TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Payback
Dedicated to the Fools, Racists, and Ignorant
People who vote for the GOP
apr 16, 2018
400 years and they have learned nothing
8 disturbing trends that reveal the South’s battered psyche
From Salon: Across red-state America, especially in the Deep South, the latest statistics show that the cycle of poverty, in its many manifestations, is unchanged and holding firm. Why is this? It’s easy to say this is how Republicans like to run states—cutting budgets, not raising the minimum wage, opposing labor unions. They let the poor and working class stew in their hardscrabble juices. Meanwhile, they distract voters by accusing liberals of waging war on the few sources of personal power in Southerners’ difficult lives: their religious beliefs and owning guns. But go back several decades when segregationist Democrats ruled; for the most part, they weren’t very different from today’s Republicans.
So what is it that perpetuates decades of poverty in the Deep South? What follows are eight bundles of statistics tracking this latest cycle of poverty. Could it be that people who historically have been treated badly, who have little money in their pockets but look to the sky and pray, expect less from others—including the public and private sector? Does that explain why red-staters cling to God, gun ownership and a “leave-me-alone” ferocity?
They expect politicians to defend their values and their pride and little more?
What’s going on here isn’t entirely political, even if it is used by red-state Republicans in their personal drive for power and influence. Look at what the following statistics reveal about red-staters trapped in deep cycles of poverty. What is the thread that connects lousy governance, bad health, evangelical religion and firearms fervor?
1. Southern states have the most poor people.
2. Deep South states have no minimum wage.
3. Deep South has lowest economic mobility.
4. South has lowest per capita spending sy state government.
5. Forget about decent preventative healthcare.
6. One result: people self-medicate in response.
7. Forget the lottery, just pray to Jesus.
8. And hold onto that gun!
So what is it that perpetuates decades of poverty in the Deep South? What follows are eight bundles of statistics tracking this latest cycle of poverty. Could it be that people who historically have been treated badly, who have little money in their pockets but look to the sky and pray, expect less from others—including the public and private sector? Does that explain why red-staters cling to God, gun ownership and a “leave-me-alone” ferocity?
They expect politicians to defend their values and their pride and little more?
What’s going on here isn’t entirely political, even if it is used by red-state Republicans in their personal drive for power and influence. Look at what the following statistics reveal about red-staters trapped in deep cycles of poverty. What is the thread that connects lousy governance, bad health, evangelical religion and firearms fervor?
1. Southern states have the most poor people.
2. Deep South states have no minimum wage.
3. Deep South has lowest economic mobility.
4. South has lowest per capita spending sy state government.
5. Forget about decent preventative healthcare.
6. One result: people self-medicate in response.
7. Forget the lottery, just pray to Jesus.
8. And hold onto that gun!
|
|
payback headlines - how you are screwed!!
*Trump's Executive Order on "Welfare" Is Designed to Pit Workers Against One Another
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CHIPS AWAY AT OBAMACARE WITH NEW RULE
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump trivializes the pain of farmers: 'They understand they're doing this for the country'(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Here Are the First American Casualties of Trump’s Trade War With China
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Native American Trump voter blasts his attacks on sacred lands and racist slurs against Elizabeth Warren(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Shitstain Voters In IA Suddenly Notice His Tariffs Will Kill Their Jobs. Huh. Who Knew?
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Under GOP Tax Law, Top 1% Get Extra $33,000 per Year. The Poor? $40
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Amid Black Lung Surge, Kentucky Changes Benefits Process For Miners
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*HOW MUCH TAXPAYER MONEY HAS SCOTT WALKER WASTED FIGHTING DEMOCRACY?
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*POLL: MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SAY THEY ARE NOT SEEING CHANGE IN PAYCHECKS DUE TO TAX CUTS
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Five Ways the GOP Is About to Destroy the Lower Class
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*FEDERAL APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN OBAMA RULE PROTECTING RETIREES’ SAVINGS
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*‘It’s lunch money’: Blue-collar Trump voters underwhelmed by GOP tax cut
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*‘I’m pissed!’: Trump-supporting dad screams at the president after his daughter was murdered in Parkland(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump Wants To Freeze Poor And Disabled People To Death By Eliminating Low Income Energy Assistance(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The 22 agencies and programs Trump's budget would eliminate(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Republicans have devised a new sinister way to cut Social Security(ARTICLE BELOW)
PAYBACK FUNNIES(at the end)
GREEN PARTY FucK YOU! - THIS IS WHAT TRUMP HAS WROUGHT...SAME AS HILLARY
Cattledog - demo. underground
|
29 rules have been overturned
Flood building standards Proposed ban on a potentially harmful pesticide Freeze on new coal leases on public lands Methane reporting requirement Anti-dumping rule for coal companies Decision on Keystone XL pipeline Decision on Dakota Access pipeline Third-party settlement funds Offshore drilling ban in the Atlantic and Arctic Ban on seismic air gun testing in the Atlantic Northern Bering Sea climate resilience plan Royalty regulations for oil, gas and coal Inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews Permit-issuing process for new infrastructure projects Green Climate Fund contributions Mining restrictions in Bristol Bay, Alaska Endangered species listings Hunting ban on wolves and grizzly bears in Alaska Protections for whales and sea turtles Reusable water bottles rule for national parks National parks climate order Environmental mitigation for federal projects Calculation for “social cost” of carbon Planning rule for public lands Copper filter cake listing as hazardous waste Mine cleanup rule Sewage treatment pollution regulations Ban on use of lead ammunition on federal lands Restrictions on fishing |
24 rollbacks are in progress
Clean Power Plan Paris climate agreement Wetland and tributary protections Car and truck fuel-efficiency standards Status of 10 national monuments Status of 12 marine areas Limits on toxic discharge from power plants Coal ash discharge regulations Emissions standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants Emissions rules for power plant start-up and shutdown Sage grouse habitat protections Fracking regulations on public lands Regulations on oil and gas drilling in some national parks Oil rig safety regulations Regulations for offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge Hunting method regulations in Alaska Requirement for tracking emissions on federal highways Emissions standards for trailers and glider kits Limits on methane emissions on public lands Permitting process for air-polluting plants Offshore oil and gas leasing Use of birds in subsistence handicrafts Coal dust rule |
7 rollbacks are in limbo
Methane emission limits at new oil and gas wells
Limits on landfill emissions
Mercury emission limits for power plants
Hazardous chemical facility regulations
Groundwater protections for uranium mines
Efficiency standards for federal buildings
Rule helping consumers buy fuel-efficient tires
Source:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Methane emission limits at new oil and gas wells
Limits on landfill emissions
Mercury emission limits for power plants
Hazardous chemical facility regulations
Groundwater protections for uranium mines
Efficiency standards for federal buildings
Rule helping consumers buy fuel-efficient tires
Source:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
The True Cost of Voodoo Economics
The Reagan-Bush Debt is how much of the national debt of the United States is attributable to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and
the Republican fiscal policy of Borrow-And-Spend.
As of Tuesday, April 03, 2018 at 10:05:39AM CT,
The Current ReaganBush Debt is:
$13,254,888,292,691.30
which means that in a total of 20 years,
these three presidents have led to the creation of
91.56%
of the entire national debt
in only 8.2645% of the 242 years of the existence of the United States of America.
@ReaganBushDebt.org
Here are the 66 Programs Trump eliminates in his budget - Soph0571 Demo Underground
Trump's Executive Order on "Welfare" Is Designed to Pit Workers Against One Another
Monday, April 16, 2018
By Rebecca Vallas, TalkPoverty.org | News Analysis
truthout
Trump administration chips away at Obamacare with new rule
The Affordable Care Act survived the first year of Trump, but can it make it through another three years?
AMANDA MICHELLE GOMEZ - think progress
APR 10, 2018, 8:58 AM
The Trump administration issued a ton of regulatory changes Monday that chip away at the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Moving forward, states will have more flexibility to set their own standards and people will be given new exemptions to avoid the health care law’s individual mandate penalty.
The 523-page regulation is one that comes out every year, and is intended to outline what ACA plans will look like for consumers next year.
Monday’s rule gives consumers two new ways to avoid penalties. People who live in counties with only one insurance company — roughly 26 percent of current enrollees — won’t have to pay the individual mandate penalty. Anti-choice people who live in areas where the only affordable plan also covers abortion will also be exempt from paying the penalty if they’d rather not have insurance.
The individual mandate is especially critical for insurance companies. Without the requirement that people have insurance or pay a penalty, insurers are less assured and could hike premiums or exit the marketplace altogether. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office expects fewer people will be covered and get subsidized care.
Republicans failed to repeal the ACA last year, but they were able to repeal the health care law’s individual mandate penalty beginning in 2019. Monday’s exemptions, however, take effect immediately — thus undermining the law.
“Until the law changes, we won’t stand idly by as Americans suffer,” the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma said on a conference call to some reporters.
But gutting the ACA isn’t really doing much in the way of providing relief.
Most people who purchase health insurance on the ACA marketplace are low-income people who buy subsidized care or people who really need care because of an existing medical condition. In addition to undermining the marketplace overall, Monday’s rule also further signals zip code will determine a resident’s health plan.
The Trump administration tweaked the essential health benefits provision, which specifies ten benefits health plans must cover. Starting in 2020, health plans generally still need to cover these benefits, but states have greater flexibility in determining the specifics and consumers could see less comprehensive coverage in some respects.
“For a consumer, it does create the potential for variation in terms of coverage and coverage standards depending on where you live,” said Elizabeth Carpenter, Senior Vice President, who leads the Policy Practice at Avalere. “And in some cases may change some of the options available to consumers in the market.”
For example, “plans subject to essential health benefits will continue to have to cover prescription drugs,” Carpenter told ThinkProgress. “Depending on the benchmark a state chooses, [a plan] may have to cover fewer prescription drugs but that category of coverage is still guaranteed.”
The Trump administration did also throw a bone to insurance companies in Monday’s rule. If it means a more stable market, states could modify medical loss ratio (MLR), or the amount an insurer spends on a costumer’s care versus the return in profit. States could adjust the 80/20 MLR rule, which means 80 percent goes to health care and 20 percent goes to administrative costs or profit, in a way that attracts insurers. Of course, most of these changes are up to states.
Monday’s final rule is a small piece of the pie in regards to what’s to come. Experts say what’s likelier to affect marketplace stability is the repeal of the individual mandate next year. Other questions that are more critical are: Will the Trump administration permit “silver loading” (a way states safeguarded consumers from premium hikes and actually made 2018 plans cheaper or free)? And to what extent will freeing up skimpier health plans (like short-term health plans) undermine the marketplace?
The ACA marketplace has proven more resilient than expected during President Donald Trump’s first year in office, but the challenge going forward is how to further stabilize and strengthen the marketplace for the sake of those who need insurance.
Despite repeated, deliberate attacks from the Trump administration — like cutting outreach and advertisement — 11.8 million people signed up for 2018 health plans, only 400,000 fewer than last year. According to a recent poll, most people buy insurance on the ACA marketplace to protect themselves from financial catastrophe.
Still, the marketplace isn’t very affordable for those who aren’t shielded by premium spikes and do not qualify for federal subsidies, namely people who make 400 percent of the federal poverty level or $81,000 for a family of three. As Trump continues to chip away at the health care law, it’s not clear where those who can’ turn.
The 523-page regulation is one that comes out every year, and is intended to outline what ACA plans will look like for consumers next year.
Monday’s rule gives consumers two new ways to avoid penalties. People who live in counties with only one insurance company — roughly 26 percent of current enrollees — won’t have to pay the individual mandate penalty. Anti-choice people who live in areas where the only affordable plan also covers abortion will also be exempt from paying the penalty if they’d rather not have insurance.
The individual mandate is especially critical for insurance companies. Without the requirement that people have insurance or pay a penalty, insurers are less assured and could hike premiums or exit the marketplace altogether. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office expects fewer people will be covered and get subsidized care.
Republicans failed to repeal the ACA last year, but they were able to repeal the health care law’s individual mandate penalty beginning in 2019. Monday’s exemptions, however, take effect immediately — thus undermining the law.
“Until the law changes, we won’t stand idly by as Americans suffer,” the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma said on a conference call to some reporters.
But gutting the ACA isn’t really doing much in the way of providing relief.
Most people who purchase health insurance on the ACA marketplace are low-income people who buy subsidized care or people who really need care because of an existing medical condition. In addition to undermining the marketplace overall, Monday’s rule also further signals zip code will determine a resident’s health plan.
The Trump administration tweaked the essential health benefits provision, which specifies ten benefits health plans must cover. Starting in 2020, health plans generally still need to cover these benefits, but states have greater flexibility in determining the specifics and consumers could see less comprehensive coverage in some respects.
“For a consumer, it does create the potential for variation in terms of coverage and coverage standards depending on where you live,” said Elizabeth Carpenter, Senior Vice President, who leads the Policy Practice at Avalere. “And in some cases may change some of the options available to consumers in the market.”
For example, “plans subject to essential health benefits will continue to have to cover prescription drugs,” Carpenter told ThinkProgress. “Depending on the benchmark a state chooses, [a plan] may have to cover fewer prescription drugs but that category of coverage is still guaranteed.”
The Trump administration did also throw a bone to insurance companies in Monday’s rule. If it means a more stable market, states could modify medical loss ratio (MLR), or the amount an insurer spends on a costumer’s care versus the return in profit. States could adjust the 80/20 MLR rule, which means 80 percent goes to health care and 20 percent goes to administrative costs or profit, in a way that attracts insurers. Of course, most of these changes are up to states.
Monday’s final rule is a small piece of the pie in regards to what’s to come. Experts say what’s likelier to affect marketplace stability is the repeal of the individual mandate next year. Other questions that are more critical are: Will the Trump administration permit “silver loading” (a way states safeguarded consumers from premium hikes and actually made 2018 plans cheaper or free)? And to what extent will freeing up skimpier health plans (like short-term health plans) undermine the marketplace?
The ACA marketplace has proven more resilient than expected during President Donald Trump’s first year in office, but the challenge going forward is how to further stabilize and strengthen the marketplace for the sake of those who need insurance.
Despite repeated, deliberate attacks from the Trump administration — like cutting outreach and advertisement — 11.8 million people signed up for 2018 health plans, only 400,000 fewer than last year. According to a recent poll, most people buy insurance on the ACA marketplace to protect themselves from financial catastrophe.
Still, the marketplace isn’t very affordable for those who aren’t shielded by premium spikes and do not qualify for federal subsidies, namely people who make 400 percent of the federal poverty level or $81,000 for a family of three. As Trump continues to chip away at the health care law, it’s not clear where those who can’ turn.
Trump trivializes the pain of farmers: 'They understand they're doing this for the country'
Kerry Eleveld
Daily Kos Staff
Monday April 09, 2018 · 2:50 PM PDT
Donald Trump is now the farmer whisperer, apparently. He knows what they're thinking and feeling and he knows they're all in for trashing their livelihoods and, indeed, their identities for Trump's escalating trade war with China. Here's a couple nuggets from Trump on tensions with China gleaned from the pool report on Monday's cabinet meeting.
They want to hit the farmers because they think it hits me, I wouldn't say that's nice, but I'll tell you our farmers are great patriots. These are great patriots and they understand that they're doing this for the country. And we'll make it up to them and in the end they're going to be much stronger than they are now.
It's not nice when they hit farmers specifically because they think it hits me. That being said we're doing very well on trade and trade deals.
Doing very well ... tell that to America's soybean farmers, among others. Maybe Trump should go on a listening tour in farm country. Wouldn't that be novel—Trump listening to someone besides himself.
Okay, let’s be real—clearly that's never going to happen. Instead, Trump and his White House aides are just going to continue trivializing the plight of anyone who comes out on the losing end of his latest "get tough" whimsy.
They want to hit the farmers because they think it hits me, I wouldn't say that's nice, but I'll tell you our farmers are great patriots. These are great patriots and they understand that they're doing this for the country. And we'll make it up to them and in the end they're going to be much stronger than they are now.
It's not nice when they hit farmers specifically because they think it hits me. That being said we're doing very well on trade and trade deals.
Doing very well ... tell that to America's soybean farmers, among others. Maybe Trump should go on a listening tour in farm country. Wouldn't that be novel—Trump listening to someone besides himself.
Okay, let’s be real—clearly that's never going to happen. Instead, Trump and his White House aides are just going to continue trivializing the plight of anyone who comes out on the losing end of his latest "get tough" whimsy.
Here Are the First American Casualties of Trump’s Trade War With China
Tariffs on pork and soybeans reverberate through the Heartland.
Tom Philpott - mother jones
Apr. 5, 2018 6:00 AM
|
|
President Donald Trump has successfully launched a trade war with China, making good on xenophobic fulminations that stretch back well before his 2016 presidential campaign. And he’s also renewed his crusade against another trading partner, Mexico, raising the specter of a two-front trade war. Among the very first US casualties will be meat conglomerates and large-scale farmers rooted in the US heartland—both of which served as bastions of support for the mercurial candidate during the election.
On Wednesday, in response to Trump’s tariffs on aluminum and steel, the Chinese government announced plans to slap a 25 percent duty on US soybeans, days after doing the same with pork. For both of those commodities, US farmers churn out far more than can be used by the domestic market—about half our soybeans and a quarter of our pork supply are exported. And guess who they rely on to buy up the surplus?
Meanwhile, US soybean farmers are sitting on a record surplus of unsold beans from last year’s bumper harvest, and preparing to plant 89 million acres of the crop this year, just 1 percent less than last year’s largest-ever planting. After China’s tariff announcement, soybean prices dropped in Wednesday trading. And US farm-equipment giant John Deere saw its share price plunge nearly 3 percent as investors fretted that US farmers will be “slower to replace or upgrade old Deere equipment” if Chinese demand for their crops drops, Investors Business Daily reported.
The situation with pork and the China-Hong Kong market isn’t quite so stark—but note that the No. 1 destination for the “other white meat” grown by US farmers is Trump’s other bete noire, Mexico.
These trade hostilities come at a time when the US pork industry is ramping up capacity—not to satisfy domestic demand, which is flat, but rather in hopes of an export boom. As an analyst at the farm-credit company CoBank put it last year, “access to foreign markets will be critical to preventing a domestic supply glut as well as deterioration in [profit] margins for both producers and processors.” (The prize, of course, is China, whose population consumes more than half of the world’s pork.) Translation: If foreign markets don’t grow briskly, US hog farmers and pork packers are screwed. Not surprisingly, hog prices plunged 5 percent Wednesday.
While Trump’s trade bellicosity may thrill some of his core supporters, it could well hurt his party in this fall’s midterm elections. Check out this map of US soybean production:
As the Washington Post‘s Phil Bump notes, that’s in large part a sketch of areas on the eastern side of the US map that Trump won in 2016. Indeed, Bump calculates that Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 12.3 percentage points in soybean-heavy counties in that election. Bloomberg’s Joshua Green adds that a Trump-triggered soybean slump could help bail out “vulnerable Democratic Senate incumbents” in Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota,” and also boost Illinois’s leading Democratic gubernatorial candidate, J.B. Pritzker, who’s locked in a battle with GOP incumbent Bruce Rauner.
Trump’s trade war could also loosen the GOP’s grip on Iowa. The state leads the nation in hog and soybean production, and it’s also home to significant ag-based manufacturing and seed development. Its voters supported Trump over Clinton by nearly 10 percentage points; its governor, both senators, and three of its four US representatives are all Republican.
Last month, the entire Iowa congressional delegation—including the arch-xenophobe and Trump stalwart Rep. Steve King—sent the president a letter imploring him to “carefully consider and analyze the economic costs and benefits of your plan to impose new tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.” They added, “We are extremely worried the proposed tariffs will have a negative impact on our agricultural economy…As farmers have already faced several years of low commodity prices, any hit to demand would be devastating to their financial situations.”
Two of Iowa’s GOP House reps—Rod Blum and David Young—are enmeshed in tight races this fall, according to The Cook Political Report. And according to the Des Moines Register, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds’ grip on her office was “vulnerable” to Democratic challenge this fall even before Trump began antagonizing China, the state’s biggest foreign agriculture buyer, last month.
On Wednesday, in response to Trump’s tariffs on aluminum and steel, the Chinese government announced plans to slap a 25 percent duty on US soybeans, days after doing the same with pork. For both of those commodities, US farmers churn out far more than can be used by the domestic market—about half our soybeans and a quarter of our pork supply are exported. And guess who they rely on to buy up the surplus?
Meanwhile, US soybean farmers are sitting on a record surplus of unsold beans from last year’s bumper harvest, and preparing to plant 89 million acres of the crop this year, just 1 percent less than last year’s largest-ever planting. After China’s tariff announcement, soybean prices dropped in Wednesday trading. And US farm-equipment giant John Deere saw its share price plunge nearly 3 percent as investors fretted that US farmers will be “slower to replace or upgrade old Deere equipment” if Chinese demand for their crops drops, Investors Business Daily reported.
The situation with pork and the China-Hong Kong market isn’t quite so stark—but note that the No. 1 destination for the “other white meat” grown by US farmers is Trump’s other bete noire, Mexico.
These trade hostilities come at a time when the US pork industry is ramping up capacity—not to satisfy domestic demand, which is flat, but rather in hopes of an export boom. As an analyst at the farm-credit company CoBank put it last year, “access to foreign markets will be critical to preventing a domestic supply glut as well as deterioration in [profit] margins for both producers and processors.” (The prize, of course, is China, whose population consumes more than half of the world’s pork.) Translation: If foreign markets don’t grow briskly, US hog farmers and pork packers are screwed. Not surprisingly, hog prices plunged 5 percent Wednesday.
While Trump’s trade bellicosity may thrill some of his core supporters, it could well hurt his party in this fall’s midterm elections. Check out this map of US soybean production:
As the Washington Post‘s Phil Bump notes, that’s in large part a sketch of areas on the eastern side of the US map that Trump won in 2016. Indeed, Bump calculates that Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 12.3 percentage points in soybean-heavy counties in that election. Bloomberg’s Joshua Green adds that a Trump-triggered soybean slump could help bail out “vulnerable Democratic Senate incumbents” in Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota,” and also boost Illinois’s leading Democratic gubernatorial candidate, J.B. Pritzker, who’s locked in a battle with GOP incumbent Bruce Rauner.
Trump’s trade war could also loosen the GOP’s grip on Iowa. The state leads the nation in hog and soybean production, and it’s also home to significant ag-based manufacturing and seed development. Its voters supported Trump over Clinton by nearly 10 percentage points; its governor, both senators, and three of its four US representatives are all Republican.
Last month, the entire Iowa congressional delegation—including the arch-xenophobe and Trump stalwart Rep. Steve King—sent the president a letter imploring him to “carefully consider and analyze the economic costs and benefits of your plan to impose new tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.” They added, “We are extremely worried the proposed tariffs will have a negative impact on our agricultural economy…As farmers have already faced several years of low commodity prices, any hit to demand would be devastating to their financial situations.”
Two of Iowa’s GOP House reps—Rod Blum and David Young—are enmeshed in tight races this fall, according to The Cook Political Report. And according to the Des Moines Register, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds’ grip on her office was “vulnerable” to Democratic challenge this fall even before Trump began antagonizing China, the state’s biggest foreign agriculture buyer, last month.
Native American Trump voter blasts his attacks on sacred lands and racist slurs against Elizabeth Warren
Sarah K. Burris - raw story
03 APR 2018 AT 12:55 ET
Pr*sident Donald Trump has angered many moderate tribal members with his racist attacks on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). But now, it seems, even his own supporters with Native American ancestry find the insult unacceptable.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump happily ranted about his political foe by calling her “Pocahontas,” mocking her for claims of Native American ancestry. But Trump took it to a whole new level when he used the slur while standing in the Oval Office with the last two living Navajo Code Talkers from World War II.
“I just want to thank you because you’re very, very special people,” Trump said, a painting of former President Andrew Jackson over his shoulder. Jackson was the president who signed into law the Indian Removal Act. “You were here long before any of us were here. Although we have a representative in Congress who, they say, was here a long time ago. They call her ‘Pocahontas.’”
In an interview with the Norman Transcript, one Cherokee Nation tribal councilor said Trump “hit a sour note” over use of the slur.
David Walkingstick of Tahlequah, Oklahoma said that he doesn’t vote along party lines, but Trump won the Republican’s vote in 2016.
“You kind of knew what you were getting with Trump,” he said. “Everyone knew Trump was a loudmouth, but he is a successful businessman. We need people trying to get our country out of debt and (promoting) job growth, and he was the one who was willing to make enemies to make that happen.”
The Cherokee nation was promised funding over 20 years for a medical clinic from former President Barack Obama’s administration. When the new Trump administration came into office, they honored the promise, for which Walkingstick gives Trump major props.
“As far as the nuts and bolts of it, putting the numbers together, I think he’s probably done a pretty good job, but he’s probably offended some people along the way,” Walkingstick said of Trump’s racist slurs.
He also noted that Trump’s decision to downsize Utah’s Bears Ear National Monument and plow through sacred grounds of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe with the Dakota Access Pipeline are all things that earned him animosity.
“For a president to understand our sovereignty as tribes is crucial,” Walkingstick said. “I would say that he hasn’t been the most sensitive president to our tribal sovereignty.”
During the 2016 campaign, Trump happily ranted about his political foe by calling her “Pocahontas,” mocking her for claims of Native American ancestry. But Trump took it to a whole new level when he used the slur while standing in the Oval Office with the last two living Navajo Code Talkers from World War II.
“I just want to thank you because you’re very, very special people,” Trump said, a painting of former President Andrew Jackson over his shoulder. Jackson was the president who signed into law the Indian Removal Act. “You were here long before any of us were here. Although we have a representative in Congress who, they say, was here a long time ago. They call her ‘Pocahontas.’”
In an interview with the Norman Transcript, one Cherokee Nation tribal councilor said Trump “hit a sour note” over use of the slur.
David Walkingstick of Tahlequah, Oklahoma said that he doesn’t vote along party lines, but Trump won the Republican’s vote in 2016.
“You kind of knew what you were getting with Trump,” he said. “Everyone knew Trump was a loudmouth, but he is a successful businessman. We need people trying to get our country out of debt and (promoting) job growth, and he was the one who was willing to make enemies to make that happen.”
The Cherokee nation was promised funding over 20 years for a medical clinic from former President Barack Obama’s administration. When the new Trump administration came into office, they honored the promise, for which Walkingstick gives Trump major props.
“As far as the nuts and bolts of it, putting the numbers together, I think he’s probably done a pretty good job, but he’s probably offended some people along the way,” Walkingstick said of Trump’s racist slurs.
He also noted that Trump’s decision to downsize Utah’s Bears Ear National Monument and plow through sacred grounds of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe with the Dakota Access Pipeline are all things that earned him animosity.
“For a president to understand our sovereignty as tribes is crucial,” Walkingstick said. “I would say that he hasn’t been the most sensitive president to our tribal sovereignty.”
Shitstain Voters In IA Suddenly Notice His Tariffs Will Kill Their Jobs. Huh. Who Knew?
hatrack - demo underground
4/2/18
But people here — Republicans and Democrats alike — are paying great attention to what President Trump is doing economically, especially since he started in on tariffs. We have a strong manufacturing base in our county; when tariffs on aluminum and steel were announced, local manufacturing leaders tried to be diplomatic, praising the Trump tax cuts but saying the steel and aluminum tariffs would hurt their businesses by driving costs up.
One smaller manufacturer — a Trump voter — told me that his costs to produce his product nearly doubled overnight, and that his business has already been hurt by the tariffs. Prices didn’t rise only after the tariffs were announced; they started rising when Mr. Trump floated the idea. But it’s the farm economy that rural Iowans are paying particular attention to. When the president first proposed a 20 percent import tax on Mexico to pay for his wall, Iowans objected: Mexico is our second-largest export partner after Canada.
---
A couple of banker friends who work with farmers every day told me last week that with commodity prices down and the tariffs imposed, approximately 10 percent of our farmers probably won’t make it this year, and 10 percent more will likely fail next year. They also shared the news that in Iowa, larger agribusinesses are buying up smaller farms that are in financial trouble, and that people are starting to make comparisons to the farm crisis of the 1980s, when approximately 10,000 Iowa farmers lost their farms. Even Representative Steve King, the avid Trump supporter and Iowan every liberal loves to hate, is worried about a new farm crisis.
Dairy farmers are particularly hard hit, suffering through four years of declining prices. It’s gotten so bad, dairy farming organizations are giving out suicide hotline numbers, as farmers are committing suicide in the hope that their insurance will save the family farm.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/opinion/trump-tariffs-agriculture-economy.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront
One smaller manufacturer — a Trump voter — told me that his costs to produce his product nearly doubled overnight, and that his business has already been hurt by the tariffs. Prices didn’t rise only after the tariffs were announced; they started rising when Mr. Trump floated the idea. But it’s the farm economy that rural Iowans are paying particular attention to. When the president first proposed a 20 percent import tax on Mexico to pay for his wall, Iowans objected: Mexico is our second-largest export partner after Canada.
---
A couple of banker friends who work with farmers every day told me last week that with commodity prices down and the tariffs imposed, approximately 10 percent of our farmers probably won’t make it this year, and 10 percent more will likely fail next year. They also shared the news that in Iowa, larger agribusinesses are buying up smaller farms that are in financial trouble, and that people are starting to make comparisons to the farm crisis of the 1980s, when approximately 10,000 Iowa farmers lost their farms. Even Representative Steve King, the avid Trump supporter and Iowan every liberal loves to hate, is worried about a new farm crisis.
Dairy farmers are particularly hard hit, suffering through four years of declining prices. It’s gotten so bad, dairy farming organizations are giving out suicide hotline numbers, as farmers are committing suicide in the hope that their insurance will save the family farm.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/opinion/trump-tariffs-agriculture-economy.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront
were you tricked???
Under GOP Tax Law, Top 1% Get Extra $33,000 per Year. The Poor? $40
Sunday, April 01, 2018
By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams | Report - truthout
In its first analysis of how the GOP tax plan will affect Americans' personal income taxes alone, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) this week underscored what experts and most of the public already knew: that the Republican tax law will pour tens of thousands of extra dollars into pockets of the wealthy few while providing mere crumbs for the poor.
Specifically, according to TPC's new report, the top one percent of earners will receive an average annual tax cut of around $33,000 just from individual tax changes under the GOP law. The poorest Americans, by contrast, will see an average break of about $40 per year.
"While most of the corporate tax cuts flow to the top of the income distribution, what this shows is that even in the direct changes to the individual-side of the tax code, most of those changes are still being allocated to the top," Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at TPC, told the Washington Post.
The Post published a visual of the disproportionate gains seen by those at the very top:
Specifically, according to TPC's new report, the top one percent of earners will receive an average annual tax cut of around $33,000 just from individual tax changes under the GOP law. The poorest Americans, by contrast, will see an average break of about $40 per year.
"While most of the corporate tax cuts flow to the top of the income distribution, what this shows is that even in the direct changes to the individual-side of the tax code, most of those changes are still being allocated to the top," Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at TPC, told the Washington Post.
The Post published a visual of the disproportionate gains seen by those at the very top:
As the Post's Jeff Stein noted in a breakdown of TPC's analysis on Friday, the tax break for the wealthiest is even larger -- $51,140 -- when the corporate tax cuts and the reduction of the estate tax are factored in.
TPC's analysis of the Republican tax plan -- which President Donald Trump signed into law last December -- comes as profitable companies continue their stock buyback binge while most Americans report seeing very few if any changes in their paychecks.
Despite Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's promise that Americans would start seeing a positive bump in their checks no later than February 15, the majority of the public said they have yet to see any boost from the GOP tax law, according to a CNBC poll published on Tuesday.
TPC's analysis of the Republican tax plan -- which President Donald Trump signed into law last December -- comes as profitable companies continue their stock buyback binge while most Americans report seeing very few if any changes in their paychecks.
Despite Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's promise that Americans would start seeing a positive bump in their checks no later than February 15, the majority of the public said they have yet to see any boost from the GOP tax law, according to a CNBC poll published on Tuesday.
Amid Black Lung Surge, Kentucky Changes Benefits Process For Miners
By Benny Becker - ohio valley resource
3/28/18
William McCool is a 64-year-old former coal miner from Letcher County, Kentucky, with an advanced form of black lung disease. Health experts say the condition is entirely preventable with dust control measures in mines. But today, more miners in Appalachia are being diagnosed with severe black lung than ever before.
“I’ve worked all my life, I’ve seen a lot of coal go down the beltline,” McCool said, pausing to catch his breath between phrases. “Somebody’s made money, but the cheapest thing the company’s got is the worker. Everything else costs them all kinds of money but they can get workers.”
Black lung is a disabling condition caused by the work environment, so miners like McCool are eligible for benefits. The state and federal government both have systems that allow miners to make a claim against their employer for medical expenses and a small stipend. Getting approved can be a long process.
“State black lung compensation took about 2 years, then probably 5 or 6 years I got my federal black lung,” he said.
Some miners have waited over a decade for a decision on federal black lung benefits. Many die before they receive them. State benefits have traditionally been quicker. But black lung attorney Evan Smith at the Appalachian Citizens’ Law Centersaid that’s been changing.
“The idea was that these federal laws were going to be a national baseline, then many states would grant additional protections to treat their workers better than was the minimum required,” Smith said. “What’s ended up happening, especially in recent years, is states have ended up having a race to the bottom.”
Amid a historic surge in black lung cases in Appalachia, the Kentucky legislature this week approved sweeping changes to the state’s workers’ compensation programs, including changes to the process miners must use to qualify for black lung benefits. Miners and advocates warn the changes may shift the balance in favor of coal companies, and make it harder for those with black lung to get benefits.
Ruling Out Radiologists
Phillip Wheeler is an attorney in Pikeville, Kentucky, who represents clients seeking state black lung benefits. Wheeler has been very critical of Kentucky’s workers’ compensation reform bill, known as House Bill 2.
“On its face the amendments in relation to black lung law may seem very benign,” Wheeler said. “But they have a very nefarious purpose.”
Wheeler and other critics say the bill will make it harder for sick miners to get state benefits by restricting the pool of doctors who can determine a miner’s eligibility for state benefits and tilt the process in favor of coal companies.
“I do believe the coal industry is writing this bill to exclude certain doctors that they don’t like,” Wheeler explained.
“Essentially it’ll be limited to approximately five doctors in Kentucky.”
Among those excluded is radiologist James Brandon Crum. He’s the doctor who first alerted federal researchers to the spike in cases of severe black lung, which has since been confirmed as the largest cluster of the disease ever documented.
Clinicians who are certified to read chest X-rays for work-related diseases like black lung are known as B-readers. Among B-readers, radiologists like Crum are generally considered to be the most qualified doctors, since the entirety of their training centers on reading X-rays and other diagnostic images. Yet the Kentucky legislation would bar radiologists from providing diagnoses for state benefits claims. Instead, the legislation requires that B-readers also be certified pulmonologists in order to diagnose patients for the state black lung benefits system.
Crum said the move to push radiologists out of the process caught him by surprise.
“Throughout the United States I know of nowhere where radiologists are taken completely out of the evaluation for potential black lung disease,” he said. “That’s what we’re primarily trained in.”
Dr. Kathleen DePonte was also surprised. DePonte is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist and B reader in Norton, Virginia, with more than 20 years of experience in practice.
“It strikes me as odd that radiologists are excluded in part of the process,” she said. “It is curious to me that the legislators feel that the pulmonologist is more qualified to interpret a chest radiograph than a radiologist is. This is very much what radiologists do.”
William McCool said he thinks the change in eligible doctors would have made his claims process much more difficult.
“It’d be pretty much impossible,” McCool said. “I’ve had lung doctors tell me I don’t have black lung.”
Debate in Frankfort
In debate on the bill, Letcher County Democratic Representative Angie Hatton warned the measure could hurt miners.
“When we’re finding increased amounts of this illness it seems to me that this is when they need us the most,” Hatton said. “Why are we making it tougher for them to prove their illness?”
Adam Koenig is a Republican from Kenton County, and the bill’s lead sponsor. He defended the changes as necessary to fix constitutional issues with the state’s existing system stemming from a 2011 state supreme court decision in a case known as Vision Mining. The court ruled the state system at that time was unconstitutional because miners faced tougher requirements than did people who contracted pneumoconiosis apart from mining.
“No one here is trying to deny anyone who does that work from getting their black lung claims,” Koenig said, “But the fact of the matter is the way we’re doing it now is not constitutional, so we’re trying to fix it.”
Phillip Wheeler, the black lung attorney, said he believes that the newly passed bill is itself unconstitutional. He plans to contest the legislation.
“If it’s anything like we expect it will operate, then you betcha we’re gonna file some challenges,” he said.
The bill awaits Governor Matt Bevin’s signature. Its provisions include a period of up to 6 months for implementation. Miners who file for benefits before then may still be able to use the current system.
“I’ve worked all my life, I’ve seen a lot of coal go down the beltline,” McCool said, pausing to catch his breath between phrases. “Somebody’s made money, but the cheapest thing the company’s got is the worker. Everything else costs them all kinds of money but they can get workers.”
Black lung is a disabling condition caused by the work environment, so miners like McCool are eligible for benefits. The state and federal government both have systems that allow miners to make a claim against their employer for medical expenses and a small stipend. Getting approved can be a long process.
“State black lung compensation took about 2 years, then probably 5 or 6 years I got my federal black lung,” he said.
Some miners have waited over a decade for a decision on federal black lung benefits. Many die before they receive them. State benefits have traditionally been quicker. But black lung attorney Evan Smith at the Appalachian Citizens’ Law Centersaid that’s been changing.
“The idea was that these federal laws were going to be a national baseline, then many states would grant additional protections to treat their workers better than was the minimum required,” Smith said. “What’s ended up happening, especially in recent years, is states have ended up having a race to the bottom.”
Amid a historic surge in black lung cases in Appalachia, the Kentucky legislature this week approved sweeping changes to the state’s workers’ compensation programs, including changes to the process miners must use to qualify for black lung benefits. Miners and advocates warn the changes may shift the balance in favor of coal companies, and make it harder for those with black lung to get benefits.
Ruling Out Radiologists
Phillip Wheeler is an attorney in Pikeville, Kentucky, who represents clients seeking state black lung benefits. Wheeler has been very critical of Kentucky’s workers’ compensation reform bill, known as House Bill 2.
“On its face the amendments in relation to black lung law may seem very benign,” Wheeler said. “But they have a very nefarious purpose.”
Wheeler and other critics say the bill will make it harder for sick miners to get state benefits by restricting the pool of doctors who can determine a miner’s eligibility for state benefits and tilt the process in favor of coal companies.
“I do believe the coal industry is writing this bill to exclude certain doctors that they don’t like,” Wheeler explained.
“Essentially it’ll be limited to approximately five doctors in Kentucky.”
Among those excluded is radiologist James Brandon Crum. He’s the doctor who first alerted federal researchers to the spike in cases of severe black lung, which has since been confirmed as the largest cluster of the disease ever documented.
Clinicians who are certified to read chest X-rays for work-related diseases like black lung are known as B-readers. Among B-readers, radiologists like Crum are generally considered to be the most qualified doctors, since the entirety of their training centers on reading X-rays and other diagnostic images. Yet the Kentucky legislation would bar radiologists from providing diagnoses for state benefits claims. Instead, the legislation requires that B-readers also be certified pulmonologists in order to diagnose patients for the state black lung benefits system.
Crum said the move to push radiologists out of the process caught him by surprise.
“Throughout the United States I know of nowhere where radiologists are taken completely out of the evaluation for potential black lung disease,” he said. “That’s what we’re primarily trained in.”
Dr. Kathleen DePonte was also surprised. DePonte is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist and B reader in Norton, Virginia, with more than 20 years of experience in practice.
“It strikes me as odd that radiologists are excluded in part of the process,” she said. “It is curious to me that the legislators feel that the pulmonologist is more qualified to interpret a chest radiograph than a radiologist is. This is very much what radiologists do.”
William McCool said he thinks the change in eligible doctors would have made his claims process much more difficult.
“It’d be pretty much impossible,” McCool said. “I’ve had lung doctors tell me I don’t have black lung.”
Debate in Frankfort
In debate on the bill, Letcher County Democratic Representative Angie Hatton warned the measure could hurt miners.
“When we’re finding increased amounts of this illness it seems to me that this is when they need us the most,” Hatton said. “Why are we making it tougher for them to prove their illness?”
Adam Koenig is a Republican from Kenton County, and the bill’s lead sponsor. He defended the changes as necessary to fix constitutional issues with the state’s existing system stemming from a 2011 state supreme court decision in a case known as Vision Mining. The court ruled the state system at that time was unconstitutional because miners faced tougher requirements than did people who contracted pneumoconiosis apart from mining.
“No one here is trying to deny anyone who does that work from getting their black lung claims,” Koenig said, “But the fact of the matter is the way we’re doing it now is not constitutional, so we’re trying to fix it.”
Phillip Wheeler, the black lung attorney, said he believes that the newly passed bill is itself unconstitutional. He plans to contest the legislation.
“If it’s anything like we expect it will operate, then you betcha we’re gonna file some challenges,” he said.
The bill awaits Governor Matt Bevin’s signature. Its provisions include a period of up to 6 months for implementation. Miners who file for benefits before then may still be able to use the current system.
How Much Taxpayer Money Has Scott Walker Wasted Fighting Democracy?
The people of Wisconsin are paying for his desperate attempts to avoid doing his job.
BY CHARLES P. PIERCE - esquire
MAR 29, 2018
Because we are on our way to San Antone—mandatory nod to Bob Wills—we are making only two stops on our tour this week, but both of them are cherce. We begin in Wisconsin, where the desperate attempts of Scott Walker, the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to manage that particular midwest subsidiary, and his pet legislature to subvert both democracy and the duties of Walker’s office have reached the level of what my sainted mother used to call high-sterics.
For the benefit of customers who may have come to tinhorn politicians late, the Republican majorities in the Wisconsin legislature gerrymandered the state so badly that even this Supreme Court gagged on the result. In addition, two seats in the state legislature came open and Walker was required by law to call special elections to fill them. Given the pasting Republicans have taken in similar elections around the country, this did not fill Walker and his pet legislature with either optimism or glee. So, he simply refused to call the elections.
Last week, however, a judge that Walker appointed told him to get the Koch Brothers’ mitts off his puppet strings and call the elections. This occasioned a week of huffing and blowing all throughout the capitol in Madison. The legislature has before it a bill that would eliminate the special elections on the grounds that the Republicans might lose them. (I’m paraphrasing here.) Meanwhile, Walker appealed the previous court’s decision and, on Wednesday, another court in Dane County slapped him down. From The Wisconsin State Journal:
Walker hasn’t argued that he can’t order the elections or that Reynolds was wrong in requiring him to do so, Niess said. Rather, he said, the governor wants to be allowed to delay carrying out “his mandatory, compulsory duty because there are now other reasons that he has brought to the court’s attention.” “But these other reasons don’t change the fact that his duty under the law remains the same,” Niess said. “No court that I’m aware of is at liberty to ignore the law in order to facilitate the Legislature’s consideration of bills that might become law. When and if a legislative bill becomes law it can be brought to the court, and at that time the arguments can be made as to what the effect of that law is on an already pending (order).”
In other words, Walker argued that his pet legislature will pass his blatant power-grab and so the judge should stay the elections until he and the legislature get their chance to destroy them entirely. This argument, while quaint, did not impress the judge.
Walker then threatened to bring the whole matter before the state supreme court, but he chickened out almost instantaneously, largely because an appellate court judge did everything but knock him silly with the gavel. From the State Journal:
Earlier Wednesday, 2nd District Appellate Court Judge Paul F. Reilly dismissed Walker’s argument that the court should allow time for the Legislature to rewrite state law that would effectively block the special elections. Reilly issued the one-page ruling hours after DOJ appealed two Dane County judges’ decisions ordering Walker to call the special elections. “Representative government and the election of our representatives are never ‘unnecessary,’ never a ‘waste of taxpayer resources,’ and the calling of the special elections are as the Governor acknowledges his ‘obligation’ to follow,” Reilly wrote.
Walker had been thumping his tubs for weeks about how “outside forces” were making the good people of Wisconsin pay for special elections that Walker was obligated by law to call. (This is not dissimilar to the argument he made successfully against the campaign to recall him.) Judge Reilly had quite enough of that. Walker finally hollered uncle and scheduled the special elections for June 5. (The bill to do away with them appears to be dead as well.) There was no accounting for all the money the good taxpayers of Wisconsin had to kick into Walker’s attempts to find a legal way not to do his job. They really would rather some people not get to vote. Jesus, these people.
And we conclude, as is our wont, in the great state of Oklahoma, where Blog Official Derelict Gas Station Inspector Friedman of the Plains brings us an illuminating moment from a debate in that state’s legislature regarding education policy. From KFOR-4, Oklahoma’s News:
On Monday, members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives debated a billthat would fund a teacher pay raise through several revenue-raising measures.“Money is not the number one issue,” said Rep. John Bennett. “Maybe if we spanked our kids at home a little better with a paddle, made them mind and be good kids, the teachers wouldn’t have it so hard in the classroom.” On Tuesday, Bennett stood by his words. "I’ve told all my kids' teacher that, ‘If they get out of line, use a paddle on them,'” Bennett said. “If they get out of line after that, call me and I’ll come up and paddle them in front of the whole class because they will not disrespect their elders or teachers in school.” Bennett said bad behavior in schools is costing the state money. “Oh, absolutely,” Bennett said. “It wastes the teachers' time, and money and effort because teachers aren’t supposed to be parents. They’re a role model but not a parent. The parents need to do what they’re supposed to do as parents, put them on the learning foundation and then send them to school. And, then our teachers can do their job, which they do so well, and teach their kids.”
I think Representative Bennett should be at the top of the list of any PTA that classifies its students as enemy combatants.
This is your democracy, America. Cherish it.
For the benefit of customers who may have come to tinhorn politicians late, the Republican majorities in the Wisconsin legislature gerrymandered the state so badly that even this Supreme Court gagged on the result. In addition, two seats in the state legislature came open and Walker was required by law to call special elections to fill them. Given the pasting Republicans have taken in similar elections around the country, this did not fill Walker and his pet legislature with either optimism or glee. So, he simply refused to call the elections.
Last week, however, a judge that Walker appointed told him to get the Koch Brothers’ mitts off his puppet strings and call the elections. This occasioned a week of huffing and blowing all throughout the capitol in Madison. The legislature has before it a bill that would eliminate the special elections on the grounds that the Republicans might lose them. (I’m paraphrasing here.) Meanwhile, Walker appealed the previous court’s decision and, on Wednesday, another court in Dane County slapped him down. From The Wisconsin State Journal:
Walker hasn’t argued that he can’t order the elections or that Reynolds was wrong in requiring him to do so, Niess said. Rather, he said, the governor wants to be allowed to delay carrying out “his mandatory, compulsory duty because there are now other reasons that he has brought to the court’s attention.” “But these other reasons don’t change the fact that his duty under the law remains the same,” Niess said. “No court that I’m aware of is at liberty to ignore the law in order to facilitate the Legislature’s consideration of bills that might become law. When and if a legislative bill becomes law it can be brought to the court, and at that time the arguments can be made as to what the effect of that law is on an already pending (order).”
In other words, Walker argued that his pet legislature will pass his blatant power-grab and so the judge should stay the elections until he and the legislature get their chance to destroy them entirely. This argument, while quaint, did not impress the judge.
Walker then threatened to bring the whole matter before the state supreme court, but he chickened out almost instantaneously, largely because an appellate court judge did everything but knock him silly with the gavel. From the State Journal:
Earlier Wednesday, 2nd District Appellate Court Judge Paul F. Reilly dismissed Walker’s argument that the court should allow time for the Legislature to rewrite state law that would effectively block the special elections. Reilly issued the one-page ruling hours after DOJ appealed two Dane County judges’ decisions ordering Walker to call the special elections. “Representative government and the election of our representatives are never ‘unnecessary,’ never a ‘waste of taxpayer resources,’ and the calling of the special elections are as the Governor acknowledges his ‘obligation’ to follow,” Reilly wrote.
Walker had been thumping his tubs for weeks about how “outside forces” were making the good people of Wisconsin pay for special elections that Walker was obligated by law to call. (This is not dissimilar to the argument he made successfully against the campaign to recall him.) Judge Reilly had quite enough of that. Walker finally hollered uncle and scheduled the special elections for June 5. (The bill to do away with them appears to be dead as well.) There was no accounting for all the money the good taxpayers of Wisconsin had to kick into Walker’s attempts to find a legal way not to do his job. They really would rather some people not get to vote. Jesus, these people.
And we conclude, as is our wont, in the great state of Oklahoma, where Blog Official Derelict Gas Station Inspector Friedman of the Plains brings us an illuminating moment from a debate in that state’s legislature regarding education policy. From KFOR-4, Oklahoma’s News:
On Monday, members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives debated a billthat would fund a teacher pay raise through several revenue-raising measures.“Money is not the number one issue,” said Rep. John Bennett. “Maybe if we spanked our kids at home a little better with a paddle, made them mind and be good kids, the teachers wouldn’t have it so hard in the classroom.” On Tuesday, Bennett stood by his words. "I’ve told all my kids' teacher that, ‘If they get out of line, use a paddle on them,'” Bennett said. “If they get out of line after that, call me and I’ll come up and paddle them in front of the whole class because they will not disrespect their elders or teachers in school.” Bennett said bad behavior in schools is costing the state money. “Oh, absolutely,” Bennett said. “It wastes the teachers' time, and money and effort because teachers aren’t supposed to be parents. They’re a role model but not a parent. The parents need to do what they’re supposed to do as parents, put them on the learning foundation and then send them to school. And, then our teachers can do their job, which they do so well, and teach their kids.”
I think Representative Bennett should be at the top of the list of any PTA that classifies its students as enemy combatants.
This is your democracy, America. Cherish it.
Poll: Majority of Americans say they are not seeing change in paychecks due to tax cuts
BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY - the hill
03/28/18 07:50 AM EDT
A majority of Americans say they are not yet seeing President Trump's tax cuts reflected in their paychecks, according to a new poll.
A CNBC All-America Economic Survey finds 52 percent of respondents say they haven't seen a change.
Just 32 percent of respondents report taking home more money due to the tax cuts, which Trump signed into law late last year.
Of those saying they are taking home more money, 38 percent say the extra pay they receive helps them a "great deal" or a "fair amount."
Forty percent say the extra pay helps "some" or "just a little," and 22 percent report that the extra pay "does not help much at all."
The poll was conducted from March 17 to 20 among 800 Americans. Its margin of error is 3.5 percentage points.
The Treasury Department and IRS released new guidance earlier this year that adjusted the amounts that companies set aside from their employees' paychecks for federal taxes.
Employers were instructed to adopt the new withholding tables by Feb. 15.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said that 90 percent of wage earners would see bigger paychecks due to the guidance.
A CNBC All-America Economic Survey finds 52 percent of respondents say they haven't seen a change.
Just 32 percent of respondents report taking home more money due to the tax cuts, which Trump signed into law late last year.
Of those saying they are taking home more money, 38 percent say the extra pay they receive helps them a "great deal" or a "fair amount."
Forty percent say the extra pay helps "some" or "just a little," and 22 percent report that the extra pay "does not help much at all."
The poll was conducted from March 17 to 20 among 800 Americans. Its margin of error is 3.5 percentage points.
The Treasury Department and IRS released new guidance earlier this year that adjusted the amounts that companies set aside from their employees' paychecks for federal taxes.
Employers were instructed to adopt the new withholding tables by Feb. 15.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said that 90 percent of wage earners would see bigger paychecks due to the guidance.
Five Ways the GOP Is About to Destroy the Lower Class
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
By Robin Marty, Care2 | Op-Ed
truthout
It's not enough for the Republican Party to control most state legislatures, the House, the Senate, the Judiciary and the White House. No, the GOP is ensuring that its time at the top pushes the lower class back down.
Here are five ways the Trump administration plans to hold back the already oppressed.
1. Letting mortgage lenders continue to discriminate in housingRacial discrimination isn't just for gated communities -- often it was bankers themselves who created segregated neighborhoods by denying mortgages to people based on their race. But now, protection against that kind of discrimination is about to be rolled back, thanks to the GOP.
The Washington Post reports:
The Senate is poised to pass a bill this week that would weaken the government's ability to enforce fair-lending requirements, making it easier for community banks to hide discrimination against minority mortgage applicants and harder for regulators to root out predatory lenders.
The mortgage industry says the expanded data requirements are onerous and costly, especially for small lenders. But civil rights and consumer advocates say the information is critical to identifying troubling patterns that warrant further investigation by regulators.
2. Rolling back Dodd-FrankThe removal of reporting requirements for mortgage lenders isn't the only baking industry safety net being dismantled in Congress, either. Large portions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank bipartisan bill meant to curb banking industry abuses are being removed from law -- and with the help of a number of Democrats, too.
That move has incensed Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who attacked rural moderate Democrats for assisting the GOP in giving big banks a blank check. The Atlantic reports:
[T]he Senate bill [exempts] all but the nation's 12 largest institutions from the stiffest regulations and mandatory stress tests. "Give me a break," Warren said in a recent floor speech. "This bill is about goosing the bottom line and executive bonuses at the banks that make up the top one half of 1 percent of banks in this country by size. The very tippy-top. Your local community bank doesn't have a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets."
3. Ending net neutralityNet neutrality regulations are about to hit the garbage can, thanks to the GOP head of the FCC. And that means that internet companies will get to decide how much content you can receive, how much you will pay for that privilege and which companies' content they want to prioritize.
On the bright side, a handful of states are working on local protections that should be able to keep some old rules intact, so that information doesn't just belong to those who have the most money to pay for it.
California is offering up a model of how to fight big communications, with a new bill that could keep current protections in place. The legislation "would prohibit internet providers from blocking or slowing data based on its content or from favoring websites or video streams from companies that pay extra," according to the Associated Press. If California -- home to Silicone Valley -- takes a stand, hopefully the federal government will back down, too.
4. Fostering disorder at the Social Security AgencyWe already know that the GOP wants to dismantle the social safety net. But fewer people may aware that, in the case of Social Security, the Trump administration has already started. The president has yet to appoint a new commissioner for the Social Security Agency, and now that lack of appointment is starting to turn into a crisis.
Without an official head, none of the agency's recommendations or actions have any official authority -- and all can potentially be legally challenged, according to the Washington Post. While that may not be a problem to conservatives, who want the agency abolished eventually anyway, it's a catastrophe to the millions who have used -- or will use -- the service.
5. Gerrymandering everythingOf course, these efforts only work if the GOP doesn't have to worry about voters ousting them from office. That's why their biggest concern right now is ensuring they win the right elections in 2018 and 2020 to stay in charge of redistricting after the next census. Gerrymandered districts gave them power in the first place, despite having less overall voters backing their agendas. Now, Republicans want to get themselves even further embedded. And if that happens, we very well may never shake them loose.
Here are five ways the Trump administration plans to hold back the already oppressed.
1. Letting mortgage lenders continue to discriminate in housingRacial discrimination isn't just for gated communities -- often it was bankers themselves who created segregated neighborhoods by denying mortgages to people based on their race. But now, protection against that kind of discrimination is about to be rolled back, thanks to the GOP.
The Washington Post reports:
The Senate is poised to pass a bill this week that would weaken the government's ability to enforce fair-lending requirements, making it easier for community banks to hide discrimination against minority mortgage applicants and harder for regulators to root out predatory lenders.
The mortgage industry says the expanded data requirements are onerous and costly, especially for small lenders. But civil rights and consumer advocates say the information is critical to identifying troubling patterns that warrant further investigation by regulators.
2. Rolling back Dodd-FrankThe removal of reporting requirements for mortgage lenders isn't the only baking industry safety net being dismantled in Congress, either. Large portions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank bipartisan bill meant to curb banking industry abuses are being removed from law -- and with the help of a number of Democrats, too.
That move has incensed Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who attacked rural moderate Democrats for assisting the GOP in giving big banks a blank check. The Atlantic reports:
[T]he Senate bill [exempts] all but the nation's 12 largest institutions from the stiffest regulations and mandatory stress tests. "Give me a break," Warren said in a recent floor speech. "This bill is about goosing the bottom line and executive bonuses at the banks that make up the top one half of 1 percent of banks in this country by size. The very tippy-top. Your local community bank doesn't have a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets."
3. Ending net neutralityNet neutrality regulations are about to hit the garbage can, thanks to the GOP head of the FCC. And that means that internet companies will get to decide how much content you can receive, how much you will pay for that privilege and which companies' content they want to prioritize.
On the bright side, a handful of states are working on local protections that should be able to keep some old rules intact, so that information doesn't just belong to those who have the most money to pay for it.
California is offering up a model of how to fight big communications, with a new bill that could keep current protections in place. The legislation "would prohibit internet providers from blocking or slowing data based on its content or from favoring websites or video streams from companies that pay extra," according to the Associated Press. If California -- home to Silicone Valley -- takes a stand, hopefully the federal government will back down, too.
4. Fostering disorder at the Social Security AgencyWe already know that the GOP wants to dismantle the social safety net. But fewer people may aware that, in the case of Social Security, the Trump administration has already started. The president has yet to appoint a new commissioner for the Social Security Agency, and now that lack of appointment is starting to turn into a crisis.
Without an official head, none of the agency's recommendations or actions have any official authority -- and all can potentially be legally challenged, according to the Washington Post. While that may not be a problem to conservatives, who want the agency abolished eventually anyway, it's a catastrophe to the millions who have used -- or will use -- the service.
5. Gerrymandering everythingOf course, these efforts only work if the GOP doesn't have to worry about voters ousting them from office. That's why their biggest concern right now is ensuring they win the right elections in 2018 and 2020 to stay in charge of redistricting after the next census. Gerrymandered districts gave them power in the first place, despite having less overall voters backing their agendas. Now, Republicans want to get themselves even further embedded. And if that happens, we very well may never shake them loose.
retired trump voters, congrats!!!
Federal appeals court strikes down Obama rule protecting retirees’ savings
If you liked the Great Recession, you'll love Judge Edith Jones' opinion!
IAN MILLHISER - think progress
MAR 19, 2018, 12:58 PM
In the waning days of the Obama administration, the Labor Department handed down its “fiduciary rule,” which was intended to modernize regulation of investment advisers and protect workers’ retirement savings. Last week, however, a divided panel of a conservative federal appeals court struck down this rule. Both of the judges in the majority are Republicans.
The purpose of the Obama administration’s rule was to prevent widespread self-dealing by the financial industry. When President Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) touted the fiduciary rule in February of 2015, they noted that Americans lose “a combined $17 billion each year through hidden fees and conflicted financial advice,” including advice that steered “investors into financial products that maximize benefits to the advisers or their companies, instead of their clients.” Warren made particular note of the “vacations, cruises, and other perks that retirement professionals…receive for steering their clients into” such investments, creating an incentive to engage in double-dealing with retirees.
Judge Edith Jones’ opinion in Chamber of Commerce v. US Department of Labor rests on an aggressive reading of Supreme Court decisions favoring business groups’ position in this case, and an unusually narrow reading of Supreme Court decisions calling for courts to defer to federal agencies, in order to strike down this fiduciary rule. It also rests on a rather creative reading of a federal law.
Under a federal law known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), certain investment advisers are deemed “fiduciaries,” meaning that they have an unusually strong obligation to act in the best interests of their clients. Though the law in this area is complex, fiduciaries typically face legal sanctions or higher taxes if they steer their clients into investments that benefit the fiduciary. Again, a fiduciary’s duty must be to their client, not to their own bottom line.
ERISA provides that someone qualifies as a fiduciary if they render “investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of” certain investment plans, “or has any authority or responsibility to do so.” Nevertheless, a Labor Department rule promulgated during the Ford administration limits this definition of which advisers qualify as fiduciaries. Specifically, the Ford administration rule provides that an adviser may not count as a fiduciary unless they provide advice “on a regular basis . . . pursuant to a mutual agreement . . . between such person and the plan.”
One problem with this older rule, as Chief Judge Carl Stewart explains in dissent, is it made far more sense in a world where workers typically relied on “pension plans controlled by large employers and professional money managers” to plan for retirement, rather than a modern world of “individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”) and participant-directed plans, such as 401(k)s.” Most workers rarely confer with a financial adviser about their IRA or 401(k)s — indeed, some may only speak to such an adviser at the time of their retirement, when they may make a single financial decision with enormous consequences. These occasionally consulted advisers do not count as fiduciaries under the Ford administration rule, because they do not provide advice “on a regular basis.”
The Obama administration’s rule sought to eliminate this exemption. Under the Obama-era rule, an individual is deemed to be a fiduciary if they are “compensated in connection with a ‘recommendation as to the advisability of’ buying, selling, or managing ‘investment property,’” and their investment advice “is directed ‘to a specific advice recipient . . . regarding the advisability of a particular investment or management decision with respect to’ the recipient’s investment property.” Thus, anyone in the business of giving occasional — or even one-time — financial advice to retiring workers may still count as a fiduciary.
As a legal matter, the Obama Era rule seems to do little more than bring the Labor Department’s regulations in line with the text of ERISA itself. Recall that ERISA provides that someone may qualify as a fiduciary if they offer “investment advice for a fee or other compensation.” Nothing in that statutory text suggests that a fiduciary duty only kicks in after the adviser spends enough time on the phone with a particular client.
Judge Jones’ opinion, for what its worth, does offer a plausible explanation for why the Ford Era rule appears to be at odds with the text of ERISA. Under the common law of trusts, a web of judge-made law that ERISA built upon, fiduciaries were people who had “intimate relationships” with the people whose assets they managed — the sort of relationship where “there was an underlying confidence involved that required scrupulous fidelity and honesty.” This venerable understanding of the word “fiduciary,” according to Judge Jones, is more consistent with a relationship that involves communication “on a regular basis.”
Jones also cites Supreme Court opinions establishing the “settled principle of interpretation that, absent other indication, ‘Congress intends to incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law terms it uses.’” Thus, she argues, her court is obligated to apply the common law definition of the word “fiduciary” to ERISA.
It’s a clever argument, but it runs aground against a serious problem — the word “fiduciary” is defined by the ERISA statute, and it is defined to broadly include an individual who “renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation.” The Supreme Court’s decisions do not lock Congress into following the common law, they simply require the common law to be followed “absent other indication” that Congress intended to depart from it. Here, Congress signaled its intention by defining the word “fiduciary” more expansively than the common law’s definition.
Moreover, to the extent that there is any ambiguity in how ERISA defines the word “fiduciary,” the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council requires courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law.
It should be noted that Judge Jones is a rather notorious figure within the federal judiciary. In one dissenting opinion, Jones claimed that a woman did not experience sexual harassment after she was groped by a supervisor, had co-workers hang used tampons in their lockers, had a co-worker stick his tongue in her ear, and had a co-worker tell her “he would cut off her breast and shove it down her throat.” In another case, Jones joined an opinion holding that a man should be executed despite the fact that his lawyer slept through much of his trial. In a 2001 speech at the University of Texas, Jones claimed that employees claiming employment discrimination should “take a better second job instead of bringing suit.”
It’s also worth noting that, two days before Jones’ opinion came down, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld part of the fiduciary rule. That makes it likely that the Supreme Court will weigh in on this case.
Edith Jones, in other words, is a bit of out an outlier, even in a federal judiciary dominated by conservatives. And it is likely that her court will not be the last one to consider the fiduciary rule. Nevertheless, this case’s next stop is likely to be a Supreme Court that is quite friendly to business interests. There is no guarantee that the fiduciary rule will survive further review, regardless of what ERISA has to say about it.
The purpose of the Obama administration’s rule was to prevent widespread self-dealing by the financial industry. When President Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) touted the fiduciary rule in February of 2015, they noted that Americans lose “a combined $17 billion each year through hidden fees and conflicted financial advice,” including advice that steered “investors into financial products that maximize benefits to the advisers or their companies, instead of their clients.” Warren made particular note of the “vacations, cruises, and other perks that retirement professionals…receive for steering their clients into” such investments, creating an incentive to engage in double-dealing with retirees.
Judge Edith Jones’ opinion in Chamber of Commerce v. US Department of Labor rests on an aggressive reading of Supreme Court decisions favoring business groups’ position in this case, and an unusually narrow reading of Supreme Court decisions calling for courts to defer to federal agencies, in order to strike down this fiduciary rule. It also rests on a rather creative reading of a federal law.
Under a federal law known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), certain investment advisers are deemed “fiduciaries,” meaning that they have an unusually strong obligation to act in the best interests of their clients. Though the law in this area is complex, fiduciaries typically face legal sanctions or higher taxes if they steer their clients into investments that benefit the fiduciary. Again, a fiduciary’s duty must be to their client, not to their own bottom line.
ERISA provides that someone qualifies as a fiduciary if they render “investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of” certain investment plans, “or has any authority or responsibility to do so.” Nevertheless, a Labor Department rule promulgated during the Ford administration limits this definition of which advisers qualify as fiduciaries. Specifically, the Ford administration rule provides that an adviser may not count as a fiduciary unless they provide advice “on a regular basis . . . pursuant to a mutual agreement . . . between such person and the plan.”
One problem with this older rule, as Chief Judge Carl Stewart explains in dissent, is it made far more sense in a world where workers typically relied on “pension plans controlled by large employers and professional money managers” to plan for retirement, rather than a modern world of “individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”) and participant-directed plans, such as 401(k)s.” Most workers rarely confer with a financial adviser about their IRA or 401(k)s — indeed, some may only speak to such an adviser at the time of their retirement, when they may make a single financial decision with enormous consequences. These occasionally consulted advisers do not count as fiduciaries under the Ford administration rule, because they do not provide advice “on a regular basis.”
The Obama administration’s rule sought to eliminate this exemption. Under the Obama-era rule, an individual is deemed to be a fiduciary if they are “compensated in connection with a ‘recommendation as to the advisability of’ buying, selling, or managing ‘investment property,’” and their investment advice “is directed ‘to a specific advice recipient . . . regarding the advisability of a particular investment or management decision with respect to’ the recipient’s investment property.” Thus, anyone in the business of giving occasional — or even one-time — financial advice to retiring workers may still count as a fiduciary.
As a legal matter, the Obama Era rule seems to do little more than bring the Labor Department’s regulations in line with the text of ERISA itself. Recall that ERISA provides that someone may qualify as a fiduciary if they offer “investment advice for a fee or other compensation.” Nothing in that statutory text suggests that a fiduciary duty only kicks in after the adviser spends enough time on the phone with a particular client.
Judge Jones’ opinion, for what its worth, does offer a plausible explanation for why the Ford Era rule appears to be at odds with the text of ERISA. Under the common law of trusts, a web of judge-made law that ERISA built upon, fiduciaries were people who had “intimate relationships” with the people whose assets they managed — the sort of relationship where “there was an underlying confidence involved that required scrupulous fidelity and honesty.” This venerable understanding of the word “fiduciary,” according to Judge Jones, is more consistent with a relationship that involves communication “on a regular basis.”
Jones also cites Supreme Court opinions establishing the “settled principle of interpretation that, absent other indication, ‘Congress intends to incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law terms it uses.’” Thus, she argues, her court is obligated to apply the common law definition of the word “fiduciary” to ERISA.
It’s a clever argument, but it runs aground against a serious problem — the word “fiduciary” is defined by the ERISA statute, and it is defined to broadly include an individual who “renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation.” The Supreme Court’s decisions do not lock Congress into following the common law, they simply require the common law to be followed “absent other indication” that Congress intended to depart from it. Here, Congress signaled its intention by defining the word “fiduciary” more expansively than the common law’s definition.
Moreover, to the extent that there is any ambiguity in how ERISA defines the word “fiduciary,” the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council requires courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law.
It should be noted that Judge Jones is a rather notorious figure within the federal judiciary. In one dissenting opinion, Jones claimed that a woman did not experience sexual harassment after she was groped by a supervisor, had co-workers hang used tampons in their lockers, had a co-worker stick his tongue in her ear, and had a co-worker tell her “he would cut off her breast and shove it down her throat.” In another case, Jones joined an opinion holding that a man should be executed despite the fact that his lawyer slept through much of his trial. In a 2001 speech at the University of Texas, Jones claimed that employees claiming employment discrimination should “take a better second job instead of bringing suit.”
It’s also worth noting that, two days before Jones’ opinion came down, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld part of the fiduciary rule. That makes it likely that the Supreme Court will weigh in on this case.
Edith Jones, in other words, is a bit of out an outlier, even in a federal judiciary dominated by conservatives. And it is likely that her court will not be the last one to consider the fiduciary rule. Nevertheless, this case’s next stop is likely to be a Supreme Court that is quite friendly to business interests. There is no guarantee that the fiduciary rule will survive further review, regardless of what ERISA has to say about it.
‘It’s lunch money’: Blue-collar Trump voters underwhelmed by GOP tax cut
Brad Reed - raw story
07 MAR 2018 AT 10:17 ET
The Republican Party is counting on its massive tax cut to be its saving grace in the 2018 midterm elections — but so far, some of its voters are decidedly underwhelmed.
The New York Times went to Ohio this week to talk with blue-collar voters for their views about the tax cuts the Republican Party passed last year, and many of them said the cuts aren’t adding up to much on their paychecks.
“I have seen a little uptick in my paycheck, about what I expected, about 30 bucks,” said machinist Matt Kazee, who voted for Trump in 2016, of the tax cut. “It felt to me about like where things were 15 years ago.”
Brian Barkalow, a worker at Requarth Lumber, told the Times that he feared paying slightly less in taxes now would only mean paying more in the future.
“He’s pulling out jazz hands and shiny stuff up front and will screw us on the back end,” he explained.
Trump supporter Rob Wright told the Times that, while he’s happy to see extra cash in his paycheck, he isn’t all that enthusiastic about what he’s getting.
“It’s just a little extra money I can count on,” he said. “It’s not going to change my life.”
Wright also said that, for coworkers at his machine shop, the tax cut represents “a couple gallons of milk and loaves of bread to feed their kids.”
And Dan Neff, an employee at a machining and welding shop, said he was glad to have more money, but he wasn’t going to buy a new house with it.
“It’s lunch money,” he said. “Still, it is moving in the right direction.”
The Times’ reporting isn’t the only report that has shown blue-collar voters are not jumping for joy with their new tax cuts.
The National Journal reported earlier this week that the Republican Party is panicking about the upcoming special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district because its tax cut messaging is “barely moving the needle in the district’s working-class confines.”
The New York Times went to Ohio this week to talk with blue-collar voters for their views about the tax cuts the Republican Party passed last year, and many of them said the cuts aren’t adding up to much on their paychecks.
“I have seen a little uptick in my paycheck, about what I expected, about 30 bucks,” said machinist Matt Kazee, who voted for Trump in 2016, of the tax cut. “It felt to me about like where things were 15 years ago.”
Brian Barkalow, a worker at Requarth Lumber, told the Times that he feared paying slightly less in taxes now would only mean paying more in the future.
“He’s pulling out jazz hands and shiny stuff up front and will screw us on the back end,” he explained.
Trump supporter Rob Wright told the Times that, while he’s happy to see extra cash in his paycheck, he isn’t all that enthusiastic about what he’s getting.
“It’s just a little extra money I can count on,” he said. “It’s not going to change my life.”
Wright also said that, for coworkers at his machine shop, the tax cut represents “a couple gallons of milk and loaves of bread to feed their kids.”
And Dan Neff, an employee at a machining and welding shop, said he was glad to have more money, but he wasn’t going to buy a new house with it.
“It’s lunch money,” he said. “Still, it is moving in the right direction.”
The Times’ reporting isn’t the only report that has shown blue-collar voters are not jumping for joy with their new tax cuts.
The National Journal reported earlier this week that the Republican Party is panicking about the upcoming special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district because its tax cut messaging is “barely moving the needle in the district’s working-class confines.”
helped elect the man who FACILITATED his child's murder!!!
‘I’m pissed!’: Trump-supporting dad screams at the president after his daughter was murdered in Parkland
Sarah K. Burris
21 FEB 2018 AT 17:08 ET
President Donald Trump on Wednesday hosted a listening session in the White House with high school students and teachers about safety on campuses following last week’s mass shooting in Florida.
Father Cary Gruber begged the president to do something.
“Please, Mr. President,” he begged. he went on to cite qualifications for weapons in Israel, which mandates significant training and an age requirement at 27. “We gotta do something about this. We can’t have our children die, please.”
Mayor Christine Hunschofsky, of Parkland, Florida, cited an father of a fallen student who works as an airline pilot. He told her that he firmly supports the Second Amendment, however, he doesn’t think there is any reason to have assault rifles.
Another parent of a fallen student told her that the signs missed by the FBI for the shooter reminded him of the signs missed on September 11, 2001.
Another angry father, Andrew Pollack, was spotted wearing a Trump campaign t-shirt in the hours that followed the shooting. At the White House today, he announced that he was not going to sleep until it was fixed. He noted that there are so many places that are protected.
“I’m here because my daughter has no voice,” the father said of his slain daughter. “She was murdered last week and she was taken from us. Shot nine times on the third floor. We as a country failed our children. This shouldn’t happen. We go to the airport, I can’t get on a plane with a bottle of water, but we leave some animal to walk into a school and shoot our children. It is just not right. And we need come together as a country and work on what is important. And that is protecting our children in the schools. That is the only thing that matters right now.”
He went on to explain that stadiums are safe, embassies are safe and he walked into the Department of Education Wednesday only to see a security guard in an elevator.
“How do you think that makes me feel? In the elevator they got a security guard. I’m very angry this happened,” he continued. “Because it keeps happening.”
He went on to say he didn’t care about guns, he just wanted to secure his child’s school.
Father Cary Gruber begged the president to do something.
“Please, Mr. President,” he begged. he went on to cite qualifications for weapons in Israel, which mandates significant training and an age requirement at 27. “We gotta do something about this. We can’t have our children die, please.”
Mayor Christine Hunschofsky, of Parkland, Florida, cited an father of a fallen student who works as an airline pilot. He told her that he firmly supports the Second Amendment, however, he doesn’t think there is any reason to have assault rifles.
Another parent of a fallen student told her that the signs missed by the FBI for the shooter reminded him of the signs missed on September 11, 2001.
Another angry father, Andrew Pollack, was spotted wearing a Trump campaign t-shirt in the hours that followed the shooting. At the White House today, he announced that he was not going to sleep until it was fixed. He noted that there are so many places that are protected.
“I’m here because my daughter has no voice,” the father said of his slain daughter. “She was murdered last week and she was taken from us. Shot nine times on the third floor. We as a country failed our children. This shouldn’t happen. We go to the airport, I can’t get on a plane with a bottle of water, but we leave some animal to walk into a school and shoot our children. It is just not right. And we need come together as a country and work on what is important. And that is protecting our children in the schools. That is the only thing that matters right now.”
He went on to explain that stadiums are safe, embassies are safe and he walked into the Department of Education Wednesday only to see a security guard in an elevator.
“How do you think that makes me feel? In the elevator they got a security guard. I’m very angry this happened,” he continued. “Because it keeps happening.”
He went on to say he didn’t care about guns, he just wanted to secure his child’s school.
Government Cheese? Trump’s Proposed Budget Would Replace Food Stamp Cards with Delivered Food Boxes
By David Love - atlanta black star
February 14, 2018
In a sign of a major cut to the social safety net and an assault on low-income people, the Trump administration wants to decide what food stamp beneficiaries should eat, and proposes the government give them packages of food. Under this proposal, most recipients of SNAP or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — the 80 percent who receive $90 or more in food assistance — would receive a “USDA Foods package.”
The 2019 budget proposal described the box as containing nonperishable items, including “shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables.” The processed food packages would not include fresh fruits and vegetables. This plan is part of a $213 billion or 30 percent proposed reduction in SNAP, which serves 42 million people, including 20 million children, over 10 years, $17 billion in 2019. More than 16 million households would see half of their SNAP benefits go to this food delivery service. A family of four eligible for SNAP must make no more than $31,980 per year, or less than 130 percent of the poverty line.
“USDA America’s Harvest Box is a bold, innovative approach to providing nutritious food to people who need assistance feeding themselves and their families — and all of it is homegrown by American farmers and producers. It maintains the same level of food value as SNAP participants currently receive, provides states flexibility in administering the program, and is responsible to the taxpayers,” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said in a statement. Office and Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney described the food package idea as a “Blue Apron-type program where you actually receive the food instead of receiving the cash. It lowers the cost to us because we can buy prices at wholesale, whereas they have to buy it at retail. It also makes sure that they’re getting nutritious food. So we’re pretty excited about that. That’s a tremendous cost savings.” However, the high-end Blue Apron, unlike the USDA service, includes fresh ingredients such as meat, fish and produce that the customer selects.
Critics have condemned the Trump Harvest Box as inhumane and reminiscent of wartime rations and Great Depression-era soup lines. Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, told NPR the Trump plan would turn a “free market model” to “a far more intrusive, Big Government answer,” adding, “They think a bureaucrat in D.C. is better at picking out what your family needs than you are?”
Congresswoman Barbara Lee also tweeted that she found the proposal “offensive.” “As a single mother who relied on food stamps to help feed my boys, I can’t overstate how offensive this proposal is. Low-income families need more access to fresh produce & healthy foods, not less.”
According to the Food Research and Action Center, the harvest box is “a Rube-Goldberg designed system” that would replace the EBT cards that SNAP recipients use at supermarkets, grocery stores, farmers markets and elsewhere, and would be “costly, inefficient, stigmatizing, and prone to failure.” The nonprofit added that the “mind-boggling hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of cuts and the ill-conceived programmatic distortions, if adopted, will mean much more hunger and poverty, worsened health, decreased ability of children to do well in school, and lower productivity for America.” The group pointed to recent research showing that SNAP is of critical importance in reducing food and economic insecurity, fighting poverty and improving the nation’s health and well-being.
In his 2011 book, “Time to Get Tough,” Trump warned of a “food stamp crime wave,” claiming half of SNAP recipients have been in the program for nearly a decade and attributing this to fraud. In recent years, Fox News has claimed the food stamp program is rife with fraud and waste, while in reality, fraud accounts for merely a penny on the dollar. With its sensationalistic 2013 report called “The Great Food Stamp Binge,” Fox News created a narrative of widespread SNAP abuse.
The gutting of SNAP is but one example of a proposed budget that represents a full assault on the social safety net, with deep cuts to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF (also known as welfare), $72 billion slashed from Social Security disability programs, $302 billion in Medicaid cuts and allowing states to impose work requirements and lifetime limits for Medicaid. The Trump administration hopes to cut $4 billion in federal student aid per year, and eliminate all $40 million in federal funding to a tuition aid program that helps D.C. residents attend college. The income-based loan repayment plans face sharp cuts, subsidized loans and the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program would be eliminated entirely, and federal work study cut in half, with the government likely to more aggressively pursue delinquent student loan borrowers. As the Center for American Progress noted in a memo, this budget also calls for “huge cuts” to federal affordable housing programs, eliminates home heating assistance, and takes housing away from those who cannot find work.
The budget would also eliminate a $2 billion program to increase the quality of teachers and school leaders, a $1.19 billion program for before- and after-school academic improvement centers, $190 million in grants for K-12 literacy instruction, and the $480 million budget for public broadcasting. As the Washington Post suggests, Trump’s slashing and burning of social programs is a classic Reaganesque “starving of the beast” in which Republicans pass an enormous tax cut to the wealthy and corporations — which just took place — causing increased deficits — the most recent tax cut delivers a $1.5 trillion bill — and thereby leaving no option but “savage” cuts to the safety net. This $4.4 trillion budget, which would $7 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, now goes to Congress for further deliberation.
The 2019 budget proposal described the box as containing nonperishable items, including “shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables.” The processed food packages would not include fresh fruits and vegetables. This plan is part of a $213 billion or 30 percent proposed reduction in SNAP, which serves 42 million people, including 20 million children, over 10 years, $17 billion in 2019. More than 16 million households would see half of their SNAP benefits go to this food delivery service. A family of four eligible for SNAP must make no more than $31,980 per year, or less than 130 percent of the poverty line.
“USDA America’s Harvest Box is a bold, innovative approach to providing nutritious food to people who need assistance feeding themselves and their families — and all of it is homegrown by American farmers and producers. It maintains the same level of food value as SNAP participants currently receive, provides states flexibility in administering the program, and is responsible to the taxpayers,” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said in a statement. Office and Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney described the food package idea as a “Blue Apron-type program where you actually receive the food instead of receiving the cash. It lowers the cost to us because we can buy prices at wholesale, whereas they have to buy it at retail. It also makes sure that they’re getting nutritious food. So we’re pretty excited about that. That’s a tremendous cost savings.” However, the high-end Blue Apron, unlike the USDA service, includes fresh ingredients such as meat, fish and produce that the customer selects.
Critics have condemned the Trump Harvest Box as inhumane and reminiscent of wartime rations and Great Depression-era soup lines. Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, told NPR the Trump plan would turn a “free market model” to “a far more intrusive, Big Government answer,” adding, “They think a bureaucrat in D.C. is better at picking out what your family needs than you are?”
Congresswoman Barbara Lee also tweeted that she found the proposal “offensive.” “As a single mother who relied on food stamps to help feed my boys, I can’t overstate how offensive this proposal is. Low-income families need more access to fresh produce & healthy foods, not less.”
According to the Food Research and Action Center, the harvest box is “a Rube-Goldberg designed system” that would replace the EBT cards that SNAP recipients use at supermarkets, grocery stores, farmers markets and elsewhere, and would be “costly, inefficient, stigmatizing, and prone to failure.” The nonprofit added that the “mind-boggling hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of cuts and the ill-conceived programmatic distortions, if adopted, will mean much more hunger and poverty, worsened health, decreased ability of children to do well in school, and lower productivity for America.” The group pointed to recent research showing that SNAP is of critical importance in reducing food and economic insecurity, fighting poverty and improving the nation’s health and well-being.
In his 2011 book, “Time to Get Tough,” Trump warned of a “food stamp crime wave,” claiming half of SNAP recipients have been in the program for nearly a decade and attributing this to fraud. In recent years, Fox News has claimed the food stamp program is rife with fraud and waste, while in reality, fraud accounts for merely a penny on the dollar. With its sensationalistic 2013 report called “The Great Food Stamp Binge,” Fox News created a narrative of widespread SNAP abuse.
The gutting of SNAP is but one example of a proposed budget that represents a full assault on the social safety net, with deep cuts to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF (also known as welfare), $72 billion slashed from Social Security disability programs, $302 billion in Medicaid cuts and allowing states to impose work requirements and lifetime limits for Medicaid. The Trump administration hopes to cut $4 billion in federal student aid per year, and eliminate all $40 million in federal funding to a tuition aid program that helps D.C. residents attend college. The income-based loan repayment plans face sharp cuts, subsidized loans and the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program would be eliminated entirely, and federal work study cut in half, with the government likely to more aggressively pursue delinquent student loan borrowers. As the Center for American Progress noted in a memo, this budget also calls for “huge cuts” to federal affordable housing programs, eliminates home heating assistance, and takes housing away from those who cannot find work.
The budget would also eliminate a $2 billion program to increase the quality of teachers and school leaders, a $1.19 billion program for before- and after-school academic improvement centers, $190 million in grants for K-12 literacy instruction, and the $480 million budget for public broadcasting. As the Washington Post suggests, Trump’s slashing and burning of social programs is a classic Reaganesque “starving of the beast” in which Republicans pass an enormous tax cut to the wealthy and corporations — which just took place — causing increased deficits — the most recent tax cut delivers a $1.5 trillion bill — and thereby leaving no option but “savage” cuts to the safety net. This $4.4 trillion budget, which would $7 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, now goes to Congress for further deliberation.
trump says: let them freeze!!!
Trump Wants To Freeze Poor And Disabled People To Death By Eliminating Low Income Energy Assistance
By Jason Easley - politicus usa
on Mon, Feb 12th, 2018 at 4:20 pm
The Trump budget calls for the elimination of LIHEAP, which is a low-income home energy assistance program that helps 6.7 million Americans stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
Trump’s budget proposed the unnecessary elimination of a program that has seen its funding level stay at $3.39 billion since 2015.
Campaign for Home Energy Assistance director Michael Bracy said, “We are deeply disappointed with today’s recommendation. That being said, our organization and thousands of energy-assistance advocates across the nation will continue to support increased funding to the program. At its current levels, LIHEAP can only serve a small portion of families in need, and we will continue to work with key decision makers to spread awareness of the program’s impact across the nation and raise funding to a commensurate level.”
LIHEAP can literally be a lifesaver. Energy assistance can allow an impoverished person to keep the heat on the winter, or be a path to surviving extreme summer heat by running an air conditioner.
Defunding LIHEAP would be an act of cruelty
There is no good policy reason to defund energy assistance for poor people. Trump and his White House are driven by an ideology of wealth redistribution to the top. The $3.39 billion in funding for LIHEAP could be used to help cover the revenue lost by cutting taxes for the wealthy. There is no reason for this administration to go out of their way to intentionally harm vulnerable people, but harming the vulnerable is a character trait of this administration.
The Trump budget is a warning to seniors and the poor
The Trump budget is not going to pass. It is going to be tossed in the trash can and quickly forgotten by Congress, but the message that it sends in terms of priorities is important. Donald Trump is coming after poor people and those who need the most help. When people discuss electing a Democratic Congress to check Trump, this is an example of what they are referring to.
Democrats won’t let poor people boil or freeze because they can’t afford heat or air conditioning.
A Democratic Congress will kill these bad ideas dead in their tracks, and the Trump budget should give voters ample reason to get to the polls and make sure that Trump’s vision of an American nightmare can’t become their reality.
Trump’s budget proposed the unnecessary elimination of a program that has seen its funding level stay at $3.39 billion since 2015.
Campaign for Home Energy Assistance director Michael Bracy said, “We are deeply disappointed with today’s recommendation. That being said, our organization and thousands of energy-assistance advocates across the nation will continue to support increased funding to the program. At its current levels, LIHEAP can only serve a small portion of families in need, and we will continue to work with key decision makers to spread awareness of the program’s impact across the nation and raise funding to a commensurate level.”
LIHEAP can literally be a lifesaver. Energy assistance can allow an impoverished person to keep the heat on the winter, or be a path to surviving extreme summer heat by running an air conditioner.
Defunding LIHEAP would be an act of cruelty
There is no good policy reason to defund energy assistance for poor people. Trump and his White House are driven by an ideology of wealth redistribution to the top. The $3.39 billion in funding for LIHEAP could be used to help cover the revenue lost by cutting taxes for the wealthy. There is no reason for this administration to go out of their way to intentionally harm vulnerable people, but harming the vulnerable is a character trait of this administration.
The Trump budget is a warning to seniors and the poor
The Trump budget is not going to pass. It is going to be tossed in the trash can and quickly forgotten by Congress, but the message that it sends in terms of priorities is important. Donald Trump is coming after poor people and those who need the most help. When people discuss electing a Democratic Congress to check Trump, this is an example of what they are referring to.
Democrats won’t let poor people boil or freeze because they can’t afford heat or air conditioning.
A Democratic Congress will kill these bad ideas dead in their tracks, and the Trump budget should give voters ample reason to get to the polls and make sure that Trump’s vision of an American nightmare can’t become their reality.
congrats, trump voters!!!
The 22 agencies and programs Trump's budget would eliminate
BY BRETT SAMUELS - the hill
February 12, 2018 - 01:28 PM EST
Pr*sident Trump on Monday unveiled his budget proposal for the 2019 fiscal year, which makes significant cuts to some federal agencies and projects as part of an effort to slash the federal deficit by $3 trillion over the next 10 years.
As part of that effort, Trump has proposed eliminating funding for several agencies, grant programs and institutes.
While lawmakers are unlikely to enact most of Trump's proposal, here's a look at some of the centers and agencies the White House wants to abolish.
1. The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education, which donates agricultural commodities and financial assistance to carry out school feeding programs in foreign countries.
2. The Rural Business and Cooperative Service, which provides loans, grants and payments intended to increase opportunities in rural communities.
3. The Economic Development Administration, which provides federal grants to communities in support of locally-developed economic plans.
4. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which subsidizes advisory and consulting services for small and medium-size manufacturers.
5. 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which helps communities establish or expand centers to provide before- and after-school programs and summer school programs.
6. Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, an Education Department program that provides grants to support college preparation for low-income students.
7. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which researches ways to enhance the effectiveness of health services.
8. The Advanced Research Projects Agency, which provides support for Energy Department projects.
9. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund, which compensates communities for lost tax revenue when the federal government acquires their land.
10. The Global Climate Change Initiative, a proposal that reflects Trump's decision last year to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
11. The NASA Office of Education, which provides grants to colleges and universities, museums and science centers. The funding would be redirected within NASA.
12. The Chemical Safety Board, which is tasked with investigating accidents at chemical facilities.
13. The Corporation for National and Community Service, which funds service opportunities, promotes volunteering and helps nonprofit organizations find volunteers.
14. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds public television and radio stations including Public Broadcasting Service and NPR.
15. The Institute of Museum and Library Services, which funds museums and libraries nationwide with grants.
16. The Legal Services Corporation, a nonprofit that provides civil legal assistance for low-income individuals.
17. The National Endowment for the Arts, which funds American artists and projects with grants.
18. The National Endowment for the Humanities, which provides grants to American humanities scholars.
19. The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which funds community development projects nationwide.
20. The Denali Commission, the Delta Regional Authority and the Northern Border Regional Commission, which fund infrastructure and economic projects in specified areas.
21. The U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which provides U.S. goods and services for foreign projects.
22. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a think tank focused on international affairs and foreign policy.
As part of that effort, Trump has proposed eliminating funding for several agencies, grant programs and institutes.
While lawmakers are unlikely to enact most of Trump's proposal, here's a look at some of the centers and agencies the White House wants to abolish.
1. The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education, which donates agricultural commodities and financial assistance to carry out school feeding programs in foreign countries.
2. The Rural Business and Cooperative Service, which provides loans, grants and payments intended to increase opportunities in rural communities.
3. The Economic Development Administration, which provides federal grants to communities in support of locally-developed economic plans.
4. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which subsidizes advisory and consulting services for small and medium-size manufacturers.
5. 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which helps communities establish or expand centers to provide before- and after-school programs and summer school programs.
6. Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, an Education Department program that provides grants to support college preparation for low-income students.
7. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which researches ways to enhance the effectiveness of health services.
8. The Advanced Research Projects Agency, which provides support for Energy Department projects.
9. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund, which compensates communities for lost tax revenue when the federal government acquires their land.
10. The Global Climate Change Initiative, a proposal that reflects Trump's decision last year to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
11. The NASA Office of Education, which provides grants to colleges and universities, museums and science centers. The funding would be redirected within NASA.
12. The Chemical Safety Board, which is tasked with investigating accidents at chemical facilities.
13. The Corporation for National and Community Service, which funds service opportunities, promotes volunteering and helps nonprofit organizations find volunteers.
14. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds public television and radio stations including Public Broadcasting Service and NPR.
15. The Institute of Museum and Library Services, which funds museums and libraries nationwide with grants.
16. The Legal Services Corporation, a nonprofit that provides civil legal assistance for low-income individuals.
17. The National Endowment for the Arts, which funds American artists and projects with grants.
18. The National Endowment for the Humanities, which provides grants to American humanities scholars.
19. The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which funds community development projects nationwide.
20. The Denali Commission, the Delta Regional Authority and the Northern Border Regional Commission, which fund infrastructure and economic projects in specified areas.
21. The U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which provides U.S. goods and services for foreign projects.
22. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a think tank focused on international affairs and foreign policy.
Republicans have devised a new sinister way to cut Social Security
Liz Posner, AlterNet- raw story
10 FEB 2018 AT 07:47 ET
They’re a cunning lot, these elected Republican officials. In their latest plot to revoke the fundamental benefits that have saved millions of seniors from falling into poverty, Republicans are now looking for ways to bribe Americans into forgoing their government-guaranteed retirement security.
Case in point: Ivanka Trump and Marco Rubio recently unveiled their plan to provide parental leave to Americans who choose to postpone retirement age and forgo Social Security payments. It’s a clear attempt to chip away at Social Security, a long-standing target of the GOP.
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, expressed dismay with the plan, saying, “It’s well past time for our country to join the rest of the world in providing workers with paid family and medical leave. But we should not undermine our retirement security to achieve it.”
This isn’t the first time Republicans have suggested Americans cut into their future Social Security benefits to pay for immediate needs. Rep. Tom Garrett’s similarly ridiculous proposal to “solve” the student debt crisis would allow young people struggling with college loan debt to stall their Social Security benefits until later on in life in exchange for loan forgiveness.
Progressives were outraged when Garrett announced his plan. Melissa Byrne, a former Bernie Sanders staffer and candidate for DNC vice-chair, told AlterNet, “Rep. Garrett’s plan is simply a fancy fraud on young people trying to start their lives….Social Security is a promise and no one should be able to limit that promise.”
The Garrett plan and the Ivanka-Rubio scheme are clearly linked. Social Security advocates have noticed that while Republicans are perfectly happy to continue direct attacks on Medicare, they’ve learned that Social Security will be much harder to dismantle, given its popularity. But that doesn’t mean they’re giving up their crusade. They’ve just found a new strategy: manipulating people into giving up their benefits in exchange for basic rights they should already have as workers.
Altman echoes this in a statement for AlterNet: “Proposing to cut an individual’s Social Security in exchange for other benefits is a new tactic in the ongoing Republican war on Social Security. Since the program is too popular for them to directly cut or privatize, they apparently are now testing a strategy of forcing people to choose between important economic needs. This involves treating Social Security like a piggy bank rather than the insurance that it is. The reality is that Americans should be able to educate themselves without incurring debt, take paid leave to care for children, and have a secure, adequate source of retirement income after a lifetime of contributing.”
Conservatives have openly admitted this change of tactic in their war against Social Security.
Carrie Lukas, who works for the Independent Women’s Forum, the Koch brothers-funded think tank that published the Ivanka-Rubio parental leave plan, recently wrote in an article for the Federalist that the plan is a first step toward privatizing Social Security. In her defense of the Ivanka-Rubio plan, she writes: “Encouraging people to think about Social Security’s assets as if those benefits are their property for use now or at retirement could even encourage people to want to move more in that direction and transform the current pay-as-you-go system into one that pre-funds future benefits and with assets that belong to individuals.”
The Johnson bill, a more traditional package of Republican Social Security cuts, was introduced in late 2016, but hasn’t made progress toward a vote. According to Social Security Works, this could be the reason the GOP is now experimenting with these dangerous new backdoor approaches. But a cut is a cut—don’t be fooled. There’s nothing generous or even fair about asking Americans to sacrifice their future security for the right to start a family or a career free of the burden of debt.
Case in point: Ivanka Trump and Marco Rubio recently unveiled their plan to provide parental leave to Americans who choose to postpone retirement age and forgo Social Security payments. It’s a clear attempt to chip away at Social Security, a long-standing target of the GOP.
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, expressed dismay with the plan, saying, “It’s well past time for our country to join the rest of the world in providing workers with paid family and medical leave. But we should not undermine our retirement security to achieve it.”
This isn’t the first time Republicans have suggested Americans cut into their future Social Security benefits to pay for immediate needs. Rep. Tom Garrett’s similarly ridiculous proposal to “solve” the student debt crisis would allow young people struggling with college loan debt to stall their Social Security benefits until later on in life in exchange for loan forgiveness.
Progressives were outraged when Garrett announced his plan. Melissa Byrne, a former Bernie Sanders staffer and candidate for DNC vice-chair, told AlterNet, “Rep. Garrett’s plan is simply a fancy fraud on young people trying to start their lives….Social Security is a promise and no one should be able to limit that promise.”
The Garrett plan and the Ivanka-Rubio scheme are clearly linked. Social Security advocates have noticed that while Republicans are perfectly happy to continue direct attacks on Medicare, they’ve learned that Social Security will be much harder to dismantle, given its popularity. But that doesn’t mean they’re giving up their crusade. They’ve just found a new strategy: manipulating people into giving up their benefits in exchange for basic rights they should already have as workers.
Altman echoes this in a statement for AlterNet: “Proposing to cut an individual’s Social Security in exchange for other benefits is a new tactic in the ongoing Republican war on Social Security. Since the program is too popular for them to directly cut or privatize, they apparently are now testing a strategy of forcing people to choose between important economic needs. This involves treating Social Security like a piggy bank rather than the insurance that it is. The reality is that Americans should be able to educate themselves without incurring debt, take paid leave to care for children, and have a secure, adequate source of retirement income after a lifetime of contributing.”
Conservatives have openly admitted this change of tactic in their war against Social Security.
Carrie Lukas, who works for the Independent Women’s Forum, the Koch brothers-funded think tank that published the Ivanka-Rubio parental leave plan, recently wrote in an article for the Federalist that the plan is a first step toward privatizing Social Security. In her defense of the Ivanka-Rubio plan, she writes: “Encouraging people to think about Social Security’s assets as if those benefits are their property for use now or at retirement could even encourage people to want to move more in that direction and transform the current pay-as-you-go system into one that pre-funds future benefits and with assets that belong to individuals.”
The Johnson bill, a more traditional package of Republican Social Security cuts, was introduced in late 2016, but hasn’t made progress toward a vote. According to Social Security Works, this could be the reason the GOP is now experimenting with these dangerous new backdoor approaches. But a cut is a cut—don’t be fooled. There’s nothing generous or even fair about asking Americans to sacrifice their future security for the right to start a family or a career free of the burden of debt.
payback funnies
|
|
what you see is what you get!!!
your share, idiot!!!!
