RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Trump May Be Committing Obstruction of Justice in Plain Sight Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46833"><span class="small">Barbara McQuade, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Tuesday, 26 February 2019 09:31

McQuade writes: "Trump may be attempting to negate the ability of prosecutors to prove an essential element of an obstruction charge: corrupt intent."

Robert Mueller. (photo: NBC)
Robert Mueller. (photo: NBC)


Trump May Be Committing Obstruction of Justice in Plain Sight

By Barbara McQuade, The Daily Beast

26 February 19


Trump may be attempting to negate the ability of prosecutors to prove an essential element of an obstruction charge: corrupt intent.

obsters say that the safest place to hide is, often, just out in the open. When it comes to obstruction of justice, President Donald Trump may be adopting the same strategy.

The New York Times on Tuesday chronicled President Donald Trump’s efforts to discredit law enforcement investigations that have affected his presidency. By pulling together two years of reporting, the Times tells a remarkable story of Trump’s efforts to undermine the investigations by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and others. Of course, we may not know all that has happened behind closed doors, but the Times piece highlights how much of Trump’s conduct has been done in plain sight.

Obstruction of justice is a crime that is usually committed covertly and in the shadows to conceal it from detection. Criminals destroy or alter evidence when no one is looking. They coordinate lies with associates and remind them to tell no one. They use intermediaries to quietly communicate veiled threats to kill witnesses or harm family members who might testify against them. “You have a lovely daughter,” a mobster might say. “it would be a shame if something should happen to her.”

Trump, by contrast, seems to be attempting to obstruct the special counsel’s investigation in broad daylight. Why? It may be a deliberate strategy to maintain deniability. By using Twitter and public remarks to intimidate investigators and delegitimize law enforcement, Trump may be attempting to negate the ability of prosecutors to prove an essential element of an obstruction charge: corrupt intent. If he were intending to obstruct justice, the strategy goes, would he have done so publicly? Of course not! Therefore, he lacks the requisite intent to commit the crime.

Robert Mueller’s investigation into coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign regarding interference in the 2016 presidential election poses an existential threat to Trump’s presidency. One would expect that a president under investigation would say that while the investigation is baseless, he welcomes it nonetheless because it will confirm that he has done nothing wrong. Instead, Trump has gone on the offensive. He has attacked Mueller as “conflicted,” Mueller’s team as “13 angry Democrats,” former FBI Director James Comey as a leaker and liar, and the list goes on. In his tweets and in his public remarks, Trump asks for protection from his attorney general, and uses terms like “witch hunt,” “hoax,” and “deep state” to attack the probe and the investigators.

These remarks may be more than angry tirades. The Times piece tells a story of a deliberate strategy, coordinated with some House Republicans, to attack federal law enforcement to undermine the investigation. According to the story, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), until recently the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has helped promote a false theory that President Obama ordered an illegal wiretap of Trump Tower. Nunes also authored a memo that attempted to discredit an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for surveillance on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

In soliciting the help of congressional Republicans, Trump isn’t just potentially obstructing investigations into his conduct. He’s also fortifying his political standing. Department of Justice policy holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted; meaning that the most serious consequence Trump can face is impeachment. By attacking the investigators, Trump could very well be attempting to persuade Republicans in Congress not to impeach and convict him on grounds that the investigation was faulty or biased. And, again, it’s all happening out in the open.

The in-plain-sight strategy goes back to the 2016 campaign. Mueller’s investigation has alleged that Russia had stolen email messages from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and shared them with Wikileaks for publication. During the summer of 2016, Trump publicly stated, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” At the time, the statement was dismissed as a bad joke. Upon further scrutiny, though, this statement may be seen in a new light. Mueller has already charged Russian intelligence officials with conspiracy to hack, steal, and stage the release of email messages to harm Hillary Clinton’s campaign. If Trump was coordinating with Russia in the effort to stage the release of the emails, did he make those remarks in public in an effort to avoid allegations of a coverup?  

One tell that prosecutors often look for in investigating crimes that require specific intent, as the obstruction statute does, is evidence that tends to show “consciousness of guilt.” The theory is that the person would resort to certain unusual behavior only because he knew that what he was doing was wrong. This unusual behavior might come in the form of telling a lie to conceal certain conduct. It might be going to great inconvenience to cover one’s tracks. Or it could be doing things secretly to avoid detection. This type of evidence can be a gift to prosecutors because it helps to establish the person’s guilty intent. When something is done out in the open, on the other hand, it is harder to show that the person knew that what he was doing was illegal. It is worth contemplating that this may be Trump’s actual strategy.

As the Times story says, people tend to dismiss Trump’s criticism of investigators as “Donald Trump being Donald Trump.”  If Donald Trump turns out to be a co-conspirator with Russia, then this statement may be more ominous than it appears.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Chicago Cop's Sentence for Killing a Black Teenager Is 'Exceptionally Short' Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50248"><span class="small">Rob Arthur, The Appeal</span></a>   
Tuesday, 26 February 2019 09:25

Arthur writes: "Jason Van Dyke's sentence for the 2014 murder of Laquan McDonald is approximately half the average sentence for a person convicted of second-degree murder in Cook County, Illinois."

Demonstrators protest as they celebrate the verdict in the murder trial of Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke along Michigan Avenue on October 5, 2018, in Chicago. Van Dyke was found guilty of second-degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery in the shooting death of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald on October 20, 2014. (photo: Anagraph/Joshua Lott/Getty Images)
Demonstrators protest as they celebrate the verdict in the murder trial of Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke along Michigan Avenue on October 5, 2018, in Chicago. Van Dyke was found guilty of second-degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery in the shooting death of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald on October 20, 2014. (photo: Anagraph/Joshua Lott/Getty Images)


Chicago Cop's Sentence for Killing a Black Teenager Is 'Exceptionally Short'

By Rob Arthur, The Appeal

26 February 19


Jason Van Dyke’s sentence for the 2014 murder of Laquan McDonald is approximately half the average sentence for a person convicted of second-degree murder in Cook County, Illinois.

n Jan. 19, a Cook County, Illinois, judge sentenced former Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke to 81 months in prison for the 2014 murder of Black teenager Laquan McDonald—a term about about half the average sentence in the county for a person convicted of second-degree murder. Van Dyke’s sentence was both exceptionally short and reflective of larger racial disparities in sentencing in Chicago.

According to my statistical analysis of more than 100,000 sentencings from 2011 to 2018 in Cook County, using data released by the state’s attorney’s office, white defendants receive sentences about 10 months shorter than Black and Hispanic defendants. Many factors can affect the length of a sentence, including the crime of which they are convicted, and age and gender. But even accounting for these factors, a significant bias against people of color remains.

Van Dyke’s sentence was shorter than about 90 percent of sentences in second-degree murder cases in Cook County. Of the sentences shorter than Van Dyke’s, none were found guilty of additional charges. The jury in the McDonald case, meanwhile, convicted Van Dyke on 16 counts of aggravated battery, one for each bullet he fired at the 17-year-old.

These findings are consistent with other reports describing significant racial bias in the courts in Cook County and nationally. In her 2017 book “Crook County,” Temple University professor of criminal justice Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve documented explicit racism in Cook County courtrooms, including instances of judges and sheriff’s officers alike mocking and abusing defendants. “Laughter, jokes and mocking of defendants during court proceedings” with courtroom microphones on are commonplace, Van Cleve wrote. This mistreatment has tangible consequences for defendants, particularly at sentencing. Researchers have found racial disparities in sentence length both nationally and in many state courts. “The studies are pretty consistent showing racial bias in sentencing,” said Mark W. Bennett, a federal judge and Drake University Law School professor.

“Typically, what researchers find is that racial disparities in sentencing … are incremental and cumulative,” said Nazgol Ghandnoosh, a research analyst with the Sentencing Project. “At each stage, there is some small amount of disparity, and that accumulates as you go through the criminal justice system.” Prior convictions, even for minor drug charges (for which Black people are more likely to be jailed, despite evidence that they use drugs no more often than whites), can result in longer subsequent sentences. Higher bails prevent some working class Black people from being able to be an advocate for themselves outside jail or to afford effective legal representation.

Longer sentences for Black, Hispanic defendants in a Cook County courtroom

But even after accounting for bias in other parts of the system, a small but significant disparity in sentencing remains attributable to judges. A study of federal sentencing by the United States Sentencing Commission found that from 2012 to 2016, Black men received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than whites, even after accounting for criminal history and other factors.

Controlling for other factors, Vincent M. Gaughan, the judge who presided over Van Dyke’s trial, sentenced Black defendants 16 months longer than white defendants and Hispanic defendants two years longer than whites, according to the Cook County data.

Gaughan based his sentence for Van Dyke on a second-degree murder charge, instead of the 16 aggravated battery charges against the former officer that would have carried a significantly longer total sentence. As well, Gaughan’s comments during Van Dyke’s sentencing appeared to draw an equivalence between his punishment and McDonald’s death, calling it “a tragedy on both sides.” The Illinois attorney general is reviewing Van Dyke’s sentence, questioning Gaughan’s decision to ignore the aggravated battery charges. On Feb. 11, the Illinois attorney general said that he is petitioning the state’s supreme court to order the resentencing of Van Dyke.

Judges frequently give favorable treatment to police officers like Van Dyke. “When [officers] get sentenced, they are often lighter sentences than what an average person would get,” said Cato Institute researcher Jonathan Blanks. Cato’s police misconduct project collected information on officers accused, charged, and convicted of criminal and civil wrongdoing nationally from 2015 to 2017. Using information from their database, Van Dyke’s sentence was unusually short even compared with other police officers. At least four cops sentenced on murder or assault charges in 2016 received sentences significantly longer than Van Dyke’s 81-month term.

Van Dyke’s atypically short sentence may have been the product of overlapping biases: favoring white defendants over people of color and cops over civilians. Although there’s a chance that Van Dyke’s sentence may be revised upward after the state supreme court’s review, the former police officer’s case demonstrates how the deck is stacked against underprivileged people and how difficult it is to hold cops accountable for crimes.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Plastics: The New Coal in Appalachia? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50249"><span class="small">James Bruggers, InsideClimate News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 26 February 2019 09:22

Bruggers writes: "With little notice nationally, a new petrochemical and plastics manufacturing hub may be taking shape along 300 miles of the upper reaches of the Ohio River, from outside Pittsburgh southwest to Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky."

With little notice nationally, a new petrochemical and plastics manufacturing hub may be taking shape along 300 miles of the upper reaches of the Ohio River, from outside Pittsburgh southwest to Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky. (photo: ICN)
With little notice nationally, a new petrochemical and plastics manufacturing hub may be taking shape along 300 miles of the upper reaches of the Ohio River, from outside Pittsburgh southwest to Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky. (photo: ICN)


Plastics: The New Coal in Appalachia?

By James Bruggers, InsideClimate News

26 February 19


With the natural gas fracking boom, plastics production is spreading in the Ohio River Valley. But at what cost to health and climate?

long the banks of the Ohio River here, thousands of workers are assembling the region's first ethane cracker plant. It's a conspicuous symbol of a petrochemical and plastics future looming across the Appalachian region.

More than 70 construction cranes tower over hundreds of acres where zinc was smelted for nearly a century. In a year or two, Shell Polymers, part of the global energy company Royal Dutch Shell, plans to turn what's called "wet gas" into plastic pellets that can be used to make a myriad of products, from bottles to car parts.

Two Asian companies could also announce any day that they plan to invest as much as $6 billion in a similar plant in Ohio. There's a third plastics plant proposed for West Virginia.

With little notice nationally, a new petrochemical and plastics manufacturing hub may be taking shape along 300 miles of the upper reaches of the Ohio River, from outside Pittsburgh southwest to Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky. It would be fueled by a natural gas boom brought on by more than a decade of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a drilling process that has already dramatically altered the nation's energy landscape—and helped cripple coal.

But there's a climate price to be paid. Planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from the Shell plant alone would more or less wipe out all the reductions in carbon dioxide that Pittsburgh, just 25 miles away, is planning to achieve by 2030. Drilling for natural gas leaks methane, a potent climate pollutant; and oil consumption for petrochemicals and plastics may account for half the global growth in petroleum demand between now and 2050.

Despite the climate and environmental risks, state and business leaders and the Trump administration are promoting plastics and petrochemical development as the next big thing, more than three decades after the region's steel industry collapsed and as Appalachian coal mining slumps.

"We have been digging our way out of a very deep hole for decades," said Jack Manning, president and executive director of the Beaver County Chamber of Commerce.

"When Shell came along with a $6-to-$7 billion investment ... we were in the right spot at the right time," he said.

Everyone wants jobs and economic growth, said Cat Lodge, who works with communities in the Ohio River Valley affected by the shale gas industry for the Environmental Integrity Project, a national environmental group. But not everyone wants them to be based on another form of polluting, fossil fuels, she said.

"While the rest of the world is dealing with global warming, Pennsylvania and Ohio and West Virginia are embracing developing plastics, and that just appalls me," Lodge says. "It's just not something I see as the future and unfortunately that seems to be the push to make that the future. And that's upsetting."

Lodge and her husband moved from Pittsburgh to the countryside 18 years ago in search of fresh air and open land. They have a small farm in a corner of rural western Pennsylvania, where winding roads trace the contours of Appalachian hills and a stark transition fueled by a shale gas boom is underway.

"We still love it, but little by little, and quickly over the last several years, we have become totally surrounded by the oil and gas industry," she said.

Rising Demand, but Also Pushback on Plastics

The natural gas that's pulled from deep underground in the Utica and Marcellus shale formations has done more than outcompete coal for electricity generation.

Drilling companies have also extracted a lot of natural gas liquids, particularly ethane, also called wet gas. It's used to produce ethylene, which then gets turned into plastics, providing an additional revenue stream for the oil and gas industry. It's the industry's latest play, and it comes at a time when industry analysts and the federal government say the demand for plastics is skyrocketing.


"These materials are hooked into just about every part of the economy, from housing to electronics to packaging," said Dave Witte, a senior vice president at IHS Markit, a global data and information service. "Today, the world needs six of these plants to be built every year to keep up with demand growth."

IHS Markit calls the Appalachian or upper Ohio River region "the Shale Crescent." Last year, it reported that the region's gas supplies could support as many as five large cracker plants, like the one Shell is building. The plants "crack" ethane molecules to make ethylene and polyethylene resin pellets and would be in close proximity to a number of manufacturers that use those products to make everything from paints to plastic bags.

IHS does see some headwinds, including an international backlash against plastics. It published a report last summer that found that worldwide pressure to reduce plastic use and increase recycling was one of the biggest potential disruptors for the plastics industry and was "putting future plastics resin demand and billions of dollars of industry investments at risk."

The oil and gas industry might find themselves with stranded assets, needing to abandon Ohio River valley communities, said Lisa Graves-Marcucci, a Pennsylvania-based organizer for the Environmental Integrity Project.

"Do they really care," she asked, "if they can make money for the first 10 years or 20 years of their operation, but then plastic goes away in the world? What happens to the communities that are left behind?"

She said she is also worried about such a major investment in oil and gas as the world grapples with the effects of climate change.

Visions of an Appalachian Plastics Hub

The idea for a plastics hub in Appalachia got a lift in December with a report to Congress from the U.S. Department of Energy. It described a proposal for the development of regional underground storage of ethane along or underneath the upper Ohio River.

Storage is needed to help provide a steady and reliable stream of ethane to ethane cracking plants, and it would be important for the development of a regional petrochemical complex in the upper Ohio River valley, the report concluded.

A West Virginia business, Appalachia Development Group LLC, has proposed developing storage for ethane, possibly in mined salt or limestone caverns deep underground. It's in the second phase of an application process for $1.9 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy for the project, according to the department.

"We have sites of interest in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia," said Jamie Altman, a representative of Appalachia Development Group. "We are aggressively pursuing private capital."

The Energy Department is thinking big, too.

Its report projects ethane production in the Appalachian basin would continue rapid growth through 2025 to a total of 640,000 barrels per day, more than 20 times greater than five years ago. By 2050, the agency said ethane production in the region is projected to reach 950,000 barrels per day.

China Energy signed an agreement with West Virginia in 2017 to potentially invest $84 billion in shale gas development and chemical manufacturing projects in the state. Late in January, West Virginia's development director, Mike Graney, told state senators that China Energy was looking at three undisclosed "energy and petrochemical" projects. An announcement could be made later this year, he said, though President Donald Trump's trade war with China was causing delays.

Other experts see a natural gas industry that's subject to booms and busts and question whether the region is headed down another unsustainable path, like coal.

"We are less optimistic than the industry that this will really boom out," said Cathy Kunkel, an energy analyst with Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, an environmental think tank that just published a report detailing how the natural gas industry in West Virginia hasn't lived up to earlier expectations for jobs and tax revenue.

There is a huge amount of international competition for plastic production, she said. "All of the major oil exporting countries in the Middle East are talking about making massive investments in petrochemicals over the next five years or so," she said. "That contains the risk that you will be exporting into a market that would be oversaturated with products."

The Energy Department report also cited "security and supply diversity" as a benefit of developing a new plastics and petrochemicals hub in Appalachia. The bulk of U.S. plastics and petrochemical plants are currently along the Gulf Coast, where they face supply disruptions caused by hurricanes, it said.

Vivian Stockman, the interim director of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition based in West Virginia, called that a "hugely ironic" justification for an Appalachian plastics hub, since science is showing that global warming can intensify hurricanes.

Economic Benefits, with Health Concerns

The Shell plant was lured to Beaver County by Pennsylvania officials with some $1.65 billion in tax incentives. It's scheduled to open "early next decade," company spokesman Ray Fisher said. This year, as many as 6,000 construction workers will be working on it, and Shell says it plans 600 permanent jobs to run the plant.

It's in Potter Township, a community with fewer than 700 residents. Rebecca Matsco, who chairs the township commission that gave Shell the local zoning permits, said she sees the plastics plant as an industrial upgrade from a dirty zinc smelter that had stood on the property for about a century, and that Shell cleaned up.

"It had become a real environmental burden, and we do feel like Shell has been a real partner in lifting that burden," Matsco said.

Others, however, see the cracker plant as its own environmental burden—a new source of emissions that cause lung-damaging smog and heat the planet.

People in Pittsburgh were sad to see so much of the steel industry go, but they don't miss the dirty skies, said Graves-Marcucci, an Allegheny County resident. The economic resurgence that followed was centered around health care, academic institutions and cleaner industries, she said.

Pittsburgh has been brushing off its sooty steel city past and is now pledging to slash its carbon emissions. But the Shell cracker plant alone, just 25 miles away, would emit 2.25 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, effectively wiping out nearly all the gains in carbon reduction that Pittsburgh plans to achieve by 2030, said Grant Ervin, Pittsburgh's chief resilience officer.

The Shell plant will also emit as much smog-forming pollution as 36,000 cars driving 12,000 miles year; that would equate to about a 25 percent increase in the number of cars in Beaver County, said James Fabisiak, an associate professor and director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities at the University of Pittsburgh.

The environmental and health threats will only increase with a plastics hub buildout, and no regulators are looking at those potential cumulative impacts, Graves-Marcucci said.

Two More Communities Could Get Cracker Plants

About 70 miles southeast of the Shell plant, another community waits for news about what could be the region's second major ethane cracker plant, in Belmont County, Ohio.

PTT Global Chemical, based in Thailand, and its Korean partner, Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd., could announce any day whether they intend to proceed with an ethane cracker plant after getting state permits in late December. That plant would be along a section of the Ohio River in Belmont County where hulking old manufacturing plants and shuttered businesses paint the very picture of the nation's Rust Belt.

"Do you know what the biggest export is from Belmont County? Our youth," said Larry Merry, an economic development officer with the Belmont County Port Authority, overlooking the Ohio River bottomlands where the cracker plant would be constructed on the cleared-away site of a former coal-fired power plant.

Merry, who has been working to secure the plastics plant, called the oil and gas industry "a great employer for us that's provided a lot of investment that's helped."

But it's not fully made up for losses in steel and coal, and this cracker plant "is about jobs and opportunities so people can make the most of their lives," he said.

He brushed aside any concerns about climate change or too much plastics. "How are we going to live and have products? Until you come up with a solution, don't expect the world to shut down," he said.

A spokesman for PTT American said he could not say when an investment decision will be made.

A third potential cracker plant is planned for Wood County, West Virginia, but it has been delayed because of unspecified "challenges" with its parent company, the Department of Energy report said.

"It just blows my mind that there could be three or four cracker plants, or even one," said Steve White, a western Pennsylvania builder. "That's some serious investment. It just shows you where everything is headed and how much development is coming."

White is also a pilot, and he said he has observed from the cabin of a Cessna 3,000 feet aloft the spread of oil wells, pipelines and processing plants across shale drilling zones in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, slicing up farms and encroaching on homes, schools and businesses.

"We are just in the way," he said.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Elizabeth Warren's Childcare Proposal Should Be Better Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50245"><span class="small">Matthew Bruenig, Jacobin</span></a>   
Monday, 25 February 2019 14:59

Bruenig writes: "Elizabeth Warren's childcare proposal is a good start - but it needs to go much further and be a truly free program guaranteed as a social right."

Little girl sits with a doll house and baby carriage, undated. (photo: simpleinsomnia/Flickr)
Little girl sits with a doll house and baby carriage, undated. (photo: simpleinsomnia/Flickr)


Elizabeth Warren's Childcare Proposal Should Be Better

By Matthew Bruenig, Jacobin

25 February 19


Elizabeth Warren’s childcare proposal is a good start — but it needs to go much further and be a truly free program guaranteed as a social right.

lizabeth Warren unveiled a childcare proposal earlier this week. The basic idea is to charge parents a fee equal to 0 to 7 percent of their income to attend various local childcare options with the federal government making up the rest of the cost of that care via grants. I told the Washington Post’s Jeff Stein that I thought it was a good start. Below are four other notes on it based on the way I think about this issue.

1. It needs a home childcare allowance.

In my Family Fun Pack program, parents are given the option of sending their kids to a free public childcare center or receiving a home childcare allowance if they prefer to care for young kids in the home. Warren’s plan currently does not offer support to stay-at-home carers, though her 2006 book The Two-Income Trap acknowledges that such support has to be part of a childcare benefit system.

Home childcare allowances, which provide cash to at-home carers, make a childcare benefit system equitable to all kinds of families and are especially important to rural people and immigrants, who disproportionately do childcare in the home.

2. The childcare should be free.

Nominal fees are not uncommon for childcare programs in the world, but I genuinely do not understand why they are being charged at all.

In the context of health care, the theory behind charging fees — deductibles, co-pays, coinsurance — to users is to discourage people from going to the doctor all the time. But this reasoning does not make sense in the context of childcare where we want people to utilize it and where it is not really possible to overutilize it in the same way that it is possible to overutilize health care.

One goal of charging the fees might be to raise revenue to fund the childcare system, but in that case it seems like you should use broad-based taxes that apply to all households not de facto 0 to 7 percent taxes applied only to households with children in childcare. It would be trivial to raise that amount of revenue from the universe of all households and would seemingly make the program more popular and fairer.

3. Cost control could be an issue.

As currently written, Warren’s proposal does not appear to contain any mechanism for controlling the underlying costs of the childcare itself. It promises to cap user fees at 0 to 7 percent of income, but then appears to offer open-ended subsidies for the remaining charges of each childcare center. Unless the plan also specifically caps how much childcare centers can charge the government, there is nothing to prevent childcare centers from escalating costs at will.

The ordinary mechanism for preventing such cost escalation would be that parents would choose the lower-priced centers over the higher-priced centers. But since parents pay a fixed percent of income regardless of which center they go to, that mechanism cannot operate. The 0 to 7 percent fee thus has all the downsides of “skin in the game” (the annoyance of out-of-pocket expenses) but none of the upsides (downward price pressure).

4. Economic growth claims are probably overstated.

Some proponents of childcare benefits argue that it would hugely boost the output of the economy. But these claims seem a bit exaggerated.

The general idea here is that, if childcare was more affordable, the employment rate would increase because people who currently cannot afford childcare will become able to do that. And once they are able to do that, they will be able to put their kid in day care and go to work rather than care for them in the home.

The first problem with this argument is that it relies upon the fact that only market labor is counted towards the country’s economic output. Thus, shifting some childcare from nonmarket labor to market labor mechanically boosts GDP even though it does not, by itself, increase the total amount of childcare being performed and thus does not actually increase total output.

In response to this point, advocates will acknowledge that the GDP measure will overstate the gains considerably, but also point out that the stay-at-home parent who is now able to go to work might produce more in the labor market than they produce at home (i.e., the value of their market labor is higher than the value of their home-care labor).

But the issue with this move is that the people who cannot currently afford childcare are also going to be disproportionately those whose market labor is not that “valuable.” Indeed, that is sort of the crux of their conundrum: they cannot afford childcare because their market labor does not fetch high enough wages.

In response to this point, advocates will say that remaining attached to the labor force during this period will make the workers more productive later on in life because they will have more experience and more skills. That is, being locked out of the labor force for a few years in early adulthood is a long-term drag on human capital.

This point — essentially a version of the hysteresis hypothesis for unemployment — is really the key to the theory of higher productivity, but as you can see it’s quite a bit more diluted a point than the one advocates initially make.

And even this point, which seems correct to me, may end up being a smaller deal than advocates think. Treatments of this issue assume that childcare benefits will cause larger increases in women’s employment than they probably will. The reason for this error is that there is little mainstream acknowledgement of the fact that lagging women’s labor force participation appears to be heavily driven by recent increases in immigration from Latin America and Asia. These populations are much more likely to organize their families along sole-earner / male-breadwinner lines than the overall population, which appears to be at least partially be culturally driven.

All of this is to say that the case for free (or subsidized) childcare is not that it will significantly grow the economy. It is that it redistributes income to families with young children, easing their often-severe financial strain, and gives all parents the ability to work outside of the home if that is what they want to do.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: It's Time to Complete the Revolution We Started Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=24193"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Monday, 25 February 2019 11:31

Sanders writes: "One week ago, when we launched our campaign for president, I asked people from across the country to sign up to be part of an unprecedented grassroots campaign. The response from the American people has been historic."

'We will have to take on powerful special interests that dominate our economic and political life.' (photo: Erik S Lesser/EPA)
'We will have to take on powerful special interests that dominate our economic and political life.' (photo: Erik S Lesser/EPA)


It's Time to Complete the Revolution We Started

By Bernie Sanders, Guardian UK

25 February 19


In 2016, our campaign began the political revolution. Now, it is time to defeat Donald Trump, complete that revolution and implement the vision we fought for

ne week ago, when we launched our campaign for president, I asked people from across the country to sign up to be part of an unprecedented grassroots campaign. The response from the American people has been historic.

In six days, more than one million people have answered the call. Americans from every single congressional district in the country have signed up to help lead a movement that is not only about defeating Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history, but about creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

This task will not be easy. Today, we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time since the 1920s, and the three wealthiest Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of our country.

Despite relatively low unemployment, millions of people work multiple jobs because they earn starvation wages, 34 million Americans have no health insurance, and we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

Shamefully, we treat our most vulnerable people with disdain. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major nation and a dysfunctional and unaffordable childcare system. While many Republicans want to cut Social Security, about half of older Americans have no retirement savings.

And, in the midst of all of that, we have a president who is a pathological liar, a fraud, racist, sexist, xenophobe, religious bigot and someone who is moving this country in an authoritarian direction.

To be successful in creating a government and economy that works for the many, we will have to take on powerful special interests that dominate our economic and political life – Wall Street, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry, the military-industrial-complex, the private-prison industry and multinational corporations. These special interests have extraordinary power, and they will spend enormous sums of money to maintain the status quo and their wealth.

The only way we will defeat Donald Trump and the special interests that support him is with a grassroots movement – the likes of which has never been seen in American history. We must stand together – women and men, black, white, Latino, Native American, Asian American, gay and straight, young and old, native born and immigrant – to address the challenges we face as a nation.

At a time when our infrastructure is crumbling and we have an affordable housing crisis, we can create millions of good paying jobs rebuilding our country. Together, we can raise the minimum wage to a living wage of $15 an hour, provide pay equity for women and guarantee all workers paid family and medical leave.

We cannot afford to wait any longer to address the existential threat of climate change. We must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy, creating millions of jobs in the process.

While we spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as any nation, our health outcomes are worse and life expectancy is in decline. It is time for us to join every other major country and guarantee health care to all people as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare-for-all program.

Unbelievably, Americans are saddled with $1.5tn in student loan debt and many young people can’t afford the cost of college. We must lower the egregious level of student debt and make public colleges and universities tuition-free.

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and African Americans are incarcerated at more than five times the rate of white people. Our job is to end the destructive “war on drugs,” eliminate private prisons and cash bail and bring about major police department reform.

Instead of demonizing undocumented immigrants as our current president has done, we should fight for comprehensive immigration reform, a path toward citizenship, immediate legal status for the young people eligible for the Daca program and a humane policy for those at the border who seek asylum.

At a time when women’s rights are under attack at the local, state and federal level, we must defend a woman’s right to control her own body.

To confront the epidemic of gun violence, we need to take on the NRA, expand background checks, end the gun show loophole and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons.

And finally, we must end Trump’s support for authoritarian leaders. We need a foreign policy which focuses on democracy, human rights, world peace, global wealth inequality, climate change and massive corporate tax evasion.

In 2016, our campaign began the political revolution. The ideas we fought for, which then were considered “radical” or “extreme,” are now supported by a majority of Americans. Now, it is time to defeat Donald Trump, complete that revolution and implement the vision we fought for.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 Next > End >>

Page 964 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