VOTE 2018 - 6 Reasons for Hope

6 Reasons for Hope in Trump Times
Robert Reich

VOTE 2018 - One Minnesota District

"This Minnesota district is one that could decide control of Congress" PBS NewsHour 9/24/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  This year Minnesota is home to the only two Democratic-held House seats that are rated a toss-up.  Republican Jim Hagedorn and Democrat Dan Feehan are competing in a district that's voted for both parties, and where issues of health care and agriculture dominate.  Special correspondent Mary Lahammer of Twin Cities PBS reports.

VOTE 2018 - The Trump Factor

"How President Trump factored into Tuesday’s primaries" PBS NewsHour 6/13/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Primary voters in five more states went to the polls Tuesday.  Among the outcomes, South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford was defeated hours after President Trump endorsed Sanford's opponent, while Virginia chose Corey Stewart a vocal proponent of keeping Confederate monuments, as the GOP Senate nominee.  Judy Woodruff gets reaction from former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis.

SCHOOL SHOOTING, AGAIN - Galveston, Texas

When are YOU (the voter) going to say enough, and through out politicians who do nothing to protect your children?

"Texas school shooting days before graduation draws governor’s call for new gun laws" PBS NewsHour 5/18/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Students, parents and teachers suffered the agony of a school shooting on Friday morning near Galveston, Texas, where at least 10 people were murdered and 10 more wounded.  The suspect, a 17-year-old according to media reports, is being held on a capital murder charge.  Judy Woodruff learns more from Gail Delaughter of Houston Public Media.

OPINION - Health Care and Free Market Capitalism

IMHO:

My view on health care, especially the Affordable Care Act, is that it must be preserved.

It is a primary duty of any free democratic government to see that its citizens actually get health care.  And in our FreeMarket Captialistic economic system this means seeing that citizens can pay for health care.  After all, the political problem with heal care is cost.

Today's Republicans have a bankrupt, immoral and unethical stance on this issue:

• They are hooked on their doctrine of anti-government.  Believing that even if the American people need good health care, it should not be government supported.

• They are immoral/unethical because the behave as if money (the cost of anything) is much more important than the people's needs.  If it costs too much, they will not pay for it.

• Congress has better heath insurance than most citizens.

The problem with health care will not be solved until there is a solution on how to pay for it. And in our economy there are only a few ways to do this:

• Have the political will to pay what ever it costs under the present health care system.

• Go to a single-payer system, Medicare for All purposed by Bernie Sanders.  Why, Medicare is the most efficient (cost effective) deliverer of health care.  It ensures health care at lower cost (bigger bang for out buck) than private for-profit health insurance.

• Give all citizens the same health care insurance Congress has.

The reason for the high cost of heath care under ANY system is that it is provided through for for-profit health insurance, and these companies want to do whatever it takes to increase their bottom line.   This is why they came up with blocking customers with per-existing conditions.  Insurance companies (of all types) make more money if those paying for the insurance do NOT actually use it.  In health care, they want healthy people who will use health care insurance very little.

The bottom line is that Republicans DO NOT think your health is worth paying for, in other words, you are not worth the cost.

Think about that the next time you vote Republican or support ACA repeal.

Tecknomage,

USN Retired (22yrs), Vet Nam Vet

NEVER ENDING WAR - Israel vs Palestine

As I have said many, many times before.  The Palestine/Israel conflict will, and cannot, be solved by outsiders.  It can hopefully be solved when the citizens of Palestine AND the citizens of Israel tell their respective governments to STOP.  Issues like Palestine support of Gaza Strip and Israel settlements in Palestine, are just two problems that must be solved.

Also, to paraphrase, "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" even when they are 'drunk' on ideology.  Israel is drunk on their religious ideology.

"Why didn't the U.S. veto the UN's rebuke of Israel?" PBS NewsHour 12/23/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The United States has broken with decades of diplomacy by abstaining on a U.N. rebuke of Israel, rather than vetoing it in support of its longtime ally.  The Security Council voted 14 to 0 that Israel is committing a “flagrant violation” of international law by building settlements on land Palestinians want.  Judy Woodruff speaks with Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser, about the decision.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  So, why did the Obama administration today abstain from voting on the United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

We ask Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications to the President.

Ben Rhodes, welcome.

It is the case that the U.S. has long opposed these Israeli settlements but, at the same time, it has protected Israel in the U.N. against these condemning resolutions.  Why the shift?

BEN RHODES, Deputy National Security Adviser:  Well, look, first of all, it's bipartisan tradition to opposed settlements, as you mentioned.  There have been many resolutions in the past under bipartisan administrations that address the Arab-Israeli conflict.  The fact of the matter is, we vetoed a resolution that addressed settlements in 2011, and look what's happened since.  We've had failed peace processes after failed peace process, and the pace of settlement construction has accelerated significantly.  And just recently, you had the Israeli prime minister saying that this is the most pro-settlement in administration in Israeli history, the Israeli government that is currently in place.

We believe that at this pace, a two-state solution could be put at risk.  We believe that would be profoundly bad for Israel and its security.  And so, that's why the president took the position that he did.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  It comes across, though, Ben Rhodes, though, as a parting shot at Israel on the part of President Obama.

BEN RHODES:  Well, look, we have a record that we'll put up next to anybody in terms of support for Israel.  In fact, we just concluded a $38 billion ten year MOU with respect to their security assistance from the United States.

The fact of the matter is, though, I think if you look at the map of the West Bank, if you look at the future of the two-state solution, these settlements are encroaching further and further beyond the separation barrier that the Israelis themselves built, thousands of new settlements are being constructed and, frankly, if these trends continue, it will be impossible to realize a two-state solution.

And the fact of the matter is, we can't just have a peace process or a two-state solution as an empty talking point.  If we really want to be able to have a prospect for peace, we have to be clear about what we're against and that includes the type of settlements and I'd say as the resolution points out, the type of incitement to violence on the Palestinian side that have been obstacles to peace.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Well, let me just read you what — among other things the comments from Prime Minister Netanyahu after this happened.  He said, “The National Security Council has disgracefully ganged up on the one democracy in the Middle East.”  The Israeli government is saying this was a shameful resolution, they're not going to abide by it.

I mean, is the President — are you comfortable with what is now a really raw opening, a sore spot in the relationship with Israel as this President leaves office?

BEN RHODES:  Look, we've taken a lot of criticism from the Israeli government over the years.  If you look at our record, unprecedented military intelligence cooperation, a significant security assistance upgrades.

But again, let's talk about what the resolution addressed — the settlement construction.  That's the conversation that the Israeli government is not having.  And, in fact, you had this prime minister say this is the most pro-settlement Israeli government in history.  Frankly, that statement is entirely inconsistent with the two-state solution that the Israeli government in the past has said they supported, that many members of Congress support.

At a certain point, we all just have to stop and look at the map and look at the facts and say, if these settlements continue, is the two-state solution impossible?  And that clearly is the trend line.  It's evident for everybody to see, and that's what we should be talking about.

POLITICS - America's President

What we wished for:

What we got:

ELECTION 2016 - Opting Out is NOT an Option

"The Luxury of Opting Out of This Election" by James Thindwa, In These Times 10/25/2016

People whose livelihoods can turn with an election can't afford to wait for a third party to rescue them.

In the 40 years that In These Times has spoken truth to power, few topics have generated more spirited discussion among its readers and writers than how the Left should relate to the Democratic Party, whether to challenge the neoliberal establishment from within, or to build a competing political structure from without.  This is an old debate, but carries more relevance and urgency today than ever, given the rise of a neofascist Republican presidential nominee.

A core mission of left movements is to promote the interests of working-class and marginalized communities.  Yet for many such communities, this debate is far removed from everyday realities.  People whose livelihoods can turn with an election don't have the luxury to wait for a messianic third party—or a political revolution, for that matter—to rescue them.  As just one example, for those making minimum wage, this election could make the difference between their pay plummeting (if Trump carries through on abolishing the federal floor of $7.25 per hour) or doubling (if Hillary Clinton makes good on the Democratic Party platform promise, pushed through by the Sanders campaign, to raise the minimum to $15).  On purely humanitarian terms, progressives must help ensure relief for vulnerable communities by voting without apology for the candidate—yes, Hillary Clinton—who will embrace a minimum wage hike.

There are strategic reasons for doing so, as well.  In this election, polls show that African Americans and Latinos overwhelmingly favor Clinton.  To engage these communities in movement-building, progressives must listen to them.  We cannot say, “To hell with your fears.  We know best what's best for you.” The total rejection of the candidate who is supported by a significant segment of the progressive base undercuts the mutual trust necessary for such a conversation.

Bernie Sanders' insurgent campaign indicates that the Democratic Party can be pushed left.  Thanks to the Sanders campaign, the Democrats embraced the most progressive platform in their history.

The challenge going forward is to sustain this new energy and translate the noble aspirations of the platform into concrete policy.  This can only happen if the progressive movement, in partnership with allies in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, demands that Democratic elected officials advance the platform.

Since its founding, In These Times has championed an inside-outside strategy of political engagement—pushing the Democratic Party left by working through the electoral system while simultaneously building popular movements.  That strategy works.  Outside, the climate movement forced President Obama to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline in November 2015.  Inside, the Sanders campaign pushed Clinton to abandon her support for the pro-corporate Trans-Pacific Partnership.  Should Clinton be elected, it will be up to the progressive movement, mobilizing on the outside and organizing on the inside, to encourage her to tack to the left, rather than, as was her husband's wont, to the right.

Here at In These Times, we pledge to continue to help build a national progressive movement by reporting on conditions on the ground and providing a forum to share strategies, solutions and lessons learned.  As In These Times' 40 years on the beat demonstrate, we are up to this historic challenge.

VOTE 2016 - Second Presidential Debate

"The challenges of a town hall debate" PBS NewsHour 10/9/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On Sunday night in St. Louis, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump meet for their second of three televised 90-minute debates.  This time, the debate will follow a town meeting format, with voters joining the moderator in asking questions.  As NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Jeff Greenfield reports, that format has tripped up many candidates before.

"Shields and Brooks on ‘anticlimactic' Clinton victory, Trump's ‘moral chasm'"



"Watch the second presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump" (1:56:52)

OPINION - Shields and Gerson 10/7/2016

"Shields and Gerson on the 2005 Trump tape, Russian hacking and the upcoming debate" PBS NewsHour 10/7/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With the only vice-presidential debate over and the second presidential one just ahead, it's the home stretch of the election -- and it's full of surprises.  Judy Woodruff talks to syndicated columnist Mark Shields and The Washington Post's Michael Gerson about the 'enthusiasm gap,' whether the new video of Trump threatens his support among evangelicals, Russian hacking, Sunday's debate and more.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  It's also the moment we turn to the analysis of Shields and Gerson.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson.  David Brooks is away.

Gentlemen, welcome.

So, there was a lot of news that we learned about late this afternoon that has to do with this campaign.

But, Mark, I do want to start quickly with a question about Georgia.  The very fact — and you heard to some of the voters we talked to — the very fact that a state that Mitt Romney won by eight points four years ago, where it's close — I mean, it's still uphill for Hillary Clinton, but it's close because of what we talked about.

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  Yes.

No, it is.  Defined — the interviews defined the enthusiasm gap.  It isn't just on one side.  It's on both sides.  There's minimal excitement.  And, for Hillary Clinton, I think what came through in your piece is, it's not a question of the percentage of the African-American vote, in addition trying to get 30 percent of the white vote, but it's numbers.

She could get high percentages, but if you don't get numbers in the turnout — but the hope, obviously, is that Georgia can move eventually, if not this time, into the category of Virginia, North Carolina, states that have changed; Colorado, and Nevada.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Michael.

MICHAEL GERSON, The Washington Post:  Yes.

I think that the Republican fear is exactly the Virginia example.  When Barack Obama won it in his first term, it was the first time Virginia had gone Democratic since 1964.

MARK SHIELDS:  That's right.

MICHAEL GERSON:  And now it's not even close.  It's because — Hillary Clinton is ahead by about eight points in Virginia.

The state has gotten more diverse; more Hispanics and Asians, more college-educated people.  It's gone in a certain direction that I think Republicans fear for a couple of these states that region.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So, as we said at the outset, there’s been a blizzard of news late this afternoon, Mark, starting with the Obama administration naming Russia, saying high officials in Russia were behind these hacks against the Democratic Party and other Democratic figures.

Then you had WikiLeaks coming out soon after with information about John Podesta, who is Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, and some e-mailed exchanges over nuclear energy, and then the Washington Post story, which I think I want to start with that, essentially releasing the audiotape — and you heard it in John Yang’s report — showing — videotape showing Donald Trump’s lewd remarks about women about 10 years ago.

MARK SHIELDS:  Judy, let’s get one thing straight. This is not locker room talk. This is not a preteen, adolescent finding dirty words.

This is a 60-year-old man being obscene, obscene toward — in discussing women, boasting, bragging in the worst and most offensive way.

And I just think the political implications are profound.  Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican in New Hampshire, has said she would vote for Donald Trump, but will not endorse him.  In a debate this past week, she was asked, do you consider Donald Trump to be an appropriate role model for the children of New Hampshire?  “Absolutely” was the end of her answer, was immediately pounced on.  She apologized.  Cut a spot.

Every Republican candidate in the country who is in a competitive race is going to be asked in the next week, whether in a debate or where else, by opponents or by the press, do you consider Donald Trump to be an appropriate role model for the children of our state?

And it just — as far as the women’s vote you just reported on in Georgia, it makes it so, not simply difficult.  It makes it almost impossible for somebody with self-respect, who has a mother or sister or a daughter, you know, somebody like this in Abraham Lincoln’s chair.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Michael, how do you assess this?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think the problem here is not just bad language, but predatory language, abusive language…

MARK SHIELDS:  It is.

MICHAEL GERSON: … demeaning language.

That indicates something about someone’s character that is disturbing, frankly, disturbing in a case like this.  And I think evangelicals have a particular problem right now.  I mean, they are the people who argued, many of whom, leaders, argued that character counts during the Bill Clinton years.

And now character apparently doesn’t count at all.  So, I think there’s a deep tension here.

VOTE 2016 - The Supreme Court Issue

"How the deadlocked Supreme Court became a leading campaign issue" PBS NewsHour 10/4/2016

NOTE:  Mitch McConnell does NOT make a logical (nor Constitutional) argument.  He can get what he wants by bringing the President's nomination to the floor for a vote then get it disapproved, then the next President would have to submit a nominee.

What he (and Republicans) fear it that Merrick Garland WOULD be approved.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court has refused to rehear a case over President Obama's executive action aimed at protecting millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation.  The decision reflects the continuing difficulty of the court's deadlock without a ninth justice.  Gwen Ifill looks at the implications of the deadlock and how the prospect of a new justice is influencing the presidential race.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal this week to rehear a key immigration case dealt a setback to millions of undocumented immigrants hoping to stay in the U.S. legally.

It also reflects the continuing difficulty of deadlock, in this case, the limitations of an eight-person bench.  The issue of the immigration program's legality could yet return to the high court, but one whose makeup is likely to be decided by the next President.

Twelve-year-old Victoria Bonilla, like many seventh graders, spends weeknights hammering away at her homework.  Unlike her classmates, she worries her mom won't always be there to help.

VICTORIA BONILLA:  I'm worried that they might take my mom away from me, which is really hard for a kid, because, like, you know you can't live without your mom.

GWEN IFILL:  Victoria is an only child and a U.S. citizen.  But she was born to a mother who came to the country illegally, from Eli Salvador in 2004.

The Bonillas live in Gaithersburg, Maryland, a Washington suburb, where Hilaria works as a restaurant manager.  She says she moved to the U.S. to escape domestic abuse, one of an estimated four million parents who would have qualified for legal status under a 2014 executive action issued by President Obama.

The President's plan was blocked by a Texas federal judge last year, leaving families like the Bonillas in limbo.  The [Supreme] court deadlocked 4-4 when it heard the case earlier this year, leaving the lower court's hold in place.

And with the ninth seat vacant since Justice Antonin Scalia's death nearly eight months ago, there is no resolution in sight.

NewsHour regular Marcia Coyle covers the court for “The National Law Journal.”

MARCIA COYLE, National Law Journal:  This is such an important issue, it may be well that the court is willing to take another shot at it if it does have a ninth justice eventually.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  I chose a serious man and an exemplary judge, Merrick Garland.

GWEN IFILL:  President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, chief judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals, has languished without a confirmation hearing since March, after the Republican Senate majority declared it was too late in the President's term to allow him a nomination.

SEN.  MITCH MCCONNELL, Senate Majority Leader:  The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration.  The next President may also nominate somebody very different.  Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy.

GWEN IFILL:  The conservative Judicial Crisis Network has spent more than $4 million opposing Garland's confirmation.

CARRIE SEVERINO, Judicial Crisis Network:  The Constitution gives the authority to choose the Supreme Court justices to the President, as the nominator, and then to the Senate, which gives its advice and consent.  And there's a lot of ways it can do that.  It doesn't have to have hearings or votes on a specific schedule.  And, historically, two-thirds of the justices who have not been confirmed, who've been rejected by the Senate, it's been because they didn't get a vote.

First Monday in October

"Will the short-staffed Supreme Court keep a ‘low profile’ this term?" PBS NewsHour 10/5/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat remains empty, the Supreme Court begins a new term with only eight members.  What challenges will arise from the reduced size of the nation's highest court?  Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal joins Jeffrey Brown to discuss that question, as well as a recent case on racial bias and the death penalty and other matters expected to be heard this term.

VOTE 2016 - Oklahoma's Teacher Candidates

"Affected by budget cuts and testing, dozens of Oklahoma teachers are running for office" PBS NewsHour 10/4/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Oklahoma ranks 45 out of 50 states in spending per student.  It's home to overcrowded classrooms and more than 100 districts that have approved four-day school weeks.  Now, more than 40 teachers who are tired of not being heard are trying to change things themselves -- by running for office.  Special correspondent Lisa Stark of Education Week reports.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  In some parts of the country, it's not just the presidential race on voters' minds.  State elections are taking center stage in some places, too, like Oklahoma, where education is at the forefront of the ballot.

Teachers are upset over spending cuts and what they see as a political assault on public education.  They have decided it's time to take matters into their own hands.  A record number of teachers are running for seats in the state legislature.  All of this comes as Oklahoma faces tough budget decisions.

Special correspondent Lisa Stark of our partner Education Week reports from Oklahoma as part of our weekly segment Making the Grade.

LISA STARK, Special correspondent:  Football is king in Oklahoma, so it's no surprise the Norman High School homecoming parade shuts down the town's main street.

There's candy for the kids, cheerleaders, and athletes, of course, and enjoying the ride, Oklahoma's teacher of the year, whose day job is deciphering algebra for ninth graders at Norman High.

This is Shawn Sheehan's sixth year teaching.

So, you love being a teacher?

SHAWN SHEEHAN, Oklahoma Teacher of the Year:  I do.  I love it.  I love working with kids.  I really do.  And I love math.  That sounds super nerdy, but I do love math.

LISA STARK:  So, it may seem odd that Sheehan, Oklahoma's top teacher, is ready to hang up the white board.

SHAWN SHEEHAN:  I made the decision to run for state Senate.

I think what it is, is, we have is a lack of representation at the state capitol.  We have folks up there who don't really understand what's going on in education and what's going on in our communities.

LISA STARK:  He's not the only one who feels that way.  Sheehan has joined more than 40 educators who have filed to run for the Oklahoma legislature.

Why do you think so many educators are running this year?

SHAWN SHEEHAN:  I think, in this state, educators are finally fed up.  And it's almost like a sense of, we don't have anything to lose at this point.

COLOMBIA - Voters Reject Peace Deal

"Why did Colombian voters reject the FARC peace deal?" PBS NewsHour 10/3/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In a surprise vote, the Colombian people narrowly rejected the peace deal with guerrilla group FARC that would have ended Latin America's longest running conflict.  After the vote, Colombia's president and the top FARC commander both appealed for calm and reiterated their support for peace.  William Brangham speaks with Bernard Aronson, U.S. Special Envoy for Colombian Peace Process.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Now to a major upset in South America.

Yesterday, voters in Colombia rejected a peace deal between their government and the largest rebel group, known as the FARC.  It was hoped the deal would put an end to 50-plus years of conflict that's left hundreds of thousands of people dead.

William Brangham has the latest.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM (NewsHour):  Sunday's stunning outcome in Colombia touched off celebrations in parts of Bogotá.  Voters narrowly rejected a peace accord with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, this despite predictions it would win easily.

CLAUDIA, ‘No' Supporter (through translator):  We have all been victims of the FARC and this victory is calling to the government to renegotiate the agreements, not to hand over the country to the FARC.  It's very emotional.  This is what Colombia wants.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  But yes-voters complained opponents of the peace deal were misguided.

ANTONIO SANGUINO, ‘Yes' supporter (through translator):  Fifty percent of the people who went out to vote allowed themselves to be convinced by a message of hate, a message of revenge, a message of keeping us in the past.

VOTE 2016 - Control of the Senate

"Why Senate control could ride on this tight New Hampshire race" PBS NewsHour 10/3/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In New Hampshire, a high-profile contest is drawing outsized attention and outside money due to its stakes in shaping the Senate.  Republican incumbent Sen.  Kelly Ayotte and Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, both well-respected and popular political figures in their state, are running a neck-and-neck race while keeping the presidential candidates at an arm's length.  Lisa Desjardins reports.

LISA DESJARDINS (NewsHour):  The start of fall in New Hampshire.  Along with the changing leaves this year, the Granite State is home to something else special, a contest between two respected and popular Senate candidates.

Republican U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, out gathering votes at an apple festival this weekend, is defending her seat.  Democratic Governor Maggie Hassan, rallying volunteers, is hoping to win it.  Polls show it is a toss-up race, a sharp partisan fight, even as both brandish they are not.

GOV.  MAGGIE HASSAN, Democratic Senate Candidate:  We passed a bipartisan Medicaid expansion program.  We froze in-state tuition at our university system, and actually lowered it at our community colleges.

SEN.  KELLY AYOTTE, Republican Senate Candidate:  I have one of the most bipartisan records in the Senate.  I have certainly been called a problem-solver by the independent group No Labels, who I have worked with.

LISA DESJARDINS:  Both are former lawyers, both known for their work ethic.  Neither is flashy.  But Hassan charges Ayotte is too conservative for the state, in lockstep with the GOP on defunding Planned Parenthood, overturning Roe vs. Wade, and on guns.

GOV.  MAGGIE HASSAN:  Whether it's standing with the gun lobby, rather than expanding background checks so that terrorists can't get guns online and at gun shows, or whether it's standing against a woman's right to make her own health care decisions, those decisions of Senator Ayotte, her positions and her votes, really have pulled us backwards.

LISA DESJARDINS:  Ayotte stands by her position to ban most abortions as a matter of faith, adding she supports access to more contraception.  She attacks Hassan on taxes, a core issue here.

SEN.  KELLY AYOTTE:  In terms of taxes, I'm someone who focuses on low taxes, a better tax climate for individuals and small businesses.  She has long record of increasing taxes, not only on small businesses, but on campgrounds, registration fees, on the people of New Hampshire.

LISA DESJARDINS:  Hassan's tax record is complicated.  She cut taxes for some, but raised them for others, citing urgent needs like fighting the opioid crisis.

Meanwhile, both candidates are keeping their party's presidential nominees at arm's length.  Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were both in New Hampshire last week, but neither Hassan nor Ayotte joined them on stage.  Ayotte has said she's voting for Trump, but not endorsing him.

But how do the important people, the voters, see this?

Jim Jalbert runs a thriving family-owned bus company, C&J Bus, in Portsmouth.  Jalbert is a registered Republican who doesn't like Trump.  But between Ayotte and Hassan:

JIM JALBERT, C&J Bus Lines:  If you look at the two of them, they're both really good people.

HACKING THE VOTE - Manipulation of Election 2016 Results?

A gift from Donald's Russian friend.

"Could hackers compromise November election results?" PBS NewsHour 9/30/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Since the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, there has been growing concern about cyber-manipulation of election results this November.  Voter registration databases in Illinois and Arizona were penetrated in June, and the FBI reported this week on attempts against several other states.  Hari Sreenivasan talks to chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner for more on the threat.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  Concern has been growing about possible cyber-manipulation of the U.S. election since revelations in June that the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Committee's data had been stolen.

U.S. intelligence official pointed the finger at Russian-government-linked hackers, though wouldn't say so publicly.  Separately, Illinois and Arizona's voter registration databases were penetrated in June, forcing them to temporarily shut down.

This week, FBI Director James Comey told Congress there had been new attempts to penetrate many more state voter databases.

Margaret Warner has been looking into this and joins me now.

So, what's the real danger to the elections if voter registration databases are being hacked?

MARGARET WARNER (NewsHour):  Hari, on one hand, it could be strictly criminal.  People want to get addresses, home phone numbers, e-mails, and use it for criminal purposes.

And many states have had to deal with that in the past.  But the other danger is that information can be used to selectively used to manipulate the vote on Election Day.

For example, send out e-mails to voters in certain districts, perhaps minority districts, and, oh, your registration place has been changed, your voting place has been changed.  And this has been done often by phone.  It's an old, old trick.  Or to simply to delete them from the database, so when they get there, there is incredible confusion.

So, as a senior homeland security official told me this afternoon, the other danger that really worries us is that just the news of these hacks undermined American voters' view of the credibility of the U.S.  election system.  And there are certainly foreign powers who would like to do that.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  So, let's talk about those foreign powers.

Do the U.S. officials believe that the Russians are behind this or any of the other hacks that have been related so far?

MARGARET WARNER:  Yes.

First of all, they established that they were behind the hacks you mentioned earlier, the DNC and the DCCC, and that there are two sort of outfits, what is called Fancy Bear — it's a nickname — and one is Cozy Bear.

One is linked to the old KGB called the GRU and one is linked to military intelligence.  And I was told by cyber-experts who have been involved in these investigations that these voter database hacks are the work of so-called Fancy Bear, which is the one side to Russian military intelligence.

This is the same outfit that, in Ukraine, in Ukrainian elections two years ago, penetrated the database of the Ukrainian election authorities and tried to switch the actual plate that showed who was winning where.  They didn't succeed, but the fake plate that showed someone else won did end up on Russian TV in Russia.

ELECTION 2016 - Vote! It's Important

It's Important, VOTE November 8th

VOTE 2016 - Tax Proposals

"How the candidates' tax proposals highlight different economic priorities" PBS NewsHour 8/11/2016

The ultimate Flim-Flam Man ("Master of Back-Stabbing, Cork-Screwing, and Dirty-Dealing") vs Hillery.

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both spoke about their intended tax policies this week.  On Monday, Trump proposed tax cuts for all, while on Thursday, Clinton pledged to increase taxes on the wealthy and use that money for the middle and lower classes.  Judy Woodruff speaks with Neil Irwin of the The New York Times and David Wessel of the Brookings Institution for analysis of both plans.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Few things are certain in life, and this year's presidential campaign has certainly defied tradition.  But when it comes to taxes, it's become clear there are pretty big differences between the two major party candidates.

Lisa Desjardins reports.  It's part of our ongoing look at issues shaping this election.

LISA DESJARDINS (NewsHour):  Taxes, among the most powerful of government policies, affecting how we live and work every day.  This week starts the first head-to-head policy speeches between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, starting with Trump Monday.

DONALD TRUMP (R), Presidential Nominee:  I am proposing an across-the-board income tax reduction, especially for middle-income Americans.

LISA DESJARDINS:  Trump's plan?  He would simplify the tax system to just three smaller rates and fewer deductions.  His top rate would be 33 percent vs. the current 39.6 percent.  We don't yet know who would see which rates.

He's more specific on the estate tax.  That's the tax on inheritances over $5.4 million.  Trump would eliminate that tax altogether, a big benefit for (big) farmers and wealthy families.  Republicans say it is fair and positive.

Hillary Clinton, in her economic speech in Michigan today, could not have disagreed more.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), Presidential Nominee:  Multimillionaires shouldn't be able to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

(APPLAUSE)

LISA DESJARDINS:  Clinton would charge a minimum 30 percent tax on incomes over a million dollars, and she'd raise the total tax rate to 43.6 percent for those making over $5 million.  Clinton wouldn't change rates for the lower or middle classes.

Clinton charges that Trump's tax plan is a giveaway to the wealthy, especially one big change.

HILLARY CLINTON:  In his speech on Monday, he called for a new tax loophole — let's call it the Trump loophole — because it would allow him to pay less than half the current tax rate on income from many of his companies.

LISA DESJARDINS:  Clinton is talking about something complicated, but important, called pass-through income.  Here's how it works.

Classically, a business pays a 35 percent rate on taxable incomes.  But some businesses, where the owner or family is the business — think about attorneys with their own firms, for example — can pay using what's called a pass-through.  In that case, the business doesn't pay a corporate tax.  Instead, the company pays the owner and the owner pays an individual income tax of up to 39.6 percent.

This exists so the owner isn't taxed twice, as a business and individual.  Donald Trump's plan would cut all corporate taxes to 15 percent.  And he would set a new 15 percent rate for these pass-through incomes, a huge cut that could apply to his own businesses.  He responds that Clinton and Democrats overtax companies.
-----
JUDY WOODRUFF:  Neil, what about changes in the estate tax?  This is the tax people are charged when they die.  They pass on everything they have to their children and there’s a tax associated with that.  How do Clinton and Trump deal with that?

NEIL IRWIN:  Well, with Trump, it’s simple.  He wants to get rid of it entirely.

And one thing to remember, right now, the cutoff there for a married couple, it’s $10.9 million, meaning you have to be a multimillionaire when a person dies to face that tax at all.  He still wants to get rid of it.

Hillary Clinton wants to go the other direction, reduce those exemptions down to $7 million for a married couple.  So it would affect more people than it does now if Hillary Clinton got her way.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And, again, what would the effect be on revenue, David?

DAVID WESSEL:  Well, we don’t get a lot of revenue from the estate tax.

We know the direction.  But I think what Neil says is really important.  So, of every 1,000 people who die in a given year, only two of them face the estate tax.  So, it affects only the very rich.  It’s almost more of a talking point than it is a real tax policy.

BRITAIN - Common Sense Looses on EU Vote

IMHO:  The vote by British citizens is a big mistake.  It is a win for paranoia, misplaced nationalism, and prejudice.  Britain was much stronger as a member of the EU.  Having said that, the British citizens have the right to their vote.

"Britain votes to leave the European Union, Prime Minister David Cameron resigns" by News Desk, PBS NewsHour 6/24/2016

The United Kingdom has voted to exit the European Union, becoming the first nation to leave the economic, political and cultural bloc.  The news sent shockwaves through the global economy and led to the resignation of British prime minister David Cameron, who supported the Remain campaign.

“Over 33 million people from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar have all had their say,” Cameron said in his resignation speech.  We should be proud of the fact that, in these islands, we trust the people with these big decisions.”

Cameron continued by congratulating the Leave campaign for “the spirited and passionate case that they made.”  The prime minister did not release a precise timetable for his departure, but guaranteed that he would remain in his post for at least three months with an aim to depart by October.

Exit polls show that England and Wales drove the decision to leave, while Northern Ireland and Scotland citizens leaned toward staying.  Scotland prime minister Nicola Sturgeon believes a second independence referendum for her nation is “highly likely” following the Brexit.  Scotland voted 62 versus 38 percent to stay in the EU, according to the BBC.

“It's a statement of the obvious that the option of a second independence referendum must be on the table and it is on the table,” Sturgeon said.

Global markets immediately plummeted in reaction to the referendum results.  The British pound nosedived to its lowest valuation in 30 years, as the nation's stock market — FTSE — reported 8 percent losses within the first few seconds of trading Friday morning.

Economic analysts are predicting the biggest single-day decline since the 2008 financial crisis.  Bank of England governor Mark Carney promised 250 billion pounds ($347 billion) to stabilize the economy.  Other European markets took heavy hits, and the European Central bank pledged to provide liquidity for domestic and foreign currencies to prevent panic, as did the U.S. Federal Reserve for the dollar.

"Brexit: Four reasons it comes as a shock" by Paul Solman, PBS NewsHour 6/24/2016

Excerpt

Shocker, a word you'll hear rarely from someone who, like myself, sizes up the world probabilistically.  But shocker is the verdict on the Brexit vote, for at least four reasons.

First, of course, are the political implications.  As economist Justin Wolfers put it late last night on Twitter, though overstating slightly: “Economists favor more integration, not for the economic gains, but because it fosters peace, which is more valuable.”

"Time for real talk.  Economists favor more integration, not for the economic gains, but because it fosters peace, which is more valuable." - Twitter @JustinWolfers

Second, these are millions upon millions of people who were voting against their pocketbooks.  And they knew it.  That's because, economically, the results were unusually predictable.  Every time the odds of a Brexit “Leave” vote had gone up, the value of the British pound had gone down.  This might not be so bad if the UK were an export-based economy.  A cheaper pound would mean cheaper prices on British goods and services.  What the country loses in buying power it might more than make up for in jobs.  But as Matt Yglesias tweeted late last night:

"Cheap pound would be great for UK exports were the UK not withdrawing from the world's biggest integrated market." - Twitter @mattyglesias

And Wolfers again:

"Upside: Britain is on sale.  Everything, 10-15% off.  Steak and kidney pies for everyone." - Twitter @JustinWolfers

Everyone outside Britain, he means — like me and my wife, leaving Oxford on Monday after 10 weeks here.  I got an email from a vendor this morning telling me where to send a “cheque” for the 65 pound-price we agreed upon yesterday.  In the ensuing 24 hours, I've saved $5.  Maybe I'll stall till tomorrow.  Oh wait, the pound could shoot back up! When should I pay? It's a question every importer from Britain will now be asking — more pressingly than in years, if not decades.  And those $5 my vendor loses will be $5 less to spend on what will now be increasingly expensive goods and services from abroad.  In the time we've been here, numerous Brits have told us they'd like to go to America because it's so much cheaper.  Did they vote for Brexit too?

The third shock is more personal; my apparent over-reliance on the prediction markets, and on economists like Justin Wolfers who do as well.  The two of us conducted a video chat more than five years ago in which we extolled the virtues of markets, mainly with respect to sports betting, but also in politics.  And I have reported on political markets for the NewsHour many times, as recently as February.  Last night, Justin reproduced this tweet:

“To Justin:  I think you need an explanation on gambling odds.  These markets are not full markets where people can bet a lot of money.  They are not as informative as you believe they are.”

Justin's reply:   “I love me a good mansplainer.  Because honestly, I just didn't realize.”

In the defense of the market-dependent, yesterday's Brexit vote drew plenty of money: an estimated £50 million pounds or more on one British prediction market alone.  But what we failed to realize — or more honestly, failed to remember — is that odds are probabilities, not facts.  At 11 pm last night here in England, I tweeted:

"Brexit polls now closed here in UK.  Betting mkts put the odds of Remain win at 85% likelihood.  They were down to 60% before Jo Cox killing." - Twitter @paulsolman

Three hours later:

"Most dramatic swings I've ever seen on the prediction mkts:  Brexit from 12% to 54% when this tweet began now back down to 40% as I finish it" - Twitter @paulsolman

The point is, even at 11pm, with the odds at 85 percent for “Remain,” there was still roughly one chance in six that the UK would vote to leave.  And by definition, such an event will occur, on average, one-sixth of the time.  On the prediction markets, those odds should lead to the right call five times out of six, on average.  And that can lull those who monitor the markets into a false sense of complacency, as it did me with Brexit.  I didn't forget about that sixth time.  But I dismissed it.  I'm shocked that I did.

The fourth shock should perhaps not come as one, as assiduously as we here at Making Sen$e having been covering economic inequality over the years.  It's the gulf (or abyss) between elites and workers in countries like the US and the UK.  That would help explain the confidence of the prediction markets.  Who bets money on elections if not, disproportionately, those who already have enough?  With which side was the Remain side identified, if not the Establishment?  But after the assassination of the aggressively humane Labour MP Jo Cox, would aggressively civil England actually vote for the forces of aggression?  The answer is that it did so, aggressively.

THE VOTE - Felons in Virginia

"Felons who've paid their debt deserve to vote, says Virginia Gov. McAuliffe" PBS NewsHour 4/22/2016

Amen, a man of principle.  Rehabilitation does NOT work without some reward.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe signed a sweeping order Friday to restore voting rights to more than 200,000 convicted felons within the state.  McAuliffe described the action as an effort to reverse decades of voter repression, but state Republicans accused the governor of abusing his powers to help Hillary Clinton win a valuable swing state.  McAuliffe joins Judy Woodruff for more.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe signed a sweeping order today to restore voting rights to more than 200,000 convicted felons after their release from prison.

Republicans in the commonwealth quickly accused the governor of abusing his executive power to help Democrat Hillary Clinton win a battleground state.

Governor McAuliffe joins me now from Richmond.

Governor, welcome.

Why the decision to overturn something that's been in place in your state since the Civil War?

GOV. TERRY MCAULIFFE (D), Virginia:  Well, let's be honest.  We have had a bad history here on voting rights in Virginia.  1901, 1902, they put in the poll tax.  They put in literacy tests.  And they had a horrible disenfranchisement for felons.

So, what I did today was to erase 114, 115 years of a really, really repressive tactic used to deprive people their right to vote.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  You included convicted felons who were accused of violent crimes, murder, rape.  You didn't make any exceptions.  Why not?

GOV. TERRY MCAULIFFE:  Nope.  Why should I?

Once you have served your time, once you have paid your debt to society, the judge, jury have determined what your sentence would be, once you complete that, why should you not be back in?

When these people, even if they have committed heinous crimes, but once they have finished serving their sentence, they go back to their communities, they get jobs, they have family members.  You want them, Judy — I want everybody back getting a job.  I want them paying taxes.  I want them feeling good about themselves.

You have paid your debt to society.

POLITICS - Elections 2016, Live Results

"Election Calendar" PBS Newshour

Use link above to see detailed results of 2016 Elections, including Live Results.

As of 3/2/2016

REPUBLICANS:  "There are 2,472 delegates to the Republican National Convention, so a candidate needs a simple majority comprising 1,237 or more delegates to win the presidential nomination."

DEMOCRATS:  "There are 4,764 delegates to the Democratic National Convention, so a candidate needs a simple majority of 2,383 delegates to win the presidential nomination."