RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
RSN: Where Democracy Isn't a Spectator Sport Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=27921"><span class="small">Mort Rosenblum, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 08 October 2020 11:44

Rosenblum writes: "CBS Morning News starts each day with “Your World in 90 Seconds”: Trump, freak storms and fires, dueling politicos, seasonal sports and such oddments as Goldie Hawn bouncing on a trampoline. Places like, say, Belarus never seem to make the cut."

Belarusian opposition supporters light phones lights and wave an old Belarusian national flags during a protest rally in front of the government building at Independent Square in Minsk, Belarus, August 19, 2020. (photo: Dimitri Lovetsky/AP)
Belarusian opposition supporters light phones lights and wave an old Belarusian national flags during a protest rally in front of the government building at Independent Square in Minsk, Belarus, August 19, 2020. (photo: Dimitri Lovetsky/AP)


Where Democracy Isn't a Spectator Sport

By Mort Rosenblum, Reader Supported News

08 October 20

 

UCSON – CBS Morning News starts each day with “Your World in 90 Seconds”: Trump, freak storms and fires, dueling politicos, seasonal sports and such oddments as Goldie Hawn bouncing on a trampoline. Places like, say, Belarus never seem to make the cut.

“All that election trouble is over,” a friend replied when I mentioned Belarus. “Isn’t it?” No, America has just stopped watching. The strife-tossed little nation east of Poland, ex-Soviet Byelorussia, is still fighting to break free since a rusted Iron Curtain collapsed 30 years ago.

Had my grandmother not lost hope in the Russian Revolution she joined in Belarus at age 13, I’d likely be in the streets of Minsk facing water cannons among enraged citizens who take their democracy seriously. Their durable dictator stole the August 9 election, and they’re not having it.

Daily protests swell on Sundays to as many as 200,000 people. In proportion, that is as if four million Americans thronged the Mall in Washington. Riot police first tried brutality, wounding scores with hard-plastic bullets and clubs. Now they mostly herd demonstrators off to jail.

The Associated Press estimates more than 10,000 protesters are locked up, many facing long prison terms. Others fled into exile. Vladimir Putin is resisting President Alexander Lukashenko’s pleas for Russian troops to quell the insurgency, likely waiting until Americans make a choice.

Lukashenko claims 80 percent of the vote, a clear mandate to continue his 26 years of despotic rule. The official tally gave 10 percent to Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. She ran in place of her husband, Siarhei, after the popular dissident blogger was arrested in May. The Coordination Council she directs from Lithuania insists on a transparent do-over.

I’ve covered pro-democracy turmoil in a lot of countries, but Belarus is particularly poignant as America faces its most crucial election in history. And it’s personal.

As a kid under the czar, Anna Rosenblum, my grandmother, made matches each day in a factory until her fingers bled. She sneaked out to the woods near her town, Borisov, where older local firebrands rallied behind Moscow revolutionaries who promised Russians a decent life.

When bitter fighting broke out in 1917, Anna shielded her five kids on a farm. Her husband, in the Red Army, was tortured to death by Polish mercenaries. She hung on until Stalin twisted Lenin’s hopeful plans for Russia. In 1922, she herded her brood onto a ship in England. The boat just ahead of them sank in stormy seas, but the Rosenblums made it to Ellis Island.

The family was refused entry because an old scar from scarlet fever or diphtheria left a bald spot on my father’s scalp. No one remembers how Anna talked her way into America. From what I saw of her strength and courage in her last years, it is no surprise that she managed.

They settled with relatives in Wisconsin. My dad, at 14 with no English, endured little kids’ taunts in grade school. But, well-taught in Belarus, he finished high school in a year. He bought produce at dawn and worked at a small grocery, saving up enough to buy his own store.

Dad married my mother, whose parents had fled anti-Semitism and czarist brutality in Ukraine in 1903. She read voraciously, and her passion for Zane Grey prompted a vacation in Arizona during a hard winter in 1946. Soon after, we all moved to Tucson. I was three.

By today’s simplified labels, Anna was a raging leftist. She spoke her mind in no uncertain terms. But she was just a mother who wanted more for her kids than despots who flout their own stated principles and persecute racial and religious minorities they consider to be inferior.

In a family memoir, my uncle Lou captured the reality of her time, still on point today:

“We have to keep in mind that the revolution at that point was like fighting for Freedom Fighters. Communism/socialism had a marvelous constitution. The reality did not quite work out that well in some cases, particularly the police state now. But it was very easy for intelligent people to be impressed with the communist constitution and its goals.”

And for Jews, among others, it was more than about seeking opportunity. I almost certainly would not be on Minsk streets today. Hitler’s Nazis who occupied Borisov in the waning days of World War II herded 300,000 people in the surrounding area into six hastily-built death camps.

When we moved west, much of the clan stayed in Wisconsin, where Senator Joe McCarthy raged against communists in the 1950s, particularly those with roots in godless Russia. The family kept Anna’s blazing eyes and sharp tongue under wraps in Tucson.

The other day I came upon a Politico piece by David Glosser, a Boston neuropsychologist, about his own family’s flight to America from a Belarus shtetl in 1903 to escape the Czar’s vicious anti-Jewish pogroms and forced military conscription of children.

The Glosser patriarch reached Ellis Island with $8; his three languages did not include English. He and his son worked as peddlers and in sweatshops to pay debts back home, then buy passage for their family. As their fortunes grew, they employed many thousands over the decades.

This all matters because Glosser is Stephen Miller’s uncle.

“I have watched with dismay and increasing horror as my nephew, an educated man who is well aware of his heritage, has become the architect of immigration policies that repudiate the very foundation of our family’s life in this country,” he wrote, adding:

“I shudder at the thought of what would have become of the Glossers had the same policies Stephen so coolly espouses – the travel ban, the radical decrease in refugees, the separation of children from their parents, and even talk of limiting citizenship for legal immigrants – been in effect.”

The Glossers’ second wave arrived in 1906, just a few years before “America first” nativists back home closed borders to Jewish refugees. As in Borisov, Hitler’s stormtroopers exterminated Jews in their Belarus town of Antopol, leaving only seven among 2,000.

“I would encourage Stephen to ask himself if the chanting, torch-bearing Nazis of Charlottesville, whose support his boss seems to court so cavalierly, do not envision a similar fate for him.”

Trump’s family came for opportunity, not asylum. His grandfather left Germany to escape the draft. His mother fled dirt-poor rural Scotland. He finagled an “Einstein visa” for his wife, whose talents included posing nude. She brought her family via the chain migration he deplores.

In 2015, a bumper year for misery, 65.3 million people had to flee violence or famine, mostly from the Middle East and Africa. Angela Merkel accepted one million in Germany, defying far-right critics. A rich country has humanitarian obligations, she said.

Five years later, a Guardian survey found Germany was better off for it. No one who reports on immigration and refugees was surprised. Some newcomers cause trouble. Most work hard, pay taxes and send money home, which helps stem the desperate human tide.

The United States, which unlike Germany has worsened refugee crises with a belligerent foreign policy over decades, took in only 152,000 in 2015. Despite worsening climate collapse and terrorism, the Trump administration capped refugee arrivals at 18,000 for fiscal year 2020.

Stephen Miller and his boss say sealed borders make America safer. Seasoned diplomats know better. People who suffer in conditions they can’t escape do not disappear. Many young people join criminal gangs or terrorist groups that target countries they grow to hate.

In Belarus, the stakes are high. If Lukashenko prevails, Putin’s push back into Europe has an important foothold, like the ground he regained in Ukraine. Countries in Africa and Latin America may be less strategic, but they crank up the heat in a world on the boil.

And in the end, it is not only about “homeland security.” Grosser makes the point in scoring off his hard-hearted nephew:

“As free Americans, and descendants of immigrants and refugees, we have the obligation to exercise our conscience by voting for candidates who will stand up for our highest national values and will not succumb to our lowest fears.”



Mort Rosenblum has reported from seven continents as Associated Press special correspondent, edited the International Herald Tribune in Paris, and written 14 books on subjects ranging from global geopolitics to chocolate. He now runs MortReport.org.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Kamala Harris Wiped the Floor With Mike Pence While Walking a Tightrope Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11993"><span class="small">Jill Filipovic, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Thursday, 08 October 2020 11:14

Filipovic writes: "There was no real contest in the vice-presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Mike Pence. Harris wiped the floor with him."

'She was tough, assertive, funny, and charming, while Pence was patronizing and stiff.' (photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters)
'She was tough, assertive, funny, and charming, while Pence was patronizing and stiff.' (photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters)


Kamala Harris Wiped the Floor With Mike Pence While Walking a Tightrope

By Jill Filipovic, Guardian UK

08 October 20


As a black woman on the national stage, she knew she had to walk a thread-thin line. She did so perfectly

here was no real contest in the vice-presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Mike Pence. Harris wiped the floor with him. Pence ignored, patronized and talked over the two women in the room. Her strategy was cool competence. His was sexist entitlement.

This debate was less high-pitch without Donald Trump ranting and raving on stage. But it was frustrating in its own way – especially for any woman who has ever been in a room with an interjecting, condescending man. Pence repeatedly interrupted Harris, something she rarely did to him; he repeatedly talked over moderator Susan Page of USA Today when she told him his time was up; he repeatedly flouted the rules he had previously agreed to. The disrespect of women was tangible, and it happened over and over.

Harris had no such leeway to bulldoze either her opponent or the moderator. As a black woman on the national stage, she knew she had to walk a thread-thin line: Be likable, but authoritative; strong, but not “aggressive”. Interrupting Pence or even Page posed serious – and sexist – consequences with an electorate that has never seen a woman in the White House. But for better or worse, Harris is used to the Trump circus, and so she walked that tightrope deftly. She was tough, assertive, funny and charming, while Pence was patronizing and stiff.

Still, their interactions were enraging to watch – and familiar. If Pence and Trump want to win women, it was a bad showing for the vice-president. Already, Trump faces the largest gender gap since pollsters began recording the gender gap, with women overwhelmingly throwing their weight behind Joe Biden and Harris. Black women continue to be the steadiest Democratic voters out there. For all of the talk of Trump doing better with Hispanics, he’s actually doing better than he did in 2016 with Hispanic menHispanic women are overwhelmingly for Biden. And Trump has lost significant ground with white women. College-educated white women support Biden by huge margins, but Trump is also down among the working-class white women who, in 2016, were his strongest female supporters. Women know, viscerally, what it’s like to be in a room with a man like Mike Pence.

Of course, Pence was on the vice-presidential ticket in 2016, too, and women also know, viscerally, what it’s like to be in a room with a man like Donald Trump. And while Hillary Clinton won women handily, a disturbing number of women – most of them white women – nevertheless cast their ballots for an aggressive, incompetent accused sexual assailant. Living through sexism may make you more attuned to it, but it can also make you more accepting of it as “normal” or “just the way men are”. This certainly seems to be the case among many conservative women. Pence, memorably, does not permit himself to be alone with any woman who is not his wife, a woman he calls “mother”. That certainly prevents women who work for Pence from having the same opportunities as men. And it suggests that Pence does not believe he can trust himself – a disturbing insight into his psyche and his ability to perform the duties of his job.

At the debate, Pence was also cowardly and avoidant. Page asked remarkably pointed, straightforward questions; Pence barely answered a single one. Instead, he offered word salad or tangents related to previous questions or just flat-out lies. On everything from abortion to national security to Covid-19 to healthcare, Pence was congenitally incapable of giving a direct answer to a direct question. Harris, by contrast, was lucid, clear and straightforward. She’s a politician, too, and she also danced around the answers to some questions. But as a general rule, she answered. As a general rule, Pence did not.

No, Pence did not shout and sputter and bluster and refuse to shut up like his boss did at the presidential debate. But consider how low we’ve set the bar, and that Mike Pence barely cleared it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
COVID-Riddled Republicans Will Do Whatever It Takes to Confirm Amy Coney Barrett Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49764"><span class="small">Eric Lutz, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Thursday, 08 October 2020 08:10

Lutz writes: "Republicans had seemed poised to jam through their Supreme Court pick, Amy Coney Barrett, in the final weeks of the presidential election. But a COVID outbreak, seemingly stemming from her Rose Garden nomination ceremony, cast those plans in uncertainty."

Ron Johnson speaks to reporters in June. (photo: Stefani Reynolds/Getty)
Ron Johnson speaks to reporters in June. (photo: Stefani Reynolds/Getty)


COVID-Riddled Republicans Will Do Whatever It Takes to Confirm Amy Coney Barrett

By Eric Lutz, Vanity Fair

08 October 20


Don’t think for a second that three senators testing positive for coronavirus will stop Republicans from voting for their SCOTUS pick.

epublicans had seemed poised to jam through their Supreme Court pick, Amy Coney Barrett, in the final weeks of the presidential election. But a COVID outbreak, seemingly stemming from her Rose Garden nomination ceremony, cast those plans in uncertainty. In addition to Donald Trump, several aides, associates, and three GOP senators have so far tested positive for the coronavirus, threatening to delay the last-minute proceedings and maybe even leaving Mitch McConnell short of the votes he needs to confirm the president’s replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

But Republicans are brushing aside the idea that a spate of infections at the White House and on Capitol Hill will prevent them from confirming Barrett before Election Day. Perhaps taking their cue from Trump, who has continued to take a cavalier approach to the coronavirus, even as he remains contagious, the GOP is bragging that they’re not not going to let a little coronavirus get in the way of their 6–3 majority. “We will not stop working for the American people,” McConnell said Monday, announcing that Barrett’s hearings will begin next week, “because Democrats are afraid they may lose a vote.”

Barrett’s confirmation, once seemingly a sure thing for the GOP, was abruptly thrown into jeopardy after three Republican senators—Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson and two members of the Judiciary Committee, Mike Lee and Thom Tillis—tested positive for COVID-19. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for a delay in the proceedings, saying the hybrid hearings McConnell is planning wouldn’t be adequate and that in-person hearings could be dangerous. “If it’s not safe for the Senate to be in session,” he said over the weekend, “it’s not safe for the hearings to go forward.” Ah, but who gives a shit about safety? Certainly not Republicans, who have continued to dismiss the gravity of the virus now spreading through their ranks.

“If we have to go in and vote, I’ve already told the leadership, I’ll go in in a moon suit,” Johnson said in a radio interview Monday. “We think this is pretty important.”

The fight over the late Ginsburg’s seat on the bench had already been ugly, given the GOP’s shameless reversal on confirming justices in an election year and the threat Barrett may pose to abortion rights and gay marriage. (Further raising the stakes was the stinging criticism Monday by conservatives Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito of the court’s 2015 same-sex marriage ruling.) But the whole exercise has gotten even more grotesque with the coronavirus thrown into the mix.

Not only does fast-tracking Barrett for a lifetime appointment seem even more slapdash with COVID interrupting the confirmation process, the GOP’s going about business as usual, even as the virus tears through their ranks, taking the party’s dangerous dismissal of the pandemic to new and staggering heights. Trump kept traveling—debating Joe Biden, appearing at campaign events, meeting with donors—after likely being exposed to, and later testing positive for, COVID. After being hospitalized, he subjected his security detail to the deadly virus for the sake of a ride-about to wave at supporters. And on Monday, with his condition unclear but almost certainly still contagious, he returned to the White House and promptly began downplaying the danger of the disease that’s killed more than 210,000 Americans.

Trump’s behavior has gone from extremely dangerous to practically homicidal, but he’s not alone. His aides have continued to flout public health precautions like mask-wearing. Lawmakers who have been infected or been exposed to the virus have gone out in public; Johnson attended a Wisconsin event while awaiting his test results, and a trio of Minnesota Republicans who’d been on Air Force One with the infected Trump flew on a commercial Delta flight Friday, in violation of the airline’s policy. (The three have tested negative.) “There’s a level of unjustifiable hysteria” surrounding the virus, Johnson said in the radio interview. The Trump campaign is also pushing ahead, with Mike Pence set to hold a MAGA rally in Arizona, events that have drawn thousands of mostly mask-less Trump supporters. Meanwhile, the West Wing COVID outbreak continues to grow.

There is, however, at least one Republican who acknowledges the threat COVID poses. McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor Monday, warned of the “danger of this terrible virus.” “We all need to remain vigilant,” he said. “We all need to remain careful.” Those may seem uncharacteristically sober words to hear from a Republican, but he does have a Supreme Court seat riding on this, after all.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
4 Takeaways From the Mike Pence - Kamala Harris Vice Presidential Debate Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53651"><span class="small">Deirdre Walsh, NPR</span></a>   
Thursday, 08 October 2020 08:10

Walsh writes: "After a raucous debate between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden last month that was marked by constant interruptions, name-calling and a moderator unable to control the discussion, Wednesday night's vice presidential debate marked a return to a more traditional affair."

Vice President Pence speaks during the vice presidential debate with Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City on Wednesday. (photo: Eric Baradat/Getty)
Vice President Pence speaks during the vice presidential debate with Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City on Wednesday. (photo: Eric Baradat/Getty)


4 Takeaways From the Mike Pence - Kamala Harris Vice Presidential Debate

By Deirdre Walsh, NPR

08 October 20

 

fter a raucous debate between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden last week that was marked by constant interruptions, name-calling and a moderator unable to control the discussion, Wednesday night's vice presidential debate marked a return to a more traditional affair.

It's unclear whether it will be the last debate of the 2020 presidential campaign. Trump, who is recovering at the White House and sidelined — at least for the moment — from the campaign trail after being hospitalized with COVID-19, said Thursday he's "not going to do a virtual debate" after the independent commission that runs the debates announced that the second presidential debate, which had been scheduled for Oct. 15 in Miami, will now be virtual. Trump called the format "a waste of time," adding he had no advance notice of the change.

While most voters don't base their decision on the vice presidential candidates, 2020's contest is possibly different. Biden is 77 and has presented himself as a "transitional" figure to the Democratic Party's next generation. And the president is 74 and has contracted a serious illness.

The vice presidential debate wasn't likely to change many voters' minds or shift the trajectory of the race, but it showed sharp contrasts between the two parties' agendas for the economy, health care and more. Here are four takeaways from the vice presidential debate between Vice President Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.:

1. The 2020 election still hinges on the coronavirus.

From the outset of the debate the pandemic was center stage. Spectators were warned not to remove their masks. The candidates sat at desks more than 12 feet apart and separated by plexiglass shields. It was also the first topic.

Harris was aggressive, seizing on the Democratic ticket's central argument that the Trump administration's handling of the novel coronavirus was "the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country." She accused the president of covering up information about the virus when he was briefed in January by his national security team, and she argued that Trump still didn't have a plan to combat the disease.

Pence defended the president's record and pointed to Trump's decision to restrict travel from China at the end of January as evidence that he took the threat seriously. He noted that the Biden-Harris team's plan to address the coronavirus with testing and the development of a vaccine mirrored actions the administration has already taken. "It looks a little bit like plagiarism," Pence said.

He also attempted to portray Harris' criticism of the administration's response as an attack on the sacrifices Americans have made during the crisis, an answer that seemed to fall flat.

Throughout the debate, whether the question was about the economy or health care, Harris returned to the administration's response to the pandemic.

Pence, in turn, touted what he called record-setting progress on developing a vaccine and pledged, as the president has before, that millions of doses would be available by the end of the year.

Harris said she would take a vaccine approved by medical professionals, but "if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I'm not taking it."

Pence said Harris was seeking to "undermine public confidence" in the effort to develop and approve a vaccine. "Stop playing politics with people's lives," he said.

2. There was an actual debate this time, but not necessarily answers to the moderator's questions.

There was far less interrupting, angry cross-talk and fewer personal attacks than in the presidential debate. Moderator Susan Page, Washington bureau chief of USA Today, called for a "respectful exchange" and regularly reminded the candidates that answers should be "uninterrupted."

Pence and Harris didn't always comply. And Harris pushed back, calling out Pence when he started to step on her answers or take away from her time. She scolded him with, "Mr. Vice President, I'm speaking. I'm speaking" — making it clear she wasn't going to let a male debate opponent get away with any intimidation tactics.

Both candidates frequently sidestepped questions altogether. The moderator chose to move on to new topics rather than pose follow-up questions, which was a lost opportunity on some key issues that could have made news or at least educated voters about the candidates' positions. Both ignored a key question that could be top of mind with Biden's age and the president's illness — what would you do if the president became incapacitated?

Pence didn't answer how a Trump-Pence administration would protect preexisting conditions if the Affordable Care Act is struck down by the Supreme Court. He also didn't explain what he would do if the president didn't accept the election results or agree to a peaceful transition of power.

Harris refused to answer a question posed by both the moderator and again by Pence about whether she backed what many liberal activists are pushing: adding justices to the Supreme Court — court packing. Biden dodged the same question in the first debate.

Both also evaded a question about what they thought states should do if the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, which would leave the states to write abortion laws.

3. Candidates' strategies reflected the state of the campaign — Pence attacked Biden-Harris as extreme; Harris pivoted to Trump's record on the coronavirus.

Pence's debate style is almost polar opposite of the president's. He was calm and disciplined and came prepared to paint the Biden-Harris ticket as captive to the extreme left of the Democratic Party, specifically on economic issues.

The economy has consistently been the GOP ticket's strongest issue with voters, but that strength has declined as the country struggles with job losses and business closures. The vice president cited an analysis that Harris in 2019 was the U.S. Senate's most liberal member, and he repeatedly linked the Democratic ticket with the Green New Deal, a proposal pushed by progressives in Congress to remake the economy with a new energy infrastructure. Although Harris backed the proposal prior to her nomination, Biden has not.

Pence also asserted that Biden's vow to roll back the president's 2017 tax cuts would translate into tax increases on Americans as soon as he took office, though in fact that would take an act of Congress.

Harris appeared in the crowded Democratic primary debates, but she has had less experience on the debate stage one-on-one. She leaned on her skills as a prosecutor and came with a mission to hammer the case against Trump's handling of the pandemic and the fallout for the economy. She made Pence Trump's stand-in on the subject.

In several exchanges, Harris sidestepped directly answering questions from the moderator and instead shifted the conversation to Trump. She used a question about the Breonna Taylor case in Kentucky to remind the audience of one stunning moment in the Biden-Trump debate, when the president declined to denounce white supremacists.

4. A fly generated the most buzz.

The debate didn't generate much news or many knockout lines, so when a fly landed and remained on the vice president's head for over two minutes, people were transfixed and many took to social media, unable to resist weighing in with jokes. Enormous attention was given to health precautions, ventilation systems and testing of attendees at the debate site. But the appearance of one insect was a scenario no one prepared for, and it was hard to ignore.

Shortly after the debate ended, the Biden campaign posted an ad for a branded fly swatter.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump Reduced Workplace Safety Enforcement - Then Workers Died While Begging for Help Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54307"><span class="small">David Sirota, Jacobin</span></a>   
Wednesday, 07 October 2020 11:26

Excerpt: "New data shows that COVID-19-related deaths followed after workers requested help from federal safety officials. Instead of helping, Donald Trump reduced enforcement of workplace safety laws."

Dipar Patel, a cashier at Hitt Mini Mart in Columbia, Missouri, worked 12-hour shifts during the early days of the Covid crisis. (photo: Alex Edelman/Getty)
Dipar Patel, a cashier at Hitt Mini Mart in Columbia, Missouri, worked 12-hour shifts during the early days of the Covid crisis. (photo: Alex Edelman/Getty)


Trump Reduced Workplace Safety Enforcement - Then Workers Died While Begging for Help

By David Sirota, Jacobin

07 October 20


New data shows that COVID-19–related deaths followed after workers requested help from federal safety officials. Instead of helping, Donald Trump reduced enforcement of workplace safety laws.

o help their corporate donors boost profits and stock prices, Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers have pushed hard to force workers back into unsafe workplaces. During the pandemic, the GOP has brushed off science and reopened economies, demanded liability shields for employers, ended special pandemic unemployment relief, helped Amazon block a worker safety initiative, and encouraged states to punish workers who don’t return to their jobs.

For those forced back to COVID-19–infected workplaces, the Trump administration has weakened the agency that is supposed to be policing workplace safety. And now a new study shows the results: death rates spiked almost immediately after workers pleaded with that agency to help, but were likely ignored.

The analysis of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) data comes from researchers at Harvard, Boston Children’s Hospital, and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. It shows that “there is a correlation between OSHA complaints and COVID-19 mortality” — in specific, COVID-19–related complaints to the agency “are correlated with [COVID-19–related] deaths 17 days later.”

During the pandemic, researchers note that OSHA “has not issued any emergency or permanent standard specific to COVID-19 exposure at the workplace” and “had issued only four citations related to COVID-19.”

Meanwhile, the report notes that “the total number of federal OSHA inspections (of any kind) during 2020 has been reduced by two-thirds, compared to the same period in prior years.”

This graph shows how OSHA complaints almost perfectly reflected waves of coronavirus deaths. The graph tells the tragic story of workers crying out to OSHA for help, then being ignored, then dying:


A graph showing the correlation between national OSHA complaints and COVID-19 deaths per million.

“The Lowest Number of Inspectors in the Agency’s 48-Year History”

The situation at OSHA isn’t some random accident, and it isn’t just an agency hamstrung by the pandemic. It is the result of deliberate policy decisions.

A 2019 report from the National Employment Law Project found that workplace fatalities have hit a decade-high just as Trump has presided over a decline in OSHA enforcement activity. OSHA “now has the lowest number of health and safety inspectors in the agency’s 48-year history,” according to the study.

A 2020 report from the Center for Public Integrity found that OSHA has conducted fewer safety inspections under Trump than under Obama, even though the nation’s workforce has increased. That report also found that during the pandemic, OSHA inspections have dropped by roughly two-thirds.

At the same time, ProPublica reports that the Trump administration has “mothballed or outright killed” the Labor Department advisory boards that were created “to improve health, safety and whistleblower protections in nearly every facet of the workforce.”

Trump Reduces Deterrents to Unsafe Workplaces

These policy decisions have together reduced a key deterrent to corporate misbehavior.

For instance, the threat of a workplace inspection often incentivizes employers to adhere to safety standards. A 2012 study of California work sites found that “randomly inspected employers experienced a 9.4% decline in injury rates and a 26% reduction in injury cost” — and “no evidence that these improvements came at the expense of employment, sales, credit ratings, or firm survival.”

The Trump administration’s reduction in those inspections likely results in the opposite effect.

Similarly, the threat of big fines tells corporations that if they violate safety standards, they could face financial punishment. Under Trump, though, those fines have been minuscule during the pandemic, even as death rates have skyrocketed.

With OSHA failing to issue mandatory safety standards, “the agency hasn’t proposed a single penalty greater than $30,000 for coronavirus-related risks,” reports Politico.

In one instance that has prompted protests, OSHA fined meatpacking giant JBS just $15,000 after 290 workers were infected with the virus.

Workers Are Collateral Damage in Republicans’ Effort To Enrich GOP Donors

None of this makes any sense if the goal is protecting workers — but all of it makes sense if the goal instead is to protect the corporations that bankroll the Republican Party.

That is clearly the GOP’s top objective regardless of how many people are killed in the process — and you can even see it in the Supreme Court situation. Trump and Senate Republicans are right now trying to force lawmakers and congressional staff into the COVID-19 hot zone exploding in the US Capitol in order to try to install another corporate rubber stamp on the Supreme Court, which would ultimately boost corporate profits and crush workers.

Horrifying as that sociopathic plan is, it is merely a microcosm of the GOP’s larger project: their entire agenda is designed to force workers into unsafe workplaces in order to help their corporate donors.

Those donors want a right-wing Supreme Court, and they don’t care how many federal workers are killed to make that happen.

Similarly, they want an entire American workforce that is legally barred from suing employers, financially punished for refusing to return to unsafe workplaces, and unable to call the workplace cops when lives are put in danger.

In short, corporate interests want a legal system that turns workers into collateral damage in the quest for profit — and that’s exactly what the GOP is giving them.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 Next > End >>

Page 331 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