THE CHURCH OF THE SUPER BOWL

The truth behind the ‘He Gets Us’ ads for Jesus airing during the Super Bowl

By AJ Willingham, CNN
Sat February 11, 2023

CNN —

In between star-studded advertisements and a whole lot of football, this year’s Super Bowl watchers are being taken to church.

“He Gets Us,” a campaign to promote Jesus and Christianity, is running two ads during the game as part of a staggering $100 million media investment. To many, the spots will be nothing new: “He Gets Us” content has been peppering TV screens, billboards and social media feeds since a national launch in 2022.

The campaign is arresting, portraying the pivotal figure of Christianity as an immigrant, a refugee, a radical, an activist for women’s rights and a bulwark against racial injustice and political corruption. The “He Gets Us” website features content about of-the-moment topics, like artificial intelligence and social justice.

“Whatever you are facing, Jesus faced it too,” the campaign claims.

It’s getting noticed. One of the campaign’s videos, titled “The Rebel,” has netted 122 million views on YouTube in 11 months. Google searches for “He Gets Us” have spiked since the beginning of the year.

The campaign is a natural fit with the NFL, whose games have long contained symbols of religion. Players often pray on the field and point to the heavens after touchdowns.

The NFL and religion have been closely linked. Here, Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes prays before the AFC Championship game against the Cincinnati Bengals on January 29, 2023.Charlie Riedel/AP

But certain details about the “He Gets Us” ads have set off alarm bells among young people and those skeptical of religion, two groups the campaign is specifically to attract.

Some of the campaign’s major donors, and its holding company, have ties to conservative political aims and far-right ideologies that appear at odds with the campaign’s inclusive messaging.
The campaign has connections to anti-LGBT and anti-abortion laws

The chain of influence behind “He Gets Us” can be followed through public records and information on the campaign’s own site. The campaign is a subsidiary of The Servant Foundation, also known as the Signatry.

According to research compiled by Jacobin, a left-leaning news outlet, The Servant Foundation has donated tens of millions to the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group. The ADF has been involved in several legislative pushes to curtail LGBTQ rights and quash non-discrimination legislation in the Supreme Court.

CNN has reached out to the Servant Foundation for comment.

While donors who support “He Gets Us” can choose to remain anonymous, Hobby Lobby co-founder David Green claims to be a big contributor to the campaign’s multi-million-dollar coffers. Hobby Lobby has famously been at the center of several legal controversies, including the support of anti-LGBTQ legislation and a successful years-long legal fight that eventually led to the Supreme Court allowing companies to deny medical coverage for contraception on the basis of religious beliefs.

David Green, founder of Hobby Lobby, speaks at a campaign rally for then- presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio on February 29, 2016, in Oklahoma City.Sue Ogrocki/AP

Green discussed his involvement in the campaign, and the Super Bowl ad spots, during a November 2022 interview with conservative talk show host Glenn Beck.

“We are wanting to say — ‘we’ being a lot of different people — that he gets us,” Green said. “[Jesus] understands us. He loves who we hate. I think we have to let the public know and create a movement.”

“He Gets Us” does not list donors on its website. “Funding for He Gets Us comes from a diverse group of individuals and entities with a common goal of sharing Jesus’ story authentically,” the site’s funding information page reads. “Most of the people driving He Gets Us, including our donors, choose to remain anonymous because the story isn’t about them, and they don’t want the credit.”

Jason Vanderground, spokesperson for He Gets Us and president of creative marketing firm HAVEN, told CNN that The Servant Foundation uses a fund which “unites donors to provide pooled support for organizations while ensuring the organizations can operate without donors impacting specific messages.”

“Funding for the campaign comes from a diverse group of individuals and entities with a common goal of sharing Jesus’ story authentically,” he said.
The campaign is tied to evangelical churches

“Be assured … we’re not ‘left’ or ‘right’ or a political organization of any kind,” the “He Gets Us” site reads. “We’re also not affiliated with any particular church or denomination.”

While “He Gets Us” says it is not intended to be connected to any particular Christian ideology, it has theological ties to evangelical practices as well as financial ones. In general, Christian evangelism is closely tied to conservatism and is an extremely influential force in American politics.

On the “He Gets Us” outreach site, which is meant for churches and marketers who wish to interact with the campaign, the organization outlines its beliefs:

“He Gets Us has chosen to not have our own separate statement of beliefs. Each participating church/ministry will typically have its own language. Meanwhile, we generally recognize the Lausanne Covenant as reflective of the spirit and intent of this movement and churches that partner with explorers from He Gets Us affirm the Lausanne Covenant.”

This information does not appear to be listed anywhere on the main “He Gets Us” site intended for the public.

The 1974 Lausanne Covenant is an important unifying document in evangelical Christian churches, while the Lausanne movement itself was started by the prominent evangelical Christian leader Billy Graham. Documents and decisions that have come out of the movement’s summits have decried the “idolatry of disordered sexuality” and focused heavily on the impact of the devil and sin on national cultures.

The late evangelist Billy Graham at his home in the mountains near Asheville, North Carolina, on July 25, 2006.Charles Ommanney/Getty Images

The influence of Graham, a founder of modern American evangelism, is also evident in speakers and partners for “He Gets Us.” Some of them are affiliated with groups bearing Graham’s name, including the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College, a liberal arts institution in Illinois.

Though Wheaton College has a deep history of abolitionism and racial justice, Campus Pride also ranked it as one of the worst campuses for LGBTQ youth. Students are required to sign a Community Covenant stating Christianity condemns “sexual immorality,” including homosexuality and adultery.

CNN asked Vanderground, the representative for He Gets Us, if the campaign supports and affirms LGBTQ Christians.

“The debate over LGBTQ+ issues is a great example of how the real Jesus too often gets lost, overlooked or distorted in debates over political and social issues,” he said. “Our focus is on helping people see and consider Jesus as he is shown in the Bible … He gets us and he loves us, and that includes people on all sides of these issues.”
Some critics say the campaign is not authentic

The minds behind “He Gets Us” say the campaign’s message is intended to appeal to younger people and those who may see Christianity as “toxic” and divisive.

“A lot of times when people look at Christianity, unfortunately they see it as much more hypocritical, judgmental, discriminatory,” Vanderground told CNN’s Tom Foreman.

“We’re trying to unify the American people around the confounding love and forgiveness [of Jesus].”

The first of the "He Gets Us" campaign billboards appeared along the Strip in Las Vegas on March 14, 2022.Eric Jamison/AP

“By design, our media messages focus on his humanity—since we’ve learned these resonate with the widest possible audience,” the “He Gets Us” partner site reads. “We also provide open opportunities, for anyone willing, to connect with our partners to learn more about Jesus.”

Word of the campaign has sparked enthusiasm among Christian groups and influencers online. But other Christians, including those in the growing deconstruction movement who are reevaluating their relationship with religion, aren’t buying it.

Dr. Kevin M. Young, a pastor and biblical scholar who discusses Christianity on social media, says the campaign won’t do much to assuage people’s criticisms of the church.

“Young people are digital natives who understand the difference between slick marketing and authenticity,” he says. “Megachurches, mega-events, and mega spending on marketing is seen as money that could have been used funding community programs and advocacy for the oppressed – such as refugees, LGBTQ+ individuals and abortion rights – and the poor.”

Instead, Young says, they’d prefer to see action and accountability.

“Young people want a church that will put shoe leather to their faith and do something for those in harm’s way; those who the church itself has harmed.”

Some “He Gets Us” messaging makes oblique references to “cancel culture,” which raises a red flag for some who see the term as highly political and a staple of conservative rhetoric. One message uses the slogan, “Jesus was canceled.”

“When it comes to crucifixion and “cancel culture,” I don’t see much to compare,” writes Josiah R. Daniels for Sojourner, a Christian publication. “Furthermore, imagining Jesus as apolitical is itself a political decision — and it is a decision that aligns with politically and financially powerful interests.”

Other Christians have criticized the campaign for a different reason altogether: for being too vague and apparently de-emphasizing Biblical teachings and Jesus’ holiness.

Conservative pundit Charlie Kirk took aim at the campaign, saying those involved have been “taken for a ride by these woke tricksters.”

Vanderground says the campaign is “committed to being scripturally accurate.”

“[W]e believe it’s more important now than ever for the real, authentic Jesus to be represented in the public marketplace as he is in the Bible,” he told CNN.

Workers cover the field with a tarp ahead of a rehearsal for the Super Bowl LVII Halftime Show at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.Caitlin O'Hara/Reuters

The ad campaign comes as Christian identity has waned in the US in recent decades. According to Pew Research data, about 63% of American adults identified as Christian in 2022, down from about 90% in the 1990s. Younger adults in particular are driving this downturn.

“Jesus doesn’t have an image problem, but Christians and their churches do,” Young says. “These campaigns end up being PR for the wrong problem. Young people are savvy. One of their primary issues with evangelicalism, and the modern church in America, is the amount of money spent on itself.”

The two new Super Bowl ads alone are a hefty spend, with 30-second spots for the game running a record-high $7 million in 2023. Vanderground told “Christianity Today” the campaign plans to invest a billion dollars on spreading their message.

It’s exactly that investment, and the people behind it, that have led some Christians to wonder if “He Gets Us” will actually lead people to Jesus – and if it does, what path they will ultimately be encouraged to take.

How the U$ wealthy save billions in taxes by skirting a century-old law

Pro Publica
February 11, 2023

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. (AFP/File / Jim WATSON)

At first glance, July 24, 2015, seems to have been a brutal trading day for Steve Ballmer, the former Microsoft CEO. He dumped hundreds of stocks, losing at least $28 million.

But this was no panicked sell-off. Among the stocks Ballmer sold were those of the Australian mining company BHP and the global oil giant Shell. Had Ballmer lost confidence in BHP’s management? Was he betting that the price of oil would not soon recover? Not at all. That very day, Ballmer also bought thousands of shares in BHP and Shell.

Why would he sell and buy shares in the same companies on the same day? The answer is counterintuitive to the average person but obvious to a sophisticated investor: A loss, for tax purposes, is valuable; a big one can wipe out millions in potential taxes. Ballmer’s two-step process allowed him to use the loss to lower his taxes, while the near-simultaneous purchase meant he effectively hadn’t changed his investment.

Since 1921, claiming tax losses from so-called wash sales — selling shares of a company then buying them again within a short period — has been forbidden. But Ballmer collected his losses anyway because, technically, the types of shares he bought and sold weren’t the same.

Both Shell and BHP offered two different versions of their common stock. For each company, the two stocks were legally distinct, but they performed very similarly because, after all, they were shares in the same company.

Ballmer’s not-so-bad day, in fact, was carefully planned, part of a strategy by Goldman Sachs, which conducted the trades on Ballmer’s behalf, to wield the stock market’s natural volatility to the billionaire’s advantage. At Goldman, the hundreds of stocks in Ballmer’s “Tax Advantaged Loss Harvesting” accounts were selected to follow the movement of the broader markets. Over time, the markets, as they had historically, would buoy Ballmer’s investments upward. When, inevitably, some of the stocks underperformed or the whole market dipped, Goldman was ready to pounce, selling off the losers and replacing them with equivalents.

Sometimes, the replacements were nearly identical securities, as with Shell and BHP. More often, they were not. But well-tuned software could easily find the right stocks to keep the accounts tracking the market. His losses secured, Ballmer was ready to catch the bounce back.

Over and over, Ballmer sold and bought stocks in roughly equivalent amounts, as on that July day, when he swapped around $200 million worth. A month later, he did it again, landing at least $23 million in tax-reducing losses. Similar efforts that December brought $26 million more.

ProPublica estimates that from 2014 through 2018, Ballmer was able to generate tax losses totaling $579 million without changing his investment portfolio in a meaningful way. The tax savings from these losses amount to at least $138 million.

The scale of Goldman’s feat was remarkable, but Ballmer was just one client pursuing such a strategy. And Goldman was just part of an industry that helps the ultrawealthy report billions in losses — and save billions in potential taxes — even as their fortunes rise.

ProPublica was able to reconstruct the tax-loss strategies of scores of the nation’s wealthiest people, including Ballmer and Facebook co-founders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz, using a trove of IRS data that has been the basis for “The Secret IRS Files” series. This trove includes not only some two decades of tax returns for thousands of the nation’s wealthiest citizens but also voluminous records of their trading.

After inquiries by ProPublica, Goldman said it would halt transactions like Ballmer’s Shell and BHP trades. Goldman conducted a review, according to a statement by the bank, and found that a “very small percentage” of its “tax investment solutions” trades were “inadvertently made in a manner inconsistent with our strategy.” The bank said it strives “to provide best-in-class investment advice to clients, consistent with both the letter and the spirit of all applicable tax laws and regulations.”

A Ballmer spokesperson said: “Steve takes his responsibility to pay taxes very seriously. Goldman Sachs has just provided Steve with corrected loss reporting information for prior years. Steve will amend his filings and pay any associated tax, interest or penalty promptly.”

But, by Goldman’s own description, it is halting only a narrow slice of its loss-generating trades — the ones involving two kinds of stock from the same company. The bank will continue its broader practice of finding similar stocks that achieve the same effect.

Goldman’s ability to deliver tax losses to its clients won’t be significantly curtailed. That’s because over the past 25 years, investing has undergone a transformation that’s made the law against wash sales toothless. Improved computing, new financial products, cheaper trading costs and a shift away from picking stocks to passively tracking the broader market are the main ingredients of the change.

Asset managers have used these advances to forge loss-harvesting accounts that boast hundreds of billions of dollars in assets. What the law sought to prevent — generating a tax loss without a substantial change in the investment — is now commonplace.

That ability is available even for small-time investors, who can mimic the sorts of techniques used by Goldman on their own or opt for products offered by mass-market brokerages such as Vanguard and Charles Schwab. But relatively few Americans have stocks or mutual funds outside of tax-protected retirement accounts, meaning most can’t employ the strategy.

It is the wealthiest who benefit most. The losses can be used to erase an unlimited amount of investment gains. Someone like Ballmer can easily deploy $100 million in losses to cancel out a $100 million gain from selling some of his vast Microsoft holdings. It’s a very different story when it comes to wages and other forms of income, of which only $3,000 can be offset. On average, only the top 0.001% of taxpayers made a majority of their income through investment gains in 2018, according to public IRS data.

Those gains, like many aspects of wealthy Americans’ tax returns, are usually the result of careful planning. Since, in the U.S. system, gains aren’t taxed until they’re sold, even the richest Americans can have years where they owe no tax at all.

The story is exactly the opposite with investment losses. From 2014 to 2018, Ballmer grew $22 billion richer, a fact that doesn’t appear on his tax returns. Meanwhile, Goldman made sure that even momentary losses were listed by the thousands.

For the rich, the “tax system is sort of like a rigged coin,” said David Schizer, a tax expert and professor at Columbia Law School: “If you win, you get to keep all of it, but if you lose, you can pass some of those losses on to the government.” The wash sale rule, he said, is easily skirted by “well-advised taxpayers.”

IRS data shows how widespread the use of investment losses is among the richest Americans. In the U.S., short-term gains, those sold less than a year after buying, are taxed at about twice the rate (around 40% for the top bracket) as long-term gains. That makes short-term losses more valuable since they reduce this higher tax rate income. In 2018, almost two-thirds of Americans with income over $10 million reported net short-term losses. That was the highest share of any income slice; with more income, counterintuitively, came more losses — at least, on their taxes. Meanwhile, long-term losses were rare for them.

Take a look at the taxes of Jim Walton, the youngest son of Walmart founder Sam Walton and the 10th-wealthiest American, and you’ll see years of short-term losses, thanks to a tax-loss harvesting account at Northern Trust, a bank that specializes in managing the assets of the rich. (A representative for Walton declined to comment.) From 2014 to 2018, Walton grew $10 billion richer, according to Forbes, but reported only $111 million in long-term gains on his taxes. Since his losses easily overwhelmed those gains, he paid no taxes on them at all.

In November 1920, a reader of The Wall Street Journal identified as R.H.T. wrote in with a question. It was a time with parallels to today: The stock market, after reaching highs amid a pandemic (then the Spanish flu), had plummeted. R.H.T.’s portfolio had fallen about $50,000 ($750,000 in current dollars).

“I do not want to sell these stocks at the present market,” wrote R.H.T. “Would it be legal for me to sell these stocks and deduct the loss from this year’s income, even though I bought them in again the same day?” Yes, the Journal responded, the transaction was permitted under the law.

“Basically, the strategy went viral,” said Lawrence Zelenak, a law professor at Duke Law School, and author of a history of the early income tax.

Lawmakers decided to do something about “evasion through the medium of wash sales,” as a 1921 Senate conference report put it. They passed a law that barred taking a tax deduction if, within either 30 days before or 30 days after a sale, an investor bought a security that was “substantially identical” to the one sold.

In the following decades, investors still found ways to collect losses that would reduce their taxes. Often, the volume of selling at year-end was enough to temporarily depress stock prices.

But with the wash sale rule in effect, there were real risks to what was often known as “tax-loss selling.” Investors could sell their losers and try to pick stocks with better prospects. That, as The New York Times reported in 1983, often led to “regret” when an abandoned stock went to the moon. If investors wanted to stick with a stock, they’d have to work around the 60-day limitation. That meant either buying the same stock 30 days before they sold (called “doubling up”) or after. Both options carried danger. If the stock continued to tank while they were doubled up, their losses were compounded, and if the stock boomed before they could buy back in, they missed out.

In the mid-1990s, amid a historic market ascent, new strategies were forged to serve a new generation of superrich Americans. Asset managers began to emphasize post-tax returns. “Tax-aware investing is the challenge of the moment,” wrote Jean Brunel, the chief investment officer of JP Morgan’s global private bank, in the journal Trusts and Estates in 1997. The “tax-sheltering volatility” of stock movements, he explained, presented a “free option” to investment managers, who should “make a greater effort to identify ‘harvestable’ tax losses.”

Enabling this new “tax-loss harvesting” was a shift away from stock picking and toward passive products, such as funds that track the S&P 500. The wash sale rule still foreclosed easy solutions to the problem of replacing a specific stock. But replacing an investment in something as broad as the S&P 500 with another similar product became increasingly simple. As the Times reported in 1998, “it is getting easier for investors to find a close double for almost any portfolio.”

Exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, which emerged in the ’90s, fit this purpose perfectly. Unlike mutual funds, they could be traded like stocks, making them easier to use in loss-harvesting transactions.

Consider a trade by one billionaire in the summer of 2015. Markets had dropped after troubles in the Chinese economy, providing a loss-harvesting opportunity for investors with exposure to Asia.

Brian Acton, a co-founder of WhatsApp, which a year before had been sold to Facebook for $19 billion, was one of those investors. He owned shares of Vanguard’s emerging markets ETF, which tracks an index of companies in China and elsewhere.

At the end of August 2015, according to ProPublica’s IRS data, Acton sold $17 million in shares, resulting in a loss of $2.9 million. The same day, he bought $17 million worth of the emerging markets ETF offered by Blackrock.

The two funds have only minor differences, with large holdings in many of the same Chinese companies. Unsurprisingly, the two funds perform similarly.

When emerging markets fell even further toward the end of the year, Acton did the same deal in reverse: He sold Blackrock and bought back into Vanguard. That allowed him to bank another $600,000 in tax losses.

In 2015, well over 100 wealthy Americans in ProPublica’s database switched from one company’s emerging markets ETF to another to collect tax losses.

Asked about loss-harvesting transactions, Acton told ProPublica, “To be honest I’m not really aware of any events like that.”

“Broadly my wealth is managed by a wealth management firm and they manage all the day to day transactions,” Acton, who has donated to ProPublica, added in a brief exchange over the messaging app Signal, where he is now interim CEO. He did not respond to a detailed list of questions.

Why was Acton’s trade, and the many others like it, not a wash sale?

In theory, the stocks inside two different funds could overlap so much that the IRS might deem them “substantially identical” and thus disallow any tax loss on such a trade.

In practice, however, there is only one scenario in which the wash sale rule is consistently enforced. IRS regulations require brokerages to mark a trade as a wash sale if, in the 60-day period around the sale, the investor buys, in the exact same account, the exact same security (with the same ID, called a CUSIP number). The amount of the forbidden loss is then noted on a form, called a 1099-B, that brokerages send to the IRS each year to detail stock trades.

Beyond that, the IRS has provided no clear guidelines. Instead, the agency has commented on only a few little-used scenarios, while directing taxpayers to “consider all the facts and circumstances” of a trade. Is it OK to swap Vanguard’s ETF tracking the S&P 500 for Blackrock’s version of the same index? Some tax experts say yes, some say no. Besides the IRS’ vague guidance, there are few relevant court cases, and all are decades old. (The IRS declined to comment.)

ProPublica’s analysis of its IRS data found dozens of examples of taxpayers switching between funds with the exact same holdings. More common were switches like Acton’s between funds with significant, but incomplete, overlap.

The clearest sign that these sorts of trades do not, in the IRS’ eyes, violate the wash sale rule is that ProPublica could find no example of the agency challenging one.

In fact, audits very rarely target wash sales at all, attorneys who’ve represented wealthy taxpayers in IRS disputes told ProPublica. “I have had only one audit on this,” said Bryan Skarlatos, a partner with Kostelanetz & Fink, and it was “for a trader who totally screwed up.”

As popular as ETFs are for harvesting losses, the premier vehicle for delivering tax losses to wealthy clients is another innovation of the 1990s: the separately managed account.

In these accounts, managers make decisions about what to buy as they would for a fund, but the investor owns the stocks directly. When the account mimics an index like the S&P 500, it’s called direct indexing. Such products have boomed in recent years. A 2021 report by the consulting firm Cerulli Associates estimated that $362 billion was invested in direct-indexing accounts, most for “high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth clients.” The main use of such accounts are for “tax optimization,” the report said.

The advantage, as Goldman Sachs explained in a recent promotional document, is that “with an ETF, an investor may only harvest a loss when the entire index is down.” But if you own the components of an index, now you have hundreds of stocks that might dip.

The year 2017, for example, was great for investors, with the U.S. market up around 20% and world markets up even more. There were no obvious, broad dips to exploit — but that didn’t stop Goldman Sachs from delivering big tax losses to its clients.

That year, Ballmer’s direct indexing accounts, which tracked both U.S. and world indexes, posted over $100 million in tax losses through 15 loss-harvesting transactions. At the same time, the performance of those indexes in 2017 meant that, overall, Ballmer’s accounts were actually way up.

In a direct indexing account, you don’t need to own all the stocks that compose the index, and it doesn’t really matter which specific stocks they are. Instead, what matters is that the collection of stocks closely tracks the index’s movements. This is achieved via a “thoughtful sampling of the underlying positions,” as a team of Morgan Stanley wealth managers put it in a recent issue of an investment journal. When it comes time to harvest tax losses, the manager sells off the losing stocks and then chooses replacements with the aim of continuing to match the index.

Tax records show that Goldman Sachs routinely made trades for direct-indexing clients like Ballmer that included the sale and purchase of the same company’s stock. These companies offered two classes of common stock, and when Goldman traded from one class to another, it was not required to flag them as wash sales.

Often, these two classes of common stock were distinguished only by the right to vote on things like directors and shareholder initiatives. The sports apparel company Under Armour, for instance, offers a Class A voting stock and Class C nonvoting stock. The two classes command a slightly different price, with the Class A shares usually trading at a premium of around 10%. But the prices move in sync, making them nearly perfect loss-harvesting replacements.

As part of larger rebalancing trades, Goldman clients also swapped other voting-nonvoting pairs from companies like Discovery, Twenty-First Century Fox and Liberty Global.

Shell and BHP, both part of Ballmer’s loss-harvesting trade in 2015, each offered shares based in two different countries. Each company viewed these two versions as interchangeable in value. In fact, in 2022, both companies chose to merge their two classes into a single stock on a 1:1 basis.

ProPublica’s IRS data contained several hundred examples of these kinds of trades by Goldman clients dating back as long as 10 years ago. The records show instances of these sorts of trades through other brokerages, but the overwhelming majority were made through Goldman.

Goldman said that the impact of the now-halted trades on its clients would be “minimal,” and that it would “cover any costs they incur” as a result of disallowed losses. “We have also initiated a discussion with the IRS and will address any questions they may have on this matter,” the statement said. Generally, only returns filed within the past three years would be subject to possible audit.

At wealth management firms, loss harvesting accounts are often designed to work in tandem with other services, as a kind of knob to turn up or down, depending on the need.

At Iconiq Capital, this is part of an approach that goes far beyond investing to things like managing personal staff. In 2007, the firm’s co-founder, a former Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley banker named Divesh Makan, told a wealth management magazine that he’d even organized clients’ parties and helped find possible marriage partners. Clients, he said, “want us to look after them these days.”

The San Francisco-based firm manages about $13.2 billion for its 337 high-net-worth clients, according to a regulatory filing. Among them is Facebook co-founder Moskovitz, Zuckerberg’s old roommate at Harvard. Since the mid-2000s, when Moscovitz’s six-figure Facebook salary made up almost all his income — he’s now worth more than $7 billion — his financial life has grown considerably more complicated. After leaving Facebook, Moskovitz co-founded Asana, a software company, in 2009, but his stake in Facebook still accounted for the vast majority of his wealth. He set about changing that. From 2012 through 2018, he sold $3.6 billion worth of his stock, funds that he, with Iconiq’s help, could then use for other investments.

One of those new ventures was a tax-loss generating account. In late 2012, Moskovitz harvested his first tax losses, according to ProPublica’s analysis. It was a tiny haul by the standards of a billionaire, just $309,000, but it was a start. By 2013, he’d put over $100 million into the account, and his tax losses began to swell. In December of that year, he sold off 153 stocks to produce his first million-dollar loss.

Asset managers recommend adding to a direct indexing account over time, since it ensures there are always new losses to harvest. That’s the strategy Moskovitz followed, every few months seeding $13 million here, $25 million there. As the account grew, so did the tax losses.

Although ProPublica could not determine which index Moskovitz’s account tracked, the transactions followed the telltale pattern of direct indexing. In March 2016, for instance, Moskovitz sold off a basket of 85 stocks worth $27 million and bought a collection worth about the same amount. The two baskets were stuffed with stocks that had performed very similarly in the previous year, according to ProPublica’s analysis. The trade delivered $6.2 million in losses.

Meanwhile, Iconiq arranged other investments for Moskovitz, and the point of these was simply to make money. Most of the money Iconiq manages is in the form of venture capital, private equity and hedge funds, and Moskovitz bought large shares of partnerships run by the firm with names like Iconiq Strategic Partners and Iconiq Access. From 2014 to 2018, Iconiq entities sent over $200 million to Moskovitz.

The two types of investments were complementary, with the direct indexing account helping to blunt the tax sting from that income. Over the same period, Moskovitz’s dozens of loss-harvesting trades resulted in $84 million in tax losses. That saved him at least $20 million in taxes, ProPublica estimates.

For Zuckerberg, too, Iconiq provided the same twin services of providing and erasing income. His Iconiq investments earned him $88 million during the five-year period, while his tax-loss harvesting trades produced losses of $34 million.

Representatives for Iconiq and Moskovitz, who has tweeted that he’s “in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy,” did not respond to written questions. A representative for Zuckerberg said, “Mark has always paid the taxes he is required to pay.”

To prevent the wealthy from easily skirting the wash sale rule, Congress would need to change the law, experts said. One fundamental, but long-shot, reform would be to automatically tax the annual fluctuations of investments’ value (called “marking to market”). That would prevent the wealthy from being able to defer taxes on gains forever — and also render tax-loss harvesting unnecessary.

But even narrower changes could have an impact. Steve Rosenthal of the Tax Policy Center suggested a law aimed at how products like direct-indexing accounts are marketed: If an asset manager touted the ability to replace securities with positions that were economically the same, then those losses could be deemed wash sales. This, he said, wouldn’t be a major change, “but it might slow people down.”

Schizer, of Columbia Law School, suggested a more comprehensive reform: Congress should replace “substantially identical” with “substantially similar,” a phrase that is used in some other areas of tax law. That could rule out some of the most common harvesting moves, he said. The rule, he said, “ought to be updated to reflect how people invest today instead of how they invested 100 years ago.”
Methodology
Total Tax Losses Harvested

To calculate the total tax losses harvested for each taxpayer, we limited our analysis of 1099-B forms to days in which all the following conditions were true:At least 10 positions were sold that day.
Of those positions, at least 90% resulted in a loss.
The total losses from sales that day exceeded the total gains by a factor of 10 or more.

The purpose of these limitations was to exclude days that did not appear to be motivated by harvesting losses. The method effectively identified sales from direct-indexing accounts, which tend to involve dozens or even hundreds of positions, but did exclude some loss-harvesting transactions that involved only a few positions — for instance, selling a couple large ETF holdings. As a result, these are conservative estimates that likely understate total losses. The totals shown in the story represent the net losses accumulated from loss-harvesting days in 2014-18.

Steve Ballmer’s estimate uses a different methodology to calculate his total losses. For an unknown reason, ProPublica’s IRS database did not have information about Ballmer’s 2018 trades, so we based his totals for 2014-18 on the Schedule D forms from his tax returns. Our analysis of his 1099-Bs from other years showed that his direct-indexing accounts at Goldman Sachs dominated his short-term trading results, as represented on his tax returns. These he noted on his Schedule D, in the field reserved for trades that had been reported on a 1099-B form that included the basis. As a result, Ballmer’s total is the sum over 2014-18 for short-term trades that included a 1099-B form with the basis reported.

ProPublica provided detailed descriptions of our loss calculations to all the individuals named in this article, and none contested our totals or methodology.
Tax Savings

Since both Ballmer and Moskovitz did not have extensive net capital gains from short-term trading during the periods we studied, we opted for a simple method for calculating their tax savings: 23.8% of losses, representing the long-term capital gains rate plus the net investment income tax. The tax benefit of a harvested loss can be diminished if stock is sold in the future (given the lower basis). But Ballmer, Moskovitz and other billionaires we analyzed held on to their gains, and there’s good reason to think they will hold on to them indefinitely.

Survey identifies a new disturbing trend in the Republican Party's base

Maya Boddie, Alternet
February 10, 2023

Washington, DC - January 6, 2021: Pro-Trump protester with Christian Cross seen during rally around at Capitol building (Photo: Lev Radin/Shutterstock)

A new national survey conducted by the Public Research Institute and Brookings Institution found that a majority of Republicans in the U.S. "are sympathetic to" Christian nationalism, The Guardian reports.

The survey finds more than 50 percent of Republicans identify as one of two groups, showing that 29 percent “of white evangelical Protestants qualify as Christian nationalism adherents,” and 35 percent “qualify as sympathizers.”

The Guardian reports:

The survey comes as the US experiences an increasing number of Americans shifting away from religious affiliations, as well as a declining number of churches across the country. Data released last year by the Pew Research Center found that Christians in the US could be a minority group by 2070.

Additionally, the survey shows that 50 percent of Christian nationalism supporters and 38 percent of sympathizers favor the “idea of an authoritarian leader ‘who is willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right.’”

Last year, NBC aired a clip of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) voicing her stance on the ideology.

"We need to be the party of nationalism," she said. "I'm a Christian and I say it proudly: We should be Christian nationalists."

Around the same time, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and potential 2024 GOP presidential nominee urged a private Christian college audience to "put on the full armor of God. The Tampa Bay Times reports DeSantis "is increasingly using biblical references in speeches that cater to those who see policy fights through a morality lens."

Futhermore, in the same year, Politico and The University of Maryland also conducted a survey raising questions around Christian nationalism to U.S. Republicans. The survey found 61 percent of Republicans would be in "favor" of "the United States officially declaring the United States to be a Christian nation."

Building on that data, PRRI and Brookings Institution's survey now finds 57 percent "of Christian nationalism adherents disagree that white supremacy is a major problem in the country," while 70 percent "reject the idea that historical discrimination contributes to current challenges faced by Black Americans."

Additionally, 23 percent of Christian nationalism supporters "believe the stereotype that Jewish people in the United States hold too many positions of power," while 67 percent "say that people from some Muslim-majority countries should be banned from entering the U.S."

As political violence increases in the U.S., supporters of Christian nationalism “are nearly seven times more likely than” non-supporters to believe “true patriots might have to resort to violence to save our country."

The Southern Poverty Law Center asserts "the [white nationalist] movement’s energy has shifted into more mainstream spaces in the aftermath of Jan. 6."


Of the population who agrees with resorting to said violence, the survey finds 12 percent “personally threatened to use or actually used a gun, knife or other weapon on someone in the past few years.”

White nationalism gets a hearing in the Republican House
Quentin Young, Colorado Newsline
February 11, 2023

Lauren Boebert (R-CO) walks to the House Chamber during the third day of elections for Speaker of the House at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 05, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

Xenophobia is the original offense of the Trump era.

The former president launched his campaign in 2015 by saying of Mexican migrants, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” It was a gross mischaracterization of facts, but the nativist message resonated with a Republican base primed by far-right media figures to despise non-white immigrants.

When President Joe Biden came to office and Democrats took majorities in Congress, the excesses of xenophobia in high office ebbed, even as they flowed apace on Tucker Carlson’s show and other conservative hubs of hate.

But with Republicans back in the majority in the U.S. House, the anti-immigrant movement has found new outlets of expression in the federal government. And this week it got ugly.

The U.S. House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing Tuesday at times sounded more like a bile-brimming Unite the Right rally than a congressional proceeding. Republican committee members were at pains to dispel the notion that the hearing was anything but an honest examination of the “border crisis,” given that it was preceded by justified protests — not least from the ranking Democrat — that the event was really a white nationalist promotional appearance.

But the Republicans couldn’t conceal their true intent. In practiced Trumpist fashion, Rep. Lauren Boebert’s question time with a pair of U.S. Customs and Border Protection chiefs, who were hauled in as witnesses, was filthy with xenophobic rhetoric. She cast migrants as “convicted criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers or even gang members.” And she asserted that Democrats intended it this way as a policy choice.

Yes, there is definitely a ‘replacement theory’ that’s going on right now.

– Rep. Lauren Boebert

This is the language of “replacement theory.” The racist conspiracy theory holds that accommodating immigration policies are part of a plot to replace white people in positions of power and culture. “The theory often uses martial and violent rhetoric of a migrant ‘invasion,'” the National Immigration Forum says.

Observe how that tracks with Boebert’s remarks.

“The truth is there is an invasion happening at our southern border … and it’s happening because Joe Biden invoked amnesty and changed the secure border policies that were working for our country,” she said, adding, referring to Democrats, “This is intentional. In fact their policy is a success, it’s not a failure because this is their intent.”

Quintessential replacement theory. And Boebert was hardly alone.

Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene of Georgia suggested that unaccompanied minors, the most vulnerable and desperate of migrants, were in fact budding violent gang members destined to murder Americans, and she referred to “the illegal invasion into our country that’s occurring every single day.”

“Joe Biden does have a plan. His plan is to deliberately open our borders and cede power to the cartels,” said Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona. “Now why would Biden do this? Create chaos? Sow discord? … More Big Brother? More control? Even changing our culture?” He also made sure to refer to immigration at the southern border as an “invasion.”

Replacement theory can be traced back decades and even has antecedents in Hitler’s Germany and other hotbeds of false “white extinction” fears. But popularization of the modern American strain is often credited to Carlson and his daily white nationalist propaganda hour on Fox News known as “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

This once-fringe form of racist extremism is now taken for granted on the MAGA right. Sometimes its proponents dispense with dog whistles and are explicit in calling immigration a “replacement.”

“Yes, there is definitely a ‘replacement theory’ that’s going on right now,” Boebert said in one of several of her social media posts that discuss replacement or the “invasion.”

The nonprofit immigrant advocacy group America’s Voice has documented how numerous Republicans on the Oversight Committee have voiced white nationalist rhetoric. These include Chairman James Comer of Kentucky. The Biden administration has turned “the border patrol into the welcoming committee. They want more people to roll into the United States,” Comer said in December on Fox, according to the Daily Beast. “They believe this is part of their social equality campaign to fundamentally change America.”

Such replacement theory rhetoric kills people.

The mass shooting in 2019 in El Paso, Texas, was committed by a suspect who cited “great replacement” and a “Hispanic invasion of Texas.” The mass shooting in May in Buffalo, New York, was carried out by a suspect who wrote a 180-word document that rehearsed “great replacement” talking points. The racist conspiracy theory has inspired other mass shootings and other forms of violence.

Many observers, including migrant advocates, agree America’s immigration system is in crisis.

“What we are seeing on the southern border is a crisis, but it is not a crisis as our friends across the aisle would have us believe,” said Democratic Oversight Committee member Rep. Melanie Stansbury of border-state New Mexico. “It is truly a humanitarian crisis. And it is a crisis that has been manufactured, reproduced, over and over again, decade after decade, by inaction by this body.”

Immigration reform could include improved border security. But it should also increase resources for U.S. handling of vulnerable people who flee dangerous homelands to seek refuge in America, better serve the U.S. labor market, and do right by the undocumented children known as Dreamers. The one quality U.S. immigration policy should forswear is xenophobia.

When members of Congress amplify white nationalist goals, they put lives at risk, further polarize American society, and dishonor the country’s proud legacy as a beacon of freedom.

Colorado Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Colorado Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Quentin Young for questions: info@coloradonewsline.com. Follow Colorado Newsline on Facebook and Twitter.

Assange supporters hold London 'carnival' against extradition

The jailed WikiLeaks founder is being held at a high-security prison in London

Campaigners pressing for the release of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange take 

part in a demonstration during a Night Carnival in Parliament Square, London. AP.

Neil Murphy

Feb 11, 2023

Several hundred supporters of jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Saturday launched a carnival-themed march through central London calling for his release as he risks extradition to the United States.

Costumed activists took part wearing pigs' heads, clowns' noses and orange jumpsuits and carrying a coffin and lanterns decorated with slogans calling for Mr Assange's release.

READ MORE

Latin American presidents call for Julian Assange's release

The march with the theme "darkness into light" was due to end with a rally in Westminster in central London with speakers including Assange's wife Stella.

The Australian publisher remains in custody in Britain pending a US extradition request to face trial for divulging US military secrets about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Carrying a lantern, 41-year-old activist Naila Kauser decried Mr Assange's case as "one of the most appalling crimes of our century".

"He's absolutely being punished and persecuted because he revealed war crimes and corruption that the public have the right to know," she said.

"If he's going to the US, it's going to affect press freedom everywhere".

Lucia Spadetta, a 74-year-old Italian teacher, carried a placard reading "Persecuted for denouncing war crimes".

"The world seems upside down because he's denouncing war crimes and he's the one who's being persecuted," she said, adding she fears Assange's extradition will go ahead, which would have to be signed off on by interior minister Suella Braverman.

"With the lady that we've got now in the Home Office who seems even more determined than (predecessor) Priti Patel, unfortunately he's risking a lot," she said.

Mr Assange is being held in Belmarsh high-security prison outside London.

"I know he'll hear about this gathering," said Australian activist Ciaron O'Reilly.

"I think the powers that be are happy to have him in prison and offline, and I don't think it matters so much what prison," the 62-year-old added.

Updated: February 11, 2023, 4:58 p.m.

Tens of Thousands of Israelis Join Anti-government Protests

February 11, 2023 
Associated Press

Tens of thousands of Israelis protest against the plans by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's new government to overhaul the judicial system, in Tel Aviv, Israel, Jan. 21, 2023.

TEL AVIV, ISRAEL —

Tens of thousands of Israelis took to the street in several cities across the country Saturday, protesting judicial overhaul plans by Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

Critics say measures introduced by the new hardline government would weaken the Supreme Court, limit judicial oversight and grant more power to politicians. Protesters say that would undermine democracy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a toast after the new government is sworn in at the parliament, in Jerusalem, Dec. 29, 2022.

The rift over the power of courts is deepening as the government is set to introduce some of the legislations in parliament Monday amid calls for partial strikes by businesses and professional groups.

For the sixth week, protesters pressed on with large rallies, with the main one in the central city of Tel Aviv and several smaller gatherings in other cities.

Tens of thousands take to streets of Israel opposing proposed judicial overhaul

Reuters
February 11, 2023


JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of Israelis took to the streets on Saturday for a fifth week of protests against judicial overhaul plans by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's new government which critics say threaten democratic checks on ministers by the courts.

The plans, which the government says are needed to curb overreach by judges, have drawn fierce opposition from groups including lawyers, and raised concerns among business leaders, widening already deep political divisions in Israeli society.

"We (are) ...here in order to demonstrate against the government of Israel under Netanyahu, which in our belief is against democracy and are going to do anything they can in order to take out democracy of Israel," said Illan Bendori, 70, at a protest in Tel Aviv.

Netanyahu has dismissed the protests as a refusal by leftist opponents to accept the results of last November's election, which produced one of the most right-wing governments in Israel's history.

"We are ...very proud of our democracy and he wants to make Israel something else. We will not agree, we will do everything in our power to stop it," Hadar Weis, 61, told Reuters at the protest in Tel Aviv.

The protesters say Israeli democracy would be undermined if the government succeeds in pushing through the plans, which would tighten political control over judicial appointments and limit the Supreme Court's powers to overturn government decisions or Knesset laws.

Additional protests and partial strikes are called for Monday when a first reading of the proposals is set to take place in the parliament.

Israel's N12 news released a poll on Saturday revealing that 62% of Israelis want the proposed judicial plans to be either paused or halted all together.

(Reporting by Emily Rose; editing by Jason Neely)

Robert Reich: Why America Forgot About Economic Power – OpEd

 February 12, 2023  

By Robert Reich

Several of you have asked me why America went so quietly from democratic capitalism — the economic organization that dominated American life from 1933 through the late 1970s — to the corporate capitalism that has dominated it since the Reagan Administration and which Joe Biden is starting to reverse. 

The answer has a lot to do with Keynesianism. It removed the issue of economic power from American politics, along with the struggle between capital and labor. 

How? Let me start by telling you a bit about John Maynard Keynes himself. 

A Cambridge University don with a flair for making money, a graduate of England’s exclusive Eton prep school, a collector of modern art, the darling of Virginia Woolf and her intellectually avant-garde Bloomsbury Group, the chairman of a life insurance company, later a director of the Bank of England, married to a ballerina, Keynes — tall, charming, and self-confident — nonetheless transformed the dismal science into an engine of social progress.

Born in 1883 to John Neville Keynes (a noted Cambridge economist) and Florence Ada Keynes (who became mayor of Cambridge), young John Maynard was a brilliant student but didn’t immediately aspire to either academic or public life. He wanted to run a railroad. “It is so easy … and fascinating to master the principles of these things,” he told a friend, with his typical immodesty. But no railway came along, and Keynes ended up taking the civil service exam. His lowest mark was in economics. “I evidently knew more about Economics than my examiners,” he later explained.

Keynes was posted to the India Office but the civil service proved deadly dull, and he soon left. He lectured at Cambridge, edited an influential journal, socialized with his Bloomsbury friends, surrounded himself with artists and writers, and led an altogether dilettantish life until Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo and Europe was plunged into World War I. Keynes was called to Britain’s Treasury to work on overseas finances, where he quickly shined. Even his artistic tastes came in handy. He figured a way to balance the French accounts by having Britain’s National Gallery buy paintings by Manet, Corot, and Delacroix at bargain prices.

His first brush with fame came soon after the war, when he was selected to be a delegate to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919-20. The young Keynes held his tongue as Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, and Georges Clemenceau imposed vindictive war reparations on Germany. But he let out a roar when he returned to England, writing a short book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace. The Germans, he wrote acerbically, could not possibly pay what the victors were demanding. Calling Wilson a “blind, deaf Don Quixote” and Clemenceau a xenophobe with “one illusion — France, and one disillusion — mankind” (and only at the last moment scratching the purple prose he had reserved for Lloyd George: “this goat-footed bard, this half-human visitor to our age from the hag-ridden magic and enchanted woods of Celtic antiquity”), an outraged Keynes prophesied that the reparations would keep Germany impoverished and ultimately threaten all Europe with another war.

His little book sold 84,000 copies, caused a huge stir, and made Keynes an instant celebrity. But its real import was to be felt decades later, after the end of World War II. Instead of repeating the mistake made almost three decades before, the U.S. and Britain bore in mind Keynes’ earlier admonition. The surest pathway to a lasting peace, they then understood, was to help Germany and Japan rebuild. Public investing on a grand scale would create trading partners that could turn buy the victors’ exports and also build solid middle-class democracies.

Yet Keynes’ largest influence came from a convoluted, badly organized, and in places nearly incomprehensible tome published in 1936, during the depths of the Great Depression. It was called The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

Keynes’ basic idea was simple. In order to keep people fully employed, governments needed to spend when the economy slows. The private sector won’t spend or invest enough. As economic activity declines, businesses naturally reduce spending and investing, setting in motion a vicious cycle: less investment, fewer jobs, less consumption, and then even less business spending and investing. Governments must pick up the slack through deficit spending. 

Keynes had a hard sell, even in the depths of the Depression. Most economists of the era rejected his idea and favored balanced budgets. Most progressive politicians, meanwhile, focused their attention on the evils of concentrated economic power — and opted either to break up big corporations through antitrust laws or to regulate corporations. But neither neoclassical economics nor progressive politics seemed up to the task of pulling the nation and the world out of the deep economic hole. “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” Keynes wrote.

Keynes’ visit to the White House in 1934 to urge Franklin Roosevelt to do more deficit spending was not a blazing success. “He left a whole rigmarole of figures,” a bewildered FDR complained to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins. “He must be a mathematician rather than a political economist.” Keynes was equally underwhelmed, telling Perkins that he had “supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking.”

But by 1938, FDR embraced the only new idea he hadn’t yet tried, that of the bewildering British “mathematician.” As he explained in a fireside chat, “We suffer primarily from a failure of consumer demand because of a lack of buying power.” It was therefore up to the government to “create an economic upturn” by making “additions to the purchasing power of the nation.”

Not until the U.S. entered World War II did FDR try Keynes’ idea on a scale necessary to pull the nation out of the doldrums — and Roosevelt, of course, had little choice. The big surprise was just how productive America could be when given the chance. Between 1939 and 1944 (the peak of wartime production), the nation’s output almost doubled. And unemployment plummeted — from more than 17% to just over 1%.

Never before had an economic theory been so dramatically tested. Even granted the special circumstances of war mobilization, it seemed to work exactly as Keynes predicted. The grand experiment even won over many Republicans. America’s Employment Act of 1946 — the year Keynes died — codified the new wisdom, making it “the continuing policy and responsibility of the Federal Government … to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power.”

And so the federal government did. Within a few years it was accepted wisdom that government could “fine-tune” the economy, pushing the twin accelerators of fiscal and monetary policy (lowering taxes and interest rates) to avoid slowdowns, and applying the brakes (raising taxes and interest rates) to avoid overheating. All questions of power, and the appropriate balance between capital and labor, were smoothed over (and swept under the rug) by Keynesian demand management. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson cut taxes to expand purchasing power and boost employment. In 1971, Richard Nixon famously proclaimed, “we are all Keynesians now.”

With Keynesianism seemingly smoothing out the business cycle and bringing on an era of growth and widespread prosperity, Ronald Reagan’s shift from democratic capitalism to corporate capitalism did not seem nearly as jarring as it later proved to be. 

Yet over the next four decades, the steadily increasing concentration of corporate power combined with widening inequalities of income and wealth — the central concerns of progressive reformers from Teddy Roosevelt to his fifth cousin, Franklin — finally overwhelmed the capacities of Keynesianism to balance the economy. 

Fiscal and monetary policies have proven no match for corporate monopolies and oligopolies able to keep prices high while depriving workers (who are also consumers) of the incomes needed to buy what is produced. 

Deficit spending on the scale necessary to avoid recession has caused the national debt to explode. Interest rate reductions necessary to avoid recession — essentially pushed down to zero — have proven unsustainable. Inflation has eroded wages, robbing workers of purchasing power. Interest rate hikes to counteract inflation are punishing workers by making it expensive to borrow and are risking another recession. 

Keynesian “demand management” of the economy is still necessary, but inadequate. It is once again necessary to address economic power, as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson did at the start of the last century. Antitrust laws must be used to break up giant corporations and stop the wave of mergers and acquisitions. Labor laws must be utilized to strengthen labor unions. Other laws and regulations should encourage worker cooperatives, collectives, worker ownership, and other sources of countervailing power. 

As FDR described the economic challenge during the presidential campaign of 1932, it is the task “of distributing wealth and production more equitably, of adapting existing economic organizations to the service of the people.”

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes at robertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

Thousands join latest round of Portuguese teachers’ protests

School teachers demonstrate for better salaries and working conditions in Lisbon, Portugal, 

LISBON, Feb 12 — Thousands of teachers from across Portugal marched through the streets of Lisbon yesterday in the latest round of protests demanding higher pay and better working conditions.

More than 150,000 people took part in the rally, according to the National Federation of Teachers (Fenprof), the profession’s main union.

“This is probably the biggest demonstration of teachers” in Portugal, said Fenprof secretary general Mario Nogueira.

“We are outraged,” Augusto Figueiredo, a technology teacher from Rio Maior, about 100 kilometres north of Lisbon, told AFP.

“Miserable salaries, discriminatory appraisals, inhuman schedules... this is the reality of our profession today,” added the 64-year-old.

“We’re really tired, no one is listening to us, this government needs to listen to us,” Joao Tristao, a sports teacher, told AFPTV.

Teachers are calling for an improvement in the terms of tenure and career progression, and salaries to keep pace with inflation.

They also want their real working hours to be taken into account.

“This working time must be recognised,” said Maria da Luz Ribeiro, an English teacher who worries about “the future of teachers and schools in Portugal”.

“I was forced to work longer to try to improve my pension,” said the 68-year-old, who stopped working last year.

Yesterday’s national demonstration comes after a series of protests and rotating strikes by region, which have led to school closures.

The ministry of education insists the teachers’ strike movement has run out of steam since the end of January.

The ministry is set to meet unions for a new round of talks next week. — AFP

Portugal teachers take to streets as wave of discontent intensifies


By Catarina Demony and Miguel Pereira

Reuters
February 11, 2023

LISBON (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of teachers took to Lisbon's streets on Saturday in one of the biggest protests in Portugal in recent years as the Socialist government faces a wave of discontent over the cost of living crisis.

"(We) have been badly treated for a long time," said Portuguese language teacher Maria Coelho, 55, as she held a banner reading "Respect" at the protest organised by the FENPROF union.

"We are here today and we will be here for many more to come," she added.

The union said it expected more than 100,000 people to take part in the protest. No police estimate of attendance was immediately available.It was the third time in less than a month that teachers and school workers have held mass demonstrations in Portugal.

Teachers on the lowest pay scale make around 1,100 euros ($1,174.25) per month but even teachers in higher bands typically earn less than 2,000 euros. They also want the government to speed up career progression.

"I feel robbed every day of my life," said special needs teacher Albertina Baltazar. "(We want) respect for our profession."

Education Minister Joao Costa said negotiations with teachers' unions were ongoing and that they hoped to reach an agreement soon.

A year after Socialist Prime Minister Antonio Costa won a majority in parliament, he is facing a slump in popularity and street protests not just by teachers but by other professionals.

Portugal is one of Western Europe's poorest countries, with government data showing more than 50% of workers earned less than 1,000 euros per month last year. The minimum wage is 760 euros per month.

Portugal's biggest umbrella union, the CGTP, held several protests and strikes across the country on Thursday against rising prices and urged the government to increase workers' pay.

Nurses have also been striking due to lack of career advancement and doctors are expected to walk out for two days next month.

On Feb. 25, the movement 'Fair Life' is encouraging people to protest in Lisbon over the cost of living crisis. Inflation is close to three-decade highs.

House prices in Portugal rose 18.7% in 2022, the biggest increase in three decades, and rents have also increased significantly.

"If we are persistent and if we do not abandon the fight I'm convinced the government will really have to listen to us," said Carlos Faria, a 47-year-old primary school teacher.

($1 = 0.9368 euros)

(Reporting by Catarina Demony, Miguel Pereira and Pedro Nunes; editing by Jason Neely)