TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Payback
Dedicated to the Fools, Racists, and Ignorant
People who vote for the GOP and trump or don't vote because they claim it is not important
june 20, 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!!
*'MORALLY BANKRUPT': AFTER TAX CUTS FOR RICHEST, HOUSE GOP UNVEILS $5.4 TRILLION ATTACK ON NATION'S SAFETY NET(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Workplace Deaths Are Rising. Trump-Era Budget Cuts Could Make It Worse.
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*US farmers stressed, angry at trade wars
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Food aid curbs sought by Republicans would hit rural poor
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Republicans Wage A Guerrilla War On Your Healthcare
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Baltimore to lose dozens of skilled immigrant teachers, thanks to Trump’s crackdown on H-1B visas(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Cruelty Is a Pre-Existing Condition
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Michigan’s Governor Is About to Sign A Bill Kicking Families Like Mine Off Medicaid
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Obamacare premiums set to soar in 2019
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Carson's housing plan would raise rents for poor by 20%, analysis shows
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump to bail out coal industry by raising U.S. electricity rates, especially on his voters(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump eases firing of federal workers, cracks down on unions
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Medicaid work requirements would worsen South's health care crisis
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump’s VA Strips Protection From Workers’ Contract
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump gets the go-ahead to strip money from Children's Health Insurance Program
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*China nearly triples purchases of Russian soybeans as US farmers suffer over Trump’s trade war(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Japan plans $400m hit on US goods in response to Trump tariffs
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*VOTERS IN TRUMP STATES GET A TASTE OF HOW GREAT HE'S MAKING AMERICA FOR THEM
(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 Monday, June 04, 2018 at 2:33:58PM CT,
The Current ReaganBush Debt is:
$13,343,085,327,153.70
which means that in a total of 20 years,
these three presidents have led to the creation of
91.62%
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
to non-voters: both parties are the same, right???
'Morally Bankrupt': After Tax Cuts for Richest, House GOP Unveils $5.4 Trillion Attack on Nation's Safety Net
The Republican budget's "extreme cuts to healthcare, retirement security, anti-poverty programs, education, infrastructure, and other critical investments are real and will inflict serious harm on American families."
by Jake Johnson, staff writer
Published on
Tuesday, June 19, 2018 by Common Dreams
With the nation's attention rightly fixated on President Donald Trump's horrific treatment of immigrant children, House Republicans on Tuesday quietly unveiled their 2019 budget proposal that calls for $537 billion in cuts to Medicare, $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, and four billion in cuts to Social Security over the next decade in an effort to pay for their deficit-exploding tax cuts for the wealthy.
"It's morally bankrupt, patently absurd, and grossly un-American," the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires said of the GOP's budget proposal, which calls for $5.4 trillion in spending cuts from major domestic programs.
Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), argued in a statement that the Republican proposal demonstrates clearly shows the "House majority's fiscal priorities haven't changed."
"It’s easy to become numb to the harshness of these budgets and to brush aside their policy implications based on the assumption (likely correct) that few, if any, of these policies will be enacted this year," Greenstein said. "But this budget reflects where many congressional leaders—and the president—would like to take the country if they get the opportunity to enact these measures in the years ahead. Rather than help more families have a shot at the American dream, it asks the most from those who have the least, and it would leave our nation less prepared for the economic and other challenges that lie ahead."
Progressives have been warning for months about the GOP's plan to axe crucial safety net programs following the passage of its deeply unpopular $1.5 trillion tax bill, which has sparked a boom of corporate stock buybacks while doing little to nothing for most American workers.
"Each GOP budget is more fraudulent than the last," Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote on Tuesday. "We know what they stand for: tax cuts paid for with healthcare cuts."
In addition to proposing devastating safety net cuts, the House GOP budget also calls for partial privatization of Medicare and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a move that would throw tens of millions off their health insurance.
"The 2019 Republican budget scraps any sense of responsibility to the American people and any obligation to being honest," Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the ranking member on the House Budget committee, said in a statement on Tuesday. "Its repeal of the Affordable Care Act and extreme cuts to healthcare, retirement security, anti-poverty programs, education, infrastructure, and other critical investments are real and will inflict serious harm on American families."
"It's morally bankrupt, patently absurd, and grossly un-American," the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires said of the GOP's budget proposal, which calls for $5.4 trillion in spending cuts from major domestic programs.
Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), argued in a statement that the Republican proposal demonstrates clearly shows the "House majority's fiscal priorities haven't changed."
"It’s easy to become numb to the harshness of these budgets and to brush aside their policy implications based on the assumption (likely correct) that few, if any, of these policies will be enacted this year," Greenstein said. "But this budget reflects where many congressional leaders—and the president—would like to take the country if they get the opportunity to enact these measures in the years ahead. Rather than help more families have a shot at the American dream, it asks the most from those who have the least, and it would leave our nation less prepared for the economic and other challenges that lie ahead."
Progressives have been warning for months about the GOP's plan to axe crucial safety net programs following the passage of its deeply unpopular $1.5 trillion tax bill, which has sparked a boom of corporate stock buybacks while doing little to nothing for most American workers.
"Each GOP budget is more fraudulent than the last," Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote on Tuesday. "We know what they stand for: tax cuts paid for with healthcare cuts."
In addition to proposing devastating safety net cuts, the House GOP budget also calls for partial privatization of Medicare and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a move that would throw tens of millions off their health insurance.
"The 2019 Republican budget scraps any sense of responsibility to the American people and any obligation to being honest," Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the ranking member on the House Budget committee, said in a statement on Tuesday. "Its repeal of the Affordable Care Act and extreme cuts to healthcare, retirement security, anti-poverty programs, education, infrastructure, and other critical investments are real and will inflict serious harm on American families."
Workplace Deaths Are Rising. Trump-Era Budget Cuts Could Make It Worse.
BY BRUCE VAIL in these times
MONDAY, JUN 18, 2018, 5:52 PM
In an alarming development in the world of workplace safety, the latest statistics reveal that the number of accidental deaths on the job in America is on the rise, reversing the longer-term trend toward fewer fatal incidents.
The number of deaths hit a total of 5,190 in 2016, up from 4,836 in 2015, according to an April 2018 report by the AFL-CIO. That’s about 14 deaths each day from preventable worker accidents. It’s also the third year in a row that the number has inched up, and the highest death rate since 2010, the labor federation reported.
Workplace safety systems are “definitely in the failure mode,” says Peter Dooley, a consultant with the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health who was worked closely with labor unions over the years. “In the last two years it is getting dramatically worse. It’s just outrageous.”
The precise reasons for the rise are not simply stated, adds Peg Seminario, AFL-CIO’s long-time director of occupational safety and health. Overall patterns such as very high rates of injury in the logging and construction industries are consistent over time, she says, and there is no single employment trend that accounts for the recent rise. “The numbers are actually down in construction, but they are up almost everywhere else,” she says.
Inadequate enforcement of existing safety rules is the most commonly cited explanation for the rise, Seminario tells In These Times. A Jan. 8 report from NBC News estimates that the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) employs only about 1,000 inspectors to cover all workplaces in America—and that the number of inspectors has declined four percent since President Donald Trump took office. The number of inspectors is far too low to be effective, Seminario suggests, and OSHA has been “under resourced” for years, including during the Obama administration years.
“Construction is a good example. OSHA has a big focus on construction and construction deaths are down. The areas where OSHA has less interest are up,” she says
The figures cited by Seminario and Dooley are taken from the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries published annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The way the figures are compiled is a problem in itself, Dooley says, because it zealously protects the anonymity of employers. That diverts attention from specific workplace behavior that needs close examination and corrective action to reduce accidental deaths over time, he says.
The National Council’s answer to this problem is to publish its own “Dirty Dozen” list of employers notable for health and safety problems among their workforces. The Council uses a standard of measurement that includes non-fatal injuries and other factors, but the list stands out in that it names some very well-known companies. For example, the online retailer Amazon is on the list because it has seen seven of its warehouse workers killed since 2013. Lowe’s Home Improvement operations have seen a total of 56 deaths associated with paint stripping chemicals. And the largest garbage disposal company in the United States, Waste Management, has had an excessive number of OSHA citations and fines. Other companies on the list are Tesla Motors and Dine Brands Global (owner of IHOP and Applebee’s restaurants).
“There is injustice in the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a totally anonymous database. There is no public record of who is dying and who the employers are,” Dooley says. The information actually does exist deep in the Labor Department files, he adds, but government policy is to keep this information out of public hands, or for use by safety experts. “This needs to be changed,” he says.
Seminario and Dooley agree that the worker safety signals coming from the Trump administration are troubling, even if the statistics are not up-to-date enough to make a direct link to increased workplace deaths. Trump’s budget proposal last year called for a 21 percent cut in Department of Labor spending, and the initial proposal for this year call for a 9 percent cut. Congress pared back last year’s proposed cut, and is expected to do so again this year, but it is clear that current Labor Department officials have no plans to take the initiative against the rise in workplace deaths, Dooley charges.
In issuing its report, the AFL-CIO noted: “The Trump administration has moved to weaken recently issued rules on beryllium and mine examinations and has delayed or abandoned the development of new protections, including regulations on workplace violence, infectious diseases, silica in mining and combustible dust.”
“At the same time, Congress is pushing forward with numerous ‘regulatory reform’ bills that would require review and culling of existing rules, make costs the primary consideration in adopting regulations, and making it virtually impossible to issue new protections.”
The reference to workplace violence represents one of the most troubling statistics buried in the government reports. According to a press release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Workplace homicides increased by 83 cases to 500 in 2016, and workplace suicides increased by 62 to 291. This is the highest homicide figure since 2010 and the most suicides since the National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries began reporting data in 1992.”
“It’s a very complicated problem,” observes Seminario. “You can devise safety regulations to avoid common and predictable accidents. But how do you do that with a homicide?”
The number of deaths hit a total of 5,190 in 2016, up from 4,836 in 2015, according to an April 2018 report by the AFL-CIO. That’s about 14 deaths each day from preventable worker accidents. It’s also the third year in a row that the number has inched up, and the highest death rate since 2010, the labor federation reported.
Workplace safety systems are “definitely in the failure mode,” says Peter Dooley, a consultant with the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health who was worked closely with labor unions over the years. “In the last two years it is getting dramatically worse. It’s just outrageous.”
The precise reasons for the rise are not simply stated, adds Peg Seminario, AFL-CIO’s long-time director of occupational safety and health. Overall patterns such as very high rates of injury in the logging and construction industries are consistent over time, she says, and there is no single employment trend that accounts for the recent rise. “The numbers are actually down in construction, but they are up almost everywhere else,” she says.
Inadequate enforcement of existing safety rules is the most commonly cited explanation for the rise, Seminario tells In These Times. A Jan. 8 report from NBC News estimates that the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) employs only about 1,000 inspectors to cover all workplaces in America—and that the number of inspectors has declined four percent since President Donald Trump took office. The number of inspectors is far too low to be effective, Seminario suggests, and OSHA has been “under resourced” for years, including during the Obama administration years.
“Construction is a good example. OSHA has a big focus on construction and construction deaths are down. The areas where OSHA has less interest are up,” she says
The figures cited by Seminario and Dooley are taken from the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries published annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The way the figures are compiled is a problem in itself, Dooley says, because it zealously protects the anonymity of employers. That diverts attention from specific workplace behavior that needs close examination and corrective action to reduce accidental deaths over time, he says.
The National Council’s answer to this problem is to publish its own “Dirty Dozen” list of employers notable for health and safety problems among their workforces. The Council uses a standard of measurement that includes non-fatal injuries and other factors, but the list stands out in that it names some very well-known companies. For example, the online retailer Amazon is on the list because it has seen seven of its warehouse workers killed since 2013. Lowe’s Home Improvement operations have seen a total of 56 deaths associated with paint stripping chemicals. And the largest garbage disposal company in the United States, Waste Management, has had an excessive number of OSHA citations and fines. Other companies on the list are Tesla Motors and Dine Brands Global (owner of IHOP and Applebee’s restaurants).
“There is injustice in the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a totally anonymous database. There is no public record of who is dying and who the employers are,” Dooley says. The information actually does exist deep in the Labor Department files, he adds, but government policy is to keep this information out of public hands, or for use by safety experts. “This needs to be changed,” he says.
Seminario and Dooley agree that the worker safety signals coming from the Trump administration are troubling, even if the statistics are not up-to-date enough to make a direct link to increased workplace deaths. Trump’s budget proposal last year called for a 21 percent cut in Department of Labor spending, and the initial proposal for this year call for a 9 percent cut. Congress pared back last year’s proposed cut, and is expected to do so again this year, but it is clear that current Labor Department officials have no plans to take the initiative against the rise in workplace deaths, Dooley charges.
In issuing its report, the AFL-CIO noted: “The Trump administration has moved to weaken recently issued rules on beryllium and mine examinations and has delayed or abandoned the development of new protections, including regulations on workplace violence, infectious diseases, silica in mining and combustible dust.”
“At the same time, Congress is pushing forward with numerous ‘regulatory reform’ bills that would require review and culling of existing rules, make costs the primary consideration in adopting regulations, and making it virtually impossible to issue new protections.”
The reference to workplace violence represents one of the most troubling statistics buried in the government reports. According to a press release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Workplace homicides increased by 83 cases to 500 in 2016, and workplace suicides increased by 62 to 291. This is the highest homicide figure since 2010 and the most suicides since the National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries began reporting data in 1992.”
“It’s a very complicated problem,” observes Seminario. “You can devise safety regulations to avoid common and predictable accidents. But how do you do that with a homicide?”
US farmers stressed, angry at trade wars
the business times
SAT, JUN 16, 2018 - 10:33 AM
[NEW YORK] US farmers find themselves in the crosshairs of a trade war with China and others launched by President Donald Trump, who was elected with the support of many in rural America.
On Friday, Mr Trump announced long-threatened trade tariffs on tens of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods, sparking an immediate retaliation from Beijing on an equivalent of US products including agricultural goods, notably soy.
"For American farmers, this isn't theoretical anymore, it's downright scary," the Farmers for Free Trade lobbying group said of the prospects for escalating tariffs.
"It's no longer a negotiating tactic, it's a tax on their livelihoods."
China is the largest buyer of soy beans, buying US$12 billion in 2017, about 30 per cent of the US harvest.
"We were already in a depressed market. These trade uncertainties add a lot of stress to this situation," said Jamie Beyer, a farmer in Wheaton, Minnesota who grows soybean, corn, sugar beets, wheat and alfalfa.
"We feel these tariffs are very damaging to our agricultural economy."
Farmers are the most at risk in this trade battle, as their incomes already were falling, declining by around 50 per cent since 2013, and this year expected to reach the lowest level since 2006.
EASY TARGET
The sector already was shaken up by the difficult negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) with Canada and Mexico, two major importers of agricultural products.
On her family farm in Oklahoma, Hope Pjesky raises cattle and grows winter wheat, and says she is "very nervous" about recent developments.
"Unfortunately, agriculture seems to be the industry that they hit back on when there is retaliation. I just wish there were a better way to go about addressing that issue," she said.
That is according to plan, since US trading partners have singled out American products from states strongly supportive of Mr Trump, in hopes of increasing the pressure on him to reconsider.
But Ms Pjesky noted that "there are a lot of people who voted for him that still have faith that it is just going to end up well."
It is difficult to quantify the precise cost of Chinese sanctions, but Missouri corn and soybean farmer Blake Hurst said he already is seeing an impact on prices.
The weather remains the main factor influencing the price of corn, wheat, soybeans and cotton, but the threat of renewed tensions between Beijing and Washington hit the market hard this week and the soybean price fell by more than six per cent.
"It will affect our profitability" and cut the number of acres cultivated, he said.
TRUMP SUPPORT
Roger Johnson, who leads the country's second largest agricultural union, the National Farmers Union, said the group supports the White House goal of reducing the US trade deficit.
"But our organisation grows increasingly concerned that this administration does not have a plan to ensure family farmers and ranchers aren't thrown under the bus for the sake of these goals," he said.
Even so, few blame Mr Trump directly.
Mr Hurst said many in Missouri are still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
But, he cautioned, "if we don't see any success, then patience will wear thin."
On Friday, Mr Trump announced long-threatened trade tariffs on tens of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods, sparking an immediate retaliation from Beijing on an equivalent of US products including agricultural goods, notably soy.
"For American farmers, this isn't theoretical anymore, it's downright scary," the Farmers for Free Trade lobbying group said of the prospects for escalating tariffs.
"It's no longer a negotiating tactic, it's a tax on their livelihoods."
China is the largest buyer of soy beans, buying US$12 billion in 2017, about 30 per cent of the US harvest.
"We were already in a depressed market. These trade uncertainties add a lot of stress to this situation," said Jamie Beyer, a farmer in Wheaton, Minnesota who grows soybean, corn, sugar beets, wheat and alfalfa.
"We feel these tariffs are very damaging to our agricultural economy."
Farmers are the most at risk in this trade battle, as their incomes already were falling, declining by around 50 per cent since 2013, and this year expected to reach the lowest level since 2006.
EASY TARGET
The sector already was shaken up by the difficult negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) with Canada and Mexico, two major importers of agricultural products.
On her family farm in Oklahoma, Hope Pjesky raises cattle and grows winter wheat, and says she is "very nervous" about recent developments.
"Unfortunately, agriculture seems to be the industry that they hit back on when there is retaliation. I just wish there were a better way to go about addressing that issue," she said.
That is according to plan, since US trading partners have singled out American products from states strongly supportive of Mr Trump, in hopes of increasing the pressure on him to reconsider.
But Ms Pjesky noted that "there are a lot of people who voted for him that still have faith that it is just going to end up well."
It is difficult to quantify the precise cost of Chinese sanctions, but Missouri corn and soybean farmer Blake Hurst said he already is seeing an impact on prices.
The weather remains the main factor influencing the price of corn, wheat, soybeans and cotton, but the threat of renewed tensions between Beijing and Washington hit the market hard this week and the soybean price fell by more than six per cent.
"It will affect our profitability" and cut the number of acres cultivated, he said.
TRUMP SUPPORT
Roger Johnson, who leads the country's second largest agricultural union, the National Farmers Union, said the group supports the White House goal of reducing the US trade deficit.
"But our organisation grows increasingly concerned that this administration does not have a plan to ensure family farmers and ranchers aren't thrown under the bus for the sake of these goals," he said.
Even so, few blame Mr Trump directly.
Mr Hurst said many in Missouri are still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
But, he cautioned, "if we don't see any success, then patience will wear thin."
Food aid curbs sought by Republicans would hit rural poor
Amanda Becker - reuters
6/15/18
WEBSTER COUNTY, W.Va. (Reuters) - Bruce Green’s family of six scratches out a living in this remote, politically conservative corner of the Appalachian Mountains thanks in part to about $600 a month in U.S. food aid.
For the Greens and other rural Americans who get nutrition assistance, making ends meet could get tougher if Republicans in Washington, including President Donald Trump, carry out plans to make it harder to qualify for food aid.
“If I lose even $100 of that, it would be devastating,” said Green, 35, a registered independent voter who said he “leans conservative.” He earns $23,000 annually as a county appraiser. Green’s wife Barbara stays home with their four children.
A Republican plan to curb food aid is under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives as part of a broad farm bill. Its future is uncertain, with Democrats opposed to it. A farm bill in the U.S. Senate proposes no major food aid changes.
The House plan is an initial step in a welfare-cutting push by Republicans that could play out for years if the party keeps control of Congress in November’s midterm election. Should it become law, about 1.2 million fewer individuals would receive benefits monthly by 2028, nonpartisan congressional budget analysts estimated.
After approving tax cuts in December that are projected to add $1.9 trillion to the U.S. debt over a decade, Republicans, led by Trump, want to trim the social safety net. That includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps.
SNAP helps feed more than 40 million Americans each month by supplying recipients with debit cards good only for food purchases. That is 12 percent of the total U.S. population. Republicans say an improving economy means fewer Americans need help from SNAP.
---
RURAL, WHITE, SNAP-DEPENDENT
Webster County is part of a demographic that is rural, white, SNAP-dependent and increasingly Republican. Trump won 77 percent of the county’s votes.
But residents say they have seen no economic upturn. Unemployment this year has been as high as 7.7 percent, well above the national rate. Coal mines have closed. A natural gas pipeline is under construction and provides well-paying but temporary jobs. Nearly a third of county households use SNAP.
Of the 50 U.S. counties with the most SNAP-dependent populations, three-quarters are rural. About half of those backed Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Webster County, represented by a House Republican, is in one of the 20 U.S. congressional districts with the highest percentages of SNAP-dependent households.
State governments manage SNAP. Washington pays for the aid at a cost of about $70 billion annually. The total federal budget exceeds $4 trillion.
Under present law, most childless adults must work at least 20 hours a week, or be in job training, to receive SNAP for more than three months.
States can waive the three-month limit in high-unemployment areas. This was widely done in the 2007-2009 recession, but many states, especially those led by Republican governors, are ending waiver use as the economy recovers.
The House Republican proposal would put new limits on state waivers. It would expand the number of non-disabled individuals subject to work requirements by raising the top age to 59 from 49 and including more people caring for school-age children, such as Barbara Green.
For the Greens and other rural Americans who get nutrition assistance, making ends meet could get tougher if Republicans in Washington, including President Donald Trump, carry out plans to make it harder to qualify for food aid.
“If I lose even $100 of that, it would be devastating,” said Green, 35, a registered independent voter who said he “leans conservative.” He earns $23,000 annually as a county appraiser. Green’s wife Barbara stays home with their four children.
A Republican plan to curb food aid is under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives as part of a broad farm bill. Its future is uncertain, with Democrats opposed to it. A farm bill in the U.S. Senate proposes no major food aid changes.
The House plan is an initial step in a welfare-cutting push by Republicans that could play out for years if the party keeps control of Congress in November’s midterm election. Should it become law, about 1.2 million fewer individuals would receive benefits monthly by 2028, nonpartisan congressional budget analysts estimated.
After approving tax cuts in December that are projected to add $1.9 trillion to the U.S. debt over a decade, Republicans, led by Trump, want to trim the social safety net. That includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps.
SNAP helps feed more than 40 million Americans each month by supplying recipients with debit cards good only for food purchases. That is 12 percent of the total U.S. population. Republicans say an improving economy means fewer Americans need help from SNAP.
---
RURAL, WHITE, SNAP-DEPENDENT
Webster County is part of a demographic that is rural, white, SNAP-dependent and increasingly Republican. Trump won 77 percent of the county’s votes.
But residents say they have seen no economic upturn. Unemployment this year has been as high as 7.7 percent, well above the national rate. Coal mines have closed. A natural gas pipeline is under construction and provides well-paying but temporary jobs. Nearly a third of county households use SNAP.
Of the 50 U.S. counties with the most SNAP-dependent populations, three-quarters are rural. About half of those backed Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Webster County, represented by a House Republican, is in one of the 20 U.S. congressional districts with the highest percentages of SNAP-dependent households.
State governments manage SNAP. Washington pays for the aid at a cost of about $70 billion annually. The total federal budget exceeds $4 trillion.
Under present law, most childless adults must work at least 20 hours a week, or be in job training, to receive SNAP for more than three months.
States can waive the three-month limit in high-unemployment areas. This was widely done in the 2007-2009 recession, but many states, especially those led by Republican governors, are ending waiver use as the economy recovers.
The House Republican proposal would put new limits on state waivers. It would expand the number of non-disabled individuals subject to work requirements by raising the top age to 59 from 49 and including more people caring for school-age children, such as Barbara Green.
Republicans Wage A Guerrilla War On Your Healthcare
Trump Doesn’t Have the Votes to Kill Obamacare So Now He Just Won’t Enforce It
By Terry Schwadron, DCReport New York Editor
6/14/18
While Trump preens in the afterglow of his questionable achievements at the negotiating table with North Korea, let’s take a look elsewhere—at the Trump administration decision to abandon Obamacare requirements that health insurance cover pre-existing conditions.
Late last week, the government said in filings in a federal court case that the requirement to cover those who need healthcare the most will become “unconstitutional” next year as well as protections forbidding insurers to deny coverage to those with pre-existing medical conditions.
Indeed, the Justice Department declined to defend the federal law in a suit brought by states against the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Just how that fits with an administration that seems fixated on “law and order” is a little hard to explain, but if it comes down to defending a law with which the administration disagrees, I guess that is within bounds.
The Health and Human Services secretary, Alex Azar, told a congressional hearing on Tuesday that he wants to preserve access to affordable insurance for those with pre-existing medical conditions, but he declined to disclose his view of an administration move that could undercut such consumer protections. He called the government’s move “a constitutional position . . . not a policy position” and sidestepped questions about whether he agreed with the legal decision.
Several senators, mostly Democrats, attacked the decision.
As The Washington Post noted, “The administration’s legal stance injects profound uncertainty into the political debate and the health-care landscape at a critical moment, just as insurance companies are developing rates for the coming year and as candidates head into a summer campaign season that both parties will try to use to solidify a foothold for their agendas.”
We can expect that this issue will top every local Democratic agenda in the mid-term elections in November.
Across the board, Republicans, Democrats and health professionals all say they have plans for providing healthcare, but none of these ideas ever seems to make it into legislation. So, instead, we have a guerrilla war underway with each state firing individual bullets at different targets. The government and individual states have taken various aspects of the overall Obamacare law to court.
Clearly lost in the discussion is anything resembling ways to assure that Americans are guaranteed access to actual healthcare.
The federal court suit over the Affordable Care Act became a potent threat to pre-existing conditions when the Justice Department filed a brief arguing that as of Jan. 1, 2019, those protections should be invalidated. The Justice Department argued that the judge should strike down the section of the law that protects people buying insurance from being charged higher premiums because of their health histories.
According to a 2016 analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, approximately 52 million Americans under the age of 65could find their access to health insurance at risk because of a wide range of pre-existing conditions, from diabetes to cancer to pregnancy. Health insurers have for years been raising premiums, complaining about uncertainty and withdrawing from the business of selling individual insurance plans; more changes could further destabilize the market.
Still, many Republicans this weekend insisted they continued to support coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes and cancer. The policy, unlike some elements of the Affordable Care Act, has widespread support. Several Republicans expressed bewilderment at the notion that this protection could be declared unconstitutional or overturned. “I certainly do not believe the provision on pre-existing conditions is unconstitutional. I don’t even understand what the legal argument would be,” Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.) told the Post.
Democrats leaped on the filing to re-issue healthcare as a party mainstay issue. More liberal Democrats are publicly favoring a Medicare-for-all approach to healthcare, something that Republicans clearly oppose.
This renewed argument comes as insurers are deciding whether to participate in the individual marketplaces created under the law in 2019 and, if so, what filing rates with state regulators will be. A central rule of ACA health plans is that they must welcome all customers, healthy and sick, and not charge higher premiums to those with preexisting conditions. The possibility that a Texas judge could, at the administration’s urging, wipe out this rule—with an inevitable appeal to higher courts—introduces a new source of instability that insurers detest.
According to health-policy experts, a court ruling in favor of the suing GOP states and the administration would trigger what one called “immediate chaos” in the law’s insurance marketplaces created under the law.
In 2010, Obamacare created insurance “exchanges” in every state to sell federally subsidized coverage to individuals who do not have access to affordable health benefits through a job. These marketplaces have had their troubles—with many commercial insurers defecting and prices spiking—but their basic contours have remained intact. That could change if Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agrees with the Justice Department argument that the mandates including protections for people with pre-existing conditions will become unconstitutional in January, when new tax rules end existing penalties for people who flout the law’s requirement to carry health insurance.
Several congressmen said that if the administration did prevail, it would be their responsibility to step in and restore protections for people with preexisting conditions. Yet how they would do so was far from clear, especially given Congress’s inability so far under the administration to pass healthcare legislation.
The president last fall ended “cost-sharing reduction payments” to insurers that offset discounts that the law promises to lower-income customers in the out-of-pocket costs for ACA health plans. Health officials halved the sign-up period to buy ACA health plans, cut from $100 million to $10 million an advertising budget to help encourage consumers to sign up, and slashed funds for grassroots organizations that helped people enroll. Also, the administration is in the midst of rewriting federal rules to make it easier for people to buy two types of insurance that are relatively inexpensive because they bypass the ACA’s requirements for benefits that health plans sold to individuals and small business must include.
And Republicans in Congress are moving to eliminate $800 million for Medicaid.
How about we use the election for some straight talk about healthcare?
Late last week, the government said in filings in a federal court case that the requirement to cover those who need healthcare the most will become “unconstitutional” next year as well as protections forbidding insurers to deny coverage to those with pre-existing medical conditions.
Indeed, the Justice Department declined to defend the federal law in a suit brought by states against the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Just how that fits with an administration that seems fixated on “law and order” is a little hard to explain, but if it comes down to defending a law with which the administration disagrees, I guess that is within bounds.
The Health and Human Services secretary, Alex Azar, told a congressional hearing on Tuesday that he wants to preserve access to affordable insurance for those with pre-existing medical conditions, but he declined to disclose his view of an administration move that could undercut such consumer protections. He called the government’s move “a constitutional position . . . not a policy position” and sidestepped questions about whether he agreed with the legal decision.
Several senators, mostly Democrats, attacked the decision.
As The Washington Post noted, “The administration’s legal stance injects profound uncertainty into the political debate and the health-care landscape at a critical moment, just as insurance companies are developing rates for the coming year and as candidates head into a summer campaign season that both parties will try to use to solidify a foothold for their agendas.”
We can expect that this issue will top every local Democratic agenda in the mid-term elections in November.
Across the board, Republicans, Democrats and health professionals all say they have plans for providing healthcare, but none of these ideas ever seems to make it into legislation. So, instead, we have a guerrilla war underway with each state firing individual bullets at different targets. The government and individual states have taken various aspects of the overall Obamacare law to court.
Clearly lost in the discussion is anything resembling ways to assure that Americans are guaranteed access to actual healthcare.
The federal court suit over the Affordable Care Act became a potent threat to pre-existing conditions when the Justice Department filed a brief arguing that as of Jan. 1, 2019, those protections should be invalidated. The Justice Department argued that the judge should strike down the section of the law that protects people buying insurance from being charged higher premiums because of their health histories.
According to a 2016 analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, approximately 52 million Americans under the age of 65could find their access to health insurance at risk because of a wide range of pre-existing conditions, from diabetes to cancer to pregnancy. Health insurers have for years been raising premiums, complaining about uncertainty and withdrawing from the business of selling individual insurance plans; more changes could further destabilize the market.
Still, many Republicans this weekend insisted they continued to support coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes and cancer. The policy, unlike some elements of the Affordable Care Act, has widespread support. Several Republicans expressed bewilderment at the notion that this protection could be declared unconstitutional or overturned. “I certainly do not believe the provision on pre-existing conditions is unconstitutional. I don’t even understand what the legal argument would be,” Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.) told the Post.
Democrats leaped on the filing to re-issue healthcare as a party mainstay issue. More liberal Democrats are publicly favoring a Medicare-for-all approach to healthcare, something that Republicans clearly oppose.
This renewed argument comes as insurers are deciding whether to participate in the individual marketplaces created under the law in 2019 and, if so, what filing rates with state regulators will be. A central rule of ACA health plans is that they must welcome all customers, healthy and sick, and not charge higher premiums to those with preexisting conditions. The possibility that a Texas judge could, at the administration’s urging, wipe out this rule—with an inevitable appeal to higher courts—introduces a new source of instability that insurers detest.
According to health-policy experts, a court ruling in favor of the suing GOP states and the administration would trigger what one called “immediate chaos” in the law’s insurance marketplaces created under the law.
In 2010, Obamacare created insurance “exchanges” in every state to sell federally subsidized coverage to individuals who do not have access to affordable health benefits through a job. These marketplaces have had their troubles—with many commercial insurers defecting and prices spiking—but their basic contours have remained intact. That could change if Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agrees with the Justice Department argument that the mandates including protections for people with pre-existing conditions will become unconstitutional in January, when new tax rules end existing penalties for people who flout the law’s requirement to carry health insurance.
Several congressmen said that if the administration did prevail, it would be their responsibility to step in and restore protections for people with preexisting conditions. Yet how they would do so was far from clear, especially given Congress’s inability so far under the administration to pass healthcare legislation.
The president last fall ended “cost-sharing reduction payments” to insurers that offset discounts that the law promises to lower-income customers in the out-of-pocket costs for ACA health plans. Health officials halved the sign-up period to buy ACA health plans, cut from $100 million to $10 million an advertising budget to help encourage consumers to sign up, and slashed funds for grassroots organizations that helped people enroll. Also, the administration is in the midst of rewriting federal rules to make it easier for people to buy two types of insurance that are relatively inexpensive because they bypass the ACA’s requirements for benefits that health plans sold to individuals and small business must include.
And Republicans in Congress are moving to eliminate $800 million for Medicaid.
How about we use the election for some straight talk about healthcare?
Baltimore to lose dozens of skilled immigrant teachers, thanks to Trump’s crackdown on H-1B visas
"It’s head-scratching to me that people who are highly qualified and filling a role that’s underserved are now being asked to pack their bags."
ELHAM KHATAMI - thinkprogress
JUN 14, 2018, 11:18 AM
Nearly 25 Baltimore public school teachers will see their visas expire at the end of June, when they will be forced to return to the Philippines and Jamaica, where they’re from, compounding Baltimore’s already severe teacher shortage.
According to the Baltimore Sun, the teachers came to the United States in the mid-2000s on H-1B visas, which allow employers to hire skilled foreign workers in a range of fields like technology, research, and education. Baltimore City Public Schools hired the teachers to fill positions in the math, science, and special education fields. While the district applied to extend the teachers’ visas months ago, the federal government has moved slowly, Jeremy Grant-Skinner, the district’s chief human capital officer, told the Sun.
“We are at the mercy of the federal government in terms of securing the extension of their visas,” he said.
But it’s not likely the extension will come. Over the past year, the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda has spread to those on H-1B and H4 visas, which allow the spouses of those on H-1B visas to also live in the United States (although the Obama administration allowed certain H4 visa-holders to obtain employment, President Donald Trump plans to end that policy, which also affects some teachers).
In April 2017, Trump signed the “Buy American, hire American” executive order, which demanded a review of H-1B visas, resulting in an increase in the number of “requests for evidence” notices sent by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to applicants, dragging out the process.
This policy, coupled with rising teacher shortages and poor teacher retention ratesacross the country, can have disastrous consequences. According to the Sun, over the last five years, Maryland public school teachers have left the school system — largely due to low pay and poor working conditions — at a yearly rate of 5.5 to 7 percent. Teacher attrition disproportionately affects disadvantaged school districts made up largely of students of color and those from low-income families.
“The biggest losers in this situation are the kids,” Elliott Rauh, a special education teacher at Vanguard Collegiate Middle School, told the Sun, adding that his students “thrive on regularity and routine” and would have trouble coping with a teacher’s absence.
“It’s head-scratching to me that people who are highly trained, highly effective and highly qualified and who are filling a role that’s underserved are now being asked to pack their bags, go home and just only potentially be invited back. It makes no sense,” he said.
The problem is a national one, as school districts across the country rely on the H-1B program to recruit teachers. The United States caps H-1B approvals at 85,000 a year, but there are hundreds of thousands of H-1B visa holders currently living and working in the United States. According to data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 6 percent of these workers were in the education field in 2015.
In 2018, the number of applicants for the H-1B visa program dropped for the second year in a row, likely a result of the Trump administration’s policies that make obtaining a visa much more difficult.
“I’m sad that this administration has made this so difficult,” Baltimore Teachers Union President Marietta English told the Sun. “Their attitude toward immigration is really a detriment to the country. These teachers come dedicated. They’re not one or two years and then done. They’re here and it’s just very unfortunate they have to go back.”
According to the Baltimore Sun, the teachers came to the United States in the mid-2000s on H-1B visas, which allow employers to hire skilled foreign workers in a range of fields like technology, research, and education. Baltimore City Public Schools hired the teachers to fill positions in the math, science, and special education fields. While the district applied to extend the teachers’ visas months ago, the federal government has moved slowly, Jeremy Grant-Skinner, the district’s chief human capital officer, told the Sun.
“We are at the mercy of the federal government in terms of securing the extension of their visas,” he said.
But it’s not likely the extension will come. Over the past year, the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda has spread to those on H-1B and H4 visas, which allow the spouses of those on H-1B visas to also live in the United States (although the Obama administration allowed certain H4 visa-holders to obtain employment, President Donald Trump plans to end that policy, which also affects some teachers).
In April 2017, Trump signed the “Buy American, hire American” executive order, which demanded a review of H-1B visas, resulting in an increase in the number of “requests for evidence” notices sent by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to applicants, dragging out the process.
This policy, coupled with rising teacher shortages and poor teacher retention ratesacross the country, can have disastrous consequences. According to the Sun, over the last five years, Maryland public school teachers have left the school system — largely due to low pay and poor working conditions — at a yearly rate of 5.5 to 7 percent. Teacher attrition disproportionately affects disadvantaged school districts made up largely of students of color and those from low-income families.
“The biggest losers in this situation are the kids,” Elliott Rauh, a special education teacher at Vanguard Collegiate Middle School, told the Sun, adding that his students “thrive on regularity and routine” and would have trouble coping with a teacher’s absence.
“It’s head-scratching to me that people who are highly trained, highly effective and highly qualified and who are filling a role that’s underserved are now being asked to pack their bags, go home and just only potentially be invited back. It makes no sense,” he said.
The problem is a national one, as school districts across the country rely on the H-1B program to recruit teachers. The United States caps H-1B approvals at 85,000 a year, but there are hundreds of thousands of H-1B visa holders currently living and working in the United States. According to data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 6 percent of these workers were in the education field in 2015.
In 2018, the number of applicants for the H-1B visa program dropped for the second year in a row, likely a result of the Trump administration’s policies that make obtaining a visa much more difficult.
“I’m sad that this administration has made this so difficult,” Baltimore Teachers Union President Marietta English told the Sun. “Their attitude toward immigration is really a detriment to the country. These teachers come dedicated. They’re not one or two years and then done. They’re here and it’s just very unfortunate they have to go back.”
Cruelty Is a Pre-Existing Condition
The Trump administration*'s war on the sick continues apace.
BY CHARLES P. PIERCE
JUN 12, 2018
Hello again, all you suckers out in VanceZitostan. You’re about to take one in the ear again.
At the moment, the president* you helped install has directed his Department of Justice to take a position that will remove the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions. This is a cruel and stupid move aimed at A) enriching the insurance companies, and B) owning the libs because another thing Barack Obama did for the country will be eliminated. Soooooo much winning!
So, all you retired coal miners with black lung, all you factory workers with emphysema, all you retirees living near former hazardous waste dumps, they are making America great again by helping you all die sooner. The way I know this is that the administration*’s own Secretary of Health and Human Services went before Congress on Tuesday to say what a terrible idea revoking those protections would be. From the WaPo:
Calling it “a constitutional position ... not a policy position,” Azar sidestepped grilling on whether he agreed with a legal brief filed last week by Justice Department attorneys stating they would not defend the Affordable Care Act in a federal lawsuit by Texas and 19 other Republican-led states.
During a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that was mainly about the president’s blueprint to address drug prices, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) told Azar that Justice’s legal position is a “like some kind of a sick joke.” The administration argues that the ACA’s individual mandate, requiring most people to carry health insurance, will become unconstitutional next year — and, with it, the law’s insurance protections for consumers.
“Will you encourage the Trump administration to change its position?” Hassan challenged Azar, a lawyer and former HHS general counsel. He replied that “we do believe in finding solutions on the matter of preexisting conditions and the matter of affordability regardless of the litigation.”
Assuming there are actual policy discussion inside this administration*—admittedly, a very long shot—Azar’s fan dance can mean only one of two things: Either HHS was left out of the discussions that led to the DOJ’s reversal on the ACA, or Azar’s concerns were completely ignored. However, if you’re a guy with asbestos-related lung trouble, you probably really don’t care about the intramural chaos down in Camp Runamuck. Sadly, though, you have to care now.
At the moment, the president* you helped install has directed his Department of Justice to take a position that will remove the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions. This is a cruel and stupid move aimed at A) enriching the insurance companies, and B) owning the libs because another thing Barack Obama did for the country will be eliminated. Soooooo much winning!
So, all you retired coal miners with black lung, all you factory workers with emphysema, all you retirees living near former hazardous waste dumps, they are making America great again by helping you all die sooner. The way I know this is that the administration*’s own Secretary of Health and Human Services went before Congress on Tuesday to say what a terrible idea revoking those protections would be. From the WaPo:
Calling it “a constitutional position ... not a policy position,” Azar sidestepped grilling on whether he agreed with a legal brief filed last week by Justice Department attorneys stating they would not defend the Affordable Care Act in a federal lawsuit by Texas and 19 other Republican-led states.
During a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that was mainly about the president’s blueprint to address drug prices, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) told Azar that Justice’s legal position is a “like some kind of a sick joke.” The administration argues that the ACA’s individual mandate, requiring most people to carry health insurance, will become unconstitutional next year — and, with it, the law’s insurance protections for consumers.
“Will you encourage the Trump administration to change its position?” Hassan challenged Azar, a lawyer and former HHS general counsel. He replied that “we do believe in finding solutions on the matter of preexisting conditions and the matter of affordability regardless of the litigation.”
Assuming there are actual policy discussion inside this administration*—admittedly, a very long shot—Azar’s fan dance can mean only one of two things: Either HHS was left out of the discussions that led to the DOJ’s reversal on the ACA, or Azar’s concerns were completely ignored. However, if you’re a guy with asbestos-related lung trouble, you probably really don’t care about the intramural chaos down in Camp Runamuck. Sadly, though, you have to care now.
why was he elected??
Michigan’s Governor Is About to Sign A Bill Kicking Families Like Mine Off Medicaid
June 8, 2018
Melissa White - talk poverty
For 20 years, I worked as caretaker. Sometimes I was a personal nanny, other times I worked at daycare centers, and most of the time those jobs didn’t come with health insurance. But when I became pregnant with my first child, Medicaid was there to make sure we were both healthy. And when I was diagnosed with fibromyalgia after years of chronic pain, Medicaid was there for me then too.
My family does not have a lot. I am raising three kids on less than $45,000 per year, and it’s not easy. But because of Medicaid, we’ve at least had our health care.
Now, the state is threatening to take that away. Any day now, Governor Snyder is expected to sign a bill that would add work requirements to Healthy Michigan, Michigan’s Medicaid expansion program, which helps nearly 700,000 Michiganders. Under the legislation, people who can’t find a job or get enough hours at work would be locked out of receiving health care through Healthy Michigan for a full year. About 350,000 people, including students, parents, and caretakers, would be affected. And while the bill’s sponsors claim the requirements would exempt people with disabilities, many would be caught in the cross hairs.
I am one of those people. I am unable to work because of my health condition, but because I don’t receive federal disability benefits, I could still lose my health insurance if this bill becomes law. As a result, Michigan’s one-size-fits-all policy will jeopardize the life my family has built.
The lawmakers behind this bill assume that the vast majority of recipients are not working, when reality shows the opposite: 6 in 10 working-age adults who receive Medicaid in Michigan are working, and 3 out of 4 are part of a family with at least one working member.
My ex-husband worked through our entire marriage, and ever since chronic pain drove me from the work force, I’ve been a stay-at-home mom. In the past two decades, I’ve raised three kids and I’m so thankful for that experience. But this bill would punish every person who makes that choice—and every person who had that choice made for them, like me.
Living from paycheck to paycheck is not easy. But my family has made do with what we have because we know that at the very least, we could see a doctor if we were sick. Taking away Medicaid not only jeopardizes that sense of security for me and hundreds of thousands of Michiganders—it could end up costing people their lives.
My family does not have a lot. I am raising three kids on less than $45,000 per year, and it’s not easy. But because of Medicaid, we’ve at least had our health care.
Now, the state is threatening to take that away. Any day now, Governor Snyder is expected to sign a bill that would add work requirements to Healthy Michigan, Michigan’s Medicaid expansion program, which helps nearly 700,000 Michiganders. Under the legislation, people who can’t find a job or get enough hours at work would be locked out of receiving health care through Healthy Michigan for a full year. About 350,000 people, including students, parents, and caretakers, would be affected. And while the bill’s sponsors claim the requirements would exempt people with disabilities, many would be caught in the cross hairs.
I am one of those people. I am unable to work because of my health condition, but because I don’t receive federal disability benefits, I could still lose my health insurance if this bill becomes law. As a result, Michigan’s one-size-fits-all policy will jeopardize the life my family has built.
The lawmakers behind this bill assume that the vast majority of recipients are not working, when reality shows the opposite: 6 in 10 working-age adults who receive Medicaid in Michigan are working, and 3 out of 4 are part of a family with at least one working member.
My ex-husband worked through our entire marriage, and ever since chronic pain drove me from the work force, I’ve been a stay-at-home mom. In the past two decades, I’ve raised three kids and I’m so thankful for that experience. But this bill would punish every person who makes that choice—and every person who had that choice made for them, like me.
Living from paycheck to paycheck is not easy. But my family has made do with what we have because we know that at the very least, we could see a doctor if we were sick. Taking away Medicaid not only jeopardizes that sense of security for me and hundreds of thousands of Michiganders—it could end up costing people their lives.
Obamacare premiums set to soar in 2019
By Tami Luhby, CNN
6/7/18
Brace yourselves -- it looks like Obamacare premiums could jump by double digits again next year.
Insurers in several states have requested large rate hikes for 2019, with many pointing to steps taken by President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress as the main reasons why.
New York insurers want to hike rates by 24%, on average, while carriers in Washington are looking for a 19% average premium increase. In Maryland, CareFirst is asking for an average 18.5% rate bump for its HMO plans and a 91% spike for its PPO policies (which have far fewer enrollees), while Kaiser Permanente wants to boost premiums by more than 37%, on average.
Many insurers cite two key drivers of the increases: Congress' elimination of the penalty for the individual mandate -- which requires nearly all Americans to have coverage or pay up --and the Trump administration's expected expansion of two types of health plans that don't have to adhere to Obamacare's regulations.
"Health insurance providers are now making decisions about market participation and pricing for the 2019 plan year in a market that continues to face uncertainty and instability challenges," America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, wrote in a recent report.
Jettisoning the individual mandate penalty is expected to cause premiums to rise by about 10%, the industry group said, citing reports by the Congressional Budget Office and independent actuaries. That's because younger and healthier people will be more likely to forgo insurance since they will no longer have to pay a penalty. Insurers fear they will then be left with sicker and older policyholders, prompting them to request higher rates to cover the anticipated increase in claims.
Also, Trump last year issued an executive order directing federal agencies to make it easier to buy two alternatives to Obamacare plans. One would allow small businesses to band together to buy coverage through association health plans, while the other would let Americans buy short-term coverage that would last less than a year, rather than the current 90-day limit. Both of these types of policies are expected to have lower premiums,but would cover fewer benefits -- making them more attractive to healthier Americans who don't need comprehensive coverage.
Insurers in remaining states will file proposed rates in coming weeks. Regulators will review the requests and could change them significantly. Premiums will be finalized in September and open enrollment starts November 1.
There are some bright spots in the 2019 Obamacare landscape. Insurers in some states, such as Pennsylvania and Vermont, have requested relatively modest increases. In the Keystone State, insurers are asking for a boost of 4.9% on average. Meanwhile, BlueCross BlueShield of Vermont and MVP Health Care are asking for 7.5% and 10.9% bumps, respectively.
Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Jessica Altman attributed the relatively small increase to the state's efforts to maintain enrollment this year after the Trump administration slashed support. Also, the state's individual market remains competitive: Nearly half of counties will have a greater choice of insurers next year, and only eight will have just one carrier, down from 20 this year.
Another plus: Insurers so far haven't pulled out completely from any market in the nation. At various points last year, tens of thousands of Americans in dozens of counties were facing the prospect of having no choice of carriers on their Obamacare exchanges. State regulators, however, were able to convince insurers to offer policies in every county by the time open enrollment began in November.
Also, most Obamacare enrollees won't have to pay more for coverage next year, regardless of how much insurers hike premiums. That's because they receive federal subsidies that limit their rates to less than 10% of their income.
However, the rate hikes will hit the millions of Americans who earn too much for subsidies or who buy individual coverage outside of the Obamacare exchanges.
RELATED: US Justice Department says Obamacare individual mandate unconstitutional
Insurers in several states have requested large rate hikes for 2019, with many pointing to steps taken by President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress as the main reasons why.
New York insurers want to hike rates by 24%, on average, while carriers in Washington are looking for a 19% average premium increase. In Maryland, CareFirst is asking for an average 18.5% rate bump for its HMO plans and a 91% spike for its PPO policies (which have far fewer enrollees), while Kaiser Permanente wants to boost premiums by more than 37%, on average.
Many insurers cite two key drivers of the increases: Congress' elimination of the penalty for the individual mandate -- which requires nearly all Americans to have coverage or pay up --and the Trump administration's expected expansion of two types of health plans that don't have to adhere to Obamacare's regulations.
"Health insurance providers are now making decisions about market participation and pricing for the 2019 plan year in a market that continues to face uncertainty and instability challenges," America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, wrote in a recent report.
Jettisoning the individual mandate penalty is expected to cause premiums to rise by about 10%, the industry group said, citing reports by the Congressional Budget Office and independent actuaries. That's because younger and healthier people will be more likely to forgo insurance since they will no longer have to pay a penalty. Insurers fear they will then be left with sicker and older policyholders, prompting them to request higher rates to cover the anticipated increase in claims.
Also, Trump last year issued an executive order directing federal agencies to make it easier to buy two alternatives to Obamacare plans. One would allow small businesses to band together to buy coverage through association health plans, while the other would let Americans buy short-term coverage that would last less than a year, rather than the current 90-day limit. Both of these types of policies are expected to have lower premiums,but would cover fewer benefits -- making them more attractive to healthier Americans who don't need comprehensive coverage.
Insurers in remaining states will file proposed rates in coming weeks. Regulators will review the requests and could change them significantly. Premiums will be finalized in September and open enrollment starts November 1.
There are some bright spots in the 2019 Obamacare landscape. Insurers in some states, such as Pennsylvania and Vermont, have requested relatively modest increases. In the Keystone State, insurers are asking for a boost of 4.9% on average. Meanwhile, BlueCross BlueShield of Vermont and MVP Health Care are asking for 7.5% and 10.9% bumps, respectively.
Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Jessica Altman attributed the relatively small increase to the state's efforts to maintain enrollment this year after the Trump administration slashed support. Also, the state's individual market remains competitive: Nearly half of counties will have a greater choice of insurers next year, and only eight will have just one carrier, down from 20 this year.
Another plus: Insurers so far haven't pulled out completely from any market in the nation. At various points last year, tens of thousands of Americans in dozens of counties were facing the prospect of having no choice of carriers on their Obamacare exchanges. State regulators, however, were able to convince insurers to offer policies in every county by the time open enrollment began in November.
Also, most Obamacare enrollees won't have to pay more for coverage next year, regardless of how much insurers hike premiums. That's because they receive federal subsidies that limit their rates to less than 10% of their income.
However, the rate hikes will hit the millions of Americans who earn too much for subsidies or who buy individual coverage outside of the Obamacare exchanges.
RELATED: US Justice Department says Obamacare individual mandate unconstitutional
Carson's housing plan would raise rents for poor by 20%, analysis shows
Housing department says proposal, which would affect 4m low-income households, will ‘give poor people a way out of poverty’
Associated Press in Charleston, South Carolina
the guardian
Thu 7 Jun 2018 08.52 EDT
Ben Carson says his latest proposal to raise rents would mean a path toward self-sufficiency for millions of low-income households across the United States, by pushing more people to find work. For Ebony Morris and her four small children, it could mean homelessness, as experts warn of crippling costs that many families will be unable to bear.
Morris lives in Charleston, South Carolina, where most households receiving federal housing assistance would see their rent go up an average 26%, according to new analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank. But Morris’s increase would be nearly double that.
Overall, the analysis shows that in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas, low-income tenants, many of whom have jobs, would have to pay roughly 20% more each year for rent under the plan. That rent increase is about six times greater than the growth in average hourly earnings, putting the poorest workers at an increased risk of homelessness because wages simply haven’t kept pace with housing expenses.
“I saw public housing as an option to get on my feet, to pay 30% of my income and get myself out of debt and eventually become a homeowner,” said Morris, whose monthly rent would jump from $403 to $600. “But this would put us in a homeless state.”
Roughly 4m low-income US households receiving assistance from the federal department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud) would be affected by the proposal. Hud estimates that about 2m would be affected immediately, while the other 2mn would see rent increases phased in after six years.
The proposal, which needs congressional approval, is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to scale back the social safety net, in the belief that charging more for rent will prompt those receiving federal assistance to enter the workforce or make effort to earn more income. “It’s our attempt to give poor people a way out of poverty,” the housing secretary said in a recent interview with Fox News.
The analysis shows that families would be disproportionately impacted. Of the 8.3 million people affected by the proposal, more than three million are children. That stands in stark contrast to Carson’s focus on children and education, which is woven into his memoirs and a stated mission of his namesake reading rooms tucked into elementary schools across the country. It also runs contrary to research, housing experts say.
“There’s no evidence that raising rents causes people to work more,” said Will Fischer, a senior policy analyst at the policy center, which advocates for the poor. “For most of these rent increases, I don’t think there’s even a plausible theory for why they would encourage work.”
Morris moved to Charleston three years ago from Summerville, South Carolina, to study. She’s since earned her associate’s degree in health science. She’s a full-time pediatric assistant, sometimes working 50 hours a week just to get by. Her children, ages three, four, seven and 10, would be hit hardest by the rent increase, she said.
“Food, electricity bills, school uniforms,” she said. “Internet for homework assignments and report cards. All of their reading modules at school require the internet, without it they’ll be behind their classmates. The kids are in extracurriculars, those would be scrapped. I would struggle just to pay my bills. It would be very, very, very hard.”
The impact of the rent proposal would affect low-income residents and families everywhere.
Rent for the poorest tenants in Baltimore, where Carson made history as a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital and told of overcoming poverty in his own background, could go up by 19%, or $800 a year on average. In Detroit, where Carson’s mother, a single parent, raised him by working two jobs, low-income families could see their rents increase by $710, or 21%. Households in Washington DC, one of the richest regions in the country, would see the largest increases for its poorest residents: $980 per year on average, a 20% jump.
Morris lives in Charleston, South Carolina, where most households receiving federal housing assistance would see their rent go up an average 26%, according to new analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank. But Morris’s increase would be nearly double that.
Overall, the analysis shows that in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas, low-income tenants, many of whom have jobs, would have to pay roughly 20% more each year for rent under the plan. That rent increase is about six times greater than the growth in average hourly earnings, putting the poorest workers at an increased risk of homelessness because wages simply haven’t kept pace with housing expenses.
“I saw public housing as an option to get on my feet, to pay 30% of my income and get myself out of debt and eventually become a homeowner,” said Morris, whose monthly rent would jump from $403 to $600. “But this would put us in a homeless state.”
Roughly 4m low-income US households receiving assistance from the federal department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud) would be affected by the proposal. Hud estimates that about 2m would be affected immediately, while the other 2mn would see rent increases phased in after six years.
The proposal, which needs congressional approval, is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to scale back the social safety net, in the belief that charging more for rent will prompt those receiving federal assistance to enter the workforce or make effort to earn more income. “It’s our attempt to give poor people a way out of poverty,” the housing secretary said in a recent interview with Fox News.
The analysis shows that families would be disproportionately impacted. Of the 8.3 million people affected by the proposal, more than three million are children. That stands in stark contrast to Carson’s focus on children and education, which is woven into his memoirs and a stated mission of his namesake reading rooms tucked into elementary schools across the country. It also runs contrary to research, housing experts say.
“There’s no evidence that raising rents causes people to work more,” said Will Fischer, a senior policy analyst at the policy center, which advocates for the poor. “For most of these rent increases, I don’t think there’s even a plausible theory for why they would encourage work.”
Morris moved to Charleston three years ago from Summerville, South Carolina, to study. She’s since earned her associate’s degree in health science. She’s a full-time pediatric assistant, sometimes working 50 hours a week just to get by. Her children, ages three, four, seven and 10, would be hit hardest by the rent increase, she said.
“Food, electricity bills, school uniforms,” she said. “Internet for homework assignments and report cards. All of their reading modules at school require the internet, without it they’ll be behind their classmates. The kids are in extracurriculars, those would be scrapped. I would struggle just to pay my bills. It would be very, very, very hard.”
The impact of the rent proposal would affect low-income residents and families everywhere.
Rent for the poorest tenants in Baltimore, where Carson made history as a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital and told of overcoming poverty in his own background, could go up by 19%, or $800 a year on average. In Detroit, where Carson’s mother, a single parent, raised him by working two jobs, low-income families could see their rents increase by $710, or 21%. Households in Washington DC, one of the richest regions in the country, would see the largest increases for its poorest residents: $980 per year on average, a 20% jump.
Trump to bail out coal industry by raising U.S. electricity rates, especially on his voters
Trump plans to enrich his rich crony friends at the expense of American consumers.
JOE ROMM - thinkprogress
JUN 4, 2018, 10:52 AM
Pr*sident Trump has ordered Secretary of Energy Rick Perry to take “immediate steps” to bailout unprofitable coal and nuclear plants.
This move, initiated on Friday, will inevitably increase electricity rates and pollution for all Americans. Perry is already drafting a plan that would prevent grid operators from replacing dirty coal power with cheaper and far less polluting natural gas, solar, and wind power.
Those hardest hit by Trump’s order will be the states where the most money-losing power plants reside. And, ironically, the most uneconomic coal plants are in the Southeastern states, which overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump.
Indeed, in March, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) released a detailed analysis of the most unprofitable plants, which “paints a particularly bleak picture for coal plants in the regulated Southeast”. As the chart below demonstrates, the biggest money losers are represented by the large, dark red dots.
According to a memo obtained by Bloomberg News, the Department of Energy (DOE) is already putting together a plan to use emergency authority (provided under two federal laws) to force the operators of the electric grid to purchase power from a list of designated plants for two years.
Invoking the laws, however, requires some sort of national security emergency — so any such ruling is expected to be challenged in court. After all, there is no security threat posed by replacing expensive dirty energy plants with cheaper cleaner ones.
Indeed, the bigger security threat to Americans would come from continuing to run unprofitable coal plants — a move that will worsen climate change, perhaps the biggest preventable threat to US security today.
Nonetheless, on Friday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released a statement saying the bailout of coal and nuclear plants is needed for national security purposes: “Impending retirements of fuel-secure power facilities are leading to a rapid depletion of a critical part of our nation’s energy mix, and impacting the resilience of our power grid.”
So-called “fuel-secure power facilities” are plants that have a large supply of fuel onsite and are therefore supposed to be more reliable.
But the problem for the new plan by Trump and Perry is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the retirement of money-losing coal and nuclear plants makes the electric grid less reliable and resilient.
In fact, back in January, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — which oversees the U.S. grid — unanimously rejected a very similar plan by Perry to raise consumer energy bills in order to bail out coal and nuclear power plants.
The unanimous vote was especially notable since 3 of the 5 commissioners are Trump appointees, including the new chair.
In its ruling, FERC slapped down Perry’s main argument that somehow cheap renewables (and natural gas) are forcing essential coal and nuclear plants to be shut down. They note that “the extensive comments submitted” by the grid operators “do not point to any past or planned generator retirements that may be a threat to grid resilience.”
Indeed, to make his case, Perry had to ignore his own grid study, which had made clear renewables were not a threat to power reliability.
The new Trump plan has uniquely broad opposition. “This has got to be one for the record books,” tweeted New York Times investigative reporter Eric Lipton. “Oil industry joins with solar and wind industry to condemn Trump admin plan to prop up coal industry by forcing electric grid to buy coal power. Oil/wind/solar as allies? Fascinating times.”
The truth is that the only people who benefit from keeping money-losing plants open are rich coal barons like Bob Murray, a big Trump donor who has been pushing for this bailout for over a year.
Everyone else in the country — and most especially Trump’s own voters — would have to pay for this bailout, with higher electricity bills and with the public health costs that come from having dirtier air.
This move, initiated on Friday, will inevitably increase electricity rates and pollution for all Americans. Perry is already drafting a plan that would prevent grid operators from replacing dirty coal power with cheaper and far less polluting natural gas, solar, and wind power.
Those hardest hit by Trump’s order will be the states where the most money-losing power plants reside. And, ironically, the most uneconomic coal plants are in the Southeastern states, which overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump.
Indeed, in March, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) released a detailed analysis of the most unprofitable plants, which “paints a particularly bleak picture for coal plants in the regulated Southeast”. As the chart below demonstrates, the biggest money losers are represented by the large, dark red dots.
According to a memo obtained by Bloomberg News, the Department of Energy (DOE) is already putting together a plan to use emergency authority (provided under two federal laws) to force the operators of the electric grid to purchase power from a list of designated plants for two years.
Invoking the laws, however, requires some sort of national security emergency — so any such ruling is expected to be challenged in court. After all, there is no security threat posed by replacing expensive dirty energy plants with cheaper cleaner ones.
Indeed, the bigger security threat to Americans would come from continuing to run unprofitable coal plants — a move that will worsen climate change, perhaps the biggest preventable threat to US security today.
Nonetheless, on Friday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released a statement saying the bailout of coal and nuclear plants is needed for national security purposes: “Impending retirements of fuel-secure power facilities are leading to a rapid depletion of a critical part of our nation’s energy mix, and impacting the resilience of our power grid.”
So-called “fuel-secure power facilities” are plants that have a large supply of fuel onsite and are therefore supposed to be more reliable.
But the problem for the new plan by Trump and Perry is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the retirement of money-losing coal and nuclear plants makes the electric grid less reliable and resilient.
In fact, back in January, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — which oversees the U.S. grid — unanimously rejected a very similar plan by Perry to raise consumer energy bills in order to bail out coal and nuclear power plants.
The unanimous vote was especially notable since 3 of the 5 commissioners are Trump appointees, including the new chair.
In its ruling, FERC slapped down Perry’s main argument that somehow cheap renewables (and natural gas) are forcing essential coal and nuclear plants to be shut down. They note that “the extensive comments submitted” by the grid operators “do not point to any past or planned generator retirements that may be a threat to grid resilience.”
Indeed, to make his case, Perry had to ignore his own grid study, which had made clear renewables were not a threat to power reliability.
The new Trump plan has uniquely broad opposition. “This has got to be one for the record books,” tweeted New York Times investigative reporter Eric Lipton. “Oil industry joins with solar and wind industry to condemn Trump admin plan to prop up coal industry by forcing electric grid to buy coal power. Oil/wind/solar as allies? Fascinating times.”
The truth is that the only people who benefit from keeping money-losing plants open are rich coal barons like Bob Murray, a big Trump donor who has been pushing for this bailout for over a year.
Everyone else in the country — and most especially Trump’s own voters — would have to pay for this bailout, with higher electricity bills and with the public health costs that come from having dirtier air.
Trump eases firing of federal workers, cracks down on unions
Reuters - raw story
25 MAY 2018 AT 18:38 ET
Pr*sident Donald Trump on Friday signed three executive orders designed to make it easier to fire federal government workers and to crack down on the unions that represent them, drawing immediate criticism from a group representing federal employees.
Administration officials said the orders would give government agencies greater ability to remove employees with “poor” performance, get “better deals” in union contracts and require federal employees with union responsibilities to spend less time on union work.
“Today the president is fulfilling his promise to promote more efficient government by reforming our civil service rules,” said Andrew Bremberg, director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, in a conference call with reporters.
“These executive orders will make it easier for agencies to remove poor-performing employees and ensure that taxpayer dollars are more efficiently used.”
The American Federation of Government Employees said in a statement that the moves intended to “strip federal employees of their decades-old right to representation at the worksite” and would hurt veterans, law enforcement officers and others.
“This administration seems hellbent on replacing a civil service that works for all taxpayers with a political service that serves at its whim,” the group’s president, J. David Cox Sr. said in a statement.
Administration officials said the orders would give government agencies greater ability to remove employees with “poor” performance, get “better deals” in union contracts and require federal employees with union responsibilities to spend less time on union work.
“Today the president is fulfilling his promise to promote more efficient government by reforming our civil service rules,” said Andrew Bremberg, director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, in a conference call with reporters.
“These executive orders will make it easier for agencies to remove poor-performing employees and ensure that taxpayer dollars are more efficiently used.”
The American Federation of Government Employees said in a statement that the moves intended to “strip federal employees of their decades-old right to representation at the worksite” and would hurt veterans, law enforcement officers and others.
“This administration seems hellbent on replacing a civil service that works for all taxpayers with a political service that serves at its whim,” the group’s president, J. David Cox Sr. said in a statement.
congrats, trump voters!!!
Medicaid work requirements would worsen South's health care crisis
By Rebekah Barber - facing south
May 25, 2018
"How many more babies? How many more children?"
Those are the questions Callie Greer tearfully asked earlier this month at the Washington, D.C., launch of the 40 Days of Action for the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, held the day after Mother's Day. Her own daughter, Venus, died of stage 4 breast cancer in Alabama because the state had refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and she could not get treatment until it was too late.
Every year, thousands of people like Venus die because they don't have insurance and thus lack access to health care. It's a problem people living in the South know too well. Because nine out of the 13 Southern states refused to expand Medicaid, the region is home to 90 percent of Americans who fall into the health care coverage gap — not wealthy enough to afford private insurance but not qualified for the public health insurance program for the poor and disabled.
Now the Trump administration wants to make it even more difficult for Americans to access Medicaid. In January, the administration sent a letter to state Medicaid directors calling for work requirements as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. Last month President Trump doubled down on his stance by issuing an executive order that aims to force citizens who do not meet certain work requirements off Medicaid, food assistance, and other safety-net programs.
Trump claims the policy would decrease poverty and provide work opportunities. But the majority of adult Medicaid beneficiaries are already working, though many are forced into part-time work by job-market limitations. And if they don't work, it is generally for good reason: because they have physical disabilities that leave them incapable of working, or are the caretakers of those with disabilities, or struggle with mental illnesses that limit their ability to work consistently, or are part of the homeless population that faces enormous barriers to obtaining employment.
Even though experts say Medicaid work requirements will create more problems than solutions, two Southern states — Arkansas and Kentucky — have already been granted federal approval to begin implementing them. These states, among the nation's poorest, expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, but the work requirements are expected to push thousands of residents into the coverage gap.
Arkansas's work requirement is set to take effect on June 1 and will apply only to the 280,000 state residents who received health insurance through Medicaid expansion. Under the policy, Medicaid enrollees will be required to meet an 80-hour monthly work requirement. If they are unable to meet the requirement for three months during the year, they will be locked out of Medicaid until the following year. And because the plan will require enrollees to report work hours through an online portal, some may lose coverage not because they failed to meet the work requirements but simply because they lack the internet access to prove it.
Kentucky's work requirement is set to take effect in July. But 15 residents have filed a class-action lawsuit to challenge the legality of the plan, which would require all Medicaid enrollees — not just those covered under the Medicaid expansion — to complete 80 monthly hours of employment, education, job skills training, or community service. If implemented, the plan is estimated to save the state over $2.4 billion because thousands will be kicked off the Medicaid rolls.
Kentucky's plan has raised questions about disproportionate racial impacts. The state will first impose the work requirement in northern Kentucky, which includes Jefferson County — the county with the largest Black population in the state. That means those most affected will be poor African Americans. But eight counties in rural southeastern Kentucky with high rates of unemployment — and where whites make up over 90 percent of the population — will be exempt from the work requirement. George Washington University health law professor Sara Rosenbaum called it "a version of racial redlining."
A recent analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that even Medicaid recipients who regularly work could be at risk of losing coverage. That's because people working low-wage jobs are more likely to have irregular working hours or gaps in their employment. CBPP estimates that one in four people who work enough hours over the course of a year to satisfy Kentucky's work requirements could still have at least one month where they fall below the 80-hour monthly requirement and thus risk losing coverage.
Besides Arkansas and Kentucky, Indiana and New Hampshire have also had Medicaid work requirements approved by the Trump administration. Several other states have proposals pending, including Mississippi — which unlike Arkansas and Kentucky did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Thus a single parent in Mississippi can make no more than a meager $227 a month to qualify for Medicaid.
Earlier this month, Seema Verma, the administrator for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, cautioned Medicaid non-expansion states against imposing work requirements over concerns about coverage loss, while a legal filing by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Kentucky lawsuit said the Trump administration views work requirements as an option only for adults in expansion states. If Mississippi's plan is approved, more than 20,000 Mississippians could lose their Medicaid, with women and African Americans most affected.
Meanwhile, Mississippi is not the only Southern non-expansion state considering Medicaid work requirements. Last month, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam announced plans to sign a work requirement bill that would cause an estimated 22,300 citizens to lose their insurance. And in North Carolina, Republican state lawmakers are currently negotiating ways to write a Medicaid work requirement program into the state budget now under consideration. If implemented, the policy would affect about 60,000 state residents. The federal government would have to approve the states' plans before they could take effect.
Those are the questions Callie Greer tearfully asked earlier this month at the Washington, D.C., launch of the 40 Days of Action for the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, held the day after Mother's Day. Her own daughter, Venus, died of stage 4 breast cancer in Alabama because the state had refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and she could not get treatment until it was too late.
Every year, thousands of people like Venus die because they don't have insurance and thus lack access to health care. It's a problem people living in the South know too well. Because nine out of the 13 Southern states refused to expand Medicaid, the region is home to 90 percent of Americans who fall into the health care coverage gap — not wealthy enough to afford private insurance but not qualified for the public health insurance program for the poor and disabled.
Now the Trump administration wants to make it even more difficult for Americans to access Medicaid. In January, the administration sent a letter to state Medicaid directors calling for work requirements as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. Last month President Trump doubled down on his stance by issuing an executive order that aims to force citizens who do not meet certain work requirements off Medicaid, food assistance, and other safety-net programs.
Trump claims the policy would decrease poverty and provide work opportunities. But the majority of adult Medicaid beneficiaries are already working, though many are forced into part-time work by job-market limitations. And if they don't work, it is generally for good reason: because they have physical disabilities that leave them incapable of working, or are the caretakers of those with disabilities, or struggle with mental illnesses that limit their ability to work consistently, or are part of the homeless population that faces enormous barriers to obtaining employment.
Even though experts say Medicaid work requirements will create more problems than solutions, two Southern states — Arkansas and Kentucky — have already been granted federal approval to begin implementing them. These states, among the nation's poorest, expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, but the work requirements are expected to push thousands of residents into the coverage gap.
Arkansas's work requirement is set to take effect on June 1 and will apply only to the 280,000 state residents who received health insurance through Medicaid expansion. Under the policy, Medicaid enrollees will be required to meet an 80-hour monthly work requirement. If they are unable to meet the requirement for three months during the year, they will be locked out of Medicaid until the following year. And because the plan will require enrollees to report work hours through an online portal, some may lose coverage not because they failed to meet the work requirements but simply because they lack the internet access to prove it.
Kentucky's work requirement is set to take effect in July. But 15 residents have filed a class-action lawsuit to challenge the legality of the plan, which would require all Medicaid enrollees — not just those covered under the Medicaid expansion — to complete 80 monthly hours of employment, education, job skills training, or community service. If implemented, the plan is estimated to save the state over $2.4 billion because thousands will be kicked off the Medicaid rolls.
Kentucky's plan has raised questions about disproportionate racial impacts. The state will first impose the work requirement in northern Kentucky, which includes Jefferson County — the county with the largest Black population in the state. That means those most affected will be poor African Americans. But eight counties in rural southeastern Kentucky with high rates of unemployment — and where whites make up over 90 percent of the population — will be exempt from the work requirement. George Washington University health law professor Sara Rosenbaum called it "a version of racial redlining."
A recent analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that even Medicaid recipients who regularly work could be at risk of losing coverage. That's because people working low-wage jobs are more likely to have irregular working hours or gaps in their employment. CBPP estimates that one in four people who work enough hours over the course of a year to satisfy Kentucky's work requirements could still have at least one month where they fall below the 80-hour monthly requirement and thus risk losing coverage.
Besides Arkansas and Kentucky, Indiana and New Hampshire have also had Medicaid work requirements approved by the Trump administration. Several other states have proposals pending, including Mississippi — which unlike Arkansas and Kentucky did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Thus a single parent in Mississippi can make no more than a meager $227 a month to qualify for Medicaid.
Earlier this month, Seema Verma, the administrator for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, cautioned Medicaid non-expansion states against imposing work requirements over concerns about coverage loss, while a legal filing by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Kentucky lawsuit said the Trump administration views work requirements as an option only for adults in expansion states. If Mississippi's plan is approved, more than 20,000 Mississippians could lose their Medicaid, with women and African Americans most affected.
Meanwhile, Mississippi is not the only Southern non-expansion state considering Medicaid work requirements. Last month, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam announced plans to sign a work requirement bill that would cause an estimated 22,300 citizens to lose their insurance. And in North Carolina, Republican state lawmakers are currently negotiating ways to write a Medicaid work requirement program into the state budget now under consideration. If implemented, the policy would affect about 60,000 state residents. The federal government would have to approve the states' plans before they could take effect.
va becoming a shithole???
Trump’s VA Strips Protection From Workers’ Contract
By Alice Ollstein | tpm
May 24, 2018 6:00 am
The Department of Veterans Affairs this week unilaterally scrapped an Obama-era provision in their labor contract, stripping many of doctors and nurses of the right to have a union representative advocate for them at a hearing at which they are being disciplined or fired.
The effect, a union representing federal workers says, will be to make it easier to fire government employees.
The VA sent a “notice of repudiation” to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) on May 21 informing the union that the VA would no longer comply with this piece of the union contract, which has been in effect since 2011, calling it “null, void and unenforceable.”
The provision ensured that workers could have AFGE representation when they were called before either a Disciplinary Board or a Professional Standards Board — panels that determine whether a federal worker can be demoted, suspended or terminated.
VA Press Secretary Curt Cashour told TPM that the provision in question “interferes with federal law,” adding: “VA never should have agreed to it in the first place.”
“Federal Labor Relations Authority precedent clearly allows federal departments and agencies lawfully to repudiate a collective bargaining agreement clause that is nonnegotiable under the statute because the clause interferes with a federal law,” he said. “That’s exactly what we’re doing in this case.”
The Department of Veterans Affairs — which currently has no confirmed permanent leader — is the second-largest federal agency, with more than 360,000 federal employees. It is also the largest integrated health care system in the United States.
Jacque Simon, the public policy director of AFGE, told TPM that she sees the move as a “shot across the bow” and expects the Trump administration to roll back more federal worker protections in the months ahead.
“This basically takes our collective bargaining agreement and just rips some pages out, taking away something that’s been in effect legally for many years,” she said. “These boards are life and death — whether your professional standards are certified and whether you have a job. Now you can’t have your union represent you at those hearings.”
The VA’s move follows the passage of a bill in 2017 that stripped away many due process rights for employees at the agency, making it much easier for the administration to fire them. The reforms, characterized by President Trump and many lawmakers as a way to oust high-level officials accused of wrongdoing, have over the past year led to a purge of rank-and-file employees for minor infractions.
Bills have been introduced by Republicans in Congress to replicate these reforms at other federal agencies.
The effect, a union representing federal workers says, will be to make it easier to fire government employees.
The VA sent a “notice of repudiation” to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) on May 21 informing the union that the VA would no longer comply with this piece of the union contract, which has been in effect since 2011, calling it “null, void and unenforceable.”
The provision ensured that workers could have AFGE representation when they were called before either a Disciplinary Board or a Professional Standards Board — panels that determine whether a federal worker can be demoted, suspended or terminated.
VA Press Secretary Curt Cashour told TPM that the provision in question “interferes with federal law,” adding: “VA never should have agreed to it in the first place.”
“Federal Labor Relations Authority precedent clearly allows federal departments and agencies lawfully to repudiate a collective bargaining agreement clause that is nonnegotiable under the statute because the clause interferes with a federal law,” he said. “That’s exactly what we’re doing in this case.”
The Department of Veterans Affairs — which currently has no confirmed permanent leader — is the second-largest federal agency, with more than 360,000 federal employees. It is also the largest integrated health care system in the United States.
Jacque Simon, the public policy director of AFGE, told TPM that she sees the move as a “shot across the bow” and expects the Trump administration to roll back more federal worker protections in the months ahead.
“This basically takes our collective bargaining agreement and just rips some pages out, taking away something that’s been in effect legally for many years,” she said. “These boards are life and death — whether your professional standards are certified and whether you have a job. Now you can’t have your union represent you at those hearings.”
The VA’s move follows the passage of a bill in 2017 that stripped away many due process rights for employees at the agency, making it much easier for the administration to fire them. The reforms, characterized by President Trump and many lawmakers as a way to oust high-level officials accused of wrongdoing, have over the past year led to a purge of rank-and-file employees for minor infractions.
Bills have been introduced by Republicans in Congress to replicate these reforms at other federal agencies.
Trump gets the go-ahead to strip money from Children's Health Insurance Program
Laura Clawson
Daily Kos Staff
Tuesday May 22, 2018 · 1:30 PM PDT
Republicans took the Children’s Health Insurance Program hostage late last year and into this year. Now, months after finally funding it, they're doing this:
The Government Accountability Office on Tuesday delivered a victory to the Trump administration by greenlighting a proposal to claw back more than $7 billion in unused cash from the Children’s Health Insurance Program. [...]
With that legal approval, the White House’s plan for so-called rescissions will likely retain its filibuster-proof powers in the GOP-controlled Senate, easing the way for potential passage with a simple majority vote.
Health care for kids used to be a bipartisan concern. Now it’s a target and a bargaining chip as far as Republicans are concerned.
The Government Accountability Office on Tuesday delivered a victory to the Trump administration by greenlighting a proposal to claw back more than $7 billion in unused cash from the Children’s Health Insurance Program. [...]
With that legal approval, the White House’s plan for so-called rescissions will likely retain its filibuster-proof powers in the GOP-controlled Senate, easing the way for potential passage with a simple majority vote.
Health care for kids used to be a bipartisan concern. Now it’s a target and a bargaining chip as far as Republicans are concerned.
congrats to the farmers who voted for trump!!!
China nearly triples purchases of Russian soybeans as US farmers suffer over Trump’s trade war
David Edwards - raw story
17 MAY 2018 AT 11:31 ET
Russians are benefiting from President Donald Trump’s trade dispute with China while U.S. soybean farmers are suffering from lost sales.
Bloomberg reported on Thursday that China nearly tripled its purchases of Russian soybeans, setting a record.
Russia sold about 850,000 metric tons of soybeans to China from the start of the 12-month season in July through mid-May, according to Russia’s agriculture agency Rosselkhoznadzor. That’s more than during any season before and compares with about 340,000 tons sold during all of the previous period, Chinese customs data show.
Meanwhile, China has reportedly stopped buying U.S. soybeans after Trump announced tariffs on Chinese steel.
“Whatever they’re buying is non-U.S.,” Bunge Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Soren Schroder told Bloomberg last month. “They’re buying beans in Canada, in Brazil, mostly Brazil, but very deliberately not buying anything from the U.S.”
Bloomberg reported on Thursday that China nearly tripled its purchases of Russian soybeans, setting a record.
Russia sold about 850,000 metric tons of soybeans to China from the start of the 12-month season in July through mid-May, according to Russia’s agriculture agency Rosselkhoznadzor. That’s more than during any season before and compares with about 340,000 tons sold during all of the previous period, Chinese customs data show.
Meanwhile, China has reportedly stopped buying U.S. soybeans after Trump announced tariffs on Chinese steel.
“Whatever they’re buying is non-U.S.,” Bunge Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Soren Schroder told Bloomberg last month. “They’re buying beans in Canada, in Brazil, mostly Brazil, but very deliberately not buying anything from the U.S.”
thank the idiot-in-charge!!!
Japan plans $400m hit on US goods in response to Trump tariffs
As US-China talks begin aimed at averting a trade war, Tokyo jockeys for leverage with Trump administration
Reuters - the guardian
Wed 16 May 2018 23.29 EDT
Japan is considering slapping tariffs on US imports worth $409m in retaliation against steel and aluminium levies imposed by Donald Trump, public broadcaster NHK said on Thursday.
As the Trump administration prepares to begin talks with China in Washington on Thursday aimed at averting a trade war, Japan said it was preparing to notify the World Trade Organisation of its proposal, the report said.
Tokyo’s planned retaliatory tariffs would be the equivalent value to duties imposed by Washington via its tariffs, according to NHK, but will be seen as a bargaining tactic to persuade Washington to add Japan to a list of countries exempted from the US tariffs.
Japan was the United States’ fourth largest export market in 2016, according to US government figures, and worth more than $100bn. The leading categories were food, aircraft, machinery, pharmaceuticals and services.
A government official said while Tokyo has been considering taking some form of action based on WTO rules, no final decision has been made.
“We’re scrutinising the impact of US tariffs on Japanese companies, and calling for Washington to offer Japan an exemption,” the official told Reuters.
Japan is the only major US ally that did not receive exemptions from Trump’s tariff decision, which came as a shock to many policymakers given prime minister Shinzo Abe’s close ties with Trump.
Tokyo has been wary of following in the footsteps of China and the European Union, which responded to the US decision with reciprocal threats.
The US-China launch talks will begin as public hearings close on the first batch of US tariffs on $50bn worth of Chinese goods proposed as punishment for alleged violations of US intellectual rights.
The tariffs, which target Chinese electrical and machinery parts, cars and flat-screen television sets, could take effect in early June, and may be followed by an additional round targeting $100bn worth of Chinese goods. China has promised to retaliate in equal measure, targeting soybeans, aircraft, autos and other goods for additional tariffs, causing US farm commodity prices to fall.
However, in China, a Global Times editorial said it did not matter if US-China trade negotiations did not achieve anything. “The market is king. Buyers are scarce and China’s massive market is our strength. When it comes to trade, Chinese people will always stand with the government.”
As the Trump administration prepares to begin talks with China in Washington on Thursday aimed at averting a trade war, Japan said it was preparing to notify the World Trade Organisation of its proposal, the report said.
Tokyo’s planned retaliatory tariffs would be the equivalent value to duties imposed by Washington via its tariffs, according to NHK, but will be seen as a bargaining tactic to persuade Washington to add Japan to a list of countries exempted from the US tariffs.
Japan was the United States’ fourth largest export market in 2016, according to US government figures, and worth more than $100bn. The leading categories were food, aircraft, machinery, pharmaceuticals and services.
A government official said while Tokyo has been considering taking some form of action based on WTO rules, no final decision has been made.
“We’re scrutinising the impact of US tariffs on Japanese companies, and calling for Washington to offer Japan an exemption,” the official told Reuters.
Japan is the only major US ally that did not receive exemptions from Trump’s tariff decision, which came as a shock to many policymakers given prime minister Shinzo Abe’s close ties with Trump.
Tokyo has been wary of following in the footsteps of China and the European Union, which responded to the US decision with reciprocal threats.
The US-China launch talks will begin as public hearings close on the first batch of US tariffs on $50bn worth of Chinese goods proposed as punishment for alleged violations of US intellectual rights.
The tariffs, which target Chinese electrical and machinery parts, cars and flat-screen television sets, could take effect in early June, and may be followed by an additional round targeting $100bn worth of Chinese goods. China has promised to retaliate in equal measure, targeting soybeans, aircraft, autos and other goods for additional tariffs, causing US farm commodity prices to fall.
However, in China, a Global Times editorial said it did not matter if US-China trade negotiations did not achieve anything. “The market is king. Buyers are scarce and China’s massive market is our strength. When it comes to trade, Chinese people will always stand with the government.”
Voters in Trump states get a taste of how great he's making America for them
Kerry Eleveld
Daily Kos Staff
Tuesday May 15, 2018 · 5:52 PM PDT
First it was red-state farmers who got stung by Donald Trump's trade war with China. Now it's small business owners who are getting squeezed by the Trump administration’s immigration policy—which one Trump voter now sees as driven more by racism than economics.
“I think there’s a war on brown people,” Eddie Devine said, with 20/20 hindsight.
Devine, a Kentucky Trump voter, doesn’t like what he’s seen but it also wasn’t a major concern for him originally. He says he now stands to lose his landscaping business because he can't get enough seasonal workers through the scaled back H-2B visa program. Devine thought Trump would be good for his business, but now he feels betrayed.
“I feel like I’ve been tricked by the devil,” said Devine, owner of Harrodsburg-based Devine Creations Landscaping. “I feel so stupid.”
Trump's failure to produce for many small business owners and also some blue-collar workers has hit home in a rash of states Trump won in 2016, including reports from Kentucky, Texas and Ohio.
General Motors is cutting its second shift at the Lordstown Assembly plant outside of Youngtown, Ohio, next month. The move could cost 1,500 jobs at the 3,000-employee plant that builds the Chevrolet Cruze. This is in the heart of the Mahoning Valley, long a Democratic stronghold that broke toward Trump in 2016 because of his popularity with the kinds of blue-collar workers who are about to lose their jobs or reluctantly take buyouts.
Trump's lax emission standards along with once-declining gas prices (they've shot up since Trump scrapped the Iran nuclear deal) are responsible for a decrease in demand for fuel efficient cars like the Cruze and, thus, the layoffs. Ohio Democrats have taken note.
“While low gas prices encourage the decline of compact car like the Chevy Cruze, President Trump’s intention to weaken fuel economy standards is putting his thumb on the scale in favor of the larger cars and SUVs made elsewhere,” [Democratic Rep. Tim] Ryan said. “He claimed he was against the government picking winners and losers, and yet he goes against the very region and state that helped put him in office.”
U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Cleveland Democrat, plans to send a letter to GM about the announcement.
“GM cannot pocket billions of dollars in tax cuts and turn around and fire Ohio workers whose livelihoods depend on these jobs,” Brown said. “I expect GM to tell Ohioans immediately how they plan to use their tax windfall to keep Ohioans in their jobs.”
Oh, right—the GOP tax heist. Far from creating jobs, it looks like that corporate tax bonanza is just as readily translating into layoffs for American workers.
Trump’s trade war with China was already creating an opening for red-state Democrats in the midterms; his failings for small business owners and blue-collar workers who voted for him is just another nudge in the direction of Democrats this fall.
“I think there’s a war on brown people,” Eddie Devine said, with 20/20 hindsight.
Devine, a Kentucky Trump voter, doesn’t like what he’s seen but it also wasn’t a major concern for him originally. He says he now stands to lose his landscaping business because he can't get enough seasonal workers through the scaled back H-2B visa program. Devine thought Trump would be good for his business, but now he feels betrayed.
“I feel like I’ve been tricked by the devil,” said Devine, owner of Harrodsburg-based Devine Creations Landscaping. “I feel so stupid.”
Trump's failure to produce for many small business owners and also some blue-collar workers has hit home in a rash of states Trump won in 2016, including reports from Kentucky, Texas and Ohio.
General Motors is cutting its second shift at the Lordstown Assembly plant outside of Youngtown, Ohio, next month. The move could cost 1,500 jobs at the 3,000-employee plant that builds the Chevrolet Cruze. This is in the heart of the Mahoning Valley, long a Democratic stronghold that broke toward Trump in 2016 because of his popularity with the kinds of blue-collar workers who are about to lose their jobs or reluctantly take buyouts.
Trump's lax emission standards along with once-declining gas prices (they've shot up since Trump scrapped the Iran nuclear deal) are responsible for a decrease in demand for fuel efficient cars like the Cruze and, thus, the layoffs. Ohio Democrats have taken note.
“While low gas prices encourage the decline of compact car like the Chevy Cruze, President Trump’s intention to weaken fuel economy standards is putting his thumb on the scale in favor of the larger cars and SUVs made elsewhere,” [Democratic Rep. Tim] Ryan said. “He claimed he was against the government picking winners and losers, and yet he goes against the very region and state that helped put him in office.”
U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Cleveland Democrat, plans to send a letter to GM about the announcement.
“GM cannot pocket billions of dollars in tax cuts and turn around and fire Ohio workers whose livelihoods depend on these jobs,” Brown said. “I expect GM to tell Ohioans immediately how they plan to use their tax windfall to keep Ohioans in their jobs.”
Oh, right—the GOP tax heist. Far from creating jobs, it looks like that corporate tax bonanza is just as readily translating into layoffs for American workers.
Trump’s trade war with China was already creating an opening for red-state Democrats in the midterms; his failings for small business owners and blue-collar workers who voted for him is just another nudge in the direction of Democrats this fall.
payback funnies
|
|
what you see is what you get!!!
your share, idiot!!!!
