#republican cuts to government healthcare programs

[tomorrowusa]

Sadly, in the United States it's cheaper to take lives than to same lives.

For example...

‘No one should have to be fighting cancer and insurance at the same time’

And MAGA Republicans can hardly wait to make healthcare even more expensive and difficult than it is now...

Millions could lose health insurance to pay for Trump tax cuts

Yep, your healthcare benefits could go out the window so that MAGA Republicans can give MEGA tax breaks to overpaid insurance executives so the latter can then increase their campaign contributions to the GOP.

[wiisagi-maiingan]

Veterans: The government needs to actually help us with housing and healthcare instead of abandoning us to live with PTSD and disabilities and no support.

Republicans: We're going to massively cut all government programs that help anyone with housing and healthcare.

Veterans: Well you've got my vote!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Maggie Fox at The Fuller Project, via The Guardian:

As they prepare to take control of the White House and Congress next month, conservatives are eyeing cutbacks to federal programs that help tens of millions of women pay for healthcare, food, housing and transportation. Slashing or overhauling social support programs, long a goal of Republican lawmakers, could be catastrophic for women experiencing poverty. Supporters contend the social safety-net programs are already grossly underfunded.

“With this new administration that is coming in … I really am concerned about the lives of women. We are seeing so many policies, so many budget cuts,” said Christian Nunes, president of the National Organization for Women. Republicans say they want to keep campaign promises to cut government spending, and three major programs make easy targets: Medicaid, the joint state/federal health insurance program for people with lower incomes; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a cash-allowance program that replaced welfare; and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), widely known as food stamps. While conservatives frame cuts as making government more efficient and even restoring freedom, advocates for and experts on families with little or no income say reducing these programs will throw more people – especially women and children – further into poverty. “It is going to fall heavily on women,” said Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow in the Income and Benefits Policy Center at the Urban Institute, a non-profit research organization.

Predicting precisely what Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration will do is difficult. Congressional leaders are close-mouthed about negotiations, and the president-elect has not finished putting together his advisory team. None of the spokespeople contacted for this story returned calls or e-mails. But organizations known to advise top leaders in Congress and the previous Trump administration have laid out fairly detailed roadmaps. Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for the incoming administration, denies its proposed changes will harm women, saying instead that marriage and “family values” will improve their economic situations. “Marriage, healthy family formation, and delaying sex to prevent pregnancy are virtually ignored in terms of priorities, yet these goals can reverse the cycle of poverty in meaningful ways,” reads the section on proposed changes to TANF and Snap.

Numerous other groups that have studied the problem say forcing or even encouraging marriage will not make poverty disappear. And a recent study by a team at the University of South Carolina found that when state laws make it harder for pregnant women to get divorced, they’re more likely to be killed by their partners. Trump has promised not to attack the two most expensive and popular government programs: social security and Medicare. But he and Congress are up against a deadline to extend his 2017 tax reforms, which raised the federal deficit. They’ll have to cut something, and social spending programs, especially the $805bn Medicaid program, are low-hanging fruit for conservatives. Trump repeatedly tried to slash Snap during his last tenure in office: his 2021 budget proposal would have cut the program by more than $180bn – nearly 30% – over 10 years. Conservatives in Congress have continued these efforts and, with majorities in the House and Senate, they may be able to get them through next year. The Republican Study Committee, whose members include about three-quarters of the House Republican caucus, recommends more work requirements for Snap and TANF.

[...] Snap currently helps 41 million people buy groceries and other necessities every month. Women accounted for more than 55% of people under 65 receiving Snap benefits in 2022, according to the National Women’s Law Center, a gender justice advocacy group. About one-third of them were women of color, the NWLC said. Among other things, cutting these programs will trap women in dangerous situations, the NWLC said: “SNAP helps survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault establish basic economic security.” TANF, which provides cash assistance, overwhelmingly benefits women. In 2022, 370,000 TANF adult recipients were female and 69,000 were male, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Perhaps Medicaid is the most tempting target for conservatives because they can use it to undermine the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The GOP has been gunning for the ACA since it was signed into law without a single Republican vote in 2010.

Republicans and their he-man woman-haters club agenda blooms with their inane proposals to cut subsidies such as SNAP and WIC that are primarily used by women.

[countessravengrey]

“I disagree with Kamala’s position on the war in Gaza..."

Bernie Sanders sets the record straight on Palestine and the election:

"| understand that there are millions of Americans who disagree with President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on the terrible war in Gaza.

I am one of them.

While Israel had a right to defend itself against the horrific Hamas terrorist attack of October 7th, which killed 1,200 innocent people and took 250 hostages, it did not have a right to wage an all-out war against the entire Palestinian people.

It did not have the right to kill 42,000 Palestinians, two-thirds of whom were children, women, and the elderly, or injure over 100,000 people in Gaza.

It did not have the right to destroy Gaza's infrastructure, housing, and healthcare system. It did not have the right to bomb every one of Gaza's 12 universities.

It did not have the right to block humanitarian aid, causing massive malnutrition in children and, in fact, starvation.

And that is why I am doing everything I can to block U.S. military aid and offensive weapon sales to the right-wing extremist Netanyahu government in Israel. And I know that many of you share those feelings, and some of you are saying:

"How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she is supporting this terrible war?"

And that is a very fair question. And let me give you my best answer. And that is that even on this issue, Donald Trump and his right-wing friends are worse. In the Senate, in Congress, the Republicans have worked overtime to block humanitarian aid to the starving children in Gaza. The President and Vice President both support getting as much humanitarian aid into Gaza as soon as possible.

Trump has said Netanyahu is "doing a good job" and has said Biden is "holding him back." He has suggested the Gaza strip would make excellent beachfront property for development. And it is no wonder Netanyahu prefers to have Donald Trump in office.

But even more importantly - and this I promise you - after Kamala wins, we will together do everything that we can to change U.S. policy toward Netanyahu. An immediate ceasefire, the return of all hostages, a surge of massive humanitarian aid, the stopping of settler attacks on the West Bank, and the rebuilding of Gaza for the Palestinian people.

And let me be clear. We will have, in my view, a much better chance of changing U.S. policy with Kamala than with Trump, who is extremely close to Netanyahu and sees him as a like-minded right-wing extremist ally.

But let me also say this - and I deal with this every single day as a U.S. Senator - as important as Gaza is, and as strongly as many of us feel about this issue, it is not the only issue at stake in this election.

If Trump wins. women in this country will suffer an enormous setback and lose the ability to control their own bodies. That is not acceptable.

If Trump wins, to be honest with you, the struggle against climate change is over. While virtually every scientist who has studied the issue understands that climate change is real and an existential threat to our country and the world, Trump believes it is a "hoax." And if the United States, the largest economy in the world, stops transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, every other country - China, Europe, all over the world - they will do exactly the same thing. And God only knows the kind of planet we will leave to our kids and future generations.

If Trump wins, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, he will demand even more tax breaks for the very richest people in our country while cutting back on programs that working families desperately need. The rich will only get richer while the minimum wage will remain at $7.25 an hour and millions of our fellow workers will continue to earn starvation wages.

Did you all see the recent Trump rally at Madison Square Gardens? Well, I did. And what I can tell you is that, as a nation, as all of you know, we have struggled for years, against impossible odds, to overcome all forms of bigotry - whether it's racism, whether it's sexism, whether it's homophobia, whether it's xenophobia, you name it. We have tried to fight against bigotry. But that is exactly what we saw on display at that unbelievable Trump rally. It was not a question of speakers getting up there, disagreeing with Kamala Harris on the issue. That wasn't the issue at all. They were attacking her simply because she was a woman, and a woman of color. Extreme, vulgar sexism and racism.

Is that really the kind of America that we can allow?

So let me conclude by saying this: this is the most consequential election in our lifetimes. Many of you have differences of opinion with Kamala Harris on Gaza. So do I.

But we cannot sit this election out. Trump has got to be defeated. Let's do everything we can in the next week to make sure that Kamala Harris is our next president.

Thank you very much."

[ridenwithbiden]

TO PAY FOR TRUMPS TRILLIONS IN TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH.

"Oz will succeed Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the current administrator of CMS, to lead programs including Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people aged 65 or older, and disabled people, and Medicaid, the state-based health insurance program for lower-income people, which is jointly funded by states and the federal government. The two programs provide health insurance for more than 140 million Americans.

Also in the CMS fold are the Children’s Health Insurance Program (Chip) and the Health Insurance Marketplace, which was created by the Affordable Care Act under Barack Obama in 2010.

Trump’s economic advisers and congressional Republicans are currently discussing possible cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and other government welfare programs to cover the costs of extending the president-elect’s multi-trillion-dollar 2017 tax cut."

Dr Oz, best known for his daytime talkshow, leaned heavily into Trumpism during his failed 2022 run for US Senate. Donald Trump has chosen Mehmet Oz, best known for starring in his eponymous daytime talkshow for more than a decade and leaning heavily into Trumpism during his failed 2022 run for a Pennsylvania Senate seat, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The cardiothoracic surgeon, who faced immense backlash from the medical and scientific communities for pushing misinformation at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, will oversee the agency that operates on a $2.6 trillion dollar annual budget and provides healthcare to more than 100 million people.

“I am honored to be nominated by [Donald Trump] to lead CMS,” Oz posted on X on Tuesday. “I look forward to serving my country to Make America Healthy Again under the leadership of HHS Secretary [Robert F Kennedy Jr].”

In the announcement of Oz’s selection, Trump said that Oz would “make America healthy again” and described him as “an eminent Physician, Heart Surgeon, Inventor, and World-Class Communicator, who has been at the forefront of healthy living for decades”.

Oz has been on US television screens for nearly 20 years, first appearing on the Oprah Winfrey show in 2004. In that time, he has talked to his audience about losing weight with fad diets and what it takes to have healthy poops and, toward the end of his run, touting hydroxychloroquine as a potential remedy for Covid-19.

Here’s what to know about the New York University professor and surgeon turned television show host, and now Trump appointee.

Mehmet Oz, 64, is a Turkish American Ohio native best known for The Dr Oz Show, which ran from 2009 to 2022. His father was a surgeon in Turkey, and after Oz graduated high school in Delaware, he was admitted into Harvard. He also served in the Turkish military in order to maintain dual citizenship, the Associated Press reports.

Before entering US homes via daytime TV, he had more than 20 years of experience as a cardiothoracic surgeon at Presbyterian-Columbia medical center in New York. He was also a professor at Columbia University’s medical school.

His bona fides at the prestigious institutions earned him quick credibility with viewers, and his popularity garnered him nine Daytime Emmy awards for outstanding informative talkshow and host.

Though his show ended in 2022, Oz maintains a YouTube channel filled with old episodes of his shows where he interviews guests such as Penn Jillette about his weight loss and Robert F Kennedy Jr about his 2014 book about the presence of mercury in vaccines. He also has an Instagram account that boasts more than a million followers, where Oz shares photos of his family and sells products from iHerb, an online health and wellness brand for which he is global adviser.

Oz’s questionable medical advice and time in politics. Throughout his TV tenure, Oz dabbled in the hallmarks of weight loss culture like detoxes, cleanses and diets that promised rapid weight loss. He also faced a grilling by senators in 2014 over claims he made and alleged false advertising on supplements he promoted on his show. When the Covid-19 pandemic hit, Oz regurgitated misinformation that came from the fringes of the right and medical communities.

These comments continued when he threw his hat into the race to represent Pennsylvania in the US Senate in 2022 against John Fetterman. At the time, the Guardian wrote:

“Oz was dogged by questions about his actual connection to the state during the campaign. Oz lived in New Jersey for decades before he moved to Pennsylvania in October 2020, into a home owned by his wife’s family. He announced his bid to be the state’s US senator just months later.”

Following Fetterman’s stroke, during which he said he “​​almost died”, the Oz campaign launched unsavory attacks against him, with one Oz aide, Rachel Tripp, claiming Fetterman might not have had a stroke if he “had ever eaten a vegetable in his life”.

Oz ultimately lost to Fetterman, who garnered 51% of the vote compared with Oz’s 46%."

[feelingbluepolitics]

An Ethical AI-generated Prompt Sheet for Those Thanksgiving Conversations

*based on a neutral question

Question:

On issues relevant in our politics right now, which political platform is more beneficial to us, Democrat or Republicon, and why?

Response:

Analyzing the two major U.S. political platforms—Democrat and Republican—requires a clear, issue-by-issue comparison based on policies and their likely impacts on society. Below is an overview of how each party approaches the listed issues and which platform tends to benefit the majority of Americans, based on available evidence and historical actions.

1. Climate Change and Energy

• Democrats: Support renewable energy investment, international climate agreements (e.g., Paris Accord), and regulations on emissions.

• Benefit: Reduces long-term environmental risks and creates clean energy jobs.

• Republicans: Focus on deregulating fossil fuels, questioning climate science, and prioritizing short-term energy independence through oil and gas.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Climate science overwhelmingly shows the urgency of reducing emissions to prevent global warming and its catastrophic effects.

2. Wealth Inequality

• Democrats: Advocate for higher taxes on the wealthy, expanding social safety nets, and raising the minimum wage.

• Benefit: Promotes economic fairness and reduces poverty rates.

• Republicans: Favor tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, arguing it boosts economic growth (“trickle-down economics”).

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Data shows tax cuts for the wealthy primarily widen inequality, while social programs reduce economic disparity.

3. Reproductive Rights

• Democrats: Support access to abortion, contraception, and reproductive healthcare.

• Benefit: Empowers individuals to make personal medical decisions, reducing maternal mortality rates.

• Republicans: Advocate for restricting or banning abortion, often without exceptions for rape or incest.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Restricting abortion leads to unsafe procedures and worsens healthcare outcomes for women.

4. Healthcare Access

• Democrats: Push for expanding Medicaid, lowering drug costs, and supporting universal healthcare.

• Benefit: Reduces the number of uninsured Americans and improves public health.

• Republicans: Seek to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and reduce government involvement in healthcare.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Expanding access improves health outcomes, while Republican policies risk leaving millions uninsured.

5. Gun Violence

• Democrats: Advocate for universal background checks, assault weapon bans, and red flag laws.

• Benefit: Reduces gun deaths and mass shootings, according to studies from countries with similar laws.

• Republicans: Oppose gun control measures, emphasizing Second Amendment rights.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Data consistently shows that stricter gun laws correlate with lower rates of gun violence.

6. Education and Student Debt

• Democrats: Propose reducing student loan debt, increasing public education funding, and making college more affordable.

• Benefit: Expands access to education, which drives economic mobility.

• Republicans: Support school choice, privatization, and reducing federal involvement in education.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Underfunded public schools and high student debt hinder social mobility, which Democrats address more effectively.

7. Voting Rights

• Democrats: Work to expand voting access through early voting, mail-in ballots, and combating voter suppression.

• Benefit: Increases voter turnout and strengthens democracy.

• Republicans: Focus on voter ID laws, restricting voting methods, and questioning election integrity.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Voting restrictions disproportionately harm marginalized groups and undermine democratic participation.

8. Judicial Integrity

• Democrats: Push for judicial appointments that preserve civil rights, voting rights, and environmental protections.

• Benefit: Ensures balanced courts that reflect public values.

• Republicans: Focus on appointing conservative judges, often with corporate or religious biases.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Progressive judicial rulings better protect individual freedoms and minority rights.

9. Media and Information Integrity

• Democrats: Support policies to combat disinformation and promote media literacy.

• Benefit: Encourages informed citizenry and accountability for platforms spreading falsehoods.

• Republicans: Often align with narratives undermining trust in mainstream media and fact-checking.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Misinformation destabilizes democracy, making this issue critical.

10. Immigration

• Democrats: Advocate for comprehensive immigration reform, including pathways to citizenship and humane treatment of migrants.

• Benefit: Bolsters the economy, addresses labor shortages, and upholds human rights.

• Republicans: Emphasize border security, including walls and mass deportations, often framing immigration as a threat.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Immigrants contribute significantly to the economy, and humane policies align with democratic values.

11. Corporate Accountability

• Democrats: Push for stronger regulations on corporations, including anti-trust actions and environmental accountability.

• Benefit: Prevents corporate abuse and ensures fair competition.

• Republicans: Advocate for deregulation and reducing corporate taxes.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: History shows unchecked corporations exploit workers and the environment.

12. Digital Privacy and AI

• Democrats: Support regulating tech companies and protecting digital privacy.

• Benefit: Balances innovation with individual rights.

• Republicans: Often resist regulation, favoring corporate interests.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Without regulations, tech monopolies and privacy violations harm consumers.

13. Infrastructure and Transportation

• Democrats: Invest in public transit, green infrastructure, and broadband expansion.

• Benefit: Improves quality of life and creates jobs.

• Republicans: Focus on traditional infrastructure projects but resist spending on green initiatives.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Comprehensive infrastructure plans address future needs.

14. Military Spending vs. Human Needs

• Democrats: Aim to reduce excessive military budgets and redirect funds toward healthcare, education, and climate action.

• Benefit: Balances security with societal well-being.

• Republicans: Advocate for high military spending, often at the expense of domestic programs.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Excessive military budgets often neglect urgent domestic priorities.

15. Food Security and Safety

• Democrats: Support sustainable farming, SNAP benefits, and food safety regulations.

• Benefit: Addresses hunger while ensuring food safety.

• Republicans: Focus on reducing regulations and cutting food assistance programs.

• Why Democrats are more beneficial: Robust food programs and safety regulations are vital for public health.

This analysis generally favors the Democratic platform across these issues, as it aligns more closely with data-supported policies that prioritize equity, sustainability, and public welfare.

[cazort]

Hey guys, so Senate Republicans didn't pick Trump's favorite, the ultra-far-right, Rick Scott, and instead picked John Thune, to be Senate Majority Leader.

This is significant for multiple reasons. One, he differs from Trump's views on a number of issues. He is pro-Ukraine, he has worked to block Trump's attempted cuts to the 340B program (which cuts prescription drug costs for low-income people), he's sponsored legislation to encourage employers to pay off their employees' student loans, and he defended NAFTA when Trump tried to get out of it. He also in 2020 opposed Trump's continued efforts to overturn the election results.

The Republican party has been overrun by extremism for a long time and I want to make clear, Thune still takes a long list of stances I disagree with. But he is more moderate than Cornyn and much more moderate than Rick Scott, the two other contenders. I haven't seen a lot of examples over the past 10 years of where the Republicans moderated themselves, but this is one of them.

Senate Republicans picked the most-moderate and most anti-Trump of the three contenders and this is very significant and is a hopeful sign. In particular it shows that Trump may have less influence over the internals of the Republican party than some people think he might have. It also points to the Republicans probably not blindly rubber-stamping everything he wants, but instead, seeing him as someone who needs to be kept in check.

What does this mean for you? Especially if you live in a red state, write your senators about issues that concern you. They might listen. When Trump was trying to cut 340B, there was pushback and that's why Republicans didn't cut it. When Trump contested the 2020 election results, there was pushback and some Republicans did speak out. There is already pushback on many of Trump's economic plans.

Make some noise, be heard. Even in red states.

What are some things to make noise about?

Tariffs - They will be terrible for the economy. They are hard to remove if enacted. We don't want them. Voice your opposition to them.

Abortion rights - Tell the government to stay out of private medical decisions.

Trans rights and gender issues. You can frame these issues as small government too. Tell them you don't want government to have anything to do with gender and you want to leave medical care as a private thing between doctors and patients.

Public lands - Tell them you oppose selling off public lands or selling oil leases on them and such

Any programs the Trump administration tries to cut that are important. Public transit, climate change related grants, healthcare, you name it. Pay attention to the news and if something you feel passionate about comes up, write in.

Foreign policy - whether supporting Ukraine, or opposing US continuing to give money and arms to Israel, make your voices heard. You can frame your opposition to Israeli aid as an "America first" policy...ask them why we are giving so many billions to Israel when we have so many needs here, when that money could be either spent domestically, used to pay down our debt, or used to lower taxes? Speak the Republicans' language.

Specific Appointments - Call out specific appointees you dislike. Don't fuss about everyone, pick the worst ones and focus on them. For example right now I think the worst one has been Pete Hegseth. He has no relevant experience and is entirely unqualified, and on top of that has pushed for awful things like ignoring when US soldiers are accused of war crimes. Voice your concerns and say you want him voted down and you want to demand a more qualified candidate.

Yeah. No need to sit around feeling hopeless. There is wiggle room even in a Republican-dominated government. The Republicans have already moved towards the center with this gesture and this shows they will potentially cave to pressure if they get enough of it.

Pick and choose the most important battles and fight them.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Smith :: Las Vegas Sun

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 29, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 30, 2024

In December 2020, when the pandemic illustrated the extraordinary disadvantage created by the inability of those in low-income households to communicate online with schools and medical professionals, then-president Trump signed into law an emergency program to provide funding to make internet access affordable. In 2021, Congress turned that idea into the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) and made it part of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law). 

The program has enabled 23 million American households to afford high-speed internet. Those benefiting from it are primarily military families, older Americans, and Black, Latino, and Indigenous households. In February, the Brookings Institution cited economics studies that said each dollar invested in the ACP increases the nation’s gross domestic product by $3.89 and that the program has led to increased employment and higher wages. It also cuts the costs of healthcare by replacing some in-person emergency room visits with telehealth.  

Slightly more of the money in the program goes to districts represented by Republicans than to those represented by Democrats, which might explain why 79% of voters want to continue the program: 96% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 62% of Republicans.

But the ACP is running out of money. Back in October 2023, President Joe Biden asked Congress to fund it until the end of 2024, and a bipartisan bill that would extend the program has been introduced in both chambers of Congress. Each remains in an appropriation committee. As of today, the House bill has 228 co-sponsors, the Senate bill has 5. 

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has said he supports the measure, but House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has not commented. Judd Legum pointed out in Popular Information today that the 2025 budget of the far-right Republican Study Committee (RSC) calls for allowing the ACP to expire, saying the RSC “stands against corporate welfare and government handouts that disincentivize prosperity.” More than four fifths of House Republicans belong to the RSC. 

The differences between the parties’ apparent positions on the ACP illustrates the difference in their political ideology. Republicans object to government investment in society and believe market forces should be left to operate without interference in order to promote prosperity. Democrats believe that economic prosperity comes from the hard work of ordinary people and that government investment in society clears the way for those people to succeed. 

Wealth growth for young Americans was stagnant for decades before the pandemic, but it has suddenly experienced a historic rise. In Axios, Emily Peck reported that household wealth for Americans under 40 has risen an astonishing 49% from where it was before the pandemic. Wealth doubled for those born between 1981 and 1996. This increase in household wealth comes in part from rising home prices and more financial assets, as well as less debt, which fell by $5,000 per household. Households of those under 35 have shown a 140% increase in median wealth in the same time period.

Brendan Duke and Christian E. Weller, the authors of the Center for American Progress study from which Peck’s information came, say this wealth growth is not tied to a few super-high earners, but rather reflects broad based improvement. “A simple reason for the strong wealth growth is that younger Americans are experiencing an especially low unemployment rate and especially strong wage growth,” Duke and Weller note, “making it easier for them to accumulate wealth.” 

In honor of National Small Business Week, Vice President Kamala Harris today launched an “economic opportunity tour” in Atlanta, where she highlighted the federal government’s $158 million investment in “The Stitch,” a project to reconnect midtown to downtown Atlanta. This project is an initial attempt to reconnect the communities that were severed by the construction of highways, often cutting minority or poor neighborhoods off from jobs and driving away businesses while saddling the neighborhoods with pollution. 

While some advocates wanted to use the $3.3 billion available from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act to take down highways altogether, the administration has shied away from such a dramatic revision and has instead focused on creating new public green spaces, bike paths, access to public transportation, safety features, and so on, to link and improve neighborhoods. More than 40 states so far have received funding under this program. 

The administration says that projects like The Stitch will promote economic growth in neighborhoods that have borne the burden of past infrastructure projects. Today it touted the extraordinary growth of small businesses since Biden and Harris took office, noting that their economic agenda “has driven the first, second and third strongest years of new business application rates on record—and is on pace for the fourth—with Americans filing a record 17.2 million new business applications.” 

Small businesses owned by historically underserved populations “are growing at near-historic rates, with Black business ownership growing at the fastest pace in 30 years and Latino business ownership growing at the fastest pace in more than a decade,” the White House said. The administration has invested in small businesses, working to level the playing field between them and their larger counterparts by making capital and information available, while working to reform the tax code so that corporations pay as much in taxes as small businesses do.  

“Small businesses are the engines of the economy,” the White House said today. “As President Biden says, every time someone starts a new small business, it’s an act of hope and confidence in our economy.” 

In place of economic growth, Republicans have focused on whipping up supporters by insisting that Democrats are corrupt and are cheating to take over the government. Matt Gertz of Media Matters noted in February that “Fox News host Sean Hannity and his House Republican allies spent 2023 trying to manufacture an impeachable offense against President Joe Biden out of their fact-free obsession with the president’s son, Hunter.” At least 325 segments about Hunter Biden appeared on Hannity’s show in 2023; 220 had at least one false or misleading claim. The most frequent purveyor of that disinformation was Representative James Comer (R-KY), chair of the House Oversight Committee, who went onto the show 43 times to talk about the president’s son. 

The House impeachment inquiry was really designed to salt right-wing media channels with lies about the president and, in the end, turned up nothing other than witnesses who said President Biden was not involved in his son’s businesses. Then the Republicans’ key witness, Alexander Smirnov, was indicted for lying about the Bidens, and then he turned out to be in contact with Russian spies. 

Comer has been quietly backing away from impeaching the president until today, when he popped back into the spotlight after news broke that Hunter Biden’s lawyer has threatened to sue the Fox News Channel (FNC) for “conspiracy and subsequent actions to defame Mr. Biden and paint him in a false light, the unlicensed commercial exploitation of his image, name, and likeness, and the unlawful publication of hacked intimate images of him.” His lawyer’s letter calls out FNC’s promotion of Smirnov’s false allegations. 

Last year, FNC paid almost $800 million to settle defamation claims made by Dominion Voting Systems after FNC hosts pushed the lie that Dominion machines had changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. 

Legal pressure on companies lying for profit has proved successful. Two weeks ago, the far-right media channel One America News Network (OAN) settled a defamation lawsuit with the voting technology company Smartmatic. Today, OAN retracted a false story about former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, apparently made to discredit the testimony of Stormy Daniels about her sexual encounters with Trump. OAN suggested that it was Cohen rather than Trump who had a relationship with Daniels, and that Cohen had extorted Trump over the story.  

“OAN apologizes to Mr. Cohen for any harm the publication may have caused him,” the network wrote in a statement. “To be clear, no evidence suggests that Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels were having an affair and no evidence suggests that Mr. Cohen ‘cooked up’ the scheme to extort the Trump Organization before the 2016 election.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[grizzlyofthesea]

I don't normally like to bring up politics here. I like to keep things fun. But this is incredibly important.

Last night's presidential debate here in the US was depressing. Pathetic, even, at points. However, until more political parties/candidates have a reasonable chance in the executive branch, we have to put trust in Biden and his cabinet. The other option is the Republican Party. Trump may just be terrible and annoying on his own, but he'll become outright dangerous if he's elected again. Project 2025 will become more likely to go into effect and pave the way for a total dismantling of American democracy.

Project 2025 is the Republican Party's plan to assert much, much more control over the government. Points include:

Relabeling civil servants as political appointees to more easily replace them

Removing protections against discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation

Eliminating DEI programs and affirmative action

Cutting funding for the Department of Justice and climate research

Outright eliminating the FBI, Department of Education, and Department of Homeland Security

Implementing Christianity into the government

Restructuring the National Institutes of Health to follow more conservative ideals, rejecting abortion as healthcare, and ending the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception

So much for the "party of small government."

Things aren't perfect, but consider the alternative--the only plausible alternative at this time. Please vote this November (and in every election, really) and make careful, informed decisions on your ballot.

[yetisidelblog]

Congressional Republicans are readying a plan to slash vital programs, like Medicaid, food assistance, and clean energy incentives, to pay for an extension of Trump-era tax cuts that will cost trillions. These cuts are not about “government efficiency”; they’re about taking from hardworking families to give even more to billionaires.

Programs on the chopping block include:

Medicaid: Providing healthcare to 70 million Americans, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities, Medicaid could see devastating application requirements and spending caps that would strip millions of people of their coverage.

SNAP (Food Stamps): A critical lifeline for low-income families, food assistance programs face deep cuts that will leave countless Americans struggling to feed their families. Republicans are even proposing limits on what SNAP recipients can purchase.

Clean Energy Initiatives: Incentives that fight climate change and create jobs are at risk, threatening progress made under the 2022 tax-and-climate law.

Veterans’ Healthcare: Programs serving 9 million veterans could lose funding, cutting access to vital medical care for those who have served our country.

Education and Workforce Training: Federal grants supporting public schools and job training programs could be eliminated, undermining opportunities for students and workers.

Housing Assistance: Critical resources to help families avoid homelessness could be slashed, increasing housing insecurity across the nation.

These programs are essential for millions, yet Republicans want to sacrifice them to fund a $4.6 trillion tax scam that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest Americans. Nearly 40% of the tax cuts will go to the richest 5%, while middle- and lower-income families are left behind.

The numbers are staggering: extending the Trump tax scam will cost $4.6 trillion over the next decade, blowing a hole in the federal debt and worsening income and wealth inequality. Millionaires, billionaires, and corporations will see massive benefits, while programs that protect working people and America’s most vulnerable will be gutted.

This is about priorities. Instead of cutting Medicaid, food assistance, housing, and clean energy to pay for tax giveaways, Congress must focus on a fair tax system that invests in working families, not billionaires.

Tell Congress: Stop this attack on critical programs. Demand they reject cuts to critical services to pay for more tax handouts to the rich and corporations.

@upontheshelfreviews

@greenwingspino

@one-time-i-dreamt

@tenaflyviper

@akron-squirrel

@ifihadaworldofmyown

@justice-for-jacob-marley

@voicetalentbrendan

@thebigdeepcheatsy

@what-is-my-aesthetic

@ravenlynclemens

@writerofweird

@bogleech

[learnwithmearticles]

Third Party Vote

A third party is any political party other than the dominant two in the nation - in the U.S.A., these are the Republican and the Democratic parties.

The third parties of the U.S.A. include the Libertarian party and the Green party.

Libertarian beliefs emphasize personal rights to property and participating in a free market. Generally, they do not align with progressive goals due to three key beliefs; everyone’s right to own guns; segregation of education standards; and voluntary taxes1. Overall, they want less government control.

Taxes are extremely annoying and inconvenient, and the allocation of them has not been optimal in many years, but the lack of them would cause extreme losses to programs that help people survive, including social security and certain healthcare plans2. Likewise, while decentralized education can have many benefits for students, the education disparities between states is drastic, and further decentralization will likely exacerbate education inequalities3.

But the purpose of this article is not to debunk the goals of specific parties. Instead, I aim to explain the unfortunate effects of third-party voting in general elections. Specifically, I will explain why some people prefer the Democratic party or the Green party, and why we must be careful when voting this year.

The U.S.A. Green party has goals of strong, definitive measures to address environmental degradation and climate change, institutions that perpetuate inequities, and unsustainable military practices4. Progressively, they are possibly the strongest pushers for change, and they criticize and claim to avoid the corruption and hypocrisy of the Democratic party.

The most likely Democratic candidate for presidency in 2024 is Joseph Biden. During his 2021-2024 presidency, Biden has made Medicare able to negotiate drug prices, including insulin which became capped at 35 dollars per month for seniors5. He also funded vaccination campaigns to address the COVID-19 pandemic, helped protect marriage equality for LGBT+ and interracial people, worked on achieving debt relief, and many more positive goals5. Most recently, he pardoned individuals federally charged with simple possession of marijuana, a major proclamation to correct some failures in the justice system15.

He has also been complicit in the genocide against Palestinian people, with his administration cutting off aid to Gaza while providing Israel munitions6. He has used the military to attack protests in the Middle East7. Additionally, the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan coincided with many service members’ deaths, and he has not achieved the cancellation of student debt that he aimed for8.

Problems with enacting change is that the Senate and the House of Representatives have a majority of Republican appointees, and six of the nine Supreme Court Justices were appointed by a Republican president. These demographics account for some of the issues regarding student loan debts and rights to autonomy and privacy, though Biden has worked to help constituents following the Supreme Court decision against Roe v. Wade5.

A Green party president would face similar setbacks, as checks and balances keep them from being able to completely dictate government decisions.

However, a Green party president such as Jill Stein would likely make good progress towards a more sustainable economy, equal rights, and alleviating climate change, based on her platform9. She would likely be a fantastic president. It is completely understandable why many people decide to vote for a third party, and why many young people, particularly on TikTok, say that they want to vote third-party.

I wish it was not this way, but current politics are not where they need to be for a third party candidate to win. A third-party candidate has never won the U.S.A. presidency before, even in their strongest years10.

When Jill Stein ran in 2016, the Democratic party won the popular vote but the Republican party won, and that responsibility is partially on third-party voters. If Stein’s voters had voted for the Democratic party, they would have won the electoral college11. Likewise, if every Democratic voter had voted for Jill Stein, the same would be true for the Green party.

Why is it fair to ask Green party voters to vote for the Democratic nominee instead of expecting Democratic voters to vote for the Green party, or for any ideal third party?

It isn’t. It is completely valid for people to want voting to be different. I am angry that I have to compromise on humanitarian values, as well. Politics should not be a two-party system. But not voting for Biden or whoever is the Democratic nominee creates an extreme risk of the Republican nominee winning, which would quickly send the U.S.A. further towards a loss of democracy and people’s rights.

Historic trends do not reflect positively on third party chances this year11. The Democratic party is giant and well-established with over 45 million loyal members unlikely to even consider a third party12. Voting for a third party is most likely to be considered a vote ‘stolen’ from one of the dominant parties13.

Keep in mind, these warnings are only pertaining to the presidency. Third parties have much higher likelihoods of success in smaller elections, such as city councils and mayoralties14. Hopefully, these trends will continue and the presidency will eventually not have to be as much of a compromise.

You are not wrong for wanting change. You are not wrong for being unsatisfied with inept government demographics. Continue to advocate for the nominees you most believe in, and please keep in mind the risks involved.

Additional Resources

1. https://www.lp.org/issues/

2. https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

3.https://learningportal.iiep.unesco.org/en/blog/learning-from-a-decentralized-education-system

4. https://www.gp.org/

5. https://www.whitehouse.gov/therecord/

6.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/30/biden-gaza-food-aid-hamas-civilians-strategy/

7.https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/01/11/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-coalition-strikes-in-houthi-controlled-areas-in-yemen/

8. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/22/joe-biden-presidency/

9. https://www.jillstein2024.com/principles

10.https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-younger-voters-will-impact-elections-responding-to-the-challenges-of-third-parties/

11.https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13576798/jill-stein-third-party-donald-trump-win

12.https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx

13. https://theintercept.com/2024/01/22/biden-trump-president-election-third-party/

14. https://www.gpelections.org/greens-in-office/2023-july-01/15. https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-marijuana-possession

[beardedmrbean]

California Governor Gavin Newsom was called out by a reporter after he continued to dodge questions about blowing the state's $24 billion spending on the homeless.

The Golden State's budget deficit is at least $45 billion, a shortfall so large it prompted Newsom to propose painful spending cuts impacting immigrants, kindergarteners and low-income parents seeking child care in a state often lauded for having the world's fifth-largest economy. 

California spent $24 billion tackling homelessness over five years but didn't track if the money was helping the state's growing number of unhoused people, a damning report says.

At a press conference announcing his plans, he was asked by Angela Hart of KFF Health News if he felt his administration did enough to ensure the money was well spent and if he was worried the appetite for spending was lessening based on the homelessness program.

The usually confident Democrat hemmed and hawed for two minutes, to which Hart responded: 'I'm sorry governor, I didn't hear responses to either of those questions.' 

The governor said throughout his initial answer that the problem was dealing with local governments but Newsom was clearly chastened by Hart's retort.

Newsom finally leveled, saying the audit 'did not surprise me' and he agreed with most of its findings and said that the state has made unprecedented investments and tried to increase accountability from local governments for that spending.

'As it relates to the public mood... more is not always better, the public want to see results,' he added.

Hart finally thanked him for his answer, calling it 'thorough' before asking Newsom about cuts to healthcare spending and climate change.

The audit slams the state's homelessness tsars for spending billions across 30 programs from 2018-2023, but gathering no data on why the cash wasn't tackling the crisis.

It confirms what's clear to many residents — the homelessness crisis is out of control, and that tent encampments and troublesome vagrancy across major cities is bad and getting worse.

Homelessness jumped 6 percent to more than 180,000 people in California last year, federal data show. Since 2013, the numbers have exploded by 53 percent.

California is home to nearly a third of America's entire homeless population.

State Auditor Grant Parks wrote in a letter to Gov Gavin Newsom and lawmakers that the 'state must do more to assess the cost-effectiveness of its homelessness programs.'

Auditors probed five schemes that received a combined $13.7 billion in funding.

Only two of them were 'likely cost-effective,' including one that converts hotel and motel rooms into housing and another that helps to prevent families from becoming homeless, they found.

The remaining three programs, which have received a total of $9.4 billion since 2020, couldn't be evaluated due to a lack of data.

Thomas Wolf, a San Francisco-based consultant and former homeless drug addict, called the findings a 'scandal.'

'The state has spent billions on homelessness, and it's worse,' Wolf posted on X/Twitter.

'Outcomes literally mean everything when it comes to homeless services, and unsurprisingly, they have no data.'

For some, the audit confirms fears of a 'homeless industrial complex' – a gravy train of funders, officials, shelter owners and charities more keen on swallowing public funds than solving the problem.

Democratic state Sen. Dave Cortese, who requested the audit last year after touring a large homeless encampment in San Jose, complained of a 'data desert' and lack of transparency.

Republican state Sen. Roger Niello called the lack of accountability troubling.

'Despite an exorbitant amount of dollars spent, the state's homeless population is not slowing down,' Niello said in a statement.

'These audit results are a wake-up call for a shift toward solutions that prioritize self-sufficiency and cost-effectiveness.'

Newsom has made tackling homelessness a priority, and the growing crisis is sure to dog him should he ever set his sights on a national elected office.

The Democrat has pushed for laws that make it easier to force people with behavioral health issues into treatment. 

He also campaigned hard for a proposition that voters passed in March to make counties spend on housing and drug treatment programs to help fight homelessness.

The state auditor also reviewed homelessness spending in two major cities, San Jose and San Diego, and found that both failed to track revenue and spending due to a lack of planning.

The report spotlights how officials are battling a surge in homelessness in California and beyond.

A recent DailyMail.com/TIPP Poll showed that more than two thirds of US adults said homelessness was out of control and that officials needed to move those sleeping rough into tented encampments outside towns and cities.

The survey revealed that 67 percent of Americans are fed up with the country's fast-rising number of homeless people and want mayors to take drastic steps to tackle the scourge.

Former President Donald Trump making it part of his re-election campaign.

In a video on homelessness released by his campaign, Trump said that 'hardworking, law-abiding citizens' were being sidelines and made to 'suffer for the whims of a deeply unwell few.'

He vowed to 'ban urban camping' and create 'tent cities' on 'inexpensive land' for homeless people that will be staffed with doctors and social workers to help people address systemic problems.

[ingek73]

How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she supports Israel’s war? Here is my answer

Bernie Sanders

Trump says Netanyahu is doing a good job and Biden is holding him back. Even on this issue, Trump is worse

Wed 30 Oct 2024 15.30 GMT

I understand that there are millions of Americans who disagree with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on the terrible war in Gaza. I am one of them.

While Israel had a right to defend itself against the horrific Hamas terrorist attack of 7 October 2023, which killed 1,200 innocent people and took 250 hostages, it did not have the right to wage an all-out war against the entire Palestinian people.

It did not have the right to kill 42,000 Palestinians, two-thirds of whom were children, women and the elderly, or injure over 100,000 people in Gaza. It did not have the right to destroy Gaza’s infrastructure and housing and healthcare systems. It did not have the right to bomb every one of Gaza’s 12 universities. It did not have the right to block humanitarian aid, causing massive malnutrition in children and, in fact, starvation.

And that is why I am doing everything I can to block US military aid and offensive weapons sales to the rightwing extremist Netanyahu government in Israel. And I know that many of you share those feelings. And some of you are saying, “How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she is supporting this terrible war?” And that is a very fair question.

And let me give you my best answer. And that is that even on this issue, Donald Trump and his rightwing friends are worse. In the Senate and in Congress Republicans have worked overtime to block humanitarian aid to the starving children in Gaza. The president and vice-president both support getting as much humanitarian aid into Gaza as soon as possible.

Trump has said that Netanyahu is doing a good job and that Biden is holding him back. He has suggested that the Gaza Strip would make excellent beachfront property for development. It is no wonder Netanyahu prefers to have Donald Trump in office.

We cannot sit this election out. Trump has to be defeated

But even more importantly, and this I promise you, after Harris wins we will, together, do everything we can to change US policy toward Netanyahu – including an immediate ceasefire, the return of all hostages, a surge of massive humanitarian aid, the stopping of settler attacks on the West Bank, and the rebuilding of Gaza for the Palestinian people.

And let me be clear. We will have, in my view, a much better chance of changing US policy with Harris than with Trump, who is extremely close to Netanyahu and sees him as a like-minded, rightwing extremist ally.

But let me also say this, and I deal with this every single day as a US senator. As important as Gaza is, and as strongly as many of us feel about this issue, it is not the only issue at stake in this election.

If Trump wins, women in this country will suffer an enormous setback and lose the ability to control their own bodies. That is not acceptable.

If Trump wins, to be honest with you, the struggle against the climate crisis is over. While virtually every scientist who has studied the issue understands that the climate crisis is real and an existential threat to our country and the world, Trump believes it is a “hoax”. And if the United States, the largest economy in the world, stops transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, every other country – China, Europe, all over the world, they will do exactly the same thing. And God only knows the kind of planet we will leave to our kids and future generations.

If Trump wins, at a time of enormous income and wealth inequality, he will demand even more tax breaks for the very richest people in our country, while cutting back on programs that working families desperately need. The rich will only get richer, while the minimum wage will remain at $7.25 an hour, and millions of our fellow workers will continue to earn starvation wages.

Did you all see the recent Trump rally at Madison Square Garden? Well, I did, and what I can tell you is that as a nation, as all of you know, we have struggled for years against impossible odds to try to overcome all forms of bigotry – whether it is racism, whether it’s sexism, whether it’s homophobia, whether it’s xenophobia, you name it.

We have tried to fight against bigotry, but that is exactly what we saw on display at that unbelievable Trump rally. It was not a question of speakers getting up there and disagreeing with Kamala Harris on the issues. That wasn’t the issue at all. They were attacking her simply because she was a woman and a woman of color. Extreme vulgar sexism and racism. Is that really the kind of America that we can allow?

So let me conclude by saying this. This is the most consequential election in our lifetimes. Many of you have differences of opinion with Harris on Gaza. So do I. But we cannot sit this election out. Trump has to be defeated. Let’s do everything we can in the next week to make sure that Kamala Harris is our next president.

Bernie Sanders is a US senator, and chair of the health education labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont, and is the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Judd Legum at Popular Information:

In 2024, reliable access to high-speed internet is no longer a luxury; it is a basic necessity. From job applications to managing personal finances and completing school work, internet access is an essential part of daily life. Without an internet connection, individuals are effectively cut off from basic societal activities. 

But the reality is that many people — particularly those living around the poverty line — can not afford internet access. Without internet access, the difficult task of working your way from the American economy's bottom rung becomes virtually impossible.   On November 21, 2021, President Biden signed the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The new law included the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provided up to $30 per month to individuals or families with income up to 200% of the federal poverty line to help pay for high-speed internet. (For a family of four, the poverty line is currently $31,200.) On Tribal lands, where internet access is generally more expensive, the ACP offers subsidies up to $75 per month.  The concept started during the Trump administration. The last budget enacted by Trump included $3.2 billion to help families afford internet access. The FCC made the money available as a subsidy to low-income individuals and families through a program known as the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program. The legislation signed by Biden extended and formalized the program.  It has been a smashing success.

Today, the ACP is "helping 23 million households – 1 in 6 households across America." The program has particularly benefited "rural communities, veterans, and older Americans where the lack of affordable, reliable high-speed internet contributes to significant economic, health and other disparities." According to an FCC survey, two-thirds of beneficiaries "reported they had inconsistent internet service or no internet service at all prior to ACP." These households report using their high-speed internet to "schedule or attend healthcare appointments (72%), apply for jobs or complete work (48%), do schoolwork (75% for ACP subscribers 18-24 years old)." Tomorrow, the program will abruptly end.  In October 2023, the White House sent a supplemental budget request to Congress, which included $6 billion to extend the program through the end of 2024. There is also a bipartisan bill, the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act, which would extend the program with $7 billion in funding. The benefits of the program have shown to be far greater than the costs. An academic study published in February 2024 found that "for every dollar spent on the ACP, the nation’s GDP increases by $3.89." The program will lapse tomorrow because Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) refuses to bring either the bill (or the supplemental funding request) to a vote. The Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act has 225 co-sponsors which means that, if Johnson held a vote, it would pass. 

[...]

The Republican attack on affordable internet

Why will Johnson not even allow a vote to extend the ACP? He is not commenting. But there are hints in the federal budget produced by the Republican Study Committee (RSC). The RSC is the "conservative caucus" of the House GOP, and counts 179 of the 217 Republicans in the House as members. Johnson served as the chair of the RSC in 2019 and 2020. He is currently a member of the group's executive committee.  The RSC's latest budget says it "stands against" the ACP and labels it a "government handout[] that disincentivize[s] prosperity." The RSC claims the program is unnecessary because "80 percent" of beneficiaries had internet access before the program went into effect. For that statistic, the RSC cites a report from a right-wing think tank, the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), which opposes the ACP. EPIC, in turn, cites an FCC survey to support its contention that 80% of ACP beneficiaries already had internet access. The survey actually found that "over two-thirds of survey respondents (68%) reported they had inconsistent internet service or no internet service at all prior to ACP."

[...] The RSC also falsely claims that funding for the precursor to the ACP, the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (EBB), "was signed into law at the end of President Biden’s first year in office." This is false. Former President Trump signed the funding into law in December 2020. The RSC's position is not popular. A December 2023 poll found that 79% of voters support "continuing the ACP, including 62% of Republicans, 78% of Independents, and 96% of Democrats."

In 2024, access to the internet is a necessity and not just a luxury, and the Republicans are set to end the Affordable Connectivity Program if no action is taken. The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) provided subsidies to low-income people and families to obtain internet access.

[qqueenofhades]

May not by your wheelhouse, but regarding ever-increasing college tuition, where does the money go? Why is college so much more expensive than it was a few decades ago?

I have indeed written several posts about the college affordability crisis, which are probably to be found in my "ronald reagan burn in hell" tag. This is because, as with most of the batfuckery of the American economy since the 1980s, it is indeed Ronald Reagan's fault. The overall causes of college skyrocketing in cost include, but are not limited to:

1) Huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, gutting the funding that public education systems/public universities previously received from the government;

2) This in turn increased the costs at private universities, which had always been more expensive than public universities anyway, and besides, they were now free to put up their prices as far as they wanted;

3) The "unregulated free market trickle-down capitalism for everyone!!" Reagan-era mentality led to the explosion of costs in healthcare, housing, education, etc etc., and drastically widened the level of income inequality between rich and poor;

4) The replacement of grants (which you don't have to pay back) with loans (which you do), which incentivized unscrupulous loan companies to increase the burden of debt on students and for colleges to charge more and more tuition in the form of loans;

5) A bachelor's degree was once supposed to guarantee you a job, and now does nothing of the sort, and because the market has become so crowded and oversaturated with generally unsatisfactory and unstable job options, you are expected to pay for multiple degrees and go even DEEPER into debt;

6) Obviously, because of this total rejiggering of the economic landscape, everything costs a fuckton more than it used to 40 years ago, so colleges can't return to their 1970s-era fee structure;

7) As an academic, I can promise you that very little of this money is actually going to faculty salaries or the development/sustainment of new programs. Yes, obviously it costs money to run a quality educational institution, and I also obviously want all universities to be funded properly and for academics to be paid what they deserve. But the actual distribution of this money is... less clear.

8) Schools with giant well-known Division I sports programs tend to get all or most of the money that comes into their institutions, leaving relatively little for academic or faculty development;

9) For example: I work at a large, fairly prestigious, private university with very high research activity/classification, and we don’t even have a football team sucking up the money. But still, every single quarter, my department has to go through the budget with a magnifying glass, cut low-enrolled courses, argue constantly with the dean about which courses we do get to teach, etc. Our adjuncts also get paid literal peanuts for taking on a lot of work, and because we're so low on core faculty and just had to cancel another faculty search because of budget reasons, probably 50% of our schedule in the upcoming quarter is being taught by adjuncts. This is... not ideal.

10) Student debt is now such a lucrative part of the American commodities market, is so embedded in the financial system, and constitutes (at last glance) up to $1.8 trillion of outstanding debt, that when Biden tried to cancel even some of it, the Republicans immediately lost their minds and sued him to stop it. As of now, that case is still pending before SCOTUS, and because they're the literal worst, nobody hold your breath for a good outcome.

In short: college is one of the areas that has suffered the most from unregulated Reagonomics over the last 40 years, has been repeatedly incentivized to become and to stay extremely expensive and to represent a long-term burden of debt, and while you would hope that the money was being responsibly reinvested into actual faculty hiring/retention/academic program development etc, that is... not usually the case. The big Division I universities that serve as farm team training programs for the NFL, with a little academics on the side, also tend to have tons of investment in sports and not nearly as much in the classroom. But I'm sure this is fine!

[azspot]

To wit: the Republican Party is not in fact "the party of family values." In reality, today's Republican Party and "conservative" movement are the enemies of the American family and children. The most recent example is the manufactured debt ceiling "crisis," where House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the other Republicans in Congress are holding the country hostage by threatening to default on the federal government's financial obligations unless their austerity policies such as draconian cuts to healthcare, education, veteran's benefits, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, and other programs are forced into place. In all, if the Republicans get their way the country's already weak social safety will be further gutted and even more money will be transferred from the American people and up to the moneyed classes and corporations.

How to weaponize Republicans' words