FEBRUARY 16, 17, AND 18, 2019

NEWS AND VIEWS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/02/17/answer-my-question-fox-news-host-grills-defiant-stephen-miller-trumps-national-emergency/
Reliable Source
‘Answer my question’: Fox anchor grills defiant Stephen Miller on Trump’s national emergency
By Alex Horton February 17 at 4:48 PM

PHOTOGRAPH -- White House senior adviser Stephen Miller. (Evan Vucci/AP)

Unstoppable rhetoric collided with immovable facts on “Fox News Sunday,” as White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller defended President Trump’s national emergency declaration and invoked the potential for a veto if Congress disapproves in an interview with Chris Wallace.

The segment focused on the limits of presidential powers to circumvent Congress and procure funds to build 230 miles of barriers along the southern border. Miller described an onslaught of drugs and migrants flowing over the border as justification for the emergency declaration.

Yet, like a small army of fact-checkers have noted before, Wallace told Miller the vast majority of hard drugs seized by Customs and Border Protection are captured at points of entry, not between them, and unlawful migration over the border has fallen 90 percent since 2000.

So what crisis is the wall supposed to solve? In shades of former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns” theory, Miller invoked what could not be demonstrated by his own administration’s statistics.

“You don’t know what you don’t know, and you don’t catch what you don’t catch,” Miller told Wallace. “But as a matter of national security, you cannot have uncontrolled, unsecured areas of the border where people can pour in undetected.”

The segment took a tense turn after Wallace pressed Miller, a self-proclaimed constitutional conservative, over measures designed to block the president from obtaining funds outside Congress.

That wasn’t an issue, Miller said: “Congress in 1976 passed the National Emergency Act and gave the president the authority, as a result of that, to invoke a national emergency in many different circumstances, but among them the use of military construction funds.”

[‘Uncharted territory’: Political, legal hits continue after Trump’s emergency declaration]

And the military, conveniently, has already been deployed to the southern border, Miller noted, and a wall is needed to “secure those areas where they’re patrolling.”

In other words, troops were deployed to help harden the border and now need barriers to keep them safe from a threat Miller did not describe.

Still, the move lacks precedent, Wallace said, in how Trump has sought to secure his funds. Miller repeatedly refused to acknowledge it has not happened before and tried to fire back with a question of his own.

Wallace sailed past the dodge.

“Then answer my question, can you name one case where a president has asked Congress for money, Congress has refused, and the president has then invoked national powers to get the money anyway?”

Miller responded: “Well this current situation —”

Wallace interjected again. “Just yes or no, sir.”

Miller answered “no” in a quick back-and-forth before moving to emergency declarations involving Zimbabwe as an example of overzealous use of authority — even though the 2003 measure against associates of despot Robert Mugabe was extended by Trump himself in March.

Miller ended the segment with a portent of even more challenging political maneuvering.

By September 2020, Miller said, “hundreds of miles” of new barriers will have been built along the border.

And he suggested that if Congress passes a resolution disapproving of the emergency, Trump would probably veto it. “He’s going to protect his national emergency declaration, guaranteed. … If the president can’t defend this country, then he cannot fulfill this constitutional oath of office.”

The segment ended. Wallace, in a flash of understatement, bid his guest farewell.

“It’s always good and always challenging to talk to you,” Wallace said.

RELATED -- Read more:
Defense Department to start examining projects in hunt for border wall funds
‘Finish that wall’: Trump seeks to turn his failure to build the wall into campaign rallying cry

Alex Horton
Alex Horton is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post. He previously covered the military and national security for Stars and Stripes, and served in Iraq as an Army infantryman. Follow


THIS WAS A VERY, VERY FUNNY STORY. LISTEN TO HIS WHOLE SPEECH THAT DAY. HE SOUNDED REALLY WOUND UP. STEVE BENEN WRITES A VERY GOOD STORY, ALSO.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-undermines-emergency-declaration-as-soon-as-he-makes-it-1443682883506
A quote Trump may come to regret: 'I didn't need to do this'
By Steve Benen 02/15/19 12:38PM

Donald Trump delivered a series of rambling comments this morning about his emergency declaration, which was then followed by a rambling press conference. And while the president made a series of odd claims, and repeated some familiar lies, it was his response to a question from NBC News' Peter Alexander that was probably the one thing Trump will regret saying.

In reference to border-wall construction, the Republican explained why he's circumventing Congress and the legislative appropriations process.

"I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster.... I just want to get it done faster, that's all."

He quickly added that this isn't about his re-election bid, because he's "already done a lot of wall." This is, of course, a rather delusional lie.

But Trump's answer included an element of truth: "I didn't need to do this."

The president's own explanation left little doubt that there's no pressing "emergency" demanding unprecedented emergency action. Trump effectively admitted that he sees this as a matter of convenience: the American policymaking process would take time, and he'd "rather do it much faster."

If you're thinking these unscripted comments might be used against the White House in future litigation, you're not alone. Indeed, it won't be the first time.


SEE VIDEO:
Trump undermines emergency declaration as soon as he makes it
Dahlia Lithwick, legal correspondent and senior editor at Slate, talks with Rachel Maddow about the myriad legal challenges Donald Trump's emergency declaration faces and the unforeseen hazards of the National Emergencies Act.
Feb. 15, 2019


DO THEY HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS SAID? THE TIMING IS RIGHT, ANYWAY. FOLLOWING THESE BITS OF INFORMATION IS LIKE PUTTING TOGETHER A PICTURE PUZZLE THAT’S 1 FOOT SQUARE AND HAS 2,000 PIECES. YOU CAN DO IT IF YOU HAVE A MAGNIFYING GLASS AND A PAIR OF TWEEZERS. HOWEVER, I TRY TO KEEP UP. I USUALLY GO TO RACHEL MADDOW ONCE A WEEK OR SO AND LISTEN TO HER DISMANTLE THE TRUMPIAN MANEUVERS AND WILD TWEETS BIT BY BIT. IT’S FUN TO WATCH AS SHE SKEWERS HIM ALSO.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-search-warrants-on-gru-reveal-stone-directly-interacted-with-guccifer-20
2. CHIT CHAT 8 HOURS AGO
FEBRUARY 15, 2019
Mueller: Search Warrants on GRU Reveal Stone ‘Directly’ Interacted With Guccifer 2.0

PHOTOGRAPH – ROGER STONE Leah Millis/Reuters

It’s no secret that former Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone held private Twitter conversations with Russian intelligence in the middle of their election interference op. But Robert Mueller just made it official.

In a late Friday court filing, Mueller cited a series of search warrants against GRU-controlled online accounts as the genesis of his indictment last year charging 11 Russian officers with hacking the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Those search warrants, according to Mueller, also revealed that “[a] fictitious online persona they created, Guccifer 2.0, also interacted directly with Stone concerning other stolen materials posted separately online.”

Stone, for his part, has admitted to having friendly chats with “Guccifer 2.0” back when he thought the account belonged to an innocent Romanian hacktivist, and last year he released what he says is the full transcript of his conversations. Mueller’s filing also confirms that Stone communicated privately with Wikileaks.

- Kevin Poulsen


PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD SAVE HIMSELF EMBARRASSMENT IF HE WOULD PLAN AHEAD, AND COORDINATE WITH HIS PARTNERS, SUCH AS THE PENTAGON. OH, I KNOW WHAT WE’VE GOT HERE. IT’S A GAME OF BLIND MAN’S BUFF, AND TRUMP HAS THE MASK OVER HIS EYES.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pentagon-yet-to-decide-where-to-get-trumps-wall-money
WORKING ON ITA DAY AGO
Pentagon Yet to Decide Where to Get Trump's Border Wall Money

Martin H. Simon
The Pentagon Friday afternoon said that it still didn’t know where the money for the border wall was going following President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency. “We have ID’d funding that’s unobligated and available, but it’s not been decided that these specific programs get deferred, cancelled or cut to divert money to a border wall,” a Defense official told The Daily Beast. Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, who has been traveling abroad this week, has to affirm implementation of Trump’s decision and then eventually decide what particular projects are paused, cut or axed. —Spencer Ackerman


FRIDAY’S MINI-REPORT, 2/15/19
By Steve Benen 02/15/19 05:30PM
Today's edition of quick hits:

* Today's mass shooting in Illinois: "Multiple people have been injured at a manufacturing plant in Aurora, Illinois, on Friday and a shooter has been apprehended, authorities said."

* Look for oral arguments in this case in April: "The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday that it will take up the battle over a citizenship question for the coming census, agreeing to hear and decide the case before the court's term ends in late June."

* In related news: "U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned to the court on Friday for the first time after weeks of recuperating from lung cancer surgery and missing oral arguments in January, a court official said on Friday."

* Roger Stone's case: "A federal judge issued a gag order in the Roger Stone case Friday, saying attorneys and witnesses for the former Trump campaign adviser and prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller may not speak publicly about Stone's prosecution for lying, witness tampering and obstruction.'

* This was unexpected: "White House press secretary Sarah Sanders acknowledged on Friday that she's been interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office."

* This will probably be interesting: "A Connecticut judge has ruled that Infowars host Alex Jones must undergo a sworn deposition in the defamation case brought against him by family members of Sandy Hook school shooting victims."

* Fortunately, this faced no opposition: "The Senate on Thursday unanimously backed a bill to make lynching a federal crime, a step cast as righting a historic wrong after nearly 100 years of failed attempts."


###


THIS STORY ISN’T NEW, BUT HERE IT IS AGAIN AND I DIDN’T CLIP IT BEFORE. WHILE I DISLIKE TOTALLY IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR, I DO USUALLY FIND IT EXTREMELY INTERESTING. THIS APPARENT FAILURE TO BE ABLE TO DETECT THE LACK OF LIFE IS SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT LOWER ANIMALS DID. IF YOU THROW A STICK OR A BALL FOR A CAT OR DOG, THEY WILL JUMP INTO ACTION CHASING IT. I THINK THERE MUST BE AN INSTINCT WITHIN ALL THREE OF OUR SPECIES THAT TRIGGERS A REFLEX REACTION, IN THAT ANYTHING THAT MOVES MUST BE ALIVE AND WELL WORTH A GOOD CHASE.

BETTER STILL, PLACE YOUR KITTEN OR PUPPY, OR A PET BIRD IN FRONT OF A MIRROR AND WATCH IT’S REACTION TO THAT “ENEMY” IN FRONT OF IT. I HAD A CAT, WHO WAS AN ADULT, BUT SHE CAME ACROSS AN UNPLUGGED LAMP CORD THAT WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR AND SHE BEGAN ANGRILY AND FEARFULLY ATTACKING IT. I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, AND THE LONG, THIN “BODY,” WITH THE LARGER “HEAD AND FANGS” VERY LIKELY TRIGGERED AN EVEN OLDER INSTINCT. ADULT SNAKES ARE UNIVERSALLY DANGEROUS TO SMALL MAMMALS.

I THINK THE “FEAR” THAT THE HUMANS FEEL IS BEING TRANSLATED INTO THE SAME KIND OF INSTINCTIVE REACTION, WHICH IS PROBABLY "FIGHT OR FLIGHT.” MAYBE WAYMO SHOULD HOLD TOWN MEETINGS, WRITING ARTICLES IN THE NEWS PAPER, MENTION IT IN THE TRAFFIC SEGMENTS ON THE NEWS TV SHOW, ETC. FUNNY AS THIS IS, IT IS ALSO BASICALLY DANGEROUS TO THE BACKUP DRIVER.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6544975/Waymos-self-driving-cars-attacked-people-rocks-knives-nearly-two-dozen-times.html
Waymo reveals its Phoenix self-driving cars have been attacked by people wielding rocks, guns and knives nearly two dozen times
Phoenix-area residents have attacked Waymo's self-driving vans with knives, rocks, PVC pipes and guns, while others have attempted to run them off the road
Nearly two dozen such incidents have been recorded since testing began in 2017
Waymo hasn't gone after the assailants and drivers often don't call the police
By ANNIE PALMER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 11:54 EST, 1 January 2019 | UPDATED: 11:56 EST, 1 January 2019

Waymo's self-driving minivans have been the target of violence during tests in Phoenix, as some residents object to the rise of autonomous cars in their neighborhood.

Almost two dozen such incidents have been recorded so far, according to the New York Times.

People have pelted the cars with rocks, others scream at the cars and try to run them off the road, while one driver threatened a car with a PVC pipe and another pointed a gun at a Waymo van.

Scroll down for video

Police in Arizona have recorded 21 incidents in the past two years concerning vigilante citizens who have cast rocks, pointed guns at and slashed the tires of Waymo's autonomous vans

In another case, a driver drove head-on toward one of the cars until it was forced to stop, the Times reported.

When vehicles are approached by the attackers, the backup drivers are often forced to resume manual mode in the car.

The human monitors who sit as passengers in the vehicles often don't call police, however, as they're trained to handle harassment.

And Waymo has never pursued prosecution of any of the assailants.

'Safety is the core of everything we do, which means that keeping our drivers, our riders, and the public safe is our top priority,' Alexis Georgeson, the Waymo spokeswoman, told the Times.

'Over the past two years, we've found Arizonans to be welcoming and excited by the potential of this technology to make our roads safer.

The human monitors who sit as passengers in the vehicles often don't call police, however, as they're trained to handle harassment. Waymo hasn't pursued prosecution of the assailants

'...We report incidents we deem to pose a danger and we have provided photos and videos to local law enforcement when reporting these acts of vandalism or assault.

'We support our drivers and engage in cases where an act of vandalism has been perpetrated against us,' she added.

A report earlier this month from the Arizona Republic further detailed how Waymo vehicles have been attacked.

On August 1st, a test driver in a self-driving vehicle encountered a man aiming a handgun at him, Waymo waited several days to call the police.

While there were no injuries, the man stated that he wanted to scare the Waymo driver.

'(The suspect) stated that he was the person holding up the gun as the Waymo vehicle passed by and that his intentions were to scare the driver,' Detective Cameron Jacobs wrote in a police report after they arrested 69-year-old suspect Roy Leonard Haselton, according to the Arizona Republic.

HOW DOES WAYMO TEST ITS SELF-DRIVING CARS BEFORE PUTTING THEM ON PUBLIC ROADS?

Waymo built 'Castle,' a hidden mock city that can quickly be configured to test different scenarios.

It's located north of the Merced metro area where the Castle Air Force Base used to be an has been rented by Google since 2014.

As part of the initial two-year lease, the firm rented 80 acres from Merced Country for $456,000, being paid in $19,000 monthly installments.

It has different driving environments including residential streets, expressway-style streets, cul-de-sacs, and parking lots.

The Waymo test site is located north of the Merced metro area, where the Castle Air Force Base used to be

At Castle, the roads are named after famous cars, such as DeLorean, Bullitt, Thunderbird, Fury, and Barbaro.

For the structured testing, Waymo looks at how self-driving cars perform on real roads to determine how they need to practice - then they build what's required at Castle.

The fake city has no buildings except one - a converted military dorm Waymo employees sleep in when they're too tired to make it back to San Francisco.

It's hidden, and you need GPS coordinates to find it.

Castle is located north of the Merced metro area where the Castle Air Force Base used to be, 2.5 hours from the company's headquarters. There, Waymo is testing several types of self-driving cars, including Chysler Pacificas minivans

'Haselton said that his wife usually keeps the gun locked up in fear that he might shoot somebody.

'Haselton stated that he despises and hates those cars (Waymo) and said how Uber had killed someone,' Jacobs continued in the report.

The attacks against the Waymo vans mark the latest example of growing fears among the public over the rise of autonomous vehicles.

'There’s a growing sense that the giant corporations honing driverless technologies do not have our best interests at heart,' Douglas Rushkoff, a media theorist at the City University of New York, told the Times.

'Just think about the humans inside these vehicles, who are essentially training the artificial intelligence that will replace them.'

Video playing bottom right...
Click here to expand to full page
Unmute



THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION POSED IN THIS ARTICLE IS SO OBVIOUS TO ME THAT I DON’T SEE WHY MADDOWBLOG IS EVEN ASKING IT. HAIL YEAH, IT’S A CRISIS.

http://www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
Image: TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-ELECTIONS-TRUMP
Does Trump's indifference to the rule of law reach the 'crisis' level?
By Steve Benen 02/15/19 04:34PM

For those whose principal concern is preventing government shutdowns, Donald Trump's emergency declaration probably doesn't look like bad news. As of a couple of months ago, the president's position was that Congress had to approve funding for his border wall -- and if lawmakers balked, he'd end federal operations until his demands were met.

The emergency declaration, to an unsettling degree, is acting as a pressure valve. Trump gets to pursue his absurd goal; the governments gets to function; and the whole mess will eventually be resolved in the courts.

But for those whose principal concern is the rule of law, avoiding another shutdown comes at a high price. James Hohmann had a good piece along these lines this morning.

“White House lawyers have told Trump he could reprogram money without calling an emergency,” Fred Barbash, Ellen Nakashima and Josh Dawsey report. “But Trump … has been determined to declare an emergency, partially for fear of looking weak.”

This is just the latest, and possibly starkest, illustration of Trump’s disdain for the rule of law, as well as the premium he places on political expediency over constitutional norms and legal guardrails.

In the abstract, there's nothing wrong with a president starting with a specific goal and working backwards to determine how best to get there. The trouble arises when someone tells the president, "That may not be legal," and the person legally required to protect and defend the Constitution replies, "I don't care."

William Banks, a Syracuse University law professor, told the New York Times, "This is a real institutional threat to the separation of powers to use emergency powers to enable the president to bypass Congress to build a wall on his own initiative that our elected representatives have chosen not to fund."

Banks added, "It sets a precedent that a president can, without regard to an actual existence of an emergency, use this tool to evade the normal democratic process and fund projects on his own."

There's a school of thought, which I'm generally sympathetic toward, which says there are two kinds of constitutional crises. The first arises when officials turn to the law for answers, but the law is silent. When Woodrow Wilson had a stroke, for example, and he physically couldn't fulfill his duties, officials looked to the Constitution. The 25th Amendment didn't yet exist, so the result was a sort of crisis: the law offered no guidance on how the government was supposed to function.

The second is when the Constitution establishes a legal framework, but those in positions of authority chose to operate outside those boundaries.


WILL HE, OR WON’T HE? WE’LL KNOW TOMORROW.

https://www.wcax.com/content/news/Local-political-professor-on-Bernie-Sanders-contemplation-of-2020-campaign-505983311.html
As Sanders hedges, new candidates co-opt progressive message
By Olivia Lyons | Posted: Mon 6:49 AM, Feb 18, 2019 | Updated: Mon 11:18 AM, Feb 18, 2019

MIDDLEBURY, Vt. (WCAX) It's still unclear if Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, will run in the 2020 presidential election.

"As I have said for several months, we are giving it serious consideration and we'll see what happens," Sanders told WCAX last week.

Early polling shows Sanders as a close second behind the former Vice President Joe Biden.

We asked Middlebury College Political Science Professor Matt Dickinson why he thinks Sanders is still contemplating.

"He has to ask himself, is he the best possible candidate to defeat Donald Trump? And the question is when you have the other candidates who are younger, who in other ways might be more appealing for reasons of race or gender, is there really a viable path for you? I think that's where he's at right now," Dickinson said.

Many candidates are running on the same policies as Sanders, like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and California Sen. Kamala Harris.

Dickinson says progressive candidates jumping into the presidential arena show Sanders' past effectiveness but could make it harder to separate himself from everyone else.

Now, with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren running, would there be a battle in the New England?

"2016 Bernie got a big boost coming out of New Hampshire as the favorite son next door. Elizabeth Warren is just south of New Hampshire and she's going to make the claim that she's sort of the favorite daughter. The question is which one of those claims for regional alliances is going to prove more decisive," said Dickinson.

Dickinson says Sanders has many factors working in his favor. He has the biggest small-donor list of any candidate and his past effective use of social media to spread his message.


READ WHAT SANDERS SAYS IN HERE ABOUT THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, AND WHAT HE AND OTHER PROGRESSIVES PLAN TO PUT INTO PLACE TO PRESERVE IT: “LIFT THE CAP.” SANDERS ALSO WANTS TO PLACE A NEW TAX ON INVESTMENTS OVER $200,000. THAT’S ONE OF THE KEY WAYS THAT IN THE PRESENT THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE, WHOSE INCOME IS MOSTLY FROM INVESTMENTS, I UNDERSTAND, ARE VIRTUALLY EXEMPT FROM OTHER [SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING] TAX, BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE WAGE INCOME. THEY PAY NOTHING ON THAT PRESENTLY. ROTTEN DEAL.

I’M NOT SURE I GOT ALL THAT CORRECTLY, SO SEE THIS INTERESTING STORY ON SS TAXES, PLACED BELOW MONEYWATCH HERE [https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/10/what-is-the-2018-maximum-social-security-tax.aspx]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernie-sanders-says-its-time-for-the-super-rich-to-do-the-morally-right-thing-2019-02-15
Home
Retirement
Bernie Sanders says it’s time for the super rich to ‘do the morally right thing’
Published: Feb 15, 2019 10:08 a.m. ET

PHOTOGRAPH -- Social Security is facing insolvency in 15 years; Sanders and some Democrats in Congress propose raising the amount of income that can be taxed, among other initiatives

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, reintroduced legislation to expand and extend Social Security this week.

Social Security is finally in the spotlight.

Bernie Sanders, an Independent Senator from Vermont who was a presidential candidate in the 2016 campaign, reintroduced legislation on Wednesday that would extend and expand Social Security by raising the cap on taxes. Alongside Sanders were Democratic senators Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris, all of whom announced they were running for president in 2020, as well as Oregon’s Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley and Rep. Peter DeFazio.

The payroll tax cap is currently set at $132,900, which means earners are only taxed up to that amount. In other words, someone who earns $132,900 contributes the same amount to Social Security as a billionaire. Under Sanders’s proposal, the payroll tax also would be subject to any income over $250,000. The payroll tax would remain the same, at 12.4% (6.2% for employees and 6.2% for employers).

A separate tax would also be placed on individuals with investment income of more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 in investment income.

“We take Social Security for granted because it has been around for so many years,” he told MarketWatch. “But it is literally life or death for millions of people.”

See Also:
Why these companies are committing to hiring hundreds of refugees

The health of Social Security is a crucial issue for older Americans, especially considering so many of them rely on the program to fund the decades they spend in retirement. Almost nine out of 10 individuals 65 and older receive Social Security benefits, according to the Social Security Administration. More than a fifth of married couples, and 44% of unmarried people, rely on the funds for 90% or more of their income. The average Social Security benefit check is roughly $1,400 a month.

Earlier this month, John Larson, a Democratic Representative from Connecticut, sponsored the re-introduction of the Social Security 2100 Act, legislation that would also extend and expand the program by raising the income rate for benefits and use a consumer-price index specifically for the elderly, which accounts for health care spending in the household (Social Security currently uses CPI-W, which is adjusted for workers). Larson’s bill also increases the cap, to those who earn more than $400,000.

Many Americans, especially younger adults, wonder about the future of Social Security, and how likely it is they’ll see any benefits. The program is expected to become insolvent by 2034, but benefits would only be reduced if that were to happen — not disappear entirely. Social Security Administration officials said during a pensions event in December that Congress has never let it get to that point, and it likely won’t in 2034.

See: What you probably don’t know about Social Security

Sen. Sanders spoke with MarketWatch about Social Security, and his proposal:

MarketWatch: What do you envision as the future of Social Security?

Bernie Sanders: For many years now, we have had Republicans, led by former Speaker Paul Ryan and currently Mitch McConnell, and a lot of the media saying “look we are an aging population, we can’t afford to maintain Social Security, we are in one way or another going to have to cut it back” — maybe by changing CPI, maybe by raising the retirement age, maybe cutting back on benefits, whatever it may be. I think there has been a lot of misinformation about the status of Social Security, its financial condition and how we go forward into the future.

I look at this issue for a start by saying, does Social Security have a financial problem now? And the answer is it does. Right now, despite the fact there is $2.8 trillion in the trust fund — a lot of money — the fact is that trust fund will be depleted in 15 years. But having said that, that does not mean as people make it out to mean that there is no money to pay out Social Security benefits. Social Security would still be able to pay out 79% of the benefit owed to eligible Americans because of the revenue coming in every day. So we have a gap that we have to fill. That is number one, and that is absolutely doable.

Number two, as I look out into the world I see a lot of elderly people who are struggling economically. About 20% of seniors are trying to get by on less than $13,500 a year, which to me is impossible to even comprehend how anybody can do that. You have a lot of other seniors who are cutting their prescription drugs, pills, they’re unable to feed themselves properly. You go around the country and you find that the Meals on Wheels program has long waiting lists because people need at least one decent nutritious meal a day. So you have a lot of need out there and in my view Social Security benefits are too low, much too low. My Republican friends want to cut Social Security. I want to do two things: I want to expand Social Security benefits, make them stronger, provide more money for our seniors, especially the lower-income seniors, and I want to make sure that Social Security trust fund is solvent well beyond the next 15 years. Our legislation makes it solvent for the next 52 years.

We do that by lifting the cap. Right now, if you are a billionaire you pay exactly the same amount of Social Security taxes as somebody who makes $132,900 a year and that is absurd. Trump pays his entire Social Security tax contribution in half of one day and that is totally absurd. So you make the payroll tax more progressive by lifting the cap for people earning $250,000 a year, including capital gains, profits and dividends. When you do that you increase benefits, extend the life of Social Security for 52 years. I think that’s what the American people want and what we’re going to fight for.

Don’t miss: You’ll never live to 150 and other things to know about aging in America

MW: You mentioned lifting the cap and payroll taxes, so is it reasonable to also consider possibly lowering taxes for people making significantly less than that? How does it work for lower-income workers?

Sanders: There are a lot of ways you can approach it. Right now the approach we have taken, people are used to paying what they pay now for Social Security. Our proposal impacts the wealthiest 1.8% of income workers. So 98.2% of American people don’t pay a nickel more in taxes.

MW: And if nothing were to happen with Social Security, no legislation or anything like that, what do you think the trajectory would be for the program?

Sanders: I think something is going to happen, unless I am very mistaken. There is going to be legislation coming out of the Democratic House to expand Social Security benefits and extend the life of Social Security. It may be a little different than my approach, but I do believe something will come out. It will be widely supported by the Democratic caucus and I think you’re going to have some Republicans who are very nervous about voting against the expansion and extension of Social Security.

MW: Congressman Larson and others have recently introduced their bill also.

Sanders: Their bill is a different approach than mine but what they want to accomplish is similar.

MW: The past few years, or decade even, there hasn’t been too much talk about Social Security in Congress and it seems now there’s more attention being brought to the program. Do you think there’s a reason for that?

Sanders: You’re seeing that not just in Social Security but you’re seeing it in health care, a significant movement for Medicare for All, in terms of minimum wage, you’re seeing a significant movement to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. You’re seeing criminal justice, immigration — you’re seeing a growing progressive movement in this country, which is making demands on Congress to start protecting the working families, not just wealthy campaign contributors. For a number of years you had the ideology coming from right-wing Republicans, and some Democrats, that says okay, we are going to have to cut benefits. I suspect a few Republicans still believe that but between you and me, I don’t think they’ll be all that loud and all that strong about trying to cut Social Security benefits when we see such movement now to increasing benefits. I think they’ll see themselves on the wrong side of history.

Also see: Forget the Social Security increase, this is why seniors are in trouble

MW: What is the argument for being against expanding or extending Social Security?

Sanders: Needless to say, I don’t think there is a rational or strong argument. I think the arguments you hear and I hear: we have an aging population, there are fewer workers, our debt is growing and we cannot continue to spend this kind of money on programs like Social Security. The same arguments are being made for Medicare and Medicaid. And the counterargument to that is during a massive time of income and wealth inequality, when you have so many seniors who are hurting, so many working people who are hurting, that now is the time to demand that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes so that in this instance we can extend and expand Social Security and in other instances we can make public colleges and universities tuition-free and in other instances we can rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and provide health care to all.

All of these are wrapped up in the understanding that while people on top are doing phenomenally well and we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time since the 1920s, many of our people — the elderly, the children, the workers — are hurting.

MW: As far as upping the taxes for the wealthy, would they see any more of a benefit? What is the argument for them?

Sanders: The argument for them is to do the morally right thing, to understand that while their incomes are soaring, while their wealth is soaring, people in their communities cannot afford to purchase the prescription drugs they need or to keep their homes. The top 1% of the billionaire class has got to understand that they are part of America and they’ve got to help our country create an economy that works for all and benefits that protect the most vulnerable people in this country, including the elderly, including our veterans and including the children. That is the argument for them.

That if they simply want to be selfish and greedy, well I’m sorry, those days are over.


https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/10/what-is-the-2018-maximum-social-security-tax.aspx
What Is the 2018 Maximum Social Security Tax?
Find out why some people will pay even more in the coming year.
Christy Bieber (TMFChristyB)
Dec 10, 2017 at 6:02AM

Close to 62 million Americans received an estimated $955 billion in Social Security benefits in 2017. Money for Social Security retirement benefits comes from the Social Security trust fund, which is funded by tax dollars and invested in special-issue securities issued by the U.S. Treasury.

How does the money get into the trust fund? From taxes levied to fund Social Security.

Whether you earn income from an employer or from freelance work, you must pay Social Security taxes. However, these taxes are not necessarily assessed on every dollar of income earned. There's a wage cap on Social Security benefits, which means there's a maximum amount of taxes you'll have to pay into Social Security each year. This amount is adjusted upward periodically to keep pace with the increase in average wages.

Social security card with calculator and statement
IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

What is the maximum 2018 Social Security tax?
For 2018, the maximum amount of Social Security taxes you'll have to pay as an employee is $7,960.80. To understand where this number comes from, it's important to understand how Social Security taxes work.

Social Security taxes are assessed on all wages earned, up to a capped maximum. In 2018, the cap is $128,400. Employees are taxed at 6.2% of wages earned, so if someone earned the maximum taxable wages of $128,400, they would pay $7,960.80.

In addition to Social Security taxes, workers also pay a Medicare tax of 1.45%. The earnings subject to the Medicare tax are not capped, so employees pay this 1.45% on their entire incomes. High earners owe an additional .9% on earned income above $200,000 for single filers and heads of household; above $125,000 for married spouses filing separately; or above $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.

How much will your Social Security tax be in 2018?
While the maximum Social Security tax for 2018 is $7,960, only a small percentage of taxpayers have incomes high enough to pay the maximum. In 2015, for example, just 6% of workers earned more than the capped amount, according to the National Academy of Social Insurance.

If your income is below the cap, the amount you pay will be less. To calculate the amount you'll be taxed, multiply your taxable earnings by 6.2%. This table also shows the maximum Social Security taxes that will be paid in 2018 by employees at different income levels. [GO TO WEBSITE FOR CHART OF THESE FIGURES, WHICH ARE FOR 2018 ONLY.]
CALCULATIONS BY AUTHOR.

Employers also pay Social Security taxes on your behalf
While employees pay a tax equal to 6.2% of their wages for Social Security and 1.45% of their wages for Medicare, this is not the total amount of Social Security tax collected for each worker. The total amount due for each employee is 12.4% of wages for Social Security and 2.9% of wages for Medicare.

Employees pay only a portion of their Social Security and Medicare taxes because employers pick up the other half of the tab. For example, for a worker who earns that maximum $128,400, the actual amount paid into Social Security on their behalf is $15,921.60.

Because Social Security taxes are due on self-employment income, as well as wage income, freelancers need to pay the full amount of Social Security taxes themselves. A freelancer who made $128,4400, or more, would have to pay the whole $15,921.60. However, freelancers can deduct half of the Social Security taxes paid to reduce their adjusted gross income.

Where exactly is your Social Security tax money going?
Many taxpayers are rightfully concerned about what's happening to the thousands of dollars they -- and their employers -- pay into Social Security each year. While money paid in is invested in a Social Security trust fund and used to buy securities issued by the U.S. Treasury, the problem is that this invested money isn't just being kept safely invested in securities until the person who paid it retires. Instead, the Social Security Administration sells securities regularly to pay current beneficiaries.

The problem is, program costs are expected to exceed tax revenue, so the Social Security trust fund is projected to run short of funds by 2034, as of the most recent Social Security Trustees report. If this occurs, benefits will need to be cut, or taxes will need to be raised.

Don't rely on Social Security for your retirement income
If you're looking ahead toward retirement and worried that Social Security benefits will be cut, you have reason for concern. But regardless of whether or not cuts occur, Social Security benefits are not enough to live on without other sources of income.

The maximum benefit that's available to retirees from Social Security in 2018 is just $2,788. This would provide an income of $33,456 -- which is below what the average American retiree is spending. With high healthcare costs and Social Security not keeping pace with actual increases in cost of living for seniors, it's imperative you have investment income to keep you going through retirement.

This means that you should start investing in your 401(k), IRA, or other tax-advantaged account today so you won't be struggling to survive on Social Security during what are supposed to be your golden years.

The $16,728 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $16,728 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies.

The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


THE SOCIAL SECURITY 2100 ACT WAS OFFERED BEFORE, BUT NOT PASSED. NOW THIS IS SPONSORED AGAIN BY THE HOUSE TO MATCH SANDERS’ SENATE BILL REVISING SS. [NOTE. THIS ARTICLE IS FROM 2017.]

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/328516-social-security-2100-act-a-commonsense-approach-to-achieve
Social Security 2100 Act a commonsense approach to achieve solvency, pay adequate benefits
BY KEVIN PRINDIVILLE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/12/17 02:10 PM EDT 110 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law in 1935, poverty among older Americans stood at more than 50 percent. Social Security was enacted as a promise to the citizens of this country that, when they could no longer work, they would still be able to meet their basic needs and live a life of dignity and self-sufficiency in retirement.

The program has been incredibly successful at keeping that promise. Today, more than 60 million older adults, disabled workers, and their families depend on Social Security to make ends meet. At a time when pensions are becoming a rarity, and as personal retirement savings lose ground to the cost of living, Social Security has become even more critical to keeping America’s workers and their families from living in poverty. Social Security keeps 22 million people out of poverty each year, and more than 61 percent of all older Social Security beneficiaries rely on Social Security for half or more of their income.

In order to ensure that the program is meeting the growing needs of today’s seniors—as well as future generations—we must make some important changes to the Social Security system.

The Social Security 2100 Act, recently introduced in Congress by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), provides precisely the kinds of changes we need. The Act both increases the support Social Security provides to low wage and middle class workers and extends the solvency of the program. It does all this while reducing taxes on low and middle income families and ensuring that wealthy Americans pay their fair share.

The bill calls for a desperately needed increase in the benefits that Social Security pays out to low wage workers. Many policymakers do not realize that a high number of Social Security beneficiaries live in poverty because their benefits are low. This bill would modify the benefit formula so that all Social Security beneficiaries—even those who labored in low-wage, blue collar jobs—will receive benefits equal to at least 125 percent of the federal poverty level. This change will ensure that seniors and people with disabilities are not left destitute after a decades of hard work.

The bill goes even further to expand the benefits we provide seniors and people with disabilities by providing an across-the-board 2 percent benefit increase for all current and future beneficiaries. In addition, it would replace the current measure for providing annual cost of living increases (the CPI-W) with a more accurate measure, the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E). The CPI-E serves as a significantly more fair measure because it reflects the actual increases in costs confronting older adults every year, including costs like healthcare and housing, for which older adults are more likely to spend their income.

Remarkably, the bill expands benefit levels while actually reducing taxes for millions of Americans. Under the bill, Social Security benefits would no longer be taxed for the 10 million beneficiaries whose incomes fall below $50,000 a year ($100,000 for joint filers).

Of course, expanding benefits would mean little if the long term health of the program was not improved. And here the bill continues to take important action. In addition to expanding benefits for all Social Security beneficiaries, especially those who worked in low wage and middle income jobs, the bill ensures the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. Under the bill, the life of the Trust Fund will be extended through this century, beyond the 75-year projection period used to determine solvency. Overcoming solvency issues ensures that this program is around for those that are working and paying into the system now.

The bill extends solvency by taking a common sense, and politically popular, approach to the way we fund Social Security. In short, the bill asks all Americans—including wealthy Americans—to pay their fair share to ensure that we keep Social Security’s promise. Currently, Americans with incomes below a certain threshold ($127,200 in 2017) pay Social Security taxes on all of their income. But wealthier Americans, with incomes above the threshold, only pay those taxes on the portion of their income that falls below the threshold. The bill would correct this inequity by requiring these individuals to begin paying the Social Security tax again on income over $400,000, and by gradually filling the gap so that eventually everyone paid the tax on all their income.

As our society continues to ponder ways to allow workers to retire comfortably in the face of stagnant incomes that must cover more costly expenses, we must work together to provide the means for older adults and their families to experience a safe and secure retirement. American ingenuity and common sense can make this a reality. The Social Security 2100 Act represents a fair, reasonable solution that continues the promise of the Social Security program for the seniors of today and tomorrow.

Kevin Prindiville is Executive Director of Justice in Aging.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.


THE JUSSIE SMOLLETT CASE IS TAKING A STRANGE TURN. POLICE ARE CLAIMING THAT SMOLLETT SET THE SITUATION UP HIMSELF, BUT WHY? ALSO, WHAT IS THE NEW EVIDENCE? SEE CORY BOOKER’S COMMENTS. IN THE PAST, ESPECIALLY WHEN I WAS YOUNG, THERE WERE “PUBLICITY STUNTS” IN WHICH THE “VICTIM” DID SETS IT UP AND PAYS “ATTACKERS.” IF THAT IS THE CASE HERE, I WANT TO SEE WHAT EVIDENCE THEY HAVE. TODAY BOTH BOOKER AND KAMALA HARRIS HAVE SWORN TO SAY NO MORE “UNTIL THE INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETE.” SAD.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/17/politics/cory-booker-smollett/index.html
Cory Booker says he won't comment further on Smollett case until more information comes out
Daniella Diaz
By Eli Watkins and Daniella Diaz, CNN
Updated 3:28 PM ET, Sun February 17, 2019

VIDEO -- Attorneys: Smollett angered by recent reports 01:55

(CNN)New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker declined on Sunday to comment directly on reports that police believe actor Jussie Smollett paid two men to carry out a hoax assault on himself last month.

Smollett told authorities he was attacked in late January by two men who were "yelling out racial and homophobic slurs." Two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation told CNN on Saturday that Chicago Police believe Smollett paid two men to orchestrate the assault on him.

Booker, who is running for president, was one of several Democrats to weigh in on the initial reports of the attack on Smollett, tweeting that it was "an attempted modern-day lynching."

Cory Booker
✔
@CoryBooker
The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching. I'm glad he's safe.

To those in Congress who don't feel the urgency to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime– I urge you to pay attention. https://www.ebony.com/news/jussie-smollett-hospitalized-after-homophobic-racially-motivated-attack/?utm_content=link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=daily_post&utm_source=t.co …

44.5K
3:09 PM - Jan 29, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Jussie Smollett Hospitalized After Homophobic & Racially Motivated Attack
Musician and 'Empire' actor Jussie Smollett is recovering in a Chicago hospital after falling victim to a hate crime.

ebony.com
17.4K people are talking about this

Asked as he campaigned in New Hampshire about the recent reports that the attack was a hoax, Booker said, "I'm going to withhold until all the information actually comes out from on the record sources."

In a statement on Saturday night, Smollett's attorneys said the actor denies playing a role in the attack. "(Smollett) has now been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack," the statement read. "Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying."

In his response, Booker, who has pushed to make lynching a federal hate crime, pointed to recorded increases in hate crimes in the US.
"We know in America that bigoted and biased attacks are on the rise in a serious way," Booker said. "We actually even know in this country that since 9/11 a majority of the terrorist attacks on our soil have been right wing terrorist attacks, a majority of them white supremacist attacks."

He reiterated his point in response to another question, continuing to call for further action to combat bigotry and violence.

"We have seen painful realities surge in our country, a rise in anti-Semitism, anti-Islamic attacks," Booker said. "We're seeing just a vicious, horrific, cruel violence that's motivated by bias and hate. We need to do more to protect all Americans and make sure all neighborhoods and communities are safe."

The FBI said in a December report that from 2016 to 2017 hate crime incidents reported to the FBI rose 17%.

CNN's Alison Main, Ryan Young, Brad Parks and Dakin Andone contributed to this report.


BOTH OF THESE PROGRAMS HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF MAINLY HEALTHY WORK WITH KIDS. THE RACIST AND HOMOPHOBIC ISSUES THAT CAME UP WITH THE BOYS WORRIES ME, BUT HOPEFULLY THEY WILL HAVE STRAIGHTENED OUT THEIR LEADER TRAINING NOW. I DON’T REMEMBER ANY PROBLEMS LIKE THAT WITH THE GIRLS, BUT I DO KNOW THAT OUR LOCAL GIRL SCOUT TROOPS WERE NOT RACIALLY INTEGRATED IN MY TOWN IN THE 1950S AND EARLY 60S. OF COURSE, NEITHER WAS ANYTHING ELSE BACK THEN. THAT SHOULD CHANGE. STILL, SCOUTING IS A GREAT PROGRAM FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO SOCIALIZE AND LEARN PRACTICAL THINGS TOGETHER. I LOVED IT WHEN I WAS A MEMBER. MY BEST TO THEM ALL. I HOPE THEY WILL MAKE CLEAR WHAT THE PROPER NAME OF THE PROGRAM WILL BE, THOUGH. IS IT SCOUTS BSA OR EVERY SCOUTS BSA? FOR A LITTLE ON THE GIRLS' HISTORY, GO TO THE NEXT WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE.

https://www.wmur.com/article/boy-scouts-welcome-girls-for-the-first-time/26375693
Boy Scouts welcome girls for the first time
Updated: 7:16 AM EST Feb 17, 2019
By Dylan Hyman

WELLINGTON, Fla. —

Girls can join the Boy Scouts now -- but not everyone is happy about it
Boy Scouts to admit girls into Cub Scouts program, offer path to Eagle Scout
Every Scouts BSA meeting starts with the presentation of the colors, but this meeting is different.

For the first time, this Florida Boy Scout meeting includes girls.

The Boy Scouts of America made the decision last year, changing the name of the program to Scouts BSA and announcing girls would be included.

“The Scout oath is a Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent," said Scout leader Randy Lane. "There's nothing that says that it's gender specific."

Take a look at the video above for more details.


THERE IS MORE TO THIS ARTICLE IF YOU WANT TO READ IT AT THE WIKIPEDIA WEBSITE. PARTICULARLY NOTE OUR DISTINCTION UNDER THE HEADING “DESEGREGATION.” WE SET THE BAR FOR LEADING IN DESEGREGATION, AND RECEIVED A COMMENDATION FROM MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. IT ISN’T THAT WOMEN ARE ALWAYS BETTER THAN MEN, BUT IN CERTAIN KINDS OF WAYS, I THINK WE ARE. SEE ALSO: http://www.100questionsforthegirlscouts.org/100/lgbt_agenda.cfm.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA
Girl Scouts of the USA

Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA), commonly referred to as simply Girl Scouts in the US, is a youth organization for girls in the United States and American girls living abroad.[2] Founded by Juliette Gordon Low in 1912, it was organized after Low met Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of Scouting, in 1911.[3] Upon returning to Savannah, Georgia, she telephoned a distant cousin, saying, "I've got something for the girls of Savannah, and all of America, and all the world, and we're going to start it tonight!"[4]

Girl Scouts of the United States of America
Girl Scouts of the USA.svg
The current Girl Scouts logo, introduced in 2009.
Headquarters
New York, New York
Founded
March 12, 1912; 106 years ago
Founder -- Juliette Gordon Low
Membership
1.8 million girl members
800,000 adults[1]

CEO
Sylvia Acevedo
Affiliation
World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts

Website
www.girlscouts.org

Girl Scouts prepares girls to empower themselves and promotes compassion, courage, confidence, character, leadership, entrepreneurship, and active citizenship through activities involving camping, community service, learning first aid, and earning badges by acquiring practical skills. Girl Scouts' achievements are recognized with various special awards, including the Girl Scout Gold, Silver, and Bronze Awards.

Girl Scout membership is organized according to grade, with activities designed for each level. GSUSA is a member of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) and accepts girls of all backgrounds.

A 1994 Chronicle of Philanthropy poll showed Girl Scouts ranked by the public as the eighth "most popular charity/non-profit in America" among more than 100 charities.[5][6][needs update] It describes itself as "the world's preeminent organization dedicated solely to girls."[7]

Girl Guides of America

Juliette Gordon Low (center), with two Girl Scouts.

Girl Scouting in the United States of America began on March 12, 1912, when Juliette "Daisy" Gordon Low organized the first Girl Guide troop meeting of 18 girls in Savannah, Georgia. It has since grown to 3.7 million members.[4] Low, who had met Baden-Powell in London while she was living in the United Kingdom, dreamed of giving the United States and the world "something for all the girls." She envisioned an organization that would bring girls out of their homes to serve their communities, experience the out-of-doors, and have the opportunity to develop "self-reliance and resourcefulness." From its inception, the Girl Scouts has been organized and run exclusively by women, for girls and women.[8]

Juliette Gordon Low was the granddaughter of Juliette Magill Kinzie and John Harris Kinzie, whose childhood family was one of the earliest settlers of Chicago, IL. Juliette Kinzie wrote about her experiences in the Northwest Territory (now the state of Wisconsin) in her book Wau-Bun: The Early Day. Some of what her granddaughter, Juliette Gordon Low, knew firsthand about her grandmother's experiences on the frontier were incorporated into the beginnings and traditions of Girl Scouts. The early home of Juliette Low's grandparents can be visited May 15 through October 15 in Portage, Wisconsin.[9]

In late 1912, Low proposed that the Camp Fire Girls merge with the Girl Guides but was rejected in January 1913 as Camp Fire was then the larger group. Next, Low attempted to merge her organization with the Girl Scouts of America which was founded in Des Moines, Iowa by Clara Lisetor-Lane. She thought their similarities would make this easier but Lisetor-Lane felt Daisy copycatted her organization and threatened to sue. Lisetor-Lane later claimed Low's organization was luring members away but the GSA's growth was limited by a lack of financial resources which led to its eventual demise.[10]

Girl Scouts of the United States

The Girl Guides of America in 1913 changed its name to Girl Scouts of the United States and moved its headquarters to Washington, DC.[10] In 1915 the organization was incorporated[11] and the national headquarters was moved to New York City.[10] The name reached its current form, Girl Scouts of the United States of America, in 1947. The organization was given a congressional charter on March 16, 1950.

GSUSA started with 18 members. Within months, members were hiking through the woods in knee-length blue uniforms, playing basketball on a curtained-off court, and going on camping trips. In 1916, Low established an aviation badge—even before women could vote. By 1920, there were nearly 70,000 members.[12] By 1923 the organization had branches in every state in the union, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, and a total membership of 125,738.[11] In 1930 it had over 200,000. In 2013 there were over 3.2 million Girl Scouts: 2.3 million girl members and 890,000 adult members in the United States.[12] More than 50 million American women have participated in Girl Scouts. Through its membership in WAGGGS, GSUSA girls and adults are among over 10 million members in 146 countries.[12]

The names and ages of the levels and the larger structure of the program have changed significantly over time. In 1923 Girl Scouts were organized into patrols, troops, local councils, and the National Council.[11] Troops were initially fairly independent before joining together into small councils, which recently merged to form larger councils. Today there are over 100 councils across the U.S.[12]

The Juliette Gordon Low Birthplace, located in Savannah, Georgia, in the former Gordon family home, became the national Girl Scout program center in 1956.[13] It provides tours to thousands of Girl Scouts yearly. Upon Low's death in 1927, she willed her carriage house, which would eventually become The Girl Scout First Headquarters, to the local Savannah Girl Scouts for continued use.[14] In 1923 national headquarters was located at 189 Lexington Avenue, New York.[11]

World War II

Girl Scout presentation at Hinamatsuri (Doll Festival) on Japanese Girl's Day at Crystal City Internment Camp, Crystal City, Texas

During World War II, 1943–1945, many young Japanese American girls were confined in internment camps with their families. Girl Scout troops were organized, even in these camps. These girls participated in many activities, including dramatic presentations that took place in the Crystal City Internment Camp in Crystal City, Texas.

Desegregation

Most Girl Scout units were originally segregated by race according to state and local laws and customs. The first troop for African American girls was founded in 1917; the first American Indian troop was formed in New York State in 1921; and the first troop for Mexican Americans was formed in Houston, Texas, in 1922. In 1933, Josephine Groves Holloway founded unofficial African American troops in Tennessee. She also fully desegregated the Cumberland Valley council in 1962.[15] The first official African American troop in the South was founded in 1932 in Richmond, Virginia by Lena B. Watson and led initially by Lavnia Banks, a teacher from Armstrong High School. It first met in Hartshorn Hall at Virginia Union University.[16]

By the 1950s, GSUSA had begun significant national efforts to desegregate the camps and maintain racial balance. One of the first desegregations, accomplished by Murray Walls in 1956, was Camp Shantituck in Kentucky.[17] Later the same year, Martin Luther King, Jr. described Girl Scouts as "a force for desegregation".[18] In 1969, a national Girl Scout initiative called Action 70 was created that aimed to eliminate prejudice. Gloria D. Scott, an African American, was elected national president of Girl Scouts in 1975.[19]

Wing Scouts

The Wing Scout program was a Senior Girl Scout program for girls interested in flying and wanting to serve their country that started in 1941 and ended in the 1970s. In July 1942, 29 troop leaders from 15 states met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to take Wing Scout leadership training. They returned to their councils and began setting up Wing Scout troops. In 1959, the Girl Scout council in North San Mateo County, California, was presented with an offer from United Airlines San Francisco Management Club President J. L. Burnside to start an aviation program for Senior Girl Scouts. One of the highlights of the Wing Scout program was the courtesy flight provided to Senior Girl Scouts using United Airlines' jets. For many of the girls, this was the first time they had flown in a plane. Senior Girl Scouts who had been in the program for three years were given the opportunity to take over the controls during flight in a small aircraft. The program was discontinued after United Airlines experienced financial setbacks in the 1970s.[20]

Age levels

Organizational structure

The national organization has its central headquarters in New York City. It is headed by a chief executive officer and a 40-member national board of directors. Sylvia Acevedo currently serves as the chief executive officer, and was officially appointed in May 2017. The chair of the national board of directors, the highest volunteer position, is Kathy Hopinkah Hannan.[30]

Below the national organization are councils, which cover a large portion of a state or geographic region. Some councils own and run camps for the troops within their area of responsibility. Councils are usually subdivided into areas, called neighborhoods, service units, or associations (terms vary), which are program delivery areas that consist of troops at all age levels in a smaller area, such as a town.

The basic unit is the troop which may or may not be sponsored. In contrast to Boy Scout troop-chartered organizations, Girl Scout troop sponsors do not own the troop. Troops range in size from as small as 5 to as large as 30 or more girls and may be divided into several patrols of 8 or fewer girls.

Realignment

In 2004, Girl Scouts of the USA hired a consultant "to help Girl Scouts develop a strategy to ensure our future success and growth." They set targets and implemented ways to change the organization for the better. In addition, six "gap teams" looked at ways Girl Scouts could improve its structure to prepare for future growth and success of the organization.[31] This followed declines in membership and in revenue, as well as challenges in subsidizing programs for inner-city girls. The governance gap team found that consolidation decreased confusion and provided economies of scale, and recommended an optimal council size of approximately 10,000 girls.[32] As of 2006, there were 312 regional Girl Scout councils, which own the 236,000 local troops and other groups.

As part of a 2006 reorganization, the national board of directors consolidated the 312 councils into 109 councils.[33]

This was not without resistance; the Manitou Girl Scout council in Wisconsin sued the national GSUSA in federal district court, alleging breach of the Girl Scout charter. Although the suit was summarily dismissed with prejudice by the district court,[32] the Seventh U.S. Circuit of Appeals overturned that decision, stating that a Girl Scout council agreement "was no different than a Dunkin' Donuts franchise." The decision of the appeals court maintained the status of the Manitou council. As a result, there are 112 Girl Scout councils in the United States.[34]


I HAVEN’T GIVEN ANY POLITICAL MONEY THIS YEAR, SO I MAY NOT GET AN EMAIL. I’LL HAVE TO KEEP MY EYES WIDE OPEN TOMORROW. I HAVE A FEELING BERNIE WON’T RUN, THOUGH. AS HE KEEPS SAYING, “WE’LL SEE.” MAYBE IF HE DOESN'T HE'LL STAY ALIVE LONGER AND KEEP THOSE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ON THEIR TOES.

https://www.wmur.com/article/key-bernie-sanders-supporter-says-presidential-announcement-coming-tuesday/26398867
Key Bernie Sanders supporter says presidential announcement coming Tuesday
Vermont senator’s supporters to receive email laying out his plans
WMUR Updated: 8:32 PM EST Feb 18, 2019
John DiStaso
Political Reporter

PHOTOGRAPH -- Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders SMILING BEHIND THE PODIUM

MANCHESTER, N.H. —
Bernie Sanders is getting ready for a second run for president.

WMUR has learned that an email announcing the Vermont senator's plans to run for president will be sent to his supporters on Tuesday.

A key Sanders supporter told WMUR that one of Sanders’ closest advisors informed the supporter that the announcement will be made in an email. It was not made clear to the supporter whether it will be an outright announcement of a candidacy or an announcement of an exploratory committee.

(This report will be updated.)

The Hill on Saturday, citing two people familiar with the plan, reported that an announcement of an exploratory would be made this week. Politico reported on Saturday that Sanders has recorded a video in which he says he is running for president.

The Sanders supporter who spoke with WMUR was unsure if the email announcement will include the video, although the supporter said it is likely. The supporter said also plans for at least one announcement speech, if not two, are in the works.

Sanders won the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation primary in 2016 by a margin of 60 percent to 38 percent over Hillary Clinton.

Follow this story to get instant e-mail alerts from WMUR on the latest developments and related topics.


THIS STORY IS GETTING MORE DISTURBING BY THE DAY. COULD SMOLLETT BE A MASOCHIST? OR COULD HE HAVE DONE THIS TO GET THE FREE PUBLICITY? COULD IT BE THAT THE POLICE ARE WRONG IN THEIR CONCLUSION? ALL OF THOSE MAY BE TRUE. I DID HEAR A CLIP OF SMOLLETT SINGING, THOUGH, AND HE'S VERY GOOD, IN MY VIEW. HE OUGHT TO GET OFF THAT TV SHOW AND JUST SING FOR A LIVING. HE HAS A SIMILAR QUALITY TO JOHNNY MATHIS, BUT HIGHER.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/16/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html
Police sources: New evidence suggests Jussie Smollett orchestrated attack
By Ryan Young, Brad Parks and Dakin Andone, CNN
Updated 12:42 PM ET, Sun February 17, 2019

Chicago (CNN)Two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation tell CNN that Chicago Police believe actor Jussie Smollett paid two men to orchestrate an assault on him that he reported late last month.

Smollett denies playing a role in his attack, according to a statement from his attorneys.

The men, who are brothers, were arrested Wednesday but released without charges Friday after Chicago police cited the discovery of "new evidence."

The sources told CNN the two men are now cooperating fully with law enforcement.

Smollett told authorities he was attacked early January 29 by two men who were "yelling out racial and homophobic slurs." He said one attacker put a rope around his neck and poured an unknown chemical substance on him.

The sources told CNN there are records that show the two brothers purchased the rope found around Smollett's neck at a hardware store in Chicago.

Smollett's attorneys, Todd S. Pugh and Victor P. Henderson, issued a statement to CNN Saturday night saying Smollett was angry about these latest developments.

"As a victim of a hate crime who has cooperated with the police investigation, Jussie Smollett is angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with," the statement read. "He has now been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack. Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying."

Smollett's attorneys said they expect further updates from Chicago police on the investigation and will continue cooperating with authorities.

"At the present time, Jussie and his attorneys have no inclination to respond to 'unnamed' sources inside of the investigation, but will continue discussions through official channels," the statement read.

Smollett identifies as gay and since 2015 has played the gay character of Jamal on the Fox TV drama "Empire."

What happened

According to Chicago Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi, the actor told detectives he was attacked by two men near the lower entrance of a Loews hotel in Chicago. Police were told the two men yelled "'Empire' fa***t" and "'Empire' n***er'" while striking him.

In a supplemental interview with authorities, Smollett confirmed media reports that one of the attackers also shouted, "This is MAGA country," a reference to President Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" campaign slogan.

The day after the incident, police released surveillance images that showed two silhouetted individuals walking down a sidewalk, and police said they were wanted for questioning.

RELATED STORY -- Jussie Smollett case: Everything we know so far

The two men were arrested Wednesday. Police on Friday said the men were being viewed as "potential suspects" and that detectives had "probable cause that they may have been involved in an alleged crime."

But by Friday night they had been released, Guglielmi said, "due to new evidence as a result of today's investigations."

"And detectives have additional investigative work to complete," he added.

One of the men has appeared on "Empire," Guglielmi said. A police source also told CNN on Friday night that the men had a previous affiliation with Smollett, but did not provide additional details.

Smollett has expressed frustration about not being believed
Following the alleged attack, Smollett's colleagues and fans rallied around him, expressing shock and sadness.

"We have to love each other regardless of what sexual orientation we are because it shows that we are united on a united front," Lee Daniels, the creator of "Empire," said in a video posted to his Instagram page on January 29. "And no racist f*** can come in and do the things that they did to you. Hold your head up, Jussie. I'm with you."

Smollett gave his first detailed account of what he says was a hate crime against him, and the aftermath, in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" that aired Thursday.

During the interview he expressed frustration at not being believed.

"It feels like if I had said it was a Muslim or a Mexican or someone black I feel like the doubters would have supported me a lot much more," Smollett said. "And that says a lot about the place where we are as a country right now."

Smollett stated that one of the attackers shouted "this is MAGA country" before punching him in the face. But he refuted reports that said he told police the attackers wore "Make America Great Again" hats.

"I never said that," he told ABC's Robin Roberts. "I didn't need to add anything like that. They called me a f****t, they called me a n****r. There's no which way you cut it. I don't need some MAGA hat as the cherry on some racist sundae."

CNN's Ryan Young and Brad Parks reported from Chicago, while Dakin Andone reported and wrote this story in Atlanta. CNN's Lisa Respers France, Sandra Gonzalez, Deanna Hackney, Shawn Nottingham and Amir Vera contributed to this report.


*********************************************************************


ALRIGHT, FOLKS! SCIENCE IS VERY INTERESTING, BUT THIS IS DOWNRIGHT CREEEEEPYY! GO AWAY, RUSSIANS. I’M BEGINNING TO LIKE YOU LESS AND LESS!

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47277340
Could hackers 'brainjack' your memories in future?
By Pablo Uchoa
BBC World Service
FEBRUARY 18, 2019 15 minutes ago

GETTY IMAGES
Image caption -- Could technologies of the future allow hackers into precious corners of our minds?

Imagine being able to scroll through your memories like an Instagram feed, reliving with vivid details your favourite life moments and backing up the dearest ones.

Now imagine a dystopian version of the same future in which hackers hijack these memories and threaten to erase them if you don't pay a ransom.

It might sound far-fetched, but this scenario could be closer than you think.

Opening up the brain
Advances in the field of neurotechnology have brought us closer to boosting and enhancing our memories, and in a few decades we could also be able to manipulate, decode and re-write them.

The technologies likely to underpin these developments are brain implants which are quickly becoming a common tool for neurosurgeons.

They deliver deep brain stimulation (DBS) to treat a wide array of conditions, such as tremors, Parkinson's, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), in around 150,000 people worldwide. They even show the potential to control diabetes and tackle obesity.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption -- Advances in the field of neurotechnology promise to bring better understanding of our brains

The technology is also increasingly being investigated for treating depression, dementia, Tourette's syndrome and other psychiatric conditions.

And, though still in its early stages, researchers are exploring how to treat memory disorders such as those caused by traumatic events.

The US Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has a programme to develop and test a "wireless, fully implantable neural interface" to help restore memory loss in soldiers affected by traumatic brain injury.

Mental superpowers
"I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is a commercially available memory implant within the next 10 years or so - we are talking about this kind of timeframe," says Laurie Pycroft, a researcher with the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences at the University of Oxford.

In 20 years' time, the technology may evolve enough to allow us to capture the signals that build our memories, boost them, and return them to the brain.

By the middle of the century, we may have even more extensive control, with the ability to manipulate memories.

'Brainjacking'
But the consequences of control falling into the wrong hands could be "very grave", says Mr Pycroft.

Imagine a hacker has broken into the neurostimulator of a patient with Parkinson's disease and is tampering with the settings. They could influence his or her thoughts and behaviour, or even cause temporary paralysis.

A hacker could also threaten to erase or overwrite someone's memories if money is not paid to them - perhaps via the dark web.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption -- Hackers could either target high-profile individuals or mass target groups of individuals

If scientists successfully decode the neural signals of our memories, then the scenarios are infinite. Think of the valuable intelligence foreign hackers could collect by breaking into the servers of the Washington DC veterans' hospital, for example.

In a 2012 experiment, researchers from the University of Oxford and University of California, Berkeley managed to figure out information such as bank cards and PIN numbers just by observing the brainwaves of people wearing a popular gaming headset.

Controlling your past
"Brainjacking and malicious memory alteration pose a variety of challenges to security - some quite novel or unique," says Dmitry Galov, a researcher at the cyber-security company Kaspersky Lab.

Kaspersky and University of Oxford researchers have collaborated on a project to map the potential threats and means of attack concerning these emerging technologies.

"Even at today's level of development - which is more advanced than many people realise - there is a clear tension between patient safety and patient security," says their report, The Memory Market: Preparing for a future where cyberthreats target your past.

It is not impossible to imagine future authoritarian governments trying to rewrite history by interfering with people's memories, and even uploading new memories, the report says.

Image copyrightFUTURE OF PRIVACY FORUM
Image caption -- Carson Martinez from the Future of Privacy Forum is sceptical about memory manipulation

"If we accept that this technology will exist, we could be able to change people's behaviour. If they are behaving in a way that we don't want them to, we can stop them by stimulating the part of the brain that sparks bad emotions," Mr Galov tells the BBC.

Carson Martinez, health policy fellow at the Future of Privacy Forum, says: "It is not unimaginable to think that memory-enhancing brain implants may become a reality in the future. Memory modification? That sounds more like speculation than fact."

But she admits: "While the threats of brainjacking may not be imminent, it is important that we consider them and work to prevent their materialisation."

Even the idea of brainjacking "could chill patient trust in medical devices that are connected to a network", she warns.

Unauthorised access
Hacking into connected medical devices is not a new threat. In 2017, US authorities recalled 465,000 pacemakers after considering them vulnerable to cyber-security attacks.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said ill-intentioned people could tamper with the devices, changing the pace of someone's heartbeat or draining the batteries, with the risk of death in either scenario.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption -- Doctors and IT manufacturers will need to collaborate to stay up-to-date with cyber-security issues, according to Galov and Pycroft
No harm was done, but the FDA said: "As medical devices become increasingly interconnected via the internet, hospital networks, other medical devices, and smartphones, there is an increased risk of exploitation of cyber-security vulnerabilities, some of which could affect how a medical device operates."

This is a problem for many medical areas and Kaspersky believes that, in the future, more devices will be connected and remotely monitored by machine. Doctors will only be called in to take over in situations of emergency.

Cyber defences
Fortunately, reinforcing cyber-security early in the design and planning of the devices can mitigate most of the risks.

"Encryption, identity and access management, patching and updating the security of these devices, will all be vital to keeping these devices secure and maintaining patient trust in them," says Ms Martinez.

Clinicians and patients need to be educated on how to take precautions, thinks Mr Galov - setting strong passwords will be key.

Humans represent "one of the greatest vulnerabilities" because we can't ask doctors to become cyber-security experts, and "any system is only as secure as its weakest part".

Mr Pycroft says that in the future, brain implants will be more complex and more widely used to treat a broader range of conditions.

But he gives a stark warning.

"The confluence of these factors is likely to make it easier and more attractive for attackers to try to interfere with people's implants," he says.

"If we don't develop solutions for that first generation of implants, then the second and third generations will still be insecure - but the implants will be so much more powerful that the attackers will have the advantage."

Follow Technology of Business editor Matthew Wall on Twitter and Facebook


* * * *

FRIDAY NIGHT WITH RACHEL MADDOW

Two Trump attorneys accused of lying to federal ethics officials
02/15/19 11:57PM
Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, talks with Rachel Maddow about the potential criminal liability of two of Donald Trump's attorneys who are accused by the House Oversight Committee of lying to the Office of Government Ethics about the hush money Donald Trump directed to be paid to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. watch


Trump undermines emergency declaration as soon as he makes it
02/15/19 11:34PM
Dahlia Lithwick, legal correspondent and senior editor at Slate, talks with Rachel Maddow about the myriad legal challenges Donald Trump's emergency declaration faces and the unforeseen hazards of the National Emergencies Act. watch


Manafort lies related to Mueller probe's 'undisputed core': judge
02/15/19 11:51PM
Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, talks with Rachel Maddow about what new light is shed by the transcript of hearing on whether Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort breached his plea agreement and what that now means in terms of his sentencing. watch


Developments in three Mueller-related cases advance Trump scandal
02/15/19 11:50PM
Rachel Maddow reports on new insights stemming from Robert Mueller's sentencing memo on Paul Manafort, revelations about evidence in the Roger Stone case, and unexpected allegations against Donald Trump attorneys related to the Michael Cohen case, all breaking in a matter of hours. watch


Manafort hid Russian intel-tied contacts, faces decades of prison
02/15/19 11:50PM
Rachel Maddow reports on the sentencing memo from Robert Mueller's prosecutors of Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and notes that part of the reason Manafort now faces spending the rest of his natural life in prison is his lies to hide communications with Russian intelligence while he was in charge of Trump's... watch


Trump undermines emergency declaration as soon as he makes it
02/15/19 11:34PM
Dahlia Lithwick, legal correspondent and senior editor at Slate, talks with Rachel Maddow about the myriad legal challenges Donald Trump's emergency declaration faces and the unforeseen hazards of the National Emergencies Act. watch


* * * *

PLEASANT MEMORIES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_cookie
Fortune cookie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fortune cookie is a crisp and sugary cookie usually made from flour, sugar, vanilla, and sesame seed oil with a piece of paper inside, a "fortune", on which is an aphorism, or a vague prophecy. The message inside may also include a Chinese phrase with translation and/or a list of lucky numbers used by some as lottery numbers; since relatively few distinct messages are printed, in the recorded case where winning numbers happened to be printed, the lottery had an unexpectedly high number of winners sharing a prize.[1] Fortune cookies are often served as a dessert in Chinese restaurants in the United States and other Western countries, but are not a tradition in China. The exact origin of fortune cookies is unclear, though various immigrant groups in California claim to have popularized them in the early 20th century. They most likely originated from cookies made by Japanese immigrants to the United States in the late 19th or early 20th century. The Japanese version did not have the Chinese lucky numbers and was eaten with tea.


BEAUTIFUL THINGS FROM THE NET

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sssqn3vbUEI