Failed Trump Coup Gives Way to 'Brazen Attempt' by GOP to Undermine Voting Rights

"This appears to be laying the groundwork for what may be a more massive and coordinated voter suppression effort in the new year." 

by Julia Conley, staff writer

Published on Tuesday, December 22, 2020
by Common Dreams


Voters stand in line to cast their ballots during the first day of early voting in the U.S. Senate runoffs on December 14, 2020, in Atlanta, Georgia. Voting rights advocates say President Donald Trump's attempts to cast doubt on the validity of the presidential election results could threaten voting rights for years to come. (Photo: Tami Chappell / AFP via Getty Images)

Civil rights advocates and political observers are warning that while President Donald Trump has failed to introduce any successful challenges to the presidential election, which he decisively lost to President-elect Joe Biden on November 3, he and other Republicans have likely succeeded in laying the groundwork for a significant rollback of voting rights, particularly targeting communities where disenfranchisement is already rampant.

Trump and the Republican Party have now had more than 50 lawsuits dismissed by federal and state courts, and the Electoral College last week officially affirmed Biden's victory while the federal government's top cybersecurity official—a Trump appointee—called the election "the most secure in American history."

According to a Northeastern University survey, nearly 40% of GOP voters in states that flipped from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020 believe the president actually did not lose. And Republican officials are capitalizing on those beliefs and Trump's false claims of fraud to undermine efforts designed to expand voter access.

The doubt and distrust sowed by the president and dozens of Republican lawmakers over the last six weeks has now allowed Wisconsin Republicans to argue that events in public parks where absentee ballots were collected were unlawful, and that Democratic and nonpartisan attempts in the state to make it easier for residents to vote during the coronavirus pandemic "overstepped state law," according to Reuters.

Republicans, who control the Wisconsin state legislature, are expected to consider legislation to curtail in-person early voting, which has been permitted in previous elections.

In Georgia, where voting rights advocates and progressive grassroots groups worked tirelessly to register young voters and people of color—two years after a gubernatorial election in which Republican Gov. Brian Kemp narrowly won after overseeing the closure of dozens of polling locations—state GOP lawmakers said earlier this month that they would seek to end "no excuse" voting-by-mail, which the GOP itself introduced in 2005.

Party officials said doing away with the system would "secure our election process," despite several clear statements from Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger that there was no evidence of election fraud or irregularities in Georgia.

"This appears to be laying the groundwork for what may be a more massive and coordinated voter suppression effort in the new year," Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told Reuters on Monday. "It is a brazen attempt to undermine and obstruct the progress that has been made in 2020 to make it easier for people to vote amid the pandemic."

The Brennan Center for Justice found that 29 states and the District of Columbia changed voting procedures this year to expand voting access, easing rules for voting by mail or by absentee ballot and expanding early voting so people could vote safely. The new rules made it possible for a record 158 million people to cast ballots amid the coronavirus pandemic, despite significant efforts by Trump and other Republicans to cal into questionl the validity of voting by mail and the use of drop boxes.

As Common Dreams reported, Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) admitted shortly after the election that Republican efforts to place strict controls on mail-in voting are aimed at hurting Democrats' electoral chances.

"If we don't do something about voting by mail, we’re going to lose the ability to elect a Republican in this country,” Graham told Fox News last month.

As lawsuits brought by Trump and the Republican Party repeatedly failed in the courts over the past month, Paul Blumenthal wrote at HuffPost that the claims being pushed by the president "could be used in years to come to justify unnecessary and damaging voting restrictions that would disproportionately affect Black voters."

"Just because this is all incredibly dumb and has no chance of successfully overturning Biden's win doesn't mean it's not incredibly dangerous," wrote Blumenthal. "The entire scheme involves the delegitimization and disenfranchisement of voters in predominantly Black municipalities. It undermines his supporters' faith in democracy."

There’s a nut graf in this ⁦@PaulBlu⁩ story that should be in every Trump election coup story:

What Trump is doing undermines faith in democracy and could be used to justify unnecessary voting restrictions making it harder for Black people to vote. https://t.co/g5DIhW3FP9

— Matt Fuller (@MEPFuller) November 19, 2020

While election law expert and former Justice Department attorney Justin Levitt told NBC News earlier this month that Trump's claims of fraud were unlikely to lead "to a different result in January... I am really afraid about what Donald Trump is currently doing to the country for February and beyond."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

'DeJoy Is the Real Life Grinch': Postmaster General's Pre-Election Sabotage Fuels Christmas Delivery Delays

"No parcels are moving at all. As bad as you think it is, it's worse."

by
Jake Johnson, staff writer
Published on Tuesday, December 22, 2020
by Common Dreams

"Mail performance has plummeted: Only 75.3 percent of first-class mail, such as letters and bills, arrived within the standard one- to three-day delivery window the week of December 5, according to the most recent agency data available," the Washington Post reported. 

(Photo: Adam Berry/Getty Images)

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's sweeping and destructive effort to slash operating costs at the U.S. Postal Service has made an already difficult time of the year even more chaotic for the beloved agency, threatening the prompt delivery of millions of Christmas-time packages as strained postal employees tirelessly work their way through mounting backlogs.

The Washington Post reported late Monday that a "perfect storm of crises"—the coronavirus pandemic, an unprecedented level of online orders, and DeJoy's operational changes—is wreaking havoc on the agency, which has seen drastic performance fall-offs since the postmaster general began implementing his agenda over the summer.

"This is a long, hard struggle. We're asking for your patience, and no delayed gift should take away from the valuable family time and the reason people come together and celebrate."
—Mark Dimondstein, American Postal Workers Union

"Mail performance has plummeted: Only 75.3 percent of first-class mail, such as letters and bills, arrived within the standard one- to three-day delivery window the week of December 5, according to the most recent agency data available," the Post reported. "This time last year, the mail service's on-time score was closer to 95 percent."

"Adding to the slowdowns," the Post noted, "is on-the-ground confusion over the cost-cutting initiatives that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy implemented during the summer and then paused at the direction of five federal courts. The Postal Service has appealed several of those rulings."

A Michigan postal worker told the Post that "as bad as you think it is, it's worse."

"No parcels are moving at all," said the unnamed worker.

Mark Dimondstein, national president of the 200,000-member American Postal Workers Union (APWU) stressed that postal employees are doing their absolute best to ensure that Christmas gifts and other packages—including prescription medications and benefit checks—are delivered as quickly as possible. As the Post reported, mail carriers in busy areas are "working upward of 80 hours a week, including some who have worked every day since Thanksgiving without a weekend."

"This is a long, hard struggle," said Dimondstein. "We're asking for your patience, and no delayed gift should take away from the valuable family time and the reason people come together and celebrate. Hopefully everything will make it there on time. But if it doesn't, it'll still get there."

Twas the week before Christmas, when all through the House
Not a committee was stirring, not even oversight
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there

Hey Pelosi: Trump's DeJoy IS THE REAL LIFE GRINCH!https://t.co/XpQLkXoGes
— Jeff Hauser (@jeffhauser) December 22, 2020

In the wake of the presidential election, DeJoy—a Republican megadonor to President Donald Trump—swiftly resumed his push for a major operational overhaul at the Postal Service, brushing aside evidence that his original effort caused massive mail delays across the nation before it was temporarily suspended by DeJoy himself and federal judges.

DeJoy, who took charge of the Postal Service in the middle of June, "left his initiative seeking to eliminate late and extra mail transportation trips in place, but courts subsequently ordered USPS to walk it back," Government Executive reported last month. "USPS will now likely seek to resume those efforts, with DeJoy saying... USPS can 'operate with much greater precision.'"

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy testifies during a hearing before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on August 24, 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. 

(Photo: Tom Williams-Pool/Getty Images)

Given that the postmaster general serves at the pleasure of the USPS Board of Governors—which is currently dominated by 4-2 by Trump appointees—it is unclear how much the incoming Biden administration will be able to do to stop DeJoy from taking a sledgehammer to postal operations.

As the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, Biden vowed during the presidential campaign to fill the three vacancies on the nine-member Board of Governors with the hopes of forestalling DeJoy's agenda and potentially removing him from office. Last week, Trump moved to fill one of the board's three vacancies by nominating Roy Bernardi, who must be confirmed by the Senate.

"Like much else in Washington, DeJoy's fate may be linked to the outcome of the Georgia runoffs for U.S. Senate," the Journal noted. "Democrats on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which oversees the USPS, are eager to fill the vacant seats on the board and move away from the 'cost cutting mentality' among Postal Service leadership that has contributed to declines in service."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.



This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

'Pathetic': Congress Passes Covid Relief Bill With Billions in Gifts for the Wealthy, $600 Checks for the Working Class

"You're getting a one-time $600 check to survive a pandemic, but hey, at least lobbyists can get their three-martini lunches delivered."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer
Published on Tuesday, December 22, 2020
by Common Dreams


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) walks to his office after leaving the Senate Floor at the U.S. Capitol on December 21, 2020 in Washington, D.C.

(Photo: Cheriss May/Getty Images)

In late-night votes just hours after nearly 5,600 pages of legislative text were released, the U.S. Congress on Monday approved trillions of dollars worth of government funding

In late-night votes just hours after nearly 5,600 pages of legislative text were released, the U.S. Congress on Monday approved trillions of dollars worth of government funding and coronavirus relief that will temporarily avert a catastrophic expiration of key benefits, send $600 direct payments to many Americans, and provide billions of dollars in handouts to the rich.

The entire Senate Democratic caucus and every Republican but six voted for the roughly $900 billion coronavirus relief legislation, which was paired with a $1.4 trillion spending package that will fund the federal government through next September. Just two House Democrats—Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)—voted against the coronavirus relief portion of the sprawling package (pdf), which President Donald Trump is expected to sign.

"I voted against the latest Covid-19 relief legislation because it is woefully inadequate in addressing the needs of people," Tlaib said in a statement late Monday. "I have watched as many of my colleagues rush to provide billions to corporations and wealthy individuals, while admonishing the needs of the majority of families."

"I have watched as many of my colleagues rush to provide billions to corporations and wealthy individuals, while admonishing the needs of the majority of families."
—Rep. Rashida Tlaib

"Republicans continue to do all they can do to poison our society further with corporate greed, while abandoning the very people they are supposed to be working for," Tlaib added. "This is evident by the inclusion of the 'three martini lunch' tax giveaway."

The tax deduction for business meals was one of several giveaways to wealthy Americans stuffed in the mammoth legislative package, which was made available to read Monday afternoon after reported computer issues delayed its release. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was one of several lawmakers who publicly expressed outrage at the lack of time lawmakers were given to read the bill before voting on it.

"Members of Congress have not read this bill. It's over 5,000 pages, arrived at 2 pm today, and we are told to expect a vote on it in two hours," tweeted Ocasio-Cortez, who voted against a rule paving the way for speedy passage but ultimately voted yes on the coronavirus aid portion of the package. "This isn't governance. It's hostage-taking."

While the contents of the measure are still being combed, progressives noted and denounced the inclusion of billions of dollars in gifts to wealthy Americans—benefits made more obscene by the bill's inadequate relief for people who are hungry, sick, unemployed, and facing eviction.

"Pathetic," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), pointing to the bill's $120 billion handout to rich business owners and other provisions that will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest people in the country during the most unequal recession in modern U.S. history.

The Vermont senator voted for the relief legislation, noting that "the average family of four will receive a direct payment of $2,400."

"While including these direct payments ultimately improved this bill, given the enormous economic desperation that so many working families across this country are now experiencing, there is no question but that this legislation did not go anywhere near far enough," Sanders said in a statement.

You're getting a one-time $600 check to survive a pandemic, but hey, at least lobbyists can get their three-martini lunches delivered. https://t.co/vlK7CDwttQ
— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) December 21, 2020

The $900 billion coronavirus relief package is a far cry from what economists say is necessary to bring the faltering U.S. economy out of recession and provide meaningful relief to the increasingly desperate public amid rising poverty and a major hunger crisis. Some economists are calling for a roughly $4 trillion package, warning that anything less would result in "permanent damage" to families and the economy.

On top of the paltry direct payments—for which millions of vulnerable people will not be eligible—the newly passed bill provides a non-retroactive $300-per-week federal boost to unemployment insurance and an 11-week extension of UI benefits, an extension accompanied by more burdensome documentation requirements for applicants who are already struggling to navigate rickety state systems.

"Mitch McConnell and his Republican colleagues have stonewalled state and local aid, along with survival checks that meets the scale of the crisis. This is a collective failure in helping Americans in their time of need."
—Rep. Ilhan Omar

"States will be asked to implement a significant number of new rules for these programs for a law that will only last 11 weeks," noted Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation. "In reality, many workers won't receive the benefits until well into this short period—and at that point, the states will be forced to cut it off once again. Worst of all, Congress will be setting itself up for another 10 million-plus worker benefit cut off that will start in mid-March, before the new administration and Congress can be reasonably expected to pass another round of relief."

"Congress has given itself little choice but to immediately get to work on the next economic stimulus package as soon as President Biden and the 117th Congress take office," Stettner added. "That package must build on the CARES Act and include key reforms to make sure benefits are available as long as the economy remains constrained by this disastrous pandemic."

Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, also raised concerns about the too-short duration of relief and pointed to the bill's inadequate sick and family leave provisions. "While the agreement continues the tax credits for employers established under the Families First Act for providing coronavirus-related sick days and family leave," Greenstein said in a statement, "it doesn't extend workers' right to take that time off, leaving that to employers' discretion."

"A likely result," Greenstein warned, "is that a substantial number of workers will be unable to stay home when they are quarantined or ill or will be unable to balance work and family care-giving needs when schools are closed or a family member has Covid-19."

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who voted for the final relief package, said late Monday that she is glad the legislation will provide direct payments that were not originally on the table as well as billions of dollars in funding for schools.

"But that doesn't mean this package is anything close to enough," said Omar. "Six hundred dollars is not close to sufficient to cover eight months of lost wages, food, or rent expenses... Mitch McConnell and his Republican colleagues have stonewalled state and local aid, along with survival checks that meet the scale of the crisis. This is a collective failure in helping Americans in their time of need."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.


This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

TRUMP'S FAVOURITE TAX BREAK

Why Can’t CEOs Pay For Their Own 3 Martini Lunches?


Buried in the Covid relief deal is a provision that will require taxpayers to subsidize lavish business meals for corporate executives.

by Sarah Anderson
Published on Tuesday, December 22, 2020
by Inequality.org

In this time of crisis, any support for corporations should encourage executives to treat their workers well, trim their own fat paychecks 

— and pay for their own lunch. 

(Photo by mark peterson/Corbis via Getty Images)

While the world is reeling from the pandemic, corporate lobbyists have been focused on making taxpayers subsidize lavish lunches for wealthy executives.

And their work has paid off in the new Covid relief deal. Buried in the details of this modest aid plan is a provision to give executives unlimited tax deductions for their business meals for two years.

That’s how it worked back in the 1970s, when Presidential candidate George McGovern had this to say about it: “There’s something fundamentally wrong with the tax system,” he said, “when it allows a corporate executive to deduct his $20 martini lunch while a workingman cannot deduct the price of his bologna sandwich.”

"There’s something fundamentally wrong with the tax system when it allows a corporate executive to deduct his $20 martini lunch while a workingman cannot deduct the price of his bologna sandwich." 

-George Mcgovern

President Ronald Reagan, of all people, actually agreed with McGovern. His 1986 tax-code overhaul, best remembered today for lowering overall rates, reduced the deductibility of business meals from 100 to 80 percent. In 1993, the Clinton administration pushed that deductibility rate down to 50 percent, where it has stayed ever since.

Now corporate lobbyists have managed to restore that 1970s-era perk – claiming, of course, that bigger tax write-offs for business meals would help struggling restaurants and the people they employ.

That’s the same argument they used in their opposition to the Clinton-era reform. It was flawed then and it’s even more preposterous now.

Back in 1993, the National Restaurant Association predicted that if businesses were able to write off only half the cost of their business meals (instead of 80 percent), restaurant industry sales would plummet by $3.8 billion and 165,000 jobs would be lost in just the first year.

The opposite occurred. In the year after the reform went into effect on January 1, 1994, sales at full-service restaurants grew by 3.5 percent, outstripping overall U.S. economic growth, according to Census and Labor Department data. And instead of the NRA’s predicted loss of 165,000 jobs, full-service restaurant payrolls grew by 132,300. That was a 4-percent increase, compared to only 3.5 percent growth in national employment.

Today, when the real problem is a public health crisis that’s keeping people at home, it’s even more laughable that lowering taxes on business meals will do anything to help struggling restaurant owners and employees.

In this time of crisis, any support for corporations should encourage executives to treat their workers well, trim their own fat paychecks — and pay for their own lunch.

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project of the Institute for Policy Studies, and is a co-editor of Inequality.org

 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Tom Vilsack’s Cozy Relationship With Big Ag Makes Him A Non-Starter at USDA

The Biden administration will fail rural America right out of the gate with a choice like Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture.

by Krissy Kasserman, Amanda Claire Starbuck
Published on
Tuesday, December 22, 2020
by
Food & Water Watch Blog

Those senators who claim to support rural America must reject Tom Vilsack as Agriculture secretary. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Tom Vilsack wasn’t the right choice for Secretary of Agriculture in 2008 when President Obama nominated him to serve in that role. He isn’t the right choice now, either. With Vilsack, we’re guaranteed years more of corporate agribusinesses running roughshod over family farms and rural communities, and years more of the USDA prioritizing corporate farm policy at the expense of the rest of the agency’s mandate. Years more of declining rural communities, increasing food insecurity and dangerous working conditions for food and farmworkers. Bad policy that allowed for the takeover of corporate agribusiness got us into this mess. It’s unlikely Tom Vilsack will get us out.

Iowa’s Family Farms and Workers Already Lost Big Under Vilsack’s Leadership

Many people associate USDA solely with rural communities and farm policy. That might make Tom Vilsack—former Iowa governor who later headed the USDA under the Obama administration—seem like the logical choice. But his track record shows a cozy relationship with corporate agriculture. He was governor of Iowa during the state’s rapid factory farm expansion; under his tenure, Iowa lost two-thirds of its family-scale hog farms and shed tens of thousands of farm jobs.

As Secretary of Agriculture, Vilsack failed to hold up his promise of addressing antitrust issues in the agricultural industry. A series of public meetings on the issue held jointly with the Department of Justice never resulted in regulatory action, and USDA policy continued to favor large-scale, corporate farming at the expense of family farms. Vilsack went on to become a lobbyist for the Dairy Export Industry, raking in more than $1 million in his first year, at a time when prospects for dairy farmers were so bleak that some received a suicide prevention hotline number along with their dairy checks. The prospect of Vilsack returning to head the USDA is an egregious example of a revolving door between industry and government.

The Question Of Serving Rural or Urban Communities Is A False One

Choosing Vilsack instead of other potential nominees like Congresswoman Marcia Fudge ensures the agency will continue to prioritize one small part of its mission — agricultural policy — at the expense of many other very important issues. Many people don’t realize that USDA also oversees food safety, animal health, nutrition assistance programs and nutrition services, the Forest Service, rural housing and rural development — a vast mandate critical to the health and well-being of everyone.

Unfortunately, the debate between status-quo candidates like Vilsack and Heidi Keitkamp and progressive leaders like Marcia Fudge is sometimes framed as a choice between serving farmers’ interests or focusing on hunger and food insecurity. This is a false choice grossly mischaracterized as a rural vs. urban dynamic. For instance, hunger is often seen as primarily an urban issue, but in reality, rural counties consistently receive federal food assistance at higher rates than those living in urban counties. A 2018 Daily Yonder analysis ranked the share of county population participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (administered by USDA) and found that 85 of the top 100 counties were rural. The 2018 American Community Survey found that the non-metro poverty rate was 16.1% compared to 12.6% in metro areas.

We Urge Senators To Reject Tom Vilsack For Secretary Of Agriculture

Four more years of Vilsack means four more years of corporate-friendly policies that drain rural wealth and increase food insecurity. It will be a seamless transition from Trump’s USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue to Vilsack: he will continue the business as usual approach of working on behalf of Big Ag at the expense of struggling people across the country.

This isn’t another tired rural vs. urban debate. It is a choice between everyday people — rural and urban — versus corporate profits. The Biden Administration, in nominating Vilsack, has already failed rural America — over a month before Biden’s inauguration. Those senators who claim to support rural America must reject Tom Vilsack as Agriculture secretary.

Krissy Kasserman is the National Factory Farm Campaigner at Food and Water Watch. She works to take our national fight against factory farms to the next level as we battle corporate agriculture and work towards a more sustainable, safer, and equitable food system.

Amanda Claire Starbuck is the Senior Food Researcher and Policy Analyst on the Food Team at Food & Water Watch. She previously worked as a Policy Analyst for Citizen Health & Safety at the Center for Effective Government, where she focused on chemical hazards and fracking. Amanda holds a bachelor’s degree in English and Philosophy & Religion from the University of North Dakota, and a master’s in Global Environmental Policy from American University.

© 2020 Food & Water Watch




This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

THIRD WORLD USA

Fewer Jobs, Rising Poverty: Scathing Report Finds Trump Economic Legacy 'One of the Worst Among All US Presidents'

"American businesses and workers are struggling to survive because President Trump refused to listen to advice from public health experts and economists about the best way to handle the coronavirus."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer
Published on
Saturday, December 19, 2020
by Common Dreams

Local residents who have been financially impacted by the coronavirus pandemic wait in line at a Thanksgiving meal take home kit food distribution organized by the L.A. Mission, November 20, 2020, outside Compton Avenue Elementary School in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images)

When President Donald Trump departs the White House next month, he will leave in his wake a nation devastated by a pandemic he failed to confront and an economic scene characterized by rising poverty, widespread hunger, a looming eviction tsunami, and mass layoffs that have left the U.S. with fewer jobs than when his administration began.

And for that, a scathing new report (pdf) by Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC) argues, the outgoing president "only has himself to blame."

Released Friday in response to the 2020 Economic Report of the President (pdf), the assessment of Trump's economic performance during his four years in office runs directly counter to the rosy depiction frequently offered by the president himself, who seldom missed an opportunity to boast about the state of the stock market even in the midst of nationwide material suffering brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.

"American businesses and workers are struggling to survive because President Trump refused to listen to advice from public health experts and economists about the best way to handle the coronavirus," Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), the incoming JEC chair, said in a statement. "In fact, his handling of the coronavirus will hurt the economy for years to come. That is President Trump's economic legacy—one of the worst among all U.S. presidents."

The President’s failure to acknowledge the threat of the coronavirus and his refusal to use the power of the presidency to fight it will weigh down the U.S. economy for years to come.

That will be President Trump’s economic legacy.#ERPResponse | https://t.co/Y69n0fkLHe

— Joint Economic Committee Democrats (@JECDems) December 18, 2020

The new report examines Trump's economic record dating back to the beginning of his administration, which began with soaring promises on jobs, trade, wages, healthcare, and other key policy matters.

While Trump inherited an steadily improving economy, the president "failed to pursue policies that would sustain and strengthen the economic expansion," the JEC report argues.

As many analysts predicted before its passage and implementation, the $1.5 trillion Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump signed into law in December of 2017 delivered most of its benefits to the rich and failed to produce anything resembling an economic boom.

"President Trump's televised claim that the tax cuts would be 'one of the great Christmas gifts to middle-income people' proved to be deeply misleading," the JEC report notes. "Analysis reveals that the tax cuts heavily favored the very wealthy, with the top 1 percent of households—those with average incomes of almost $2 million—projected to receive an average tax break of nearly $50,000 in 2020."

"This is approximately 64 times the average tax cut of the middle 20 percent of households, who were projected to receive an average tax cut of $780," the report continues. "The poorest 20 percent were projected to receive an average tax cut of just $60."

Trump's trade promises were similarly empty, the report finds. The president's oft-touted trade war with China "resulted in hundreds of thousands of lost U.S. jobs."

"A study by Moody's Analytics found that by September 2019 it had cost the U.S. economy nearly 300,000 jobs," the JEC notes.

While the president's economic performance prior to the coronavirus pandemic was far from successful, Trump's handling of the Covid-19 crisis and resulting economic collapse was catastrophic, pushing millions more into poverty and leaving countless Americans unable to afford basic necessities. At present, the U.S. has around 10 million fewer jobs than it did at the start of the pandemic.

NEW: Nearly 8 million Americans have fallen into poverty since the summer.
It's the fastest rise in poverty in the past 60 years.
And it's a direct result of gov't aid for the unemployed falling, even as jobs clearly remain scarce. https://t.co/jblSQ5s92N
— Heather Long (@byHeatherLong) December 16, 2020

The JEC observes that after Congress and the White House approved the $2.2 trillion CARES Act in March—providing a temporary $600-per-week boost to unemployment benefits and a round of one-time stimulus payments to many Americans—"the administration and Senate Republicans refused to work to negotiate another package until a few weeks before the expiration" of the unemployment supplement, a lapse that dramatically slashed the incomes of millions of people.

"The administration's mismanagement of the coronavirus, and its grudging response to limit the resulting economic damage, have exposed and widened vast structural inequalities," the report states. "Low-income workers and people of color have been most harmed by Covid-19 and the ensuing recession. They are more likely to be exposed to the virus, to be hospitalized and to die from it."

The JEC Democrats conclude that "by all objective measures—job growth, unemployment, gross domestic product—President Trump leaves the economy in much worse condition than he found it."

"However, the numbers do not tell the whole story—his failure to use the power of the presidency to fight the coronavirus will weigh down the U.S. economy for years to come," the report says. "His successor will be left with an extraordinary challenge—to reverse the failures of the Trump administration. He must also move beyond them to ensure that the United States builds back better from this crisis, fully utilizing the talents and resources of all of its people to build an economy that is fairer, stronger, more inclusive, and more resilient."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

'This Is Atrocious': Congress Crams Language to Criminalize Online Streaming, Meme-Sharing Into 5,500-Page Omnibus Bill


"These types of decisions should never be made in closed-door negotiations between politicians and industry or rushed through as part of some must-pass spending package."

by Kenny Stancil, staff writer
Published on
Monday, December 21, 2020
by
Common Dreams




55 Comments

"When a big bill like this comes together, your job as a lawmaker is to try to get as many of your legislative and funding priorities into the text as possible," said Sen. Chris Murphy 

(D-Conn.). (Photo: Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Lawmakers in Congress are under fire from digital rights campaigners for embedding three controversial changes to online copyright and trademark laws into the must-pass $2.3 trillion legislative package—which includes a $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill and a $900 billion Covid-19 relief bill—that could receive floor votes in the House and Senate as early as Monday evening.

The punitive provisions crammed into the enormous bill (pdf), warned Evan Greer of the digital rights group Fight for the Future, "threaten ordinary Internet users with up to $30,000 in fines for engaging in everyday activity such as downloading an image and re-uploading it... [or] sharing memes."

While the citizenry had almost no time to process the actual contents of the 5,593 page legislative text, Greer said Monday afternoon that the CASE Act, Felony Streaming Act, and Trademark Modernization Act "are in fact included in the must-pass omnibus spending bill."

As Mike Masnick explained in a piece at TechDirt on Monday:


The CASE Act will supercharge copyright trolling exactly at a time when we need to fix the law to have less trolling. And the felony streaming bill (which was only just revealed last week with no debate or discussion) includes provisions that are so confusing and vague no one is sure if it makes sites like Twitch into felons.

"The fact that these are getting added to the must-pass government funding bill is just bad government," Masnick added. "And congressional leadership should hear about this."



Um. Admitting that you're using a must pass government funding bill to sneak through legislation that you couldn't pass normally is... a choice I guess. https://t.co/atkS2Ny8nr— Mike Masnick (@mmasnick) December 21, 2020

According to Fight for the Future, "More than 20,000 people had called on House and Senate leadership to remove these dangerous and unnecessary provisions from the must-pass bill," yet Congress chose to include them anyway.

"This is atrocious," Greer said in her statement. "We're facing a massive eviction crisis and millions are unemployed due to the pandemic, but congressional leaders could only muster $600 stimulus checks for Covid relief."

And yet, lawmakers "managed to cram in handouts for content companies like Disney?" Greer continued. "The CASE Act is a terribly written law that will threaten ordinary Internet users with huge fines for everyday online activity. It's absurd that lawmakers included these provisions in a must-pass spending bill."

They're voting soon. Keep making noise! Even if this bill passes we are going to have a massive fight in 2021 to fix the DMCA and defend the rights of Internet users and online creators. Keep retweeting, keep signing petitions, keep sounding the alarm.https://t.co/AuXeBYNEOm— Fight for the Future (@fightfortheftr) December 21, 2020

Explaining why the inclusion of these provisions is dangerous, Masnick said "there's a reason [why] copyright is generally controversial." Even "small changes" threaten a "massive impact on... the public's ability to express themselves," he wrote.

As The Verge's Makena Kelly reported:

The CASE Act would create a quasi-judicial tribunal of "Copyright Claims Officers" who would work to resolve infringement claims. As outlined in the bill, copyright holders could be awarded up to $30,000 if they find their creative work being shared online.

Proponents of the CASE Act, like the Copyright Alliance, argue that the bill would make it easier for independent artists to bring about copyright claims without having to endure the lengthy and expensive federal courts process. Still, critics of the bill, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight for the Future, argue that the CASE Act could fine ordinary internet users for engaging in everyday online behavior like sharing memes.

Greer echoed Masnick, saying that "we've seen time and time again that changes to copyright law have profound implications for online freedom of expression and human rights."

"Frivolous copyright takedowns are already a huge problem for the next generation of artists and creators, streamers, gamers, and activists," Greer noted, advocating instead for what she called "a fair system that protects human rights and ensures artists are fairly compensated."

Considering how artists and musicians "are suffering immensely during the pandemic," Greer added, "Congress should be working quickly to provide immediate relief, not cramming controversial, poison-pill legislation into budget bills to appease special interests."

The way Congress jammed through these changes "is a total and complete travesty," said Masnick. "People should be mad about this and should hold the congressional leadership of both parties responsible."

Calling on "House and Senate leadership to remove the copyright provisions from the continuing resolution and move them through regular order so we can have transparent and open debate about the right balance," Greer said that "these types of decisions should never be made in closed-door negotiations between politicians and industry or rushed through as part of some must-pass spending package

 

Battle of Ain Jalut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Battle of Ain Jalut
Part of the Mongol invasions of the Levant
Map showing movements of both forces, meeting eventually at Ain Jalut
Date 3 September 1260 Location Near Ayn Jalut, Nazareth, Galilee[1] Result Mamluk victory Mongol invasion of the Mamluk Sultanate is halted. Territorial changes Territories captured by the Mongols are returned to the Mamluks.
Belligerents
Mamluk Sultanate  Ayyubid emirs of Kerak and Hamah	Ilkhanate (Mongol Empire)  Kingdom of Georgia  Cilician Armenia  Ayyubid emirs of Homs and Banias
Commanders and leaders
Saif ad-Din Qutuz  Baibars  Al-Mansur of Hamah	Kitbuga †  Al-Ashraf of Homs  Al-Said of Banias
Units involved
Light cavalry and horse archers, heavy cavalry, infantry	Mongol lancers and horse archers, Cilician Armenian troops, Georgian contingent, local Ayyubid contingents
Strength
15–20,000[2][3][4]	10–20,000[5][6][7][8][9][10]
Casualties and losses
Unknown	most of the army[11][12][13]

show v t e Mongol invasions and conquests

show v t e Mamluk-Ilkhanid War

The Battle of Ain Jalut (Arabic: معركة عين جالوت‎, romanized: Ma'rakat ‘Ayn Jālūt), also spelled Ayn Jalut, was fought between the Bahri Mamluks of Egypt and the Mongol Empire on 3 September 1260 (25 Ramadan 658 AH) in southeastern Galilee in the Jezreel Valley near the Spring of Harod (Arabic: عين جالوت‎, romanized: ‘Ayn Jālūt, lit. 'Spring of Goliath'). The battle was fought not far from the site of Zir'in, a now-destroyed Palestinian village in present-day Israel. The battle marked the height of the extent of Mongol conquests, and was the first time a Mongol advance had ever been permanently beaten back in direct combat on the battlefield.

Continuing the westward expansion of the Mongol Empire, the armies of Hulagu Khan captured and sacked Baghdad in 1258, along with the Ayyubid capital of Damascus sometime later.^[15] Hulagu sent envoys to Cairo demanding Qutuz surrender Egypt, to which Qutuz responded by killing the envoys and displaying their heads on the Bab Zuweila gate of Cairo. Shortly after this, Hulagu returned to Mongolia with the bulk of his army in accordance with Mongol customs, leaving approximately 10,000 troops west of the Euphrates under the command of general Kitbuqa.

Learning of these developments, Qutuz quickly advanced his army from Cairo towards Palestine. Kitbuqa sacked Sidon, before turning his army south towards the Spring of Harod to meet Qutuz' forces. Using hit-and-run tactics and a feigned retreat by Mamluk general Baibars, combined with a final flanking maneuver by Qutuz, the Mongol army was pushed in a retreat toward Bisan, after which the Mamluks led a final counterattack, which resulted in the death of several Mongol troops, along with Kitbuqa himself.

The battle has been cited as the first time the Mongols were permanently prevented from expanding their influence,^[14] and also incorrectly cited as the first major Mongol defeat. It also marked the first of two defeats the Mongols would face in their attempts to invade Egypt and the Levant, the other being the Battle of Marj al-Saffar in 1303. The earliest known use of the hand cannon in any military conflict is also documented to have taken place in this battle by the Mamluks, who used it to frighten the Mongol armies, according to Arabic military treatises of the 13th and 14th centuries.

READ ON 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ain_Jal

https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/the-battle-that-saved-islam-and-crushed-the-mongols-1d75b2f6d88d