Trump announced a new national security strategy, removing climate change from the list of global threats. Maybe he should have consulted with the U.S. Military first?

President Donald J. Trump has announced a new national security strategy, removing climate change from the list of global threats. Maybe he should have consulted with the U.S. Military first?

Read more: ecowatch.com/trump-climate-change-national-security

via Years of Living Dangerously #WarOnOurKidsFuture #YEARSproject

President Donald J. Trump has announced a new national security strategy, removing climate change from the list of global threats. Maybe he should have consulted with the U.S. Military first? Read more: ecowatch.com/trump-climate-change-national-securityvia Years of Living Dangerously #WarOnOurKidsFuture #YEARSproject

Posted by EcoWatch on Friday, December 22, 2017

The Republican Party Has Bowed, Completely, to the Mad King

Esquire

The Republican Party Has Bowed, Completely, to the Mad King

They’re now running interference in the Russia probe and kissing the Trumpian ring.

Getty

By Charles P. Pierce          December 21, 2017

After Wednesday’s extended carnival of sycophancy, in which the leaders of the institutions of American government did everything except toss a virgin into a volcano in tribute to the president*, it seems almost too obvious a thing to point out that the Republican Party has handed itself over to this president* as his personal chew-toy. They have figured out that flattering this walking ego is the way for them to get what they want, and he can’t live outside a constant bubble of counterfeit affection. It’s a marriage made several levels lower than heaven.

But there’s more to it than the revolting spectacle to which we were treated after the Loot the Joint Act of 2017 was passed. Over the past week, there has been a staggering welter of reporting about back-channels, hidden agendas, and covert shenanigans that makes the opaque creation of the tax bill look like a town meeting in Vermont. The phrase, “a small group of influential Republicans” has come to mean something very dark and crooked.

The inevitable assault on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is hardly a secret anymore. It’s the second stage of Paul Ryan’s grand plan, and everybody knows it. But there is a general effort now to prop up the administration*, especially as Robert Mueller and his hounds get to baying more audibly outside the wrought-iron fence. On Thursday morning, for example, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, who previously recused himself from “all aspects” of the investigation into the Russian ratfcking of the 2016 presidential election, apparently has decided that the Uranium One “controversy” is not one of those aspects. From NBC News:

“A senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the initial FBI investigation told NBC News there were allegations of corruption surrounding the process under which the U.S. government approved the sale. But no charges were filed. As the New York Times reported in April 2015, some of the people associated with the deal contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. And Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a Moscow speech by a Russian investment bank with links to the transaction. Hillary Clinton has denied playing any role in the decision by the State Department to approve the sale, and the State Department official who approved it has said Clinton did not intervene in the matter. That hasn’t stopped some Republicans, including President Trump, from calling the arrangement corrupt — and urging that Clinton be investigated

(Here I would like once again to congratulate The New York Times for getting into bed with Bannonite apparatchik Peter Schweitzer, whose book-like product, Clinton Cash, jump-started all of this nonsense.)

At the same time, according to Politico, Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and midnight White House creeper, has been running a parallel “investigation” apparently aimed at pre-emptively discrediting whatever it is that Mueller finds:

“The people familiar with Nunes’ plans said the goal is to highlight what some committee Republicans see as corruption and conspiracy in the upper ranks of federal law enforcement. The group hopes to release a report early next year detailing their concerns about the DOJ and FBI, and they might seek congressional votes to declassify elements of their evidence. That final product could ultimately be used by Republicans to discredit special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether any Trump aides colluded with Russia during the 2016 campaign — or possibly even to justify his dismissal, as some rank-and-file Republicans and Trump allies have demanded. (The president has said he is not currently considering firing Mueller.) Republicans in the Nunes-led group suspect the FBI and DOJ have worked either to hurt Trump or aid his former campaign rival Hillary Clinton, a sense that has pervaded parts of the president’s inner circle. Trump has long called the investigations into whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election a “witch hunt,” and on Tuesday, his son Donald Trump Jr. told a crowd in Florida the probes were part of a “rigged system” by “people at the highest levels of government” who were working to hurt the president.”

There is an undercurrent of shared fantasy now driving a Republican Party that controls all the institutions of the government and can do pretty much anything it wants, as long as it doesn’t get in its own way, for which it also has something of a gift. It is armored in unreality, which protects it from all the checks and balances to which this system of government is heir. Clinton sold all our uranium to Russia. The FBI conspired with the Clinton campaign against the Trump campaign. And all this unreality is being weaponized now to one purpose: to protect the presidency* of Donald Trump.

                      Getty

(Count me as someone who doesn’t believe that the president* will fire Mueller. Absent an uncontrollable fit of Trumpian pique, even I don’t think the president* is that stupid. I think the campaign to delegitimize Mueller and his investigation will go on as long as the investigation does. It will be said to be a waste of time and money. Smokescreens and squid ink will fly thick and fast until most of the country loses the plot entirely. The Russian ratfcking will be yet another something on which Experts Disagree. This was the game-plan the Reagan people used against Lawrence Walsh in Iran-Contra and, by and large, it worked. Of course, it all depends on sane people being able to keep this president* from having a nutty.)

I am sure that, among conservative intellectuals, there are some people sincerely and seriously opposed to the current president*. But among conservative Republican politicians of any influence, there are none. Bob Corker pretty much called the president* a lunatic, and now he’s profiting handsomely from being a performing seal like all the rest of them. Lindsey Graham is conceding putts at Bedminster and dreaming of being Secretary of State. Orrin Hatch may well be seen within the month, climbing up Mount Rushmore with a chisel between his teeth, ready to get to work. The Department of Justice is now acting as an adjunct to a Breitbart comment section.

                      Getty

And the members of the responsible committee of the House are acting at cross-purposes with each other, with some members meeting secretly to undermine their own investigation. (The Senate committee seems marginally more reasonable, for now, anyway. At the very least, they found someone to put gunpowder in Mark Warner’s oatmeal.) There is no such thing as #NeverTrump among Republicans anymore, and, because of that, the essential destructive corruption that is the very nature of this presidency* now has spread so widely that rooting it out completely may well be impossible. There is the shadow of ruin hanging over everything.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.

 

Dow and S&P grew more in President Obama’s first 11 months than under the same time for President Trump.

#DonTheCon strikes again: Steve Rattner found the Dow and S&P grew more in President Obama’s first 11 months than under the same time for President Trump.

The White House is giving the president credit for the recent stock market rallies, but Steve Rattner found the Dow and S&P grew more in President Obama’s first 11 months than under the same time for President Trump.
MSNBC.COM

Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.

Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.

Read more: http://bit.ly/2BMB7Ae

via Years of Living Dangerously #ClimateFacts #YEARSproject

Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century. Read more: http://bit.ly/2BMB7Aevia Years of Living Dangerously #ClimateFacts #YEARSproject

Posted by EcoWatch on Thursday, December 21, 2017

Anti-Trump Protesters Beat D.C. in Court: Jury Rules Not Guilty on All Charges

Daily Beast – Victory

Anti-Trump Protesters Beat D.C. in Court: Jury Rules Not Guilty on All Charges

The first six of 194 defendants were cleared of all charges in a case with major implications for free speech, journalism, and dissent.

John Minchillo/AP

Kelly Weill         December 21, 2017

A Washington, D.C., jury on Thursday returned a verdict of not guilty for the first six of 194 people charged with rioting outside President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The ruling is a major win for activists and journalists, and a strong rebuke to the prosecution’s attempt to crack down on the first major protest of the Trump administration.

The six defendants, including a medic and a photojournalist, were not accused of breaking windows or damaging vehicles. Instead, the prosecution said they participated in and encouraged a riot in being near a protest where other people had shattered windows. A conviction on all counts could have meant 60 years in prison, and new threats to freedoms of assembly, speech, and press.

The trial that began Nov. 20 was the first of nearly 20 sets, during which the total 194 defendants will be tried in small groups. Among the the first set of defendants were Jennifer Armento, 38, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Michelle Macchio, 26, of Asheville, North Carolina; Oliver Harris, 28, of Philadelphia; Christina Simmons, 20, of Cockeysville, Maryland; Brittne Lawson, 27, of Aspinwall, Pennsylvania; and Alexei Wood, 27, of San Antonio, Texas.

Lawson and Wood were at the protests in their capacities as a medic and a photojournalist, they testified. Neither they, nor any of their co-defendants were observed damaging property. Still, they were each charged with five counts of felony property destruction, one count of misdemeanor rioting, and one count of misdemeanor conspiracy to riot.

Earlier this month, a judge acquitted the defendants of an incitement to riot charge: a felony that could have added an additional 10 years to the defendants’ sentences.

Prosecutors argued that, even though they did not directly engage in illegal activity, the defendants encouraged property damage and clashes with police.

“I’ll be very clear: we don’t believe the evidence is going to show that any of these six individuals personally took that crowbar or that hammer and hit the limo or personally bashed those windows of that Starbucks in,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff said in an opening statement on the first day of trial.

“That was not their role. And the law the judge will instruct you is they didn’t have to do that. You don’t personally have to be the one that breaks the window to be guilty of rioting, to be guilty of agreeing to riot, because, as you’ll see from this case, you’ll see from the evidence, this group is a riot.”

To prove the defendants’ guilt by association, the prosecution relied on dubious evidence, including an edited sting video from the oft-debunked conservative videographer James O’Keefe, protest footage ripped from mashup videos on conspiracy theorist YouTube Channels, and a video from the right-wing militia the Oath Keepers, The Daily Beast previously reported.

The prosecution’s key witness was D.C. Metropolitan Police Detective Greg Pemberton, who was not present at the protest. On Twitter, Pemberton followed O’Keefe’s video company and the page for 4Chan’s “pol” board, activist news site Unicorn Riot first reported.

Despite missing or suspicious evidence that the defendants participated in the protest, the prosecution attempted to describe them as dangerous conspirators.

The prosecution attempted to characterize Wood not as a journalist but as a rioter with plans for violence. Wood’s monopod, a tool used to stabilize a camera, was entered into evidence as a “baton.”

That same prosecutor also attempted to portray Lawson’s basic medical supplies as suspicious. “What do you need a medic with gauze for?” the prosecutor asked Lawson, the oncology nurse who was volunteering as a medic. “I thought this was a protest.”

Medical volunteers are common at demonstrations. Multiple protest participants and observers required medical treatment after their interactions with police, who deployed pepper spray and stun grenades against a large crowd, which included legal observers, medics, and journalists. Some of those people are suing police for alleged brutality at the protest.

A judge also admonished Kerkhoff when she told the jury that the standard of “reasonable doubt” shouldn’t overly influence their decision.

“The defense has talked to you a little bit about reasonable doubt. You’re going to get an instruction from the judge,” Kerkhoff told jurors before they went into deliberations. “And you can tell it’s clearly written by a bunch of lawyers. It doesn’t mean a whole lot.”

In a strong rebuke to Kerkhoff’s prosecution, the jury sided with the six defendants. For the 188 other defendants awaiting trial, Thursday’s ruling is a sign that they, too, might walk free.

Correction: An earlier version of this story characterized the case as taking place in a federal court. The case was heard in D.C.’s Superior Court.

No, Trump Hasn’t “Essentially Repealed Obamacare”

Politico

No, Trump Hasn’t “Essentially Repealed Obamacare”

Killing the mandate doesn’t gut the healthcare act. Most likely, it will muddle along, because the rest of it is broadly popular.

By  Michael Grunwald          December 20, 2017

In July and again in September, Republicans narrowly failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But their newly passed tax legislation included a provision getting rid of Obamacare’s mandate requiring Americans to buy insurance, and President Donald Trump immediately declared victory in the partisan health care wars. “When the individual mandate is being repealed, that means Obamacare is being repealed,” he crowed at a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday. “We have essentially repealed Obamacare.”

Well, no. The individual mandate is only part of Obamacare. It wasn’t even included in the original health care plan that Barack Obama unveiled during the 2008 campaign. The mandate did become an important element of Obamacare, and the only specific element that a majority of the public opposed. But the more generous elements of the program—like a major expansion of Medicaid, significant government subsidies for private insurance premiums, and strict protections for pre-existing conditions—are still popular, and still the law of the land.

“The death of Obamacare has been exaggerated,” says Larry Levitt, who oversees health reform studies at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Eliminating the mandate creates uncertainty, but all the benefits for people remain in place.”

The Republican ecstasy and Democratic gloom over the death of the mandate reflects the most consistent misperception over the seven-plus years of Affordable Care Act debates, the incorrect assumption that the “Obamacare exchanges,” where Americans can buy private insurance, are synonymous with Obamacare. The vast majority of Americans who get their coverage through Medicare, Medicaid or their employers shouldn’t be affected. Yes, killing the mandate could cause problems for the remaining 6 percent of Americans who have to buy insurance on the open market, but nearly half will remain eligible for subsidies that would insulate them from any premium hikes.

Repealing the tax penalties for Americans who don’t buy insurance would not repeal Obamacare’s perks for Americans who do—like the ban on annual and lifetime caps that insurers previously used to cut off coverage for their sickest customers, or the provision allowing parents to keep their children on their plans until they turn 26. And it would not repeal Obamacare’s “delivery reforms” that are quietly transforming the financial incentives in the medical system, gradually shifting reimbursements to reward the quality rather than quantity of care. The growth of U.S. health care costs has slowed dramatically since the launch of Obamacare, and the elimination of the mandate should not significantly affect that trend.

In fact, during the 2008 campaign, Obama was the only Democratic candidate whose health plan did not include a mandate, because he was the only Democratic candidate who thought the main problem with health care was its cost. “It’s just too expensive,” he explained at an Iowa event in May 2007. Insurance premiums had almost doubled during the George W. Bush era, and Obama believed that was the reason so many Americans were uninsured. He doubted it would be worth the political heartburn to try to force people to buy insurance they couldn’t afford.

But Obama eventually embraced the argument that a mandate was necessary to ensure that young and healthy Americans bought insurance. The fear was that otherwise, insurance markets dominated by the old and sick (who would enjoy the law’s new protections for pre-existing conditions) would have produced even higher premiums, and might scare insurers away from serving Americans who don’t get coverage through their jobs or the government. Killing the mandate will be a step in that direction, boosting Trump’s heighten-the-contradictions effort to sabotage the functioning of Obamacare to build support for a more sweeping repeal.

That effort has already produced some damaging results for the exchanges. Insurers have increased their premiums for 2018, repeatedly citing uncertainty over Trump’s efforts to blow up Obamacare as well as his decision to cut off promised payments to insurers who cover lower-income families. Several insurers left the exchanges even before the elimination of the mandate, and others could follow.

But the widespread warnings that wide swaths of America would have no insurers on the exchanges were wrong; there are zero “bare counties” with no insurers for 2018. And a Kaiser review found the exchanges have gotten more profitable for insurers this year,despite Trump’s efforts to damage them. This year’s enrollment period appears to have gone fairly well even though the Trump administration shortened it by half and slashed its promotional budget.

The fear is that eliminating the mandate could produce a “death spiral” for the exchanges, where higher premiums scare away healthier customers, leading to even higher premiums and even sicker customers—until eventually, the insurers decide to bail. It could also encourage insurers to try to lure healthier customers with cheaper but skimpier plans that don’t provide protections for pre-existing conditions, since those customers would no longer have to pay a tax penalty.

But it is also possible that younger and healthier customers who initially bought insurance because they were required to do so will now buy insurance because they want to; surveys show that more than 75 five percent of Americans covered on the exchanges are happy with their coverage. And as a political matter, repealing the unpopular mandate could make it even harder for Republicans to pass legislation repealing insurance protections, Medicaid expansions and the rest of Obamacare, because the rest of Obamacare is popular. It’s not surprising that Republicans managed to kill the law’s vegetables, but it won’t be as easy to kill dessert.

Trump thinks congressional Democrats will soon be begging him to come up with a replacement for Obamacare, and even many Republicans who don’t embrace that fantasy believe the demise of the mandate will ratchet up pressure for a permanent solution to a seven-year political war. It could happen. But there hasn’t been a lot of bipartisanship in Washington lately, and after the Doug Jones upset in Alabama, it seems unlikely that a Senate with one fewer Republican will be more amenable to a Republican-only repeal bill.

The most likely outcome seems to be at least a few more years of Obamacare muddling through, and at least a few more years of Obamacare political warfare.

Trump Promised A Tax Cut Aimed At The Middle Class. Looks Like He Missed — Badly.

HuffPost

Trump Promised A Tax Cut Aimed At The Middle Class. Looks Like He Missed — Badly.

S.V. Date, HuffPost             December 20, 2017 

WASHINGTON ― Donald Trump promised as he ran for president that the middle class would get a “massive” tax cut of 35 percent. After taking office, he promised that cuts would be aimed squarely at the middle class. His top economic aides promised a tax system no less progressive than the one in place today.

With a Republican Congress on the cusp of approving that tax cut legislation, Trump has failed to deliver on all three.

The bill reduces federal taxes by about 10 percent for the middle class, not the promised 35 percent, and only for eight years. What’s more, if the president was aiming to help the middle class, he missed wildly: Federal taxes as a percentage of income will go down most for the wealthiest.

And because the tax cuts for individuals expire after 2025, while the 40 percent reduction in the corporate income tax rate is forever, the end product will be a tax code significantly less progressive than today’s.

“It’s disgusting smash and grab. It’s an all-out looting of America, a wholesale robbery of the middle class,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a Tuesday news conference. “The GOP tax scam will go down, again, as one of the worst, most scandalous acts of plutocracy in our history.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders on Tuesday insisted that the final bill is designed to primarily benefit typical Americans. “Our focus has been on the middle class, and that is what we think is delivered in this tax package,” she told reporters at the daily press briefing.

That claim, though, is belied by an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which shows that a middle-class household with $67,000 of income will receive an average tax cut of $930 next year ― $77.50 per month – while a family with $348,000 of income will get an average tax cut of $7,640.

Senate Republicans, hoping to boost the bill, sent out of a chart showing that those earning between $200,000 and $1 million a year would actually get a larger percentage tax cut than households making between $50,000 and $200,000 ― essentially making the bill critics’ argument for them.

There were additional claims Trump and fellow Republicans made about the bill that wound up being untrue.

Trump has claimed multiple times that the proposal will make him pay more in taxes ― a claim that is almost certainly false. Rather, Trump and his family stand to benefit by millions of dollars thanks to lower top rates for the rich, as well as a big deduction for precisely the sort of businesses that Trump claims generated more than $200 million in income last year.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), meanwhile, began their push for “tax reform” with statements that it would be revenue-neutral ― that is, that the changes would neither increase nor decrease the amount of money flowing into the Treasury.

“It will have to be revenue-neutral,” McConnell told Bloomberg in May. “We have a $21 trillion debt.”

But even using the “dynamic scoring” that tax-cut aficionados have pushed for years because it accounts for economic growth that cuts purportedly will generate, the Joint Committee on Taxation still sees more than $1 trillion in new debt at the end of 10 years. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget believes the figure could be twice that.

“This is a huge lost opportunity where we could’ve done real reforms that would simplify the tax code, grow the economy, and improve the debt,” said the group’s president, Maya MacGuineas. “Instead there was an end run around the actual reform part of broadening the tax base and getting rid of tax breaks.”

That enormous price tag is because of the reduction in corporate tax rates ― from a top rate of 35 percent down to 21 percent ― that never expires.

Republicans argue those cuts will give corporations more money they can use to invest in their businesses and hire more employees. But most economists reject that idea and point out that corporations have been sitting on trillions in cash for years, not investing it, because of a lack of demand for additional goods and services.

The prevalent economic view holds that the vast majority of money saved in taxes will be distributed instead as dividends to shareholders or used to buy back stock, which increases the value of the remaining shares. And because the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans own more than 90 percent of all stock, they will be the overwhelming beneficiaries of the corporate tax cuts.

Republican authors of the bill could not leave in place all of their tax cuts for more than 10 years because of Senate rules that would have required them to win over at least eight Democrats to pass a bill projected to generate a deficit in the 11th year. Republicans leaders chose to make the corporate rate cuts permanent but “sunset” the tax cuts for individuals.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Tax Bill Video

I'm angry. I just got back from witnessing one of the biggest legislative heists in American history. For days, Republicans were huddled behind closed doors, surrounded by lobbyists for the rich and powerful. And now, under the cover of darkness, Senate Republicans voted to ram this tax scam through the Senate. Do you know why they don't want to wait to read the bill? Because the more the public sees their plan, the more they hate it. The faster they rush it, the easier it is for them to score a political win with their donors—which a Republican Congressman conceded was the goal of their bill.And despite what Republicans have promised, this legislation will not spur economic growth—it will cause our national debt to explode and slow economic growth as time goes on. The claim that workers will get a $4,000 pay raise will soon be shown for the farce that it is. Meanwhile, millions of middle-class families will pay more. And for those middle-class families who do get tax cuts, they will be puny compared to the $70,000 a year average tax cut for millionaires. Moreover, the tax cuts for families will be temporary while the giant tax cuts for corporations are forever. Don’t just take it from me, the facts have been clearly laid out by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation: This bill increases the debt by more than $1 trillion and the biggest beneficiaries are millionaires and big corporations. And when this bill is fully phased in, the small tax cuts for families expire while the big tax cuts for corporations are forever. In fact, ten years from now American families who make less than $75,000 will be paying higher taxes, on average, in order to pay for a permanent tax cut for multinational corporations—including a huge tax cut for foreign stockholders.It’s shameful that the greatest deliberative body in the world just prioritized a windfall giveaway to multinational corporations and billionaires while real priorities like CHIP, community health centers, disaster relief, the Dream Act, TPS, pension security, and funding our government remain unresolved.

Posted by Chris Van Hollen on Tuesday, December 19, 2017

I’m angry. I just got back from witnessing one of the biggest legislative heists in American history. For days, Republicans were huddled behind closed doors, surrounded by lobbyists for the rich and powerful. And now, under the cover of darkness, Senate Republicans voted to ram this tax scam through the Senate. Do you know why they don’t want to wait to read the bill? Because the more the public sees their plan, the more they hate it. The faster they rush it, the easier it is for them to score a political win with their donors—which a Republican Congressman conceded was the goal of their bill.

And despite what Republicans have promised, this legislation will not spur economic growth—it will cause our national debt to explode and slow economic growth as time goes on. The claim that workers will get a $4,000 pay raise will soon be shown for the farce that it is. Meanwhile, millions of middle-class families will pay more. And for those middle-class families who do get tax cuts, they will be puny compared to the $70,000 a year average tax cut for millionaires. Moreover, the tax cuts for families will be temporary while the giant tax cuts for corporations are forever. Don’t just take it from me, the facts have been clearly laid out by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation: This bill increases the debt by more than $1 trillion and the biggest beneficiaries are millionaires and big corporations. And when this bill is fully phased in, the small tax cuts for families expire while the big tax cuts for corporations are forever. In fact, ten years from now American families who make less than $75,000 will be paying higher taxes, on average, in order to pay for a permanent tax cut for multinational corporations—including a huge tax cut for foreign stockholders.

It’s shameful that the greatest deliberative body in the world just prioritized a windfall giveaway to multinational corporations and billionaires while real priorities like CHIP, community health centers, disaster relief, the Dream Act, TPS, pension security, and funding our government remain unresolved.

Socialism Comes to Iowa

The Nation

Socialism Comes to Iowa

An unusual coalition may be a template for the growing American left.

By Nicolas Medina and Rebecca Zweig       December 20, 2017

Iowa gubernatorial candidate Cathy Glasson, second from left, at a campaign event in September. (Photo via Facebook)

Iowa City, IowaOn the morning of Labor Day, a crowd gathered outside Mercy Hospital in Des Moines to hear health-care workers speak about their worsening labor conditions. After a number of hospital employees had spoken, Mike Carberry, a Democrat serving as supervisor for Johnson County, took the stage.

“Do we have any good liberals here?” he asked.

Carberry was met with tepid applause.

Then someone shouted: “We’re communists!”

The crowd exploded in cheers.

“Okay! Communists and socialists!” Carberry conceded.

The rally was a joint action between organizers of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the local chapter of Fight for $15, which earlier that morning organized a strike at a local Burger King. But the event of the day was a speech by Cathy Glasson, a recent entrant to the Democratic gubernatorial primary. 

“If you work in healthcare in Des Moines, you probably work two jobs,” Glasson told the crowd. “That’s why I’m here with you, to fight for $15 and a union!”

Glasson’s path to the governor’s mansion is far from clear. Her rivals in the primary include business-friendly centrists with close ties to establishment Democrats. But Glasson is the farthest left candidate in recent memory to mount a serious campaign for the state’s highest office.

She is betting on her campaign’s ability to build a coalition of unlikely conspirators: service workers, many of whom are immigrants and people of color; members of manufacturing unions, many of whom are white and some of whom supported Trump; and young members of the ascending Democratic Socialists of America.

Glasson and her staff are full of youthful energy, blending “Iowa Nice” with political rage. Yet their approach is old-school. They conceive of electoral politics as an extension of labor organizing, hoping to use the techniques that once made the Midwest a hotbed of union activism in order to convince voters to support progressive politics.

If proven right, the prairie progressives could augur a path forward for the American left.

Iowa was once a true swing state, where conservative farm owners and organized workers vied for power. Over the last decade, however, the state has drifted rightward: Though Democrats controlled the governor’s mansion and the two houses of the state legislature between 2007 and 2010, Republicans have held the governorship since 2011 and took over the legislature in 2017.

Narratives about “flyover country” often attribute this shift to the supposedly intractable bitterness of uneducated white voters. But local political observers insist that the state’s transformation was due in large part to state Democrats’ support for Big Agriculture and their neglect of workers’ concerns.

In an attempt to attract independent voters, Iowa Democrats have toed a centrist line, alienating voters who have grown tired of unfulfilled promises to enact progressive economic policies. The result is a vicious cycle: Republicans enact policies that harm the working class; Democrats prove inept at addressing that harm; and Iowa workers either stop voting or turn to Republicans.

Today, the state is in shambles. Manufacturers have left. Iowa’s once affordable public universities plan to raise tuition by 40 percent over the next five years. The state has the lowest-paid nurses and has some of the unhealthiest drinking water in the nation. Even Iowa’s famously fertile fields are dying: Researchers from Iowa State University recently found that parts of the state are losing topsoil at a rate 12 times faster than what the US Department of Agriculture considers tolerable.

Glasson conceives of her candidacy as a response to the apathy bred by moderate politicians. Her progressive populism owes much to Bernie Sanders, but it is equally a product of state political dynamics that brewed for decades before Sanders rose to national prominence.

“Centrist politics aren’t going to get us out of this mess,” Glasson recently told us in an interview. “Iowans are working hard and not feeling it in their pocketbook. They aren’t just Democrats, they’re Republicans too. We have career politicians in Des Moines who try to fix issues with half measures, and it’s not working.”

Glasson, who is white, was born in 1958 in the northwestern farming community of Spencer, Iowa. In 1982 she earned a nursing degree from the University of Iowa, and spent 20 years working in intensive care at the university hospitals.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration began to push “managed-care” health-care reform, which proposed policies to reduce costs for taxpayers and patients. In practice, Glasson said, the policies damaged the working conditions of nurses.

Concerned for their jobs and the quality of patient care, Glasson and some of her co-workers decided to form a union. The challenge then became convincing their colleagues.

“I put a lot of miles on my car and spent hours talking to my fellow nurses,” Glasson said. “The reception was good, but organizing is difficult. By publicly supporting a union, you’re putting your neck on the line.”

Nurses had reason to be tentative. In Glasson’s telling, the hospital resorted to strategies intended to intimidate organizers.

“They hired an outside security firm to keep people like me from talking to nurses,” Glasson said. “A nurse told me she saw an armed security guard walk into a unit where patients were being cared for, just to make sure there wasn’t any subversive activity going on.”

(A spokesperson for the University of Iowa said the hospital occasionally retains external security firms, but not ones that “arm their employees.” He said the school could not confirm whether it hired security at the time of Glasson’s union drive, because it does not keep records for more than five years. He added that the university “follows all labor relations laws.”)

The hospital’s tactics backfired. In 1998, the University of Iowa’s hospital workers voted to join the SEIU. Glasson was elected president the following year and has since remained in the position.

The experience of union organizing proved foundational to Glasson’s political worldview. In contrast to some mainstream Democrats, who appear to assume voters’ convictions are stubbornly correlated to demographic markers, Glasson believes that people can be persuaded to change their minds.

In 2016, the Clinton campaign neglected areas where statistical models suggested few would support her. Glasson wants to run her campaign like a union drive, sending volunteers to conduct one-on-one conversations with all kinds of voters, even those who might initially reject her message.

“I know this sounds corny, but we need to have conversations with people,” Glasson said. “We need to ask them, ‘What are you worried about?’ We need to listen to them and help them realize what’s in their best interest.”

On October 7, Glasson’s campaign headed to Ottumwa, a city of 25,000 in south-central Iowa. Once a powerhouse of meatpacking and manufacturing, Ottumwa embodies the dynamics that have decimated Iowa Democrats. Many of the city’s factories have closed, reducing the city’s median household income to roughly $38,000—$16,000 less than the state average, which is close to the national figure.

This collapse of living standards had consequences. Wapello County, of which Ottumwa is the seat, voted Democrat in every presidential since 1976. In 2016 it cast nearly 60 percent of its ballots for Trump.

Steve Siegel, a social worker and former Wapello County Supervisor, attributed part of Ottumwa’s political shift to Republican positions on gun rights and abortion, but emphasized Trump’s opposition to free trade agreements.

“People were attracted by Trump’s message about jobs, how he was going to bring them back by getting rid of NAFTA and TPP,” Siegel told us.

The mood at the Oktoberfest parade, however, was festive. Residents lined the streets for miles, cheering for the high-school marching band, the American Legion, and employees from local businesses such as a restaurant that calls itself “the originator of the Pizza Taco.”

Glasson marched alongside the members of United Auto Workers Local 74, which represents machinists at John Deere Ottumwa Works. The union doesn’t usually participate in the parade, but this year its members decided to make community events a priority. The state legislature recently passed a law reducing collective-bargaining rights for public-sector employees (including our union United Electrical Local 896, which represents graduate instructors at the University of Iowa), and the UAW workers are worried they’re next.

Holding the union’s banner was Tim Walker, a 52-year-old native of Ottumwa who has worked at the plant for more than a decade. Walker, who is white, told us he didn’t vote for Trump, but some of his co-workers did.

Walker said many of his colleagues had grown frustrated not just with Democrats but also with the leadership of their union, which they felt was increasingly powerless in negotiations with management. The company, according to Walker, has taken to hiring “college kids,” many of them from countries like India and France, who “wave their engineering degrees” and side with their superiors in hopes of promotion and relocation. (John Deere did not respond to a request for comment that included questions about how many foreign employees work at the Ottumwa plant.)

“The people who voted for Trump felt he was going to clean the house,” Walker said. “Just like we did with our leadership. We voted almost all of them out back in May.”

Unlike the presidential election, Local 74’s protest vote pushed union leadership to the left. Their new president, Chris Laursen, a 47-year-old native of Ottumwa, is a self-described socialist with big plans for his union.

Laursen, who is white, joined the army at 17 and served in the first Gulf War. By the time he came home to work at John Deere, he was convinced the conflict had only served to enrich the military-industrial complex. Last year, he went to the Democratic National Convention as a “Bernie-or-Bust” delegate. To say Clinton’s nomination disappointed him would be an understatement. “I couldn’t vote for her,” he said. “She’s a warmonger in bed with big business.”

Laursen went on to run Jill Stein’s Iowa campaign, but after Trump’s election he decided third parties weren’t the answer. One of his first actions as president was to “go rogue” and announce his support for Glasson, breaking with the common practice of UAW locals to wait for an endorsement from their national leadership. (The UAW did not respond to a request for comment)

“The national union betrayed us when they supported Clinton despite her stance on TPP,” Laursen said. “We don’t need more corporate Dems.”

Ottumwa has become increasingly diverse in recent years. The 2000 Census recorded its population as 95 percent white, with less than 3 percent of its residents identifying as Hispanic. Ten years later, the survey found that 90 percent of the town identified as white, while 11 percent said they were Hispanic.

None of the white residents of Ottumwa who spoke to us felt that they harbored animosity toward immigrants. Walker, the UAW member, insisted that his problem with the engineers who work at his plant had nothing to do with their nationality. Siegel, the former Wapello County Supervisor, said he didn’t think that “immigration was a big problem” in Ottumwa, because the city has welcomed recent arrivals.

But members of Ottumwa’s Latino community tell a different story. Ramon Lopez, the 43-year-old proprietor of a Mexican grocery store, told us that he has felt a marked increase in racial tensions since Trump’s election. He has also noticed an uptick in deportations, which brings back dark memories.

Before Lopez lived in Ottumwa, he ran a grocery store in Marshalltown, a city in central Iowa that in 2006 was witness to one of the worst immigration raids in US history. The decimation of his community proved so traumatic that Lopez returned to Mexico, returning to the United States only years later. Now, he worries that another Marshalltown is in the works.

“If people in New York or Washington are listening,” he told us in an interview conducted in Spanish, “would ask them to please see if there’s anything they can possibly do to stop the raids.”

Glasson and her supporters are acutely aware of the role that anti-immigrant sentiments have played in Iowa’s rightward turn. In a visit to her hometown of Spencer, the candidate witnessed a survey in which people used corn kernels to signal key voting issues. Education came first. Immigration came second.

To build a winning coalition, Glasson needs to convince large swaths of Iowa’s electorate to set aside anti-immigrant views. She believes this can happen through the same personal conversations that can persuade hesitant workers to support a union.

“There isn’t a one-size-fits-all way to talk about immigration that doesn’t turn people off,” she said. “But we need to help people understand that ‘They are taking our jobs’ is a Republican lie.”

Laursen, the UAW president, has a similar line. He recently formed a labor action committee and is taking steps to politically educate his mostly-white membership. The discussions focus on labor, but he believes that convincing people to move to the left on workplace issues will result in broader political conversions.

Glasson also needs to earn the support of the growing number of immigrants eligible to vote in Iowa. But her campaign and supporters, many of whom are white, face challenges in reaching Latinos. Laurens said he has tried to organize Ottumwa’s Latino community by advertising political events in immigrant business, but the response was not what he expected.

“Nobody showed up,” Laursen said. “We didn’t have a translator.”

Still, there’s reason to hope. Some of Glasson’s staunchest supporters are members of Fight for $15. Though the group does not endorse electoral campaigns, its organizers advocate for pro-union candidates who support increases to the minimum wage.

Angelica Serrano heard about Glasson’s campaign through Fight for $15 organizers. Serrano, a 47-year-old US citizen of Mexican origin, said she came to Des Moines 26 years ago, 19 of which she has worked at McDonald’s. Despite her seniority, she makes $10.50 an hour and has no vacation, paid sick days, or health insurance.

“I think the Hispanic community is going to come out strong for Cathy,” Serrano said. “She has joined us our demonstrations and strikes. I think she’ll make a great governor.”

Though a newcomer, Glasson is a disciplined candidate. Asked whether she believes she can overtake her better-funded rivals, she answers without hesitation: Of course she can win.

Iowa’s electoral peculiarities could give solidity to her bravado. To choose their nominees, state Democrats first hold caucuses in neighborhood districts, then a primary. If a candidate wins with more than 35 percent of the vote in the election, the caucuses are rendered obsolete. But if the primary proves too close, the party holds a convention, in which delegates from each district support their caucus’s candidate. In a crowded election—10 candidates are currently running—this unpredictable system can transform a long-shot candidate into a strong contender.

Yet Glasson works hard to de-emphasize the office of governor. She often tells voters that the only way to change Iowa is to build a movement at every level of government. No office is too small: She wants progressives to take over city councils and school boards.

Her message has an optimistic implication: Even if Glasson doesn’t win, her run will have served to build connections among the Iowa Left. Activists who had been working in isolation are coming together in her campaign. And, as Serrano put it, “entre más seamos, más fuertes seremos.” Numbers make us strong.

Many liberals and leftists bristle at the idea of engaging white working-class voters who may have reactionary views on social issues. Some people of color rightly feel disinclined to put themselves at risk to reason with people who may wish them ill, but white progressives often appropriate that discourse as a cop-out. The possibility that progressives could win red states by promoting the idea that working class people of all backgrounds deserve good jobs then falls by the wayside.

Glasson and her supporters, in part because they come from a progressive tradition that emphasizes action over theory, are less afraid to have frank conversations with people who, to misquote Ronald Reagan’s dictum about Latinos, are leftists who don’t know it yet. As the American left rallies around the realization that it has nothing to lose, its members on the coasts should emulate the prairie progressives.

“I like the DSA kids a lot,” Laursen said. “But you can’t just sit in the library sipping coffee and talking about Marxist theory. You have to get out there and convince people to stop voting against their own interests.”

Equifax: The company that screwed consumers the most in 2017

Yahoo Finance

Equifax: The company that screwed consumers the most in 2017

Ethan Wolff-Mann         December 20, 2017

FILE – This July 21, 2012, file photo shows signage at the corporate headquarters of Equifax Inc. in Atlanta. Attacks launched by cybercriminals wreak havoc and cause disruption as more of everyday life moves online. The U.S. attorney’s office in Atlanta has worked hand-in-hand with the local FBI office to prosecute a number of high-profile cybercrime cases. They’re currently investigating the breach at Atlanta-based Equifax, which exposed the personal information of 145 million Americans. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart, File)

The biggest lesson consumers learned this year is that your data is probably not safe. 2017 was the year of the hack.

Throughout the year, company after company disclosed data breach after data breach. Some had email addresses and phone numbers — get ready for more spam robocalls — and others had the really bad stuff like Social Security numbers.

But there is only one winner of the not-at-all coveted Yahoo Finance “company that screwed you the most this year” award: Equifax (EFX).

First off, the amount of people potentially involved was staggering. After a second disclosure of a few more million, the final number stood at up to 145.5 million people. This is three out of every five adults in the U.S.

Making matters worse, the information involved was extremely sensitive. This wasn’t only phone numbers or emails that were stolen, but Social Security numbers. You can’t change 145.5 million Social Security numbers, which means that the use of SSNs as a security measure should be completely cast away — not that it should have ever been anything other than a tool for the Social Security program.

There are so many more compounding factors

Equifax is a credit bureau, the guardian and gatekeeper of intensely personal financial data. Not only is there potential injury — consumers will have to be looking over their shoulders forever, constantly checking their credit reports for fake charges and accounts — but insult.

Like Wells Fargo and its 2 million accounts they made without customer permission, Equifax has squandered trust, a pillar of its existence, by allowing itself to have incredibly shoddy security that should have been addressed.

But unlike Wells Fargo, you didn’t choose to be a customer. By participating in the financial system, you – by default – opt in. This is how it works, they have your data, they sell it, and they make money. They do not work for you.

The response? Even more insult.

A hack this bad would be enough to top the other hacking scandals of 2017. (Here is a great and exhaustive list.) But the company’s response made it even worse from a consumer point of view.

Immediately following the public disclosure, Equifax sent consumers to a sketchy-looking website, “Equifaxsecurity2017.com,” that asked consumers to put in their SSN to check if they were hacked. It didn’t work for many consumers.

The company also offered free-for-now credit monitoring but required consumers to consent to forced-arbitration, voiding their rights to sue. Though the company maintained that this forced-arbitration was not connected to this monitoring product, Equifax’s acting CEO later told Congress that the company still may block consumers’ rights to sue.

Anyway, consumer advocates say this may be much, much worse.

Ethan Wolff-Mann is a writer at Yahoo Finance.