Old Fucking Punk @lwriemen@librem.one

Joe Biden’s New Foreign Policy Adviser Supported Iraq War and Dubbed Edward Snowden a “Traitor”

Nicholas Burns worked under presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush before leaving public service and becoming a lobbyist.

The post Joe Biden’s New Foreign Policy Adviser Supported Iraq War and Dubbed Edward Snowden a “Traitor” appeared first on The Intercept.

Here's Your Reminder That Google Has Always Been Evil
https://gizmodo.com/heres-your-reminder-that-google-has-always-been-evil-1836628967 #privacy #libremone

Climate changes faster than animals adapt
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190723121912.htm #climatechange #climatecrisis #extinction

The Democratic Party’s Iran Warhawks Who Fly Under the Radar

On July 12, seven Democratic representatives quietly voted against an amendment to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act prohibiting “unauthorized military force in or against Iran.” Introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in the midst of the Trump administration’s escalating provocations toward Iran, the amendment ultimately was approved 251-170. By voting against it, these Democrats were placing themselves in the most hawkish wing of the Democratic Party. Yet most are new to Congress and relatively low-profile.

According to Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) records, which disclose lobbyists’ and other agents’ political relationships with foreign governments, four of the Democratic representatives who voted against the amendment—Tom O'Halleran (Ariz.), Stephanie Murphy (Fla.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.) and Henry Cuellar (Texas)—have been aggressively courted by lobbyists for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. And three—O’Halleran, Gottheimer and Murphy—have collectively received $18,000 in contributions from lobbying firms representing Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are geopolitical foes of Iran and have secured U.S. backing for a ruthless war on Yemen that they claim is a proxy war with Iran (greatly overstating Iran’s role). Both have pressed the U.S. to take a more confrontational stance toward Iran. The Pentagon announced July 19, in the midst of rising U.S. tensions with Iran, that it is deploying military “personnel and resources” to Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the region.

On Sept. 7, 2017, after Hurricane Harvey devastated southeastern Texas, Texas Rep. Cuellar received an email from the lobbying firm Hagir Elawad & Associates, which represents the UAE, “providing notice of UAE’s intended contribution to Hurricane Harvey recovery efforts,” a FARA document shows. While Rep. Cuellar’s office did not respond to In These Times’ questions about what communications ensued, the UAE pledged that same day to give $10 million to “help with local and state recovery efforts.” 

Cuellar was also courted by Saudi Arabia. Lobbyist Glover Park Group emailed the Texas Rep. in March 2018 “regarding an invitation to an event” on behalf of the Saudi embassy. While Cuellar’s staff did not respond to In These Times’ questions about that contact, chances are the event related to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS), who soon after went on a high-profile visit to the U.S.

Saudi lobbyists also made overtures to Reps. O'Halleran and Murphy that month. Both were invited to dine with MBS by Saudi lobbying firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, FARA documents show. Neither office responded to In These Times’ questions about whether they accepted the invitation. However, according to a January 2018 press release from the Saudi government, Murphy attended a meeting with MBS and then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.).

Murphy was also courted by Hagir Elawad & Associates on behalf of the UAE. The firm set up a January 2018 meeting between the congresswoman and Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, and UAE ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba.

Rep. Gottheimer’s office, meanwhile, received three separate emails in March 2018 from Glover Park Group inviting the congressman to an unspecified event on behalf of the Saudi embassy. The FARA documents do not provide more details about what the call entailed, and Gottheimer also did not respond to queries from In These Times.

As The Intercept’s Ryan Grim reported in May, Gottheimer has deep ties to the Saudi and right-wing Israeli lobbies (which are in a de facto alliance), and has organized behind the scenes to sink congressional efforts to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-UAE war on Yemen. Grim describes Gottheimer hobnobbing with pro-war conservatives, “This spring, he was one of just a handful of Democrats at a private retreat on Sea Island, Georgia, hosted by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, mingling with Vice President Mike Pence, Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and other Republican heavyweights.” The AEI is the former employer of notorious Iran hawk John Bolton and has long advocated for war with Iran. Pompeo, for his part, has joined Bolton—now Trump’s national security advisor—in pushing the Trump administration to escalate towards Iran.

According to Ben Freeman of the Center for International Policy, the many overtures to these three Congress members should raise eyebrows. “These are all fairly junior members that wouldn't otherwise get much attention from Saudi and UAE lobbyists unless those lobbyists thought there was a chance they'd vote their way,” says Freeman, who provided In These Times with the FARA documents cited in this report. “This vote is at least one indication those lobbyists bet right.”

Reps. O'Halleran Murphy and Gottheimer have only served in Congress since 2017; Rep. Cuellar has been in Congress since 2005.

It’s not just meetings: These junior members of Congress are also notable recipients of contributions from lobbyists for Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In 2017 and 2018, Reps. Gottheimer, Murphy and O'Halleran have collectively received $15,250 from lobbying firms representing Saudi Arabia, and $2,750 from firms representing the UAE. Rep. Gottheimer accounts for 75 percent of these donations, receiving a total of $13,500 from firms representing the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

(While Hagir Elawad & Associates lobbies solely on behalf of the UAE Embassy, the other firms have multiple clients, and federal disclosure rules don't indicate on whose behalf the firms are donating to campaigns.)

“Gottheimer is absolutely extraordinary for such a junior member of Congress,” said Freeman. “He's one of the top recipients of money from Saudi and UAE lobbyists. Just about everyone ahead of him is either a member of leadership or chairs key committees.”

The left-leaning groups Roots Action and Indivisible NJ 5th District said they are considering Rep. Gottheimer as a target for a progressive primary challenge, due to his conservative track record. Cuellar faces a primary challenge from Jessica Cisneros, a progressive endorsed by Justice Democrats.

Hassan El-Tayyab is co-director of Just Foreign Policy, which agitates against war. He told In These Times, “It's a very unfortunate decision by these seven Democrats to vote with the Republican Party against the ability of Congress to keep presidential authority in check. And to know that they're receiving contributions from foreign governments in exchange for these votes is even worse.”

In These Times requested comment from all of the Democratic representatives who voted against the amendment to end the war with Iran, including the three who are not listed on FARA documents as recipients of contributions or lobbying communications from Saudi Arabia and the UAE: Reps. Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Kathleen Rice (N.Y.), and Jefferson Van Drew (N.J.). Of the seven, only Rep. Lynch provided an explanation for why he voted against the Iran amendment.

“During the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the gentleman from California, Mr. Khanna offered an amendment which in relevant part stated, ‘[N]othing in this Act may be construed to authorize the use of military force,’” Rep. Lynch’s spokesperson told In These Times over email. “Since the singular and central purpose of the NDAA is to authorize and provide funds for the defense of U.S. forces and of our Nation, Congressman Lynch was compelled to vote nay.”

But according to Robert Naiman, policy director for Just Foreign Policy, this explanation doesn’t hold up. The text Lynch found objectionable is boilerplate that simply restates the U.S. law that only Congress can declare war. In fact, this language is included in numerous bills, including one Rep. Lynch supported. The recent War Powers Resolution to withdraw unauthorized U.S. forces from Yemen states, “nothing in this joint resolution may be construed as authorizing the use of military force.” On April 4, Rep. Lynch voted for this resolution without complaint.

According to El-Tayyab, all seven Democratic votes against the amendment are inexcusable: “Everybody should want to keep President Trump from starting an unauthorized war with Iran.”

When Will We Get the Full Truth About How and Why the Government Is Using Face Recognition?

Earlier this month, the House Committee on Homeland Security held a hearing to discuss the role of face recognition and other invasive biometric technologies in use by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Despite some pushback from some lawmakers on the committee, John Wagner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Austin Gould of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Joseph DiPietro of the Secret Service, and Charles Romine from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) argued that face recognition and biometric surveillance is safe, regulated, and essential for the purposes of keeping airports and U.S. borders secure. This hearing made clear: this technology is not well-regulated, it does impact the privacy of travelers, and its effectiveness has yet to be proven.

Oddly enough, the group most in need of a check on how they use these technologies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was not in attendance at this hearing.

By far, the most questions from the committee were directed toward CBP, which recently announced that data, including photographs taken of license plates at checkpoints, had been accessed in a hack of the third-party contractor that provided the cameras. Although Wagner, of the CBP, said they were unaware that the camera provider could extract data, he offered little assurance—outside of saying that CBP would review protocol—that cameras feeding traveler photos into face recognition software could avoid similar vulnerabilities. What this exchange makes clear is that the best way to avoid the risk of having photographs of travelers’ faces hacked and leaked to the world is not to put up the cameras in the first place.

Chairman Thompson also expressed concern over face recognition software’s well-documented tendency to have a higher error rate when analyzing the faces of people of color. On the mind of Chairman Thompson was the recent test of Amazon’s Rekognition software, which falsely matched 28 members of Congress to mugshots in a database. As he stated in the hearing, while not all of the Members of Congress misidentified were people of color, a disproportionate 40% were. Although false positives continue to be a grave concern as face recognition becomes more ubiquitous, improving the software’s accuracy does not negate the more overwhelming dangers posed by face recognition. The use of face recognition and other biometric surveillance threaten to chill free speech and the freedom to travel. This is particularly true for people of color, religious minorities, and other groups who have been stereotyped and whose presence at protests, in airports, or in public, have been met with unfair suspicion and sometimes violence by authorities.

Another one of our concerns is the slow expansion of how and why CBP is using face recognition and Rapid DNA identification at the border. Wagner said, “U.S. citizens are clearly outside the scope of the biometric entry/exit tracking.” However, he went on to say, “The technology we’re using for the entry/exit program, we’re also using to validate the identity of a U.S. citizen. Someone has to do that. Someone has to determine who is in scope or out of scope.” Determining that involves scanning, but allegedly not storing images for a prolonged period of time, or sending those images to DHS for additional screening. This is exactly what face recognition on U.S. citizens sounds like.

Wagner also had no specific time frame for when CBP would release a long-awaited report that would document how their security measures at the border have helped to keep the United States safe. These invasive technologies continue to be deployed under the promise that they are deterring countless criminals and terrorists. It is past time for the CBP to prove that these averted threats actually exist.

It’s also not convincing when a representative of TSA, Austin Gould, boasts that 99% of all people traveling through their face recognition airport security trial were happy to let the government scan their faces. After all, we know it can be quite tricky and unclear for a person to assert their rights to opt out of such invasive procedures.

Although we can all be encouraged by the fact that people across the country are slowly recognizing the threat that face recognition poses to privacy and are pushing to ban its use, the government’s expansion of these programs continues. In spite of this changing public perception, the U.S. government continues to push its expanding use of face recognition and biometric surveillance. It’s up to us to stop it.

Google Continues Investments in Military and Police AI Technology Through Venture Capital Arm

Google promises interested firms access to its own AI training data and sometimes places Google engineers within the companies as a resource.

The post Google Continues Investments in Military and Police AI Technology Through Venture Capital Arm appeared first on The Intercept.

Thank Laws Supported By AT&T and Comcast for California’s Broadband Monopoly Problem

If you, like a great many Californians, have shopped for high-speed broadband options (in excess of 100 mbps) and found that you always ended up with Comcast, it is because the state’s legislature has failed to promote broadband competition for more than ten years. That reality has resulted in the death of competitive access in many parts of the state with a disproportionate impact on low income residents and rural Californians. With the exception of last year's S.B. 822 (the state’s net neutrality bill) and A.B. 1999 (legislation that made it legal for local governments to build their own ISPs), the big ISPs have gotten exactly what they want out of Sacramento—which is for the state to abandon its residents to broadband monopolies so they can charge monopoly rents.

Take, for example, the debate this year regarding an AT&T and Comcast bill being moved by Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez (A.B. 1366). Very few lawmakers in the state’s legislature have willingly opposed this bill, which will hurt consumers. The legislation’s premise is in lockstep with the Trump Administration’s FCC agenda to abandon all means of using the law to promote competition policy. The bill maintains a restraint on state and local authority to promote broadband access competition that was originally instituted in 2012 after heavy lobbying by the major ISPs.

Take Action

Don’t Let California’s Legislature Extend Broadband Monopolies for Comcast and AT&T

Commissioner Maria Guzman Aceves, a California regulator from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) pleaded with the Senate Utilities Committee earlier this month to block the bill in its most recent hearing (see video below). She cited the fact that millions of Californians face a monopoly market that lacks any semblance of competition. The Commissioner further stated that the lack of access and lack of investment in the broadband infrastructure of California carries serious risks to public safety, as these are essential means for communications during emergencies.

%3Ciframe%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FNA9yw_7MxIY%3Fautoplay%3D1%22%20allow%3D%22accelerometer%3B%20autoplay%3B%20encrypted-media%3B%20gyroscope%3B%20picture-in-picture%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube.com

But, despite all of these facts and the realities on the ground, only three state Senators voted against the bill in committee— Sens. Hill, McGuire, and Wiener. The legislation is now heading for the Senate floor, when session resumes in a month.

Just How Bad is the High-Speed Market in California? Really Bad!

Thanks to help from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, we have the latest data to show what the future holds if the state decides to do nothing—the outcome of passing A.B. 1366—broken down by Senate district. Literally every California Senate district is facing a monopoly broadband market in high-speed access—with the exception of San Francisco, which has enjoyed the advent of gigabit broadband competition. That is mostly thanks to one small regional ISP called Sonic Fiber, which was recently found to be the country’s fastest ISP.

Competition Maps and Charts based on FCC Form 477 December 2017 v.2, FCC Population and Household Estimates 2017. Assembled by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance for EFF.

Source: FCC Form 477 December 2017 v.2, FCC Population and Household Estimates 2017 

At the end of 2017, the most recent government data showed a vast majority of Californians did not have access to gigabit networks that can be delivered by fiber or another high-speed telecommunications standard, DOCSIS 3.1. 2018’s data is still being compiled by the government, but we know two things that have happened between 2018 and today, and would inform the data.

First, the cable industry has generally converted their systems across the board to DOCSIS 3.1, allowing them to sell broadband download speeds (not uploads) at the gigabit range. That means the percentage of Californians with no access to gigabit networks will drop, but the "one choice" monopoly percentage will grow for 2018—and not the green bar indicating at one competitor.

Second, large competitors are leaving the market, not entering it. AT&T, the only major national ISP in California that can rival Comcast, has abandoned its plans to build fiber to the home. and has started laying off workers that build those fiber networks. If the major national competitor to Comcast is not building infrastructure that will rival DOCSIS 3.1, it means they do not intend to compete with Comcast. Rather, what we have seen from AT&T is an intent to invest in their wireless products and promote (albeit falsely at times) 5G wireless access. Despite AT&T’s efforts to argue otherwise, wireless has never, nor ever will be, competitive with wireline services in the broadband market when it comes to capacity, reliability, and speeds. Choosing not to compete would normally prompt a regulatory and policy response. But if ISPs can strip the state regulator and local governments of their authority to promote competition, as envisioned under A.B. 1366, then they do not have to worry about any response, since the FCC also abandoned its authority in this area in 2017.

Our future does not have to look like this. Right now, each Californian has a chance not only to tell their state Senator to vote NO on A.B. 1366, but also to demand that lawmakers start doing their jobs and promote universal, competitive, and affordable access to 21st century broadband infrastructure. It is long past time the California legislature realized it has been too deferential to the incumbent ISPs, and their constituents are suffering monopoly rents today due to their unwillingness to act.

Rather than renew a law crafted by AT&T and Comcast —and handed to a willing legislator in Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez—it is about time they start looking at states that are skyrocketing past California when it comes to broadband access. In Utah, people have a dozen choices in gigabit fiber broadband. North Dakota now has a staggering 60 percent of its homes connected to fiber networks, despite being a very rural state. New York retained its authority and expert state regulator over broadband, and was going to literally kick out their cable company for failing to deliver to its residents—forcing the ISP to invest in the state and upgrade its facilities as part of its settlement. California leaders can also learn from the EU, which adopted a gigabit-for-all plan years ago, or the advanced Asian markets that long ago surpassed the United States. The point is, doing nothing and passing a law that makes doing nothing the mandate of the state only favors the incumbents. That is why they wrote the legislation. The only result of renewing this law, via A.B. 1366, is that a vast majority of Californians will remain stuck with Comcast as their only choice for a very long time.

North Carolina coastal flooding is worsening with climate change, population growth

Researchers can confirm what data modeling systems have predicted: Climate change is increasing precipitation events like hurricanes, tropical storms and floods.

Meet Jessica Cisneros, the 26-Year-Old Left Challenger Taking on ‘Trump’s Favorite Democrat’

Jessica Cisneros believes south Texas is ready for change. The 26-year old human rights and immigration attorney would be the youngest woman ever elected to Congress if she wins in 2020, but she’s seen enough of politics in the 28th Congressional district to know there’s much to improve.

A native of Laredo, Texas, Cisneros anticipates that voters will agree with her when she faces off against incumbent Rep. Henry Cuellar—who she refers to as “Trump’s favorite Democrat”—in the Democratic primary next March. While Cuellar voted with Trump and the GOP 67 percent of the time in the 115th Congress, Cisneros—who has been backed by the Justice Democrats—is running on a bold platform of Medicare for All, free college tuition and a Green New Deal. She has already been compared to another young Latina who took on a powerful Democratic incumbent by running to his left: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.    

In These Times spoke with Cisneros, a former intern of Rep. Cuellar, about her reasons for running, how the influence of oil and private prison money has helped maintain the status quo, and the potential for progressive politics in south Texas.

What motivated you to run against Henry Cuellar in the primary?

It was a lot of things. People have been waiting for somebody to actually champion the true issues that they're interested in: Medicare for All, having a livable wage, and, especially in an area here where poverty is just so rampant along the border, free colleges and universities. 

What stood out the most when I was interning with Rep. Cuellar was that, in addition to seeing him very silent on all these issues that affect south Texans, he knew that I was from the district and he never once asked me what I thought the district needed. If I’m there five days a week and he never really had a conversation like that, then how is he treating the people that are in the district and don’t have that access to him?

From the very beginning of our campaign, we started going out into the community. The first thing people expressed was that they were shocked that somebody running for Congress was asking them what they think the problems and solutions are. For the past 14 years, it hasn't been like that. 

Also, in my experience as an immigration attorney, I saw firsthand the policies coming from Washington. You could put your best effort into a case and the judge would still tell you, “I want to help your client, but I just can't because the laws aren't there.”

So if the laws aren’t there, then I'm going to go to Congress and change them.

Texas is often depicted as conservative oil country. What indications have you gotten from people in South Texas that they are ready for this change?

I think that depiction is just a myth being perpetuated by people like Cuellar who benefit from it. People here in South Texas haven't had an option to vote for somebody else other than Cuellar. He was elected when I was 11 years old, back in 2004. Cuellar hasn't been primaried since 2006. This area of Texas is very blue. Hillary Clinton wiped the floor with Trump here. Beto O’Rourke won against Ted Cruz with a very significant margin. 

We have somebody that calls himself a Democrat, but he's voting with Trump nearly 70 percent of the time. It’s unacceptable to have someone like that represent us. And not only is he turning his back on our values, but he's actually fundraising for Republicans. He's taking money from GEO Group and other private prisons, the Koch brothers, and the NRA. People here know that, and they're very excited that they have somebody that's actually going to champion their values.

One of the arguments Cuellar has made is that oil production has actually been helpful, and funded public education for the district. How do you counter arguments that say, for instance, a policy like the Green New Deal, which would effectively eliminate the fossil fuel industry, would lead to adverse economic effects for everyday Americans in the 28th district?

All of that is stemming from the fact that Cuellar is taking money from these oil corporations. That's why he has to defend them. So he's trying to figure out ways of tying those things to the community so he can represent the interests of Exxon Mobil and Chevron. When he takes money from these corporations, they’re going to expect a return on their investment. That's why it was so important for us from the very beginning of our campaign to not take any money from corporate PACs, because we don't want to be sellouts.

We don't want to be tied to the interests of corporations like he is. I want my commitment to be to the people here in South Texas.

You mentioned Cuellar’s support from GEO Group which invests in private prisons. Do you think that these types of private prisons should exist in the United States?

Of course not. I can tell you firsthand the abuses that I've seen in detention centers. I am an immigration attorney, and I focus specifically on helping detained immigrants. During my pro bono projects in law school, there was one semester where we focused on trying to bring to light their abuses. We’re talking about women being issued previously used underwear and getting sick from that, we're talking about people having to walk through wastewater, because pipes burst and the private prison wasn't doing anything about that. We're talking about sexual harassment and sexual abuse.

We cannot have institutions like these in our country. We can't condone their human rights abuses. It's just unacceptable. We have a person like Cuellar who is also GEO Group’s favorite Congressman, because he took $123,000 from GEO Group itself throughout his time in Congress. We can't trust people like that to be leading the way on immigration. 

It's extremely alarming, and extremely unfortunate, that he's the one that's been taking all this money, because we're situated on the border, and people are going to be looking to us to be able to provide solutions, because we see the problems firsthand here. For him to be taking this money, any of his votes or proposals will be to benefit GEO Group and CoreCivic [which owns and manages private prisons and detention centers].

Some Democrats running for president have embraced the language of Medicare for All but are actually arguing for a more watered down plan, like a public option. Do you think a public option is enough right now?

Medicare for All is definitely one of the policy proposals that we’re running on. It’s desperately needed here on the border, because Texas has the highest rate of uninsured people in the United States. 

I believe that healthcare should be a human right, and I have personal experience with this. I lost one of my aunts because she was uninsured, and she had stomach cancer, and she had no way to get treatment. As soon as we started talking to constituents about Medicare for All, and I told them my story, I found that they all know somebody that went through the same thing. 

On the second day that we launched our campaign, we went into a community and one woman told me that she needed a mammogram. It was, like, $70. She couldn't afford it, and so she had to choose between fixing the air conditioning at her home or getting the mammogram done. Here in south Texas, it gets really, really hot around this time of year. We're talking about 110 degrees during the day, and for her to have to make that choice, it’s ridiculous to say that we cannot afford universal healthcare here.

What do you think about the fact that some members of the DCCC are criticizing campaigns like yours that are challenging longtime centrist Democrats?

For us to be able to run these campaigns is a feature of our democracy. Especially in this race, where we have somebody that’s fundraising for Republicans, somebody that is taking money from corporations and groups that usually fund Republicans, we have to be able to primary these people.

Just because you're a Democrat doesn't mean you're actually upholding Democratic values. And for the DCCC to discourage primaries, that's a disservice to not only Democrats here in South Texas, but Democrats everywhere. Because if we aren't able to do that, then Henry Cuellar can take people in South Texas for granted. That's been the number one complaint about him along the campaign trail. People feel ignored. And that's not right.

The Housing Crisis Is Worse Than You Think

“Housing is a human right,” Julián Castro, the former Obama Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, wrote in the preamble to his “People First Housing” platform in June. He’s one of a few Democratic contenders who have spoken about affordable housing in recent weeks, an issue that’s historically received limited attention on the campaign trail. But housing’s newfound importance makes good sense: As In These Times has noted, the economic prospects for everyday Americans are hardly sunny, even after the putative rebounds made by the nation since the Great Recession.

While there are ample reasons to doubt the progressive promises made by the likes of Castro, the need to address the shortage of affordable housing could not be more real. And with the recent release of the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s annual report on the gap between wage-earners and rent prices, now is an important moment for candidates to outline their plans to address the issue. Here are 10 statistics that outline the U.S. housing crisis:

24.7%: U.S. renters who spend more than half their income on rent.
49.5%: Those who spend more than the federal threshold of “affordable” (30% of income).
7,000,000: Nationwide shortage of affordable homes for low-income renters. 
552,830: People experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2018.
7,400,000: Americans forced to move in with friends or family.
32%: Increase in median rent from 2001 to 2015.
97%: Increase in the number of homes renting for $2,000 or more between 2005 and 2015.
80%: U.S. markets where home prices are growing faster than wages.
1%: U.S. counties where a fair-market one-bedroom rental home is affordable for a full-time minimum-wage worker.
103: Weekly hours worked at minimum wage needed to afford a one-bedroom home at national average fair-market rent.

Race to the Bottom

Is Hitler a racist? Let’s ask our all-aryan panel.

The Dam Truth: The 91,000 Dams in the US Earned a “D” for Safety

This story was originally published by Yale Environment 360 and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. It is a telling illustration of the precarious state of United States dams that the near-collapse in February 2017 of Oroville Dam, the nation’s tallest, occurred in California, considered one of the nation’s leading states in dam safety management. […]

Health Insurers Make It Easy for Scammers to Steal Millions. Who Pays? You.

This story was originally published by ProPublica.  Ever since her 14-year marriage imploded in financial chaos and a protective order, Amy Lankford had kept a wary eye on her ex, David Williams. Williams, then 51, with the beefy body of a former wrestler gone slightly to seed, was always working the angles, looking for shortcuts […]

If You Catch My Meaning

Get your official Donald Trump decoder ring today, kids!

Taxes Are Down, Down, Down

As long as I’m making budget charts, here’s another one for you: Over the past 40 years, the total tax burden in the US has declined from about 18 percent of GDP to about 16 percent of GDP. Keep this in mind the next time you hear some Republican on TV moaning about the immense […]

Citing Intense Public Interest, Judge Unseals Files in Case of Trump Associate Felix Sater

The decision came after The Intercept sought access to the filings, some of which have remained under seal for two decades.

The post Citing Intense Public Interest, Judge Unseals Files in Case of Trump Associate Felix Sater appeared first on The Intercept.