Monday, September 30, 2024

Texas Removed Millions from Medicaid

 


Despite Persistent Warnings, Texas Rushed to Remove Millions From Medicaid. That Move Cost Eligible Residents Care.

Records show that Texas ignored Medicaid enrollment guidance and warnings. Here are more findings from our investigation with The Texas Tribune:  

Texas has stripped Medicaid coverage from 2 million people, most of them children.

After the COVID-19 public health emergency ended, states were free to “unwind” people off Medicaid. Texas moved aggressively. More than 1 million lost coverage for bureaucratic reasons, like failing to return a form, not because they weren’t eligible.

Disenrollment mistakes were preventable and foreshadowed by warnings from the federal government, whistleblowers and advocates.

Texas is under federal investigation for its long Medicaid enrollment waits. One expert said Texas’ unwinding stance was, “We don’t do anything illegal, but we want to get our program as fast as we can down to what it was before the pandemic.”  

 Some Texas families that lost Medicaid coverage during the unwinding are also waiting more than a month for food assistance because the state uses the same eligibility system to process both applications. “It’s felt like a one-two punch,” said one food bank CEO.

Are you caught in Texas’ Medicaid and food stamp application backlog? Do you know someone who is? Help us report on these issues.

Read story

 

 

 


Sunday, September 29, 2024

Chess Grandmaster Anna Muzychuk

 


Chess Grandmaster Anna Muzychuk refuses to play in Saudi Arabia and says:

“In a few days, I will lose two world titles, back-to-back. Because I decided not to go to Saudi Arabia. I refuse to play by special rules, to wear abaya, to be accompanied by a man so I can leave the hotel, so I don't feel like a second-class person.

"I will follow my principles and not compete in the World Fast Chess and Blitz Championship where in just 5 days I could have won more money than dozens of other tournaments combined. This is all very nasty, but the sad part is no one seems to care. Bitter feelings but can't go back. "

—Anna Muzychuk


Thursday, September 26, 2024

Biden Can Halt Wider War: Stop Sending Arms!

 


Israel’s violence toward its neighbors, long out of control in its destruction of Gaza, now threatens to open new fronts, involve new nations, and even drag the United States into direct conflict. Promises of a ceasefire from the Biden Administration have come to nothing. Soft, behind the scenes diplomacy has failed to achieve peace.

In response, “Ceasefire,” the first demand of the peace movement since Israel’s destruction of Gaza began, has evolved. The actions of the Israeli military and government, the indiscriminate killing of women and children with US weapons, and appropriate frustration from activists in the street have created a new demand: an American arms embargo against Israel. For President Biden and his administration, it may be the only way out of a new quagmire in the Middle East.

But instead of de-escalating the war and reaching a lasting peace with the Palestinian people, Netanyahu’s Israeli government is expanding the war to new fronts. On September 23rd the Israeli Defense Force launched a barrage of attacks on Lebanon, killing over 600 people and wounding thousands.

It is now threatening a ground invasion. The previous week it simultaneously detonated electronic devices across Lebanon killing dozens and maiming thousands, including civilians and children. Commenting on that attack, former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said, “I don’t think there’s any question that it’s a form of terrorism.” These terror attacks in Lebanon were perpetrated just one day after a senior Biden advisor warned Netanyahu not to expand the war.

These are only the latest examples of a pattern of escalation by Israel. In January an Israeli strike killed a top Hezbollah commander in Beirut, Lebanon. In April Israel destroyed the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria. In late July they assassinated the political leader of Hamas, and lead negotiator in the ceasefire talks, in Tehran, while he was attending the inauguration of Iran’s new president. Israel has also escalated the scale of violence in the West Bank, killing over 500 civilians in the past year and launching a major military operation there in August.

Israeli officials have recently described their strategy of expanding the war to include Lebanon as “de-escalation by escalation” – an oxymoron that flies in the face of the Biden Administration’s long stated goal to prevent a wider, regional war.

This diplomatic failure on the part of President Biden and his foreign policy team threatens to drag the United States into another war in the Middle East. The Pentagon announced that the US is sending additional forces, adding to the 40,000 US servicemen and women already in the region. Another aircraft carrier, the USS Truman, and accompanying ships is now headed to the area to join the USS Abraham Lincoln, sending thousands more sailors to the region as well, at considerable expense–and risk.

More direct US involvement in Israel’s wars threatens not only those US personnel, but also the political situation at home. A major foreign policy failure so close to the November presidential election could have the effect of bolstering former President Donald Trump’s bid to retake the White House. Trump has consistently criticized Biden for not supporting Israel enough, saying he should let them “finish the job” in Gaza. 

No friend to the Palestinians, Trump even used the term “Palestinian” as an insult and slur on the debate stage with Biden. Despite repeated signs that the Israeli PM is not a trustworthy partner for peace, President Biden has failed to use his leverage to rein him in. In a recent statement Netanyahu declared he will not entertain diplomatic ideas on Lebanon and will not engage in ceasefire talks for 45 days. The fact that the statement came 45 days before the US presidential election is a clear signal of Netanyahu’s political desires and motivations.

So what can Mr. Biden, his administration, and presidential hopeful VP Harris do? They can change course and finally put their foot down with Netanyahu and his right-wing government. The planned introduction of a Joint Resolution of Disapproval by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont provides an opportunity to do so. This privileged resolution requires the US Senate to take a vote on the sale of $20 billion dollars of military equipment to Israel. More than $18 billion comes in the form of high tech F-15 fighter-bombers, but the sale also includes tank munitions, mortar shells, and precision bombs.

Biden could preempt the vote by announcing a pause to at least some weapons to Israel in light of the expanding war he has long opposed publicly. This move could also shield the Biden Administration from forthcoming reports from inspectors general investigating human rights violations committed by Israel using US weapons, a breach of US law.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has certainly given President Biden cause to stop sending US arms to his right wing government. The assault on the people of Gaza is nearing its one-year anniversary. Tens of thousands of Israelis are protesting their government’s failure to get back hostages taken by Hamas during its attack on Israel on October 7th, 2023. 

Former Israeli Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert have criticized Netanyahu’s prosecution of the war and blamed him for strategic failures that led to October 7th. President Biden could embrace these more reasonable forces in Israel, framing his arms stoppage as a message to Netanyahu personally and an effort to retrieve the hostages.

He’s done it before. In one of President Biden’s first foreign policy moves as president he announced a pause in offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia. The kingdom had been using such weapons to destroy its neighbor to the south, Yemen, since 2015. Biden’s move helped pave the way for negotiations leading to a ceasefire in Yemen that has largely held since 2022. His example of presidential leadership, while not perfect, illustrates a clear roadmap.

There’s historical precedent too. Presidents Eisenhower, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush also leveraged US arms to Israel. Want a ceasefire to end or prevent humanitarian disaster? Stop providing the fire. 

President Biden’s strategy to achieve a ceasefire and end the destruction of Gaza has, so far, failed. His strategy to prevent a wider war in the Middle East is currently failing. It’s time for a tougher, clearer tack. There is still time to prevent the complete destruction of Gaza and to avert another disastrous regional war. There is time for Biden to avoid a political blunder that will permanently damage his legacy as president. There is time to energize young voters and Arab-American and Muslim-American voters who fear a return of Trumpism but can’t stomach a vote for an administration they see as complicit in genocide.

But there isn’t much time.

The Not Another Bomb Campaign, launched by the Uncommitted movement that successfully mobilized over 700,000 voters to express their discontent with Mr. Biden’s Gaza policy in the Democratic Primary, has the correct framing. “It is crystal clear: In order to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, the U.S. must immediately stop arming Israel.”

Satisfying this new demand can also stop the expansion of violence into Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, preventing the loss of American lives. Heeding it might be the only way to stop the horror.

Brian Garvey is Assistant Director of Massachusetts Peace Action. He is also an active member of the Raytheon Antiwar Campaign.

 CounterPunch 



Wednesday, September 25, 2024

Dockworker Strike and What Could Disappear First from Store Shelves

 


Just one week remains to settle significant ports strike that could catastrophically affect American retailers as they approach the busiest time of year. Holiday shopping is coming, like it or not, and without dockworkers to move all that stuff into your favorite stores, we'll all go without.

Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be much chance of stopping the October 1st strike by tens of thousands of International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) marine workers at ports across the nation.

This would be the first nationwide longshoremen's strike since 1977 if the workers decide to go on strike. It seems many aren't taking this seriously. Though five of the ten biggest ports in North America are located on the East and Gulf coasts, there is little doubt that a strike affecting both regions would have a significant impact.

This significant upheaval would have repercussions that would affect every industry and every location for a long time. All this on top of election stress.

I know it's the end of a six-year contract, but the timing, am I right? Please prepare now, any way you can. And no, I don't mean start hoarding everything. It will be increasingly difficult to stock your pantry with survival supplies when you can't find them.

What Could Be Affected

We're talking major disruptions here, folks. And right before the busiest time of year for retailers. This isn't a comprehensive, complete list, but the first things that we could see shortages on are:

Foods

Fresh fruits

Oils

Sugars and sweeteners

Rice

Cucumbers

Asparagus

Broccoli and Cauliflower

Avocado

Nut milks

Baby Formula

Pineapple

Mango

Tangerines

Cranberries

Mushrooms

Lettuce/Spinach

Alcohol/Spirits

Seeds

 

Goods

Electronics

Clothing

Footwear

Pharmaceuticals, both prescription and OTC

Medical equipment and supplies

Furniture/Lighting

Plastics of all kinds

Pet Foods

Vehicles and automotive parts

Diapers

Building materials

Paints

Batteries

 

I know what some of you are saying: that's like everything. And you're right. This isn't fear mongering; this is a potential devastating situation that involves east coast ports and billions of dollars in goods, foods, medicines, and supplies right before elections, storms, and the holiday season. Just put a little away if you can, just in case.

 

Citations:

Major maritime strike could threaten ports across the East Coast. (2024, September 20). NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/major-maritime-strike-threaten-ports-east-coast-ila-usmx-rcna171914

ILA Union. (n.d.). https://ilaunion.org/

Bynum, R. (2024, September 24). Longshoremen from Maine to Texas appear likely to go on strike, seaport CEO says | AP News. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/us-port-strike-threat-longshoremen-savannah-georgia-d80689a9ab83fb3345df029e91b0abc8

-Newsbreak

 


Tuesday, September 24, 2024

Israel Deliberately Blocked Humanitarian Aid to Gaza, Two Government Bodies Concluded; Antony Blinken Rejected Them.

 


The U.S. government’s two foremost authorities on humanitarian assistance concluded this spring that Israel had deliberately blocked deliveries of food and medicine into Gaza.

The U.S. Agency for International Development delivered its assessment to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the State Department’s refugees bureau made its stance known to top diplomats in late April. Their conclusion was explosive because U.S. law requires the government to cut off weapons shipments to countries that prevent the delivery of U.S.-backed humanitarian aid. Israel has been largely dependent on American bombs and other weapons in Gaza since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks.

But Blinken and the administration of President Joe Biden did not accept either finding. Days later, on May 10, Blinken delivered a carefully worded statement to Congress that said, “We do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.”

Prior to his report, USAID had sent Blinken a detailed 17-page memo on Israel’s conduct. The memo described instances of Israeli interference with aid efforts, including killing aid workers, razing agricultural structures, bombing ambulances and hospitals, sitting on supply depots and routinely turning away trucks full of food and medicine.

Lifesaving food was stockpiled less than 30 miles across the border in an Israeli port, including enough flour to feed about 1.5 million Palestinians for five months, according to the memo. But in February the Israeli government had prohibited the transfer of flour, saying its recipient was the United Nations’ Palestinian branch that had been accused of having ties with Hamas.

Separately, the head of the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration had also determined that Israel was blocking humanitarian aid and that the Foreign Assistance Act should be triggered to freeze almost $830 million in taxpayer dollars earmarked for weapons and bombs to Israel, according to emails obtained by ProPublica.

The U.N. has declared a famine in parts of Gaza. The world’s leading independent panel of aid experts found that nearly half of the Palestinians in the enclave are struggling with hunger. Many go days without eating. Local authorities say dozens of children have starved to death — likely a significant undercount. Health care workers are battling a lack of immunizations compounded by a sanitation crisis. Last month, a little boy became Gaza’s first confirmed case of polio in 25 years.

The USAID officials wrote that because of Israel’s behavior, the U.S. should pause additional arms sales to the country. ProPublica obtained a copy of the agency’s April memo along with the list of evidence that the officials cited to back up their findings.

USAID, which is led by longtime diplomat Samantha Power, said the looming famine in Gaza was the result of Israel’s “arbitrary denial, restriction, and impediments of U.S. humanitarian assistance,” according to the memo. It also acknowledged Hamas had played a role in the humanitarian crisis. USAID, which receives overall policy guidance from the secretary of state, is an independent agency responsible for international development and disaster relief. The agency had for months tried and failed to deliver enough food and medicine to a starving and desperate Palestinian population.

It is, USAID concluded, “one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in the world.”

In response to detailed questions for this story, the State Department said that it had pressured the Israelis to increase the flow of aid. “As we made clear in May when [our] report was released, the US had deep concerns during the period since October 7 about action and inaction by Israel that contributed to a lack of sustained delivery of needed humanitarian assistance,” a spokesperson wrote. “Israel subsequently took steps to facilitate increased humanitarian access and aid flow into Gaza.” […]

Blinken Rejected Officials Who Concluded Israel Deliberately Blocked Humanitarian Aid to Gaza. — ProPublica

 


Sunday, September 22, 2024

The Introduction from Thom Hartmann's New Book: "The Hidden History of the American Dream: The Demise of the Middle Class and How to Rescue Our Future"

 


The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group.
— Franklin D. Roosevelt

Introduction: We failed to stop them

Back in the 1980s a lot of us worked like hell to try to stop the Reagan Revolution. We failed. Which is why the next few years may be our last chance to save American democracy, our environment, and what’s left of the American Dream.

When my Boomer generation was the same average age as the Millennial generation is today, back in 1990, our generation held 21.3% of the nation’s wealth.[i] Louise and I shared in that wealth; although we were still in our 30s, in 1990 we owned a profitable small business (our fourth) and a nice home in suburban Atlanta.

Our own locally owned business, a home of our own, and the knowledge that our kids would have more opportunities than we did: that was, in fact, one common way of defining the “American dream.” It was normal then.

My dad (born 1928), who worked in a tool-and-die shop, was able to buy a house, a new car every two years, and take a two-week vacation every year because the middle class in America before Reagan had a pretty damn good life. He retired in the 1990s with a full pension that let him and my mom travel the world. He was living the American Dream.

Millennials today, by contrast, are roughly the same number of people as Boomers were in 1990 but hold only 4.6% of the nation’s wealth and, if they’re the same age I was in 1990, they’re most likely struggling to own a home, are deeply in debt, and find it nearly impossible to start a small business.[ii]

Yes, you read that right. Boomers in their 30s owned 21.3 of the nation’s wealth; Millennials in their 30s today own 4.6% of the nation’s wealth.

And the story for Zoomers — those born in the late ‘90s and early oughts — is pretty much the same. As a Bank of America research report noted:

“Like the financial crisis in 2008 to 2009 for millennials, Covid will challenge and impede Gen Z's career and earning potential.”[iii]

Similarly, a Stanford University study that looked at Zoomers shows the consequence of Trump’s disastrous handling of the pandemic:

“[C]ollege graduates who start their working lives during a recession earn less for at least 10 to 15 years than those who graduate during periods of prosperity.”[iv]

What happened?  In a word, Republicans.

We Boomers remember well the Reagan Revolution of 1981, which laid the foundation for billionaires and giant corporations to impoverish the X, Millennial, and Zoomer generations.

First, GOP fat-cats came for our wages.

Those first two decades of the Reagan Revolution saw the first major attack on workers’ wages since Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed the National Labor Relations Act, which gave union members legal protection from physical and economic violence, way back in 1935.

In 1990, the end of the first decade when millennials were coming into the world, Republicans were still just getting started: 56% of workers who applied for union representation got their union.[v]

That wasn’t as good as during my dad’s generation — 80% of workers got a union when they petitioned for one in the 1940s — but it was still a far cry from what Millennials and Zoomers are facing today as giant trillion-dollar corporations employ the billion-dollar union-busting industry (that didn’t exist in 1980) to keep them from having democracy in the workplace.[vi]

In large part this is because “right to work for less” laws — that allow employers to gut their unions — began spreading in a big way in the 1980s and 1990s after several employer-friendly 5-4 decisions by Republicans on the Supreme Court. The notorious Taft-Hartley law that gave states the legal ability to destroy union rights was passed with Republican votes over President Harry Truman’s veto in 1947, but the anti-union National Right To Work Committee wasn’t formed until 1995.

In every single case, anti-worker right-to-work-for-less laws have been passed in states controlled by Republicans at the time of passage; Democrats fought these anti-worker laws from the beginning and continue to do so.

Nonetheless, employers have big bucks and can buy a lot of elections, judges, and politicians: what started as a trickle in the 1950s has turned into a flood since Reagan’s presidency.  Today right-to-work-for-less states include Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.[vii]

Then they came for your right to an education. 

Before Reagan became governor of California, the entire University of California system was free. Reagan did away with that as governor, and then, as president, began the methodical process of eliminating federal and state support for tuition, saying he didn’t want to “sponsor the intellectual curiosity” of “brats” who “protest my policies.”[viii]

I went to college — briefly — in the late 1960s and the only person I knew who had college debt was a friend working on his graduate degree at MSU. I paid my tuition working part-time jobs as a dishwasher at Bob’s Big Boy on Trowbridge Road in East Lansing and changing tires and pumping gas at the Esso station across the street.

My mom paid her own way through 4 years of MSU in the 1940s with the money she made as a summer lifeguard up in her hometown of Charlevoix, Michigan. My dad, like most men of his generation, was paid a monthly stipend to go to college by the GI Bill.[ix]

Now, Republicans have not only changed the bankruptcy laws so that you are no longer “cleared“ after seven years like it was when I was coming up, but you can’t even discharge student loans in bankruptcy. This was arguably one of the largest gifts the GOP ever gave the banking industry’s billionaires.

After that, they went after entrepreneurs and local businesses.

I dropped out of college in part because the small business Louise and I had started in 1969 — an electronics repair shop across the street from MSU — had grown to five employees and I was making as much money as my dad.

Back then pretty much every business in East Lansing was locally owned, from the restaurants and hotels to the furniture and clothing stores and appliance shops. The only chain store I remember was the Sears that anchored the local mall; almost all of the rest of the stores in that mall were locally owned.

But then, in 1983, President Reagan ordered the federal government to stop enforcing the anti-trust laws that had been on the books for almost 100 years; the resulting “merger mania” consumed the American economy, with “M&A Artists” (Mergers & Acquisitions) and speculative banksters, like the one Michael Douglas played in Wall Street, were ascendant.

Buying up small businesses and crushing them together into giant conglomerates, shedding “excess employees” and employing “economies of scale” were the main ways to make money, instead of serving customers and local communities. The bean counters took over.

Now their absolute market dominance and greed are driving inflation, as the normal competitive pressures that keep such behavior in check are dead. Which is why they can enthusiastically squash new, upstart businesses — from tech to retail to consumer goods — like bugs.

Thus, the chances of people today being able to successfully start a business like we did are tiny compared to what they were before the Reagan Revolution, when tens of millions of Americans owned small enterprises that they would often hand down from generation to generation.

Then they started squeezing American workers for cash when they got sick or injured.

Medical debt is another burden that came out of the Reagan Revolution that destroys millions of American families a year: for half-a-million families every year it’s so severe they have to give up their homes and possessions to declare bankruptcy.

America is the only country in the world that experiences medical bankruptcies like this.

When Louise and I started that electronics shop (as teenagers!), we were able to provide all of our employees with full medical insurance because, at that time, both insurance companies and hospitals were required by law (in Michigan and most other states) to be non-profits.

Drug companies weren’t monopolistic monoliths — it was an incredibly competitive industry — and pharmaceutical prices were reasonable, too. The country wouldn’t have tolerated asses like “Pharma Bro” back in the 1960s and 1970s and insulin, which only costs pennies to make, was dirt cheap.

But the neoliberal Reagan Revolution did away with all that, encouraging states to change their laws to bring “free market principles” to healthcare, ending nonprofit requirements for hospitals and insurance companies. There was, after all, big money to be made, and when somebody is sick and you hold the cure, you have the ultimate power to extract every last penny they have. 

As The New York Times noted in an article titled Medical Mystery: Something Happened to U.S. Health Spending After 1980:

“America was in the realm of other countries in per-capita health spending through about 1980. Then it diverged.[x]

“It’s the same story with health spending as a fraction of gross domestic product. Likewise, life expectancy. In 1980, the U.S. was right in the middle of the pack of peer nations in life expectancy at birth. But by the mid-2000s, we were at the bottom of the pack.”

Not only did the parasites get rich, but our nation’s life expectancy actually went down, relative to other wealthy nations.

Now, as the Kaiser Family Foundation reports:

“We find that 23 million people (nearly 1 in 10 adults) owe significant medical debt. The SIPP survey suggests people in the United States owe at least $195 billion in medical debt.”[xi]

And if the GOP didn’t nail millennials and Zoomers on any of the above, they figured out how to go after their need for a roof over their heads.

In the 1990s, as part of Newt Gingrich’s notorious “Contract With America,” Congress “deregulated” the financial industry to the point that it’s become a giant blood-sucking leech attached to your backs.

Thus, Millennials and Zoomers are struggling with housing costs today, and for good reason. Trillion-dollar hedge funds and investment groups are purchasing as many as half (in some towns more) of the available-for-sale housing, so they can turn them into rentals and then, when they’ve cornered the market, jack up the prices.

When my dad bought his home in the 1950s the median price of a single-family house was around 2.2 times the median American family income.[xii]  Today, the Fed says, the median house sells for $374,900 while the median American income is $35,805 — a ratio of more than ten-to-one between housing costs and annual income.[xiii] [xiv]

Louise and I bought our first home in our mid-twenties, as did many of our friends.  Banks were locally owned and worked with you; finding fixer-uppers was easy.

No more.

As the Bank of International Settlements summarized in a 2014 retrospective study of the years since the Reagan/Gingrich changes in banking and finance:

“We describe a Pareto frontier along which different levels of risk-taking map into different levels of welfare for the two parties, pitting Main Street against Wall Street. … We also show that financial innovation, asymmetric compensation schemes, concentration in the banking system, and bailout expectations enable or encourage greater risk-taking and allocate greater surplus to Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.”[xv]

It’s a fancy way of saying that big banks and hedge funds are now worth trillions while you and your community are destitute.

And forget about getting a loan to start a small business in this big-bank environment of today.

When Louise and I started our first business, we did it with a $3000 loan from a small local Michigan bank.  Back then bankers were part of the local community and eager to do what they could to help the community grow and prosper, including lending a 19-year-old money to start a business.

Nowadays they just want to extract every penny they can from you so their CEO can buy another megayacht.

And then Republicans came for our wealth, in a huge way.

Finally, perhaps the most important of the reasons Millennials and Zoomers are so badly screwed these days are the various changes in our tax code that began in the 1980s.

Reagan dropped the top income tax rate on the morbidly rich from 74% down to 27%, and cut corporate tax rates from 52% to functionally nothing.

America’s richest millennial, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, now owns fully 2 percent or 1/50th of ALL the wealth of ALL millennials in the country.[xvi]

The average billionaire pays an income tax rate of under 3%, and the majority of our nation’s largest corporations not only pay nothing in annual income taxes, but most have so gamed the system that they get money back.

And where does that money come from?  It’s taken out of the taxes the government collected from you and me.

This 42-year-long process, with Reagan’s original massive tax cuts amplified by trillions more in tax cuts for the morbidly rich from the Republican George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, has produced a $50 trillion transfer of real wealth from the middle class to the top 1 percent.

You read that right: they’ve taken $50 friggin trillion dollars out of our pockets over the past 42 years and stashed it in their money bins.[xvii] 

When Reagan was elected there were only eight billionaires in America; now they’re appearing like popcorn, while all around us homelessness continues to spread, as Reaganomics destroys the lives of millions of Americans — particularly Millennials and Zoomers.[xviii]

That is why Americans, and particularly Millennials and Zoomers, have been had by the GOP.

And now that Republicans have handed all that money over to the top 1% — and five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court ruled in their 2010 Citizens United decision that billionaires and corporations owning politicians isn’t corruption or bribery but “free speech” — it’s getting harder and harder to do anything about it.

Every time any sort of reform — even modest, reasonable reforms — come before Congress, a united block of Republicans in the Senate haul in another billion dollars in campaign contributions and Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his friends kill it with the filibuster.

And don’t get me started on climate change, which Republicans, right across-the-board, continue to deny, in deference to the fossil fuel industry and its billionaires who fund their elections. The GOP has put money and power above the fate and future of our and our children’s planet.

They even tried to end our 240-year experiment in democratic self-governance, and are now actively embracing neofascist autocracy, openly trying to emulate the rightwing strongman governments that have taken over Russia and Hungary.

Like the far-right did in Russia and Hungary, Republicans have succeeded in overturning the right to abortion in the states they control and are openly embracing homophobia and misogyny.

And did I mention over 400 million guns drenching our country in blood, and Republican Senator John Cornyn recently saying that Republicans are unified across-the-board to prevent any further action to stop gun violence in America?

And now, Republicans are trying to indoctrinate our children in their white supremacy and racism by forcing teachers to push a false narrative about American history — all while they try to rig our elections by purging millions of minority, Millennial, and Zoomer voters from the rolls with the 2018 blessing of five Republicans on a corrupted Supreme Court.

The good news, however, is that, increasingly, older and younger generations are working together to throw Republicans out of office and elect progressive Democrats who understand these issues and know how to do something about it. 

From 80-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders to 25-year-old progressive Democrat Maxwell Frost of Florida who won a House seat in 2022, progressives are growing in political power at the same time America is waking up from the fog of BS Republicans have been crop-dusting over us since 1981.

All is not lost; change is in the air. And Millennials and Zoomers are leading the way.


[i] https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/08/11/millennials-are-the-largest-workforce-and-the-least-wealthy-why-politics/

[ii] ibid

[iii] https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-class-2020-graduates-future-career-recession-2020-5

[iv] https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/recession-graduates-long-lasting-effects-unlucky-draw

[v] https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/publications/private-sector-unions-corporate-legal-erosion/

[vi] ibid

[vii] https://www.nrtw.org/right-to-work-states/

[viii] https://hartmannreport.com/p/forgiving-student-debt-isnt-giving

[ix] ibid

[x] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/upshot/medical-mystery-health-spending-1980.html

[xi] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/the-burden-of-medical-debt-in-the-united-states/

[xii] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/why-housing-appreciation-is-killing-housing/

[xiii] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS

[xiv]  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

[xv] https://www.bis.org/publ/work468.pdf

[xvi] https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/08/11/millennials-are-the-largest-workforce-and-the-least-wealthy-why-politics/

[xvii] https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

[xviii] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/video-the-other-millennials

 


Saturday, September 21, 2024

Abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a national popular vote. No other presidential democracy permits the loser of the popular vote to win the presidency

 


CNN senior data reporter Harry Enten wrote that while it’s “[p]retty clear that [Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala] Harris is ahead nationally right now… [h]er advantage in the battlegrounds is basically nil. Average it all, Harris’[s] chance of winning the popular vote is 70%. Her chance of winning the electoral college is 50%.”

Two days later, on September 18, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) skipped votes in the Senate to travel to Nebraska, where he tried to convince state legislators to switch the state’s system of allotting electoral votes by district to a winner-take-all system. That effort so far appears unsuccessful. 

In a country of 50 states and Washington, D.C.—a country of more than 330 million people—presidential elections are decided in just a handful of states, and it is possible for someone who loses the popular vote to become president. We got to this place thanks to the Electoral College, and to two major changes made to it since the ratification of the Constitution. 

The men who debated how to elect a president in 1787 worried terribly about making sure there were hedges around the strong executive they were creating so that he could not become a king. 

Some of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted Congress to choose the president, but this horrified others who believed that a leader and Congress would collude to take over the government permanently. Others liked the idea of direct election of the president, but this worried delegates from smaller states, who thought that big states would simply be able to name their own favorite sons.

It also worried those who pointed out that most voters would have no idea which were the leading men in other states, leaving a national institution, like the organization of Revolutionary War officers called the Society of the Cincinnati, the power to get its members to support their own leader, thus finding a different way to create a dictator. 

Ultimately, the framers came up with the election of a president by a group of men well known in their states but not currently officeholders, who would meet somewhere other than the seat of government and would disband as soon as the election was over. Each elector in this so-called Electoral College would cast two votes for president.

The man with the most votes would be president, and the man with the second number of votes would be vice president (a system that the Twelfth Amendment ended in 1804). The number of electors would be equal to the number of senators and representatives allotted to each state in Congress. If no candidate earned a majority, the House of Representatives would choose the president, with each state delegation casting a single vote.

In the first two presidential elections—in 1788–1789 and 1792—none of this mattered very much, since the electors cast their ballots unanimously for George Washington. But when Washington stepped down, leaders of the newly formed political parties contended for the presidency.

In the election of 1796, Federalist John Adams won, but Thomas Jefferson, who led the Democratic-Republicans (which were not the same as today’s Democrats or Republicans) was keenly aware that had Virginia given him all its electoral votes, rather than splitting them between him and Adams, he would have been president. 

On January 12, 1800, Jefferson wrote to the governor of Virginia, James Monroe, urging him to back a winner-take-all system that awarded all Virginia’s electoral votes to the person who won the majority of the vote in the state.

He admitted that dividing electoral votes by district “would be more likely to be an exact representation of [voters’] diversified sentiments” but, defending his belief that he was the true popular choice in the country in 1796, said voting by districts “would give a result very different from what would be the sentiment of the whole people of the US. were they assembled together.” 

Virginia made the switch. Alarmed, the Federalists in Massachusetts followed suit to make sure Adams got all their votes, and by 1836, every state but South Carolina, where the legislature continued to choose electors until 1860, had switched to winner-take-all. 

This change horrified the so-called Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who worried that the new system would divide the nation geographically and encourage sectional tensions. He wrote in 1823 that voting by district, rather than winner-take-all, “was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted.” He proposed a constitutional amendment to end winner-take-all.

But almost immediately, the Electoral College caused a different crisis. In 1824, electors split their votes among four candidates—Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William Crawford—and none won a majority in the Electoral College.

Although Jackson won the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, when the election went to the House, the state delegations chose Adams, the son of former president John Adams.

Furious Jackson supporters thought a developing elite had stolen the election, and after they elected Jackson outright in 1828, the new president on December 8, 1829, implored Congress to amend the Constitution to elect presidents by popular vote.

“To the people belongs the right of electing their Chief Magistrate,” he wrote, “it was never designed that their choice should in any case be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges or…the House of Representatives.” 

Jackson warned that an election in the House could be corrupted by money or power or ignorance. He also warned that “under the present mode of election a minority may…elect a President,” and such a president could not claim legitimacy. He urged Congress “to amend our system that the office of Chief Magistrate may not be conferred upon any citizen but in pursuance of a fair expression of the will of the majority.”

But by the 1830s, the population of the North was exploding while the South’s was falling behind. The Constitution counted enslaved Americans as three fifths of a person for the purposes of representation, and direct election of the president would erase that advantage slave states had in the Electoral College. Their leaders were not about to throw that advantage away.

In 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery (except as punishment for a crime) and scratched out the three-fifths clause, meaning that after the 1870 census the southern states would have more power in the Electoral College than they did before the war.

In 1876, Republicans lost the popular vote by about 250,000 votes out of 8.3 million cast, but kept control of the White House through the Electoral College. As Jackson had warned, furious Democrats threatened rebellion. They never considered Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, whom they called “Rutherfraud,” a legitimate president. 

In 1888 it happened again. Incumbent Democratic president Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by about 100,000 votes out of 11 million cast, but Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison took the White House thanks to the 36 electoral votes from New York, a state Harrison won by fewer than 15,000 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast. Once in office, he and his team set out to skew the Electoral College permanently in their favor.

Over twelve months in 1889–1890, they added six new, sparsely populated states to the Union, splitting the territory of Dakota in two and adding North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming while cutting out New Mexico and Arizona, whose inhabitants they expected would vote for Democrats.

The twentieth century brought another wrench to the Electoral College. The growth of cities made possible thanks to modern industry—including the steel that supported skyscrapers—and transportation and sanitation, created increasing population differences among the different states.

The Constitution’s framers worried that individual states might try to grab too much power in the House by creating dozens and dozens of congressional districts, so they specified that a district could not be smaller than 30,000 people.

But they put no upper limit on district sizes. After the 1920 census revealed that urban Americans outnumbered rural Americans, the House in 1929 capped its numbers at 435 to keep power away from those urban dwellers, including immigrants, that lawmakers considered dangerous, thus skewing the Electoral College in favor of rural America. 

Today the average congressional district includes 761,169 individuals—more than the entire population of Wyoming, Vermont, or Alaska—which weakens the power of larger states.  

In the twenty-first century the earlier problems with the Electoral College have grown until they threaten to establish permanent minority rule. A Republican president hasn’t won the popular vote since voters reelected George W. Bush in 2004, when his popularity was high in the midst of a war.

The last Republican who won the popular vote in a normal election cycle was Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, in 1988, 36 years and nine cycles ago. And yet, Republicans who lost the popular vote won in the Electoral College in 2000—George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, who won the popular vote by about a half a million votes—and in 2016, when Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million votes but lost in the Electoral College to Donald Trump. 

In our history, four presidents—all Republicans—have lost the popular vote and won the White House through the Electoral College. Trump’s 2024 campaign strategy appears to be to do it again (or to create such chaos that the election goes to the House of Representatives, where there will likely be more Republican-dominated delegations than Democratic ones).

In the 2024 election, Trump has shown little interest in courting voters. Instead, the campaign has thrown its efforts into legal challenges to voting and, apparently, into eking out a win in the Electoral College. The number of electoral votes equals the number of senators and representatives to which each state is entitled (100 + 435) plus three electoral votes for Washington, D.C., for a total of 538. A winning candidate must get a majority of those votes: 270.

Winner-take-all means that presidential elections are won in so-called swing or battleground states. Those are states with election margins of less than 3 points, so close they could be won by either party.

The patterns of 2020 suggest that the states most likely to be in contention in 2024 are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, although the Harris-Walz campaign has opened up the map, suggesting its internal numbers show that states like Florida might also be in contention. Candidates and their political action committees focus on those few swing states—touring, giving speeches and rallies, and pouring money into advertising and ground operations. 

But in 2024 there is a new wrinkle. The Constitution’s framers agreed on a census every ten years so that representation in Congress could be reapportioned according to demographic changes. As usual, the 2020 census shifted representation, and so the pathway to 270 electoral votes shifted slightly.

Those shifts mean that it is possible the election will come down to one electoral vote. Awarding Trump the one electoral vote Nebraska is expected to deliver to Harris could be enough to keep her from becoming president.

Rather than trying to win a majority of voters, just 49 days before the presidential election, Trump supporters—including Senator Graham—are making a desperate effort to use the Electoral College to keep Harris from reaching the requisite 270 electoral votes to win.

It is unusual for a senator from one state to interfere in the election processes in another state, but Graham similarly pressured officials in Georgia to swing the vote there toward Trump in 2020.

—Heather Cox Richardson

Notes:

https://usafacts.org/articles/what-are-the-current-swing-states-and-how-have-they-changed-over-time/

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-31-02-0256

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-03-02-0109

https://fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all/

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-3

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/resources-and-activities/CVC_HS_ActivitySheets_CongApportionment.pdf

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2023/01/02/what-state-has-lowest-population-us-states-ranked-population/10476960002/

https://www.axios.com/2024/09/19/lindsey-graham-electoral-vote-change-nebraska

X:

metzgov/status/1836773273230594425

ForecasterEnten/status/1835674434033590289