presidency .
The news that support for immigration has—once again—reached a new high under Trump comes as his administration is banning many immigrants and temporary workers from coming to the United States .
In theory , the goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost their jobs during the pandemic from competition .
In reality , Trump was already trying to drastically cut immigration while he was boasting about record lows in unemployment .
During his 2016 campaign for president , Trump repurposed a song written by a Black civil rights activist so that he could compare immigrants to deceitful snakes who bite their naive hosts .
In the White House , Trump turned that rhetoric into policy .
He cut refugee admissions to record lows , separated families at the border , terrorized undocumented immigrants with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it harder to come to the United States legally .
With four months left until the November election , the pandemic has allowed him to largely succeed in bringing immigration to a halt .
But it ’ s come at an obvious cost to the viability of the modern nativism movement he used to his political advantage four years ago .
As I reported last year , Democrats and Republicans used to feel the same way about immigrants : Nearly two-thirds agreed they were a burden , according to the Pew Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump declared his candidacy by calling Mexican immigrants “ rapists.
” Now the president has pushed the partisan divide over immigration to new levels , making it exceedingly unlikely that Congress will cut immigration anytime soon .
At the start of the Trump era , 35 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of independents believed immigration should be increased .
Now those totals have reached 50 percent and 34 percent , respectively .
In exchange for those massive increases in support , Trump has—maybe—succeeded in making Republicans slightly less likely to support more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know : The 2 percent shift away from backing more immigration among Republicans is within Gallup ’ s margin of error .
It ’ s not exactly the art of the deal .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
For the first time in more than 50 years of polling, Gallup has found that more Americans want to increase immigration than reduce it.
The obvious person to thank is President Donald Trump. His administration’s goal has been to slash immigration, both legal and unauthorized, but his persistently racist remarks and xenophobic actions have driven support for immigration among Democrats and independents to record highs.
In a survey released Wednesday, Gallup found that a record-high 34 percent of Americans want more immigration to the United States, compared to 27 percent last June. The share who want to cut immigration fell from 35 percent to 28 percent during that period, the lowest level since Gallup began asking the question in 1965. A little more that a third of people believe immigration should stay at the current level, a proportion that’s remained relatively stable during Trump’s presidency.
The news that support for immigration has—once again—reached a new high under Trump comes as his administration is banning many immigrants and temporary workers from coming to the United States. In theory, the goal is to protect American workers who have lost their jobs during the pandemic from competition. In reality, Trump was already trying to drastically cut immigration while he was boasting about record lows in unemployment.
During his 2016 campaign for president, Trump repurposed a song written by a Black civil rights activist so that he could compare immigrants to deceitful snakes who bite their naive hosts. In the White House, Trump turned that rhetoric into policy. He cut refugee admissions to record lows, separated families at the border, terrorized undocumented immigrants with Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests, and made it harder to come to the United States legally. With four months left until the November election, the pandemic has allowed him to largely succeed in bringing immigration to a halt. But it’s come at an obvious cost to the viability of the modern nativism movement he used to his political advantage four years ago.
As I reported last year, Democrats and Republicans used to feel the same way about immigrants: Nearly two-thirds agreed they were a burden, according to the Pew Research Center. That consensus disappeared well before Trump declared his candidacy by calling Mexican immigrants “rapists.” Now the president has pushed the partisan divide over immigration to new levels, making it exceedingly unlikely that Congress will cut immigration anytime soon.
At the start of the Trump era, 35 percent of Democrats and 21 percent of independents believed immigration should be increased. Now those totals have reached 50 percent and 34 percent, respectively. In exchange for those massive increases in support, Trump has—maybe—succeeded in making Republicans slightly less likely to support more immigration. It’s hard to know: The 2 percent shift away from backing more immigration among Republicans is within Gallup’s margin of error. It’s not exactly the art of the deal.


motherjones--2020-07-01--Democrats Want to Take the Fate of the Unemployed Out of Mitch McConnell’s Hands

As temporary enhancements to unemployment benefits are set to sunset at the end of July , Senate Democrats are proposing a permanent extension , one that would automatically adjust with changing economic conditions , marking a leftward shift among the party ’ s leadership as it navigates the country ’ s economic recovery in the face of the pandemic .
The proposal , from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) and Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) , would continue the current $ 600-per-week boost to unemployment benefits to states until a state ’ s three-month average total unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enhanced benefit would then decrease by $ 100 for every percentage point decreases in the unemployment rate .
For example , while the rate is above 10 percent , the boost would be $ 500 ; if the rate is above 9 percent , the boost would be $ 400 .
States would resume their pre-COVID rates once the unemployment rate falls below 6 percent .
The extended 13 weeks of emergency unemployment compensation made available in Congress ’ first emergency relief package would remain available until March 27 , 2021 .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until a state ’ s three-month average unemployment rate is below 5.5 percent .
Additional weeks of support would be available , depending on how high a state ’ s unemployment rate is .
Schumer called the benefits a “ long-term solution , ” but one meant to extend only through the lengthy COVID recovery : Once the state ’ s three-month average unemployment rate hits 5.5 percent , the emergency provisions end .
“ What we ’ ve seen is wealth and income disparity , and the pandemic crisis has exacerbated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This undoes a giant hole in the safety net.
” These automatic stabilizers would address a pernicious problem Democrats have faced as they ’ ve tried to extend the unemployment boost : The need to continually renegotiate benefits in the face of the pandemic ’ s ever-changing economic outlook .
So far , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) and the Trump administration have resisted attempts to keep the benefits going—even though the unemployment rate has ballooned since Congress passed the emergency relief bill that included these provisions in late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given those political realities , this bill likely won ’ t pass Congress .
But it ’ s significant that Democratic leadership is embracing automatic stabilizers , which have been championed mostly by progressive economists and lawmakers .
Schumer ’ s proposal has won the praise of economists such as Stephanie Kelton , a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) who has often been at odds with mainstream Democratic thinking .
“ The politics make it difficult to do the right thing , ” Keltons says .
“ If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its contingent on changing economic realities rather than changing political winds , you ’ ll get better , more responsive policymaking , ” Kelton says .
Schumer cites the influence of Heather Boushey , the president of the left-leaning Washington Center for Equitable Growth who co-leads Joe Biden campaign ’ s economic policy working group .
Boushey wrote a book , Recession Ready , about how automatic stabilizers could prepare the US economy for the next recession .
Indivar Dutta-Gupta , the co-executive director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty & Inequality who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also co-leads Biden ’ s economic policy outreach , has been meeting with a separate group of roughly a dozen liberal economists and advocates to develop a political strategy around advancing automatic stabilizers among congressional Democrats and the Biden campaign .
Schumer says he plans to ask Biden to back his proposal ; the Biden campaign declined to comment on whether it would .
But if it was law , it would spare a would-be President Biden having to spend his limited political capital on negotiating unemployment benefits if he takes office in @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As temporary enhancements to unemployment benefits are set to sunset at the end of July, Senate Democrats are proposing a permanent extension, one that would automatically adjust with changing economic conditions, marking a leftward shift among the party’s leadership as it navigates the country’s economic recovery in the face of the pandemic.
The proposal, from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), would continue the current $600-per-week boost to unemployment benefits to states until a state’s three-month average total unemployment rate falls below 11 percent. The enhanced benefit would then decrease by $100 for every percentage point decreases in the unemployment rate. For example, while the rate is above 10 percent, the boost would be $500; if the rate is above 9 percent, the boost would be $400. States would resume their pre-COVID rates once the unemployment rate falls below 6 percent.
The extended 13 weeks of emergency unemployment compensation made available in Congress’ first emergency relief package would remain available until March 27, 2021. After that date, it would be available until a state’s three-month average unemployment rate is below 5.5 percent. Additional weeks of support would be available, depending on how high a state’s unemployment rate is. Schumer called the benefits a “long-term solution,” but one meant to extend only through the lengthy COVID recovery: Once the state’s three-month average unemployment rate hits 5.5 percent, the emergency provisions end.
“What we’ve seen is wealth and income disparity, and the pandemic crisis has exacerbated that problem,” Schumer tells me. “This undoes a giant hole in the safety net.”
These automatic stabilizers would address a pernicious problem Democrats have faced as they’ve tried to extend the unemployment boost: The need to continually renegotiate benefits in the face of the pandemic’s ever-changing economic outlook. So far, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the Trump administration have resisted attempts to keep the benefits going—even though the unemployment rate has ballooned since Congress passed the emergency relief bill that included these provisions in late March, currently at 13.3 percent.
Given those political realities, this bill likely won’t pass Congress. But it’s significant that Democratic leadership is embracing automatic stabilizers, which have been championed mostly by progressive economists and lawmakers. Schumer’s proposal has won the praise of economists such as Stephanie Kelton, a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who has often been at odds with mainstream Democratic thinking. “The politics make it difficult to do the right thing,” Keltons says. “If you can make the decision making automated so its contingent on changing economic realities rather than changing political winds, you’ll get better, more responsive policymaking,” Kelton says.
Schumer cites the influence of Heather Boushey, the president of the left-leaning Washington Center for Equitable Growth who co-leads Joe Biden campaign’s economic policy working group. Boushey wrote a book, Recession Ready, about how automatic stabilizers could prepare the US economy for the next recession. Indivar Dutta-Gupta, the co-executive director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty & Inequality who contributed to Boushey’s book and also co-leads Biden’s economic policy outreach, has been meeting with a separate group of roughly a dozen liberal economists and advocates to develop a political strategy around advancing automatic stabilizers among congressional Democrats and the Biden campaign.
Schumer says he plans to ask Biden to back his proposal; the Biden campaign declined to comment on whether it would. But if it was law, it would spare a would-be President Biden having to spend his limited political capital on negotiating unemployment benefits if he takes office in January.