Chris Hedges's Blog, page 343

Liam Neeson Says He’s Not a Racist, Explains Rage After Attack

NEW YORK—Liam Neeson says violence breeds violence and bigotry breeds bigotry.

The 66-year-old actor appeared Tuesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” one day after he told an interviewer that he had violent thoughts about killing a black person after learning nearly 40 years ago that someone close to him had been raped.

Neeson says he had asked about the race of the attacker, along with other descriptive characteristics.

He says he had a “primal urge to lash out” before he was shocked by his reaction and sought help from a priest and friends.

Neeson says he’s not a racist.

The actor says we need to talk about these things because bigotry and racism exist.

Neeson was promoting his new thriller, “Cold Pursuit.”

Robert Reich: America Faces a Threat Far Greater Than Trump

Donald Trump says his State of the Union address on Tuesday evening will be about “unification”. But Trump discussing the state of the union is like pyromaniac discussing lighter fluids. His goal is, and has always been, disunion.

The man thrives on divisiveness. It’s how he keeps himself the center of attention, fuels his base and ensures that no matter what facts are revealed, his followers will stick by him.

There’s another reason Trump aims to divide – and why he pours salt into the nation’s deepest wounds over ethnicity, immigration, race and gender.

He wants to distract attention from the biggest and most threatening divide of all: the widening imbalance of wealth and power between the vast majority, who have little or none, and a tiny minority who are accumulating just about all.

“Divide and conquer” is one of the oldest strategies in the demagogic playbook: keep the public angry at each other so they don’t unite against those who are running off with the goods.

Over the last four decades, the median wage has barely budged. But the incomes of the richest 0.1% have soared by more than 300% and the incomes of the top 0.001% (the 2,300 richest Americans), by more than 600%. The net worth of the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans almost equals that of the bottom 90% combined.

This grotesque imbalance is undermining American democracy.

“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy,” Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern concluded a few years ago, after analyzing 1,799 policy issues that came before Congress. Lawmakers respond to the demands of wealthy individuals and moneyed business interests.

No secret here. In fact, Trump campaigned as a populist – exploiting the public’s justifiable sense that the game is rigged against them. But he never attacked the American oligarchy and his divide-and-conquer strategy as president has disguised his efforts to make it even stronger.

His tax cuts, his evisceration of labor laws, his filling his cabinet and sub-cabinet with corporate shills, his rollbacks of health, safety, environmental and financial regulations: all have made the super-rich far richer, at the expense of average Americans.

Meanwhile, he and his fellow Republicans continue to suppress votes. Last week, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, denounced Democratic proposals to increase turnout, even calling the idea of making election day a federal holiday “a power grab”. Of course, it was a power grab – for the people.

Sitting behind Trump’s left shoulder on Tuesday night when he delivers his State of the Union will be a Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who refused to blink when Trump closed the government in an attempt to fund his wall at the Mexican border.

Has Trump met his match? The real question is whether, and to what extent, Pelosi and other Democrats will also unblinkingly take on America’s increasing concentration of wealth and power.

In recent weeks, senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, both eyeing the White House, have with 29-year-old freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for sharp increases in taxes on the super-rich. Democratic presidential hopefuls are also proposing to expand access to health insurance by creating Medicare for all.

Polls show strong public support but the corporate Democrats who bankroll much of the party are not happy with this drift to the putative “left”.

Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York mayor now considering a presidential run as a Democrat, warns that when you try to redistribute wealth, you get “Venezuela”. Howard Schultz, the billionaire former Starbucks chief executive who is considering an independent bid, calls Warren’s plan “ridiculous.”

Trump, along with the Republicans and perhaps some corporate Democrats, would rather opponents focus on the ethnic, racial and gender differences he uses to divide and conquer.

But Democratic leaders and candidates appear to understand that the largest threat to the state of the union – one that trumps all others, rendering it all but impossible to address anything else – is the deepening divide of wealth and power between the many and the few.

3 Reasons the Super Rich Should Embrace a 70 Percent Tax Rate

Senator Lindsey Graham once said, “It’s really American to avoid paying taxes. … It’s a game we play.”

There are many good reasons why Americans should be paying those taxes, and why there should be even higher taxes on the richest individuals and corporations. Of course, these arguments have generally been ignored. But there are several good personal reasons for wealthy Americans to reconsider the tax issue, to start focusing on the importance of a more equal society, and to trust the democratic system to make that happen.

1. They Should Be Scared to Death about Potential Threats to Their Personal Safety 

A new industry has developed in doomsday shelters for rich people awaiting Armageddon. But bunkers and security forces won’t be much defense against viruses and microdrones. Or against all-out war or revolution.

In his book, “The Great Leveler,” Walter Scheidel argues that throughout history the fortunes of the rich have been destroyed or diminished in four ways: war, revolution, state collapse, and plague. Increasing unrest and improved killing technologies are making all of these more likely. People of means should be doing everything possible to ease the ongoing tensions by reducing inequality. But that means thinking long-term.

The super-rich better be sure to install anti-viral air and water filters in their bunkers, because the risk is growing for a global pandemic, perhaps initiated by some of the bored and underemployed and angry young men for whom terrorism is “an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer.” As public health expert Dr. Ali S. Khan notes, “A deadly microbe like smallpox — to which we no longer have immunity — can be easily recreated in a rogue laboratory..”

Another real fear for the billionaires is a micro-drone armed with an injectable poison and programmed with facial recognition software to hover patiently before targeting a single individual, after which it can self-destruct to eliminate all evidence of its mission. This is no longer science fiction. The specifications for these drones are all available — or soon to be available — to any skilled tech enthusiast. And to anyone with deadly intentions. Experts are divided on the prospect, but lethal weapons specialist Steve Wright says, “The technologies needed to build such autonomous weapons – intelligent targeting algorithms, geo-location, facial recognition – are already with us…It won’t take much to develop the technology..”

2. They Should Be Horrified by Visions of the Earth to be Occupied by Their Great-Grandchildren 

National Geographic’s 2012 Greendex Survey reveals a remarkable human response to environmental damage: “[Those] demonstrating the least sustainable behavior as consumers, are least likely to feel guilty about the implications of their choices for the environment.” Much of that ill-behavior comes from the richest among us. As a Deutsche Welle documentary states: “Inequality undermines people’s willingness to protect the environment.

The world’s population was 1.5 billion in 1900. It’s 7.5 billion now. It’s projected to be approaching 10 billion in just thirty years! By the end of this century our air and water may be too befouled to sustain life, rich or poor. Conservatives tell us not to worry about such problems, because technology will allow us to “adapt” to climate change. That’s a self-serving way to gloss over the issues without taking any responsibility for their prevention. And without thinking about the state of the world for their own great-grandchildren.

3. They Should Be Worried About Losing Everything to China 

Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “Whoever becomes the leader in [artificial intelligence] will become the ruler of the world.” Chinese leaders have announced a plan to become the “premier global AI innovation center” by 2030.

China as ruler of the world is certainly not in the plans of the American super-rich, who want nothing more than homeland security for their estates and portfolios. But China appears to be taking the lead in AI-driven military weaponry. As a Wired review states, “From a military perspective, China is using AI to develop a range of unmanned aerial, ground, surface, and underwater vehicles that are becoming increasingly autonomous.”

China is also leading the way in moon exploration, with U.S. Air Force experts suggesting that the dark side of the Moon could potentially store anti-satellite weapons that are invisible to people on earth. The super-rich — and the rest of us — won’t even know what’s coming.

So How Will a 70% Tax Rate Help? 

First, for leveling, to lessen the inequality-driven threats of war, revolution, state collapse, and plague; second, to support a unified national effort to protect our great-grandchildren from environmental disaster; and third, to support a unified national effort to maintain our global leadership in AI and space technologies.

The Davos billionaires had a nice slogan: “Committed to improving the state of the world.” But they don’t want to be inconvenienced by actually paying for it. As Michael Dell explained, “I feel much more comfortable with our ability as a private foundation to allocate those funds than I do giving them to the government.”

That’s as arrogant as it gets.

First of all, a private foundation is often a donor-advised fund that allows big tax deductions while the money is hoarded and reinvested rather than directed to worthwhile causes.

Secondly, they believe they can do better on their own? Not possible. Our environmental and technological needs demand a unified effort from all of society. Individual efforts like SpaceX rely on decades of research and development from NASA and other governmental and corporate sources. It takes an entire society to address our major issues.

The super-rich always get their way with Congress and the President. If they really want to “improve the state of the world,” they should be using all their lobbyists and lawyers to make sure their tax money is supporting a cooperative national effort to protect the environment for their great-grandchildren and to remain competitive in the technologies of the future.

This Is What Criminalizing Black Protest Looks Like

Melina Abdullah is chair of the department of Pan-African Studies at California State University, Los Angeles, and a co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Black Lives Matter. In 2016, she was charged with eight misdemeanors following a demonstration at a police commission meeting. According to the Los Angeles Times, officers removed Abdullah from the room and detained her for resisting arrest. Now, a petition has been launched calling on Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer to drop the charges against her and end the criminalization of black protest.

“As LA City prosecutor, you have put forward a flawed assertion that freedom struggle must always be polite and follow the rules of the very institutions that are engaging in the abuse,” the petition reads. “Many of the charges you have lodged against Melina relate to so-called “disruptions” of public meetings. These non-violent actions might include speaking off-topic or beyond the allotted time, holding signs, or refusing to take a seat or exit a room. Such engagements are a hallmark of democracy and protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, it is only through such protest that substantial changes have been won, including the right to vote, Civil Rights, workers’ rights, women’s rights, and union rights. When police kill Black people every 28 hours, Black people cannot be muzzled.”

Two months after her arrest, Abdullah sat down with Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer and the Truthdig editorial team to discuss racial injustice, police brutality and the future of the progressive movement. “I think the rage and sorrow that we’re feeling can be used to mobilize people,” she said at the time. “So that’s my intent—to make sure that those emotions are used to mobilize a movement that can transform things for us and empower us.”

Abdullah’s court date is set for Thursday. You can read some of her writing here and watch her Truthdig interview below:

The Mainstream Media’s Smearing of Tulsi Gabbard

Last week, as a polar vortex engulfed broad swaths of the upper midwest, Rachel Maddow offered a chilling hypothetical. “What would happen if Russia killed the power in Fargo today?” she asked her viewers. “What would happen if all the natural gas lines that service Sioux Falls just poofed on the coldest day in recent memory, and it wasn’t in our power whether or not to turn them back on. I mean, what would you do if you lost heat indefinitely as the act of a foreign power, on the same day the temperature in your front yard matched the temperature in Antarctica?”

Since Robert Mueller began his collusion investigation nearly two years ago, Maddow has emerged as one of the nation’s leading Russiagate conspiracists, but she is hardly alone. Days after the MSNBC host speculated that Russian President Vladimir Putin might try to freeze unsuspecting North Dakotans to death, NBC News published an article with the headline “Russia’s propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard.” And like Maddow’s on-air musings, the report has proved irresponsible at best and mendacious at worst.

“The whole story was a sham,” writes The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald. “The only ‘expert’ cited by NBC in support of its key claim was the firm New Knowledge, which just got caught by the New York Times fabricating Russian troll accounts on behalf of the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to manufacture false accusations that the Kremlin was interfering in that election.”

New Knowledge CEO Jonathon Morgan was able to perpetrate his fraud, at least in part, through “Hamilton 68″—a dashboard that “highlights the activity of…600 accounts that researchers believe are either tied to the Russian government or repeat the themes of its propaganda,” according to the New York Times. (In Greenwald’s telling, the tool “has so been abused that even some of its designers urged the media to stop exaggerating its meaning.”) Since the scam was exposed, Facebook has closed the accounts of several of those responsible—including Morgan—while Alabama Sen. Doug Jones has called for a federal investigation.

So why might New Knowledge identify Tulsi Gabbard as a possible Kremlin favorite? And more significantly, why is a major news network willing to carry water for such a scandal-plagued organization? While perhaps only Morgan and NBC News executive editor Catherine Kim can answer those questions definitively, the answer is almost certainly Gabbard’s politics and platform, both of which fall to the left of the Democratic establishment.

Since announcing her run for president in January, the Hawaiian congresswoman has pledged to take on entrenched wealth and a runaway military industrial complex. “We’re being torn apart by powerful, self-serving politicians and greedy corporations,” she said during her campaign kickoff speech in Oahu Saturday. “People fomenting hatred, bigotry and fear; inciting conflict between us because of the color of our skin, the way that we worship, or the political party that we might belong to.”

Gabbard’s candidacy invites any number of legitimate criticisms. Her past jeremiads against “radical Islam” have reportedly earned the praise of Steve Bannon, and she has professed a curious admiration for India’s Hindu right; the LGBT community remains leery of her candidacy despite her backing the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act; meanwhile, her anti-interventionism can appear “shot through with a pernicious nationalism,” as Branko Marcetic observes in Jacobin. 

By the same measure, the indictments of Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, political consultant Rick Gates and strategist Roger Stone suggest it’s possible, even probable that some form of collusion transpired between Russia and team Trump, if not the president himself. Still, it seems telling that more than a year removed from the 2020 primary, the mainstream media are already branding one of the Democratic Party’s fiercest critics of American empire an unwitting Putin pawn.

“The playbook used by the axis of the Democratic Party, NBC, MSNBC, neocons, and the intelligence community has been, is, and will continue to be a very simple one: to smear any adversary of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party—whether on the left or the right—as a stooge or asset of the Kremlin (a key target will undoubtedly be, and indeed already is, Bernie Sanders),” concludes Greenwald. “To accomplish this McCarthyite goal, this Democratic Party coalition of neocons, intelligence operatives, and NBC stars will deceive, smear, and even engage in outright journalistic deception, as NBC (once again) just proved with this report.”

Read more at The Intercept.

Senate Breaks With Trump on Afghanistan, Syria Withdrawal

WASHINGTON—The Senate voted Monday to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, breaking with President Donald Trump as he calls for a military drawdown in those countries.

Senators voted 70-26 for the amendment sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The measure says the Islamic State group and al-Qaida militants still pose a serious threat to the United States, and it warns that “a precipitous withdrawal” of U.S. forces from those countries could “allow terrorists to regroup, destabilize critical regions and create vacuums that could be filled by Iran or Russia.”

Trump abruptly tweeted plans for a U.S. pullout from Syria in December, arguing that the Islamic State group had been defeated even though his intelligence chiefs have said it remains a threat. Trump also ordered the military to develop plans to remove up to half of the 14,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The strong bipartisan vote comes as Republican senators have increasingly diverged from Trump on foreign policy. When he introduced the amendment last week, McConnell said “ISIS and al-Qaida have yet to be defeated.”

McConnell’s amendment, which is nonbinding, would encourage cooperation between the White House and Congress to develop long-term strategies in both nations, “including a thorough accounting of the risks of withdrawing too hastily.”

Idaho Sen. Jim Risch, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the amendment was not a rebuke to Trump, though he added, “we can do things over there which will make us safer here.”

While the majority of senators voted for the amendment, a handful of Republicans voted against it. McConnell’s Kentucky colleague, Republican Sen. Rand Paul said before the vote that “enough is enough” and the money spent on wars should be spent at home.

“I want to compliment President Trump for being bold and brave,” Paul said.

Many of the most liberal members of the Senate — including several Democrats who are eyeing presidential runs in 2020 — also voted against the amendment. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and others have agreed with Paul that the United States should withdraw, though they have criticized Trump for his sudden announcement.

McConnell’s provision was added to a wide-ranging foreign policy bill that has been pending on the Senate floor for several weeks. The legislation includes measures supporting Israel and Jordan and would slap sanctions on Syrians involved in war crimes. The Senate is expected to vote on the broader measure later this week.

That bill has split centrist and liberal Democrats due to a provision from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., that seeks to counter the global Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement against Israel over its treatment of Palestinians and their settlements. Israel sees a growing threat from the BDS movement, which has led to increased boycotts of the Jewish state in support of the Palestinians.

That has led to a “boycott of the boycotts” as Israel pushes back against those aligned with BDS.

In support of Israel, Rubio’s measures would affirm the legal authority of state and local governments to restrict contracts and take other actions against those “engaged in BDS conduct.” Several states are facing lawsuits after taking action against workers supporting BDS boycotts of Israel.

Opponents say Rubio’s measure infringes on free speech.

Americans Are Eager to Tax the Rich, Multiple Polls Show

Billionaires who attended the World Economic Forum in Davos last month may be weary of the wave of proposals to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. A Wall Street Journal editorial called them “crippling.” Economist Tyler Cowen, writing in Bloomberg, suggested that, if implemented, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal that Americans with incomes over $10 million should be taxed at a 70 percent rate would help re-elect Trump.

New polls, however, suggest that Trump’s opponents might want to pay closer attention to such proposals. As Ben White writes in Politico on Monday, “polling suggests that when it comes to soaking the rich, the American public is increasingly on board.”

A new survey from Morning Consult and Politico found that 76 percent of respondents, all registered voters, believe that the richest Americans should pay higher taxes. It’s a belief that extends across party lines too, for Americans making over $10 million. A Fox News poll taken shortly after Ocasio-Cortez proposed the 70 percent rate during her “60 Minutes” interview showed that 54 percent of Republicans agreed with her. Another survey, this time from The Hill and HarrisX, showed that 59 percent of respondents agreed with Ocasio-Cortez.

Those numbers, White says, “suggests the political ground upon which the 2020 presidential campaign will be fought is shifting in dramatic ways, reflecting the rise in inequality in the United States and growing concerns in the electorate about the fairness of the American system.”

Ocasio-Cortez is not the only member of Congress to float plans for higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. In the weeks following that interview, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who has taken major steps toward a 2020 presidential run, proposed a two percent tax on Americans with a net worth above $50 million, and an additional one percent hike on billionaires. Then another possible presidential contender, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced the For the 99.8% Act, which includes a 77 percent tax on billionaires’ estates.

While voters show support in multiple polls for raising taxes on the wealthy in general, the Politico-Morning Consult survey suggests a preference for Warren’s wealth tax specifically, with 61 percent in favor, including Republicans, compared to 45 percent in favor of Ocasio-Cortez’s plan.

Aside from preferences for politicians’ specific proposals, 57 percent of respondents believe poor Americans pay too much in taxes, 58 percent believe the same about the middle class, and 63 percent think the rich are paying too little.

Even President Donald Trump, when he was candidate Trump and had not yet passed sweeping tax cuts for the wealthy, understood this. As Vox observes, in its analysis of the recent Politico-Morning Consult poll:

For all of President Trump’s purported obsession with pleasing his base and fulfilling his campaign promises, candidate Trump promised repeatedly not to enact a tax proposal that he would personally benefit from and claimed over and over again that he wanted to crack down on abusive loopholes used by hedge fund and private equity managers. What he actually did was deliver a regressive tax cut that contains special new loopholes he benefits from personally.

It’s also a sign that when it comes to taxes, the GOP may need to rethink their messaging. As White observes, “Republicans who think they can use the proposals as a political weapon in 2020 to paint Democrats as wild-eyed, tax-and-spend liberals, a winning strategy since Walter Mondale called for higher taxes in 1984 and got crushed, may find it challenging.”

 

Justice Department to Probe Federal Jail in New York City

NEW YORK — The U.S. Department of Justice said Sunday it will work with the Bureau of Prisons to examine what happened at a federal detention center in Brooklyn that had lost heat and electricity last week and to ensure that it has a backup system in place.

“In the coming days, the Department will work with the Bureau of Prisons to examine what happened and ensure the facility has the power, heat and backup systems in place to prevent the problem from re-occurring,” said Wyn Hornbuckle, deputy director of public affairs for the Justice Department.

Electrical power was finally restored at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn at about 6:30 p.m. Sunday, Hornbuckle said.

Protesters have gathered outside the facility in recent days following news reports that those housed there have largely been without heat or power for the past week and also haven’t been able to communicate with lawyers or loved ones. Outdoor temperatures have been well below freezing on some recent days, though Sunday was warmer.

“With the heat and hot water operational, and the restoration of electrical power, the facility can now begin to return to regular operations,” Hornbuckle said.

Earlier Sunday, some demonstrators attempted to enter the facility, and guards drove them back with pushes and shoves. Witnesses said they also used pepper spray. A reporter and photographer for The Associated Press were at the facility when a woman, whose son is being detained, tried to get into the jail.

On Sunday, an inmate was able to call through the window of his cell, which faces out to the street, to his mother below. The woman, Yvonne Murchison, was crying and upset and tried to get into the facility, where visits have been stopped.

“I’d trade places with him any day, that’s my child,” she said.

She was followed by activists and media into the lobby, where visitors have to pass through metal detectors.

Witnesses said officers used significant force to push the people out, with some of those attempting to come in being pushed to the ground. The AP photographer felt some type of spray, and began to have trouble breathing. Those affected were seen washing out their eyes with water or milk.

The Bureau of Prisons has acknowledged that the jail “experienced a partial power outage due to a fire in the switch gear room.” The bureau had said a new electrical panel was being installed by an outside contractor. The agency insisted that inmates had hot water for showers and sinks, and were getting medications as needed.

The jail administration did not return an email seeking comment on the clash Sunday.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo called for an investigation of the circumstances of the loss of heat and electricity by the federal Department of Justice, saying the situation was “a violation of human decency and dignity” and also raises “questions of potential violations of law.”

The Democrat said he wanted answers, and those responsible held accountable.

“Prisoners in New York are human beings,” Cuomo said. “Let’s treat them that way.”

The New York Civil Liberties Union released a statement Sunday calling on the Bureau of Prisons to “ensure that no detainee be subjected to retaliation for peacefully protesting.”

“Today’s confrontation between the Bureau of Prisons and family members of people jailed at MDC highlights the desperate need to address the dangerous, inhumane and unlawful conditions inside the facility,” NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman said.

Trump Campaign Takes Steps to Prevent Challenge Within GOP

WASHINGTON — Worried about a potential Republican primary challenge, President Donald Trump’s campaign has launched a state-by-state effort to prevent an intraparty fight that could spill over into the general-election campaign.

The nascent initiative has been an intense focus in recent weeks and includes taking steps to change state party rules, crowd out potential rivals and quell any early signs of opposition that could embarrass the president.

It is an acknowledgment that Trump, who effectively hijacked the Republican Party in 2016, hasn’t completely cemented his grip on the GOP and, in any event, is not likely to coast to the 2020 GOP nomination without some form of opposition. While any primary challenge would almost certainly be unsuccessful, Trump aides are looking to prevent a repeat of the convention discord that highlighted the electoral weaknesses of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter in their failed re-election campaigns.

To defend against that prospect, Trump’s campaign has deployed what it calls an unprecedented effort to monitor and influence local party operations. It has used endorsements, lobbying and rule changes to increase the likelihood that only loyal Trump activists make it to the Republican nominating convention in August 2020.

Bill Stepien, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, calls it all a “process of ensuring that the national convention is a television commercial for the president for an audience of 300 million and not an internal fight.”

One early success for Trump’s campaign was in Massachusetts, where Trump backer and former state Rep. Jim Lyons last month defeated the candidate backed by Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, a Trump critic, to serve as the state party chairman.

“We have a constant focus on tracking everything regarding this process,” Stepien said. “Who’s running, what their level of support for the president is and what their vote counts are.”

The campaign’s work extends beyond state party leadership races, which are taking place in many key states in the coming weeks. Trump’s team plans to organize at county and state caucuses and conventions over the next 18 months to elevate pro-Trump leaders and potential delegates. Ahead of the convention, it aims to have complete control of the convention agenda, rules and platform — and to identify any potential trouble-makers well in advance.

That sort of organization is a leap from Trump’s 2016 delegate operation, which faced challenges by anti-Trump activists in the party. Trump aides say it’s the most aggressive effort ever launched to protect an incumbent.

Nick Trainer, a White House veteran named last month as the campaign’s director of delegates and party organization, is leading a team of three to coordinate with state and local parties in the run-up to the convention.

Yet the efforts to protect Trump simply highlight his vulnerability, said an adviser to one potential Republican opponent.

“They’re not talented, but they’re not idiotic. They rightfully understand that he could be badly damaged or lose in a nomination battle. They’re doing too much. It looks weak,” said John Weaver, a senior adviser to former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, one of the few high-profile Republicans seriously contemplating a primary challenge.

Trump’s campaign is closely monitoring the intentions of Kasich and other potential primary challengers, and aides said they expect someone to mount a campaign for the nomination. But they insist their efforts are not borne out of fear that Trump is vulnerable.

Primary challenges against incumbent presidents have never been successful in the modern era. And Trump’s poll numbers among Republican voters have proven to be resilient. Still, his aides said they are taking lessons from one-term leaders who lost their re-elections after embarrassing nominating fights.

Those in the past who challenged a president both distracted the incumbent from the November campaign and offered a voice to intraparty discontent, seeding weaknesses that were exploited by a general-election rival.

Pat Buchanan’s campaign against Bush in 1992 focused in part on highlighting Bush’s broken pledge not to raise taxes, a vulnerability that dogged Bush throughout the campaign. In a show of party unity Buchanan was awarded the opening night keynote at that year’s GOP convention. He delivered a “culture war” speech that Bush loyalists believed contributed to his loss.

As an incumbent, Trump already wields control over the Republican National Committee, which voted last month to express its “undivided support” for Trump and his “effective presidency.” But he’s getting a boost from well-placed allies at the state level.

In Iowa, the state Republican Party adopted new rules more than a year ago to seize control of the delegate selection process in direct response to the messy convention floor fight in Cleveland in 2016. Virtually all of Iowa’s delegates had preferred Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and they fought unsuccessfully to oppose Trump at the convention.

“It was embarrassing. It was troubling. To be honest with you, it made me mad,” said Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kaufman, a strong Trump supporter. “Donald Trump won the Republican nomination fair and square. That was about people not accepting a loss.”

The new rules, made in consultation with the White House, would make it much more difficult for a Trump challenger to install anti-Trump delegates after the caucuses. Smart campaigns with energized activists, like Cruz’s and Ron Paul’s before him, had been able to send their own loyalists to the national convention regardless of the wishes of party leaders or caucus voters. No more.

Going forward, a nominating committee that’s already been named by the pro-Trump state central committee will control the delegate selection process.

Kaufman said that technically, he and the rest of the state GOP would be neutral should Trump face a primary challenge. He makes clear, however, that he’s been a strong supporter of the president and doesn’t see a serious primary challenge on the horizon.

It’s much the same in New Hampshire, where party leaders must technically remain neutral to preserve their status as the first-in-the-nation primary. But the Trump campaign backed Saturday’s election of new state GOP Chairman Stephen Stepanek, who served as Trump’s state co-chairman in 2016.

Stepanek was the preferred choice over former state chair Jennifer Horn, who emerged as an outspoken Trump critic since leaving the chairmanship after the 2016 election.

Meanwhile, states like South Carolina and Kansas are openly discussing cancelling their primaries and caucuses, but the Trump campaign insists it is staying out of those discussions, noting that state parties in some states are required to foot the bill for nominating contests.

___

Peoples reported from New York.

The Alarming Percentage of Americans One Paycheck Away From Poverty

What follows is a conversation between Prosperity Now’s Kasey Wiedrich and Greg Wilpert of The Real News Network. Read a transcript of their conversation below or watch the video at the bottom of the post.

GREG WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network and I’m Greg Wilpert, coming to you from Baltimore.

A stunning new study finds that 40 percent of U.S. families are only one paycheck away from poverty. That is, they do not have enough liquid assets to withstand a financial crisis such as the loss of a job. If they do lose their job, from one month to the next, they would be joining the ranks of the poor. This lack of assets to weather a financial crisis is even more extreme for Black and Latino households. For example, less than half of Black and Latino households have enough savings for an emergency, compared to 62.4 percent of white households.

The study was conducted by the organization Prosperity Now, and its authors are Kasey Wiedrich and David Newville. We’re now joined by one of its authors, Kasey Wiedrich. She’s the Director of Applied Research at Prosperity Now. Thanks for being here today, Kasey.

KASEY WIEDRICH: Thank you.

GREG WILPERT: So before we get into the main findings of the study, I’d like you to explain to us how your research is different from traditional poverty research, which tends to focus more on income, and why it is different.

KASEY WIEDRICH: Yeah. So at Prosperity Now, we’re working to expand economic opportunity for all Americans. And a really big focus of that is focusing on wealth and on savings. We believe that savings is the key to helping people make it through economic shocks, financial disruptions in their lives, but wealth is also the key that leads to people getting ahead. It’s really important for economic mobility, being able to plan for the future, and leaving something to the next generation.

GREG WILPERT: Now, turning to the study itself, what do you consider to be the most important findings?

KASEY WIEDRICH: Our big takeaway from 2019 is that there’s far more financial vulnerability in American households than you would believe if you only looked at the unemployment rate or statistics about the stock market or GDP. And our really key factor that we look at is savings. So the statistic that you quoted about 40 percent of households is 40 percent of households are liquid assets. So what that means is that they don’t have enough savings that if their income were interrupted, that they could replace income at the poverty level. So that doesn’t mean could they keep up with their current level consumptions, like if I lost my job, would I still have the income that I have? Do I have enough savings to replace that? It’s the most basic level of consumption. Would I have enough to get by at the poverty level?

And we see that 40 percent of households overall don’t have that basic level of security from savings. So when their incomes are interrupted, like we saw with the federal shutdown, households were having to take on debt to make ends meet, or they just weren’t paying some bills, and some had to rely on emergency assistance like food banks to get by.

GREG WILPERT: One of the things that I thought was interesting is also that you break it down by race, highlighting that there’s a really large difference between white households and Black and Latino households. Can you just say a couple of words about that? I mean, how big is that difference? How significant is it?

KASEY WIEDRICH: It’s incredibly significant. And it’s incredibly troubling, not only for those families that are going without, but it’s troubling for our economy and our country as a whole. It is that over 60 percent of Black and Latino households are liquid asset poor, versus around 30 percent of white households. And that’s just showing how vulnerable they are to any economic disruption in their lives. And that sort of lack of savings is really not because of people’s individual financial decisions and not because people aren’t choosing to save. It’s really the result of economic discrimination, institutional racism that’s been happening since our country has been founded, that has led to people being excluded from labor markets, credit markets, financial markets, sort of building up to people having less, earning less, and then being able to save less and have less wealth that they can depend upon when there are hard times.

GREG WILPERT: Another thing that I thought was interesting about the study is that it shows a trend, especially a trend between the year before last and the last year. For example, the numbers in various categories seem to have been getting worse in the past year. One example that I saw was that the number of children without health insurance had been dropping between 2010 and 2016. But then in 2017, there was a jump from 6.1 to 6.9 percent of children without health insurance. What do you attribute this jump in our wealth, income, and insurance poverty to, that took place basically since 2016?

KASEY WIEDRICH: Certainly I think the threats to the Affordable Care Act and actions on the part of the administration and Congress have impacted the measures we’re seeing in health and sort of overall in the uninsured rate. It’s been dropping since the passage of the Affordable Care Act for people overall, and this is the first year that we haven’t seen a drop. I have seen some statistics where people were saying that we didn’t see that significant of a rise is probably a success, given what’s been happening in our country and the threats to health insurance over the past year. But I think it is alarming for signs going forward if we’re seeing the loss of progress we’ve made around people’s health and their access to care.

GREG WILPERT: And at the end of your report, you have some policy recommendations. Tell us some of the ones that you think would be most important for reversing the negative trends.

KASEY WIEDRICH: Yeah. I think big picture, our priorities and policy this year are first, protecting the gains we have made and protecting the safety net that is available for people, and also keeping the consumer protections from bad actors in our economy, predatory lending, sort of high fees on different products. I think that’s sort of a baseline of protecting the hard work that advocates all across the country have done to put these protections in place for people. And I think, then, we’re also looking at different incentives to help people save and build wealth. So looking at ways for people to save for emergencies, make it easier for people to save at work that perhaps don’t have access to a retirement account through their employer, or making those accounts more easy to access if you are having emergencies so you aren’t having to take out and have a penalty if you are being charged for having to withdraw funds when there is an emergency.

And then, I think it’s also looking at ways to build wealth through homeownership, incentives for first time homebuyers, thinking about how we can make mortgage financing affordable, and then even bigger ideas about how do we give more incentives to help people get ahead. Do we look at providing wealth to children, and looking at our tax code and seeing how inequitable the incentives for building wealth are in our tax code. So it’s a big picture of trying to protect what we have now, but also, how do we provide more opportunities for more Americans to get ahead?

GREG WILPERT: It seems to me that, of course, one of the ways that you would build wealth is by saving. And one of the problems recently has been that incomes have been relatively stagnant. I think there was another interesting statistic that I saw, which I think was something between a fifth and a quarter of all jobs in the United States are basically low income–I’m not sure exactly what the term was–but are basically low income jobs, which of course in a context in which prices are going up, especially for healthcare and education, would make it almost impossible to do any savings. So to me, it seems like those would be also key areas to make sure that those rises in costs for key things that are very expensive, education and healthcare, those would have to be controlled in some way.

KASEY WIEDRICH: Absolutely. And I think the other thing to keep in mind is why, sort of looking beyond just unemployment, not all jobs are equal and not all jobs provide financial security. So the statistic we have is that it’s just over 1 in 5 jobs is in a low wage occupation nationally, and that varies really widely by states. And so, I think it is thinking through what income are people able to earn, and then what benefits do they have, whether through their employer or what benefits are provided by the state, what is the safety net at the state level? And both of those impact people’s ability to get by. Because if they’re having to spend all of their money–if the money coming in is volatile, it makes it very hard to plan. And if the expenses are really high–housing, I think, is the biggest expense that most households face month to month. And we have in our data that also it’s almost 50 percent of renters are cost-burden, meaning they’re spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing, and sort of the rule of thumb is that that is unaffordable, so it’s half of renters are paying unaffordable rents.

And if that’s the case, how do you have any money left over to save, when people are having to meet their other expenses? We’re really putting people on a rock and a hard place. And so again, I think back to that point of it’s not necessarily about the individual decisions that people are trying to make day to day, it’s about the structural things in place. And people, I think, are doing the best with the opportunities they have in front of them.

GREG WILPERT: OK. Well, we’re going to have to leave it there for now. I was speaking Kasey Wiedrich, director of applied research at Prosperity Now. Thanks again, Kasey, for having joined us today.

KASEY WIEDRICH: Thank you.

GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.