AUGUST 26, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


VIDEO – LIFE AND LEGACY OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/amid-todays-polarized-politics-mccain-remind-americans-unites/story?id=57399234
Amid today’s polarized politics, McCain tried to remind Americans: 'More unites us than divides us’
By COKIE ROBERTS Aug 25, 2018, 8:53 PM ET



THE “UNPLEASANTNESS” BETWEEN MCCAIN AND TRUMP

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45313845
John McCain: Five times he clashed with Trump
AUGUST 26, 2018

PHOTOGRAPHS -- The pair clashed frequently before and during Mr Trump's presidency

While John McCain and President Donald Trump were in the same party, their rivalry was bitter.

The Vietnam war hero was one of the most outspoken Republican critics of Mr Trump from the very start of his candidacy.

Mr Trump meanwhile infamously questioned his heroism for being captured in the Vietnam War.

The key moments in John McCain's life
His brief tweet after Mr McCain's death has drawn criticism for failing to directly praise the Arizona senator.

Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain. Our hearts and prayers are with you!

8:44 PM - Aug 25, 2018
174K
107K people are talking about this
Report
End of Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump

The message was in contrast to glowing tributes from his predecessors Barack Obama and George W Bush.

Here are five key moments that marked a sharp political and personal feud.

1. Trump 'fired up the crazies'
In the summer of 2015, Donald Trump launched his bid to be the Republican Party's presidential nominee with an attack on Mexican immigrants.

"They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some I assume are good people," he said, to widespread condemnation at the time.

Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption -- Donald Trump made the controversial comments while announcing his presidential campaign

This first campaign outing was also when Mr Trump brought up his plan to build a wall on the US southern border.

Mr McCain swiftly denounced the businessman's attacks on immigrants, accusing him of "firing up the crazies" with his views.

2. McCain not 'a war hero'
While the senator may have been the first to fire, Mr Trump was swift to respond.

Less than a month after his Mexican immigrants speech, the reality TV star said at a campaign event in Iowa that Mr McCain was not a war hero.

"He's a war hero because he was captured," he said. "I like people that weren't captured."

Mr McCain was held and repeatedly tortured for five-and-a-half years after his plane was shot down in the Vietnam war.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption -- Mr McCain was shot down by the Vietnamese in 1967 and spent years in a prison enduring torture

Mr Trump's nomination rivals condemned his attacks and he eventually rowed his comments back - although he did not apologise.

And Mr McCain did not seek an apology for himself, rather that Mr Trump apologised "to the families of those who have sacrificed in conflict".

But the Vietnam war veteran did respond in a veiled attack, years later criticising those wealthy enough to avoid service in the conflict by finding doctors "that would say that they had a bone spur".

President Trump received five military deferments excusing him from duty in Vietnam during the 1960s - four for academic reasons and one for bone spurs, or calcium build-up in the heels.

3. 'Trump has no excuses'
Once Mr Trump had blown away his challengers for the nomination, Mr McCain came behind the Republican Party's choice.

But just before the 2016 election, a video recording surfaced of Mr Trump making graphic and obscene remarks about women.

In the video, Mr Trump said "you can do anything" to women "when you're a star" and bragged about trying to grope and kiss women.

Media captionA video obtained by the Washington Post shows Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump making lewd remarks about women

Trump lewd video on women: Transcript
Sex assault outpouring after Trump video

Mr McCain swiftly withdrew his support, saying Mr Trump should "suffer the consequences" of his remarks.

"Donald Trump's behaviour make(s) it impossible to continue to offer even conditional support for his candidacy," he said at the time, saying there were "no excuses" and that "he alone bears the burden of his conduct".

"No woman should ever be victimised by this kind of inappropriate behaviour," he said.

4. Thumbs down for Trump's healthcare reform bid
The pair's feud only grew as Mr Trump took office and set to work reshaping the US in his image.

A key campaign pledge for the New York billionaire in 2016 had been to repeal President Obama's landmark healthcare legislation, the Affordable Care Act - known as Obamacare.

RELATED:
Obamacare v Republican plan compared
How has Obamacare fared under Trump?
Where Trump went wrong on healthcare

Republicans set up numerous efforts to repeal the law, and almost succeeded, needing 50 votes in the 100-seat Senate chamber they control 52-48.

But in a now famous move, as he battled the brain cancer that would take his life, Mr McCain voted no and scuppered the party's bid to undo the act.

Media captionMr McCain's "no" vote in July scuppered the last Republican bid to repeal Obamacare

President Trump had condemned Republicans who did not back the new legislation, saying: "They don't have the guts to vote for it."

5. 'A US president should not congratulate dictators'
Mr McCain was a prominent Republican on foreign affairs, rising to become chair of the influential Senate Armed Services Committee.

He advocated a strong American presence abroad - so it was no surprise that he chafed at Mr Trump's frequent praise of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

When Mr Putin was re-elected in March, Mr McCain issued a statement strongly criticising the president for congratulating the former spy.

"An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections," he said.

Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
Mr Trump has expressed admiration for his Russian counterpart

He was even more vocal when Mr Trump met Mr Putin in Helsinki this year and said he believed Mr Putin's assessment that Russia did not interfere in his election in 2016 - contradicting US intelligence services.

Trump-Putin: Your toolkit to help understand the story
Even Trump allies shocked by Putin summit
As it happened: Trump and Putin's landmark meeting
The former presidential candidate did not mince words.

Mr McCain called the meeting "one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory".

"The damage inflicted by President Trump's naivete, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate," he wrote in a statement. "But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake."


I DON’T LIKE CHUCK TODD AT ALL, BUT HE DID FORCE LANNY DAVIS, WHOM I DO LIKE A GREAT DEAL, TO ADMIT THAT TO HIS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OR (AS FAR AS DAVIS KNOWS) A WITNESS TO THE TRUMP/COHEN CONVERSATION IN WHICH COHEN, HE SAYS, WAS TOLD BY TRUMP TO PAY THE PORN STAR THE HUSH MONEY. SIGH.... ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS IS THAT DAVIS ADMITTED THAT HE HASN’T SEEN THE EVIDENCE THAT MUELLER HAS, AND SO THERE MAY WELL BE CORROBORATING INFORMATION WITH MUELLER’S TEAM. I’LL JUST WAIT AND SEE WHAT COMES OUT IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS’ NEWS.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/chuck_todd_to_lanny_davis_other_than_michael_cohens_word_is_there_any_corroborating_evidence.html
Chuck Todd to Lanny Davis: "Other Than Michael Cohen's Word," Is There Any Corroborating Evidence?
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date August 22, 2018

Chuck Todd interviewed Michael Cohen's attorney Lanny Davis earlier on Wednesday and asked if there is any evidence that then-candidate Trump directed Michael Cohen to pay adult film actress Stormy Daniels hush money. Todd asked multiple times if there is any evidence, i.e. corroborating witnesses at the Trump Organization, that would prove Cohen was directed and committed the payoff based on the verbal instruction by Donald Trump other than his own word.

"Do they have evidence that... then-candidate Trump, directed Michael Cohen to do this? other than Michael Cohen's word that the president directed him to do this, do they have other physical evidence that the president directed Michael Cohen?" Todd asked.

Davis said that Team Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani admitted the then-candidate directed Comey to make the payment in an interview. Secondly, there is "physical and electronic evidence" that money was paid to Daniels from the Trump conduit that is "all documented.

Davis eventually relented and said it comes down to Cohen's word versus Trump's.

"Is there any independent evidence that Mr. Trump said to Mr. Cohen you need to do this, I don't want to do this? That may come down to Mr. Cohen's word versus Mr. Trump's," Davis said.

TODD: Can you say that Michael Cohen consulted with anybody else on the campaign other than Mr. Trump?

LANNY DAVIS: Consulted about making those payments?

TODD: Yes, sir.

DAVIS: There were other people involved. Some of them named individual one, individual two from the campaign, some named as people within the Trump Organization without their names attached. There were other people involved in the chain of events.

Just to remind your viewers, it's pretty simple. $130,000 needs to be paid to Miss Daniels. Mr. Trump directed personally him to Mr. Cohen to pay $130,000 and it's all documented by the prosecutors in New York --

TODD: I understand that, but do they have evidence on one specific charge, that President Trump, then-candidate Trump, directed Michael Cohen to do this? Other than Michael Cohen's word that the president directed him to do this, do they have other physical evidence that the president directed Michael Cohen. I understand the physical evidence of the money transfers and all of that. But does he have evidence -- is it more taped conversations? Is that the evidence?

DAVIS: Well, the prosecutors may have evidence they haven't revealed. All I've read is the criminal information in which they state that there are individuals from the Trump campaign and from the Trump Organization who were involved and Mr. Giuliani said, yes, Mr. Trump knew that he had to reimburse Mr. Cohen for the advance made for this payment.

Is there any independent evidence that Mr. Trump said to Mr. Cohen you need to do this, I don't want to do this? That may come down to Mr. Cohen's word versus Mr. Trump's and now we'll have to, now that there is a guilty plea, wait and see if Mr. Trump is willing under oath to say what Mr. Cohen said under oath, which is that he was directed to Mr. Trump to do this.


DNC’S NEW SUPERDELEGATE RULES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT HERE FROM YESTERDAY’S REPORT. IS THIS ONE CORRECT? YESTERDAY’S REPORT SAID THAT SUPERDELEGATES WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO VOTE “ON THE FIRST BALLOT,” AND THIS ONE SAYS THAT ONLY IN A “DEADLOCK” OR IF “THE OUTCOME IS ASSURED” CAN THEY VOTE. ONE QUESTION, THOUGH, IF THE SUPERDELEGATES’ TOTAL 700 ADDITIONAL VOTES ARE BACKING A PARTY FAVORITE AGAIN, AS IN 2016, MIGHT THAT NOT BE ENOUGH ADDITIONAL VOTES TO CHANGE THE TOTAL, AND THEREFORE THE PERCENTAGES? IN OTHER WORDS, THE VOTE THAT WAS “AN ASSURED OUTCOME” MAY NO LONGER BE ASSURED? BESIDES, WHY DO WE NEED THEIR VOTES ANYWAY? LET THEM VOTE ONCE ONLY, AND WITH NO MORE WEIGHT THAN THE OTHER DELEGATES HAVE. SO, WHILE THIS NEW WAY IS AN IMPROVEMENT, IT STILL ISN’T COMPLETELY SAFE FROM UNFAIRNESS.

SEE ALSO THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ON THIS SAME SUBJECT, BECAUSE IT GOES INTO HELPFUL DETAIL ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE DECISION. I ALWAYS PREFER MORE INFORMATION TO LESS INFORMATION. LESS TENDS TO BE A BUNCH OF PRECHEWED CONCLUSIONS AND PERSONAL OPINIONS.

ALSO, READ THE LAST COMMENT BY MATT VESPA OF THIS ARTICLE. HE IS IMPLYING THAT WE REALLY DO NEED ALL THOSE 700 INGROUP MEMBERS TO PREVENT US LESS WEALTHY AND POWERFUL PEOPLE FROM CHOOSING AN INSANE PERSON. IF HE IS IMPLYING THAT BERNIE SANDERS IS INSANE, HE IS SIMPLY MISTAKEN OR LAYING HIS PERSONAL BIAS MUCH TOO HEAVILY ON THE SCALES.

NOT EVERY GROUP OF POPULISTS, PROGRESSIVES OR SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS IS MADE UP OF FASCISTS, COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS OR OTHER ANTIDEMOCRATIC PERSONS. THAT ELEMENT IS USUALLY ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE. NOT EVERYONE WHO ISN’T “MODERATE”OR “CONSERVATIVE” IS A COMMUNIST OR A NUT. WHAT WE NEED IS WELL-EDUCATED CITIZENS AND THEN WE SHOULD LET THEM USE THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM TO CHOOSE OUR CANDIDATES. WHAT I SAW AT THE 2016 DNC WAS NOT A THOUGHTFUL DECISION-MAKING BODY. I THINK IF WE HAVE REAL VOTERS GATHERED THERE, DISCUSSING AND THEN VOTING, WE WILL HAVE A BETTER AND, ESPECIALLY, A MORE HONEST RESULT.

HERE’S WHAT I FOUND ABOUT VESPA HIMSELF, WHOSE CREDITS BELOW ARE ALL CONSERVATIVE:

“MATT VESPA BIOGRAPHY
MATT VESPA IS THE ASSOCIATE EDITOR AT TOWNHALL.COM. HE PREVIOUSLY WORKED FOR CNSNEWS.COM AND WAS THE RECIPIENT OF AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION'S 2013 ANDREW BREITBART AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN ONLINE ACTIVISM AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING.” A BREITBART AWARD? ONLINE ACTIVISM?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/08/26/bernie-sanders-supporters-clinched-a-big-win-at-dncs-summer-meeting-reining-in-n2513054
Bernie Sanders' Supporters Clinched A Big Win At DNC's Summer Meeting: Reining In Superdelegates
Matt Vespa Matt Vespa | @mvespa1 |Posted: Aug 26, 2018 11:45 AM

Bernie Sanders and his supporters have a reason to be happy: it’s the end of the immense clout that was given to Democratic superdelegates. They’re usually public officials, they’re not declared, and they can vote for whomever they like. They usually float with the establishment, which became a source of ire for Sanders supporters, who felt the deck was stacked against them. They’re not wrong. The Wikileaks email dump prior to the 2016 Democratic National Convention showed that top staffers at the DNC were discussing ways to torpedo the Vermont senator’s presidential hopes. The dirty laundry was exposed. Now, unless there’s a deadlock or an assured winner, these superdelegates will be barred from voting at the next convention in 2020 (via NBC News):

The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to significantly curtail the power of superdelegates and make presidential caucuses more accessible, overcoming objections from a vocal minority of its membership.

The reform package, pushed by DNC Chairman Tom Perez and allies of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, among others, passed overwhelmingly by voice vote at the DNC’s summer meeting here — two years after the process started.

Perez and others hailed the outcome as momentous, saying the reforms will help welcome new people into the party by reassuring them that their vote will never be overruled by the party leaders who can vote for whomever they want for the presidential nomination.

“Today is a historic day for our party,” Perez said. “We passed major reforms that will not only put our next presidential nominee in the strongest position possible, but will help us elect Democrats up and down the ballot, across the country.”

The change will prohibit superdelegates from voting for president at the party’s 2020 convention, unless the outcome is already assured or it deadlocks, which hasn’t happened in decades. The vast majority of superdelegates sided with Hillary Clinton over Sanders in their primary fight two years ago.

The news network also added that caucuses would be accepting absentee ballots, whereas the old rules stated you needed to vote in person to participate. The fiasco over this system already had some states reconsidering their nominating processes and while the DNC can’t make states adopt new rules for their respective primaries, NBC added, “The reform package includes measures to encourage states to open their primaries and caucuses to independent voters, as well as to expand same-day voter registration in order to bring new voters.”

Yeah, it’s safe to assume that someone crazy is going to run. Pass the popcorn when that happens.



THIS CNN VERSION HAS GOOD NEW DETAIL IN IT, AND IS ALSO WELL WORTH READING. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE DNC MEMBERS WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGES. I THINK EVERYBODY WHO DOESN’T HAVE A PERSONAL STAKE IN THE ISSUE WILL FIND THIS TO BE BOTH MORE FAIR AND PROBABLY MORE EFFICIENT.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-superdelegates-voting-changes/index.html
DNC changes superdelegate rules in presidential nomination process
By Adam Levy, CNN
Updated 7:33 PM ET, Sat August 25, 2018

Chicago (CNN)Democrats on Saturday voted to chip away at the role party insiders play in choosing the party's presidential nominee in one of the biggest changes to the process in decades.

The move to limit the influence of "superdelegates" at the party's convention ahead of the 2020 presidential primaries ended an emotional and tumultuous two-year effort born out of the divisive 2016 contest between Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who went on to become the Democratic nominee.

In a surprisingly united vote, almost all members of the Democratic National Convention curtailed the ability of the superdelegates to vote on the first ballot for the party's presidential nominee beginning with the next election. The group of about 700 automatic, unpledged party leaders, elected officials and activists previously were able to back whichever candidate for the nomination they chose.

The move ended a vehemently contested debate that had pitted a majority of DNC members supporting the change against two former party chairs, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and others who opposed the new rules. Both sides came together to pass the overhauled process ahead of the next presidential campaign.

Saturday's vote officially barred the superdelegates from voting on the first ballot to choose the party's presidential nominee unless a candidate has secured a majority of the convention using only pledged delegates, whose votes are earned during the primary process.

Beginning with the 2020 nomination process, candidates will no longer be able to count superdelegates if they want to win the party's nomination on the first ballot of voting at the convention. This makes it impossible for superdelegates to change the outcome of the pledged delegates' will, which has never occurred since superdelegates were created ahead of the 1984 campaign.

"Today is a historic day for our party," said DNC Chair Tom Perez. "We passed major reforms that will not only put our next presidential nominee in the strongest position possible, but will help us elect Democrats up and down the ballot, across the country. These reforms will help grow our party, unite Democrats, and restore voters' trust by making our 2020 nominating process the most inclusive and transparent in our history."

The change stems from a tumultuous 2016 primary campaign, in which Sanders' supporters accused the superdelegates of having too much influence over the outcome. The overwhelming majority of them supported Clinton.

The bitter divide within the party over the changes came to an unexpected close when former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, who was adamantly against the changes and led the opposition, moved to vote by acclimation instead of a ballot vote.

"You always want unity. I still am much opposed to most of what's in that document, but more people than I wanted it," Fowler told CNN after the vote. "You've got the elections to take care of in two and half months, then the convention and all the 2020 cycle starts. That's just a whole different ballgame."

The battle for superdelegates

Perez and DNC officials were pleasantly surprised by the change from Fowler and other members who were against the reform, but members of the DNC Black Caucus were split on the reforms, with those opposed in agreement with Fowler that the move was a form of voter disenfranchisement.

"The right to vote is sacred," said former DNC Chair Donna Brazile, who was against the changes, ahead of the vote. "It's an insult to democracy."

Other Black Caucus members like Michael Blake --who worked for President Barack Obama in the White House on African American outreach and engagement, refuted those charges.

"This is not disenfranchisement at all. The person that has their vote taken away and has been purged -- that's the person we need to be fighting for," he said Friday before the vote. "Voters want us to be listening to them, and this is a way to show that we are listening -- to show that we are understanding the changes that had to be made after 2016."

Democrats created a Unity Reform Commission at the last convention to study and recommend changes to the delegate process and other party reforms. Those recommendations were submitted to DNC committees for consideration and were amended for a full party vote at their meeting in Chicago.

Changes within party for more transparency, inclusion

DECLARING YOURSELF DEMOCRAT: Candidates seeking the party's presidential nomination will now have to declare themselves as Democrats in writing to the DNC, a change pointed at Sanders, who is technically an Independent senator that caucuses with the Democrats.

CAUCUS OVERHAULS: Caucuses have also undergone some changes as well. The party is officially encouraging states to use government-run primaries, give access to people who can't make the actual caucus (like shift workers, those with disabilities and language difficulties), implement same-day party change and voter registration, report statewide presidential preference* on the first vote, and ensure that all national delegates represent the same original vote for the first caucus vote.

[STATEWIDE PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE* -- “https://www.bing.com/search?q=statewide+presidential+preference+definition&qs=NWB&pq=statewide+presidential+preference+defi&sc=1-38&cvid=0744CE45CB694E2CB23B61CFDF165805&FORM=QBRE&sp=1]

TRANSPARENCY: The DNC is now required to be more transparent on operations, finances, and dealings with Democratic presidential candidates, such as in providing information on fundraising, and vendor agreements. Information about these things should be made available to all Democratic candidates, the language says.

GENDER INCLUSION: Language for rules that mandate gender equality in committees, caucuses and other bodies has also been expanded to include members who are gender nonbinary. DNC committees and caucuses have included gender equality in the past, meaning they had to declare themselves male or female. Gender nonbinary members will no longer have to declare themselves as either. Instead, going forward the requirement now says the divide between those who identify as men and women have a variance of one.

How to win the Democratic nomination for president

Democrats who want to win the party's nomination in 2020 will now only be able to do that with pledged delegates if they want to avoid a floor fight at their convention.

Using simplified numbers (these do not reflect the actual number of delegates that will be voting at the 2020 convention), here's how it will work among the 1,200 total convention delegates (1,000 pledged and 200 unpledged):

SCENARIO ONE: A candidate earns a majority of pledged delegates only (501 to 600 pledged delegates).

OUTCOME: Only pledged delegates vote on the first ballot for president. The candidate with a majority of pledged delegates would then become the party's nominee.

SCENARIO TWO: A candidate earns a majority of the convention in pledged delegates (601 to 1,000 pledged delegates).

OUTCOME: Pledged and superdelegates can vote on the first ballot for president. The candidate with the majority wins the Party's nomination.

(In scenarios one and two, the nominee would be the same person; the only difference would be who would vote on the first ballot).

SCENARIO THREE: No candidate earns a majority of either pledged or all delegates in the primary contests, most likely due to multiple candidates having run during the 2020 process (1 to 500 pledged delegates).

OUTCOME: Only pledged delegates would vote on the first ballot, but with no majority winner, the party would then vote on a second ballot (and more if needed). Superdelegates would vote beginning with the second ballot.

Pledged delegates could still change their votes to avoid a second ballot if their candidate drops out and "releases" them, in which case they could vote for their personal preference. All delegates become unpledged after the first vote. The last Democratic convention to go beyond the first ballot was in 1952.

What stays the same for superdelegates

Superdelegates, like all other delegates, have other responsibilities at the convention, which are staying the same.

They are free to campaign and endorse the candidate of their choice at any time during the primary process. This has been a source of contention for some Democrats, who created rules to limit their ability to publicly endorse or campaign for presidential candidates. Those proposals failed in committee.

At the convention, they will still have complete floor access and be part of the hotel process to get their room assignments for the week. They remain eligible to serve on the rules, platform and credential committees. These are critical to the convention and the party.

On the floor, they can vote for a vice presidential nominee on all ballots however they choose.

Moving forward

DNC members came into the meeting wanting to chart their path forward for 2018 and 2020, despite the significant differences they had over the delegate changes.

Though some African American members still opposed the vote and had it recorded, the overwhelming majority of members on both sides came together to show their determination to win back Congress and the White House -- one of the biggest topics of discussion in their private conversations and meetings.

"I was skeptical of the proposal, but I'm a team player, and the most important thing we can do is elect Democrats this fall and in 2020," said DNC member Bill Owen, who supported Fowler's move. He went on to paraphrase another Democratic leader.

"John Kennedy said, 'Let us go forth from here to lead the land we love, asking his blessing but knowing God's work out here is truly our own," Owen said.
CNN's Amanda Golden contributed to this report.


BERNIE USUALLY IS RIGHT, AND IN THIS CASE I HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE AMAZON PAY SCALES TO KNOW THAT THEY ARE VERY LOW.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bernie-sanders-food-stamps-20180824-story.html
Thousands of Amazon workers get food stamps. Bernie Sanders wants Amazon to pay for them
By ABHA BHATTARAI
| THE WASHINGTON POST |
AUG 24, 2018 | 12:00 PM

Sen. Bernie Sanders, shown Aug. 17, wants big companies to foot the bill for government benefits their low-wage workers receive. (Chris O'Meara / Associated Press)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants large employers such as Amazon, Walmart and McDonald's to fully cover the cost of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid and other federal assistance received by their employees. The goal, he said, is to force corporations to pay a living wage and curb roughly $150 billion in taxpayer dollars that go to funding federal assistance programs for low-wage workers each year.

Sanders plans to introduce a bill in the Senate on Sept. 5 that would impose a 100% tax on government benefits received by workers at companies with 500 or more employees. For example, if an Amazon employee receives $300 in food stamps, Amazon would be taxed $300.

"At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, the gap between the very rich and everyone else continues to grow wider," Sanders said.

Labor groups say that gap is particularly pronounced at the nation's largest and most profitable companies, including Walmart, which has roughly 2.2 million workers, and Amazon, which employs more than 575,000.

Public records obtained by the New Food Economy, a nonprofit news organization, show that thousands of Amazon employees rely on the government's Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program to make ends meet. As many as 1 in 3 Amazon employees in Arizona — and about 1 in 10 in Pennsylvania and Ohio — receive food stamps, according to an April report by the New Food Economy, based in New York.

Amazon spokeswoman Melanie Etches said the figures were misleading. "They include people who only worked for Amazon for a short period of time and/or who chose to work part-time," she said in a statement. "We have hundreds of full-time roles available, however, some prefer part-time for the flexibility or other personal reasons."

Sanders' bill would be an extension of a petition he started Tuesday calling on the world's richest man, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, to pay workers a living wage and to improve working conditions at Amazon warehouses. As of Thursday morning, it had 105,000 signatures. (Bezos also the owns the Washington Post.)

"While Mr. Bezos is the most egregious example, the Walton family of Walmart and many other billionaire-owned profitable corporations also enrich themselves off taxpayer assistance while paying their workers poverty-level wages," Sanders said. Representatives for Walmart did not respond to requests for comment.

Bezos, who founded Amazon in 1994, has seen his net worth steadily climb in recent months as the stock market hits record highs. He is worth $157 billion, up from $99 billion a year ago, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. The median Amazon worker, meanwhile, was paid $28,446 last year, according to company filings. (The federal poverty level for a family of four is $24,600.)

Amazon spokeswoman Etches said her company had created more than 130,000 new jobs "with highly competitive pay and full benefits" in the last year. She added that the average hourly wage for full-time workers in U.S. warehouses is more than $15 an hour, when stock and incentive bonuses are factored in.

"We encourage anyone to compare our median pay and benefits to other retailers," Etches said.

The company did not say how many of its workers are part-time, but said it hires thousands of temporary workers during peak holiday times.

Amazon reported profit of $3.03 billion last year as its sales climbed 31% to $178 billion.


MSNBC MADDOW BLOG

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 8/24/18
Donald Trump's long-time money man given immunity in Cohen case
David Fahrenthold, political reporter for The Washington Post, talks about the revelation that Donald Trump's long-time money man, Trump Org CFO Allen Weisselberg, was granted immunity by prosecutors in the Michael Cohen case. Duration: 13:10


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 8/24/18
Weisselberg immunity likely means prosecutors seek 'bigger fish'
Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney, talks about the legal implications of Donald Trump's right-hand-man in business being granted immunity by prosecutors in the Michael Cohen case, and the likelihood that prosecutors have their sights set on a "bigger fish" than Cohen. Duration: 3:48


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 8/24/18
Trump unlikely to face indictment as long as he holds office
Matthew Axelrod, a former Department of Justice official, discusses the legal intricacies of how the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel has assessed whether indicting a sitting president is allowed by the Constitution. Duration: 9:21


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 8/24/18
Trump legal liability shifts from theoretical to real in one week
Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, and Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, discuss how the momentous events this week changed the legal circumstances for Donald Trump and his family. Duration: 8:26


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 8/24/18
Less intelligence on Russia not a sign of decreased threat
Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, reacts to a New York Times report that U.S. sources of intelligence on the Kremlin have gone quiet. Duration: 5:07


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 8/24/18
Trump White House balks at bipartisan bill to secure elections
Ali Velshi reports on a bipartisan piece of legislation to improve the security of U.S. elections that was suddenly dropped by Republicans on orders from the White House, according to Yahoo News. Duration: 0:51