vox--2020-12-17--Google’s three antitrust cases, briefly explained

Two antitrust lawsuits have been filed against Google in two days .
That makes a total of three antitrust cases against the search giant , including one filed in October by the Department of Justice .
This latest legal action filed Thursday by the attorneys general from 35 states accuses Google of using anti-competitive behavior to maintain its search and search advertising monopolies .
The spate of lawsuits follows years of criticism from competitors , lawmakers , and activists about Google and other big tech companies like Facebook that have for years been accused of employing anti-competitive practices .
Each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a slightly different angle and is brought by a different group of states and governing bodies .
The cases could last for years and , over time , the lawsuits brought by the states could be combined with the federal case .
The end result could lead to Google being broken up into smaller companies , according to Sally Hubbard , director of enforcement strategy at the Open Markets Institute and author of Monopolies Suck .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s really a battle of are consumers harmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s a battle of if they broke the law or not.
” The latest case , like the one from the DOJ , focuses on Google search .
It alleges that Google used three forms of anti-competitive conduct to keep its search and search ad monopolies .
Those include deals with competitors like Apple to keep it as a default search engine , using its dominant search ad marketing tool to thwart competitors in its marketplace , and disadvantaging search results for rivals who operate more specialized search platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Google takes advantage of certain specialized vertical providers ’ dependence on Google , treating them differently than participants in other commercial segments and further limiting their ability to acquire customers , ” the report reads .
While both this and the Justice Department case focus on the search and search ad monopolies , the lawsuit from the state attorneys general builds on and is broader than the DOJ case .
“ [ T ] his Complaint alleges additional facts demonstrating a broader pattern of Google ’ s anticompetitive conduct , harming consumers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the complaint reads .
Google responded to the latest lawsuit with a blog post by Adam Cohen , Google ’ s director of economic policy , that said changes to its search would hurt consumers .
“ [ The lawsuit ] suggests we shouldn ’ t have worked to make Search better and that we should , in fact , be less useful to you , ” the post reads .
“ This lawsuit demands changes to the design of Google Search , requiring us to prominently feature online middlemen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The lawsuit carries support from a bipartisan group of attorneys general , unlike the DOJ case which only had the support of Republican AGs .
“ Google sits at the crossroads of so many areas of our digital economy and has used its dominance to illegally squash competitors , monitor nearly every aspect of our digital lives , and profit to the tune of billions , ” said New York Attorney General Letitia James , a Democrat , who helped lead the case .
The lawsuit is welcome news for the digital media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bipartisan , broad-ranging concerns regarding Google ’ s anti-competitive behavior , ” Jason Kint , CEO of digital media trade association Digital Content Next , said in a statement to Recode .
“ We ’ re pleased to see nearly every state stepping up to crack down on Google ’ s coordinated activities , which were designed to cement its dominance at the expense of publishers , advertisers and consumers.
” The latest suit differs from the one filed yesterday by a group of 10 Republican state attorneys general alleging anti-competitive practices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General Ken Paxton , a Republican , led the investigation into Google and announced the lawsuit in a video posted to Twitter a few hours before the lawsuit was filed .
“ Google repeatedly used its monopolistic power to control pricing , engage in market collusions to rig auctions in a tremendous violation of justice , ” Paxton said in the video .
The lawsuit alleges that Google engaged in a wide variety of anti-competitive behavior to create and maintain its monopoly power in digital ad markets and keep out competitors .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegally agreed not to compete with each other .
This could be an especially damaging count against both companies , as Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act forbids two companies to collude in such a way , and such cases tend to be easier to prove in court .
“ In addition to representing both the buyers and the sellers of online display advertising , Google also operates the largest exchange AdX , ” reads the lawsuit , which was filed by Republican attorneys general in Arkansas , Idaho , Indiana , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Dakota , Utah , and Kentucky , as well as Texas .
“ In this electronically traded market , Google is pitcher , batter , and umpire , all at the same time.
” This is akin to the New York Stock Exchange also controlling the buying and selling of stocks .
“ They ’ re getting information that they shouldn ’ t have if the market is supposed to be properly functioning , ” Hubbard told Recode .
“ We don ’ t tolerate this in other sectors.
” Google spokesperson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ Attorney General Paxton ’ s ad tech claims are meritless ” and that the company “ will strongly defend ourselves from his baseless claims in court.
” This lawsuit is the first to focus on Google ’ s dominance in ad tech .
More specifically , it says that Google uses its market power to “ extract a very high tax of [ redacted ] percent of the ad dollars otherwise flowing to the countless online publishers and content producers like online newspapers , cooking websites , and blogs who survive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apps.
” In turn , these businesses pass costs on to consumers , causing them harm , according to the lawsuit .
Last year , Google brought in nearly $ 162 billion in revenue , the vast majority of which came from advertising .
Google controls nearly a third of all digital ad spending in the US , according to eMarketer .
Since its tools dominate all parts of the ad process , Google is said to have unfair visibility that allows it to maintain its dominance , according to the Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ngo , who last year explained how Google ’ s ad tech works and why publishers and rivals have long complained about it .
Meanwhile , Paxton , the Texas attorney general , has recently made news for filing a specious lawsuit against swing states in an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election .
He lost the lawsuit but , the Atlantic argues , won in an effort to bolster his political career and distract from his own legal troubles , including securities fraud and felony counts he faces for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stock in a company without telling them he got a commission for it .
The two cases launched by state attorneys general follow a similar volley of legal action from a federal level .
In October , the Justice Department and 11 states filed a lawsuit against Google , alleging that the company used its search dominance to preserve its other monopolies , including advertising .
The suit also claimed that Google was paying some companies and blocking out others to maintain its lead over competitors .
Google pays Apple billions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make its search engine the default in the Safari web browser .
The DOJ says that Google has a monopoly over search in the US , where Google controls 90 percent of the market .
And because it ’ s free to use Google search — consumers pay for the service by giving the company their personal data — the government ’ s antitrust case is built on the idea that Google ’ s dominance results in less competition , which could lead to lower-quality products .
“ If the government does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we could lose the next wave of innovation , ” Justice Department spokesperson Marc Raimondi said in a press briefing .
“ If that happens , Americans may never get to see the next Google.
” Google is hardly the only big tech company facing scrutiny from government regulators .
Earlier this month , the Federal Trade Commission and 48 states filed a suit against Facebook , saying that its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp amounted to anti-competitive practices that harm consumers .
And ahead of that case , Amazon , Apple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjects of a 400-page report from Democrats on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust .
The report argued that these , the four biggest tech companies in the world , abused their power as gatekeepers to the industry and that new regulations should rein them in .
“ To put it simply , companies that once were scrappy , underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons , ” the report ’ s introduction states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaningful change remains to be seen .
Antitrust cases are notoriously difficult to win , and some argue that it could be difficult to prove that the dominance of these massive tech companies actually harms consumers .
Google providing a powerful search tool and streamlining the digital advertising marketplace , for instance , benefits many users .
But the sheer number of antitrust cases against Big Tech that have been launched in the final months of this year suggests that the government at least thinks there ’ s a chance for change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ quick affair , by the way .
The government ’ s case against Microsoft , which started in 1998 , went on for years .
It ’ s also hard to compare now to then .
Based on the huge and ever-expanding role Big Tech companies play in our lives today , the cases being brought this year are even larger and more complex .

Two antitrust lawsuits have been filed against Google in two days. That makes a total of three antitrust cases against the search giant, including one filed in October by the Department of Justice.
This latest legal action filed Thursday by the attorneys general from 35 states accuses Google of using anti-competitive behavior to maintain its search and search advertising monopolies. The spate of lawsuits follows years of criticism from competitors, lawmakers, and activists about Google and other big tech companies like Facebook that have for years been accused of employing anti-competitive practices.
Each of the cases being brought against Google has a slightly different angle and is brought by a different group of states and governing bodies. The cases could last for years and, over time, the lawsuits brought by the states could be combined with the federal case. The end result could lead to Google being broken up into smaller companies, according to Sally Hubbard, director of enforcement strategy at the Open Markets Institute and author of Monopolies Suck.
“I don’t think it’s really a battle of are consumers harmed or not,” Hubbard told Recode. “It’s a battle of if they broke the law or not.”
The search manipulation case
The latest case, like the one from the DOJ, focuses on Google search. It alleges that Google used three forms of anti-competitive conduct to keep its search and search ad monopolies. Those include deals with competitors like Apple to keep it as a default search engine, using its dominant search ad marketing tool to thwart competitors in its marketplace, and disadvantaging search results for rivals who operate more specialized search platforms like those for travel or restaurants.
“Google takes advantage of certain specialized vertical providers’ dependence on Google, treating them differently than participants in other commercial segments and further limiting their ability to acquire customers,” the report reads.
While both this and the Justice Department case focus on the search and search ad monopolies, the lawsuit from the state attorneys general builds on and is broader than the DOJ case. “[T]his Complaint alleges additional facts demonstrating a broader pattern of Google’s anticompetitive conduct, harming consumers, advertisers, and the competitive process,” the complaint reads.
Google responded to the latest lawsuit with a blog post by Adam Cohen, Google’s director of economic policy, that said changes to its search would hurt consumers. “[The lawsuit] suggests we shouldn’t have worked to make Search better and that we should, in fact, be less useful to you,” the post reads. “This lawsuit demands changes to the design of Google Search, requiring us to prominently feature online middlemen in place of direct connections to businesses.”
The lawsuit carries support from a bipartisan group of attorneys general, unlike the DOJ case which only had the support of Republican AGs.
“Google sits at the crossroads of so many areas of our digital economy and has used its dominance to illegally squash competitors, monitor nearly every aspect of our digital lives, and profit to the tune of billions,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, who helped lead the case.
The lawsuit is welcome news for the digital media industry. “This latest suit underscores the bipartisan, broad-ranging concerns regarding Google’s anti-competitive behavior,” Jason Kint, CEO of digital media trade association Digital Content Next, said in a statement to Recode. “We’re pleased to see nearly every state stepping up to crack down on Google’s coordinated activities, which were designed to cement its dominance at the expense of publishers, advertisers and consumers.”
The ad tech suit led by Texas
The latest suit differs from the one filed yesterday by a group of 10 Republican state attorneys general alleging anti-competitive practices related to its ad technology. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, led the investigation into Google and announced the lawsuit in a video posted to Twitter a few hours before the lawsuit was filed.
“Google repeatedly used its monopolistic power to control pricing, engage in market collusions to rig auctions in a tremendous violation of justice,” Paxton said in the video.
The lawsuit alleges that Google engaged in a wide variety of anti-competitive behavior to create and maintain its monopoly power in digital ad markets and keep out competitors. It also alleges that Google and Facebook illegally agreed not to compete with each other. This could be an especially damaging count against both companies, as Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act forbids two companies to collude in such a way, and such cases tend to be easier to prove in court.
“In addition to representing both the buyers and the sellers of online display advertising, Google also operates the largest exchange AdX,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed by Republican attorneys general in Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Kentucky, as well as Texas. “In this electronically traded market, Google is pitcher, batter, and umpire, all at the same time.”
This is akin to the New York Stock Exchange also controlling the buying and selling of stocks. “They’re getting information that they shouldn’t have if the market is supposed to be properly functioning,” Hubbard told Recode. “We don’t tolerate this in other sectors.”
Google spokesperson Julie McAlister told the New York Times that “Attorney General Paxton’s ad tech claims are meritless” and that the company “will strongly defend ourselves from his baseless claims in court.”
This lawsuit is the first to focus on Google’s dominance in ad tech. More specifically, it says that Google uses its market power to “extract a very high tax of [redacted] percent of the ad dollars otherwise flowing to the countless online publishers and content producers like online newspapers, cooking websites, and blogs who survive by selling advertisements on their websites and apps.” In turn, these businesses pass costs on to consumers, causing them harm, according to the lawsuit.
Last year, Google brought in nearly $162 billion in revenue, the vast majority of which came from advertising. Google controls nearly a third of all digital ad spending in the US, according to eMarketer. Since its tools dominate all parts of the ad process, Google is said to have unfair visibility that allows it to maintain its dominance, according to the Wall Street Journal’s Keach Hagey and Vivien Ngo, who last year explained how Google’s ad tech works and why publishers and rivals have long complained about it.
Meanwhile, Paxton, the Texas attorney general, has recently made news for filing a specious lawsuit against swing states in an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election. He lost the lawsuit but, the Atlantic argues, won in an effort to bolster his political career and distract from his own legal troubles, including securities fraud and felony counts he faces for allegedly trying to get investors to buy stock in a company without telling them he got a commission for it.
The federal case
The two cases launched by state attorneys general follow a similar volley of legal action from a federal level. In October, the Justice Department and 11 states filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that the company used its search dominance to preserve its other monopolies, including advertising. The suit also claimed that Google was paying some companies and blocking out others to maintain its lead over competitors. Google pays Apple billions of dollars a year, for example, to make its search engine the default in the Safari web browser.
The DOJ says that Google has a monopoly over search in the US, where Google controls 90 percent of the market. And because it’s free to use Google search — consumers pay for the service by giving the company their personal data — the government’s antitrust case is built on the idea that Google’s dominance results in less competition, which could lead to lower-quality products.
“If the government does not enforce the antitrust laws to enable competition, we could lose the next wave of innovation,” Justice Department spokesperson Marc Raimondi said in a press briefing. “If that happens, Americans may never get to see the next Google.”
Google is hardly the only big tech company facing scrutiny from government regulators. Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission and 48 states filed a suit against Facebook, saying that its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp amounted to anti-competitive practices that harm consumers. And ahead of that case, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google were the subjects of a 400-page report from Democrats on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust. The report argued that these, the four biggest tech companies in the world, abused their power as gatekeepers to the industry and that new regulations should rein them in.
“To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy, underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons,” the report’s introduction states.
Whether any of these lawsuits will effect meaningful change remains to be seen. Antitrust cases are notoriously difficult to win, and some argue that it could be difficult to prove that the dominance of these massive tech companies actually harms consumers. Google providing a powerful search tool and streamlining the digital advertising marketplace, for instance, benefits many users. But the sheer number of antitrust cases against Big Tech that have been launched in the final months of this year suggests that the government at least thinks there’s a chance for change.
Resolving these cases will not be a quick affair, by the way. The government’s case against Microsoft, which started in 1998, went on for years. It’s also hard to compare now to then. Based on the huge and ever-expanding role Big Tech companies play in our lives today, the cases being brought this year are even larger and more complex.


vox--2020-12-17--Biden makes historic Cabinet pick with Deb Haaland for interior secretary

In 2018 , Rep. Deb Haaland , a Laguna Pueblo member in New Mexico , made history as one of the first two Native American women elected to Congress .
This year , after Joe Biden won the presidential election , tribal leaders and environmental activists called on the president-elect to stay true to his word that Native Americans would have a place in his administration , starting with nominating Haaland to be the first Indigenous person to serve as a Cabinet secretary .
Now Haaland is set to make history again .
The Washington Post has reported that Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department .
Nominating Haaland as secretary of the interior is a significant move for the department that manages the country ’ s natural resources and public and tribal lands .
Haaland already had the support of numerous House Democrats and had been vetted by Biden ’ s team weeks ago .
But the road to the decision was difficult , sources told Reuters , considering it would narrow the Democratic Party ’ s already slimmed-down majority in the House of Representatives in 2021 .
Then , on Wednesday , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed Haaland for the position .
“ It ’ s nice that a Native American in a Cabinet-level position is a consideration to lead our country for the president-elect , ” Haaland told Vox last month .
“ It would be symbolic , it would be profound , when we think about how the federal government essentially threw out their federal Indian policies throughout the centuries.
” Haaland is familiar with the Indigenous struggle of lacking resources .
She is a single mother who relied on food stamps and put herself through college @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tribal administrator .
As the former state Democratic Party chair in New Mexico , she witnessed firsthand how government leaders take over tribal lands for oil and gas operations and corporate profit .
She also fought alongside Indigenous activists during the Standing Rock protests to protect tribal sovereignty against the Dakota Access Pipeline .
This narrative , activists say , reflects what most tribal communities continue to face in their daily lives and is further proof as to why the position would be best filled by an Indigenous member .
“ With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Indigenous communities , where we ’ re calling for many public lands to be returned back into Indian hands , it ’ d be great to have Deb there , recognizing that it is movements like ours that also have to keep people like her in those positions accountable , ” Nick Tilsen , a citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation in South Dakota and CEO of NDN Collective , an organization dedicated to building Indigenous power , told Vox .
“ That purely representation isn ’ t always power , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — that ’ s power.
” As a member of Congress , Haaland has been the vice chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources and the chair of the subcommittee on national parks , forests , and public lands .
She also sits on the subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States .
Haaland told Vox that a bulk of her job involves listening to testimonies from community members , many of whom she said have expressed concerns regarding the Trump administration ’ s move to eradicate and redevelop cultural sites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Part of what needs to happen is just to make sure that we are putting back all of those scientists , all of those folks who are on the front lines , working to protect our environment immediately , ” Haaland said .
“ Trump has gutted this department and so much of those positions , and so I look to the Biden administration to do , as he says , build back better.
” What Haaland can do as interior secretary As interior secretary , Haaland will be in charge of overseeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — one-fifth of the land in the US — as well as 1.7 billion acres of land off the nation ’ s shores .
The department also manages the country ’ s national parks , endangered species habitats , and several oil and gas drilling sites , including the patch of land Trump is currently auctioning off in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge .
Haaland will also manage the Bureau of Indian Education , which has been left underfunded by previous department heads in the last few years , as well as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roughly 55 million acres of tribal land held in trust by the federal government for Native Americans .
Since the department has a long history of abandoning its core responsibility to tribal nations , such as removing them from their ancestral lands and breaking treaties , native leaders and organizers believe it ’ s all the more reason to appoint an Indigenous person to fix the cracks in the system .
“ We have a whole entire department in the federal government that needs to be dismantled in many ways , because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was created as a place to extract resources from public lands and Indigenous people , ” Tilsen said .
“ Is [ Haaland ] somebody that would be able to change the system ?
Absolutely.
” Biden ’ s appointment of Haaland aligns with the Biden-Harris plan for tribal nations , an outline his team released in October of their priorities to strengthen tribal nations and address key issues from health disparities and environmental injustice that Indigenous communities continue to face .
Haaland ’ s appointment is “ incredibly important , not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a perspective of environmental stewardship , conservation , restoring a sense of public good and public trust , ” Julian Brave NoiseCat , vice president of policy and strategy for Data for Progress , and a member of the Canim Lake Band Tsq ’ escen in Canada ’ s British Columbia , told Vox .
He also said it ’ s good for “ making headway in the long fight against climate change , wherein things like drilling and leasing and what we do with public lands and natural resources are central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to face a slew of challenges when it comes to reversing policies and measures that the previous administration has left behind .
The Trump administration has used the Interior department as a key tool in fast-tracking permits and selling leases of public land for fossil fuel operations .
This includes the Bureau of Land Management ’ s sale of oil drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ’ s coastal plain , which Trump has been expediting , despite major pushback from native communities .
“ We have to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ] have a seat at the table , ” Haaland said .
“ I trust that will absolutely happen under a Biden administration .
”

In 2018, Rep. Deb Haaland, a Laguna Pueblo member in New Mexico, made history as one of the first two Native American women elected to Congress. This year, after Joe Biden won the presidential election, tribal leaders and environmental activists called on the president-elect to stay true to his word that Native Americans would have a place in his administration, starting with nominating Haaland to be the first Indigenous person to serve as a Cabinet secretary.
Now Haaland is set to make history again. The Washington Post has reported that Biden has chosen her to head the Interior Department.
Nominating Haaland as secretary of the interior is a significant move for the department that manages the country’s natural resources and public and tribal lands. Haaland already had the support of numerous House Democrats and had been vetted by Biden’s team weeks ago. But the road to the decision was difficult, sources told Reuters, considering it would narrow the Democratic Party’s already slimmed-down majority in the House of Representatives in 2021. Then, on Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a statement saying that she too backed Haaland for the position.
“It’s nice that a Native American in a Cabinet-level position is a consideration to lead our country for the president-elect,” Haaland told Vox last month. “It would be symbolic, it would be profound, when we think about how the federal government essentially threw out their federal Indian policies throughout the centuries.”
Haaland is familiar with the Indigenous struggle of lacking resources. She is a single mother who relied on food stamps and put herself through college before starting her own business and becoming a tribal administrator. As the former state Democratic Party chair in New Mexico, she witnessed firsthand how government leaders take over tribal lands for oil and gas operations and corporate profit. She also fought alongside Indigenous activists during the Standing Rock protests to protect tribal sovereignty against the Dakota Access Pipeline. This narrative, activists say, reflects what most tribal communities continue to face in their daily lives and is further proof as to why the position would be best filled by an Indigenous member.
“With the growing land back movement that exists in Indigenous communities, where we’re calling for many public lands to be returned back into Indian hands, it’d be great to have Deb there, recognizing that it is movements like ours that also have to keep people like her in those positions accountable,” Nick Tilsen, a citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation in South Dakota and CEO of NDN Collective, an organization dedicated to building Indigenous power, told Vox. “That purely representation isn’t always power, but representation that is accountable to its people — that’s power.”
As a member of Congress, Haaland has been the vice chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources and the chair of the subcommittee on national parks, forests, and public lands. She also sits on the subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States. Haaland told Vox that a bulk of her job involves listening to testimonies from community members, many of whom she said have expressed concerns regarding the Trump administration’s move to eradicate and redevelop cultural sites and overhaul crucial environmental policies.
“Part of what needs to happen is just to make sure that we are putting back all of those scientists, all of those folks who are on the front lines, working to protect our environment immediately,” Haaland said. “Trump has gutted this department and so much of those positions, and so I look to the Biden administration to do, as he says, build back better.”
What Haaland can do as interior secretary
As interior secretary, Haaland will be in charge of overseeing roughly 500 million acres of surface land — one-fifth of the land in the US — as well as 1.7 billion acres of land off the nation’s shores. The department also manages the country’s national parks, endangered species habitats, and several oil and gas drilling sites, including the patch of land Trump is currently auctioning off in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Haaland will also manage the Bureau of Indian Education, which has been left underfunded by previous department heads in the last few years, as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which oversees roughly 55 million acres of tribal land held in trust by the federal government for Native Americans. Since the department has a long history of abandoning its core responsibility to tribal nations, such as removing them from their ancestral lands and breaking treaties, native leaders and organizers believe it’s all the more reason to appoint an Indigenous person to fix the cracks in the system.
“We have a whole entire department in the federal government that needs to be dismantled in many ways, because the history is that [the Interior] was created as a place to extract resources from public lands and Indigenous people,” Tilsen said. “Is [Haaland] somebody that would be able to change the system? Absolutely.”
Biden’s appointment of Haaland aligns with the Biden-Harris plan for tribal nations, an outline his team released in October of their priorities to strengthen tribal nations and address key issues from health disparities and environmental injustice that Indigenous communities continue to face.
Haaland’s appointment is “incredibly important, not just from a symbolic perspective, but also from a perspective of environmental stewardship, conservation, restoring a sense of public good and public trust,” Julian Brave NoiseCat, vice president of policy and strategy for Data for Progress, and a member of the Canim Lake Band Tsq’escen in Canada’s British Columbia, told Vox. He also said it’s good for “making headway in the long fight against climate change, wherein things like drilling and leasing and what we do with public lands and natural resources are central policy questions.”
If confirmed, Haaland will have to face a slew of challenges when it comes to reversing policies and measures that the previous administration has left behind. The Trump administration has used the Interior department as a key tool in fast-tracking permits and selling leases of public land for fossil fuel operations. This includes the Bureau of Land Management’s sale of oil drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain, which Trump has been expediting, despite major pushback from native communities.
“We have to get back to a place where [Indigenous people] have a seat at the table,” Haaland said. “I trust that will absolutely happen under a Biden administration.”


vox--2020-12-17--Exclusive: House Democrats call on Biden to forgive $50,000 of borrowers’ student debt

The pressure is building for President-elect Joe Biden to cancel federal student debt .
The latest : a resolution led by prominent House Democrats urging Biden to act .
On Thursday , Reps. Ayanna Pressley ( D-MA ) , Ilhan Omar ( D-MN ) , Alma Adams ( D-NC ) , and Maxine Waters ( D-CA ) are introducing a resolution , shared exclusively with Vox , that pushes the incoming Biden administration to take action on student debt .
The resolution doesn ’ t force the next administration to do anything , but calls on Biden to forgive up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ student borrowers .
It ’ s the companion to a Senate resolution put forth by Sens .
Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) and Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) in the fall .
“ The student debt crisis is a racial and economic justice issue and we must finally begin to address it as such , ” Pressley said in a statement accompanying the resolution .
“ Broad-based student debt cancellation is precisely the kind of bold , high-impact policy that the broad and diverse coalition that elected Joe Biden and Kamala Harris expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a mounting student debt problem : 45 million Americans owe a total of about $ 1.6 trillion in student loans , and one in 10 loans are in delinquency or default .
The Federal Reserve estimates the typical monthly payment to be between $ 200 and $ 299 .
Borrowers of color are particularly disadvantaged .
A study from Brandeis University found that 20 years after starting college , the median Black student borrower owes 95 percent of their debt , while the median white student borrower owes just 6 percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ student debt for young white borrowers with a bachelor ’ s degree about doubled from $ 12,000 to $ 23,000 .
For Black borrowers , it quadrupled , from $ 7,000 to $ 30,000 , even though white families tend to have more cumulative debt than Black families .
The student debt crisis is layered upon other crises , including , perhaps most acutely in the current moment , the Covid-19 pandemic and accompanying economic downturn .
Forgiving student debt wouldn ’ t be a panacea , and it ’ s a controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among Democrats .
But at a time when many Americans are hurting , many experts and politicians see it as a way to right an economic and racial justice wrongs and to help stimulate the economy .
“ It ’ s significant to see that four Black women in the House are introducing the companion to [ the Schumer-Warren resolution ] , because I think it is really driving home the point that Black people and Black women in particular are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic , and here ’ s this relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Black people writ large , ” Alexis Goldstein , a senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform , told Vox .
Women are likelier to take on student debt and graduate on average with $ 2,700 more debt than their male counterparts .
For Black and Latina women , the situation can be particularly bad , because they also face a wage gap that makes it harder for them to repay .
Waters is the chair of the powerful House Financial Services Committee , and her cosponsorship of the resolution is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote to Biden recommending he cancel $ 50,000 as well .
A growing chorus of Democrats and activists have an eye on canceling student debt There is a complicated debate surrounding whether Biden should take unilateral action to cancel student debt ( Vox has a full explainer on the arguments surrounding the issue ) .
But one thing is clear : what used to be an idea firmly on the left wing is now very much part of the mainstream political conversation among Democrats .
Biden has backed legislation to cancel $ 10,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s coming under increasing pressure to go bigger and forgive up to $ 50,000 .
( To be sure , there are many activists who believe he should cancel all student debt altogether . )
The House resolution focuses on the $ 50,000 front and lays out the case on how Biden can do it .
Basically , it holds that the secretary of education has the administrative authority to cancel debt , urges Biden to use executive action using legal authorities already granted by Congress to move the ball forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial wealth gap in mind , whatever he does .
It addresses the tax issue around student loan debt forgiveness — there are questions about whether canceled debt would be taxable — and urges the president to direct the IRS to prevent tax liability .
The resolution also asks Biden to extend the pause put on federal student loan payments and interest put in place under the Trump administration until January 31 for the duration of the pandemic .
Many of these measures are ones that lawyers and policy experts say Biden could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially given the Trump administration ’ s recent action on debt .
Beyond the how of the proposed debt cancellation , those backing the $ 50,000 proposal are also focused on the why .
Forgiveness isn ’ t just an educational issue , it ’ s also a question of politics , economics , and race .
Proponents of the idea argue that forgiving debt is a way to help people who went into debt in order to get an education and advance themselves , and that in a moment when the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a good form of stimulus .
“ Young people have been devastated by this economic crisis , with more than half living with their parents .
Student debt cancellation would be a massive economic stimulus at a time when people desperately need it .
It ’ s also a racial equity issue .
Students of color are more likely to take out federal student loans , and face higher rates of default , ” Omar said in a statement .
Beyond being an economic priority , she added , “ it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Adams have also urged the House to include student loan debt cancellation in Covid-19 relief and put forth legislation to cancel at least $ 30,000 in debt .
Critics of student debt forgiveness argue that it is a regressive policy that would help people who don ’ t need it , since the majority of student loan debt is owed by households with graduate degrees .
Some have also raised questions about how effective a stimulus forgiveness would be .
And experts in the arena warn that cancellation needs to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education system ; otherwise , Americans would just be back in the same situation several years from now .
Broader reform , of course , would require action from a deadlocked Congress , which couldn ’ t agree for months even on a modest stimulus package .
Hence the push for the executive branch to act .
“ Any debt relief is better than what ’ s happening right now , ” senior director of higher education policy at the Education Trust , recently told Vox .
The Big Student Debt Debate isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign declined to comment on whether he is considering canceling $ 50,000 in student debt through executive action .
But whether or not he is ready to weigh in publicly , the issue is not going away .
“ The Congresswomen are introducing the resolution in the House as a reflection of the growing momentum in Congress in support of executive action on debt cancellation , ” a Pressley spokesperson said in a statement to Vox .
“ Congressional intent is powerful and Congresswoman Pressley will use every legislative tool to make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” While more Covid-19-related economic stimulus may finally be on the horizon , millions of Americans are still struggling in the pandemic economy .
And even once the pandemic is over , student debt is weighing millions of people down .
Many borrowers have experienced not one but two major economic downturns in the span of basically a decade , and that ’ s scarring that could affect them for the rest of their lives .
As mentioned , borrowers of color in particular have been particularly harmed .
The same goes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the most expensive degrees are the ones unfinished .
Raphaël Charron-Chénier , a sociologist at Arizona State University who has studied the issue at length , estimates canceling $ 50,000 in federal student loan cancellation would get rid of 95 percent of Black low-income households ’ educational debt .
He notes that nearly two-thirds of all low-income borrowers hold more than $ 10,000 in student debt .
The debate around student debt can be intense .
It ’ s not as catastrophic an idea as its critics say , and it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that cancellation of up to $ 50,000 in student debt is a moderately popular idea , but the popularity varies among groups — people with student debt like the idea of forgiveness more than people without it .
As Biden takes office in January , the debate about student debt cancellation is likely to get even more heated .
But for millions of Americans , debt forgiveness could be a life-changing event .
The pressure on Biden to act is sure to mount .

The pressure is building for President-elect Joe Biden to cancel federal student debt. The latest: a resolution led by prominent House Democrats urging Biden to act.
On Thursday, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alma Adams (D-NC), and Maxine Waters (D-CA) are introducing a resolution, shared exclusively with Vox, that pushes the incoming Biden administration to take action on student debt. The resolution doesn’t force the next administration to do anything, but calls on Biden to forgive up to $50,000 of federal debt for student borrowers. It’s the companion to a Senate resolution put forth by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in the fall.
“The student debt crisis is a racial and economic justice issue and we must finally begin to address it as such,” Pressley said in a statement accompanying the resolution. “Broad-based student debt cancellation is precisely the kind of bold, high-impact policy that the broad and diverse coalition that elected Joe Biden and Kamala Harris expect them to deliver.”
The United States has a mounting student debt problem: 45 million Americans owe a total of about $1.6 trillion in student loans, and one in 10 loans are in delinquency or default. The Federal Reserve estimates the typical monthly payment to be between $200 and $299.
Borrowers of color are particularly disadvantaged. A study from Brandeis University found that 20 years after starting college, the median Black student borrower owes 95 percent of their debt, while the median white student borrower owes just 6 percent. From 2000 to 2018, the median student debt for young white borrowers with a bachelor’s degree about doubled from $12,000 to $23,000. For Black borrowers, it quadrupled, from $7,000 to $30,000, even though white families tend to have more cumulative debt than Black families.
The student debt crisis is layered upon other crises, including, perhaps most acutely in the current moment, the Covid-19 pandemic and accompanying economic downturn. Forgiving student debt wouldn’t be a panacea, and it’s a controversial idea in its own right, even among Democrats. But at a time when many Americans are hurting, many experts and politicians see it as a way to right an economic and racial justice wrongs and to help stimulate the economy.
“It’s significant to see that four Black women in the House are introducing the companion to [the Schumer-Warren resolution], because I think it is really driving home the point that Black people and Black women in particular are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, and here’s this relief for another issue that impacts Black women and Black people writ large,” Alexis Goldstein, a senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform, told Vox.
Women are likelier to take on student debt and graduate on average with $2,700 more debt than their male counterparts. For Black and Latina women, the situation can be particularly bad, because they also face a wage gap that makes it harder for them to repay.
Waters is the chair of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, and her cosponsorship of the resolution is significant. Earlier this month, she wrote to Biden recommending he cancel $50,000 as well.
A growing chorus of Democrats and activists have an eye on canceling student debt
There is a complicated debate surrounding whether Biden should take unilateral action to cancel student debt (Vox has a full explainer on the arguments surrounding the issue). But one thing is clear: what used to be an idea firmly on the left wing is now very much part of the mainstream political conversation among Democrats.
Biden has backed legislation to cancel $10,000 in federal student loan debt, but he’s coming under increasing pressure to go bigger and forgive up to $50,000. (To be sure, there are many activists who believe he should cancel all student debt altogether.) The House resolution focuses on the $50,000 front and lays out the case on how Biden can do it.
Basically, it holds that the secretary of education has the administrative authority to cancel debt, urges Biden to use executive action using legal authorities already granted by Congress to move the ball forward, and asks him to keep the racial wealth gap in mind, whatever he does. It addresses the tax issue around student loan debt forgiveness — there are questions about whether canceled debt would be taxable — and urges the president to direct the IRS to prevent tax liability. The resolution also asks Biden to extend the pause put on federal student loan payments and interest put in place under the Trump administration until January 31 for the duration of the pandemic.
Many of these measures are ones that lawyers and policy experts say Biden could take under existing authorities and laws, especially given the Trump administration’s recent action on debt.
Beyond the how of the proposed debt cancellation, those backing the $50,000 proposal are also focused on the why. Forgiveness isn’t just an educational issue, it’s also a question of politics, economics, and race. Proponents of the idea argue that forgiving debt is a way to help people who went into debt in order to get an education and advance themselves, and that in a moment when the entire American economy needs help, it could be a good form of stimulus.
“Young people have been devastated by this economic crisis, with more than half living with their parents. Student debt cancellation would be a massive economic stimulus at a time when people desperately need it. It’s also a racial equity issue. Students of color are more likely to take out federal student loans, and face higher rates of default,” Omar said in a statement. Beyond being an economic priority, she added, “it is a moral necessity.”
Pressley, Omar, and Adams have also urged the House to include student loan debt cancellation in Covid-19 relief and put forth legislation to cancel at least $30,000 in debt.
Critics of student debt forgiveness argue that it is a regressive policy that would help people who don’t need it, since the majority of student loan debt is owed by households with graduate degrees. Some have also raised questions about how effective a stimulus forgiveness would be. And experts in the arena warn that cancellation needs to be accompanied by broader fixes to the higher education system; otherwise, Americans would just be back in the same situation several years from now.
Broader reform, of course, would require action from a deadlocked Congress, which couldn’t agree for months even on a modest stimulus package. Hence the push for the executive branch to act.
“Any debt relief is better than what’s happening right now,” senior director of higher education policy at the Education Trust, recently told Vox.
The Big Student Debt Debate isn’t going anywhere
Biden’s campaign declined to comment on whether he is considering canceling $50,000 in student debt through executive action. But whether or not he is ready to weigh in publicly, the issue is not going away.
“The Congresswomen are introducing the resolution in the House as a reflection of the growing momentum in Congress in support of executive action on debt cancellation,” a Pressley spokesperson said in a statement to Vox. “Congressional intent is powerful and Congresswoman Pressley will use every legislative tool to make the case for common sense student debt cancellation.”
While more Covid-19-related economic stimulus may finally be on the horizon, millions of Americans are still struggling in the pandemic economy. And even once the pandemic is over, student debt is weighing millions of people down. Many borrowers have experienced not one but two major economic downturns in the span of basically a decade, and that’s scarring that could affect them for the rest of their lives.
As mentioned, borrowers of color in particular have been particularly harmed. The same goes for borrowers who never finished college — sometimes, the most expensive degrees are the ones unfinished.
Raphaël Charron-Chénier, a sociologist at Arizona State University who has studied the issue at length, estimates canceling $50,000 in federal student loan cancellation would get rid of 95 percent of Black low-income households’ educational debt. He notes that nearly two-thirds of all low-income borrowers hold more than $10,000 in student debt.
The debate around student debt can be intense. It’s not as catastrophic an idea as its critics say, and it’s also not a miracle. Polling shows that cancellation of up to $50,000 in student debt is a moderately popular idea, but the popularity varies among groups — people with student debt like the idea of forgiveness more than people without it.
As Biden takes office in January, the debate about student debt cancellation is likely to get even more heated. But for millions of Americans, debt forgiveness could be a life-changing event. The pressure on Biden to act is sure to mount.


vox--2020-12-17--Poll: Americans care a lot more about Covid-19 relief than the national debt right now

When asked about the need to prioritize Covid-19 relief versus reining in America ’ s national debt , there ’ s no contest : People are a lot more focused on relief right now , according to a new poll from Vox and Data for Progress .
Seventy-four percent of likely voters surveyed December 11 to 13 say that passing new coronavirus relief is more important than getting the national debt under control , while 21 percent say the opposite .
Even among Republicans , 65 percent of those polled said relief was more important than concerns about the national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These results bolster Democrats ’ longstanding arguments for a more expansive stimulus proposal , which Republicans had previously rejected largely due to worries about the national debt .
“ There is significant resistance to yet another trillion dollars .
The answer to these challenges will not simply be shoveling cash out of Washington , the answer to these challenges will be getting people back to work , ” Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) emphasized this July .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has repeatedly said , too , that a smaller , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his members .
Republicans ’ unwillingness to consider a more generous stimulus package has successfully forced a limited approach : While House Democrats ’ latest version of the HEROES Act would have included $ 2.2 trillion in aid , a stimulus agreement struck this week will likely contain about $ 900 billion .
And in the long term , the survey hinted that Republican voters are ready to back a calculated return to fiscal conservatism now that Democrats will once again control the White House .
But at least here and now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abstract and the specific .
Two-thirds of the likely voters in this survey favored a large relief package that includes $ 1,200 stimulus checks , while 27 percent back a more targeted option .
This poll was conducted with 1,136 likely voters and has a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points .
Respondents were also open to adds to the national debt if it were an investment in growth .
Seventy percent of people agree that the federal government should occasionally take on debt that drives economic growth , much like households @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new home or investments in education , and 51 percent say that taking on more debt in the short term is acceptable if it ’ s helping fuel economic growth .
As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said in December regarding more stimulus , “ The risk of overdoing it is less than the risk of underdoing it.
” There are some likely voters — particularly Republicans — who ’ d like to see Biden focus on the national debt As President-elect Joe Biden prepares to take office in the new year — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posture as deficit hawks — there are a plurality of likely voters who ’ d like to see Biden focus on curbing additions to the debt .
Forty-five percent of likely voters emphasize that limiting these additions should be a top priority for the Biden administration as it weighs different plans , a sentiment that 58 percent of Republicans , 42 percent of independents , and 33 percent of Democrats share .
Forty percent of likely voters , however , think it should be a lower priority , and 15 percent don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of likely voters would support Congress putting pressure on the Biden administration regarding spending that adds to the national debt , while 43 percent would oppose congressional efforts to do so , and 12 percent don ’ t know .
And although a majority of likely voters said that limiting the national debt was important to them , just 15 percent of people said it was the No .
1 thing they ’ d want lawmakers to focus on in the new term .
Republican lawmakers , including Cruz , have signaled that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their focus on fiscal conservatism now that Democrats have won back the White House — even if such actions are contradictory to stances they ’ ve taken during the Trump administration .
( Trump ’ s 2017 tax cuts are estimated to add between $ 1 trillion and $ 2 trillion to the national debt , according to the Tax Policy Center . )
As Vox ’ s Dylan Matthews explained this past spring , concerns about the debt aren ’ t as warranted in the current moment due to the dire need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low interest rates : To be sure , there are times when worrying about the debt makes sense .
Countries like the US that print their own currency can in principle always pay their debts , but there ’ s a risk that doing so would involve printing so much money that hyperinflation ensues .
If that were a real danger , the US should be thinking twice about massively expanding the deficit .
But inflation , let alone hyperinflation , is not a real danger at this moment .

When asked about the need to prioritize Covid-19 relief versus reining in America’s national debt, there’s no contest: People are a lot more focused on relief right now, according to a new poll from Vox and Data for Progress.
Seventy-four percent of likely voters surveyed December 11 to 13 say that passing new coronavirus relief is more important than getting the national debt under control, while 21 percent say the opposite. Even among Republicans, 65 percent of those polled said relief was more important than concerns about the national debt, while 31 percent disagreed.
These results bolster Democrats’ longstanding arguments for a more expansive stimulus proposal, which Republicans had previously rejected largely due to worries about the national debt. “There is significant resistance to yet another trillion dollars. The answer to these challenges will not simply be shoveling cash out of Washington, the answer to these challenges will be getting people back to work,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) emphasized this July.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has repeatedly said, too, that a smaller, narrower bill would be more palatable to his members. Republicans’ unwillingness to consider a more generous stimulus package has successfully forced a limited approach: While House Democrats’ latest version of the HEROES Act would have included $2.2 trillion in aid, a stimulus agreement struck this week will likely contain about $900 billion.
And in the long term, the survey hinted that Republican voters are ready to back a calculated return to fiscal conservatism now that Democrats will once again control the White House. But at least here and now, people favor more spending in both the abstract and the specific. Two-thirds of the likely voters in this survey favored a large relief package that includes $1,200 stimulus checks, while 27 percent back a more targeted option. This poll was conducted with 1,136 likely voters and has a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.
Respondents were also open to adds to the national debt if it were an investment in growth. Seventy percent of people agree that the federal government should occasionally take on debt that drives economic growth, much like households take on debt to pay for a new home or investments in education, and 51 percent say that taking on more debt in the short term is acceptable if it’s helping fuel economic growth.
As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said in December regarding more stimulus, “The risk of overdoing it is less than the risk of underdoing it.”
There are some likely voters — particularly Republicans — who’d like to see Biden focus on the national debt
As President-elect Joe Biden prepares to take office in the new year — and Senate Republicans plan to resume their posture as deficit hawks — there are a plurality of likely voters who’d like to see Biden focus on curbing additions to the debt.
Forty-five percent of likely voters emphasize that limiting these additions should be a top priority for the Biden administration as it weighs different plans, a sentiment that 58 percent of Republicans, 42 percent of independents, and 33 percent of Democrats share. Forty percent of likely voters, however, think it should be a lower priority, and 15 percent don’t know. Similarly, 46 percent of likely voters would support Congress putting pressure on the Biden administration regarding spending that adds to the national debt, while 43 percent would oppose congressional efforts to do so, and 12 percent don’t know.
And although a majority of likely voters said that limiting the national debt was important to them, just 15 percent of people said it was the No. 1 thing they’d want lawmakers to focus on in the new term.
Republican lawmakers, including Cruz, have signaled that they’re interested in dialing up their focus on fiscal conservatism now that Democrats have won back the White House — even if such actions are contradictory to stances they’ve taken during the Trump administration. (Trump’s 2017 tax cuts are estimated to add between $1 trillion and $2 trillion to the national debt, according to the Tax Policy Center.)
.@jonathanvswan: Do you think your colleagues in the Republican Party will rediscover its concern over debt and deficits?@tedcruz: Sure.
Swan: Isn’t that the most cynical, phony thing? #AxiosOnHBO pic.twitter.com/P0q587kr4y — Axios (@axios) October 27, 2020
As Vox’s Dylan Matthews explained this past spring, concerns about the debt aren’t as warranted in the current moment due to the dire need for more relief, as well as low interest rates: