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
feb 26, 2020
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 by 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 by state government.
5. Forget about decent preventative healthcare.
6. One result: people self-medicate in response.
7. Forget the lottery, just pray to Jesus.
8. And hold onto that gun!
payback headlines - how you are screwed!!
*TRUMP'S JUNK PLAN LEAVES FLORIDA MAN HOLDING THE BILL FOR CORONAVIRUS TESTING
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump administration proposes another Social Security rule that violates the law, hurts the disabled(ARTICLE BELOW)
*‘A travesty and a disgrace’: Trump quietly issues memo that could abolish union rights for 750,000 federal workers(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Workers Face Retirement With Fear as GOP Refuses to Back Pension Protection Bill
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump looks to kill student loan forgiveness program
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS LAUNCHED A BRAZEN ASSAULT ON OUR PUBLIC LANDS
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump moves to cap pay raise for civilian government workers at 1 percent
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump tariffs would bury US in 'fake prosciutto and fake Parmesan,' warns one food importer(ARTICLE BELOW)
*‘It’s sickening!’ 2016 Trump voter turns on the president after his wife gets deported to Mexico(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The poor and people with disabilities ‘are going to die’: Trump takes axe to Medicaid
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*NATIONAL DEBT INCREASED BY $3 TRILLION DURING DONALD TRUMP'S THREE YEARS AS PRESIDENT(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Wisconsin lost 10% of its dairy farmers in 2019, marking its biggest decline ever as Trump's trade wars raged(ARTICLE BELOW)
*US budget deficit running 11.8% higher this year
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*‘We can barely eat’: West Virginia offers a chilling preview of Trump’s food stamp restrictions(ARTICLE BELOW)
*MORE DRUGMAKERS HIKE U.S. PRICES AS NEW YEAR BEGINS
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*TRUMP RUNS THE COUNTRY JUST LIKE HE RAN HIS BANKRUPTED BUSINESSES: THE NATIONAL DEBT IS SKYROCKETING WHILE ECONOMIC GROWTH IS LAGGING(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump-supporting farmers forced to apply for food stamps as his trade war hammers their incomes(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The Trump administration has just declared war on Social Security
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*'I won’t be able to have healthy food': millions of Americans to lose lifeline as Trump cuts food stamps(ARTICLE BELOW)
*PAUL KRUGMAN EXPLAINS THE DEPRESSING TRUTH ABOUT LIFE AND DEATH IN RED STATES
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The Senate’s most famous anti-science member is OK with flooding his neighbors — if it keeps his lake view(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Yet another independent study just found Americans have been stuck paying Trump's tariffs(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Deep red town's only grocery closed, city hall opened its own store. Just don't call it 'socialism'(ARTICLE BELOW)
*STUDY: STATES THAT EXPANDED MEDICAID SAVED 19,000 LIVES, STATES THAT DIDN'T LOST 15,000
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*‘I’m very upset’: Furious Texas rancher says Trump is ‘secretly’ trying to steal land to build ‘the wall’(ARTICLE BELOW)
*DAVID CAY JOHNSTON EXPLAINS HOW TRUMP’S TRADE TARIFFS ARE REALLY A TAX ON HIS BASE
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The four Midwestern states that sealed Trump’s 2016 win projected to face economic downturn in 2020(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The U.S. deficit hit $984 billion in 2019, soaring during Trump era
(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
america's reward for voting for republicans!!!
Welcome to RepublicanDebt.org
This site tracks the current Republican Debt.
The Republican 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, Donald J. Trump,
and
the Republican fiscal policy of Borrow-And-Spend.
As of Monday, February 03, 2020 at 11:25:51AM PT,
The Current Republican Debt is:
$14,492,313,849,369.60
which means that in a total of 23 years,
these four presidents have led to the creation of
93.94%
of the entire national debt
in only 9.4262% of the 244 years of the existence of the United States of America.
http://republicandebt.org/
Trump's Junk Plan Leaves Florida Man Holding The Bill For Coronavirus Testing
It would be a wildly ironic lesson in why the ACA matters, and it is. But it's also a warning about the public health crisis facing us.
By Karoli Kuns - crooks &liars
2/25/2020
Remember when Trump decided he'd get rid of the ACA by approving junk plans that could impose pre-existing conditions restrictions and don't pay for benefits that qualified ACA plans are required to cover? Remember how the right wing celebrated that and Trump crowed about how people could buy these crappy plans and tell themselves they had health insurance?
Well, have I got a story for YOU, courtesy of the Miami Herald. Osmel Martinez Azcue came down with flu-like symptoms after he visited China as part of a work trip. While he said he'd ordinarily just go get some cold and flu medicine from CVS, he thought he had better be tested for coronavirus, given the possibility he could have gotten it on his trip.
What happened next? This:
He went to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where he said he was placed in a closed-off room. Nurses in protective white suits sprayed some kind of disinfectant smoke under the door before entering, Azcue said. Then hospital staff members told him he’d need a CT scan to screen for coronavirus, but Azcue said he asked for a flu test first.
“This will be out of my pocket,” Azcue, who has a very limited insurance plan, recalled saying. “Let’s start with the blood test, and if I test positive, just discharge me.”
Oh. So the hospital did that. And he had the flu. What a relief for him!
Well, sort of. Right about the time he was recovered from his bout of the flu, he was slapped with a bill for $3,270, all of which was denied by his insurance company.
But wait! It gets better!
Hospital officials at Jackson told the Miami Herald that, based on his insurance, Azcue would only be responsible for $1,400 of that bill, but Azcue said he heard from his insurer that he would also have to provide additional documentation: three years of medical records to prove that the flu he got didn’t relate to a preexisting condition.
Yep, that's right. Some genius at the crappy for-profit insurer who was happy to take Azcue's money but cover nothing and then come up with the bogus argument that somehow a bout of the flu related to some mysterious pre-existing condition (What? He had a cold 3 years ago?) is EXACTLY why the ACA exists.
Was Azcue stupid for buying junk insurance? Yeah, he was. Here's why he did it:
Azcue said he earns about $55,000 a year working for a medical device company that does not offer health insurance, but his insurance plan wasn’t always so narrow. Last year, Azcue said he was covered under an Affordable Care Act-compliant plan that cost him about $278 in monthly premiums.
Those premiums shot up to $400 a month when his full year salary kicked in, so he canceled his plan in November, he said. Azcue said he now pays $180 per month for the limited plan from National General Insurance.
Was Azcue smart for going and getting tested for coronavirus? Yes, he absolutely was. He gets a "good citizen" award for that.
But what has just happened here is a leading indicator of what kind of health crisis is looming in front of us, because there are going to be a LOT of people out there with no insurance who will not do that. They will tell themselves they just have a cold, nothing more, go to CVS for some meds, pass around that virus to everyone they come in contact with, and maybe end up in the hospital, or worse yet, dead.
“When someone has flu-like symptoms, you want them to to seek medical care,” said Sabrina Corlette, a Georgetown University professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “If they have one of these junk plans and they know they might be on the hook for more than they can afford to seek that care, a lot of them just won’t, and that is a public health concern.”
It's more like a public health crisis. Sure, let's hear more about how people don't want to give up their GREAT private insurance for Medicare for All.
Well, have I got a story for YOU, courtesy of the Miami Herald. Osmel Martinez Azcue came down with flu-like symptoms after he visited China as part of a work trip. While he said he'd ordinarily just go get some cold and flu medicine from CVS, he thought he had better be tested for coronavirus, given the possibility he could have gotten it on his trip.
What happened next? This:
He went to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where he said he was placed in a closed-off room. Nurses in protective white suits sprayed some kind of disinfectant smoke under the door before entering, Azcue said. Then hospital staff members told him he’d need a CT scan to screen for coronavirus, but Azcue said he asked for a flu test first.
“This will be out of my pocket,” Azcue, who has a very limited insurance plan, recalled saying. “Let’s start with the blood test, and if I test positive, just discharge me.”
Oh. So the hospital did that. And he had the flu. What a relief for him!
Well, sort of. Right about the time he was recovered from his bout of the flu, he was slapped with a bill for $3,270, all of which was denied by his insurance company.
But wait! It gets better!
Hospital officials at Jackson told the Miami Herald that, based on his insurance, Azcue would only be responsible for $1,400 of that bill, but Azcue said he heard from his insurer that he would also have to provide additional documentation: three years of medical records to prove that the flu he got didn’t relate to a preexisting condition.
Yep, that's right. Some genius at the crappy for-profit insurer who was happy to take Azcue's money but cover nothing and then come up with the bogus argument that somehow a bout of the flu related to some mysterious pre-existing condition (What? He had a cold 3 years ago?) is EXACTLY why the ACA exists.
Was Azcue stupid for buying junk insurance? Yeah, he was. Here's why he did it:
Azcue said he earns about $55,000 a year working for a medical device company that does not offer health insurance, but his insurance plan wasn’t always so narrow. Last year, Azcue said he was covered under an Affordable Care Act-compliant plan that cost him about $278 in monthly premiums.
Those premiums shot up to $400 a month when his full year salary kicked in, so he canceled his plan in November, he said. Azcue said he now pays $180 per month for the limited plan from National General Insurance.
Was Azcue smart for going and getting tested for coronavirus? Yes, he absolutely was. He gets a "good citizen" award for that.
But what has just happened here is a leading indicator of what kind of health crisis is looming in front of us, because there are going to be a LOT of people out there with no insurance who will not do that. They will tell themselves they just have a cold, nothing more, go to CVS for some meds, pass around that virus to everyone they come in contact with, and maybe end up in the hospital, or worse yet, dead.
“When someone has flu-like symptoms, you want them to to seek medical care,” said Sabrina Corlette, a Georgetown University professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “If they have one of these junk plans and they know they might be on the hook for more than they can afford to seek that care, a lot of them just won’t, and that is a public health concern.”
It's more like a public health crisis. Sure, let's hear more about how people don't want to give up their GREAT private insurance for Medicare for All.
Trump administration proposes another Social Security rule that violates the law, hurts the disabled
Joan McCarter
Daily Kos Staff
Thursday February 20, 2020 · 11:56 AM PST
The Trump administration has been making a low-key but concerted attack on Social Security in the past weeks, not in public pronouncements, but in attacks on the program through the rule-making process. While the proposal intended to kick Social Security Disability claimants off of benefits has received attention, a second rule that would make the appeals process harder to navigate has flown under the radar. Administrative law judges and Democrats in Congress have been paying attention, though.
he rule would cut administrative law judges out of the loop in taking up standard cases, conducting hearings, and issuing decisions on applications for disability benefits—all responsibilities currently reserved for them. The Social Security Administration says that the change would streamline the hearing process and "provide us with appropriate flexibility, particularly when budgets may not support additional hiring or unanticipated shifts in disability application rates occur." What it will actually do, the judges and members of Congress say, it strip due process rights from people applying for benefits. It would also violate the law and Supreme Court precedent, the administrative law judges' union says. The administration is "trying to undermine the ALJs' judicial independence" they argue in their comment opposing the rule, and "effectively subject the entire administrative adjudicative process under performance appraisal control by the agency."
The end result would be that the "claimant is denied a truly independent review within the agency and is left only with an appeal to the courts for such a review." The Supreme Court, in Smith v. Berryhill, they argue, said that a claimant must have access to an appeal specifically with an administrative law judge, and that "is indeed a matter of legislative right rather than agency grace." That's what Democrats in Congress said, too, in their comment on the proposed rule, sent jointly by Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Richard Neal, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Reps. Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, the chairs of the Judiciary and the Oversight and Reform committees of the House, signed on as well for good measure.
"SSA's proposed rule would erode due process for Americans who are appealing a denial of Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), threatening access by eligible individuals to disability, retirement, and survivors' benefits," the members wrote in their comment letter. "Replacing independent Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) with Administrative Appeals Judges (AAJs) is contrary to congressional intent for impartial SSA hearings, and it is not supported by the rationale asserted in the proposed rule." It would contradict the congressional intent of the law regarding disability claim proceedings.
It would also almost certainly mean fewer people would receive disability benefits, a chief aim of the Trump administration.
he rule would cut administrative law judges out of the loop in taking up standard cases, conducting hearings, and issuing decisions on applications for disability benefits—all responsibilities currently reserved for them. The Social Security Administration says that the change would streamline the hearing process and "provide us with appropriate flexibility, particularly when budgets may not support additional hiring or unanticipated shifts in disability application rates occur." What it will actually do, the judges and members of Congress say, it strip due process rights from people applying for benefits. It would also violate the law and Supreme Court precedent, the administrative law judges' union says. The administration is "trying to undermine the ALJs' judicial independence" they argue in their comment opposing the rule, and "effectively subject the entire administrative adjudicative process under performance appraisal control by the agency."
The end result would be that the "claimant is denied a truly independent review within the agency and is left only with an appeal to the courts for such a review." The Supreme Court, in Smith v. Berryhill, they argue, said that a claimant must have access to an appeal specifically with an administrative law judge, and that "is indeed a matter of legislative right rather than agency grace." That's what Democrats in Congress said, too, in their comment on the proposed rule, sent jointly by Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Richard Neal, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Reps. Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, the chairs of the Judiciary and the Oversight and Reform committees of the House, signed on as well for good measure.
"SSA's proposed rule would erode due process for Americans who are appealing a denial of Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), threatening access by eligible individuals to disability, retirement, and survivors' benefits," the members wrote in their comment letter. "Replacing independent Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) with Administrative Appeals Judges (AAJs) is contrary to congressional intent for impartial SSA hearings, and it is not supported by the rationale asserted in the proposed rule." It would contradict the congressional intent of the law regarding disability claim proceedings.
It would also almost certainly mean fewer people would receive disability benefits, a chief aim of the Trump administration.
‘A travesty and a disgrace’: Trump quietly issues memo that could abolish union rights for 750,000 federal workers
February 22, 2020
By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams - raw story
“This administration will not stop until it takes away all workers’ rights to form and join a union.”
President Donald Trump on Thursday quietly issued a memo granting Defense Secretary Mark Esper the power to abolish collective bargaining rights for the Defense Department’s 750,000 civilian workers, a move unions decried as part of the administration’s far-reaching assault on organized labor.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) condemned the memo, which was published in the Federal Register (pdf) Thursday, as “a travesty and a disgrace.”
“The administration’s divide-and-conquer strategy with respect to organized labor is as disgusting as it is shameful.”
—American Federation of Government Employees
The memo argues that a unionized Defense Department workforce could pose a threat to “national security” and that, if necessary, collective bargaining rights at the department should be scrapped in the interest of “protecting the American people.”
“When new missions emerge or existing ones evolve, the Department of Defense requires maximum flexibility to respond to threats,” the memo states. “This flexibility requires that military and civilian leadership manage their organizations to cultivate a lethal, agile force adaptive to new technologies and posture changes.”
“Where collective bargaining is incompatible with these organizations’ missions,” the memo continues, “the Department of Defense should not be forced to sacrifice its national security mission and, instead, seek relief through third parties and administrative fora.”
It is unclear whether or how Esper intends to act on his legal authority.
Larry Mishel, distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute, called the White House’s justification for ending collective bargaining rights at the Defense Department “atrocious.”
The existence of the memo, which Trump signed on Jan. 29, was first reported by Government Executive earlier this month.
The outlet noted that “the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 includes a provision allowing the president to issue an order excluding agencies and agency subcomponents from collective bargaining rules if the rules ‘cannot be applied to that agency or subdivision in a manner consistent with national security requirements.'”
Everett Kelley, AFGE’s national secretary-treasurer, said in a statement that denying Defense Department employees “the collective bargaining rights guaranteed to them by law since 1962 would be a travesty—and doing it under the guise of ‘national security’ would be a disgrace to the sacred oath and obligation that all federal workers make to their country.”
“This administration will not stop until it takes away all workers’ rights to form and join a union, and we will not stop doing everything we can to prevent that from happening.”
—Everett Kelley, AFGE
“This administration will not stop until it takes away all workers’ rights to form and join a union,” said Kelley, “and we will not stop doing everything we can to prevent that from happening.”
Government Executive noted that “unionized workforces within the Defense Department vary widely.”
“Civilian workers at the U.S. Coast Guard are represented by the [AFGE], as are the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Contract Management Agency,” the outlet reported. “Blue-collar workers at military bases and depots across the country are represented by a variety of unions, and teachers at on-base schools for children of service members bargain collectively as well.”
Trump and corporate-friendly officials in his administration have been attacking public- and private-sector unions since the president took office in 2017.
Last October, Politico obtained an internal memo penned in 2017 by White House domestic policy adviser James Sherk, who urged Trump “to eliminate all job protections for federal workers and a requirement that federal contractors provide paid sick leave for employees.”
“The Trump administration has already acted on key recommendations in the memo,” Politico reported. “For example, it has changed overtime pay calculations and put forth rules making it harder for companies to be held liable for labor violations committed by franchisees and contractors.”
The memo, Politico noted, also recommended that Trump “issue an executive order eliminating employee unions at the Defense Department on the basis of national security.”
In an October statement responding to Sherk’s recommendations, AFGE said “the administration’s divide-and-conquer strategy with respect to organized labor is as disgusting as it is shameful.”
“But it won’t work,” the union said. “Across this country, our members and the members of every other labor union are getting educated, organized, and mobilized. As the largest union representing federal employees, AFGE will continue to resist the president’s mob mentality and disrespect for the federal workforce and the work they do.”
President Donald Trump on Thursday quietly issued a memo granting Defense Secretary Mark Esper the power to abolish collective bargaining rights for the Defense Department’s 750,000 civilian workers, a move unions decried as part of the administration’s far-reaching assault on organized labor.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) condemned the memo, which was published in the Federal Register (pdf) Thursday, as “a travesty and a disgrace.”
“The administration’s divide-and-conquer strategy with respect to organized labor is as disgusting as it is shameful.”
—American Federation of Government Employees
The memo argues that a unionized Defense Department workforce could pose a threat to “national security” and that, if necessary, collective bargaining rights at the department should be scrapped in the interest of “protecting the American people.”
“When new missions emerge or existing ones evolve, the Department of Defense requires maximum flexibility to respond to threats,” the memo states. “This flexibility requires that military and civilian leadership manage their organizations to cultivate a lethal, agile force adaptive to new technologies and posture changes.”
“Where collective bargaining is incompatible with these organizations’ missions,” the memo continues, “the Department of Defense should not be forced to sacrifice its national security mission and, instead, seek relief through third parties and administrative fora.”
It is unclear whether or how Esper intends to act on his legal authority.
Larry Mishel, distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute, called the White House’s justification for ending collective bargaining rights at the Defense Department “atrocious.”
The existence of the memo, which Trump signed on Jan. 29, was first reported by Government Executive earlier this month.
The outlet noted that “the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 includes a provision allowing the president to issue an order excluding agencies and agency subcomponents from collective bargaining rules if the rules ‘cannot be applied to that agency or subdivision in a manner consistent with national security requirements.'”
Everett Kelley, AFGE’s national secretary-treasurer, said in a statement that denying Defense Department employees “the collective bargaining rights guaranteed to them by law since 1962 would be a travesty—and doing it under the guise of ‘national security’ would be a disgrace to the sacred oath and obligation that all federal workers make to their country.”
“This administration will not stop until it takes away all workers’ rights to form and join a union, and we will not stop doing everything we can to prevent that from happening.”
—Everett Kelley, AFGE
“This administration will not stop until it takes away all workers’ rights to form and join a union,” said Kelley, “and we will not stop doing everything we can to prevent that from happening.”
Government Executive noted that “unionized workforces within the Defense Department vary widely.”
“Civilian workers at the U.S. Coast Guard are represented by the [AFGE], as are the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Contract Management Agency,” the outlet reported. “Blue-collar workers at military bases and depots across the country are represented by a variety of unions, and teachers at on-base schools for children of service members bargain collectively as well.”
Trump and corporate-friendly officials in his administration have been attacking public- and private-sector unions since the president took office in 2017.
Last October, Politico obtained an internal memo penned in 2017 by White House domestic policy adviser James Sherk, who urged Trump “to eliminate all job protections for federal workers and a requirement that federal contractors provide paid sick leave for employees.”
“The Trump administration has already acted on key recommendations in the memo,” Politico reported. “For example, it has changed overtime pay calculations and put forth rules making it harder for companies to be held liable for labor violations committed by franchisees and contractors.”
The memo, Politico noted, also recommended that Trump “issue an executive order eliminating employee unions at the Defense Department on the basis of national security.”
In an October statement responding to Sherk’s recommendations, AFGE said “the administration’s divide-and-conquer strategy with respect to organized labor is as disgusting as it is shameful.”
“But it won’t work,” the union said. “Across this country, our members and the members of every other labor union are getting educated, organized, and mobilized. As the largest union representing federal employees, AFGE will continue to resist the president’s mob mentality and disrespect for the federal workforce and the work they do.”
voting for republicans, you are screwed!!!
Workers Face Retirement With Fear as GOP Refuses to Back Pension Protection Bill
BY Thomas Conway, OurFuture - truthout
PUBLISHED February 15, 2020
Glen Heck spent 28 years sweating in a Campti, Louisiana, paper mill that he likes to say was “hotter than nine kinds of hell.”
But now, Heck’s sacrifice may have been for nothing because his multiemployer pension plan is one of about 150 nationwide set to go broke. If that happens, the 78-year-old Heck will have to find a cheaper, lower-quality health plan and keep the beef herd he’s itching to sell.
The Democratic-controlled House passed—with bipartisan support—a commonsense plan to save Heck’s pension and those of another 1.3 million workers, retirees and widows. But Republican leaders in the Senate refuse to consider it.
In the meantime, the futures of workers and retirees like Heck hang in the balance. Many face retirement with fear instead of anticipation.
Multiemployer pension plans like Heck’s include workers from two or more companies in industries such as transportation, entertainment, construction and paper. Employers make contributions for workers as part of their compensation. Heck and others often give up wage increases or other benefits to fund those plans.
Many of the 1,400 plans nationwide are still healthy. But through no fault of workers or retirees, about 150 are struggling.
Recessions in 2001 and 2008 cut the plans’ investment earnings, and some corporations used bankruptcies to evade pension obligations. Deregulation forced less-competitive companies out of business, straining the plans’ resources.
Now, they owe more money to beneficiaries than they have coming in, and they’re at risk of collapsing. The PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund (PIUMPF)—Heck’s plan—is one of them. According to recent projections, the fund will be insolvent in as few as 10 years.
Under the bill passed by the House, the Butch Lewis Act, the Treasury Department would loan money to troubled plans. The plans would use the money to meet their obligations to retirees, and they would repay the loans over 30 years.
The federal government already has an agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC), to pay benefits to retirees when multiemployer plans crumble. But it’s no substitute for the Butch Lewis Act.
PBGC provides only a fraction of the benefits beneficiaries earned. Also, so many plans are imperiled that the PBGC’s insurance program itself is at risk of collapse.
If plans fail, workers and retirees will lose as much as 98 percent of their benefits. The Butch Lewis Act would ensure that they receive the money they earned, not pennies on the dollar.
Heck, a former officer with United Steelworkers (USW) Local 13-1331 in Campti, knows widows of paper workers—one with a small child—who’d be financially devastated without their late husbands’ pensions. He knows a retiree with major health problems who’d have no way of paying medical bills without his pension checks.
“He’s just worried to death about it,” said Heck, who worked at the paper mill under a handful of operators, including current owner International Paper.
Cedric McClinton, president of Local 13-1331 and a technician at the paper mill, said pensions are the main source of retirement income for many workers and retirees. If those benefits get cut, there’s no easy way to make up the difference.
“You’re either looking at working longer—and who wants to work until you’ve got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel—or you’re looking at making concessions after you’ve worked all that time,” McClinton said.
Workers worry about downsizing their homes, giving up travel plans and going on government assistance programs.
“We talk about these things all the time,” McClinton said. “It’s real.”
Instead of passing the Butch Lewis Act to fix the pension crisis, Senate Republicans introduced legislation that would make the problem worse.
Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee want to increase the premiums that retirement plans pay PBGC—something that would push currently healthy plans into financial ruin and put more workers’ retirements in jeopardy. The added costs also would propel some employers into bankruptcy, costing workers their jobs.
Grassley and Alexander also want to increase taxes on pensions, taking a bigger slice of the benefits workers earned and imposing a greater burden on retirees unable to afford it.
Workers and retirees didn’t create the pension crisis. But Grassley and Alexander want them to pay for it.
“That’s mind-boggling,” fumed Travis Birchfield, who’s lobbied for the Butch Lewis Act on behalf of Evergreen Packaging workers represented by USW Local 507 in Canton, N.C. “We’ve done bailouts and tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and then working people can’t get a damn loan?”
Uncertainty gnaws at Birchfield’s co-workers. Some in their 60s are thinking about retirement, but hesitate because of the pension crisis.
“They’ll ask us, ‘what do you think is going to happen?’ We can’t answer those questions,” Birchfield said.
McClinton and Birchfield pounded the halls of the Capitol to share members’ stories and concerns. But Senate Republicans fail to get the message.
Pensions aren’t perks or “extras.” Workers earned these benefits, and they rely on that money being there during their golden years, just as members of Congress count on receiving taxpayer-subsidized pensions when they leave office.
Failing to pass the Butch Lewis Act means consigning 1.3 million Americans to meager retirements. Some will fall into poverty after supporting themselves all of their lives. Many already see their dreams slipping away.
These hard-working men and women deserve immediate Senate passage of a responsible bill that safeguards their futures.
“Nobody’s trying to get rich here,” Birchfield stressed. “We’re just trying to get our retirements.”
But now, Heck’s sacrifice may have been for nothing because his multiemployer pension plan is one of about 150 nationwide set to go broke. If that happens, the 78-year-old Heck will have to find a cheaper, lower-quality health plan and keep the beef herd he’s itching to sell.
The Democratic-controlled House passed—with bipartisan support—a commonsense plan to save Heck’s pension and those of another 1.3 million workers, retirees and widows. But Republican leaders in the Senate refuse to consider it.
In the meantime, the futures of workers and retirees like Heck hang in the balance. Many face retirement with fear instead of anticipation.
Multiemployer pension plans like Heck’s include workers from two or more companies in industries such as transportation, entertainment, construction and paper. Employers make contributions for workers as part of their compensation. Heck and others often give up wage increases or other benefits to fund those plans.
Many of the 1,400 plans nationwide are still healthy. But through no fault of workers or retirees, about 150 are struggling.
Recessions in 2001 and 2008 cut the plans’ investment earnings, and some corporations used bankruptcies to evade pension obligations. Deregulation forced less-competitive companies out of business, straining the plans’ resources.
Now, they owe more money to beneficiaries than they have coming in, and they’re at risk of collapsing. The PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund (PIUMPF)—Heck’s plan—is one of them. According to recent projections, the fund will be insolvent in as few as 10 years.
Under the bill passed by the House, the Butch Lewis Act, the Treasury Department would loan money to troubled plans. The plans would use the money to meet their obligations to retirees, and they would repay the loans over 30 years.
The federal government already has an agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC), to pay benefits to retirees when multiemployer plans crumble. But it’s no substitute for the Butch Lewis Act.
PBGC provides only a fraction of the benefits beneficiaries earned. Also, so many plans are imperiled that the PBGC’s insurance program itself is at risk of collapse.
If plans fail, workers and retirees will lose as much as 98 percent of their benefits. The Butch Lewis Act would ensure that they receive the money they earned, not pennies on the dollar.
Heck, a former officer with United Steelworkers (USW) Local 13-1331 in Campti, knows widows of paper workers—one with a small child—who’d be financially devastated without their late husbands’ pensions. He knows a retiree with major health problems who’d have no way of paying medical bills without his pension checks.
“He’s just worried to death about it,” said Heck, who worked at the paper mill under a handful of operators, including current owner International Paper.
Cedric McClinton, president of Local 13-1331 and a technician at the paper mill, said pensions are the main source of retirement income for many workers and retirees. If those benefits get cut, there’s no easy way to make up the difference.
“You’re either looking at working longer—and who wants to work until you’ve got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel—or you’re looking at making concessions after you’ve worked all that time,” McClinton said.
Workers worry about downsizing their homes, giving up travel plans and going on government assistance programs.
“We talk about these things all the time,” McClinton said. “It’s real.”
Instead of passing the Butch Lewis Act to fix the pension crisis, Senate Republicans introduced legislation that would make the problem worse.
Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee want to increase the premiums that retirement plans pay PBGC—something that would push currently healthy plans into financial ruin and put more workers’ retirements in jeopardy. The added costs also would propel some employers into bankruptcy, costing workers their jobs.
Grassley and Alexander also want to increase taxes on pensions, taking a bigger slice of the benefits workers earned and imposing a greater burden on retirees unable to afford it.
Workers and retirees didn’t create the pension crisis. But Grassley and Alexander want them to pay for it.
“That’s mind-boggling,” fumed Travis Birchfield, who’s lobbied for the Butch Lewis Act on behalf of Evergreen Packaging workers represented by USW Local 507 in Canton, N.C. “We’ve done bailouts and tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and then working people can’t get a damn loan?”
Uncertainty gnaws at Birchfield’s co-workers. Some in their 60s are thinking about retirement, but hesitate because of the pension crisis.
“They’ll ask us, ‘what do you think is going to happen?’ We can’t answer those questions,” Birchfield said.
McClinton and Birchfield pounded the halls of the Capitol to share members’ stories and concerns. But Senate Republicans fail to get the message.
Pensions aren’t perks or “extras.” Workers earned these benefits, and they rely on that money being there during their golden years, just as members of Congress count on receiving taxpayer-subsidized pensions when they leave office.
Failing to pass the Butch Lewis Act means consigning 1.3 million Americans to meager retirements. Some will fall into poverty after supporting themselves all of their lives. Many already see their dreams slipping away.
These hard-working men and women deserve immediate Senate passage of a responsible bill that safeguards their futures.
“Nobody’s trying to get rich here,” Birchfield stressed. “We’re just trying to get our retirements.”
Trump looks to kill student loan forgiveness program
Annie Nova - cnbc
2/11/2020
KEY POINTS
As student debt continues to climb, President Donald Trump on Monday released a budget for 2021 that would slash many of the programs aimed at helping borrowers.
Student loan spending would be cut by $170 billion in Trump’s plan, titled “A Budget for America’s Future.” The reductions include “sensible annual and lifetime loan limits” for graduate students and parents and the end to subsidized loans, in which the government covers the interest for borrowers who are still in school or experiencing economic hardship.
It would also reduce the number of repayment options for borrowers and nix the popular, if challenged, public service loan forgiveness program.
That program, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007, allows not-for-profit and government employees to have their federal student loans canceled after 10 years of on-time payments. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates that up to one-quarter of American workers are eligible.
“The Trump Administration already has a reputation of being anti-borrower,” said Mark Kantrowitz, a higher education policy expert. “This just takes it further.”
In all, Trump’s proposal would request $66.6 billion for the U.S. Department of Education, trimming the budget by $5.6 billion, or nearly 8%. The proposed cut is less steep than last year, when he called for a nearly 10% reduction in spending for the department.
Still, any cuts to student loan relief programs are unlikely to sit well with many voters.
Eighty percent of Americans agree that the government should make it easier for people with student debt to repay their loans, a study by The Pew Charitable Trusts found. Another poll found that nearly 60% of registered voters said they would support a plan to cancel all existing student loan debt.
Meanwhile, leading Democratic presidential candidates on the campaign trail are vowing to cancel the majority or all of the country’s outstanding student loan debt.
Bernie Sanders has proposed wiping out the country’s $1.6 trillion outstanding student loan tab.
Elizabeth Warren’s plan would cancel $50,000 in student debt for borrowers with household incomes of less than $100,000. People who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 would be eligible for forgiveness on a sliding scale.
- The Education Department’s budget would be slashed under Trump’s 2021 budget.
- Cuts include the end of subsidized student loans and the popular public service loan forgiveness program.
As student debt continues to climb, President Donald Trump on Monday released a budget for 2021 that would slash many of the programs aimed at helping borrowers.
Student loan spending would be cut by $170 billion in Trump’s plan, titled “A Budget for America’s Future.” The reductions include “sensible annual and lifetime loan limits” for graduate students and parents and the end to subsidized loans, in which the government covers the interest for borrowers who are still in school or experiencing economic hardship.
It would also reduce the number of repayment options for borrowers and nix the popular, if challenged, public service loan forgiveness program.
That program, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007, allows not-for-profit and government employees to have their federal student loans canceled after 10 years of on-time payments. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates that up to one-quarter of American workers are eligible.
“The Trump Administration already has a reputation of being anti-borrower,” said Mark Kantrowitz, a higher education policy expert. “This just takes it further.”
In all, Trump’s proposal would request $66.6 billion for the U.S. Department of Education, trimming the budget by $5.6 billion, or nearly 8%. The proposed cut is less steep than last year, when he called for a nearly 10% reduction in spending for the department.
Still, any cuts to student loan relief programs are unlikely to sit well with many voters.
Eighty percent of Americans agree that the government should make it easier for people with student debt to repay their loans, a study by The Pew Charitable Trusts found. Another poll found that nearly 60% of registered voters said they would support a plan to cancel all existing student loan debt.
Meanwhile, leading Democratic presidential candidates on the campaign trail are vowing to cancel the majority or all of the country’s outstanding student loan debt.
Bernie Sanders has proposed wiping out the country’s $1.6 trillion outstanding student loan tab.
Elizabeth Warren’s plan would cancel $50,000 in student debt for borrowers with household incomes of less than $100,000. People who earn between $100,000 and $250,000 would be eligible for forgiveness on a sliding scale.
The Trump administration has launched a brazen assault on our public lands
By Sarah Okeson, DCReport @ RawStory - Commentary
on February 10, 2020
Trump’s Bureau of Land Management, now run by attorney William Perry Pendley, wants to take our nation back to the days of the Dust Bowl when ranchers lorded over public land and their cattle grazed away the natural vegetation and destroyed the topsoil.
The bureau has scheduled meetings this month in Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming about “updating and modernizing regulations” and “improving permitting efficiency.”
The bureau administers almost 18,000 permits and leases for livestock, mostly cattle and sheep, grazing on 155 million acres of public land in the western United States.
Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, compared livestock grazing to “a slow and invisible cancer.”
Cattle, unlike bison, evolved in northern Europe where rain is plentiful. They are basically unsuited to the Dry West where sagebrush is sometimes the most common plant. Cattle like to gather in or near streams where they wallow in the water and shit.
Cattle have helped transform deep, narrow streams of the west into wider, warmer streams where silt smothers trout eggs and salmon eggs. Bacteria from the cows’ manure can make the streams dangerous or even fatal for anglers or children who contract E. coli poisoning. The state of Wyoming downgraded 76% of its streams to “secondary contact” levels of monitoring to artificially reduce the number of Clean Water Act violations.
Livestock also spread invasive weeds such as cheatgrass which grows for a few weeks and then becomes tinder-dry, making fires more frequent. The weed was brought to the United States by ships between 1850 and the late 1890s and spread along railway lines.
President Franklin Roosevelt signed the first law about grazing on public land, the Taylor Grazing Act, in 1935. The act, named for Colorado politician Edward Taylor, set up a grazing bureau in the Interior Department.
Public land continued to deteriorate so Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976, signed by President Gerald Ford. Bruce Babbitt, President Clinton’s Interior Secretary, strengthened grazing regulations, but President George W. Bush’s Interior secretary, Gale Norton, tried to weaken those laws.
Norton, an attorney who previously worked at the Mountain States Legal Foundation, put together a wish list for ranchers that would have even made it easier for ranchers convicted of environmental crimes to get grazing permits.
Norton’s BLM concluded the 2006 regulations would have no effect on endangered or threatened species despite the bureau’s list of 30 species of birds, 49 species of fish, 39 species of mammals, 137 species of plants, eight species of snails, 10 species of crustaceans, six species of reptiles, 15 species of insects and 11 species of amphibians living on the land that were on the endangered or threatened lists or candidates to be on those lists.
Federal judges threw out Norton’s regulations, but now Pendley and team Trump are trying again to destroy our public lands.
The bureau has scheduled meetings this month in Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming about “updating and modernizing regulations” and “improving permitting efficiency.”
The bureau administers almost 18,000 permits and leases for livestock, mostly cattle and sheep, grazing on 155 million acres of public land in the western United States.
Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, compared livestock grazing to “a slow and invisible cancer.”
Cattle, unlike bison, evolved in northern Europe where rain is plentiful. They are basically unsuited to the Dry West where sagebrush is sometimes the most common plant. Cattle like to gather in or near streams where they wallow in the water and shit.
Cattle have helped transform deep, narrow streams of the west into wider, warmer streams where silt smothers trout eggs and salmon eggs. Bacteria from the cows’ manure can make the streams dangerous or even fatal for anglers or children who contract E. coli poisoning. The state of Wyoming downgraded 76% of its streams to “secondary contact” levels of monitoring to artificially reduce the number of Clean Water Act violations.
Livestock also spread invasive weeds such as cheatgrass which grows for a few weeks and then becomes tinder-dry, making fires more frequent. The weed was brought to the United States by ships between 1850 and the late 1890s and spread along railway lines.
President Franklin Roosevelt signed the first law about grazing on public land, the Taylor Grazing Act, in 1935. The act, named for Colorado politician Edward Taylor, set up a grazing bureau in the Interior Department.
Public land continued to deteriorate so Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976, signed by President Gerald Ford. Bruce Babbitt, President Clinton’s Interior Secretary, strengthened grazing regulations, but President George W. Bush’s Interior secretary, Gale Norton, tried to weaken those laws.
Norton, an attorney who previously worked at the Mountain States Legal Foundation, put together a wish list for ranchers that would have even made it easier for ranchers convicted of environmental crimes to get grazing permits.
Norton’s BLM concluded the 2006 regulations would have no effect on endangered or threatened species despite the bureau’s list of 30 species of birds, 49 species of fish, 39 species of mammals, 137 species of plants, eight species of snails, 10 species of crustaceans, six species of reptiles, 15 species of insects and 11 species of amphibians living on the land that were on the endangered or threatened lists or candidates to be on those lists.
Federal judges threw out Norton’s regulations, but now Pendley and team Trump are trying again to destroy our public lands.
congrats fed workers, especially you trump supporters!!!
Trump moves to cap pay raise for civilian government workers at 1 percent
BY JOHN BOWDEN - the hill
02/10/20 07:23 PM EST
President Trump on Monday said federal civilian worker pay increases would be capped at 1 percent next year, sparking criticism from groups representing government employees.
The president argued in a statement that the move was necessary to "put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course."
"This alternative pay plan decision will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce," Trump said. "[O]ur pay system must reform to align with mission-critical recruitment and retention goals, and to reward employees whose performance provides value for the American people."
Congress in the past has effectively overturned similar orders by passing appropriations bills, later signed into law, that provide different pay schedules for federal workers.
Monday's announcement from Trump comes just weeks after he signed an executive order in late December raising the base pay of all federal civilian workers by 2.6 percent. That pay raise took effect in January.
The lower cap drew outrage from some employee unions.
The president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association slammed Trump's announcement, urging Congress to reject what he called a "contemptible" decision.
"At a time when the federal government faces ominous recruitment and retention challenges, the president’s [fiscal year 2021] budget continues to shortchange and renege on previous commitments to federal employees and retirees," Ken Thomas said in a statement. "These contemptible recommendations do nothing more than undermine the strength of our resilient civil service, and I urge Congress to reject it outright."
In August 2018, Trump initiated an effort to freeze federal civilian worker pay rates. He later implemented the freeze by executive order, but that move was later nullified by Congress in a spending deal.
RELATED: Federal employee retirement benefits would be cut under Trump's budget
Politics Federal employee retirement benefits would be cut under Trump's budget
President Trump has again proposed reducing the value of federal retirement benefits while requiring most federal employee ... (Washington Post)
The president argued in a statement that the move was necessary to "put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course."
"This alternative pay plan decision will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce," Trump said. "[O]ur pay system must reform to align with mission-critical recruitment and retention goals, and to reward employees whose performance provides value for the American people."
Congress in the past has effectively overturned similar orders by passing appropriations bills, later signed into law, that provide different pay schedules for federal workers.
Monday's announcement from Trump comes just weeks after he signed an executive order in late December raising the base pay of all federal civilian workers by 2.6 percent. That pay raise took effect in January.
The lower cap drew outrage from some employee unions.
The president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association slammed Trump's announcement, urging Congress to reject what he called a "contemptible" decision.
"At a time when the federal government faces ominous recruitment and retention challenges, the president’s [fiscal year 2021] budget continues to shortchange and renege on previous commitments to federal employees and retirees," Ken Thomas said in a statement. "These contemptible recommendations do nothing more than undermine the strength of our resilient civil service, and I urge Congress to reject it outright."
In August 2018, Trump initiated an effort to freeze federal civilian worker pay rates. He later implemented the freeze by executive order, but that move was later nullified by Congress in a spending deal.
RELATED: Federal employee retirement benefits would be cut under Trump's budget
Politics Federal employee retirement benefits would be cut under Trump's budget
President Trump has again proposed reducing the value of federal retirement benefits while requiring most federal employee ... (Washington Post)
Trump tariffs would bury US in 'fake prosciutto and fake Parmesan,' warns one food importer
JOSEPH N. DISTEFANO/The Philadelphia Inquirer/TNS
2020/2/10
Escalating U.S. tariffs on imports from Italy threaten to unravel the intricate trade networks that make Italian American cuisine possible, and could slash transport, retail, and restaurant jobs across the United States, food purveyors are warning.
“Every dollar the tariffs go up” pushes more U.S. stores and consumers towards “fake prosciutto and fake Parmesan” from other countries as a cheap substitute for la buona cucina, Riccardo Longo, owner of Gran Caffè L’Aquila on Chestnut Street in Center City, said last week at a gathering he hosted of competitors and lobbyists who seek to stave off the threatened taxes.
It’s not just that some Americans won’t pay more for the best: It’s also that small-town Italian producers are feeling forced by the uncertainty to seek new markets in Asia and the Middle East, Longo and other importers said.
Food makers in Italy and importers in the U.S. depend on a network of relationships built up by a century of Italian American immigration, tourism, nostalgia and food education. The threatened 25% tariffs and the resulting drop in profit margins and sales would shift supply lines and threaten to disrupt or end that long heritage, said restaurant supplier Bill DiGiacomo of DiGiacomo Bros. Specialty Foods Co. in Conshohocken.
The owners said selected imported foods have already been slapped with tariffs — including a big seller, Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese — but they have so far been successful at persuading the government to hold back on slapping taxes on a wider range of goods.
But in October, the World Trade Organization ruled the U.S. would be justified if it slapped up to $7.5 billion in “retaliatory” tariffs against European Union countries, including Italy, as punishment for aggressive subsidies to jet airplane maker Airbus, which competes with America’s Boeing. So now the importers fear their margins will collapse.
Longo said big food import companies have been stuffing their warehouses before the tariffs hit, but small businesses don’t have that option. If tariffs are imposed, “we are done,” he said.
“Italian culture is all about food, wine, and family,” said Emilio Mignucci, third-generation operator of Di Bruno Bros. He said the business rests on tight personal relationships with families like the cheesemaking Auricchios of Cremona, olive-oil makers in the hills around Lucca, and the crostini bakers of Abruzzo.
“But they don’t have to ship to Di Bruno’s,” he added. If tariffs drive up prices and U.S. orders drop, pinched sellers will find markets among the rapidly growing economies of Asia and elsewhere, leaving Americans behind.
“My grandfather said, ‘All you need to do is sell the best you can find, and people will get it,’” Mignucci said. “Our prosciutto is $5 more than the guy down the street. A box of crostini already costs $20. I buy them by the shipping-container load. But $5 a bag (in new tariffs) is not sustainable.”
These small-town Italian exporters “have nothing to do with the Airbus,” added former U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta (R., Pa.), a Trump supporter who was at the gathering and is lobbying for the 450-member American Italian Food Coalition to stop the tariffs.
“I support the president when he stands up for American jobs,” said Barletta, who is also known for his opposition to Mexican immigration. But the Italian tariffs are more likely to hurt U.S. employment, which should give the administration pause, he added.
Small Italian companies that are used to relying on the American market may be able to sell elsewhere, but the dislocation in the meantime will cost jobs in both countries, said Amato Berardi, a Philadelphian who formerly held one of the seats in the Italian Parliament reserved for American expatriates.
The threat of tariffs unsettles many delicate trade relationships, warned Salvatore D’Angelo, owner of D’Angelo’s Ristorante Italiano in South Philadelphia. He blames the threat of new tariffs for the increased difficulty he’s had finding some Italian wine in recent foreign shipments to Pennsylvania state stores: The suppliers are sending product elsewhere, he suspects.
Philip P. Jaurigue, CEO of Sabre Systems Inc. in Warrington, whose clients include Boeing, also attended the presentation and said many companies large and small are working to limit the impact of retaliatory tariffs.
But tariffs can damage even businesses they don’t affect directly, D’Angelo warned.
As a young man, D’Angelo said, he was a marble importer. He watched the once-robust Italian marble imports crumble because of a U.S.-Mexico dispute over marble prices. Supply uncertainty drove buyers out of the market, he said, even those not directly touched by the dispute.
D’Angelo worries that’s happening now to the food business. He blamed government interference in natural markets for squeezing family businesses, caught in international politics.
“Every dollar the tariffs go up” pushes more U.S. stores and consumers towards “fake prosciutto and fake Parmesan” from other countries as a cheap substitute for la buona cucina, Riccardo Longo, owner of Gran Caffè L’Aquila on Chestnut Street in Center City, said last week at a gathering he hosted of competitors and lobbyists who seek to stave off the threatened taxes.
It’s not just that some Americans won’t pay more for the best: It’s also that small-town Italian producers are feeling forced by the uncertainty to seek new markets in Asia and the Middle East, Longo and other importers said.
Food makers in Italy and importers in the U.S. depend on a network of relationships built up by a century of Italian American immigration, tourism, nostalgia and food education. The threatened 25% tariffs and the resulting drop in profit margins and sales would shift supply lines and threaten to disrupt or end that long heritage, said restaurant supplier Bill DiGiacomo of DiGiacomo Bros. Specialty Foods Co. in Conshohocken.
The owners said selected imported foods have already been slapped with tariffs — including a big seller, Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese — but they have so far been successful at persuading the government to hold back on slapping taxes on a wider range of goods.
But in October, the World Trade Organization ruled the U.S. would be justified if it slapped up to $7.5 billion in “retaliatory” tariffs against European Union countries, including Italy, as punishment for aggressive subsidies to jet airplane maker Airbus, which competes with America’s Boeing. So now the importers fear their margins will collapse.
Longo said big food import companies have been stuffing their warehouses before the tariffs hit, but small businesses don’t have that option. If tariffs are imposed, “we are done,” he said.
“Italian culture is all about food, wine, and family,” said Emilio Mignucci, third-generation operator of Di Bruno Bros. He said the business rests on tight personal relationships with families like the cheesemaking Auricchios of Cremona, olive-oil makers in the hills around Lucca, and the crostini bakers of Abruzzo.
“But they don’t have to ship to Di Bruno’s,” he added. If tariffs drive up prices and U.S. orders drop, pinched sellers will find markets among the rapidly growing economies of Asia and elsewhere, leaving Americans behind.
“My grandfather said, ‘All you need to do is sell the best you can find, and people will get it,’” Mignucci said. “Our prosciutto is $5 more than the guy down the street. A box of crostini already costs $20. I buy them by the shipping-container load. But $5 a bag (in new tariffs) is not sustainable.”
These small-town Italian exporters “have nothing to do with the Airbus,” added former U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta (R., Pa.), a Trump supporter who was at the gathering and is lobbying for the 450-member American Italian Food Coalition to stop the tariffs.
“I support the president when he stands up for American jobs,” said Barletta, who is also known for his opposition to Mexican immigration. But the Italian tariffs are more likely to hurt U.S. employment, which should give the administration pause, he added.
Small Italian companies that are used to relying on the American market may be able to sell elsewhere, but the dislocation in the meantime will cost jobs in both countries, said Amato Berardi, a Philadelphian who formerly held one of the seats in the Italian Parliament reserved for American expatriates.
The threat of tariffs unsettles many delicate trade relationships, warned Salvatore D’Angelo, owner of D’Angelo’s Ristorante Italiano in South Philadelphia. He blames the threat of new tariffs for the increased difficulty he’s had finding some Italian wine in recent foreign shipments to Pennsylvania state stores: The suppliers are sending product elsewhere, he suspects.
Philip P. Jaurigue, CEO of Sabre Systems Inc. in Warrington, whose clients include Boeing, also attended the presentation and said many companies large and small are working to limit the impact of retaliatory tariffs.
But tariffs can damage even businesses they don’t affect directly, D’Angelo warned.
As a young man, D’Angelo said, he was a marble importer. He watched the once-robust Italian marble imports crumble because of a U.S.-Mexico dispute over marble prices. Supply uncertainty drove buyers out of the market, he said, even those not directly touched by the dispute.
D’Angelo worries that’s happening now to the food business. He blamed government interference in natural markets for squeezing family businesses, caught in international politics.
‘It’s sickening!’ 2016 Trump voter turns on the president after his wife gets deported to Mexico
February 3, 2020
By Brad Reed - raw story
A man who voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 now says he would never back the president a second time after his own wife got deported to Mexico.
In an interview with The Nation, Georgia resident Jason Rochester said that he voted for Trump in 2016 thinking that he’d only deport undocumented immigrants who committed violent crimes, and not people like his wife, a woman named Cecilia Gonzalez who crossed into the United States from Mexico when she was 19 years old.
“I had to go with the fact that my wife would be fine because she was not a bad person,” he explained. “I was wrong.”
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would subsequently deport Gonzalez in early 2018, leaving Rochster to care for their young son, who at the time was just four years old.
Rochseter now says that he will not vote for the president this year, even though so far he doesn’t see a Democrat whom he could support. In addition to deploring the treatment of his own wife, Rochseter also says he’s disgusted by Trump’s policy of separating migrant families at the border.
“They’re children,” he said. “It’s sickening that our country has stooped to this level.”
Read the whole interview here.
In an interview with The Nation, Georgia resident Jason Rochester said that he voted for Trump in 2016 thinking that he’d only deport undocumented immigrants who committed violent crimes, and not people like his wife, a woman named Cecilia Gonzalez who crossed into the United States from Mexico when she was 19 years old.
“I had to go with the fact that my wife would be fine because she was not a bad person,” he explained. “I was wrong.”
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would subsequently deport Gonzalez in early 2018, leaving Rochster to care for their young son, who at the time was just four years old.
Rochseter now says that he will not vote for the president this year, even though so far he doesn’t see a Democrat whom he could support. In addition to deploring the treatment of his own wife, Rochseter also says he’s disgusted by Trump’s policy of separating migrant families at the border.
“They’re children,” he said. “It’s sickening that our country has stooped to this level.”
Read the whole interview here.
The poor and people with disabilities ‘are going to die’: Trump takes axe to Medicaid
January 30, 2020
By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams - raw story
“Trump wants to destroy Medicaid while claiming to save it. This fiendish scheme is an Orwellian fable conjured up by the most shameless pack of liars to ever occupy our government.”
The Trump administration on Thursday unveiled a plan allowing states to convert federal Medicaid funding into block grants, a longstanding conservative goal that critics warn could have deadly consequences for millions of vulnerable people who rely on the healthcare program as a major source of income.
Seema Verma, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), announced the so-called “Healthy Adult Opportunity” initiative in a statement claiming the policy will “improve health outcomes and care” for low-income people.
“Trump’s plan will ensure that many working families who are currently covered by Medicaid will face cuts to their services, wait lists for needed care, and the risk of medical debt and bankruptcy from trying to pay for illness.”
—Eagan Kemp, Public Citizen
Progressive advocacy groups warned the plan could do precisely the opposite by giving states a green light to cut Medicaid spending and divert federal funding to other state programs, potentially leaving millions without essential healthcare coverage.
“People, poor disabled people in particular, are going to die,” tweeted Alice Wong, director of the Disability Visibility Project. “Not an exaggeration.”
Urging the public to look beyond the plan’s benign label, Public Citizen healthcare policy advocate Eagan Kemp said President Donald Trump’s “nefarious program is just a Medicaid block grant by another name, and the only opportunity it will provide is to miss out on needed care or go broke trying to get it.”
“Trump’s plan will ensure that many working families who are currently covered by Medicaid will face cuts to their services, wait lists for needed care, and the risk of medical debt and bankruptcy from trying to pay for illness,” Kemp said in a statement. “These further attempts to cut health care are just more evidence that Americans need Medicare for All now to protect their access to care once and for all.”
The proposal, which is likely to face legal challenges, invites states to apply for a waiver to receive a lump-sum payment from the federal government for Medicaid instead of open-ended matching funds. Right-wing supporters of block-granting Medicaid claim it would give states more “flexibility,” but critics warn the move could limit states’ ability to increase healthcare spending in response to public need.
“Any state taking this offer is engaging in fiscal malpractice,” Eliot Fishman, senior director of health policy with advocacy group Families USA, said in a statement. “Furthermore, the administration is acting lawlessly. None of the statute regarding Medicaid match rates can be waived administratively.”
“We are better than this, and we—the American people—must hold the Trump administration and Republican members of Congress accountable,” said Fishman.
Congressional Democrats joined healthcare advocacy groups in condemning the plan.
“Trump wants to destroy Medicaid while claiming to save it,” tweeted Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-N.J.). “This fiendish scheme is an Orwellian fable conjured up by the most shameless pack of liars to ever occupy our government. Never forget Republicans’ goal is to steal healthcare from as many Americans as they can.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Health Committee, said in a statement that “even after people across the country spoke out and pressed Congress to reject President Trump’s plan to gut Medicaid with his Trumpcare bill, he’s still charging forward with harmful policies that will hurt the many families who rely on Medicaid.”
The Trump administration on Thursday unveiled a plan allowing states to convert federal Medicaid funding into block grants, a longstanding conservative goal that critics warn could have deadly consequences for millions of vulnerable people who rely on the healthcare program as a major source of income.
Seema Verma, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), announced the so-called “Healthy Adult Opportunity” initiative in a statement claiming the policy will “improve health outcomes and care” for low-income people.
“Trump’s plan will ensure that many working families who are currently covered by Medicaid will face cuts to their services, wait lists for needed care, and the risk of medical debt and bankruptcy from trying to pay for illness.”
—Eagan Kemp, Public Citizen
Progressive advocacy groups warned the plan could do precisely the opposite by giving states a green light to cut Medicaid spending and divert federal funding to other state programs, potentially leaving millions without essential healthcare coverage.
“People, poor disabled people in particular, are going to die,” tweeted Alice Wong, director of the Disability Visibility Project. “Not an exaggeration.”
Urging the public to look beyond the plan’s benign label, Public Citizen healthcare policy advocate Eagan Kemp said President Donald Trump’s “nefarious program is just a Medicaid block grant by another name, and the only opportunity it will provide is to miss out on needed care or go broke trying to get it.”
“Trump’s plan will ensure that many working families who are currently covered by Medicaid will face cuts to their services, wait lists for needed care, and the risk of medical debt and bankruptcy from trying to pay for illness,” Kemp said in a statement. “These further attempts to cut health care are just more evidence that Americans need Medicare for All now to protect their access to care once and for all.”
The proposal, which is likely to face legal challenges, invites states to apply for a waiver to receive a lump-sum payment from the federal government for Medicaid instead of open-ended matching funds. Right-wing supporters of block-granting Medicaid claim it would give states more “flexibility,” but critics warn the move could limit states’ ability to increase healthcare spending in response to public need.
“Any state taking this offer is engaging in fiscal malpractice,” Eliot Fishman, senior director of health policy with advocacy group Families USA, said in a statement. “Furthermore, the administration is acting lawlessly. None of the statute regarding Medicaid match rates can be waived administratively.”
“We are better than this, and we—the American people—must hold the Trump administration and Republican members of Congress accountable,” said Fishman.
Congressional Democrats joined healthcare advocacy groups in condemning the plan.
“Trump wants to destroy Medicaid while claiming to save it,” tweeted Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-N.J.). “This fiendish scheme is an Orwellian fable conjured up by the most shameless pack of liars to ever occupy our government. Never forget Republicans’ goal is to steal healthcare from as many Americans as they can.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Health Committee, said in a statement that “even after people across the country spoke out and pressed Congress to reject President Trump’s plan to gut Medicaid with his Trumpcare bill, he’s still charging forward with harmful policies that will hurt the many families who rely on Medicaid.”
NATIONAL DEBT INCREASED BY $3 TRILLION DURING DONALD TRUMP'S THREE YEARS AS PRESIDENT
BY JAMES CROWLEY - newsweek
ON 1/23/20 AT 9:40 AM EST
George Conway
@gtconway3d
Follow Follow @gtconway3d
More
In other news, yesterday was the third anniversary of @realDonaldTrump’s inauguration. In the three years he’s been president (during two of which his party controlled both houses of Congress) the national debt has increased by
$3,266,795,731,264.14.
Nearly four years after then-presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would eliminate the federal debt in eight years, the deficit has since risen by more than 16 percent under his presidency.
On Tuesday, attorney George Conway, a frequent Trump critic and husband of White House Special Counsel Kellyanne Conway, pointed out that three years into Trump's first term as president, the national debt increased by $3 trillion, bringing it to over $23 trillion now. Conway cited figures from the National Debt Tweets in his tweet.
As a Republican presidential candidate, Trump said he would eliminate the national debt in eight years, which was $19 trillion in 2016, according to The Washington Post. Asked by journalist Bob Woodward if that would involving raising taxes to ease the problem, Trump responded: "I don't think I'll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad."
But as of January, President Trump signed $4.7 trillion more into the debt until 2029, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
At a private dinner with wealthy donors last Friday, just days before the third anniversary of his inauguration, the president brushed off critics amid concerns of his spending and growing national debt. "Who the hell cares about the budget? We're going to have a country," he said, as reported by The Washington Post.
The national debt has increased significantly under both the Bush and Obama administrations, increasing about 101 percent from the end of Clinton's administration to the end of Bush's. Republicans criticized Obama for doubling debt by nearly $9 trillion.
According to CRFB President Maya McGuineas, the deficit would have increased under Trump, even if he hadn't signed any legislation. But the new policies he signed beginning in 2017 reflect further spending, which is unusual during a period of economic growth.
"Just like the economic performance isn't totally attributable to the president, the existing policies that are baked into the cake don't reflect Trump's initiative," MacGuineas told Newsweek. "The laws he's signed, though, do. And in this case, he's signed into law two major tax cuts--the one that everybody notices."
The two pieces of legislation that added the most to the national debt are the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and the 2018 and 2019 Bipartisan Budget Acts (BBA), according to CRFB. In addition to these, the ACA Tax Repeal and other legislation--which included disaster relief, emergency spending, and ACA tax delays, signed in December 2019--added a combined total of about $665 billion.
MacGuineas also said that laws Trump has signed have increased spending, without revenue increasing enough to maintain it, creating more debt than expected. "There were a number of increases that were already on track that came from our growing healthcare and retirement cost. But President Trump massively exacerbated that problem with the laws he signed, which included creating lower revenues and higher spending. And obviously, because of the laws of math, that means we're left with much larger borrowing," she said. "What's unusual is that during a period of economic expansion the borrowing would be increasing from year to year, but that's what's been happening under President Trump."
The increased spending elevated the deficit. The TCJA act has added $1.8 trillion to the debt and can add another trillion dollars, if tax cuts are extended past their 2025 expiration.
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump not only planned to eliminate the national debt, but also planned to balance the national budget and eliminate budget deficit. However, the increased spending with less income has kept deficits high. A Congressional Budget Office projection predicts $1 trillion deficits annually from 2020 to 2028.
"It's really unusual to be borrowing this much, when the economy is this strong. In fact, we've never had a deficit this large relative to GDP, when the economy was growing this strongly," MacGuineas said. "Deficits have their role, but at this point in the business cycle there is no need for the borrowing that we are undertaking."
Both BBAs added a total $2.2 trillion, mainly by increasing defense and non-defense spending caps through 2021.
When asked if there was anything that can be done to make improvements to the debt, MacGuineas said much can be done with political will. "We're going to need to raise revenues and slow the growth of spending," she said. " That can look like repealing the tax cut, higher tax rates, or new taxes like the carbon tax. It can look like making fixes to our retirement and healthcare system. It can put back in spending caps like we had on defense or domestic discretionary. Frankly the problem is so large that we need to be looking at all those areas. What it really takes is honesty and political will and leadership."
On Tuesday, attorney George Conway, a frequent Trump critic and husband of White House Special Counsel Kellyanne Conway, pointed out that three years into Trump's first term as president, the national debt increased by $3 trillion, bringing it to over $23 trillion now. Conway cited figures from the National Debt Tweets in his tweet.
As a Republican presidential candidate, Trump said he would eliminate the national debt in eight years, which was $19 trillion in 2016, according to The Washington Post. Asked by journalist Bob Woodward if that would involving raising taxes to ease the problem, Trump responded: "I don't think I'll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad."
But as of January, President Trump signed $4.7 trillion more into the debt until 2029, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
At a private dinner with wealthy donors last Friday, just days before the third anniversary of his inauguration, the president brushed off critics amid concerns of his spending and growing national debt. "Who the hell cares about the budget? We're going to have a country," he said, as reported by The Washington Post.
The national debt has increased significantly under both the Bush and Obama administrations, increasing about 101 percent from the end of Clinton's administration to the end of Bush's. Republicans criticized Obama for doubling debt by nearly $9 trillion.
According to CRFB President Maya McGuineas, the deficit would have increased under Trump, even if he hadn't signed any legislation. But the new policies he signed beginning in 2017 reflect further spending, which is unusual during a period of economic growth.
"Just like the economic performance isn't totally attributable to the president, the existing policies that are baked into the cake don't reflect Trump's initiative," MacGuineas told Newsweek. "The laws he's signed, though, do. And in this case, he's signed into law two major tax cuts--the one that everybody notices."
The two pieces of legislation that added the most to the national debt are the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and the 2018 and 2019 Bipartisan Budget Acts (BBA), according to CRFB. In addition to these, the ACA Tax Repeal and other legislation--which included disaster relief, emergency spending, and ACA tax delays, signed in December 2019--added a combined total of about $665 billion.
MacGuineas also said that laws Trump has signed have increased spending, without revenue increasing enough to maintain it, creating more debt than expected. "There were a number of increases that were already on track that came from our growing healthcare and retirement cost. But President Trump massively exacerbated that problem with the laws he signed, which included creating lower revenues and higher spending. And obviously, because of the laws of math, that means we're left with much larger borrowing," she said. "What's unusual is that during a period of economic expansion the borrowing would be increasing from year to year, but that's what's been happening under President Trump."
The increased spending elevated the deficit. The TCJA act has added $1.8 trillion to the debt and can add another trillion dollars, if tax cuts are extended past their 2025 expiration.
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump not only planned to eliminate the national debt, but also planned to balance the national budget and eliminate budget deficit. However, the increased spending with less income has kept deficits high. A Congressional Budget Office projection predicts $1 trillion deficits annually from 2020 to 2028.
"It's really unusual to be borrowing this much, when the economy is this strong. In fact, we've never had a deficit this large relative to GDP, when the economy was growing this strongly," MacGuineas said. "Deficits have their role, but at this point in the business cycle there is no need for the borrowing that we are undertaking."
Both BBAs added a total $2.2 trillion, mainly by increasing defense and non-defense spending caps through 2021.
When asked if there was anything that can be done to make improvements to the debt, MacGuineas said much can be done with political will. "We're going to need to raise revenues and slow the growth of spending," she said. " That can look like repealing the tax cut, higher tax rates, or new taxes like the carbon tax. It can look like making fixes to our retirement and healthcare system. It can put back in spending caps like we had on defense or domestic discretionary. Frankly the problem is so large that we need to be looking at all those areas. What it really takes is honesty and political will and leadership."
Wisconsin lost 10% of its dairy farmers in 2019, marking its biggest decline ever as Trump's trade wars raged
Joseph Zeballos-Roig - business insider
Jan. 14, 2020, 08:18 AM
Wisconsin shed 10% of its dairy farmers last year, data from the state's Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection shows.
It marked the biggest one-year drop on record, and underscored the negative impact of Trump's trade war on a swing state critical to his re-election bid.
In 2019, Wisconsin lost 819 dairy farms, the department said, leaving 7,292 dairy farms in place. The state leads the nation in the number of farm bankruptcies, according to the American Farm Bureau.
After Trump launched his trade war against China and other friendly nations in 2018, China responded by slapping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tariffs on American products.
Last year, China slashed its purchases of American dairy products by 50%. Combined with falling milk prices, the trade war has thrown many farmers out of business. The economic environment has worsened considerably for small dairy farms in particular.
The state's coveted 11 electoral votes went to Trump by 23,000 votes in 2016 - or less than one percentage point - a razor-thin margin that promises to make it another key battleground in the 2020 election. Additional volatility could weaken his support among farmers, though their backing remains strong.
Farmers have suffered significant business losses because of the trade war, resulting in a $28 billion bailout package that's double the amount the government forked over to Detroit automakers at the height of the recession a decade ago.
Still, a greater share of that aid may be going to richer farmers. The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization, said in a study released in November that wealthier farmers have drawn larger cash payments compared to poorer ones.
Americans have also borne the brunt of Trump's tariffs. A paper released this week from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that consumers paid for "approximately 100 percent" of the tariffs in the form of increased prices.
However, both China and the United States are set to sign a "phase one" agreement that would de-escalate the trade war on Wednesday.
RELATED: 'We forgive him' Where Christian evangelicals worship Trump more than Jesus
Large numbers of voters across rural Wisconsin flipped from supporting Obama to Trump – now dividing lines over the president are even deeper
RELATED: *STUPIDITY EXPLAINED: SWING VOTERS ON TRUMP 'HE DRIVES ME CRAZY BUT HE'LL GET MY VOTE'
THE LATEST FROM COUNTIES WHERE VOTERS SWUNG FROM OBAMA TO TRUMP: CHRIS MCGREAL FINDS IOWA VOTERS PINING FOR CALM BUT CREDITING TRUMP ON THE ECONOMY
'HE DRIVES ME CRAZY BUT HE'LL GET MY VOTE'
- Wisconsin shed 10% of its dairy farmers last year, according to data from the state's Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
- It marked the biggest drop in a single year, and underscored the negative impact of Trump's trade war in a state critical to his re-election bid.
- Last year, China slashed its purchases of American dairy products by 50%, helping to throw scores of farmers out of business.
- The business environment has particularly worsened for small farmers.
Wisconsin shed 10% of its dairy farmers last year, data from the state's Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection shows.
It marked the biggest one-year drop on record, and underscored the negative impact of Trump's trade war on a swing state critical to his re-election bid.
In 2019, Wisconsin lost 819 dairy farms, the department said, leaving 7,292 dairy farms in place. The state leads the nation in the number of farm bankruptcies, according to the American Farm Bureau.
After Trump launched his trade war against China and other friendly nations in 2018, China responded by slapping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tariffs on American products.
Last year, China slashed its purchases of American dairy products by 50%. Combined with falling milk prices, the trade war has thrown many farmers out of business. The economic environment has worsened considerably for small dairy farms in particular.
The state's coveted 11 electoral votes went to Trump by 23,000 votes in 2016 - or less than one percentage point - a razor-thin margin that promises to make it another key battleground in the 2020 election. Additional volatility could weaken his support among farmers, though their backing remains strong.
Farmers have suffered significant business losses because of the trade war, resulting in a $28 billion bailout package that's double the amount the government forked over to Detroit automakers at the height of the recession a decade ago.
Still, a greater share of that aid may be going to richer farmers. The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization, said in a study released in November that wealthier farmers have drawn larger cash payments compared to poorer ones.
Americans have also borne the brunt of Trump's tariffs. A paper released this week from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that consumers paid for "approximately 100 percent" of the tariffs in the form of increased prices.
However, both China and the United States are set to sign a "phase one" agreement that would de-escalate the trade war on Wednesday.
RELATED: 'We forgive him' Where Christian evangelicals worship Trump more than Jesus
Large numbers of voters across rural Wisconsin flipped from supporting Obama to Trump – now dividing lines over the president are even deeper
RELATED: *STUPIDITY EXPLAINED: SWING VOTERS ON TRUMP 'HE DRIVES ME CRAZY BUT HE'LL GET MY VOTE'
THE LATEST FROM COUNTIES WHERE VOTERS SWUNG FROM OBAMA TO TRUMP: CHRIS MCGREAL FINDS IOWA VOTERS PINING FOR CALM BUT CREDITING TRUMP ON THE ECONOMY
'HE DRIVES ME CRAZY BUT HE'LL GET MY VOTE'
US budget deficit running 11.8% higher this year
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER - ap
1/13/20
The U.S. budget deficit through the first three months of this budget year is up 11.8% from the same period a year ago, putting the country on track to record its first $1 trillion deficit in eight years.
In its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit from October through December totaled $356.6 billion, up from $318.9 billion for the same period last year.
Both government spending and revenues set records for the first three months of this budget year but spending rose at a faster clip than tax collections, pushing the deficit total up.
The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the current 2020 budget year will hit $1 trillion and will remain over $1 trillion for the next decade. The country has not experienced $1 trillion annual deficits since the period from 2009 through 2012 following the 2008 financial crisis.
The actual deficit for the 2019 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, was $984.4 billion, up 26% from the 2018 imbalance, reflecting the impact of the $1.5 trillion tax cut President Donald Trump pushed through Congress in 2017 and increased spending for military and domestic programs that Trump accepted as part of a budget deal with Democrats.
The projections of trillion-dollar deficits are in contrast to Trump’s campaign promise in 2016 that even with his proposed tax cuts, he would be able to eliminate future deficits with cuts in spending and growth in revenues that would result from a stronger economy.
For the first three months of the 2020 budget year, revenues have totaled $806.5 billion, up 4.8% from the same three months a year ago, while government spending has totaled $948.9 billion, an increase of 6.3% from a year ago.
Both the spending amounts and revenue amounts are records for the first three months of a budget year. The deficit in December totaled $13.3 billion, slightly lower than the $13.5 billion deficit in December 2018.
In its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit from October through December totaled $356.6 billion, up from $318.9 billion for the same period last year.
Both government spending and revenues set records for the first three months of this budget year but spending rose at a faster clip than tax collections, pushing the deficit total up.
The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the current 2020 budget year will hit $1 trillion and will remain over $1 trillion for the next decade. The country has not experienced $1 trillion annual deficits since the period from 2009 through 2012 following the 2008 financial crisis.
The actual deficit for the 2019 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, was $984.4 billion, up 26% from the 2018 imbalance, reflecting the impact of the $1.5 trillion tax cut President Donald Trump pushed through Congress in 2017 and increased spending for military and domestic programs that Trump accepted as part of a budget deal with Democrats.
The projections of trillion-dollar deficits are in contrast to Trump’s campaign promise in 2016 that even with his proposed tax cuts, he would be able to eliminate future deficits with cuts in spending and growth in revenues that would result from a stronger economy.
For the first three months of the 2020 budget year, revenues have totaled $806.5 billion, up 4.8% from the same three months a year ago, while government spending has totaled $948.9 billion, an increase of 6.3% from a year ago.
Both the spending amounts and revenue amounts are records for the first three months of a budget year. The deficit in December totaled $13.3 billion, slightly lower than the $13.5 billion deficit in December 2018.
benefits of voting republican!!!
‘We can barely eat’: West Virginia offers a chilling preview of Trump’s food stamp restrictions
January 13, 2020
By Brad Reed - raw story
The Trump administration late last year finalized plans to enforce stricter work requirements for food stamp recipients in a move that’s estimated will kick 750,000 low-income Americans off the program.
The state of West Virginia has had similarly strict requirements on food stamps for the past few years, and the New York Times reports that this policy has increased food insecurity without having a significant impact on employment.
“We can barely eat,” West Virginia resident Chastity Peyton tells the Times.
Peyton and her husband both work — but their jobs don’t offer steady enough hours for them to consistently qualify for food stamps.
All of this has put an added strain on local food banks that have seen a significant increase in clients since the policy change.
“A few years ago, at the first of the month we would be slow and toward the end of the months we would be busy,” Diana Van Horn, who runs a food pantry at the Trinity Episcopal Church in the West Virginia town of Milton, tells the Times. “Now we are busy all the time.”
And Cynthia Kirkhart, who runs the region’s major food bank, tells the Times that people started showing up at the warehouse asking for food after the stricter work requirements were put in place.
West Virginia resident Jerome Comer says that many people in the state simply cannot find jobs because they can’t afford a car.
“You say, ‘Well, they’re able-bodied Americans.’ Yeah, but they live 40 miles out in the holler,” he tells the Times. “They can’t walk to McDonalds.”
Read the whole report here.
The state of West Virginia has had similarly strict requirements on food stamps for the past few years, and the New York Times reports that this policy has increased food insecurity without having a significant impact on employment.
“We can barely eat,” West Virginia resident Chastity Peyton tells the Times.
Peyton and her husband both work — but their jobs don’t offer steady enough hours for them to consistently qualify for food stamps.
All of this has put an added strain on local food banks that have seen a significant increase in clients since the policy change.
“A few years ago, at the first of the month we would be slow and toward the end of the months we would be busy,” Diana Van Horn, who runs a food pantry at the Trinity Episcopal Church in the West Virginia town of Milton, tells the Times. “Now we are busy all the time.”
And Cynthia Kirkhart, who runs the region’s major food bank, tells the Times that people started showing up at the warehouse asking for food after the stricter work requirements were put in place.
West Virginia resident Jerome Comer says that many people in the state simply cannot find jobs because they can’t afford a car.
“You say, ‘Well, they’re able-bodied Americans.’ Yeah, but they live 40 miles out in the holler,” he tells the Times. “They can’t walk to McDonalds.”
Read the whole report here.
hey trumpsters, you are fucked again!!!
More drugmakers hike U.S. prices as new year begins
Michael Erman - reuters
1/1/20
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Drugmakers including Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, Gilead Sciences Inc, and Biogen Inc hiked U.S. list prices on more than 50 drugs on Wednesday, bringing total New Year’s Day drug price increases to more than 250, according to data analyzed by healthcare research firm 3 Axis Advisors.
Reuters reported on Tuesday that drugmakers including Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Sanofi SA were planning to increase prices on more than 200 drugs in the United States on Jan. 1.
Nearly all of the price increases are below 10% and the median price increase is around 5%, according to 3 Axis.
More early year price increases could still be announced.
Soaring U.S. prescription drug prices are expected to again be a central issue in the presidential election. President Donald Trump, who made bringing them down a core pledge of his 2016 campaign, is running for re-election in 2020.
Many branded drugmakers have pledged to keep their U.S. list price increases below 10% a year, under pressure from politicians and patients.
The United States, which leaves drug pricing to market competition, has higher prices than in other countries where governments directly or indirectly control the costs, making it the world’s most lucrative market for manufacturers.
Drugmakers often negotiate rebates on their list prices in exchange for favorable treatment from healthcare payers. As a result, health insurers and patients rarely pay the full list price of a drug.
Bristol-Myers said in a statement it will not raise list prices on its drugs by more than 6% this year.
The drugmaker raised the price on 10 drugs on Wednesday, including 1.5% price hikes on cancer immunotherapies Opdivo and Yervoy and a 6% increase on its blood thinner Eliquis, all of which bring in billions of dollars in revenue annually.
It also raised the price on Celgene’s flagship multiple myeloma drug, Revlimid, 6%. Bristol acquired rival Celgene in a $74 billion deal last year.
Gilead raised prices on more than 15 drugs including HIV treatments Biktarvy and Truvada less than 5%, according to 3 Axis.
Biogen price increases included a 6% price hike on multiple sclerosis treatment Tecfidera, according to 3 Axis.
Gilead and Biogen could not be immediately reached for comment.
3 Axis advises pharmacy industry groups on identifying inefficiencies in the U.S. drug supply chain and has provided consulting work to hedge fund billionaire John Arnold, a prominent critic of high drug prices.
Reuters reported on Tuesday that drugmakers including Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Sanofi SA were planning to increase prices on more than 200 drugs in the United States on Jan. 1.
Nearly all of the price increases are below 10% and the median price increase is around 5%, according to 3 Axis.
More early year price increases could still be announced.
Soaring U.S. prescription drug prices are expected to again be a central issue in the presidential election. President Donald Trump, who made bringing them down a core pledge of his 2016 campaign, is running for re-election in 2020.
Many branded drugmakers have pledged to keep their U.S. list price increases below 10% a year, under pressure from politicians and patients.
The United States, which leaves drug pricing to market competition, has higher prices than in other countries where governments directly or indirectly control the costs, making it the world’s most lucrative market for manufacturers.
Drugmakers often negotiate rebates on their list prices in exchange for favorable treatment from healthcare payers. As a result, health insurers and patients rarely pay the full list price of a drug.
Bristol-Myers said in a statement it will not raise list prices on its drugs by more than 6% this year.
The drugmaker raised the price on 10 drugs on Wednesday, including 1.5% price hikes on cancer immunotherapies Opdivo and Yervoy and a 6% increase on its blood thinner Eliquis, all of which bring in billions of dollars in revenue annually.
It also raised the price on Celgene’s flagship multiple myeloma drug, Revlimid, 6%. Bristol acquired rival Celgene in a $74 billion deal last year.
Gilead raised prices on more than 15 drugs including HIV treatments Biktarvy and Truvada less than 5%, according to 3 Axis.
Biogen price increases included a 6% price hike on multiple sclerosis treatment Tecfidera, according to 3 Axis.
Gilead and Biogen could not be immediately reached for comment.
3 Axis advises pharmacy industry groups on identifying inefficiencies in the U.S. drug supply chain and has provided consulting work to hedge fund billionaire John Arnold, a prominent critic of high drug prices.
payback for suckers!!!
Trump runs the country just like he ran his bankrupted businesses: The national debt is skyrocketing while economic growth is lagging
December 29, 2019
By Steven Piersanti, DC Report @ Raw Story- Commentary
“How do you impeach a president who has created the greatest Economy in the history of our Country?” Donald Trump tweeted in September. Trump has repeatedly claimed big economic benefits from his presidency. And this claim undergirds a lot of Trump’s popular support.
But the truth is that Trump is a failure economically, both in his business career and in his actions as president. It is time to connect the dots of Trump’s economic failures—in a way that everyone understands.
A powerful way to communicate Trump’s true economic legacy is to brand him as “Bankrupter-in-Chief Trump.” This is the real bottom line of Trump’s business career, and it is what he is actually doing to the country and to individual Americans. To drive home this message, “Bankrupter-in-Chief Trump” should be repeated after each new Trump claim, policy, action and report that illustrates this message—until most Americans understand this as Trump’s true legacy.
Trump campaigned on the promise of eliminating the federal debt within eight years, but what his economic policies have actually been doing is bankrupting the country. The U.S. government’s budget deficit ballooned to almost $1 trillion in 2019, which is nearly a 50 percent increase during Trump’s time in office.
Debt to Top $4.1 Trillion
Trump’s overall contribution to the national debt, for the bills he has signed into law, is projected to top $4.1 trillion, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The largest portion of this increase is coming from Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, which are projected to boost the nation’s debt by $1.8 trillion, according to this group’s analysis.
Trump promised this his economic policies would lead to growth in the economy of between 3 and 4 percent per year, but the reality is that the economy has been growing at barely 2 percent over the past year. And the average economic growth since Trump took office has been a little more than 2.25 percent per year. The promised benefits from the massive tax cut have not materialized, and in fact the United States has now had two consecutive quarters of negative investment growth.
Not only are Trump’s tax cuts not boosting business investment as promised, but they are also bankrupting the country’s economic future. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that deficits will remain massive each year going forward until the total federal government debt reaches nearly 100 percent of the country’s GDP (gross domestic product): “Under current law, the federal government is projected to borrow an additional $13.6 trillion from the end of 2018 through 2029, boosting debt held by the public to $29.3 trillion.”
Squandered Stimulus
The country’s ability to weather economic downturns has also been compromised because the tools of economic stimulus needed to pull the country out of a recession have already been squandered at a time when they were not needed. The country’s economic resources are being wasted with minimal benefit, while its future economic health is endangered.
Another of Trump’s great promises was that he would eliminate the U.S. trade deficit. Here again, Trump’s performance has been disastrous. Far from declining, the U.S. trade deficit is now running some 40 percent above the level it was running when Trump first assumed office.
Bankrupting Individual Americans
Trump administration policies are leading to bankruptcy for large numbers of Americans. Farmers have been hit especially hard. Farm bankruptcies grew to the highest level since 2011, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
“Farm debt in 2019 is projected to be a record-high $416 billion,” the Farm Bureau reported in October, while farm income is 29 percent lower than in the record year of 2013.
And this is happening despite the Trump administration directing nearly $30 billion to farmers in bailout programs, which, along with other disaster aid and insurance indemnities, now accounts for nearly 40 percent of farmers’ income. And a lot of that aid has yet to actually reach farmers.
Trump promised that his tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations would lead to more jobs and higher wages for all Americans. But here again, Trump has not delivered on his promises.
Tax Cuts an ‘Enormous Flop’
“From a purely economic standpoint, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has been an enormous flop,” writes Michael Linden, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative. Average U.S. job creation per month has actually declined in the nearly two years since the law passed. And wage growth has been only a small fraction of what the White House promised.
During his campaign and in his inaugural address, Trump promised to protect the “forgotten man and woman.” He has actually been doing just the opposite by systematically dismantling many protections for individual consumers, protections for individual investors, protections for people preparing for retirement and protections for other Americans.
“The Trump administration is probably the most anti-investor and consumer protection administration in decades, if not ever,” said Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of Better Markets, an investor and consumer watchdog group.
Not only have protections for individual Americans been stripped from regulations and policies, but enforcement of remaining laws and regulations has also plummeted. The result, concludes Public Citizen, is that while Trump “once asserted that he was ‘not going to let Wall Street get away with murder,’ he now is allowing industry after industry to get away with just about anything.” This, too, will cause bankruptcies for large numbers of individual Americans.
Trump also wants to take away access to health insurance for millions by undoing the Affordable Care Act. This would be especially damaging to those with pre-existing conditions, many of whom could not buy health insurance before that law took effect. And if Trump succeeds in undermining the Affordable Care Act, this would cause financial ruin to many more people, given that medical issues and costs are the number one reason Americans file for bankruptcy.
A Career of Business Bankruptcies
Trump cultivates a mythology that he has been tremendously successful in business. The reality is that public records show that six times Trump filed Chapter 11 bankruptcies for his companies. Yes, not once, not twice, but six times! And even in cases where Trump was able to avoid bankruptcy, there were many business failures. For example, “Trump defaulted on the debt of his airline, Trump Shuttle, turning it over to U.S. Airways.”
The full extent of Trump’s failures in business has been largely hidden by this refusal to release his tax returns. But The New York Times was able to obtain tax information from 1985 to 1994 and these records revealed $1.17 billion in business losses in these 10 years alone.
“In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer,” The Times concluded, comparing his losses to publicly available IRS information. These revelations led to newspaper and magazine headlines like this one: “As a Businessman, Trump Was the Biggest Loser of All.”
How was Trump able to stay in business despite many bankruptcies and losing so much money? The answer is that Trump was able to structure his deals so that he was losing other people’s money—that of banks, bond investors, governments and others—more than his own money.
Passing Losses to Others
In other words, Trump was passing financial losses to those who supported him. Not surprisingly, this led many banks and other financial institutions to stop providing financing to Trump.
The principal exception has been Deutsche Bank of Germany: “Over the past two decades, it was the only mainstream financial institution consistently willing to do business with Mr. Trump, who had a history of defaulting on loans. The bank lent him a total of more than $2 billion, about $350 million of which was outstanding when he was sworn in as president.”
This is the same bank that was fined $630 million in 2017 by American and British banking regulators in connection with “around $10 billion in suspicious trades being laundered out of Russia.”
It’s not just banks that have failed to receive payments due from Trump. Hundreds of small businesses, individual contractors, laborers and other ordinary Americans have alleged that Trump has not paid them.
Numerous reports have documented these claims, such as this USA Today story: “Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills.” And this Wall Street Journal article, “Donald Trump’s Business Plan Left a Trail of Unpaid Bills.”
Then there is Trump University, which Trump shut down after he settled two class-action lawsuits and a civil lawsuit accusing him of cheating thousands of Americans out of millions of dollars through what many called a “sham.” Unfortunately, some of the 7,000 potential beneficiaries of the $25 million lawsuit settlement passed away before receiving any refund, such as Boyce Chair of Springfield, N.J., who lost $34,995 on so-called mentorship program tuition.
The bottom line is that just as Trump bankrupted business-after-business and built his fortune by passing debt and losses from his failing enterprises on to others, so too is Trump today bankrupting the country and passing the debt and losses from his failing economic policies on to ordinary Americans and to future generations.
But the truth is that Trump is a failure economically, both in his business career and in his actions as president. It is time to connect the dots of Trump’s economic failures—in a way that everyone understands.
A powerful way to communicate Trump’s true economic legacy is to brand him as “Bankrupter-in-Chief Trump.” This is the real bottom line of Trump’s business career, and it is what he is actually doing to the country and to individual Americans. To drive home this message, “Bankrupter-in-Chief Trump” should be repeated after each new Trump claim, policy, action and report that illustrates this message—until most Americans understand this as Trump’s true legacy.
Trump campaigned on the promise of eliminating the federal debt within eight years, but what his economic policies have actually been doing is bankrupting the country. The U.S. government’s budget deficit ballooned to almost $1 trillion in 2019, which is nearly a 50 percent increase during Trump’s time in office.
Debt to Top $4.1 Trillion
Trump’s overall contribution to the national debt, for the bills he has signed into law, is projected to top $4.1 trillion, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The largest portion of this increase is coming from Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, which are projected to boost the nation’s debt by $1.8 trillion, according to this group’s analysis.
Trump promised this his economic policies would lead to growth in the economy of between 3 and 4 percent per year, but the reality is that the economy has been growing at barely 2 percent over the past year. And the average economic growth since Trump took office has been a little more than 2.25 percent per year. The promised benefits from the massive tax cut have not materialized, and in fact the United States has now had two consecutive quarters of negative investment growth.
Not only are Trump’s tax cuts not boosting business investment as promised, but they are also bankrupting the country’s economic future. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that deficits will remain massive each year going forward until the total federal government debt reaches nearly 100 percent of the country’s GDP (gross domestic product): “Under current law, the federal government is projected to borrow an additional $13.6 trillion from the end of 2018 through 2029, boosting debt held by the public to $29.3 trillion.”
Squandered Stimulus
The country’s ability to weather economic downturns has also been compromised because the tools of economic stimulus needed to pull the country out of a recession have already been squandered at a time when they were not needed. The country’s economic resources are being wasted with minimal benefit, while its future economic health is endangered.
Another of Trump’s great promises was that he would eliminate the U.S. trade deficit. Here again, Trump’s performance has been disastrous. Far from declining, the U.S. trade deficit is now running some 40 percent above the level it was running when Trump first assumed office.
Bankrupting Individual Americans
Trump administration policies are leading to bankruptcy for large numbers of Americans. Farmers have been hit especially hard. Farm bankruptcies grew to the highest level since 2011, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
“Farm debt in 2019 is projected to be a record-high $416 billion,” the Farm Bureau reported in October, while farm income is 29 percent lower than in the record year of 2013.
And this is happening despite the Trump administration directing nearly $30 billion to farmers in bailout programs, which, along with other disaster aid and insurance indemnities, now accounts for nearly 40 percent of farmers’ income. And a lot of that aid has yet to actually reach farmers.
Trump promised that his tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations would lead to more jobs and higher wages for all Americans. But here again, Trump has not delivered on his promises.
Tax Cuts an ‘Enormous Flop’
“From a purely economic standpoint, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has been an enormous flop,” writes Michael Linden, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative. Average U.S. job creation per month has actually declined in the nearly two years since the law passed. And wage growth has been only a small fraction of what the White House promised.
During his campaign and in his inaugural address, Trump promised to protect the “forgotten man and woman.” He has actually been doing just the opposite by systematically dismantling many protections for individual consumers, protections for individual investors, protections for people preparing for retirement and protections for other Americans.
“The Trump administration is probably the most anti-investor and consumer protection administration in decades, if not ever,” said Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of Better Markets, an investor and consumer watchdog group.
Not only have protections for individual Americans been stripped from regulations and policies, but enforcement of remaining laws and regulations has also plummeted. The result, concludes Public Citizen, is that while Trump “once asserted that he was ‘not going to let Wall Street get away with murder,’ he now is allowing industry after industry to get away with just about anything.” This, too, will cause bankruptcies for large numbers of individual Americans.
Trump also wants to take away access to health insurance for millions by undoing the Affordable Care Act. This would be especially damaging to those with pre-existing conditions, many of whom could not buy health insurance before that law took effect. And if Trump succeeds in undermining the Affordable Care Act, this would cause financial ruin to many more people, given that medical issues and costs are the number one reason Americans file for bankruptcy.
A Career of Business Bankruptcies
Trump cultivates a mythology that he has been tremendously successful in business. The reality is that public records show that six times Trump filed Chapter 11 bankruptcies for his companies. Yes, not once, not twice, but six times! And even in cases where Trump was able to avoid bankruptcy, there were many business failures. For example, “Trump defaulted on the debt of his airline, Trump Shuttle, turning it over to U.S. Airways.”
The full extent of Trump’s failures in business has been largely hidden by this refusal to release his tax returns. But The New York Times was able to obtain tax information from 1985 to 1994 and these records revealed $1.17 billion in business losses in these 10 years alone.
“In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer,” The Times concluded, comparing his losses to publicly available IRS information. These revelations led to newspaper and magazine headlines like this one: “As a Businessman, Trump Was the Biggest Loser of All.”
How was Trump able to stay in business despite many bankruptcies and losing so much money? The answer is that Trump was able to structure his deals so that he was losing other people’s money—that of banks, bond investors, governments and others—more than his own money.
Passing Losses to Others
In other words, Trump was passing financial losses to those who supported him. Not surprisingly, this led many banks and other financial institutions to stop providing financing to Trump.
The principal exception has been Deutsche Bank of Germany: “Over the past two decades, it was the only mainstream financial institution consistently willing to do business with Mr. Trump, who had a history of defaulting on loans. The bank lent him a total of more than $2 billion, about $350 million of which was outstanding when he was sworn in as president.”
This is the same bank that was fined $630 million in 2017 by American and British banking regulators in connection with “around $10 billion in suspicious trades being laundered out of Russia.”
It’s not just banks that have failed to receive payments due from Trump. Hundreds of small businesses, individual contractors, laborers and other ordinary Americans have alleged that Trump has not paid them.
Numerous reports have documented these claims, such as this USA Today story: “Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills.” And this Wall Street Journal article, “Donald Trump’s Business Plan Left a Trail of Unpaid Bills.”
Then there is Trump University, which Trump shut down after he settled two class-action lawsuits and a civil lawsuit accusing him of cheating thousands of Americans out of millions of dollars through what many called a “sham.” Unfortunately, some of the 7,000 potential beneficiaries of the $25 million lawsuit settlement passed away before receiving any refund, such as Boyce Chair of Springfield, N.J., who lost $34,995 on so-called mentorship program tuition.
The bottom line is that just as Trump bankrupted business-after-business and built his fortune by passing debt and losses from his failing enterprises on to others, so too is Trump today bankrupting the country and passing the debt and losses from his failing economic policies on to ordinary Americans and to future generations.
Trump-supporting farmers forced to apply for food stamps as his trade war hammers their incomes
December 26, 2019
By Brad Reed - raw story
A new Washington Post story about the difficulties American farmers are facing under President Donald Trump’s trade war reveals that some farmers have had to significantly reduce their food consumption to make up for plummeting incomes.
The story describes the struggles faced by Andy and Anne Lee, two dairy farmers who live in upstate New York who received a federal bailout check of $4,100 this year but who nevertheless recently applied for food stamps because they were still having trouble putting food on their table.
However, Lee so far has been unable to get her family’s SNAP benefits approved despite the fact that her net farm income was -$12,979 last year. After getting turned down in her initial request for food stamps, Lee went to her local food pantry to pick up necessary groceries.
According to the Post, the Lees are not alone in finding difficulty in getting financial assistance buying food during a tough times for farmers.
“An estimated 197,000 farmers, farmworkers, fishermen and forestry workers use SNAP, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, but farmers say they sometimes find it difficult to qualify because of complicated rules governing self-employment income,” the Post explains. “And the Trump administration has long-term plans to tighten SNAP eligibility for many.”
The Lees said they voted for Trump in 2016 because they believed he was right to call out America’s trade imbalances. They still believe he has their best interests at heart, even though they acknowledge his trade war has harmed them.
“I know a lot of people don’t like it but, you know, this was going to have to happen in order to make U.S. products become more competitive,” Andy explained to the Post. “It’s going to hurt for a while.”
Read the whole story here.
The story describes the struggles faced by Andy and Anne Lee, two dairy farmers who live in upstate New York who received a federal bailout check of $4,100 this year but who nevertheless recently applied for food stamps because they were still having trouble putting food on their table.
However, Lee so far has been unable to get her family’s SNAP benefits approved despite the fact that her net farm income was -$12,979 last year. After getting turned down in her initial request for food stamps, Lee went to her local food pantry to pick up necessary groceries.
According to the Post, the Lees are not alone in finding difficulty in getting financial assistance buying food during a tough times for farmers.
“An estimated 197,000 farmers, farmworkers, fishermen and forestry workers use SNAP, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, but farmers say they sometimes find it difficult to qualify because of complicated rules governing self-employment income,” the Post explains. “And the Trump administration has long-term plans to tighten SNAP eligibility for many.”
The Lees said they voted for Trump in 2016 because they believed he was right to call out America’s trade imbalances. They still believe he has their best interests at heart, even though they acknowledge his trade war has harmed them.
“I know a lot of people don’t like it but, you know, this was going to have to happen in order to make U.S. products become more competitive,” Andy explained to the Post. “It’s going to hurt for a while.”
Read the whole story here.
Mawkish, at least when Republicans are in charge
The Trump administration has just declared war on Social Security
December 22, 2019
By Independent Media Institute- Commentary - raw story
American workers contribute to Social Security with every paycheck. When they do, they are earning comprehensive insurance protections. Social Security insures against the loss of wages due to old age, disability, or (for the surviving family of a worker) death. While Social Security is best known as a retirement program, disability and survivor’s benefits are equally essential.
An attack on any part of Social Security is an attack on the entire system and all current and future beneficiaries. The latest proposal from Donald Trump’s administration, which is designed to rip benefits away from hundreds of thousands of Americans with disabilities, amounts to a declaration of war on Social Security.
The Trump administration proposal would require millions of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries to re-prove their eligibility for benefits as often as every six months — far more frequently than is currently the case. There is no justification for this policy. The United States already has some of the strictest eligibility criteria for disability benefits in the world. More than half of all claims are denied.
We should be making it easier for workers to claim the Social Security benefits they’ve earned with every paycheck, not harder. And ripping benefits away from current beneficiaries, who rely on them to survive, is even worse.
We know what the effects of the Trump proposal would be, because Ronald Reagan implemented a very similar benefit cut back in the 1980s. Reagan’s policy ripped away the benefits of 200,000 Americans with disabilities. The New York Times reported that “people with obvious physical and mental disabilities” lost their benefits “without having been interviewed.”
Ultimately, Reagan was forced to reverse his attack on Social Security after massive public outcry, and bipartisan condemnation from Congress — but not before 21,176 people died, including several who died by suicide, “because their benefits were cut off.”
Donald Trump himself might not be a diligent student of history, but his advisers — men like Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s chief of staff and a longtime enemy of Social Security — know exactly what they are doing. They want to resurrect Reagan’s Social Security cut knowing full well that it killed people.
This could impact any of us, even those of us who are currently healthy. Imagine that you are hit by a car tomorrow, and suffer life-altering injuries that prevent you from working. You’re faced with crushing medical bills, and you’ve lost your income. In such situations, SSDI benefits are a crucial lifeline. Donald Trump wants to rip that lifeline away.
Trump and Mulvaney are targeting people with disabilities first, because they perceive them as politically vulnerable. But if they are allowed to get away with this attack, it will be only the beginning. They want to destroy every part of Social Security, including retirement benefits, and turn it over to their criminal friends on Wall Street.[...]
An attack on any part of Social Security is an attack on the entire system and all current and future beneficiaries. The latest proposal from Donald Trump’s administration, which is designed to rip benefits away from hundreds of thousands of Americans with disabilities, amounts to a declaration of war on Social Security.
The Trump administration proposal would require millions of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries to re-prove their eligibility for benefits as often as every six months — far more frequently than is currently the case. There is no justification for this policy. The United States already has some of the strictest eligibility criteria for disability benefits in the world. More than half of all claims are denied.
We should be making it easier for workers to claim the Social Security benefits they’ve earned with every paycheck, not harder. And ripping benefits away from current beneficiaries, who rely on them to survive, is even worse.
We know what the effects of the Trump proposal would be, because Ronald Reagan implemented a very similar benefit cut back in the 1980s. Reagan’s policy ripped away the benefits of 200,000 Americans with disabilities. The New York Times reported that “people with obvious physical and mental disabilities” lost their benefits “without having been interviewed.”
Ultimately, Reagan was forced to reverse his attack on Social Security after massive public outcry, and bipartisan condemnation from Congress — but not before 21,176 people died, including several who died by suicide, “because their benefits were cut off.”
Donald Trump himself might not be a diligent student of history, but his advisers — men like Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s chief of staff and a longtime enemy of Social Security — know exactly what they are doing. They want to resurrect Reagan’s Social Security cut knowing full well that it killed people.
This could impact any of us, even those of us who are currently healthy. Imagine that you are hit by a car tomorrow, and suffer life-altering injuries that prevent you from working. You’re faced with crushing medical bills, and you’ve lost your income. In such situations, SSDI benefits are a crucial lifeline. Donald Trump wants to rip that lifeline away.
Trump and Mulvaney are targeting people with disabilities first, because they perceive them as politically vulnerable. But if they are allowed to get away with this attack, it will be only the beginning. They want to destroy every part of Social Security, including retirement benefits, and turn it over to their criminal friends on Wall Street.[...]
while your family starves, reflect on how you did or did not vote!!!
'I won’t be able to have healthy food': millions of Americans to lose lifeline as Trump cuts food stamps
Michael Sainato
the guardian
Thu 12 Dec 2019 04.15 EST
The Trump administration is rolling out new rules that will reduce Snap benefits, and make millions of Americans ineligible to receive them.
When James Fauntleroy lost his sales job in the summer he quickly found his social security disability benefits did not provide enough to live on. So he turned to a vital lifeline relied upon by many Americans on hard times – food stamps, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap).
Fauntleroy, 35, initially received an approval letter, which noted he would receive $197 a month starting immediately. That was enough to help him put food on his table.
But then the bad news came.
“In the beginning of September, I received another letter from the Florida department of children and families stating that my approved amount would change from $197 to $16,” said Fauntleroy, who lives in Orlando, Florida.
Fauntleroy is one of about 40 million low-income Americans who receive at least some Snap benefits every year, a program for which the Trump administration is currently rolling out new rules that will reduce these benefits even further, and make millions of Americans ineligible to receive them. Some people, especially those with disabilities, were already finding it hard to get by on current benefits or falling through the cracks of the system. Now they fear the strict new requirements will make their situations even worse.
For Fauntleroy – who suffers from a kidney disorder – the food stamp cuts are a disaster. “I currently have a gofundme set up to help with living expenses until I can get another part-time job. In the meantime, food is expensive and I also have to choose certain foods as a kidney dialysis patient. So it’s very difficult and weighs on me mentally and emotionally,” he said.
He currently relies on a paratransit service to travel to a kidney dialysis center three times a week, and still has to cover $65 monthly co-pays and the $135 a month medicare deductible taken from his disability benefits. He’s currently searching for another part-time job, because his disability benefits will be suspended entirely if he makes anything over the income limits of about $1,200 a month.
But the Trump administration is determined to target food stamps for cuts.
On 5 December, the United States Department of Agriculture announced the finalization of a new rule that will limit state waivers of federal work requirements for “able-bodied” individuals between the ages of 18 through 49 without dependants.
Currently without a waiver, these individuals cannot receive Snap benefits longer than three months in a three-year period. States have been able to grant waivers to these requirements in regions with high unemployment or insufficient available jobs. The rule is estimated to revoke Snap benefits from 668,000 individuals in the US.
The term “able-bodied” is vague, subject to interpretation of who fits into the requirements as determined by state agencies.
The rule is one of three being pushed by the Trump administration, which is also looking to enact capped income levels for Snap benefits eligibility to twice the poverty level, about $50,000 a year for a family of four. The rule would also prevent households with more than $2,250 in assets, or $3,500 for a household with a disabled adult, from receiving food assistance benefits. Nearly 3 million Americans are expected to lose Snap benefits as a result of this rule.
A third rule would cut $4.5bn from the Snap program over five years, affecting one in five families receiving benefits.
The rules have faced scrutiny for revoking or reducing benefits for millions of Americans struggling with poverty, including eliminating access to free or reduced school lunch meals to 500,000 children.
But many disabled or sick Americans already struggle with obtaining Snap benefits or maintaining them under current requirements. Their situation, already tough, is now going to get worse.
They are people like Virgil Garwood, 37, of Woodville, Ohio, who was only receiving $50 a month in Snap benefits while fighting thyroid cancer. He receives social security disability insurance and is unable to work due to seizures, bone degradation, and the frequent surgeries his treatment requires.
But under the Trump administration, his benefits were reduced to just $15 a month, though his financial situation had not changed at all.
“My state requires Snap recipients to attend a class for proper nutrition, another class for budgeting, and a class that explained the program and how to apply for jobs. The entire time you were a recipient you were expected to be looking for employment and be able to provide proof,” said Garwood. “I let the program lapse because driving out to the classes to maintain benefits would cost way more than the $15 it’s bringing in.”
Jennifer Pracht of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, has relied on Snap benefits to provider for herself and her 14-year-old daughter since she became disabled and unable to work due to spinal issues in 2012.
“For some reason this year, my amount was cut by $105 a month. Nothing has changed on my end for them to cut the amount. But, they did,” said Pracht. She’s concerned more unannounced cuts to her benefits are coming.
“I have no idea how I’m going to put food on the table for a whole month, let alone have that food be healthy. I won’t be able to have healthy food in this house because it’s so much more expensive.”
Several individuals who spoke to the Guardian about their experience with Snap benefits requested to remain anonymous or only go by their first name.
Lisa, 47, in Michigan began receiving Snap benefits in April 2018 while waiting on her social security disability insurance filing to be approved. In October 2018, she lost her Snap benefits due to work requirements.
“Food insecurity was a constant. I kept a running tally in my head of what food was in the kitchen and how many meals I had left, compared to how long before I might get money again.” said Lisa. “This isn’t a huge amount of money. This isn’t about people going out and living high on the hog on the taxpayer’s dime. This is about people scraping to get by, and that little bit of money a month is a godsend.”
A 40-year-old woman in South Berwick, Maine, currently receives $130 a month in Snap benefits and social security disability insurance as she suffers from Ehler’s Danlos syndrome, a vascular genetic condition, and several other disabilities.
Much of her disability payment goes toward rent, as she only recently moved into stable housing after struggling with homelessness for several years. She has no reliable transportation to a grocery store, and has dietary restrictions associated with her disability.
“I always have to set aside a food and transportation budget from my social security disability, which is $760 a month,” she said. “I don’t think $130 a month is enough for anyone to survive on and I get the maximum benefit, especially when they have multiple disabilities and can’t find work.”
When James Fauntleroy lost his sales job in the summer he quickly found his social security disability benefits did not provide enough to live on. So he turned to a vital lifeline relied upon by many Americans on hard times – food stamps, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap).
Fauntleroy, 35, initially received an approval letter, which noted he would receive $197 a month starting immediately. That was enough to help him put food on his table.
But then the bad news came.
“In the beginning of September, I received another letter from the Florida department of children and families stating that my approved amount would change from $197 to $16,” said Fauntleroy, who lives in Orlando, Florida.
Fauntleroy is one of about 40 million low-income Americans who receive at least some Snap benefits every year, a program for which the Trump administration is currently rolling out new rules that will reduce these benefits even further, and make millions of Americans ineligible to receive them. Some people, especially those with disabilities, were already finding it hard to get by on current benefits or falling through the cracks of the system. Now they fear the strict new requirements will make their situations even worse.
For Fauntleroy – who suffers from a kidney disorder – the food stamp cuts are a disaster. “I currently have a gofundme set up to help with living expenses until I can get another part-time job. In the meantime, food is expensive and I also have to choose certain foods as a kidney dialysis patient. So it’s very difficult and weighs on me mentally and emotionally,” he said.
He currently relies on a paratransit service to travel to a kidney dialysis center three times a week, and still has to cover $65 monthly co-pays and the $135 a month medicare deductible taken from his disability benefits. He’s currently searching for another part-time job, because his disability benefits will be suspended entirely if he makes anything over the income limits of about $1,200 a month.
But the Trump administration is determined to target food stamps for cuts.
On 5 December, the United States Department of Agriculture announced the finalization of a new rule that will limit state waivers of federal work requirements for “able-bodied” individuals between the ages of 18 through 49 without dependants.
Currently without a waiver, these individuals cannot receive Snap benefits longer than three months in a three-year period. States have been able to grant waivers to these requirements in regions with high unemployment or insufficient available jobs. The rule is estimated to revoke Snap benefits from 668,000 individuals in the US.
The term “able-bodied” is vague, subject to interpretation of who fits into the requirements as determined by state agencies.
The rule is one of three being pushed by the Trump administration, which is also looking to enact capped income levels for Snap benefits eligibility to twice the poverty level, about $50,000 a year for a family of four. The rule would also prevent households with more than $2,250 in assets, or $3,500 for a household with a disabled adult, from receiving food assistance benefits. Nearly 3 million Americans are expected to lose Snap benefits as a result of this rule.
A third rule would cut $4.5bn from the Snap program over five years, affecting one in five families receiving benefits.
The rules have faced scrutiny for revoking or reducing benefits for millions of Americans struggling with poverty, including eliminating access to free or reduced school lunch meals to 500,000 children.
But many disabled or sick Americans already struggle with obtaining Snap benefits or maintaining them under current requirements. Their situation, already tough, is now going to get worse.
They are people like Virgil Garwood, 37, of Woodville, Ohio, who was only receiving $50 a month in Snap benefits while fighting thyroid cancer. He receives social security disability insurance and is unable to work due to seizures, bone degradation, and the frequent surgeries his treatment requires.
But under the Trump administration, his benefits were reduced to just $15 a month, though his financial situation had not changed at all.
“My state requires Snap recipients to attend a class for proper nutrition, another class for budgeting, and a class that explained the program and how to apply for jobs. The entire time you were a recipient you were expected to be looking for employment and be able to provide proof,” said Garwood. “I let the program lapse because driving out to the classes to maintain benefits would cost way more than the $15 it’s bringing in.”
Jennifer Pracht of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, has relied on Snap benefits to provider for herself and her 14-year-old daughter since she became disabled and unable to work due to spinal issues in 2012.
“For some reason this year, my amount was cut by $105 a month. Nothing has changed on my end for them to cut the amount. But, they did,” said Pracht. She’s concerned more unannounced cuts to her benefits are coming.
“I have no idea how I’m going to put food on the table for a whole month, let alone have that food be healthy. I won’t be able to have healthy food in this house because it’s so much more expensive.”
Several individuals who spoke to the Guardian about their experience with Snap benefits requested to remain anonymous or only go by their first name.
Lisa, 47, in Michigan began receiving Snap benefits in April 2018 while waiting on her social security disability insurance filing to be approved. In October 2018, she lost her Snap benefits due to work requirements.
“Food insecurity was a constant. I kept a running tally in my head of what food was in the kitchen and how many meals I had left, compared to how long before I might get money again.” said Lisa. “This isn’t a huge amount of money. This isn’t about people going out and living high on the hog on the taxpayer’s dime. This is about people scraping to get by, and that little bit of money a month is a godsend.”
A 40-year-old woman in South Berwick, Maine, currently receives $130 a month in Snap benefits and social security disability insurance as she suffers from Ehler’s Danlos syndrome, a vascular genetic condition, and several other disabilities.
Much of her disability payment goes toward rent, as she only recently moved into stable housing after struggling with homelessness for several years. She has no reliable transportation to a grocery store, and has dietary restrictions associated with her disability.
“I always have to set aside a food and transportation budget from my social security disability, which is $760 a month,” she said. “I don’t think $130 a month is enough for anyone to survive on and I get the maximum benefit, especially when they have multiple disabilities and can’t find work.”
the ultimate payback: vote & live in red states and die quick!!!
Paul Krugman explains the depressing truth about life and death in red states
December 3, 2019
By Alex Henderson, AlterNet- Commentary
Over the years, Paul Krugman has come across his share of Republicans who claim that thanks to right-wing economic policies, the United States is #1 in life expectancy — and the liberal economist and New York Times columnist typically responds that in fact, the U.S. lags behind a long list of developed countries where life expectancy is concerned. Krugman, in his December 2 column for the Times, compares life expectancy rates within the U.S. — demonstrating that the redder the state, the more likely one is to die young.
“Back in the Bush years,” Krugman explains, “I used to encounter people who insisted that the United States had the world’s longest life expectancy. They hadn’t looked at the data, they just assumed that America was No. 1 on everything. Even then, it wasn’t true: U.S. life expectancy has been below that of other advanced countries for a long time.”
Krugman goes on to say, “What I haven’t seen emphasized is the divergence in life expectancy within the United States and its close correlation with political orientation.” And Krugman, drawing on data presented in a 2018 article for the Journal for the American Medical Association, notes that residents of GOP-controlled states are more likely to die younger.
“I looked at states that voted for Donald Trump versus states that voted for Clinton in 2016, and calculated average life expectancy weighted by their 2016 population,” Krugman notes. “In 1990, today’s red and blue states had almost the same life expectancy. Since then, however, life expectancy in Clinton states has risen more or less in line with other advanced countries, compared with almost no gain in Trump country. At this point, blue-state residents can expect to live more than four years longer than their red-state counterparts.”
Krugman attributes this red state/blue state disparity on life expectancy to a variety of factors, including access to health care, obesity rates and education.
“Public policy certainly plays some role, especially in recent years, as blue states expanded Medicaid and drastically reduced the number of uninsured, while most red states didn’t,” Krugman observes. “The growing gap in educational levels has also surely played a role: better-educated people tend to be healthier than the less educated.”
Krugman also notes, “The prevalence of obesity has soared all across America since 1990, but obesity rates are significantly higher in red states.”
Krugman ends his column by noting that Attorney General William Barr has blamed “militant secularists” for suicide rates and substance abuse problems in the U.S., explaining why Barr’s claim is misleading.
“European nations, which are far more secularist than we are, haven’t seen a comparable rise in deaths of despair and an American-style decline in life expectancy,” Krugman stresses. “And even within America, these evils are concentrated in states that voted for Trump and have largely bypassed the more secular blue states. So, something bad is definitely happening to American society. But the conservative diagnosis of that problem is wrong — dead wrong.”
“Back in the Bush years,” Krugman explains, “I used to encounter people who insisted that the United States had the world’s longest life expectancy. They hadn’t looked at the data, they just assumed that America was No. 1 on everything. Even then, it wasn’t true: U.S. life expectancy has been below that of other advanced countries for a long time.”
Krugman goes on to say, “What I haven’t seen emphasized is the divergence in life expectancy within the United States and its close correlation with political orientation.” And Krugman, drawing on data presented in a 2018 article for the Journal for the American Medical Association, notes that residents of GOP-controlled states are more likely to die younger.
“I looked at states that voted for Donald Trump versus states that voted for Clinton in 2016, and calculated average life expectancy weighted by their 2016 population,” Krugman notes. “In 1990, today’s red and blue states had almost the same life expectancy. Since then, however, life expectancy in Clinton states has risen more or less in line with other advanced countries, compared with almost no gain in Trump country. At this point, blue-state residents can expect to live more than four years longer than their red-state counterparts.”
Krugman attributes this red state/blue state disparity on life expectancy to a variety of factors, including access to health care, obesity rates and education.
“Public policy certainly plays some role, especially in recent years, as blue states expanded Medicaid and drastically reduced the number of uninsured, while most red states didn’t,” Krugman observes. “The growing gap in educational levels has also surely played a role: better-educated people tend to be healthier than the less educated.”
Krugman also notes, “The prevalence of obesity has soared all across America since 1990, but obesity rates are significantly higher in red states.”
Krugman ends his column by noting that Attorney General William Barr has blamed “militant secularists” for suicide rates and substance abuse problems in the U.S., explaining why Barr’s claim is misleading.
“European nations, which are far more secularist than we are, haven’t seen a comparable rise in deaths of despair and an American-style decline in life expectancy,” Krugman stresses. “And even within America, these evils are concentrated in states that voted for Trump and have largely bypassed the more secular blue states. So, something bad is definitely happening to American society. But the conservative diagnosis of that problem is wrong — dead wrong.”
voters keep voting republican and drowning!!!
The Senate’s most famous anti-science member is OK with flooding his neighbors — if it keeps his lake view
November 27, 2019
By Sarah Okeson, DCReport @ RawStory
Sen Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, tucked an amendment into the $750 billion defense spending bill that would benefit fellow wealthy homeowners at Grand Lake in northeast Oklahoma by keeping lake levels high but is expected to worsen flooding in nearby Miami, Okla.
The amendment, which starts on page 1,183 of the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, would limit the ability of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to say how high the lake should be. The Grand River Dam Authority, which has board members who also own lake houses, is licensed by the commission to operate the dam.
“He’s helping his buddies to make sure the lake is full during summer so those very big boats do well,” said Rebecca Jim of Local Environmental Action Demanded which put up a billboard in Miami criticizing Inhofe.
Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees was created in 1940, when the federal government’s New Deal-era Public Works Administration built the Pensacola Dam on the Grand River. The 66-mile-long lake is so beloved by the wealthy and powerful of Oklahoma that one of its subdivisions is called Governors Retreat. Inhofe, a climate-change denier and vocal anti-environmentalist with an estimated net worth is $4.5 million, built a vacation house at Grand Lake in 1962. Former Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and her husband bought a second home on Grand Lake in 2011. Dam authority board members Pete Churchwell, Jim Richie and Tom Kimball also have lake houses.
“For the better part of my career in the United States Senate I have been working to maintain higher lake levels on Grand,” Inhofe wrote the commission in 2016.
Law professor Richard Painter said the annual defense bill has been used before to try to get environmentally questionable projects through Congress. In 2018, the Senate defense bill included an amendment that would nullify lawsuits over a land exchange for PolyMet Mining Co. to build a copper-nickel mine in Minnesota. That provision was removed before the bill went to the president.
“That’s something that should not be dealt with in a defense appropriations bill,” said Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration.
The federal financial conflict of interest law exempts members of Congress, the president and the vice president. Miami officials learned about Inhofe’s amendment just before the July 4 holiday from the press.
“It’s just as unfair as it can be,” said Miami City Manager Dean Kruithof.
Since the early 1990s, Miami has flooded more than two dozen times, most recently in May. A 2015 study Miami paid for found that the dam worsened flooding.
“The economic and social fabric of the community is slowly being destroyed,” said Miami Mayor Rudy Schultz.
Natasha McKibben spent her oldest son’s eighth birthday packing up their house near Miami, shortly before it flooded in 2007, causing $30 million to $40 million in damage to Miami and the surrounding area. Some of her neighbors’ houses are still vacant.
“We had a FEMA trailer for probably two months before we could get back in the house,” McKibben said.
Miami officials had hoped to address flooding problems with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The license for the dam runs through March 2022. The dam authority now wants to extend the license until Dec. 31, 2026.
The amendment, which starts on page 1,183 of the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, would limit the ability of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to say how high the lake should be. The Grand River Dam Authority, which has board members who also own lake houses, is licensed by the commission to operate the dam.
“He’s helping his buddies to make sure the lake is full during summer so those very big boats do well,” said Rebecca Jim of Local Environmental Action Demanded which put up a billboard in Miami criticizing Inhofe.
Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees was created in 1940, when the federal government’s New Deal-era Public Works Administration built the Pensacola Dam on the Grand River. The 66-mile-long lake is so beloved by the wealthy and powerful of Oklahoma that one of its subdivisions is called Governors Retreat. Inhofe, a climate-change denier and vocal anti-environmentalist with an estimated net worth is $4.5 million, built a vacation house at Grand Lake in 1962. Former Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and her husband bought a second home on Grand Lake in 2011. Dam authority board members Pete Churchwell, Jim Richie and Tom Kimball also have lake houses.
“For the better part of my career in the United States Senate I have been working to maintain higher lake levels on Grand,” Inhofe wrote the commission in 2016.
Law professor Richard Painter said the annual defense bill has been used before to try to get environmentally questionable projects through Congress. In 2018, the Senate defense bill included an amendment that would nullify lawsuits over a land exchange for PolyMet Mining Co. to build a copper-nickel mine in Minnesota. That provision was removed before the bill went to the president.
“That’s something that should not be dealt with in a defense appropriations bill,” said Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration.
The federal financial conflict of interest law exempts members of Congress, the president and the vice president. Miami officials learned about Inhofe’s amendment just before the July 4 holiday from the press.
“It’s just as unfair as it can be,” said Miami City Manager Dean Kruithof.
Since the early 1990s, Miami has flooded more than two dozen times, most recently in May. A 2015 study Miami paid for found that the dam worsened flooding.
“The economic and social fabric of the community is slowly being destroyed,” said Miami Mayor Rudy Schultz.
Natasha McKibben spent her oldest son’s eighth birthday packing up their house near Miami, shortly before it flooded in 2007, causing $30 million to $40 million in damage to Miami and the surrounding area. Some of her neighbors’ houses are still vacant.
“We had a FEMA trailer for probably two months before we could get back in the house,” McKibben said.
Miami officials had hoped to address flooding problems with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The license for the dam runs through March 2022. The dam authority now wants to extend the license until Dec. 31, 2026.
Yet another independent study just found Americans have been stuck paying Trump's tariffs
Gina Heeb - business insider
Nov. 25, 2019, 03:05 PM
The costs of punitive tariffs rolled out against China over the past year have largely fallen on US businesses and consumers, the New York Federal Reserve said Monday.
The central bank found in a new study that Chinese businesses have not significantly lowered prices on exports to the US in response to the trade dispute that began in early 2018. That signaled that Americans have instead had to absorb additional import taxes levied by the Trump administration, estimated at around $40 billion annually.
"The continued stability of import prices for goods from China means US firms and consumers have to pay the tariff tax," Fed economists Matthew Higgins, Thomas Klitgaard, and Michael Nattinger wrote in the study.
The findings added to a long string of research that has contradicted a repeated claim by President Donald Trump: that foreign exporters have paid the import taxes of up to 25% on thousands of products.
The White House has continued to assert that claim even after the same conclusion was reached in several other major independent studies, including from Princeton, Yale and the University of Chicago.
"China is paying us tremendous — and they're paying for it," Trump said at a Cabinet meeting last week. "Those tariffs are not paid by us. Those tariffs are paid because they're devaluing their currency and pouring cash into their economy."
But the New York Fed said its findings suggested Chinese firms have not used exchange rates to maintain competitiveness through lower prices.
"Instead, they've accepted the loss in competitiveness in the US market and have used the weaker currency to pad profits on each unit of sales," Higgins, Klitgaard, and Nattinger wrote.
- The costs of punitive tariffs that rolled out against China over the past year have largely fallen on US businesses and consumers, the New York Fed said Monday.
- The findings added to a long string of independent research with the same results.
- That contradicts a repeated claim by President Donald Trump that China pays tariffs.
- Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
The costs of punitive tariffs rolled out against China over the past year have largely fallen on US businesses and consumers, the New York Federal Reserve said Monday.
The central bank found in a new study that Chinese businesses have not significantly lowered prices on exports to the US in response to the trade dispute that began in early 2018. That signaled that Americans have instead had to absorb additional import taxes levied by the Trump administration, estimated at around $40 billion annually.
"The continued stability of import prices for goods from China means US firms and consumers have to pay the tariff tax," Fed economists Matthew Higgins, Thomas Klitgaard, and Michael Nattinger wrote in the study.
The findings added to a long string of research that has contradicted a repeated claim by President Donald Trump: that foreign exporters have paid the import taxes of up to 25% on thousands of products.
The White House has continued to assert that claim even after the same conclusion was reached in several other major independent studies, including from Princeton, Yale and the University of Chicago.
"China is paying us tremendous — and they're paying for it," Trump said at a Cabinet meeting last week. "Those tariffs are not paid by us. Those tariffs are paid because they're devaluing their currency and pouring cash into their economy."
But the New York Fed said its findings suggested Chinese firms have not used exchange rates to maintain competitiveness through lower prices.
"Instead, they've accepted the loss in competitiveness in the US market and have used the weaker currency to pad profits on each unit of sales," Higgins, Klitgaard, and Nattinger wrote.
DEEP RED TOWN'S ONLY GROCERY CLOSED, CITY HALL OPENED ITS OWN STORE. JUST DON'T CALL IT 'SOCIALISM'
IronLionZion - demo underground
11/22/19
BALDWIN, Fla. — When Sean Lynch ran for mayor, he never anticipated that the job would involve hiring a butcher and tracking the sale of collard greens.
But in 2018, two years into his first term, the only grocery store in town shut down. People in Baldwin, Fla., a rural outpost in northeast Florida, were left with few options. They could leave town, driving 10 miles through road construction to nearby Macclenny or battling 20 miles of freeway traffic through Jacksonville’s suburban sprawl. Alternatively, they could cobble together a meal out of canned goods from the local Dollar General, or head to a nearby truck stop for greasy, deep-fried fast food.
For many of Baldwin’s roughly 1,600 residents, though, traveling for food wasn’t really a choice. The town’s median household income of $44,271 is well below the state average, and it’s not uncommon for families to juggle their schedules around sharing one car. Senior citizens also make up a significant percentage of the population, and many no longer drive.
So Lynch came to his colleagues with a proposal: What if the town opened its own grocery store?
Abandoned by mainstream supermarkets whose business models don’t have room for low profit margins, both urban and rural communities nationwide have turned to resident-owned co-ops or nonprofits to fill the gap. But Baldwin is trying something different. At the Baldwin Market, which opened its doors on Sept. 20, all of the employees are on the municipal payroll, from the butcher to the cashiers. Workers from the town’s maintenance department take breaks from cutting grass to help unload deliveries, and residents flag down the mayor when they want to request a specific type of milk.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/
But in 2018, two years into his first term, the only grocery store in town shut down. People in Baldwin, Fla., a rural outpost in northeast Florida, were left with few options. They could leave town, driving 10 miles through road construction to nearby Macclenny or battling 20 miles of freeway traffic through Jacksonville’s suburban sprawl. Alternatively, they could cobble together a meal out of canned goods from the local Dollar General, or head to a nearby truck stop for greasy, deep-fried fast food.
For many of Baldwin’s roughly 1,600 residents, though, traveling for food wasn’t really a choice. The town’s median household income of $44,271 is well below the state average, and it’s not uncommon for families to juggle their schedules around sharing one car. Senior citizens also make up a significant percentage of the population, and many no longer drive.
So Lynch came to his colleagues with a proposal: What if the town opened its own grocery store?
Abandoned by mainstream supermarkets whose business models don’t have room for low profit margins, both urban and rural communities nationwide have turned to resident-owned co-ops or nonprofits to fill the gap. But Baldwin is trying something different. At the Baldwin Market, which opened its doors on Sept. 20, all of the employees are on the municipal payroll, from the butcher to the cashiers. Workers from the town’s maintenance department take breaks from cutting grass to help unload deliveries, and residents flag down the mayor when they want to request a specific type of milk.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/
Study: States that expanded Medicaid saved 19,000 lives, states that didn't lost 15,000
Joan McCarter for Daily Kos
Saturday November 16, 2019 · 8:00 AM PST
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports on a new study of all the states in the nation, demonstrating that those that took Medicaid expansion "saved the lives of at least 19,200 adults aged 55 to 64 over the four-year period from 2014 to 2017." The flip side is that 15,600 older adults died prematurely in the states that didn't accept the expansion in those years.
Following on other studies which have found that more low-income adults in Medicaid expansion states have used medication to control chronic conditions like heart disease and diabetes, researchers at the University of Michigan, National Institutes of Health, Census Bureau, and University of California Los Angeles have found clear evidence of a drop in mortality from these kinds of chronic conditions. The researchers focused on the group of pre-Medicare older Americans who have higher mortality rates and have a greater risk of premature death from treatable conditions. Using this group, they constructed a "novel dataset that links the American Community Survey—the largest federal survey with information on income, age, and other determinants of Medicaid eligibility—with administrative death records. The large sample lets them detect small changes in mortality that aren’t evident in other data." It also reaches a threshold that makes it statistically significant.
Their findings are significant: "In 2014 the annual mortality rate for low-income older adults in expansion states fell by about 9 deaths per 10,000 people, compared to similar adults in non-expansion states, with the impact growing each year to about 21 deaths per 10,000 people in year 4." That's how they determine the total numbers of avoided deaths and premature deaths in expansion and non-expansion states. They compared these numbers to National Highway Traffic Safety Commission data, and figured out that if all of the states had expanded Medicaid, as many lives would have been saved by coverage as by seatbelts.
That's 2,920 premature deaths in Texas that could have been prevented; 2,776 in Florida; 1,400 in North Carolina; and 1,336 in Georgia. What the study doesn't get into is how saving tens of thousands of lives by managing chronic conditions saved families and the states money that would have gone to critical or end-of-life care; how many people were able to remain active and in the work force; and how quality of life was affected for individuals and their families.
None of this matters to the Republican lawmakers who decided they had to refuse the expansion because Obama (or, for that matter, Chief Justice John Roberts, who engineered the whole debacle of states being able to turn it down under the law). Remember all of these numbers as the debate over Medicare for All heats up when we have a Democratic president again. And never forget that Republicans really don't give a damn if you live or die.
Following on other studies which have found that more low-income adults in Medicaid expansion states have used medication to control chronic conditions like heart disease and diabetes, researchers at the University of Michigan, National Institutes of Health, Census Bureau, and University of California Los Angeles have found clear evidence of a drop in mortality from these kinds of chronic conditions. The researchers focused on the group of pre-Medicare older Americans who have higher mortality rates and have a greater risk of premature death from treatable conditions. Using this group, they constructed a "novel dataset that links the American Community Survey—the largest federal survey with information on income, age, and other determinants of Medicaid eligibility—with administrative death records. The large sample lets them detect small changes in mortality that aren’t evident in other data." It also reaches a threshold that makes it statistically significant.
Their findings are significant: "In 2014 the annual mortality rate for low-income older adults in expansion states fell by about 9 deaths per 10,000 people, compared to similar adults in non-expansion states, with the impact growing each year to about 21 deaths per 10,000 people in year 4." That's how they determine the total numbers of avoided deaths and premature deaths in expansion and non-expansion states. They compared these numbers to National Highway Traffic Safety Commission data, and figured out that if all of the states had expanded Medicaid, as many lives would have been saved by coverage as by seatbelts.
That's 2,920 premature deaths in Texas that could have been prevented; 2,776 in Florida; 1,400 in North Carolina; and 1,336 in Georgia. What the study doesn't get into is how saving tens of thousands of lives by managing chronic conditions saved families and the states money that would have gone to critical or end-of-life care; how many people were able to remain active and in the work force; and how quality of life was affected for individuals and their families.
None of this matters to the Republican lawmakers who decided they had to refuse the expansion because Obama (or, for that matter, Chief Justice John Roberts, who engineered the whole debacle of states being able to turn it down under the law). Remember all of these numbers as the debate over Medicare for All heats up when we have a Democratic president again. And never forget that Republicans really don't give a damn if you live or die.
‘I’m very upset’: Furious Texas rancher says Trump is ‘secretly’ trying to steal land to build ‘the wall’
November 17, 2019
By Sarah K. Burris - raw story
Ranchers in Laredo, Texas, are furious as they’re learning President Donald Trump is stealing their land away to build the “wall,” he says, has already been built.
During a campaign stop in Louisiana Thursday, Trump said that his wall is “going up faster than anyone thought possible.” But when probed about it, Trump’s own top border official confirmed none of the wall has been built, in fact, all that has been built replaced existing structures.
Only four miles of the area where the Trump “wall” is going is owned by the federal government already. So, the White House is now calling land-owners on the Texas border to beg them to cooperate with their landgrab.
Surveyors are being sent in to outline how much will be taken from Texans through eminent domain.
David Acevedo is a Texas rancher on the border that has owned the land for three generations of his family after his grandfather migrated to the U.S. after Pancho Villa’s revolution, over 100 years ago. His grandfather then purchased the land and began his own ranch there.
“We got a phone call to attend a meeting in their south station heading out to our property,” Acevedo said. “And I felt it was a little — 20 owners probably showed up to this meeting that they invited. I had communicated with other neighbors of mine to go out to the meeting because there was going to be a meeting discussing the border wall. And it was my surprise that whoever was on that list was allowed into the meeting, and no media was allowed in. And none of the neighbors were allowed in, only the people that they called which was about a group of 20.”
“When they gave us the survey and site assessments, they provided a little site-plan for the property, and they showed pretty much what area was going to be affected,” he continued. “In our case, it was probably about 20 percent of our property of the 180 acres. It all depends they were saying that it was all going to be referencing the river and how would it affect the floodplain in the area to depend on how much property was going to be affected.”
Acevedo said he was “very upset” and specifically bothered by all of the secrecy surrounding it.
“I wish people could come out and take a look at our place,” he said. “You know, it is a beautiful place. The scenery is great. Recreation is great. There is plenty of wildlife, you know we’ve been farming and growing hay for cattle production for many, many years now and I don’t see how they can say hey, we want to go over there and build a wall there.”
During a campaign stop in Louisiana Thursday, Trump said that his wall is “going up faster than anyone thought possible.” But when probed about it, Trump’s own top border official confirmed none of the wall has been built, in fact, all that has been built replaced existing structures.
Only four miles of the area where the Trump “wall” is going is owned by the federal government already. So, the White House is now calling land-owners on the Texas border to beg them to cooperate with their landgrab.
Surveyors are being sent in to outline how much will be taken from Texans through eminent domain.
David Acevedo is a Texas rancher on the border that has owned the land for three generations of his family after his grandfather migrated to the U.S. after Pancho Villa’s revolution, over 100 years ago. His grandfather then purchased the land and began his own ranch there.
“We got a phone call to attend a meeting in their south station heading out to our property,” Acevedo said. “And I felt it was a little — 20 owners probably showed up to this meeting that they invited. I had communicated with other neighbors of mine to go out to the meeting because there was going to be a meeting discussing the border wall. And it was my surprise that whoever was on that list was allowed into the meeting, and no media was allowed in. And none of the neighbors were allowed in, only the people that they called which was about a group of 20.”
“When they gave us the survey and site assessments, they provided a little site-plan for the property, and they showed pretty much what area was going to be affected,” he continued. “In our case, it was probably about 20 percent of our property of the 180 acres. It all depends they were saying that it was all going to be referencing the river and how would it affect the floodplain in the area to depend on how much property was going to be affected.”
Acevedo said he was “very upset” and specifically bothered by all of the secrecy surrounding it.
“I wish people could come out and take a look at our place,” he said. “You know, it is a beautiful place. The scenery is great. Recreation is great. There is plenty of wildlife, you know we’ve been farming and growing hay for cattle production for many, many years now and I don’t see how they can say hey, we want to go over there and build a wall there.”
David Cay Johnston explains how Trump’s trade tariffs are really a tax on his base
November 11, 2019
By David Cay Johnston, DC Report @ Raw Story- Commentary
Candidate Donald Trump railed against America’s chronic trade deficits, vowing to eliminate them if he became president.
So, how’s Trump doing? Awful. Trade deficits are growing on his watch.
The overall trade deficit in September was 21% larger than during his first full month in office.
In 2016, under President Barak Obama, America imported $502.9 billion more in goods and services than it sold in exports.
In 2018, under Trump, that ballooned to $627.7 billion, an increase of $124.7 billion, and the deficit is on pace to run even deeper in 2019. For the nine months ending in September, the overall trade deficit was $481.3 billion, up $24.8 billion for the same period of 2018.
Trump’s tariffs are a tax on Americans, paid by companies who import goods and then either passed on to consumers or absorbed as reduced profits.
Trump always rails about the trade in goods, ignoring services such as accounting, banking, and insurance.
Our deficit in goods traded with China grew through last year. Indeed, the 2018 deficit of $419.5 billion was the largest on record, up a whopping 21% over the $346.8 billion of Obama’s last calendar year as president. So far, 2019 looks like it will come in around $360 billion.
The deficit with China is smaller not because Trump’s policies haven’t so much altered the balance of trade as shrunk the volume of trade. That, in turn, means fewer jobs for Americans, close to 11 million of whom, the Commerce Department estimates, owe their jobs to trade with China.
Mexico, Too
And what of Mexico, another Trump trade bugaboo? In 2016, Obama’s last year, our trade deficit in goods was $63.3 billion. That rose to $80.7 billion in 2018. That’s a 27% increase under Trump.
In just the first nine months of this year, our Mexico goods deficit was $76.1 billion, meaning this year will easily set a new record deficit.
Trump’s disregard for trade in services is a most curious omission for a man who boasts, falsely, that he has an economics degree from Penn’s famous Wharton School of Finance. His degree, for which he mostly did independent studies while working for his father, is from a one-professor real estate department at Penn that was under Wharton, which is a graduate school.
Equally troubling is Trump’s mistaken belief that China and Mexico pay the tariffs he has placed on their goods.
Trump’s tariffs are not paid by China. Tariffs are a tax on Americans, paid by companies who import goods and then either passed on to consumers or absorbed as reduced profits. The Treasury Department, by the way, calls them “customs duties.”
Americans Pay the Price
Trump’s tariffs cost Americans $71 billion in the first nine months of the calendar year.
So far, Trump has spent $28 billion of your tax money in bailout money for soybean and other Midwest farmers whose major market he decimated with his anti-China trade policies. The damage may last years or decades because China switched to other countries for soybeans, promising to buy up to $50 billion a year from Brazil.
Think of that as a Trump “Put Brazilian Farmers First” policy.
During a Sept. 4 news conference on Hurricane Dorian, the one that he falsely said would hit Alabama, Trump veered off into China trade with assertions that were just as false:
“We have a lot of—we’ve taken in tens of billions of dollars in tariffs from China. Prices have not gone up, or they’ve gone up very little. China has paid for most of that, and I say paid for all of it. China has now had the worst year that they’ve had in 57 years. This is the worst year they’ve had in 57 years. And they want to make a deal; we’ll see what happens.”
That was such nonsense that anyone who knows their Chinese history laughed. In 1962 China was a poor farm country with minimal industry. It was still under Mao, whose policies resulted in mass starvation that some historians estimate at 45 million people dying.
What is fact is that the spectacular growth of the Chinese economy has slowed to its lowest level in the last three decades.
Tariffs Wipe Out Income Tax Cuts
The Trump tariffs pretty much wipe out the modest income tax savings that went to the bottom 90% of Americans under the Trump/Radical Republican tax cut law enacted in December 2017. Most of its savings went to corporations and the top 1%.
So, while Trump has tricked millions of Americans into believing he cut their tax burdens, he has actually raised their total burden with his tariffs.
Trump’s tariffs are also slowing economic growth and in time will mean 512,000 fewer jobs than if the tariffs had never been imposed, Tax Foundation has noted.
Analysis by Trade Partnership, a consulting firm, asserted that the “biggest winners from tariffs on Chinese cell phones are other foreign producers. Manufacturers in Korea and Vietnam would see annual export revenues grow by about $1.8 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively. American consumers, on the other hand, would pay over $8.1 billion more for cell phones.”
Prices of laptops, video games and toy drones are also expected to rise significantly, costing American consumers billions more for those who do buy. The study predicted a 35% drop in laptop purchases.
Because there is virtually no laptop manufacturing in the United States, “American consumers would pay $785 in new out of pocket expenses for each $1 in new revenue for American manufacturers,” Trade Partnership estimated.
Remember that as an example of Trump’s ignorance of trade benefits.
So, how’s Trump doing? Awful. Trade deficits are growing on his watch.
The overall trade deficit in September was 21% larger than during his first full month in office.
In 2016, under President Barak Obama, America imported $502.9 billion more in goods and services than it sold in exports.
In 2018, under Trump, that ballooned to $627.7 billion, an increase of $124.7 billion, and the deficit is on pace to run even deeper in 2019. For the nine months ending in September, the overall trade deficit was $481.3 billion, up $24.8 billion for the same period of 2018.
Trump’s tariffs are a tax on Americans, paid by companies who import goods and then either passed on to consumers or absorbed as reduced profits.
Trump always rails about the trade in goods, ignoring services such as accounting, banking, and insurance.
Our deficit in goods traded with China grew through last year. Indeed, the 2018 deficit of $419.5 billion was the largest on record, up a whopping 21% over the $346.8 billion of Obama’s last calendar year as president. So far, 2019 looks like it will come in around $360 billion.
The deficit with China is smaller not because Trump’s policies haven’t so much altered the balance of trade as shrunk the volume of trade. That, in turn, means fewer jobs for Americans, close to 11 million of whom, the Commerce Department estimates, owe their jobs to trade with China.
Mexico, Too
And what of Mexico, another Trump trade bugaboo? In 2016, Obama’s last year, our trade deficit in goods was $63.3 billion. That rose to $80.7 billion in 2018. That’s a 27% increase under Trump.
In just the first nine months of this year, our Mexico goods deficit was $76.1 billion, meaning this year will easily set a new record deficit.
Trump’s disregard for trade in services is a most curious omission for a man who boasts, falsely, that he has an economics degree from Penn’s famous Wharton School of Finance. His degree, for which he mostly did independent studies while working for his father, is from a one-professor real estate department at Penn that was under Wharton, which is a graduate school.
Equally troubling is Trump’s mistaken belief that China and Mexico pay the tariffs he has placed on their goods.
Trump’s tariffs are not paid by China. Tariffs are a tax on Americans, paid by companies who import goods and then either passed on to consumers or absorbed as reduced profits. The Treasury Department, by the way, calls them “customs duties.”
Americans Pay the Price
Trump’s tariffs cost Americans $71 billion in the first nine months of the calendar year.
So far, Trump has spent $28 billion of your tax money in bailout money for soybean and other Midwest farmers whose major market he decimated with his anti-China trade policies. The damage may last years or decades because China switched to other countries for soybeans, promising to buy up to $50 billion a year from Brazil.
Think of that as a Trump “Put Brazilian Farmers First” policy.
During a Sept. 4 news conference on Hurricane Dorian, the one that he falsely said would hit Alabama, Trump veered off into China trade with assertions that were just as false:
“We have a lot of—we’ve taken in tens of billions of dollars in tariffs from China. Prices have not gone up, or they’ve gone up very little. China has paid for most of that, and I say paid for all of it. China has now had the worst year that they’ve had in 57 years. This is the worst year they’ve had in 57 years. And they want to make a deal; we’ll see what happens.”
That was such nonsense that anyone who knows their Chinese history laughed. In 1962 China was a poor farm country with minimal industry. It was still under Mao, whose policies resulted in mass starvation that some historians estimate at 45 million people dying.
What is fact is that the spectacular growth of the Chinese economy has slowed to its lowest level in the last three decades.
Tariffs Wipe Out Income Tax Cuts
The Trump tariffs pretty much wipe out the modest income tax savings that went to the bottom 90% of Americans under the Trump/Radical Republican tax cut law enacted in December 2017. Most of its savings went to corporations and the top 1%.
So, while Trump has tricked millions of Americans into believing he cut their tax burdens, he has actually raised their total burden with his tariffs.
Trump’s tariffs are also slowing economic growth and in time will mean 512,000 fewer jobs than if the tariffs had never been imposed, Tax Foundation has noted.
Analysis by Trade Partnership, a consulting firm, asserted that the “biggest winners from tariffs on Chinese cell phones are other foreign producers. Manufacturers in Korea and Vietnam would see annual export revenues grow by about $1.8 billion and $1.2 billion, respectively. American consumers, on the other hand, would pay over $8.1 billion more for cell phones.”
Prices of laptops, video games and toy drones are also expected to rise significantly, costing American consumers billions more for those who do buy. The study predicted a 35% drop in laptop purchases.
Because there is virtually no laptop manufacturing in the United States, “American consumers would pay $785 in new out of pocket expenses for each $1 in new revenue for American manufacturers,” Trade Partnership estimated.
Remember that as an example of Trump’s ignorance of trade benefits.
Trump "Accomplishments"
The four Midwestern states that sealed Trump’s 2016 win projected to face economic downturn in 2020
November 5, 2019
By Brad Reed - raw story
President Donald Trump owes his big 2016 victory to his wins in the Midwestern states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
However, Bloomberg reports that new data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia show that those four key states are expected to experience economic contractions next year, even as the American economy as a whole will keep growing.
So while the economy may not harm the president on a national level, it may harm his prospects of keeping the states he needs to win the electoral college again.
“The information that people are going to get about the state of the economy is going to be different in different states,” Christopher Wlezien, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, tells Bloomberg. “They don’t rely on just what’s happening to them. They care about what’s happening around them.”
The data don’t show these states will enter a technical recession, which would require two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, although just one quarter of contraction could be enough to harm the president’s claim that Americans are living through the “best economy ever.”
Bloomberg also shows that the president’s trade war with China is a “likely” major reason for these states’ slowdowns, as they are major agricultural states that have had difficulty in seeing their exports to China slashed.
However, Bloomberg reports that new data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia show that those four key states are expected to experience economic contractions next year, even as the American economy as a whole will keep growing.
So while the economy may not harm the president on a national level, it may harm his prospects of keeping the states he needs to win the electoral college again.
“The information that people are going to get about the state of the economy is going to be different in different states,” Christopher Wlezien, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, tells Bloomberg. “They don’t rely on just what’s happening to them. They care about what’s happening around them.”
The data don’t show these states will enter a technical recession, which would require two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, although just one quarter of contraction could be enough to harm the president’s claim that Americans are living through the “best economy ever.”
Bloomberg also shows that the president’s trade war with China is a “likely” major reason for these states’ slowdowns, as they are major agricultural states that have had difficulty in seeing their exports to China slashed.
payback funnies
|
|
what you see is what you get!!!
your share, idiot!!!!
