US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Where will abortion be on the ballot in the 2024 US election?

      by

      This November, abortion will be on the ballot in 10 states, including the states that could determine the next president.In the two years since the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, abortion has become the kind of issue that decides elections. Outrage over Roe’s demise led Republicans to flounder in the 2022 midterms, and abortion rights supporters have won every post-Roe abortion-related ballot measure, including in red states such as Ohio, Kentucky and Kansas.This year, most of the ballot measures are seeking to amend states’ constitutions to protect abortion rights up until fetal viability, or about 24 weeks of pregnancy. Because a number of the measures are in states that have outlawed abortion, they could become the first to overturn the post-Roe ban. Others are in states where abortion is legal, but activists say the measures are necessary to cement protections so they can’t be easily overturned if Republicans control the government.These are the states slated to vote on abortion this election day.ArizonaAbortion rights supporters in Arizona, a key battleground state in the presidential election, are vying to pass a measure that would enshrine the right to abortion up until viability in the state constitution. A provider could perform an abortion after viability if the procedure is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of a patient.Arizona currently bans abortion past 15 weeks of pregnancy. Earlier this year, the state supreme court reinstated a 19th-century near-total abortion ban, generating nationwide outrage that prompted the state legislature to quickly repeal it in favor of letting the 15-week ban stand.ColoradoColorado’s measure would amend the state constitution to block the state government from denying, impeding or discriminating against individuals’ “right to abortion”. This measure also includes a one-of-a-kind provision to bar Colorado from prohibiting healthcare coverage for abortion – which could very well pass in the deep-blue state.Because Colorado permits abortion throughout pregnancy and neighbors five states with bans – Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, Utah and Nebraska – the state has become a haven for people fleeing abortion bans, especially those seeking abortions later in pregnancy.FloridaOnce the last stronghold of southern abortion access, Florida in May banned abortion past six weeks of pregnancy, which is before many women know they’re pregnant. Its measure, which needs 60% of the vote to pass, would roll back that ban by adding the right to an abortion up until viability to the state’s constitution. Providers could perform an abortion after viability if one is needed to protect a patient’s health.Florida Republicans’ tactics in the fight against the measure has alarmed voting rights and civil rights groups. Law enforcement officials have investigated voters who signed petitions to get the measure onto the ballot, while a state health agency has created a webpage attacking the amendment.MarylandLegislators, rather than citizens, initiated Maryland’s measure, which would amend the state constitution to confirm individuals’ “right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end the individual’s pregnancy”. Like Colorado, Maryland has become an abortion haven because it permits the procedure throughout pregnancy. It is also relatively close to the deep south, which is blanketed in bans. MissouriAbortion opponents went to court to stop Missouri’s measure from appearing on voters’ ballots, but the state supreme court rejected their arguments and agreed to let voters decide whether the Missouri constitution should guarantee the “fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive healthcare, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions”.Missouri, which was the first state to ban abortion after Roe fell, only permits the procedure in medical emergencies. If the measure passes, it is expected to roll back that ban and permit abortion until viability.MontanaIn the years since Roe fell, Montana courts and its Republican-dominated legislature have wrestled over abortion restrictions and whether the right to privacy embedded in Montana’s constitution includes the right to abortion. Abortion remains legal until viability in Montana, but the measure would amend the state constitution to explicitly include “a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion” up until viability. Providers could perform an abortion after viability to protect a patient’s life or health.NebraskaNebraska, which bans abortion past 12 weeks of pregnancy, is the lone state with two competing ballot measures this November. One of the measures would enshrine the right to abortion up until viability into the state constitution, while the other would enshrine the current ban. If both measures pass, the measure that garners the most votes would take effect.NevadaAlongside Arizona, Nevada is one of the most closely watched states in the presidential election. Its measure would amend the state constitution to protect individuals’ right to abortion up until viability, or after viability in cases where a patient’s health or life may be threatened. Nevada already permits abortion up until 26 weeks of pregnancy.New YorkNew York state legislators added a measure to the ballot to broaden the state’s anti-discrimination laws by adding, among other things, protections against discrimination on the basis of “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health”.Although sky-blue New York passed a law protecting reproductive rights in 2019, advocates say this measure could be used to defend abortion rights against future challenges. However, the ballot language before voters will not include the word “abortion”, leading advocates to fear voters will not understand what they are voting on. Democrats pushed to add the word “abortion” to the description of the measure, but a judge rejected the request, ruling that the amendment poses “complex interpretive questions” and its exact impact on abortion rights is unclear.South DakotaSouth Dakota’s measure is less sweeping than other abortion rights measures, because it would only protect the right to abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. Under this measure, South Dakota could regulate access to abortion “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman” in the second trimester of pregnancy. In the third trimester, the state could ban abortion except in medical emergencies. Right now, South Dakota only allows abortions in such emergencies.Although this measure will appear on the ballot, there will be a trial over the validity of the signatures that were collected for it. Depending out the outcome of the trial, the measure – and any votes cast for it – could be invalidated. More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Elon Musk has gained a concerning level of power over US national security | Robert Reich

      by

      Shortly after the apparent second assassination attempt against Donald Trump, Elon Musk wrote in a now deleted post on X, formerly known as Twitter: “And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala,” with an emoji of a person thinking.Musk later said his post was intended as a joke. But it could be interpreted as a call to murder Joe Biden and Kamala Harris – at least by one of Musk’s almost 200 million followers – which is presumably why the Secret Service is investigating it.Under 18 US Code Section 871, threatening a president or vice-president or inciting someone to harm them is a felony that can result in a large fine and up to five years in prison.Yet even as Musk posted a potential death threat against the sitting commander-in-chief, his multiple defense contracts with the US government have given him access to highly sensitive national security information.Musk has reportedly gained national security clearance notwithstanding his admitted use of drugs, not necessarily illegally: the tech billionaire, who says he has submitted to random drug testing at the request of the government, has smoked weed in public and also uses ketamine (for which he claims to have a prescription).Apart from the drugs, when was the last time the US government gave access to sensitive national security information to someone who posted a potential death threat against the president and vice-president?Underlying this is a broader question: when in history has one unelected individual held such sway over US national security?Musk’s SpaceX has nearly total control of the world’s satellite internet through its Starlink unit. With little regulation or oversight, Musk has already put more than 4,500 Starlink satellites into orbit around the globe, accounting for more than half of all active satellites. He plans to have as many as 42,000 satellites in orbit in the coming years.SpaceX and its Starlink system have become strategically critical to the American military. Starlink is providing connectivity to the US navy. The US space force signed a $70m contract with SpaceX late last year for military-grade low-Earth-orbit satellite capabilities. According to Reuters, the National Reconnaissance Office, which oversees US spy satellites, has a $1.8bn contract with SpaceX.This gives Musk, the richest person in the world, remarkable power. Single-handedly, he can decide to shut down a country’s access to Starlink and the internet. He also can also gain access to sensitive information gathered by Starlink. “Between, Tesla, Starlink & Twitter, I may have more real-time global economic data in one head than anyone ever,” Musk tweeted in April 2023.Meanwhile, Nasa has increasingly outsourced spaceflight projects to SpaceX, including billions in contracts for multiple moon trips and $843m to build a vehicle that will take the International Space Station out of commission.Conflicts of interest between Musk’s ventures around the world and US national security abound, and they are multiplying.When Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine, Musk and SpaceX’s Starlink provided Ukraine with internet access, enabling the country to plan attacks and defend itself. (This was not a charitable move by Musk; most of the 20,000 terminals in the country were funded by outside sources such as the US government and those of the United Kingdom and Poland).But in the fall of 2022, when Ukraine entered territory contested by Russia, Musk and SpaceX abruptly severed the connectivity. Musk explained at the time: “Starlink was barred from turning on satellite beams in Crimea at the time, because doing so would violate US sanctions against Russia!”But who was Musk to decide what actions would or would not violate US sanctions?skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn fact, it seems as if Musk was trying to push Ukraine to agree to Russia’s terms for ending the war.At a conference in Aspen attended by business and political figures, he appeared to support Putin. “He was onstage, and he said: ‘We should be negotiating. Putin wants peace – we should be negotiating peace with Putin,’” Reid Hoffman, the co-founder and executive chairman of LinkedIn, recalled. Musk seemed to have “bought what Putin was selling, hook, line, and sinker”.Soon thereafter, Musk tweeted a proposal for his own peace plan, calling for referendums to redraw the borders of Ukraine and grant Russia control of Crimea. In subsequent tweets, Musk portrayed a Russian victory as virtually inevitable, and attached maps highlighting eastern Ukrainian territories, some of which, he argued, “prefer Russia”.US foreign policy experts also worry about the conflicts of interest posed by Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X), given his business relationships and communications with the Chinese government. China has used X for disinformation campaigns.Some are concerned that China may have leverage over Musk due to his giant Tesla factory in Shanghai, which accounts for over half of Tesla’s global deliveries and the bulk of its profits, and the battery factory he’s building there. “Elon Musk has deep financial exposure to China,” warned Mark Warner, US senator from Virginia, who chairs the Senate intelligence committee.Most of these concerns, by the way, came before Musk reactivated the accounts of conspiracy theorists and white nationalists on X and began pushing his own rightwing narrative on the platform, and before he announced his support for Trump in the upcoming election and posted a potential incitement to assassinate Biden and Harris.Elon Musk poses a clear and present danger to American national security. The sooner the US government revokes his security clearance, terminates its contracts with him and the entities he controls, and builds its own alternatives to Starlink and SpaceX, the safer America will be.

      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy at the University of California Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His newest book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The presidential race is far tighter than many Democrats probably realize | John Zogby

      by

      Amid the turbulence, conflict, hyperbole, unprecedented misogyny, and downright hate that provides the backdrop for US elections this year, one thing remains in equilibrium: the 2024 presidential election. Vice President Kamala Harris may lead following a honeymoon, a great nominating convention, and a solid debate performance, but she never leads by much. Former President Donald Trump may at other times lead nationally and in a few battleground states, but by one or two percentage points, more or less.Around 5%-8% of voters remain undecided but they are probably not really focused on anything more than keeping their job, getting the kids off to school, grocery shopping, and the other demands of everyday life. And there is only a little wiggle room, with so many decided voters firm in their support for their candidate or their intense disgust for the other candidate.Here’s where we stand: Momentum appears to be with Harris, who leads in four of the last five nationwide polls (in one by as many as six points) and is tied in the other. She also leads in five of the critical seven battleground states. But her leads are under two percentage points and mainly under one percentage point. The reverse is true for Trump, who presently holds tiny leads in only two states.What makes this dynamic so intriguing is that, in this context, a shift of one or two points can change the leader, or the perception of the leader, making these minor bumps appear larger than they really are. What also makes this so fascinating is seeing some of the normal voting group alignments shifting.We pollsters began to take notice of the “gender gap” in 1988, when men supported Republican George HW Bush and women were highly in favor of Democrat Michael Dukakis. There have been such gaps in every election since, but in 2024 they are especially acute. In the latest New York Times/Siena College poll, Trump leads Harris by 17 points among men in Georgia while in the same state she is ahead among women by eight – a 25-point gap. The gender gap is 15 points in Pennsylvania and strong double digits in other states and nationwide.We are also paying close attention to the breakdown of voters by race. When Joe Biden left the race in late July, he was only about 60%-65% among Black voters. Harris is now polling at around 80% in most battleground states – including 82% percent each in all-important Pennsylvania and Georgia. In some states, however, Trump is polling close to 20% among Black voters – with his support among young Black men approaching 30% in several instances.By way of historical comparison, Black Americans normally give around 90% of their vote to Democratic presidential candidates. Barack Obama received 96% and 93% of the Black vote in his two elections, where they represented around 13% of the total vote. By way of contrast, Hillary Clinton won 87% support when Black turnout was only 11% of the total and, while she won the overall popular vote, this meager turnout hurt her in a few states. Trump picking up such a larger piece of the Black turnout could hurt the Democrats significantly.What we need to watch closely from here is gender and race. Harris will focus her attention on appealing to young women on the issue of reproductive rights, closely followed by the dangers of climate change and gun violence. These may not be the top three issues to all voters, but they are certainly critical to young women. And she needs them. Meanwhile, her running mate Tim Walz will represent the ticket to white working-class voters in the Midwest to prevent the bleeding among that group among Democrats.At the same time, look for Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, to continue to do the aggressive male thing – attacking childless women, calling their opponent a diversity hire, and the like. Trump’s latest gambit is patronizing women by telling them they do not need abortion to achieve self-actualization and empowerment, that he will protect them, that they don’t need to be worrying their pretty little heads about abortion rights.This message is not directed at women at all: it is an appeal to young men who are confused in a world where the definition of manhood is changing, who find it difficult to steer their lives when girls are doing better on test scores, attending and completing college in higher rates, and otherwise outperforming males in a world that men had once dominated. It is men who are finding it harder and harder to define their careers and future, who fear they are losing ground.So Trump and Vance will continue to promise a return to an America where, in the words of Archie Bunker, “Girls were girls and men were men”, the same world where communities were white and the US was always right.At the moment, the presidential race is in balance. The numbers are tied. The fears of another election too close to call and the turbulence beyond are very real. We are at equilibrium and very possibly at the calm before the storm.

      John Zogby is senior partner at the polling firm of John Zogby Strategies and is author of Beyond the Horse Race: How to Read the Polls and Why We Should More

    • 300 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      God knows we need an antidote to all the lousy men in the news – and I think I’ve found one | Emma Brockes

      by

      For the past month, every woman I know has been having versions of the same conversation, roughly opening with: for the love of God, how rapey is the news? No period of history has been free from accounts of male sex-offending. But the present roll call of alleged offenders – Diddy, Fayed, the French rapist and his endless accomplices, various scandals in broadcasting, and last week, new charges for the man who keeps giving on this subject, Harvey Weinstein – is particularly grim. For just one day, I would like to turn on the news without having to hear a presenter struggling to find a way to say “lube” in a BBC voice. So let’s talk about something else: Doug Emhoff.Doug Emhoff! Kamala Harris’s husband and consort, a man very possibly in line to be the first first gentleman of the United States and, as far as we can tell, an antidote to lousy men everywhere. This week, I heard Emhoff referred to as a “wife guy”, which made me smile – wife guy being simultaneously a nice term of affection for men who unreservedly support their wives, and also a reminder that no word for a female equivalent can exist. (What use the tautology of being a “husband chick” when, for straight women, embedded in the definition of the word “wife” is total, unwavering support of your husband).Anyway, Emhoff – what a rare beast. A former entertainment lawyer, a music person who named his kids after jazz legends, a man extremely adept at playing the lovable goofball, which doesn’t rule out the possibility he’s a lovable goofball, and a husband seemingly completely happy to promote, support and cheerlead his high-profile wife. To my eye, Emhoff, who is 59, has Dan Aykroyd, or maybe John Goodman, energy: the American every-dad who can rock a plaid shirt at the weekend, and on Monday whip up a quick lawsuit to vanquish your enemies.Exactly how Emhoff has nailed this vibe comes down to a mixture of things. The fact he’s called Doug definitely helps. Has there ever, in public life, been a bad “Doug”? (No.) Doug is easygoing. Doug is dependable – but not boring! Doug shows up. Doug quit his job when his wife became vice-president so he could give her his all. Doug is a mensch, although on the subject of his Jewishness, opponents of leftwing positions around Israel assert that Doug has overplayed his heritage for political gain. This sounds perilously close to Donald Trump’s observations about Harris’s background, but anyway, it’s all part of the 360 degrees of Doug Emhoff. After all, Doug isn’t perfect!I mean, he really isn’t. Earlier this year, Emhoff acknowledged that the end of his first marriage to Kerstin Mackin in 2008 was messy and that he had been unfaithful. It’s not ideal, I know. It is telling, however, that Emhoff’s first wife, who has kept his name, has been extremely active promoting Harris’s bid for the presidency. When JD Vance went after Harris for not having biological children – a sentence it still seems wild to have to type – Kerstin Emhoff popped up to defend the Democratic candidate, calling Vance’s remarks “baseless attacks”. She told CNN that, “for over 10 years, since Cole and Ella were teenagers, Kamala has been a co-parent with Doug and I”. She was, she said, grateful to have her as part of their blended family.Which brings us to the Emhoff kids. To anyone’s knowledge, has there ever been a hipster first son or daughter in the White House? Of course, go back enough years and who knows; maybe in 1798, Abigail Adams was riding around the West Wing on a penny farthing drinking mojitos out of a teacup. But in recent memory, ranging back over Trump’s children, the Obama kids, the Bush twins and Chelsea Clinton, every one of them looked perfectly primed for a postgrad internship at Goldman Sachs or a nepo arrangement in Hollywood. Ella Emhoff, by contrast, is a designer specialising in knitwear, who lives in Bushwick, Brooklyn. She turned up at the Democratic convention earlier this year covered in tattoos and wearing pebble glasses and a vintage frock.There are other wife guys out there, although you have to search quite hard to find them. A friend suggests Alexis Ohanian, husband to Serena Williams and millionaire co-founder of Reddit. Ohanian has his own thing going on, which doesn’t guarantee that a man won’t resent his wife’s success. But in public, Mr Serena Williams always seems over the moon to be by her side. There’s an argument for Prince Harry as wife guy. You’ve probably got to rope Denis Thatcher into this conversation. I’m sure there are others.But this is about Doug Emhoff, who, to the extent that we can ever know anything about other people’s relationships, offers further proof of Harris’s good judgment. She could have had anyone, but she chose Doug, and there’s a lesson in that for all of us. Whoever they may be, find your Doug Emhoff – possibly on the second go-around, just to be safe – and run for the biggest job you can imagine.

      Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Lucky Loser review – how Donald Trump squandered his wealth

      by

      Donald Trump started his career at the end of the 1970s, financed by his father Fred Trump. Over the years this transfer of wealth added up to around $500m in today’s money in gifts. My rough calculations say that, had he simply taken the money, leveraged it not imprudently, and passively invested it in Manhattan real estate – gone to parties, womanised, played golf, collected his rent cheques and reinvested them – his fortune could have amounted to more than $80bn by the time he ascended to the presidency in 2017.And yet Trump was not worth $80bn in 2017. Instead, Forbes pegged him at $2.5bn – which, given the difficulties of valuing and accounting for real estate, is really anything between $5bn (£4bn) and zero (or less). It is in this sense that Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig call Trump a “loser”. He is indeed one of the world’s biggest losers. By trying to run a business, rather than just kicking back and letting the rising tide of his chosen sector lift his wealth beyond the moon, he managed to destroy the vast majority of his potential net worth.How he did that is what Buettner and Craig chronicle in a book dense with facts and figures, but punctuated with moments of irony and dark humour – particularly when contrasting Trump’s public bravado with the often pathetic reality of his money management. The combination turns what might have been a rather boring tome, of interest only to trained financial professionals like me, into something of a page turner. Buettner and Craig paint a picture of Trump’s businesses as “mirage[s], built on inherited wealth, shady deals, and a relentless pursuit of appearances over substance”. And yet, Road Runner-like, he runs off the edge of the cliff, looks down, shrugs – and keeps going until his feet touch the ground again on the other side.Buettner and Craig delve more deeply into this story than anyone I have encountered. They have done their interview and newspaper-morgue homework, checked it against tax information and business records spanning three decades, and so gained an unprecedented look into the real workings of Trump’s financial empire. They uncover, I think as much as we can get at it, the truth behind the narrative of his wealth and its indispensable support: the myth of a genius businessman that he has spun and that, deplorably, much of the press and his supporters have bought, hook, line and sinker. Their conclusion? He was always exaggerating how rich he was, and always skating remarkably close to the edge of financial disaster.But though he squandered a great deal, it’s also true that he was extremely lucky. First, and most importantly, he was a beneficiary of the absolutely spectacular Manhattan real-estate boom. Second, he had things break his way at many crucial junctures that ought to have sunk him into total and irrevocable bankruptcy. Third, he was able to use his celebrity developer-mogul image to attract new business partners after his old ones had washed their hands of him. He was also lucky in the complacency of many of them with respect to his shenanigans: their willingness to play along and not find a judge to pull the plug.What sort of psychology produces this kind of behaviour? Buettner and Craig psychoanalyse Trump as unable to take the hit of recognising his relative incompetence. A deep need for public validation as the master of the Art of the Deal led him, over and over again, to make increasingly risky decisions. The illusion of success had to be maintained at all costs, which meant that a loss had to be followed by an even bigger bet.And so there Trump was at the start of 2017, in spite of everything, stunningly successful. Buettner and Craig call this an “illusion”. I profoundly disagree. To repeatedly save yourself from bankruptcy – to somehow manage to hand responsibility off to the people you do business with while you hotfoot it out of the picture – demonstrates considerable skill and ingenuity of some sort. Trump has exhibited great (if low) cunning and resilience when faced with what often appeared to be near-certain financial, entrepreneurial and business doom. It is, Buettner and Craig say, a combination of “bravado [and] branding” that allowed him to always “walk away with something – usually at the expense of others”.Many of us hope that Trump’s story will end with a proper comeuppance, restoring the appropriate and just moral order of the universe, in which his galaxy-scale hubris does indeed ultimately call forth a satisfying nemesis. Until then, we must regard him as a remarkable success – although few philosophers would judge Trump’s brand of success as the kind worth having.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris decries Trump’s abortion comments in first solo TV interview

      by

      Kamala Harris sat for her first solo interview as the Democratic presidential nominee on Wednesday, laying out her plan to boost the middle class and condemning her rival Donald Trump on his comments over abortion.During the interview with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, which was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the vice-president painted Trump as a candidate focused on the rich at the expense of the middle class, and herself as better equipped to handle the economy.“The top economists in our country have compared our plans and say mine would grow the economy, [and] his would shrink it,” she said during the interview.On his economic record, Harris said: “Donald Trump made a whole lot of promises that he did not meet.”Harris also showed disdain over Trump’s comments over abortion, expressing he needs to trust women to make their own reproductive decisions. Her comments came after Trump, at a Pennsylvania rally, called himself a “protector” of women, claiming American women will not be “thinking about abortion” if he is elected.“Donald Trump is also the person who said women should be punished for exercising a decision that they, rightly, should be able to make about their own body and future,” Harris said.On a lighter note, Harris confirmed that she worked at McDonald’s, pushing back against Trump’s allegations that she did not.“Part of the reason I even talk about having worked at McDonald’s is because there are people who work at McDonald’s who are trying to raise a family,” she said, alluding to her economic policy plan to help working-class families.“I think part of the difference between me and my opponent includes our perspective on the needs of the American people and what our responsibility, then, is to meet those needs,” Harris added.The interview comes at a time when Harris faces harsh criticism over the lack of media interviews she has done. Earlier this month, Axios reported that the Harris-Walz campaign has so far given fewer interviews than any other candidates in modern history.Trump and JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential pick, have used it as ammunition during their campaign speeches. On X, Vance responded to news of Harris’s interview by saying: “This is legitimately pathetic for a person who wants to be president. Ruhle has explicitly endorsed Harris. She won’t ask hard Qs. Kamala runs from tough questions because she can’t defend her record. If you want open borders and high groceries, vote for status quo Kamala.”In August, Harris was interviewed on CNN alongside Walz. The interview was hosted by Dana Bash and was aired as a one-hour primetime special. After the interview, Republicans criticized the joint interview with Walz for being pre-recorded and not live.Since then, Harris has given a handful of interviews, mostly with local outlets or more niche forums, including an appearance with Stephanie “Chiquibaby” Himonidis, a Spanish-language radio host and podcaster.Harris also appeared in a live-streamed “Unite For America” event with supporters hosted by Oprah Winfrey last week. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      US Senate votes unanimously to hold hospital CEO in criminal contempt

      by

      The US Senate has voted unanimously to hold the CEO of Steward Health Care in criminal contempt for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena – marking the first time in more than 50 years that the chamber has moved to hold someone in criminal contempt.On Wednesday, the Senate voted to hold Ralph de la Torre in contempt of Congress after the 58-year-old head of the Massachusetts-based for-profit healthcare system – which declared bankruptcy earlier this year – ignored a congressional subpoena and failed to appear at a hearing over the hospital chain’s alleged abuse of finances on 12 September.During Wednesday’s session, Bernie Sanders, Vermont senator and chair of the Senate’s health, education, labor and pensions (Help) committee, said: “The passage of this resolution by the full Senate will make clear that even though Dr de la Torre may be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, even though he may be able to buy fancy yachts and private jets and luxurious accommodations throughout the world, even though he may be able to afford some of the most expensive lawyers in America, no, Dr de la Torre is not above the law.“If you defy a congressional subpoena, you will be held accountable, no matter who you are or how well-connected you may be,” Sanders said.Similarly, Bill Cassidy, Louisiana senator and ranking member of Help, said: “Steward’s mismanagement has nationwide implications affecting patient care in more than 30 hospitals across eight states.“Through the committee’s investigation, it became evident that a thorough review of chief executive officer Dr Ralph de la Torre’s management decisions was essential to understand Steward’s financial problems and its failure to serve its patients,” Cassidy said of De la Torre, who was paid at least $250m by Steward Health Care as the hospital chain’s administrators struggled with facility problems, staffing shortages and closures.Investigations by the Boston Globe revealed that as more than a dozen Steward Health Care patients died in recent years after being unable to receive adequate treatment, De la Torre embarked on various jet travels and private yacht excursions across the Caribbean and French Riviera.The Boston Globe also revealed that De la Torre frequently used the hospital chain’s bank account as his own, including to make purchases to renovate an €8m ($8.9m) apartment in Madrid and to make donations of millions of dollars to his children’s private school.In July, the outlet reported that the justice department was investigating Steward Health Care for potential foreign corruption violations. It also reported that a federal grand jury in Boston was investigating the hospital chain’s financial dealings including its compensations for top executives.During Wednesday’s session, the Massachusetts senator Ed Markey condemned what he called a “culmination of a financial tragedy over the past decade”.“Steward, led by its founder and CEO Dr Ralph de la Torre and his corporate enablers, looted hospitals across the country for their own profit, and while they got rich, workers, patients and communities suffered, nurses paid out of pocket for cardboard bereavement boxes for the babies to help grieving parents who had just lost a newborn,” said Markey.“Dr de la Torre is using his blood-soaked gains to hide behind corporate lawyers instead of responding to the United States Senate’s demand for actions. But while he tries to run and hide, Dr de la Torre is revealing himself for what he truly is – a physician who places personal gain over his duty to do no harm,” he added. More

    • 263 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Mark Cuban says Harris’s economic plan is ‘better for business’; Trump to rally at site of first assassination attempt – live

      by

      Mark Cuban, who attended Harris’s speech at the Economic Club in Pittsburgh, praised the vice-president’s pitch as “better for business”.Cuban, the entrepreneur and investor who rose to prominence as owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team and star of the reality TV show Shark Tank, lauded Harris for discussing AI and other emerging technologies and her plans to encourage entrepreneurs in an interview with MSNBC.“Every single person in this country has that entrepreneur in them,” he said. “And she’s going to lift them up.”Trump meanwhile, “has no interest in really finding out what it takes to be successful with any policy,” Cuban said.Cuban has been a big supporter of Harris.Harris, in turn, had largely catered this speech to business owners and centrists who may have identified with pro-business Republican candidates in the past, and may be turned off by Donald Trump’s inscrutable economic agenda.The US House passed a three-month government funding package on Wednesday, sending the bill to the Senate with just days left to avert a shutdown set to begin next Tuesday.The vote was 341 to 82, with 132 Republicans and 209 Democrats supporting the legislation. All 82 votes against the bill, which will extend government funding until 20 December, came from House Republicans.Republican House speaker Mike Johnson revealed the legislation on Sunday after his original funding proposal failed to pass last week. Johnson’s original bill combined a six-month funding measure with the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (Save) act, a controversial proposal that would require people to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Fourteen House Republicans and all but two House Democrats voted against that bill last Wednesday, blocking its passage.Read the full story here:In Racine county, Wisconsin, the Guardian’s Callum Jones looked at Donald Trump’s promises to “rebuild the economy” and how they panned out. Less than 30 miles south of the Fiserv Forum, the Wisconsin convention center where Republicans confirmed Donald Trump as their nominee for president for the third time, lies the site of a project Trump predicted would become “the Eighth Wonder of the World”.While still in office, the then president traveled to Mount Pleasant in Racine county to break ground on a sprawling facility that the electronics manufacturing giant Foxconn had agreed to build – in exchange for billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies.Flanked by local allies and executives from the company, Trump planted a golden shovel in the ground. “America is open for business more than it has ever been open for business,” he proclaimed in June 2018, as FoxConn promised to invest $10bn and hire 13,000 local workers.Highways were built and expanded. Homes were razed. The area – a former manufacturing powerhouse – was primed for revitalization in a deal that seemed to underline the executive prowess of America’s most famous businessman, an image that has helped maintain many voters’ confidence that he could steer the US economy more competently than his rival, Kamala Harris, and could win him the White House again come November.But on a recent drive around the site, fields of long grass and weeds stretched as far as the eye could see. Trees marked where houses used to stand. The Eighth Wonder was nowhere to be seen.“Everyone was very skeptical it was going to happen,” said Wendy DeBona, a local Uber and Lyft driver, 53. “And then, of course, look what happened.”Foxconn all but pulled the plug in April 2021, blaming “unanticipated market fluctuations” as it drastically cut back its plan and struck a new deal, through which it committed to spend $672m on a campus that would create about 1,400 jobs.Today, a striking glass globe stands over what the firm did, eventually, build. What work is actually taking place there is the subject of local speculation; the company did not respond to a request for comment.Trump had left office by the time Plan A fell through. “They dug a hole with those golden shovels, and then they fell into it,” Joe Biden, his successor, suggested earlier this year. “Foxconn turned out to be just that: a con.”But one section of the site is a hive of activity, with cranes, diggers, trucks, lorries and tractors visible from the road. Biden himself visited in May, as Microsoft announced it would invest $3.3bn into a new data center on part of the land abandoned by Foxconn. The project is set to create 2,300 union construction jobs, and the tech giant has also pledged to build a new academy with a local technical college, through which more than 1,000 students will be trained in five years “to work in the new data center and IT sector jobs created in the area”.So did Biden do what Trump didn’t? It depends on whom you ask. Who is better for the economy will be a crucial question in Wisconsin, a must-win swing state in the race for the White House. The state backed Barack Obama in 2012, Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020. As Trump pledges to “rebuild” the US economy by cutting taxes, boosting wages and creating jobs, those attempting to persuade Racine county to reject him believe his role in the Foxconn debacle has shifted the dial.Donald Trump’s campaign has already responded to Harris’s speech, pointing back to Joe Biden’s economic record.“She’s had three and a half years to prove herself, and she has failed. Personal savings are down, credit card debt is up, small business optimism is at a record-low, and people are struggling to afford homes, groceries and gas,” said Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign national press secretary. “ONLY President Trump will Make America WEALTHY Again” (emphasis hers).Although small business optimism remains low, it is not at a record low.As Marketplace explains:
      National Federation of Independent Business’ newest small-business optimism index is out. The good news? The index rose more than two points in July, and small businesses feel the most optimistic they have since February 2022. The less good news? Optimism is still below the survey’s 50-year average.
      The challenge for Trump’s campaign will be holding Harris accountable for the economy under Biden. Polls are increasingly finding that voters are willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt – and hear her out.Mark Cuban, who attended Harris’s speech at the Economic Club in Pittsburgh, praised the vice-president’s pitch as “better for business”.Cuban, the entrepreneur and investor who rose to prominence as owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team and star of the reality TV show Shark Tank, lauded Harris for discussing AI and other emerging technologies and her plans to encourage entrepreneurs in an interview with MSNBC.“Every single person in this country has that entrepreneur in them,” he said. “And she’s going to lift them up.”Trump meanwhile, “has no interest in really finding out what it takes to be successful with any policy,” Cuban said.Cuban has been a big supporter of Harris.Harris, in turn, had largely catered this speech to business owners and centrists who may have identified with pro-business Republican candidates in the past, and may be turned off by Donald Trump’s inscrutable economic agenda.Although voters overall still seem to favor Donald Trump over Kamala Harris on economic issues, the former president’s edge has been blunted.Recent polls have showed that voters have more faith in Harris than they did in Joe Biden to steer the economy. A Quinnipiac poll released yesterday, for example, found that 52% of voters favored Trump vs 45% for Harris on the economy . An AP poll, meanwhile, found that voters were split – 43% favored Trump on the economy v 415 for Harris.Here’s some analysis from the AP:
      The finding is a warning sign for Trump, who has tried to link Harris to President Joe Biden’s economic track record. The new poll suggests that Harris may be escaping some of the president’s baggage on the issue, undercutting what was previously one of Trump’s major advantages.
      It may help Harris that the economy is also looking up for many voters. Interest rates are coming down, prices are stabilizing.Her speech today didn’t include much that was new – but Harris did detail several specific policies, including reiterating pledges she has previously made to help families with childcare costs, cut taxes for the middle class and encourage affordable housing construction. She also proposed policies to encourage entreprenuership.Harris wrapped up her speech by making a lengthy attack on the economic policies Donald Trump announced yesterday, saying many of them were rehashes of policies he proposed in 2016, but did not execute during his time as president.“On Trump’s watch, offshoring went up and manufacturing jobs went down across our country and across our economy. All told, almost 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost during his presidency, starting before the pandemic hit, making Trump one of the biggest losers ever on manufacturing,” Harris said.The vice-president also accused her opponent of talking tough on China, while doing little to stand up to its government:
      Donald Trump also talked a big game on our trade deficit with China, but it is far lower under our watch than any year of his administration.
      While he constantly got played by China, I will never hesitate to take swift and strong measures when China undermines the rules of the road at the expense of our workers, our communities and our companies, whether it’s flooding the market with steel inferior or at all, unfairly subsidizing shipbuilding or hurting our small businesses with counterfeits.
      “Understand the impact of these so-called policies that really are not about a plan for strengthening our prosperity or our security,” Harris said. She then repeated a promise she made, to applause, when accepting the nomination at last month’s Democratic national convention:
      I will never sell out America to our competitors or adversaries, never, never. And I will always make sure we have the strongest economy and the most lethal fighting force anywhere in the world.
      Warning that the US’s rivals, particularly China, are catching up to it, Kamala Harris said that the “third pillar” of her economic plan would be focused on ensuring the country is the leader in technological innovation, and on cutting red tape that slows down the completion of projects.“The third pillar of our opportunity economy is leading the world in the industries of the future and making sure America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century,” Harris said.She then elaborated on the types of technologies her administration would prioritize:
      I will recommit the nation to global leadership in the sectors that will define the next century. We will invest in biomanufacturing and aerospace, remain dominant in AI and quantum computing, blockchain and other emerging technologies, expand our lead in clean energy innovation and manufacturing, so the next generation of breakthroughs from advanced batteries to geothermal to advanced nuclear are not just invented, but built here in America by American workers.
      Turning to unions, she promised to “double the number of registered apprenticeships by the end of my first term”. Harris also proposed eliminating “degree requirements while increasing skills development”, something she said she would do for federal workers.She then turned to the pace of construction in the United States, which she argued was too slow:
      But the simple truth is, in America, it takes too long and it costs too much to build. Whether it’s a new housing development, a new factory or a new bridge, projects take too long to go from concept to reality. It happens in blue states, it happens in red states, and it’s a national problem. And I will tell you this, China is not moving slowly. They’re not and we can’t afford to either.
      Lowering costs was “the first pillar” of her economic policy, and now Kamala Harris is getting into her “second pillar”, which she said was “investing in American innovation and entrepreneurship”.“There has been no incubator for unleashing human potential like America, and we need to guard that spirit,” the vice-president said.Her plan to do that involves making it easier for entrepreneurs to get loans:
      We can make it easier for our small businesses to access capital. On average, it costs about $40,000 to start a new business, but currently, the tax deduction for startups is only $5,000.
      So, currently, for startup costs, the tax deduction is $5,000. Well, in 2024 it is almost impossible to start a business on $5,000 which is why as president, I will make the start-up deduction 10 times richer, and we will raise it from $5,000 to $50,000 tax deduction and provide low- and no-interest loans to small businesses that want to expand.
      She also set the goal of generating 25m new applications for small businesses by the end of her first term, which would be in January 2029.Kamala Harris is now talking about the sorts of policies she would pursue as president, reiterating pledges she has previously made to assist families with childcare costs, cut taxes for the middle class and spur the construction of affordable housing:
      Under my plan, more than 100 million Americans will get a middle-class tax break that includes $6,000 for new parents during the first year of their child’s life to help families cover everything from car seats to cribs. We’ll also cut the cost of childcare and elder care, and finally, give all working people access to paid leave, which will help everyone caring for children, caring for aging parents and that sandwich generation, which is caring for both.
      She then went into her plan to lower housing costs, a major concern for both her and Donald Trump:
      We will also go after the biggest drivers of cost for the middle class and work to bring them down. And one of those, some would argue, one of the biggest is the cost of housing. So here’s what we will do. We will cut the red tape that stops homes from being built and take on, in addition, corporate landlords who are hiking rental prices and, yes, and we will work with builders and developers to construct 3 million new homes and rentals for the middle class, because increasing the housing supply will help drive down the cost of housing.
      Then we will also help first time homebuyers just get their foot in the door with the $25,000 down payment assistance.
      Trump’s policy on housing has centered on mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, who he argues have increased demand for housing and, therefore, costs. Here’s more about that:Harris has thus far talked less about policy than about her ideology when it comes to handling economic challenges.Harris has invoked Democratic icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt as inspiring her economic approach, saying:
      I will engage in what Franklin Roosevelt called bold, persistent experimentation, because I believe we shouldn’t be constrained by ideology, and instead, should seek practical solutions to problems, realistic assessments of what is working and what is not, applying metrics to our analysis, applying facts to our analysis, and stay focused … Not only on the crises at hand, but on our big goals, on what’s best for America over the long term.
      The vice-president then got more direct about what she supported:
      I’ve always been, and will always be, a strong supporter of workers and unions, and I also believe we need to engage those who create most of the jobs in America.
      Look, I am a capitalist. I believe in free and fair markets. I believe in consistent and transparent rules of the road to create a stable business environment, and I know the power of American innovation. I’ve been working with entrepreneurs and business owners my whole career, and I believe companies need to play by the rules, respect the rights of workers and unions and abide by fair competition, and if they don’t, I will hold them accountable.
      Harris has not actually gotten into specifics yet, but continues to elaborate on her promise to lower costs for Americans.“I want Americans and families to be able to not just get by, but be able to get ahead, to thrive, be able to thrive,” the vice-president said.She went on:
      I don’t want you to have to worry about making your monthly rent if your car breaks down. I want you to be able to save up for your child’s education, to take a nice vacation from time to time. I want you to be able to buy Christmas presents for your loved ones without feeling anxious when you’re looking at your bank statement. I want you to be able to build some wealth, not just for yourself, but also for your children and your grandchildren, intergenerational wealth.
      Harris, speaking a little more slowly and deliberately than she usually does, then went on to attack Donald Trump’s economic policies:
      The American people face a choice between two fundamentally very different paths for our economy. I intend to chart a new way forward and grow America’s middle class. Donald Trump intends to take America backward to the failed policies of the past.
      He has no intention to grow our middle class. He’s only interested in making life better for himself and people like himself, the wealthiest of Americans, you can see it spelled out in his economic agenda, an agenda that gives trillions of dollars in tax cuts to billionaires and the biggest corporations, while raising taxes on the middle class by almost $4,000 a year, slashing overtime pay, throwing tens of millions of Americans off of health care and cutting Social Security and Medicare. In sum, his agenda would weaken the economy and hurt working people and the middle class.
      In a speech in Georgia yesterday, Trump announced plans to slash taxes for corporations who make their products in the United States, and put steep tariffs on imports from countries where US firms move jobs:Kamala Harris began by recounting how the economy grew and unemployment stayed low under Joe Biden’s presidency, then pivoted to acknowledging the toll inflation has taken on Americans.“Over the past three and a half years, we have taken major steps forward to recover from the public health and economic crisis we inherited. Inflation has dropped faster here than the rest of the developed world. Unemployment is near record low levels,” she said.“But let’s be clear, for all these positive steps, the cost of living in America is still just too high. You know it, and I know it, and that was true long before the pandemic hit.”Kamala Harris is coming onstage now in Pittsburgh, where she’s set to elaborate on her proposals for the economy.We’ll let you know what she has to say. More