RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Rand Paul Swears There's an Innocent Explanation for Not Disclosing His Wife's COVID Stocks for 16 Months Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>   
Friday, 13 August 2021 08:18

Levin writes: "The Senator's wife invested in a company that makes COVID treatments as he insisted the virus was nothing to worry about and preventative measures should be ignored."

Sen. Rand Paul. (photo: Michael Loccisano/Getty)
Sen. Rand Paul. (photo: Michael Loccisano/Getty)


Rand Paul Swears There's an Innocent Explanation for Not Disclosing His Wife's COVID Stocks for 16 Months

By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair

13 August 21


The Senator’s wife invested in a company that makes COVID treatments as he insisted the virus was nothing to worry about and preventative measures should be ignored.

ne of the loudest voices of misinformation and otherwise entirely unhelpful bullshit during the coronavirus pandemic has been Senator Rand Paul. In March 2020, the senator from Kentucky refused to quarantine while awaiting test results for COVID-19—which came back positive—instead continuing to work at the Capitol for a full six days, during which he could have given the virus to other lawmakers and staff in the complex. Later he used having had COVID previously to insist that mask wearing was completely unnecessary, a crusade he’s vigorously doubled down on over the past year and a half, falsely claiming that mask usage is “theater” and that face coverings don’t stop the spread of the virus—the latter of which got him suspended from YouTube this week. He’s also urged people to ignore guidance from public health experts trying to stop the spread of the deadly delta variant and has refused to get vaccinated. Oh, and he’s repeatedly suggested that Dr. Anthony Fauci is essentially responsible for COVID-19 as part of a sustained campaign to undermine confidence in the nation’s top doctors and researchers, while simultaneously trying to convince Americans that COVID, which has killed more than 618,000 people in the U.S. and counting, is nothing to be concerned about.

So it would be really crazy to find out he or someone he’s married to invested in a company that makes a drug used to treat COVID-19—which is probably why he failed to disclose as much for a whopping 16 months. Per The Washington Post:

Senator Rand Paul revealed Wednesday that his wife bought stock in Gilead Sciences—which makes an antiviral drug used to treat COVID-19—on February 26, 2020, before the threat from the coronavirus was fully understood by the public and before it was classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The disclosure, in a filing with the Senate, came 16 months after the 45-day reporting deadline set forth in the Stock Act, which is designed to combat insider trading.

Experts in corporate and securities law said the investment, and especially the delayed reporting of it, undermined trust in government and raised questions about whether the Kentucky Republican’s family had sought to profit from nonpublic information about the looming health emergency and plans by the U.S. government to combat it. Several senators sold large amounts of stocks in January or February of last year, prompting a handful of insider trading probes. Most of those investigations concluded in the spring of 2020, according to notifications from the Justice Department to lawmakers under scrutiny.

“The senator ought to have an explanation for the trade and, more importantly, why it took him almost a year and a half to discover it from his wife,” James D. Cox, a professor of law at Duke University, told the Post. And the senator does have an explanation, though it appears to be predicated on assuming we’re all stupid.

Kelsey Cooper, a spokeswoman for Paul, said the senator completed a reporting form for his wife’s investment last year but learned only recently, while preparing an annual disclosure, that the form had not been transmitted. He sought guidance from the Senate Ethics Committee, she said, and filed the supplemental report Wednesday along with the annual disclosure, which was due in May and submitted three months late.

Right, sure, he only just learned “the form had not been transmitted.” Sounds totally legit, especially given his year-and-change crusade to convince people not to take preventative measures to avoid contracting COVID and giving it to others. Sounds totally on the up-and-up.

Remdesivir gained emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in May of last year and was administered to then president Donald Trump when he was sick with COVID-19 in October, before it gained full approval. Results of a WHO-sponsored study released later that month raised doubts about the drug’s effectiveness, prompting the international agency to recommend against its use as a treatment for COVID-19.

That marked a reversal from its original position, laid out on February 24, 2020—two days before Kelley Paul’s purchase—by a WHO assistant director general, who described remdesivir as the only known drug that “may have real efficacy” in treating the novel virus. The National Institutes of Health began a clinical trial the next day. The drug brought in $2.8 billion for Gilead last year.

The existence of public information causing Gilead’s stock to rise, said Joshua Mitts, an expert in securities law at Columbia University, doesn’t rule out the possibility that the senator gained additional knowledge in private. Paul is a member of the Senate health committee, which in January hosted Trump administration officials for a briefing on the coronavirus.

“Not everything about the product was necessarily clear from existing announcements,” Mitts told the Post. “There could have been information about interest that certain individuals within the administration may have had in the product, or that hospitals here in the U.S. were already loading up.” While Cooper claimed Paul never attended any briefings on COVID-19, eight days after his wife invested in Gilead, he voted against authorizing $8.3 billion in emergency aid to fight the emerging outbreak.

Meanwhile, given the numerous news reports last year about possible insider trading among senators, one might have expected, as Jordan Libowitz, communications director for the watchdog group CREW, put it, that Paul would “make sure all of his reporting was on the up-and-up.” But apparently, not so much. Curious!

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
As the Taliban Seize Cities, Desperate Afghans Are Trapped in an American-Made Fiasco Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=57582"><span class="small">Andrew Quilty, The Intercept</span></a>   
Friday, 13 August 2021 08:18

Quilty writes: "The shift in the war's dynamics in recent months - American troops leaving, the Taliban surging toward the capital as the government struggles to hold them back - has altered many Afghans' proximity to the war."

Hundreds waited inside Afghanistan's only passport office in Kabul on July 17, 2021, hoping to secure travel documents that could help them leave the country (photo: Andrew Quilty)
Hundreds waited inside Afghanistan's only passport office in Kabul on July 17, 2021, hoping to secure travel documents that could help them leave the country (photo: Andrew Quilty)


As the Taliban Seize Cities, Desperate Afghans Are Trapped in an American-Made Fiasco

By Andrew Quilty, The Intercept

13 August 21

 

fghan friends and colleagues began asking for help leaving the country in June. The requests were nothing new, but in the past they’d mostly been in jest. Now they were serious and urgent. The people who made them weren’t just seeking a better life but refuge.

The man who manages the house where I live in Kabul was among the first to ask. He had worked at three iterations of the house for more than a decade, doing maintenance and looking after the property and guests when my housemate and I were traveling. He’d started in the job long before I arrived and had become a familiar fixture in one of a shrinking handful of Kabul houses where visiting journalists, filmmakers, and researchers could rent a room. We’d been forced to move twice: When our first house was destroyed by fire in 2018 and a year later, when a second place was found to be on a supposed Islamic State target list. Both times the house manager, who I’ll call Wali to protect his identity, moved with us, along with a cleaner, an occasional gardener, half a dozen ducks, and the two dogs Wali had brought in from the street as puppies early on.

Paying electric bills, repairing leaking roofs, and buying firewood for a bunch of freelance journalists could hardly be considered the work of an “American stooge,” but Taliban fighters in Wali’s home village in a rural area north of the city were angered that he was working with foreigners. “My brother told me I should not come to the village anymore,” Wali confided in June. If the Taliban took control of Kabul, he said, he wouldn’t be safe there either.

Our proximity to war determines how deeply it affects us. I’ve lived and worked as a photographer and writer in Kabul for nearly a decade, but my connections to the city are through friends and memories rather than family or heritage. As long as airlines are flying, I can board a plane anytime and leave. Like all visitors, I’ve been privileged to live with a sense of detachment that has always allowed me to view events in Afghanistan as stories, not as life.

The shift in the war’s dynamics in recent months — American troops leaving, the Taliban surging toward the capital as the government struggles to hold them back — has altered many Afghans’ proximity to the war. It has also altered mine. Around 230 of the country’s roughly 400 districts are now in Taliban hands. Most provincial capitals, including Kandahar in the south and Mazar-i Sharif in the north, are surrounded. The first to fall, on August 6, was Zaranj, the capital of Nimroz province in the remote southwest. By Thursday, at least 11 were in Taliban control, including Herat, a major western city near Afghanistan’s border with Iran. I’d seen the Doha Agreement that set the terms of the U.S. withdrawal as the Americans’ parting gift to the Taliban, giving the insurgents little incentive to halt their military advance. As a senior Taliban military commander told me last year, an end to Taliban violence would only come in exchange for a full government surrender.

But even I hadn’t anticipated they would advance so quickly.

The risks associated with a Taliban takeover for people like Wali are real, whether they materialize or not. I described his circumstances to a Taliban source with whom I chat regularly about topics ranging from dating to war crimes. “It is a very sad situation,” the Taliban member told me, adding that Wali was right to be worried. But, he said, “it depends on the local Taliban intelligence commission. If they don’t have any issue with him no one will say anything to him. Taliban won’t kill everyone.”

Before dawn one day in July, Wali, his wife, and their three children joined the queues that snake through backstreets to Afghanistan’s only passport office. After the half day it took to lodge their application, they returned at dawn a week later, queued outside through a summer storm and submitted to fingerprinting and retina scans.

Acquiring an Afghan passport is almost guaranteed for those who apply. But a passport is only as useful as the visas inside, and the gates to the most desirable countries are now more closely guarded than ever, with several European countries warning the bloc’s executive against halting the deportation of Afghans amid the current crisis. Even a passport devoid of visas, several applicants told me, provides a sense of progress toward getting out through official channels, regardless of whether it’s realistic. Most will likely end up trying to take treacherous routes west, piling into crowded pickup trucks for a long drive through desert borderlands, over mountain passes, into Iran and on to Turkey and, if possible, beyond. Many will ultimately risk perilous journeys by boat toward Europe. In July, at least 30,000 Afghans were already leaving each week. Margo Baars, the International Organization for Migration’s deputy country director in Afghanistan, told me that figure is “presumably rising,” as is internal displacement. “Previously, it was mostly young men,” Baars said. “Now it’s families. That’s desperation.”

With the help of former housemates, I had already started compiling a small stack of documents attesting to Wali’s work over the years. I consulted two friends who served as judges in a European court that rules on asylum claims. Such evidence, they agreed, could help him secure refugee status. Whether such informal affiliations with foreigners would convince the embassy of a Western country to grant him a visa, however, was unlikely.

2.

I’ve long since lost count of the number of bombings I’ve covered in Kabul. At those grisly scenes, I’d encounter Afghan photographers and journalists working for international wire services and local outlets, some of whom became friends, and some of whom were subsequently killed or hurt, more than once while covering such attacks. I’d usually find out while scrolling through a messaging group and coming across a photo of their faces, protruding from the collars of blue flak jackets, covered in grey dust, or via a panicked phone call. I’d interact with them in their professional capacities, just as I had with photographers covering dull news conferences and sporting events at home in Sydney. For the Afghan journalists, though, the bombings were not just stories but also the deaths of their countrymen and women — and often their family and friends. I was close by when a bomb killed more than 100 people on a brisk winter’s day in 2018. I’d tied makeshift tourniquets around shredded legs and felt a man’s exposed brain on my palm while helping carry him to a nearby hospital. Afterward, a street vendor poured water over my hands and watched the watery blood trickle onto the pavement.

For 20 years, the war has disproportionately affected rural Afghans, who are less likely to have formal connections to the government and are generally less educated and more conservative. Civilians in these areas have grown accustomed to navigating shifting front lines and complex battlefield dynamics, along with more existential fears of death and displacement due to ground offensives, aerial bombing campaigns, and night raids. In many cases, aside from the initial violence required for the Taliban to take control and implement their harsh interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law, their arrival was a mere formality. Rural Afghans have also seen the fewest benefits from the U.S.-led intervention.

What has changed with the hasty departure of American forces and air power is the kind of Afghans who are facing Taliban and government violence and the existential questions it poses in the absence of international protection. As the front lines converge around provincial capitals, those who lived under Taliban control or near front lines before the countrywide offensive began in May are almost certainly living more peacefully than at any time since 2001, because their villages are not battlegrounds any longer. For Afghans in cities, and especially in Kabul, the war has been felt only through isolated attacks, though they have been large and bloody. Partly because of the media’s concentration in the capital, news coverage can make Kabul seem eternally in flames. In truth, it has rarely felt like a war zone for more than a couple of hours at a time. (The city’s Hazara population is an exception; the ethnic minority have been ruthlessly targeted, ostensibly by the Islamic State, since 2015).

Since 2001, urban Afghans have enjoyed a return of ordinary freedoms, opportunities to flourish and, with the war at a mostly manageable distance, a semblance of peace. They threw their weight behind the post-2001 order largely for pragmatic reasons: It gave them a reliable government, police, or army salary with which to build a home or raise a family. The more cynical used the international funds, laundered through various public, nongovernmental, and business entities, to build fortunes and power. There were also idealists who saw potential and hope in a new beginning, and refugees and exiles who came home, rejecting religious fanaticism, challenging conservative cultural norms, and embracing progress. Now they have the most to lose.

A portion of this group also constitutes one side in a clash of reciprocal resentment with the uneducated, rural working class, whom urbanites tend to view as broadly complicit with Taliban fighters who control their areas. Conversely, many rural Afghans resent city dwellers and government officials, whom they perceive (correctly) to have disproportionately benefited from the post-2001 order.

Even though most of my friends and colleagues are from Afghanistan’s cities, I’ve always empathized with rural communities, which are generally scornful of both sides in the war. Early this summer, though, I began to sense my sympathies shifting toward urban Afghans as the war rolled inexorably closer. “This is now a different kind of war, reminiscent of Syria recently or Sarajevo in the not-so-distant past,” Deborah Lyons, the United Nations’ top representative in Afghanistan, told the U.N. Security Council recently.

The atmospheric change in Kabul has been swift. When May 1, the date by which international forces were to have withdrawn under the Doha Agreement, came and went without the Taliban’s promised violence, I felt an unfamiliar sense of relief. But we knew it couldn’t last. A joke with a friend who hadn’t shaved in a few days about preparing for the coming Taliban, who often require men to wear beards, no longer seems appropriate. I started feeling more guilty than usual asking Afghan friends at social events to speak in English. I congratulated a friend after hearing he’d fallen in love, knowing his partner had decided she would leave the country while he wouldn’t do so without his siblings. I blink away tears speaking with local friends at summertime soirées, the kind that used to be carefree occasions but that have started to feel more like peremptory wakes for the country as we knew it. At one gathering, I sat cross-legged on the grass with two women, one working in education and the other with the U.N., as they described the conflict between their desire to stay and keep working and that of their parents, who had seen how young, forward-thinking women were disposed of at the intersections of earlier conflicts.

Foreign journalist colleagues who live in Kabul and I cringe when journalists who have flown in specifically to cover the U.S. and NATO departure say they feel “excited” to be here. I glance around to make sure no Afghan friends are in earshot.

Discreet conversations about the success or failure of Afghan friends’ visa applications occur daily. The U.S. and U.K. governments recently announced the broadening of entrance criteria for Afghans who worked alongside their citizens. The French embassy also provided visas for several hundred who worked with French organizations, sparking a race to apply. For those who don’t qualify for such programs but have tens of thousands of dollars to spare, Turkish residency permits are available to anyone willing to buy property. Others, whose costly visa applications for the same country have been declined, are paying profiteering brokers several thousand dollars each to secure a visa or calling on foreign friends to petition embassies on their behalf.

These entreaties rarely succeed. A representative of one European country in Kabul told me they were being “extremely restrictive.” Even “staff and [their] family members” from their delegation in Kabul weren’t getting visas.

3.

A peeling mural on the wall of the Afghan passport office depicts a row of stooped figures, silhouetted against a crepuscular sky, trudging toward the edge of a cliff. Beside them, a message in Dari reads: “Don’t risk your life and that of your family. Migration is not the answer.”

When I visited the office one morning last month, a man named Habibullah told me he had been waiting in line with his three young children since 5 a.m. He had no specific reason to fear for his safety or that of his family, but he wanted to be prepared in case they had to leave. “The situation is getting worse,” he said. “There is no hope for the future. If the Taliban take control, we don’t know what kind of education system [they will permit].” Many government officials have dual citizenship, he said, and so have no incentive to fix the country’s problems. “We don’t believe them,” he said. “This is why people in Kabul are preparing in some way to leave.”

Another man, Abdul Jamil, drew me aside. He told me he had four children and produced a document indicating his “confirmation of service” as a driver for a logistics company inside Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. military base in Afghanistan, from which the last American troops withdrew under cover of darkness, without telling their Afghan partners, in early July. “I’ve been receiving phone calls and text messages. I don’t know who is behind the curtain, but they keep sending me messages: ‘You worked with the Americans, and I will kill you.’”

The police had warned me not to take photographs. I asked to be allowed inside the passport office to seek permission from the director, at whose request I’d obtained a letter from the Ministry of Interior Affairs, but the police wouldn’t let me pass. After two hours, when the officers who’d been blocking my entry turned their backs, a couple of men and I hurried under the barrier and disappeared into the crowd.

The lines outside had been patient and orderly, but inside, it was chaos. I found the director, Muslima Amini, flanked by a few police, trying in vain to keep passport applicants at bay. What seemed like thousands of people were inside: waiting in a queue that traversed a quadrangle, sitting despondently in the sweltering heat, or ducking the swinging rifle butts of overwhelmed police in the hope of completing another step in the process.

Further inside, at 10 a.m., a young man spoke to me in English. “I came around 3:30 a.m., but still we’re waiting,” he said over the clamor of voices echoing off the steel roof. “Those who have connections are going inside, they will do their biometrics and get their passports. Those with no connections will wait in the line for a long time. Now they’re saying some people should go home and come back after Eid.”

I ran into a passport official who’d helped me for years with my own visa applications. More than 5,000 people were applying for passports each day, he said. “The situation is out of control,” he told me over voices yelling for his attention.

4.

I spent the month of June flying from one province to another to work on photographic assignments that had been arranged weeks in advance and had little to do with the Taliban’s rapid advances.

In the small capital city of Badghis, Qala-i-Naw, where I hoped to illustrate the drought that was gripping the country’s northwest, I worked with a local radio journalist whose wife and three daughters were visiting from Herat, three hours through Taliban territory to the south, where they’d lived in a kind of soft exile since security in their hometown worsened a couple of years earlier. On a Friday — the first day of the Islamic weekend — instead of driving to a favored local picnic spot outside the city which was no longer safe, we joined groups of men and bicycling children on the city’s infrequently used airstrip.

A short drive away, at the radio station, two young women were preparing for a broadcast. “I have $1,000 to upgrade the studio,” the journalist, who asked not to be named because he fears his work could make him a Taliban target, told me. “But I’m waiting to see what happens.”

Two weeks later, Taliban fighters entered Qala-i-Naw on motorcycles, freeing scores of prisoners from the city jail and trading fire with government forces in the streets. The assault had come with so little warning that the journalist, with whom I was communicating by phone, could only shelter in a friend’s home with his family, where he would not be suspected of hiding if the Taliban seized the city.

By the following morning, government forces had driven the Taliban out. Not wanting to take any further chances, the journalist and his family set off down a remote highway under Taliban control, hoping to reach Herat. The studio in Qala-i-Naw was intact, but in nearby Qadis district, which the Taliban had also overrun, they “broke our door and windows and took some assets,” he told me.

On August 1, he texted me from Herat that the “situation is getting worse day by day. Fortunately I am still fine.” After the Taliban seized Herat on Thursday, he told me he was safe but that “all media stopped their activity,” and he didn’t know what would happen next.

In Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province, a friend was trying to escape the city with his family the same day a private hospital was partially destroyed when an Afghan war plane targeted Taliban fighters the government says were inside. (Hospital staff disputed that Taliban were present.) “I am fine,” he told me via WhatsApp, but “the situation is critical.”

The friend, who works with an international humanitarian organization, was hoping to reach Kandahar, where he could catch a flight to Kabul. But Kandahar’s airstrip had been damaged by rocket fire and was closed to flights. He decided to turn back, driving west through the desert to the desolate, windswept province of Nimroz in 110-degree heat. There was an airport there too. He and his family got a flight on August 2, days before the Taliban swept in and took control of the provincial capital, virtually unopposed.

5.

On another June assignment, I accompanied a French journalist, Solène Chalvon, to Bamiyan province, in Afghanistan’s Central Highlands, to work on a story about archaeology. Bamiyan is famous for the towering 6th and 7th-century Buddha statues that were destroyed by the Taliban before the U.S. invasion in 2001. Its population is mostly made up of Hazaras, a Shia minority long tormented by the Taliban, but in the last 20 years, Bamiyan has consistently been one of the most peaceful places in the country.

Even there, however, the mood had shifted. The Taliban hadn’t yet invaded the province, but they controlled all routes in and out. Older residents — who recalled their brutal intrusion in 2000, the massacres, and destruction of the Buddhas — were weighing whether to take up arms or, as they say in Afghanistan, “go to the mountains” to hide out.

A Bamiyan tour guide I’d met in 2015, and with whom I’d worked and grown friendly since, dismissed our suggestion that he return to Kabul with us by air. He couldn’t leave his mother behind, he said. Twenty-one years ago, she had been fleeing with others toward Baba Mountain, one of the highest peaks visible from Bamiyan’s central valley, with the then-infant tour guide in her arms, when a Taliban bullet struck her leg. She was unable to find medical treatment for weeks; her leg decayed and eventually, the tour guide recalls, dropped off. Now widowed, she relies almost entirely on her son to survive.

A week after Chalvon and I returned to Kabul, districts bordering Bamiyan began falling to the Taliban. Our friend told us he was packing the family’s house and planning to drive west to the more easily defensible Yakawlang valley. By July 10, two districts in the north of Bamiyan fell. In the middle of the night on July 12, he messaged to let me know that he couldn’t sleep. A checkpoint 30 miles north had fallen to the Taliban. For a day afterward, Chalvon’s and my calls and messages went unanswered. He had run the risk of driving through Taliban-controlled territory, fearing that, if fighters identified him at a checkpoint, he wouldn’t be allowed to pass because of his work with foreigners. At last, he made it safely to Kabul with his mother, his wife, and their two infant children. They joined the queue at the passport office the next day.

In the weeks since, as some of the territory overrun by the Taliban in Bamiyan was retaken by government forces, and the tour guide and his family contemplated returning home, his mother-in-law and several other relatives applied for Iranian visas. She told her daughter — the tour guide’s wife — that their visas had been issued; they had not. The group traveled to Nimroz, along the border with Iran, where they admitted by phone that their applications had been rejected. Instead, they said they had found a smuggler and planned to cross into Iran without documents. “They told me, ‘Everything is OK and lots of people are here and going to Iran,’” the tour guide said. “But it wasn’t.”

They reached a wall dividing the two countries in the early morning on the back of a pickup truck crammed with other asylum-seekers. The smuggler seemed uncertain but told the group to climb over. Someone else would collect them on the other side and take them further into Iran.

Only steps across the border, Iranian security forces fired on the crowd. Many were struck, including the tour guide’s mother-in-law, as his own mother had been 20 years before.

Half an hour later, she was dead.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Republicans' New Safe Space Is Letting People Die to Fight 'Democrat Overreach' Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51076"><span class="small">Molly Jong-Fast, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Thursday, 12 August 2021 12:19

Jong-Fast writes: "The party of Trump has a big problem, they have found themselves on a sticky wicket: They have radicalized their base to believe that public health measures are 'Democrat overreach.'"

Hospital nurses care for a Covid 19 patient. (photo: Nelvin C. Cepeda/The San Diego Union-Tribune)
Hospital nurses care for a Covid 19 patient. (photo: Nelvin C. Cepeda/The San Diego Union-Tribune)


Republicans' New Safe Space Is Letting People Die to Fight 'Democrat Overreach'

By Molly Jong-Fast, The Daily Beast

12 August 21


Dontcha know, COVID cases in Texas are up 125 percent over the last two weeks. In Florida, they’re up 162 percent.

he party of Trump has a big problem, they have found themselves on a sticky wicket: They have radicalized their base to believe that public health measures are “Democrat overreach.”

In order to get the base excited, they have to rail against certain things, many of them public health-related (vaccine passports, masks, lockdowns, social distancing). But railing against public health means endangering the health of their base.

For a little while, this delicate balance seemed like it might hold, as Republican governors spent months sowing doubts about vaccines and complaining about masking and other supposedly freedom-harming public health basics. The right-wing press took a premature victory lap, with the National Review’s Rich Lowry asking, “Where Does Ron DeSantis Go To Get His Apology?”

But the Delta variant made it clear that DeSantis should be giving an apology, not asking for one, as red states have predictably been hit hardest. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from July showed that “Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to say they have not been vaccinated and definitely or probably won’t be, 43% to 10%.”

And, dontcha know, COVID cases in Texas are up 125 percent over the last two weeks. In Florida, they’re up 162 percent. On Monday, as Gov. Greg Abbott asked hospitals in his state to cancel elective surgeries, Sen. Ted Cruz went on Sean Hannity and pronounced “No mask mandates. No vaccine mandates. No vaccine passports. No COVID mandates!” Indeed, Texas and Florida have similar laws prohibiting localities from making their own public health rules, although both Dallis and Austin are suing to allow masking.

It took at a lot of stupid to get Florida and Texas to this dark place, which is why the MAGA propagandists are trying to suggest, without much evidence, that this is about an unvaccinated wave at the border—when it appears to be about unvaccinated Americans, in a country with enough vaccine doses to go around, harming their own health and spreading the virus and helping it continue to mutate in the process.

In Florida, DeSantis has taken what can only be called a pro-COVID stance, suing cruise lines to try and stop them from using vaccine passports. That’s cutting off your nose to spite your face given the industry’s importance to the state, but the trolling was always the point. That’s why a defiant, some might say sadistic, DeSantis announced that “the Florida Board of Education could withhold the salaries of superintendents and school board members who defy the governor’s executive order prohibiting mask mandates” in a state that reported 134,506 new cases last week.

No wonder Dr. Jonathan Reiner told CNN this weekend, “The viral load in Florida is so high right now… that I think that if Florida were another country, we would have to consider banning travel from Florida to the United States.” Bloomberg’s Steven Dennis tweeted that, “Per NYT, ~1 out of every 945 people in Duval County, Florida (Jacksonville) is in a hospital bed tonight w/COVID. #1 highest in the USA.”

With COVID numbers way up, DeSantis’ numbers are down as he looks toward re-election and then, he hopes, a 2024 presidential run. It’s a game of chicken: Can he troll the libs without killing so many of his constituents that they turn on him?

Republicans often fume about how Democrats supposedly don’t treat them with respect. But how should we treat voters who refuse to connect their anti-public health rhetoric with all the deaths from a preventable disease?

The reality is that the GOP decided to target anti-vaxxers because they’re easy marks who don’t trust the lamestream press but rely on Facebook memes and Joe Rogan—the guy who used to tell people to eat bugs on Fear Factor.

What DeSantis and the other governors are doing is deadly wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a bad political bet given the sick state of the base, in pretty much every sense.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Tax on Billionaires' Covid Windfall Could Vaccinate Every Adult on Earth Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=21602"><span class="small">Amanda Holpuch, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Thursday, 12 August 2021 12:19

Holpuch writes: "Every adult in the world could get a Covid-19 vaccine if the wealth billionaires collected during the pandemic was taxed 99% once, according to an analysis published on Thursday by several groups that advocate for economic equity."

Protesters call for a reduction in inequality. (photo: Getty)
Protesters call for a reduction in inequality. (photo: Getty)


Tax on Billionaires' Covid Windfall Could Vaccinate Every Adult on Earth

By Amanda Holpuch, Guardian UK

12 August 21


Analysis finds 99% levy on pandemic wealth rise could also pay all unemployed $20,000 – and still leave super-rich $55bn richer

very adult in the world could get a Covid-19 vaccine if the wealth billionaires collected during the pandemic was taxed 99% once, according to an analysis published on Thursday by several groups that advocate for economic equity.

This one-time tax on the world’s 2,690 billionaires could also cover $20,000 in cash paid to all unemployed workers, according to the analysis by Oxfam, the Fight Inequality Alliance, the Institute for Policy Studies and the Patriotic Millionaires.

That tax would still leave the billionaires with $55bn more than they had before the pandemic, the analysis said.

Morris Pearl, the former managing director of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, said in a statement countries could no longer bear “the surge in global billionaire wealth as millions of people have lost their lives and livelihoods”.

Pearl, now the chair of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of wealthy people who support higher taxes on the wealthy, said governments have historically used wealth taxes after crises to help communities rebuild.

During the first world war, the US increased its tax rate for people with the highest incomes to 67%. In the second world war, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to cap individual income at $25,000. In December last year, Argentina put in place a one-off tax on people with more than 200m Argentinian pesos ($2.5m, £1.8m) that had raised 223bn pesos ($2.4bn) as of May.

“Our economies are choking on this hoarded resource that could be serving a much greater purpose,” Pearl said. “Billionaires need to cough up that cash ball – and governments need to make them do it by taxing their wealth.”

The analysis used data from the financial magazine Forbes, which showed that billionaires increased their wealth by $5.5tn from 18 March 2020 to 31 July 2021. The increase over 17 months was greater than the $5.4tn billionaires gained in the 15 years from 2006 to 2020, the analysis said.

Each vaccine dose is estimated to cost $7 in the analysis, which determined two doses for 5 billion adults would cost $70bn.

At least one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine has been administered to 30.7% of the world’s population, but only 1.2% of people in low-income countries have received a first dose.

To determine how much money from the one-time tax could go to unemployed workers, the group looked at a February report by the International Labour Organization, which found that 220 million people were unemployed globally.

In an unprecedented move last month, four multilateral institutions, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Health Organization (WHO), warned the global economic recovery will be held back unless there is more equity in vaccine distribution.

The economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zuckman warned in the preface of the 2020 edition of their book about how rich Americans dodge taxes, Triumph of Injustice, that while crises are usually bad for the wealthy, the Covid-19 pandemic “may turn out to be different”.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Poverty Is a Policy Choice Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=34029"><span class="small">Dylan Matthews, Vox</span></a>   
Thursday, 12 August 2021 12:19

Matthews writes: "In 2020 and 2021, the federal government gave Americans an unprecedented amount of money."

A large part of the federal government's response to Covid-19 was to provide relief in specific essentials like food and housing. (photo: Tom Williams/Getty)
A large part of the federal government's response to Covid-19 was to provide relief in specific essentials like food and housing. (photo: Tom Williams/Getty)


Poverty Is a Policy Choice

By Dylan Matthews, Vox

12 August 21


The lesson from the past year: Poverty is a policy choice.

n 2020 and 2021, the federal government gave Americans an unprecedented amount of money.

A big part of the US’s response to Covid-19 was strengthening the existing safety net, or providing relief specific to particular types of spending, like food or housing. Food stamp/SNAP benefits were raised. Evictions were barred nationwide for over a year.

But the core of the response was an unprecedentedly large and inclusive set of stimulus checks directly shoveling money to most Americans. In three rounds — March and December 2020 and March 2021 — most adult Americans got $3,200 each, and most American children got $2,500. Then, starting in July 2021, most American children started getting $250 every month, with young kids getting $300 a month.

These are broad-based policies with only quite wealthy Americans excluded from benefits. The first round of stimulus payments, for instance, were available to 93 percent of Americans, with only the richest 7 percent left out. But unlike stimulus checks passed during the 2001 and 2008 downturns, the 2020-2021 checks were universal at the bottom of the income scale. They had no work requirement or requirement that recipients paid federal taxes in the past.

That means that the stimulus checks should have had a profound effect on poverty this past year or so — and that’s exactly what researchers are finding.

In March, researchers at Columbia led by Zachary Parolin estimated that as a result of President Joe Biden’s stimulus package, the American Rescue Plan, the US poverty rate would fall to 8.5 percent, the lowest figure on record and well below 2018’s figure of 12.8 percent. This past month, researchers at the Urban Institute, using a slightly different means of measuring poverty, found that 2021 poverty will be around 7.7 percent, almost a halving relative to 2018’s rate of 13.9 percent per their methodology. (Official US Census poverty statistics for 2020 have not yet been released.)

The Columbia authors find that if you compare 2021 to every year for which the census does have data, from 1967 to 2019, and use a consistent poverty line, 2021 is projected to have the lowest poverty rate on record.


Considering that the US endured a pandemic and economic shock in 2020, these numbers are remarkable.


That’s the big news, and it’s good. It’s important, though, to dig a little deeper into what these studies are projecting — and what it could mean for future policymaking. Much of the credit for lower poverty in their models goes to the stimulus checks. And while the Biden administration hopes to keep the $250/$300 per month checks to parents going, the periodic rounds of stimulus payments during the height of the pandemic were meant to be temporary emergency measures.


That means that, absent further government action, poverty could be set to increase again in 2022.

The good news is that Americans learned a key lesson during the pandemic: Poverty is a policy choice, and it can be easily reduced through increased government support.

The bad news is that the government, particularly swing senators hesitant about spending too much money, might see that choice, and make the wrong one.

How we measure poverty, briefly explained

The convergence of research finding that poverty took a major hit is a big deal. One thing that’s important to understand is that measuring poverty is actually trickier than it might seem. How exactly do you measure it? What counts as poor? And are the metrics researchers set really showing the thing they want to capture?

Take, for instance, the official poverty measure that the government uses. This was developed by the Social Security Administration’s Mollie Orshansky in 1963. Orshanksy defined the income cutoff for poverty as three times the “subsistence food budget” for a family of a given size. That subsistence food budget, in turn, was derived from an “Economy Food Plan” developed by the USDA in 1961, based on data from the 1955 Household Consumption Survey.

In other words, the way we measure poverty in 2021 is based on an analysis from 1963 using data from 1955.

The official measure has other problems. The way it defines income leaves out in-kind benefits like food stamps or housing assistance. More relevant to this round of studies of poverty in 2020, the official measure only counts pre-tax income, meaning refundable credits like the child tax credit and the 2020-2021 stimulus payments (which were technically structured as tax credits) don’t count for poverty purposes.

The upshot? The official poverty measure shouldn’t move at all in response to the stimulus checks, or the strengthened child tax credit, or increased food stamp benefits. Even though all those measures make life materially easier for people in poverty, the official measure ignores them. It’s just another way in which the official measure is outdated, and highlights how limited this picture of poverty in America is.

That’s why these new studies are so important. Combined, they really start to give us an accurate picture of poverty in the current stimulus era.

What the new poverty studies say

Because the methods used in each study are so different, it’s striking that they reached a very similar conclusion: Poverty in 2021 will be much lower than it was in 2018, and it will be lower largely because of anti-poverty programs.

The Columbia researchers estimated that the December 2020 relief bill (which reintroduced supplemental unemployment checks and sent out $600 checks) reduced poverty in 2021 from 13.6 percent to 12.3 percent; the Biden stimulus, including $1,400 checks, additional unemployment support, and the enhanced child tax credit, cut it further to 8.5 percent. Without these interventions, poverty would’ve been higher than in 2018, not lower.

Meanwhile, the Urban Institute team broke down the anti-poverty effects program by program. The stimulus checks alone lifted some 12.4 million people from poverty this year, their research finds. Food stamps, including Covid-related improvements, removed another 7.9 million people from poverty, while unemployment insurance (both the base program and Covid-19 bonuses) lifted another 6.7 million people out.

Another Columbia project, for which Parolin is also the lead researcher, uses a different dataset to attempt to estimate poverty every month during the pandemic. This is a slightly different project than estimating annual poverty; for instance, it implies that for people who got the $1,400 checks in March 2021, the checks reduced poverty that month, but did nothing for poverty in April. But this data still underscores how important Covid-specific policies like those have been for reducing poverty. Without relief measures, poverty rates would be much higher throughout much of the pandemic, as a trend line comparison shows.


At the University of Chicago, Bruce Meyer and other policy researchers have their own monthly poverty measure that works slightly differently. Like the Columbia measure, it uses data from the monthly Current Population Survey — a census study that asks some 60,000 households every month about their income and other life conditions — to estimate the current poverty rate. It uses the official poverty measure threshold for income, but it includes sources of income the official measure excludes, in particular tax credits like the stimulus checks.

Their measure showed poverty falling substantially with the first round of stimulus checks in 2020. In February 2020, the last pre-pandemic month, poverty was 10.7 percent per their measure; in May, it bottomed out at 9.1 percent. But they then saw poverty steadily increase for the rest of the year, even continuing after the Biden stimulus, with June’s rate estimated at 11 percent, higher than before the pandemic.

That’s a striking finding, especially when you consider that the Columbia researchers also saw poverty increase in April and May after falling when stimulus checks began to go out in March. But the data from Meyer and his colleagues doesn’t account for some sources of financial support, like food stamps, which might partially explain why it finds higher poverty than other sources.

What the fall in poverty tells us

Poverty measurement is incredibly tricky, as the nuances above hopefully make clear. But the basic math of measuring poverty is rather simple. First, you pick a dollar amount. Then you find out how many people’s incomes fall below that dollar amount. Choosing what amount to use, and how to define income, is hard, but the basic concept requires nothing more than arithmetic.

This also implies that reducing poverty is pretty simple: Just put more money in people’s hands. That won’t necessarily be enough if, like the official poverty measure, your metric entirely ignores money the government gives out through tax credits. But by any normal poverty measure, handing out cash should reduce poverty.

This past year was a huge vindication of that insight. Years of research had suggested that cash programs don’t necessarily have the big downside their critics always highlight: discouraging work. If handing out cash led people to work dramatically fewer hours or to quit their jobs, then cash payments wouldn’t cut poverty by as much as they initially seem to.

Luckily, cash doesn’t seem to discourage work to that degree. In 2019, a group of economists and sociologists specializing in child poverty put together a major report for the National Academy of Sciences, and their estimate based on the research literature was that a cash benefit of $3,000 per year for all but the richest children would reduce work effort by about 1.15 hours a week on average — a fairly trivial amount that barely changes the antipoverty impact of such a program.

The effects of stimulus checks to adults, like those pursued in the past year, are surely different, but the evidence generally suggests that work disincentive effects of cash are small. University of Pennsylvania economist Ioana Marinescu, in a wide-ranging review of the effects of cash programs, concluded, “Our fear that people will quit their jobs en masse if provided with cash for free is false and misguided.”

All of which suggests that using cash to reduce poverty might really just be an arithmetic problem: give people enough money to escape poverty and they’ll escape poverty.

The US has been sending out a lot of cash during the pandemic. But that’s almost certainly coming to an end. The enhanced child tax credit is a policy many Democrats want to make permanent, or at least (as the Biden administration has proposed) extend for several more years. But the $1,200 and $600 and $1,400 stimulus checks were emergency measures, as were the $300/$600 weekly unemployment supplements.

All that implies that in 2022, when those measures are gone, poverty is likely to shoot back up again, even in a strong economy with robust job growth.

That doesn’t have to be the case. A permanent poverty reduction agenda could make sure we don’t only fight poverty in extreme conditions like pandemics.

The US could, for instance, boost unemployment benefits on a permanent basis, and implement triggers to increase benefits during downturns. Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden is working on a plan for this currently, and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) has a detailed outline of proposals along these lines as well.

We could also adopt a guaranteed income for adults to approximate the effect of the stimulus checks, as a permanent policy. Just as one example, a team at Ohio State’s Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, led by Naomi Zewde, have developed a proposal for a guaranteed income set at the national poverty line (currently $12,500) for adults, with $4,500 per year per child in extra benefits for families with kids.

Another, more modest, option would be to turn the standard deduction into a refundable tax credit. A single person could get monthly checks totaling, say, $2,761 per year — the same benefit someone in the 22 percent tax bracket gets from the standard deduction right now. That would make doing taxes simpler while reducing poverty.

But the broader point is not that we need any specific guaranteed income plan. The point is that poverty is a policy choice. The federal government can literally make the poverty rate whatever it likes. It could continue reducing poverty year after year, even after Covid-19 is over. It just needs to make that choice.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next > End >>

Page 21 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN