SEPTEMBER 7, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


VIEWS FROM THE BBC ON SEVERAL SUBJECTS

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45452954
Obama attacks 'crazy stuff' from Trump White House
September 7, 2018 30 minutes ago

VIDEO -- Obama: 'Trump a symptom not the cause' of US division

Former US President Barack Obama has launched a stinging attack on Donald Trump and the "crazy stuff that is coming out of this White House".

"This is not normal, these are extraordinary times and they are dangerous times," Mr Obama told students at the University of Illinois.

He called for "a restoration of honesty and decency and lawfulness in our government".

The ex-president has kept a low profile since he left office in 2017 until now.

Top US officials deny 'gutless' editorial
US mid-term elections in eight charts

Mr Obama told Friday's awards ceremony in Urbana, Illinois, that he had been intending to follow the American tradition of former presidents exiting the political stage.

But in comments which are likely to enrage his successor, he launched into a searing attack on the current Republican administration.

Mr Obama warned that American democracy depended on his audience turning out to vote in the November's congressional mid-term elections.

"Now, some of you may think I am exaggerating when I say this election is more important than any I can remember in my lifetime," the Democrat said.

"But just a glance at recent headlines should tell you that this moment really is different."

Mr Obama made an apparent reference to a New York Times editorial that has infuriated Mr Trump.

Its anonymous author, described as a senior Trump administration official, claimed to be with working colleagues to protect the country from the current president's "worst inclinations".

Mr Obama said: "They are not doing us a service by actively promoting 90% of the crazy stuff that is coming out of this White House and then saying, 'Don't worry. We are preventing the other 10%.'"

But he also told his audience that Mr Trump was "a symptom, not the cause" of the divisions in the US.

Can we tell now if Democrats will win??
Why US mid-term elections matter

He lacerated Mr Trump's calls for the US Department of Justice to investigate his political enemies.

"It should not be a partisan issue to say that we do not pressure the attorney general or the FBI to use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents."

The 44th president of the US was also scathing about Mr Trump's initial restraint when asked last year to condemn far-right protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia.

"We are supposed to stand up to bullies, not follow them," Mr Obama said. "We are supposed to stand up to discrimination and we sure as heck supposed to stand up clearly and unequivocally to Nazi sympathisers."

"How hard can that be? Saying Nazis are bad?"


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45436243
New York Times Trump op-ed denied by senior officials
6 September 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Several members of Donald Trump's cabinet have denied writing the editorial

A number of top US officials have denied that they are the author of a damning anonymous editorial that attacks President Donald Trump.

The New York Times article, said to be written by a senior White House official, says Mr Trump's appointees are trying to stifle his agenda.

There is fierce speculation over who is responsible - with the vice-president among those to deny any involvement.

Mr Trump has described the writer as "gutless" and the newspaper as "phony".

A spokesman for Vice-President Mike Pence has dismissed claims that he wrote the op-ed, describing it as "false, illogical and gutless".

The Whodunnit editorial puzzling Washington
Does 'lodestar' guide us to Trump author?

Several other cabinet members and top officials have also denied writing the piece.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attacked the writer as a "disgruntled deceptive bad actor", adding: "I come from a place where if you're not in a position to execute the commander's intent, you have a singular option - that is to leave."

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin described the anonymous piece as "irresponsible", while a spokesman for the Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said: "These types of political attacks are beneath the secretary and the department's mission".

Anonymous Trump op-ed passes key tests
Linguistic clues to NYT insider?
What's in the editorial?

The article - entitled I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration - is written by someone the New York Times describes as a senior official in the Trump administration. The paper says the author requested anonymity and that this was essential to deliver an "important perspective" to its readers.

"Many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations," the article says.

"I would know. I am one of them."

Although the writer says they support the administration's objectives, they say that its successes have come in spite of the president, who is described as impulsive, erratic and amoral, someone whose "misguided impulses" need to be controlled for the good of the US.

"It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognise what is happening. And we are trying to do what's right even when Donald Trump won't," it says.

How has the White House responded?

Angrily. One of Mr Trump's tweets simply said "TREASON?". Another said the "Deep State and the Left, and their vehicle, the Fake News Media, are going Crazy - & they don't know what to do", pointing to the growing US economy as an achievement.

Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump@REALDONALDTRUMP
Report
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the author was "not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign".

Meanwhile, First Lady Melania Trump said: "If a person is bold enough to accuse people of negative actions, they have a responsibility to publicly stand by their words."

Why does it matter?
The White House is already on the defensive amid questions over Mr Trump's suitability for office raised in a book by revered political journalist Bob Woodward.

Fear: Trump in the White House also describes staff deliberately undermining the president, with some hiding sensitive documents from him to prevent him signing them, and other aides calling him an "idiot" and a "liar". Mr Trump has called the book a "con".

Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
Bob Woodward is one of the most respected journalists in the US
One of the most explosive passages in the New York Times article says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment", which would allow Mr Trump to be forced out of office.

That top officials are reportedly working against the elected US leader has raised some alarm and not just from the White House. In the Atlantic, David Frum, a Republican commentator who is a fierce critic of Mr Trump, called it a "constitutional crisis".

"What the author has just done is throw the government of the United States into even more dangerous turmoil," he wrote. "He or she has enflamed the paranoia of the president and empowered the president's wilfulness."

Image Copyright @BBCJonSopel@BBCJONSOPEL
Report
A former CIA director, John Brennan, who has been strongly critical of Mr Trump, called the article "active insubordination" although he said it was "born out of loyalty to the country".

Others have wondered whether it was an attempt to distance the Republican administration from their president ahead of the important mid-term elections.

Image Copyright @awzurcher@AWZURCHER
Report
Who has denied any involvement?
So far, officials who have said they did not write the editorial include:

Defence Secretary James Mattis
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
Secretary for Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen
Secretary for Housing Ben Carson
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley
Office of Management and Budget Director Mike Mulvaney
Secretary for Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie
Labour Secretary Alex Acosta
CIA Director Gina Haspel
Energy Secretary Rick Perry
Counsellor Kellyanne Conway
Environmental Protection Agency chief Andrew Wheeler
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue
Small Business Administration chief Linda McMahon
Health Secretary Alex Azar
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross



HAPPY FISHERMEN PHOTOGRAPHED WITH THEIR CATCH

DO GO TO THE ARTICLE BELOW AND LOOK AT THIS PICTURE. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO JUST DON’T THINK IN METERS, A METER IS “3.28084 FEET,” ACCORDING TO RAPIDTABLES.COM. THAT MEANS THAT THE PREHISTORIC ELK’S ANTLERS WERE WELL OVER 9 FEET ACROSS. I WONDER HOW MANY ANCIENT IRISHMEN (10,000 BC) IT TOOK, PROBABLY WITH MORE OR LESS WOLFLIKE HUNTING DOGS, TO CONFRONT AND KILL AN ANIMAL LIKE THAT; AND IF YOU WATCH YOUR NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEOS, YOU WILL KNOW THAT ALL OF THE DEER FAMILY WILL FIGHT FIERCELY. HUNTERS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY OUR ORDINARY AMERICAN DEER, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE IN RUT OR INJURED. LIFE WASN’T EASY IN THOSE DAYS.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-northern-ireland-45449128/antlers-of-extinct-irish-elk-found-in-lough-neagh
Antlers of extinct Irish Elk found in Lough Neagh

VIDEO – THE TWO FISHERMEN ARE INTERVIEWED

The antlers of an ancient Irish Elk have been found by two fisherman in Lough Neagh.

The antlers are thought to be more than 10,000 years old and have a span of more than 3 metres.

Due to being submerged in water, the antlers have been well preserved.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2018


IN DEFENSE OF CORY BOOKER AND OUR OTHER FINE DEMOCRATS

THIS IS WHY THE SPECIFIC BELIEFS OF A JUDGE ARE IMPORTANT. CAN WE JUST “TRUST THEM” TO BE FAIR AND INTELLIGENT? I’M AFRAID NOT. ARE “LEGAL PREPARATION, EXPERIENCE AND TEMPERAMENT” SUFFICIENT REASON TO CONFIRM A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE? ABSOLUTELY NOT. THEY ARE THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS ONLY, AND AN INSUFFICIENT GROUNDWORK FOR A RATIONAL DECISION ABOUT WHO TO SEAT ON SUCH A VITALLY IMPORTANT BODY AS THE SUPREME COURT.

IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER IF THE APPOINTMENT OF A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WERE ABSOLUTELY NOT THE PREROGATIVE OF ANY PRESIDENT, AS IN “TO THE VICTOR BELONGS THE SPOILS;” OR ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT DECIDE THE ABSOLUTE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. IN FRANCE, I HEARD SOME 30 YEARS AGO, THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGE CAN MAKE AN INDIVIDUAL VARIATION FOR A GIVEN CASE, WHICH CAN BE ADDED TO A MORE FLUID INTERPRETATION. THAT MEANS THAT EACH NEW CASE CAN BE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY. SEE BOTH REFERENCE ARTICLES, FROM STANFORD AND FROM WIKIPEDIA:
https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/17-laurent-cohen-tanugi/ AND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system.

A JUDGE’S PROVEN AND RECORDED STATEMENTS AND DECISIONS FROM THE PAST ARE ESSENTIAL, AS WELL, TO REACH A VALID AND WISE SENATE CONFIRMATION OF A JUSTICE. UNLESS SOMETHING HAS CHANGED SINCE A WEEK OR SO AGO, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS “WITHHELD” HIS PAPER TRAIL FROM THE SENATE. THAT’S BLATANTLY UNFAIR, AND SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED. CAN’T SOMETHING BE DONE HERE TO FORCE TRUMP INTO A CHANGE OF COURSE? OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES AREN’T WORKING IF THE PRESIDENT CAN INTERFERE IN SUCH A WAY WITH THE SENATE’S ACTION.

THE HILL’S PIQUANT COMMENT BELOW GUIDES MY THINKING AND MY HOPE FOR THE FUTURE, PENDING A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. “LEGAL PRINCIPLES, OF COURSE, ARE SETTLED UNTIL THEY ARE NOT.” THIS, IN MY VIEW, IS A GREAT LEGAL ARTICLE, SHOWING WHY I BELIEVE IN ARGUING. ARGUING DOES NOT MEAN HURLING EPITHETS AT EACH OTHER, BUT USING OUR WITS TO APPROACH NEW UNDERSTANDINGS.

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/405613-kavanaugh-and-the-politics-of-interpretation
Kavanaugh and the politics of interpretation
BY ANDRÉS L. CÓRDOVA, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/07/18 03:30 PM EDT

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

PHOTOGRAPH – KAVANAUGH, SITTING IN A MEETING © Greg Nash

From the public record, it is evident that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has the legal preparation, experience and temperament to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

Given the current composition of the Senate and the changes made to its filibuster rules made at the time of Associate Justice Gorsuch confirmation, it is most likely that Kavanaugh will be confirmed to the Supreme Court. The early hopes of many that Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) would vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation appear misplaced. In fact, Collins declared last week that she felt assured that Kavanaugh was committed to the principles of stare decisis, and that Roe v. Wade was settled legal principle.

[“STARE DECISIS” – “sta·re de·ci·sis
ˌsterē dəˈsīsəs/Submit
nounLAW
the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.” www.dictionary.com.]

Legal principles, of course, are settled until they are not. There are innumerable instances in the history of the Supreme Court where previous opinions have given way to new understandings and rulings according to the dominant legal philosophy of a given Supreme Court majority. The best well known example of this change was the overturning of the separate but equal doctrine Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) by Brown v. Board of Education (1954). We are right because we are final, as then Associate Justice Robert Jackson pithily remarked, not final because we are right.

In the end, it is not necessarily a matter of argumentative persuasion between competing legal positions, but of the will of a momentary majority. A legal controversy does not take place in the setting of an academic seminar, where multiple points of view on a given issue can coexist and be celebrated as an instance of diversity and creativity. It requires finality and certainty.

Unsettled controversies if unchecked will eventually lead to confrontation and social and political instability, exacerbating divisions within the body politic. The contrary is also true. Controversies settled by institutional force, which are based on values and positions not shared by significant members of society corrode its legitimacy and threaten its long term vitality. Legal judgments need to navigate between these two extremes.

Stare decisis, or the rule of the precedent, as a criteria of legal continuity and certainty, is only one principle among others which impinge on a given case or controversy: constitutionality, changes in statutory law, general principles of justice and fairness, among others. The fact that the Supreme Court handed down an opinion decades ago, in and of itself, is not sufficient grounds for it to be continually upheld. At some point in time that opinion must be evaluated against current realities and change in circumstances, as the Supreme Court did in this past term in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018) when it revoked Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) on the issue of state taxation of online retail and commercial transaction.

Another example is the continuing validity of the so called insular cases in the early 20th century, Downes v. Bidwell (1901) and others, in which the Supreme Court created out of thin air, and contrary to the plain language of Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution, the doctrine of unincorporated territories. These patently unfair and racist cases which justify the selective and discriminatory application of constitutional rights to its citizens in Puerto Rico, are stare decisis. I wonder if Collins believes these cases to be settled legal principles that should not be overturned.

The ongoing debate on legal interpretation, which conceptually pits a broad reading of certain constitutional texts as a means to temper their meaning to 21st century circumstances, against a strict or “original ” reading of the Constitution, which claims for itself a principled defense of democratic procedures, is at the heart of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. These two interpretative currents are not necessarily mutually exclusive, although for purposes of public consumption they are usually drawn as if they were.

All legal interpretation occurs within the context of political discourse, and no actor — be it a judge or a politician — has a private access to truth. Reasonable people can, and do, differ on given issues. This does not imply that all legal interpretations are equally persuasive. How we distinguish a valid difference of opinion from purely rhetorical flourishes requires discernment and a shared commitment to discourse based on facts, rationality and legal tradition. In the age of President Trump, where truth is not truth, political polarization has become a matter of policy. The rule of law cannot long survive in this habitat. The Senate would do well to return to its bipartisan practices.

Andrés L. Córdova is a law professor at Inter American University of Puerto Rico, where he teaches contracts and property courses. He is also an occasional columnist on legal and political issues at the Spanish daily El Vocero de Puerto Rico.


“MY HEAD IS BLOODIED, BUT UNBOWED.” I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT IT IS THE “PROGRESSIVES” WHO ARE ARGUING AGAINST BERNIE SANDERS’ BILL. I GUESS IT SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS AND SOCIAL DEMOCRATS (OR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS!) SEE https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-difference-between-social-democracy-and-democratic-socialism.

WHAT I THINK IS HAPPENING HERE IS THAT THE WARREN BRANCH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ARE DECLARING WAR, BECAUSE IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT ELIZABETH WARREN WANTS, IT IS TO BE PRESIDENT. MAYBE I’M WRONG, BUT I DON’T THINK SO.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-amazon-bill_us_5b91944ae4b0cf7b003e0858
POLITICS 09/06/2018 07:08 pm ET
Bernie Sanders Hit With Avalanche Of Criticism Over Amazon-Bashing Bill
Progressives are calling it a “ham-fisted” and counterproductive way to help low-wage workers.
By Emily Peck and Arthur Delaney

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) latest policy idea seems laudable at first glance: Penalize big corporations when their workers tap public benefits, such as food stamps and Medicaid, to get by.

Unveiled this week and unabashedly aimed at Amazon and its wildly wealthy CEO, Jeff Bezos, Sanders’ Stop BEZOS Act would slap a 100 percent tax on companies with 500 or more workers until the government recovers the monetary value of all the social welfare used by their workers: Medicaid, food stamps, even school lunch subsidies. For instance, for every dollar an employee receives in food stamp benefits, the company would pay an extra dollar in taxes.

The idea is to shame some of the country’s largest and most successful companies for paying workers so poorly that they have to rely on government aid.

But the bill doesn’t just shame companies, it spreads that shame to the very idea of social welfare by demonizing benefits, economists say. That’s a play usually reserved for Republicans and conservatives, who love to bang the drum against the nation’s “takers.”

The bill, which doesn’t stand much chance of going anywhere, could give big companies a reason not to hire those who get benefits, a majority of whom are parents.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, one of the most influential left-leaning think tanks in Washington, criticized the Sanders plan in a blog post on Wednesday. Several progressive policy types ― such as Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Mike Konzcal of the Roosevelt Institute ― sounded sour notes on Twitter.

“It’s ham-fisted,” Betsey Stevenson, a labor economist at the University of Michigan who served on the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers, told HuffPost.

If the goal is to get companies to pay higher wages, this won’t do it, added Stevenson, who specializes in examining how public policy affects the labor market.

In an interview with HuffPost, Sanders dismissed the criticism.

“We have thousands of workers working for an extremely profitable corporation owned by the wealthiest person in this country who are making wages so low they are forced to go on public assistance,” he said. “All we are asking of Mr. Bezos is pay your workers a living wage.”

There’s already stigma in the United States surrounding food stamps and other social safety benefits. Some Americans won’t apply for food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to avoid the shame involved, Stevenson said.

Yet the public safety net offers a real benefit to American workers. Single parents, in particular, rely on Medicaid and monthly food benefits in order to raise children in a country that offers little other supports to families (such as subsidized day care or parental leave). Nearly 70 percent of food stamp benefits go to households with children.

PHOTOGRAPH -- Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is targeted in the proposed legislation.
JOSHUA ROBERTS / REUTERS

Though Sanders’ proposal includes a provision that blocks employers from asking applicants if they are on public benefits, that wouldn’t necessarily stop a company from profiling workers or not hiring those who seem likely to use benefits, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in its blog post.

“In addition, some employers might pressure employees not to sign up for Medicaid or other benefits, “CBPP’s Robert Greenstein, Sharon Parrott and Chye-Ching Huang wrote. “And elements of the business community would likely lobby policymakers to reduce their tax bills by restricting eligibility and benefits for core low-income programs, which would be equivalent to a corporate tax cut.”

Welfare recipients in the U.S. are often subject to work requirements, so if you get food stamps or Medicaid, in some states you also must work a certain amount per week. This bill, by disincentivizing hiring such workers, would make it even harder for them to land a job, thus causing more of them to lose benefits.

“It’s really unfair. Recipients would end up in a situation where there is a work requirement and employers are told that they’ll be penalized for hiring them,” Stevenson said.

Sanders rejected the idea that employers would discriminate against poor applicants, suggesting reasonable pay itself would solve the problem.

“If you pay people a living wage, they will have an adequate income,” he said.

Even though the bill stands little chance of becoming law, that doesn’t mean it’s OK that the policy idea is flawed, Baker told HuffPost last week. When you create an economic policy, you want to make sure it’s a good, effective idea, he said.

“Amazon has a history of treating workers badly, yes,” he said. “But this isn’t likely going to change that.”

Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.

headshot
Emily Peck
Senior Reporter, HuffPost
headshot
Arthur Delaney
Senior Reporter, HuffPost



THIS POEM HAS THRILLED, INFLUENCED AND INSPIRED ME SINCE I FIRST READ IT IN MY 8TH GRADE ENGLISH CLASS. I LOVE ALL GOOD WRITING, INCLUDING NONFICTION, BUT POETRY IS MY FIRST LOVE, AND THIS WAS A MODEL FOR ME. THIS IS THE KIND OF INDIVIDUALISM THAT I BELIEVE IN – NOT THE PHILOSOPHY THAT POOR PEOPLE SHOULD NOT RECEIVE GOVERNMENT HELP. I CAN’T ALWAYS LIVE IT, BUT IT GIVES ME A LITTLE BIT OF BACKBONE WHEN I NEED IT.

http://manoflabook.com/wp/fun-facts-friday-william-ernest-henley/ -- http://manoflabook.com/wp/fun-facts-friday-william-ernest-henley/
Posted by Zohar - Man of la Book on August 23, 2013. Fun Facts Friday, Latest Posts - No Comments

William Ernest Henley (23 August, 1849 – 11 July, 1903) was an English editor, critic and poet. Mr. Henley is best remembered for his poem Invictus from 1875.


https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51642/invictus

Invictus
BY WILLIAM ERNEST HENLEY

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.



THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT MAY APPEAL TO BUSINESSES. “HE ARGUES THAT IF EMPLOYERS PAID A LIVING WAGE, TAXPAYERS WOULD SAVE $150 BILLION A YEAR, INCLUDING FOOD STAMPS, MEDICAID AND PUBLIC HOUSING.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/05/technology/business/bernie-sanders-amazon-walmart-worker-pay/index.html
Bernie Sanders' 'Stop BEZOS' bill targets worker pay at Amazon and Walmart
by Tami Luhby @Luhby
September 6, 2018: 9:40 AM ET

VIDEO -- Life inside an Amazon fulfillment center

As promised, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill Wednesday that would tax Amazon, Walmart (WMT) and other big companies whose workers collect public assistance.

Named the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies, or the Stop BEZOS Act after Amazon (AMZN) founder Jeff Bezos, Sanders' bill would levy a tax on large companies equal to the value of the public benefits that their workers receive. He argues that if employers paid a living wage, taxpayers would save $150 billion a year on the government assistance programs, including food stamps, Medicaid and public housing.

"We do not believe that taxpayers should have to expend huge sums of money subsidizing profitable corporations owned by some of the wealthiest people in this country. That's what a rigged economy is about," said Sanders, who introduced the bill with California Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat.

The independent senator from Vermont recently asked Amazon workers to tell him about their work conditions. He shared a few examples from workers who said that they make only $11 an hour or $13.25 an hour, which isn't enough to live on.

Sanders also lashed out Wednesday at Burger King, McDonald's (MCD) and American Airlines (AAL) for paying wages so low that their workers have to sign up for government benefits.

Related: Amazon defends itself from Bernie Sanders' attacks

Amazon, however, called Sanders' assertions "inaccurate and misleading" in a blog post last week. The company says that Sanders' data for food stamp recipients includes people who only worked at Amazon for a short period of time or who chose to work part-time. The median US salary for full-time Amazon employees is $34,123, it says. Sanders' figure includes part-time employees and those who work globally.

It has invited the senator to tour one of its fulfillment centers, which is where many of Amazon's lower-paid employees work.

The company highlighted that its average hourly wage for a full-time fulfillment center employee is more than $15 an hour, including cash, stock and incentive bonuses, but before overtime. Amazon also noted that it offers health and disability insurance, as well as retirement savings plans, company stock, tuition payments and up to 20 weeks of paid leave. The company says it created more than 130,000 new jobs in the U.S. last year.

Amazon posted on Wednesday the positive responses that several employees sent to Sanders and shared with the company. They cited the fair pay, good benefits, supportive environment and opportunities for career advancement.

The other employers mentioned didn't immediately return requests for comment.

Related: Bernie Sanders is hosting a town hall for workers. Their CEOs are invited.

Sanders' legislation has also raised concerns with at least one prominent left-leaning organization.

The bill would create powerful incentives for employers to shy away from hiring low-income workers, who are more likely to qualify for Medicaid, food stamps or housing assistance, said a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Also, it may lead some companies to pressure their employees not to sign up for benefits.

Plus, the legislation likely wouldn't do much to raise wages, the center said. Companies would have to raise wages for all workers in particular job categories, which would be more expensive than paying the new tax, the center said.

Sanders' campaign says they have added provisions to the bill to help prevent those things from happening, such as making it unlawful for a large employer to ask an employee whether or not they qualify for federal benefits.

CNNMoney (New York)
First published September 5, 2018: 7:42 PM ET



ANOTHER SUBJECT BY A GREAT PRESIDENT

THIS SPEECH BY BARACK OBAMA IS LONG, SO IT ISN’T IN HERE, BUT I SUGGEST YOU GO TO THIS WEBSITE AND READ AT LEAST SOME OF IT. IT HITS AT MANY IMPORTANT ISSUES WHICH WE FACE TODAY, AND FACED YESTERDAY AS WELL, SUCH AS WHITE SUPREMACY AND AN AMBITIOUS DEMAGOGUE. GO TO THIS SITE: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/barack-obama-american-democracy-trump-speech/569605/.