Tumgik
#in fact columbia is one of the three schools total that he applied to
miekasa ยท 2 years
Note
reading a short five page essay that my professor assigned for the day: ๐Ÿ˜ฟ
reading mieโ€™s 19k word fanfic about rich boy eren: ๐Ÿคค
anywho, i am always thinking about nice!eren <33 love him sm <33 also,, what ny college do you think each character attends,, i have my own ideas but i wanna hear yours
SHSKDKD PLEASE you guys are so :(( I say it every time I get an ask about this fic, but it means so much to me that you all continue to read/reference it after so long :(( that fic is my baby, Iโ€™m glad you all like it!! And please do tell me your ideas!!!!
Armin, Annie, Connie, and Sasha all go to NYU. Armin and Connie are in the same program for computer science. Annie goes to the school of business, and Sasha is in the arts program. All the NYU students are a year or two younger than everyone else, so theyโ€™re all sophomores, but, Connie and Armin will probably graduate a year early.
Reader, Eren, Jean, Bertolt, Reiner, and Ymir all attend Columbia. OC majored in engineering and physics, Ymir does radiology sciences and is basically pre-med, Jean and Eren are both in Arts & Science, and Bertolt and Reiner both attend the business school, but Bertolt does a double major in Media and Literacy. Bertolt is also a sophomore, but all the other Columbia students are seniors.
Mikasa goes to Parsonโ€™s for fashion design and history. Sheโ€™s being vetted by Vogue and LV, but Carla called dibs lmfaooo.
When NICE takes place, itโ€™s towards the end of their fall semester. By the time theyโ€™re going to France, Eren, Jean, and Mikasa are all done with the requirements for their degree, so theyโ€™re not in school the following semester.
Hange, Levi, Erwin, and Moblit are also Columbia students, but attend the grad school. Hange and Moblit went to Brown for undergrad, and Erwin was going to go to Princeton, but stayed in the city.
Marco doesnโ€™t go to college, tho he is the same age as everyone else at Columbia. Heโ€™s about to inherit his familyโ€™s company, so heโ€™s basically spent the last three and half years networking, schmoozing, and being molded into a CEO.
41 notes ยท View notes
conncrfms ยท 3 years
Text
Tumblr media
๐ง๐ž๐ฐ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ซ๐คโ€™๐ฌ ๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐‚๐Ž๐๐๐Ž๐‘ ๐‹๐ˆ๐•๐ˆ๐๐†๐’๐“๐Ž๐ ๐ฐ๐š๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐›๐ซ๐จ๐š๐๐ฐ๐š๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ž๐ž๐ญ , ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐š ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐ค๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ฌ๐ž๐ฆ๐›๐ฅ๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž ๐ญ๐จ ๐‰๐€๐‚๐Ž๐ ๐„๐‹๐Ž๐‘๐ƒ๐ˆย ย ! ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐ฆ๐š๐ฒ ๐ค๐ง๐จ๐ฐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ฆ ๐š๐ฌ @๐ฅ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ข๐ค๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ง๐จ๐ซ ๐จ๐ซ ๐ก๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Ÿ๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐ญ ๐ฉ๐š๐ ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐š๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐š๐ฅ ๐œ๐š๐ง๐๐ข๐๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐œ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐จ๐ง ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ž ๐ฆ๐š๐ง๐ก๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐š๐ง ๐›๐š๐ซ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐๐„๐– ๐ฐ๐จ๐ฆ๐š๐ง . ๐š๐œ๐œ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ณ , ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ก๐š๐ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ซ๐ ๐›๐ข๐ซ๐ญ๐ก๐๐š๐ฒ ๐›๐š๐ฌ๐ก . ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐ž ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ข๐ง ๐ง๐ฒ๐œ , ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎโ€™๐ฏ๐ž ๐›๐ž๐ž๐ง ๐ฅ๐š๐›๐ž๐ฅ๐ž๐ ๐š๐ฌ ๐›๐ž๐ข๐ง๐  ๐š๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž, ๐›๐ฎ๐ญ ๐š๐ฅ๐ฌ๐จ ๐š๐ฆ๐›๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ . ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐ฉ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ญ ๐š ๐›๐ž๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ ๐ฉ๐ข๐œ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐›๐ž ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐ง๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐ฉ๐š๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ž๐ฌ, ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐ฐ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฌ, ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ž๐š๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ ๐ฃ๐š๐œ๐ค๐ž๐ญ๐ฌ . ( ๐œ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐š๐ฅ๐ž + ๐ก๐ž/๐ก๐ข๐ฆ ) + ( ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐š , ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ— , ๐ฌ๐ก๐ž/๐ก๐ž๐ซ , ๐ฉ๐ฌ๐ญ )ย 
hi lovelies! allow me to introduce myself! my name is mya, you can reach me on discord for plots at ห—หห‹ ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐š หŽหŠห—#8406 and i have never had a single cohesive thought in my life!ย now that thatโ€™s out of the way let me introduce you to my demon child connor! i spent literal hours on his intro and itโ€™s still not good but thatโ€™s besides the point but for your best viewing experience you may wanna see it through his blog for the ~aesthetics~ anyways on with the intro!
triggers will be tagged and marked accordingly as they come up but hereโ€™s what to look out for: cheating tw, death tw, cancer tw, and alcohol tw
๐’๐“๐€๐“๐’
๐…๐”๐‹๐‹ ๐๐€๐Œ๐„
bellamy connor livingston
๐๐ˆ๐‚๐Š๐๐€๐Œ๐„๐’
bells
๐๐ˆ๐‘๐“๐‡๐ƒ๐€๐˜
october 26th, 1997
๐‡๐„๐ˆ๐†๐‡๐“
6โ€ณ0โ€ฒ
๐€๐†๐„
23 years old
๐†๐„๐๐ƒ๐„๐‘
male
๐๐‘๐Ž๐๐Ž๐”๐๐’
he/him
๐Ž๐‚๐‚๐”๐๐€๐“๐ˆ๐Ž๐
ceo of premier event manangement / event planner
๐‹๐€๐๐†๐”๐€๐†๐„๐’
english
๐Ž๐‘๐ˆ๐„๐๐“๐€๐“๐ˆ๐Ž๐
bisexual
๐…๐€๐‚๐„๐‚๐‹๐€๐ˆ๐Œ
alex fitzalan
here is his childhood home, family vacation home, and his current home
๐๐€๐‚๐Š๐’๐“๐Ž๐‘๐˜
bellamy connor livingston was born inย MANHATTAN NEW YORK on an unusually cold october dayย 
his father was voted as the SENATOR of new york and his mother was a LUXURY REAL ESTATE AGENT who sold a majority of the penthouses on the upper east side, it wasnโ€™t easy living in new york and NOT knowing who the livingstonโ€™s were, whether you saw their names on billboards on heard it in passing on television you knew who they were
but the livingston LEGACY precedes connorโ€™s successful parents and goes way back to his ancestors who made their fortune, specifically one of his GREAT grandfathers who was granted 160,000 acres along the Hudson and was an OFFICIAL FUR TRADER AND BUSINESSMAN who earned the family a whopping $35 BILLION DOLLARS and the wealth continues to growย RICHย  KEEP GETTING RICHER
in short connor is a total TRUST FUND BABY.
while a family like this is usually drowning with TURMOIL the livingstonโ€™s lived a fairly scandal free life, even when you did MASSIVE DIGGING, no signs of infedlity, their four kids got along great, and they were BIG on philanthropy and giving to charityย 
๐‚๐‡๐„๐€๐“๐ˆ๐๐† ๐“๐–ย 
this is until you stepped behindย CLOSED DOORS which is were the livingstonโ€™s liked theirย SKELETONS to remain, connorโ€™s dad, was aย SERIAL CHEATER and the only reason no one ever spoke up is the livingston family INFLUENCE no one dared to cross themย 
๐„๐๐ƒ ๐‚๐‡๐„๐€๐“๐ˆ๐๐† ๐“๐–
despite growing up in such a TOXIC ENVIROMENT connor was actually a really good kid, his grades were nothing to write home about, and he was definitely a CLASS CLOWN but he did what he was supposed to, and stayed out of trouble for the MOST PART
he was the ELDEST of four children so he felt the need to be a good influence on what would prove to be a BUMPY ROAD for the familyย 
connorโ€™s high school experience was not what you would expect from someone of hisย  CALIBER, well at least not ALL of itย 
for starters he had the tendency to be a bit ARROGANT due to who his parents were and because he knew the scope of their influence, and he used this to his advantage, he was definitively aย โ€œDO YOUย KNOWย ย WHO MY FATHER IS?โ€ ass bitch, partly due to the fact people had always treated him differently and thus it went straight to his already empty head
and he PARTIED a lot, whether it was throwing parties in a penthouse his mother rented SPECIFICALLY for him, attending LAVISH parties, or jetting off to THE HAMPTONโ€™Sย  ย โ€œfor lunchโ€, school became a DISTANT PRIORITY
so distant in fact his parents ended up hiring a TUTOR to help him with his studies, and you wouldnโ€™t believe me when i say connor FELL and he fell HARD
so hard in fact iโ€™d say he CRASHED, two planets colliding into each other that was although a CATASTROPHE was ENCHANTING to see, but iโ€™m getting ahead of myself
BEATRICE or BEA as connor and nearly everyone else called her, was connorโ€™s opposite in almostย EVERY WAY, she was a straight a student, and connor could hold a c average if he made the effort to CHEAT, she went to their private school on a SCHOLARSHIP, his parents had enough money to buy the ENTIRE SCHOOL, but they were IN LOVE
and i mean the kind of love you see in ROMCOMS the kind of SICKENINGLYย SWEETย love that others will tell you is IMPOSSIBLE, but they made it work, bea made connor more serious but his studies, and he in turn fell COMPLETELYย and EFFORTLESSLYย in love. see BEAย was already WHOLEย so think of this story less of two halvesย COMPLETINGย each other, and more so two wholes COMPLEMENTING each otherย 
they continued to date throughout the rest of high school, and BEAย became apart of his family, his mother referred to BEAย as her DAUGHTER IN LAW, it was cemented in everyoneโ€™s minds that one day the two of them would be MARRIED
oddly enough connor NEVER met BEAโ€™Sย parents no matter how much he BEGGED and PLEADED, all it took was BEA telling him her family life was something she wasย UNCOMFORTABLEย with and he dropped the subject COMPLETELYย 
due to BEAโ€™Sย influence, connor applied to university, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, to be exact and got ACCEPTEDย into the school of BUSINESS, of course BEA also applied an got ACCEPTEDย into the school ofย SOCIAL SCIENCES
connor didnโ€™t HESITATEย to PROPOSEย to BEAย and to no oneโ€™s surprise she immediately said YESย and the plan was to get married IMMEDIATELYย and so the date was set forย JULY 17TH 2017, the theme to be WINTER WONDERLAND, it was BEAโ€™Sย idea a winter wedding in summer, and seeing the way it made her absolutely BEAMย it was worth it
the MONTH of the wedding was a tense one, GRADUATION, PREPARING FOR COLLEGE, and a WEDDING
however TRAGEDYย would strike, BEAย was LATEย to the WEDDINGย and anyone who knew BEAย knew that she wasnโ€™t LATEย to anything, thatโ€™s when connor got a call that would change his life FOREVER
๐ƒ๐„๐€๐“๐‡ ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐‚๐€๐๐‚๐„๐‘ ๐“๐–
remember how i told you BEAย never wanted connor to meet her parents? thatโ€™s because BEA was sick, CANCERย to be exact, and didnโ€™t want connor to find out. her parents tried to rationalize that she didnโ€™t want to seem him HURT, and that she told them EVERYTHINGย about him, she DIEDย with connor right by her side, and what was supposed to be the HAPPIESTย moment of his life became the SADDEST
๐„๐๐ƒ ๐ƒ๐„๐€๐“๐‡ ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐‚๐€๐๐‚๐„๐‘ ๐“๐– ย ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
that was THREE YEARS AGO and to this day he hasnโ€™t recovered since
๐€๐‹๐‚๐Ž๐‡๐Ž๐‹ ๐“๐–
since then he has gotten two new vices DRINKING and HOOKING UP, itโ€™s not unusual to see him at a bar drinking his FIFTHย or TENTH shot of vodka and taking home his SECOND or TENTH girl of the night
๐„๐๐ƒ ๐€๐‹๐‚๐Ž๐‡๐Ž๐‹ ๐“๐– ย  ย  ย 
he has been CLOSED OFFย to the idea of love ever since, and hasnโ€™t held a STABLEย relationship since then, he simply canโ€™t see himself COMMITTINGย to anyone as he did with BEA
in LIGHTERย news, he graduated from COLUMBIAย with his associateโ€™s in BUSINESSย and is now a ceo of his own EVENT PLANNNG company, which has been extremely successful in putting on TOURS, CHARITY BANQUETS, CONVENTIONS, CONCERTS, and the like, they specialize in everything exceptย WEDDINGS
and his father ๐‚๐Ž๐‹๐ˆ๐ ๐‹๐ˆ๐•๐ˆ๐๐†๐’๐“๐Ž๐ has started his presidential campaign, that connor has somehow managed to rope himself into
๐’๐„๐‚๐‘๐„๐“
he fights in an underground fighting ring.
it started innocently enough, after BEAย passed away he wanted an outlet something where he didnโ€™t have to think about the GUILTย and could let out his ANGER, really he wanted something to distract from the SADNESSย 
BOXINGย seemed like a good idea until he couldnโ€™t harness the anger and nearly KILLEDย his opponentย 
thatโ€™s when things fell into place, hisย โ€œ FRIEND โ€ who witnessed the fight first hand told him about this fighting ring that him and a couple of other people were involved in and connor decided WHY THE HELL NOT, he felt as he had NOTHINGย else to LOSE
and thus began the cycle of showing up to work in shade to hide BLACK EYES and surprisingly enough BRUISESย are easy to hide behind three piece suits
and now current day itโ€™s become THERAPYย for him, since a lot of the guys are just like him, looking to ESCAPE from something in their PAST
๐๐„๐‘๐’๐Ž๐๐€๐‹๐ˆ๐“๐˜
๐™๐Ž๐ƒ๐ˆ๐€๐‚ย 
scorpio sun, scorpio rising, virgo moon
๐€๐‹๐ˆ๐†๐๐Œ๐„๐๐“ย 
chaoticย good
๐Œ๐๐“๐ˆย 
estp-a
๐„๐๐๐„๐€๐†๐‘๐€๐Œย 
type 7w8
๐“๐„๐Œ๐๐„๐‘๐€๐Œ๐„๐๐“ย 
choleric
๐‡๐Ž๐”๐’๐„ย 
slytherin
๐‹๐Ž๐•๐„ ๐‹๐€๐๐†๐”๐€๐†๐„๐’ย 
in order: physical touch, quality time, receiving gifts, acts of service, and words of affirmation
๐๐Ž๐’๐ˆ๐“๐ˆ๐•๐„ ๐“๐‘๐€๐ˆ๐“๐’ย 
adaptable, adventurous, affable, affectionate, ambitious, amusing, attentive, brave, bright, calm, caring, charismatic, charming, committed, courageous, creative, decisive, dependable, determined, diligent, determined, direct, driven, easy-going, efficient, engaging, enthusiastic, extroverted, flirtatious, forthright, frank, fun-loving, funny, gregarious, intelligent, knowledgeable, lively, logical, loyal, mischievous, neat, objective, observant, open-minded, organized, outgoing, passionate, persistent, playful, practical, pragmatic, protective, quick-witted, rational, realistic, reliable, responsible, romantic, self-confident, sociable, strong-willed, and trustworthy
๐๐„๐†๐€๐“๐ˆ๐•๐„ ๐“๐‘๐€๐ˆ๐“๐’ย 
abrasive, aggressive, aloof, analytical, argumentative, arrogant, assertive, avoidant, belligerent, blunt, bossy, calculating, callous, cautious, competitive, condescending, confrontational, critical, cynical, deceitful, defiant, destructive, detached, discreet, dishonest, dramatic, evasive, explosive, foolhardy, grumpy, guarded, harsh, headstrong, impatient, impulsive, insensitive, intimidating, irrational, judgmental, melancholic, narcissistic, negative, opinionated, outspoken, perfectionist, pretentious, private, quick-tempered, rebellious, reckless, rude, secretive, stubborn, temperamental, thoughtless, unemotional, vain, and violent
๐‚๐‡๐€๐‘๐€๐‚๐“๐„๐‘ ๐ˆ๐๐’๐๐Ž
iโ€™d like to say heโ€™s a weird amalgamation of characters i liked in media iโ€™ve consumed, and although he relates more to some characters than others this is an incomplete list of my influences
p.s. you can click on the names of a character to see a gifset of them that reminds me of connor <3ย 
๐‘บ๐‘ช๐‘ถ๐‘ป๐‘ป ๐‘ณ๐‘จ๐‘ต๐‘ฎ ( ๐€๐๐“-๐Œ๐€๐ ) , ๐‘ฌ๐‘ณ๐‘ฌ๐‘จ๐‘ต๐‘ถ๐‘น ๐‘บ๐‘ฏ๐‘ฌ๐‘ณ๐‘ณ๐‘บ๐‘ป๐‘น๐‘ถ๐‘ท ( ๐“๐‡๐„ ๐†๐Ž๐Ž๐ƒ ๐๐‹๐€๐‚๐„ ) , ๐‘น๐‘ฐ๐‘ฎ๐‘ฉ๐’€ ( ๐‘๐„๐†๐”๐‹๐€๐‘ ๐’๐‡๐Ž๐– ) , ๐‘ซ๐‘จ๐‘ด๐‘ถ๐‘ต ๐‘บ๐‘จ๐‘ณ๐‘ฝ๐‘จ๐‘ป๐‘ถ๐‘น๐‘ฌ ( ๐“๐•๐ƒ ) , ๐‘น๐’€๐‘จ๐‘ต ๐‘ฏ๐‘ถ๐‘พ๐‘จ๐‘น๐‘ซย  ( ๐“๐‡๐„ ๐Ž๐…๐…๐ˆ๐‚๐„ ) , ๐‘ฑ๐‘ถ๐‘ฏ๐‘ต๐‘ต๐’€ ๐‘ฉ๐‘น๐‘จ๐‘ฝ๐‘ถ ( ๐‰๐Ž๐‡๐๐๐˜ ๐๐‘๐€๐•๐Ž ) , ๐‘ซ๐‘ผ๐‘ต๐‘ช๐‘จ๐‘ต ( ๐“๐Ž๐“๐€๐‹ ๐ƒ๐‘๐€๐Œ๐€ ๐ˆ๐’๐‹๐€๐๐ƒ ) , ๐‘จ๐‘ณ๐‘ฌ๐‘ฟ ๐‘น๐‘ผ๐‘บ๐‘บ๐‘ถ ( ๐–๐ˆ๐™๐€๐‘๐ƒ๐’ ๐Ž๐… ๐–๐€๐•๐„๐‘๐‹๐˜ ๐๐‹๐€๐‚๐„ ) , ๐‘ช๐‘ฏ๐‘ผ๐‘ช๐‘ฒ ๐‘ฉ๐‘จ๐‘บ๐‘บ ( ๐†๐Ž๐’๐’๐ˆ๐ ๐†๐ˆ๐‘๐‹ ) , ๐‘ช๐‘จ๐‘บ๐‘ฌ๐’€ ๐‘ฎ๐‘จ๐‘น๐‘ซ๐‘ต๐‘ฌ๐‘น ( ๐€๐“๐˜๐๐ˆ๐‚๐€๐‹ ) , ๐‘ณ๐‘ผ๐‘ฒ๐‘ฌ ๐‘ซ๐‘ผ๐‘ต๐‘ท๐‘ฏ๐’€ย ( ๐Œ๐Ž๐ƒ๐„๐‘๐ ๐…๐€๐Œ๐ˆ๐‹๐˜ ) , ๐‘จ๐‘ต๐‘ซ ๐‘ซ๐‘ฌ๐‘น๐‘ฌ๐‘ฒ ๐‘ด๐‘ถ๐‘น๐‘ฎ๐‘จ๐‘ต ( ๐‚๐‘๐ˆ๐Œ๐ˆ๐๐€๐‹ ๐Œ๐ˆ๐๐ƒ๐’ )
๐–๐€๐๐“๐„๐ƒ ๐‚๐Ž๐๐๐„๐‚๐“๐ˆ๐Ž๐๐’
๐‘น๐‘ถ๐‘ด๐‘จ๐‘ต๐‘ป๐‘ฐ๐‘ช
๐‘ช๐‘ฏ๐‘ฌ๐‘จ๐‘ป๐‘ฐ๐‘ต๐‘ฎ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐Ž๐‘ ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘ฌ๐‘ฟ๐‘ฌ๐‘บ ๐‘ถ๐‘ต ๐‘ฎ๐‘ถ๐‘ถ๐‘ซ ๐‘ป๐‘ฌ๐‘น๐‘ด๐‘บ.ย ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘ฌ๐‘ฟ๐‘ฌ๐‘บ ๐‘ถ๐‘ต ๐‘ฉ๐‘จ๐‘ซ ๐‘ป๐‘ฌ๐‘น๐‘ด๐‘บ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘ญ๐‘น๐‘ฐ๐‘ฌ๐‘ต๐‘ซ๐‘บ ๐‘ป๐‘ถ ๐‘ณ๐‘ถ๐‘ฝ๐‘ฌ๐‘น๐‘บ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘ญ๐‘น๐‘ฐ๐‘ฌ๐‘ต๐‘ซ๐‘บ ๐‘พ๐‘ฐ๐‘ป๐‘ฏ ๐‘ฉ๐‘ฌ๐‘ต๐‘ฌ๐‘ญ๐‘ฐ๐‘ป๐‘บ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐ˆ๐•๐„. ย ย 
๐‘บ๐‘ฒ๐‘ฐ๐‘ต๐‘ต๐’€ ๐‘ณ๐‘ถ๐‘ฝ๐‘ฌ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘บ๐‘ณ๐‘ถ๐‘พ ๐‘ฉ๐‘ผ๐‘น๐‘ต. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘ท๐‘น ๐‘น๐‘ฌ๐‘ณ๐‘จ๐‘ป๐‘ฐ๐‘ถ๐‘ต๐‘บ๐‘ฏ๐‘ฐ๐‘ท. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘. ย ย 
๐‘ป๐‘ถ๐‘ฟ๐‘ฐ๐‘ช ๐‘น๐‘ฌ๐‘ณ๐‘จ๐‘ป๐‘ฐ๐‘ถ๐‘ต๐‘บ๐‘ฏ๐‘ฐ๐‘ท. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘. ย ย 
๐‘ผ๐‘ต๐‘น๐‘ฌ๐‘ธ๐‘ผ๐‘ฐ๐‘ป๐‘ฌ๐‘ซ ๐‘ณ๐‘ถ๐‘ฝ๐‘ฌ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘ท๐‘ณ๐‘จ๐‘ป๐‘ถ๐‘ต๐‘ฐ๐‘ช
๐‘บ๐‘ธ๐‘ผ๐‘จ๐‘ซ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘น๐‘ถ๐‘ถ๐‘ด๐‘ด๐‘จ๐‘ป๐‘ฌ๐‘บ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘. ย  ย  ย 
๐‘ฎ๐‘ถ๐‘ถ๐‘ซ ๐‘ฐ๐‘ต๐‘ญ๐‘ณ๐‘ผ๐‘ฌ๐‘ต๐‘ช๐‘ฌ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘. ย ย 
๐‘ฉ๐‘จ๐‘ซ ๐‘ฐ๐‘ต๐‘ญ๐‘ณ๐‘ผ๐‘ฌ๐‘ต๐‘ช๐‘ฌ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘ฉ๐‘ฌ๐‘บ๐‘ป ๐‘ญ๐‘น๐‘ฐ๐‘ฌ๐‘ต๐‘ซ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘ช๐‘ฏ๐‘ฐ๐‘ณ๐‘ซ๐‘ฏ๐‘ถ๐‘ถ๐‘ซ ๐‘ญ๐‘น๐‘ฐ๐‘ฌ๐‘ต๐‘ซ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.ย 
๐‘ต๐‘ฌ๐‘ฎ๐‘จ๐‘ป๐‘ฐ๐‘ฝ๐‘ฌ
๐‘ญ๐‘น๐‘ฐ๐‘ฌ๐‘ต๐‘ซ๐‘บ ๐‘ป๐‘ผ๐‘น๐‘ต๐‘ฌ๐‘ซ ๐‘ฌ๐‘ต๐‘ฌ๐‘ด๐‘ฐ๐‘ฌ๐‘บ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘ฌ๐‘ต๐‘ฌ๐‘ด๐‘ฐ๐‘ฌ๐‘บ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
๐‘ญ๐‘น๐‘ฌ๐‘ต๐‘ฌ๐‘ด๐‘ฐ๐‘ฌ๐‘บ. ๐Ž๐๐„, ๐“๐–๐Ž, ๐“๐‡๐‘๐„๐„, ๐€๐๐ƒ ๐…๐Ž๐”๐‘.
if any of these interest you feel free to message me! i have ideas for all of them that iโ€™m always ready to share! also feel free to mix and match any of the plots above a good influence who has an unrequited crush but is also hisย roommate? sounds like content to me, a friend with benefits turned best friend turned exes on bad terms we love to see it! and if none of these seem interesting to you fill free to check out connorโ€™s wanted connections page!
24 notes ยท View notes
lanaisnotwool ยท 4 years
Video
youtube
410 Investing in Real Estate From Scratch - Interview with Ola Dantis
http://moneyripples.com/2020/07/30/410-investing-in-real-estate-from-scratch-interview-with-ola-dantis/
Chris Miles, the "Cash Flow Expert and Anti-Financial Advisor," is a leading authority on how to quickly free up and create cash flow for thousands of his clients, entrepreneurs, and others internationally! Heโ€™s an author, speaker, and radio host that has been featured in US News, CNN Money, Bankrate, Entrepreneur on Fire, and spoken to thousands getting them fast financial results. Listen to our Podcast:
https://www.blogtalkradio.com/moneyripples/2020/06/20/410--investing-in-real-estate-from-scratch-with-ola-dantis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Miles (00:09): Hello, my fellow Ripplers! This is Chris Miles. Your Cash Flow Expert and Anti-Financial Advisor. Welcome you out for another wonderful show. A show that's for you and about you. Those of you that work so hard for your money and you want your money to start working harder for you now! You want that freedom. That prosperity. That cash flow. Today! So you work because you want to, not because you have to, because you want to live that life of freedom, that life of joy, and not just a life of luxury necessarily, right? But you want to have comfort for yourself, but more importantly, you want to create a ripple effect as a Rippler for the lives of those around you. Through your family, creating a legacy that lasts well beyond you, not a legacy of scarcity and lack. The legacy of abundance and prosperity, and it leaks out to your community and the country across the world.
Chris Miles (00:53): And how amazing would it be if all of us would prosper this way? So I'm excited to have you guys on here today, because again, this show has done amazing things. Thanks to you guys. You guys have been bingeing on this show. You've been sharing it. You've been applying the things we talk about, which I appreciate so much. So again, thank you so much for following us and being a part of this movement.
Chris Miles (01:12): Here's a reminder, check out our website, MoneyRipples.com. You know, you're going to get the ebook Beyond Rice & Beans. You can download there to find more resource, more cash. And also too, you know, if you've got questions for me, shoot me an email through there. So anyways, check it out guys.
Chris Miles (01:25): All right today. So I've got a special guest here, Ola Dantis. Now I actually first met Ola because I was on his show. He's actually got the Dwellynn Show that he's got going on as well. That's really cool. And we'll talk about that a little bit too. But the thing is like, this guy is so impressive, right? Because you know, some of us have been born and raised in the United States for our whole lives, you know. And I meet a lot of people that feel like they don't have opportunity or they hope and pray that something will come along that'll work. And I'll tell you like, Ola, gets rid of all of those excuses. Right? And so that's why I'm excited to bring him on. Now a little bit about Ola here. Like, as I mentioned, like he has the show, of course, but he's also the founder CEO of Dwellynn.com. He's a multifamily investment syndication firm. Should I say that 10 times fast? Right? He's successfully sourced deals of over $40 million by working with closely with sellers and with other apartment syndicators cross country.
Chris Miles (02:18): Now, although he's only lived in the U S for about six or seven years, he has successfully completed rehab projects in excess of $1 million. Now not only has he exceeded his investors returns, right? But he also has this great success in the multifamily space. In fact, he just closed on a 160 unit apartment deal in Houston, Texas, and another 104 unit deal in another place in Texas as well. And again, he does huge value adds across the country, mostly in strong Metro areas across the U S. Now he loves working with new investors, both here and abroad, even those that are international. Which is kind of where Ola's background comes from as well. Now, one cool thing too, is that his firm also aims to give back. So they have, what's a one house pledge where by every Christmas they donate a house to a family for Christmas. So starting in Baltimore, for example. So in fact, he just did a recent trip to the Philippines and Bali. And he's visited the slums and now working on a local initiative to help people in need. So huge guy like big heart, welcome to our show, Ola, how are you doing?
Ola Dantis (03:17): Doing fantastic, Chris. I really wish I had just put that on full blast. Called my wife i here so she can hear the introduction. Thank you so much!
Chris Miles (03:24): I totally get it. People introduce me way better than my wife will. You know, it's awesome. That's how you keep it real. So tell us, like, you know, where'd you come from and why did you come to the U.S.?
Ola Dantis (03:34): Yeah. I, you know, obviously you got to have a fantastic podcast. Thanks for having me. Really appreciate you for bringing me on. I'm going to be, I'm going to try to be as stutter free as I can be. So I was born in a place called Nigeria. Many people probably know that country for several interesting reasons, but we're not going to go into that. But I actually grew up in London. That's probably where my interest in also, I call it hybrid accent comes from. And it's still coming from that I live in the US so obviously grew up in the UK where, you know, got my degree and my master's degree there shortly after that went back home to Nigeria. I've set up firm doing pretty okay. But my wife, who is Filipino. She's born in the Philippines, but also American, but she was born in a military base in America because dad stuff in the military.
Ola Dantis (04:22): So she's like, she was working in the US even though we both went to school in the UK, it's like, Hey, you should come check Disney out. Cause she was interning at Disney. This was years ago now. And so I, you know, I jumped on the plane, you know, I was about to touch down in Florida. I was just looking at I'm a, windows seat guy. So I was looking out and looking at Florida and it's just beautiful. The aerial view. I mean, you can see all these, you know, the suburbia America, you know, the code is acts on, you know, it was just, I was like, this place is gorgeous! You know, why didn't anybody tell me about this place? You know, obviously go to Florida, you know, go to Disneyland. It was happy place. Amazing! Fantastic! Anyway, fast forward, my wife and I moved to the US I think two, three years later, after that very first trip, you know, to try the American gym.
Ola Dantis (05:09): And here we are the American gym. We're loving it. We had a nice fancy apartment. We didn't move to Florida. You'd assume we did. We actually chose Baltimore, Maryland. Well it was actually Columbia, Maryland. We started in, you know, in Maryland, we had great jobs. We had a fancy apartment. You know at the time, I didn't know anything about real estate. And then a friend of mine called me and said, Hey Ola, do you want to, you know, fly and meet me in Dubai? I need you to help me with my business. So come to Dubai! I was like, Oh, okay. So I did well, you know, smart man does a wise man. I prayed a body, obviously and then ask my wife, like, Hey, you know, my friend whose got this real estate business wants me to come and help him with his business. But he wants me to meet him in Dubai. She's like, well, have you guys heard of, I mean, this was years ago, this is all pre COVID. Just what to put that out it was years ago.
Ola Dantis (05:59): So it's just like, have you guys ever heard of Zoom? You know, Skype or whatever? I was like, well, maybe if I go on this trip, maybe I'll learn something, you know, really good or cool. I mean, I can use it. We can use it. The reason I'm, you know, having these anecdote accounts is people really get a context, right? It's not like this guy just fell out of the sky. What does he think he is? He think that America is the greatest place on the planet. I really do think that. And I'll come back to that later. Anyway, the reason I'm telling this story is, success never comes to you as a golden box with a ribbon on it. It could come as a phone call. So be opened, right? Be receptive to things that might maybe might seem outlandish or out of the box, but that could be the beginning of your success.
Ola Dantis (06:44): So that's why I'm bringing up this story. Anyway, I was on my way to Dubai. Met with my friend, you know, just standard hotel. I were way like in the desert court biking, none of that, it was just three days, you know, with my friend and his business, which was real estate. Back home in the UK. So I was like, Oh my goodness! If he's doing this in the UK, certainly I can do this in the US! By the way, you know, I didn't mention this. I was living the American dream. Go to work. Come home. Go to work. Traffic. Come home. Go to work. It was just like, Oh my God, is this it? I'm just going to do this and die? So I was kind of having that...
Chris Miles (07:19): The dream we all have, right? We all hope we get stuck in traffic and work all day!
Ola Dantis (07:24): You know, I was like, this, there's gotta be something else. I mean, this is great. You know, we had great jobs, but it was just. So anyway, so I was like, I think this is what I've been looking for. Right? Great entrepreneurial excitement, go back to the US really just went hard on, I didn't know anything about real estate. So I just asked my best friend, you know, Google. And I started learning, you know, a website kept coming up Bigger Pockets. So watched that website, that podcast. This book kept coming up, Rich Dad Poor Dad. So I'm talking about pattern recognition yet, right? So every guest was saying, you know, read this book. So I read the book and literally what happened to me was an uppercut in my brain like, Oh my goodness! Whoever this guy is, stole my idea. Whatever this guy is saying is what I've been trying to say to myself.
Ola Dantis (08:14): You know, it's just that Eureka moment. Right? And anyway, fast forward. Put our first building, our first piece of real estate, and by the way, we were just in the US probably by then maybe two or three years also. But our first building, it was a duplex in Baltimore, Maryland, in the class A area of Baltimore. Because when folks hear Baltimore, you know, anyway, whatever, and you know, we did that, right. This was three, four months probably after my trip back. And my wife and I were having our home one night, you know, kind of doing what lovers do. Cooking! We're having a conversation. And I was like, Hey, like my account just keeps growing, growing and growing and growing. And she's like, me too actually! So we think about like, Hey, what did we do different? We bought real estate. And we had tenants in the top floor paying for most of our mortgage. So now we have the new problem, which is just money accumulating.
Chris Miles (09:14): Now what?
Ola Dantis (09:14): Now what. Right. And I say this because there might be folks out there thinking, well, I don't know what to do. I go to work. All my money is gone. I don't know where it goes. I kind of come for it, but you could house hack. Right. Which is what we did. You could buy a piece of property. It doesn't matter where you are in the United States. You know, it could be two doors or three or four. So a duplex or triplex or fourplex. You live in one and you rent the others. Right. So if you're thinking I don't have money, I don't know where to start. You could start there. Now.
Chris Miles (09:48): True.
Ola Dantis (09:48): Just to throw that in there. If you have kids and you have your wives, I mean, you know, it might be a little bit tricky because my wife and I did this when it was just me and her. We could live in a one bedroom. We didn't care about parking. You know, even though you've never find parking in city. That's the things that we sacrificed in the beginning. Right. So that's how I got into the game. And I realized we were making all this money. I was like, Whoa, maybe we can do this. If we did this 10 times more, we wouldn't have to go to any Ruby board. We wouldn't have to go to a job. Right. So that's what started. That was the impetus for Dwellynn, our company. Dwellynn.com. And I found a mentor, were kind of, you know, he was buying apartments and I was like, Oh, that's really what I want to do. I mean, I'd have to buy 10 of these things. I could just buy a building and maybe I'll retire. Right. That's how it works. Anyway, I got a mentor and then we started Dwellynn. And, you know, as they say, the rest is still history in the making, I guess.
Chris Miles (10:48): Yeah. The rest is history, right? That's awesome! Kind of take us back again. Like what, cause I know with a lot of listeners on this show, like sometimes they have a fear. I mean, one, they have a fear right now what's going on in the world. Right. So they're kind of, someone we're kind of scared of getting real estate anyways. But even before this, there were still people like, yeah, but isn't it risky? What if I do it wrong? What would you say to them?
Ola Dantis (11:12): So a couple of things, right? It, you know, is it risky? I don't think so. But living in the house every single day is risky. Stepping out of your door is risky. Living life is risky. Right? So that's, let's have that. The back of our mind, as I continue, I don't think it's risky because that's my opinion. I'm just one out of 7 billion people on this planet. But another way to mitigate risk is knowledge. Right? So try to go learn, you know, it's like if I talked to a friend of mine who maybe is a developer, right. I mean like programmer right in I.T. He's not going to learn about real estate cause he doesn't have the knowledge. Right. So if you'll speak into people who don't know about real estate, the natural thing. They're not bad people. They just said, Oh, he's in a risky. It's just a, I don't know. And he's, you know, risky. It's not a, you know, they're not technical people. So, so for you to be able to mitigate those risks is you need to understand and educate yourself about the subject matter. It doesn't matter if it's real estate or if you want to start buying stocks or whatever. So I think that's what I did. I may have skipped that in my story. But when I got back, I divulge and just binged podcasts, I read a lot of books and I had a big library of books and I continue to be, and that's why I said, Google is my best friend. Right. So, cause that's what I do. So Hey, when you do that, that would help you to mitigate that risk.
Chris Miles (12:40): What was one book that you really enjoyed? Like what really helped you a lot?
Ola Dantis (12:43): So at that time, it was definitely, definitely Rich Dad Poor Dad, that got me started. It's not much of a real estate book as such. You would think it is. Yeah. Yeah. And it's more life philosophy. But another book that really helped me was this book. Right? So this is like free, just free knowledge, Investing in Duplexes, Triplexes & Quads by a guy called Larry Loftis. Well you still see, it's like, arms length to me, right. I've always got a book around that. I got another book I'm reading right here. The reason I'm doing this is people will say stuff like, is it risky? Or can I do this? There are things that you can do to get successful.
Chris Miles (13:25): Yes.
Ola Dantis (13:26): One thing is this, you have to be a reader. And I'm going to throw something COVID-19 related. You know, Bill Gates knew that we could have a pandemic that we're having today. Now people might say, how did this guy know? Cause he's a reader, right? Of course there's crazy conspiracy theories out there. But just put that aside. The way Bill Gates could predict this is cause he read. He just reads. So if you're out there, you can hear the sound of my voice and you want to be exceptional and excellent in anything you do. Be a reader! But more importantly, be a divergent reader. Don't just read one topic. Be broad as much as you can.
Chris Miles (14:12): Interesting. I love that. I love what you're saying about risks too. Cause there's lots of different types of risks, right? There's market risk. Like a lot of people worry about, but you mentioned about like education is key, right? Because you want a lower risk. The best thing you can do is try to figure out how you can get risk within your control. How can you manage the risk? How can you reduce it yourself? And education is a key piece of that, right? Like you mentioned a little bit of these different books and things like that and podcasts, you know, not saying that we're we got two podcasts you might want to listen to, to help with that. You know, between Ola's show and mine. Right. But self serving of course, but it's true. That education is critical. Like without it, you're right. You know, cause that's where, I remember people would ask me all the time like, well isn't that risky? I said for you, it probably would be. For me, not so much because I've got the education and training behind it. And that's why a lot of people will end up coming to me because they're like, okay, how do we get trained and educated to know what to do or how to do it? You know, or that sort of thing or what to know, like what questions to ask even. Right. And I'll tell you if you think real estate is risky. I mean, if you've been investing in a 401k, an IRA or any kind of mutual fund where you have zero control of any markets and it gets you mediocre returns with lots of high risk and volatility, trust me, you're already taking more risks than any risk that Ola or I are taking right now.
Chris Miles (15:34): You know, if you're putting money in every single month, you are essentially losing money every month, putting money into something that you won't be able to get back out without asking for permission and sometimes waiting weeks to get that money. You know, like that's what happens when you put money in mutual funds or especially IRAs and 401ks, right. You know, real estate. It's like, Hey, you know, if you apply the same thing, you said, well, this is how it reduce risks with my mutual funds. I just hold onto it forever. Right? Like it's okay. Because in the long haul it goes up, well guess what happens to the real estate in the long haul? It always goes up, you know, like it's no different. The only difference is that you don't have to keep putting money into it all the time.
Ola Dantis (16:09): Right. And then with mutual funds and kind of some of this intangible assets, one they not had, you can't touch and feel them. But to the beauty that a lot of people don't really get with real estate is leverage. If you want to buy a mutual fund for a thousand dollars, you have to actually exchange a thousand dollars in cash.
Chris Miles (16:33): So true.
Ola Dantis (16:35): For that value of that mutual fund or stocks or whatever. But for real estate, if you were to buy a piece of real estate for $1,000, you only have to put down 200 bucks, 20%, like it's genius, it's gold. So that the power, the leverage piece is a lot of people don't really get that. They don't really understand that.
Chris Miles (16:53): Yeah. When I was, securities licensed back in the mid 2000s, right. I remember, you know, we'd have to have people sign waivers saying, I am not borrowing money to put in the stock market. Right. Like I am not borrowing money. This is not coming from a bank. You know, why they having to sign that because banks won't put their own money in, why would they want you to put their money in? Right. So, you know, with the real estate probably different. Real estate banks were like, Oh, you want some money? Here. Here you go. I'll pay for most of it. You know, you put your little down payment, I'll pay the rest. You know, like if obviously banks thinks it's less risky, why you keep putting money in the place where banks won't put money? Right. It's a good point. So let's, let's talk about like your syndication. Cause you have a syndication that you have as well where you, you buy into multifamily stuff. First. Like, do you still see deals out there or are you being very cautious and holding back saying, Hey, I know the deals are coming, but I'm not jumping right now. What's your viewpoint on it currently?
Ola Dantis (17:46): Yeah. So, definitely. Transactional value has gone down and I don't want to get overly technical, but essentially what syndication means is, you know, pulling together a group of investors to buy an asset that you cannot buy by yourself.So, If I were to go out on the streets and buy home. Yeah. I probably could double myself. Why you want to buy a 200 unit, 150. You'd definitely need a couple of partners, at least a ton of investors. Anyway. So that's what syndication is. So in terms of, do you feel definitely a lot of us in the syndication space are kind of taking a wait and see approach of the fascinating thing is what we're doing at Dwellynn is we're not waiting, you know, for the whole country. I mean, as we know, as you know, we record this in May. Early May.
Ola Dantis (18:34): Now some parts of the country I opened for business or at least partially opened and it's been phased out, but we don't want to wait for a time when the flood gates open and it's too late to get to. So we've taken the present approach and kind of looking at the daily numbers of new cases, not only in the United States, but we checked in Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom. So just to make sure that we're going into the market at the right time, a little folks that talking about that wants to see, you know, kind of to quotas of, you know, positive GDP growth. I think that's too late because you know, then confidence goes up and you just backed away. You were pre COVID. So what exactly. So we really try to time the market. And to be honest with you, now more than ever is when multifamily, which apartment buildings, the space we're in is doing pretty well. You know, not so much from an economic perspective, but really from an asset class perspective. People have to stay in place. They have to, you know, shelter in place. You have to stay in a place. So yeah.
Chris Miles (19:37): Very, very true. So if people wanted to like follow you more right. Or learn more about the deals that you have going on and stay up to speed on that. Because obviously like things are changing at the speed of a tweet and nowadays, you know, like Trump tweets something and all of a sudden people go crazy. You know? So health organization says something or CDC, or heck anybody the fed say something, the world keeps constantly changing. So if people want to follow you Ola, and they want to be able to follow your deals or even your show, what would it be the best way for them to do so.
Ola Dantis (20:08): Yeah, sure. Thanks for that, Chris. So best way is InvestWithOla. So that's InvestWithOla.com and that would kind of take you to our website. And then also if you want to check out the Dwellynn show, feel free to do that. You know, on iTunes where pretty much everywhere. So for those folks out there, Instagram, you know, folks I'm on Instagram, I'm ubiquitous. You wouldn't be able to miss me. So just go on Instagram, @OlaDantis or just Google OlaDantis all over the place. Linkedin, if you're into LinkedIn too, I'm right there.
Chris Miles (20:40): Awesome! I love it. Well, cool. Happy to have you on today, man. Cause this is such good information. It's so good to hear a perspective of someone who won. I mean, you really kind of kill a lot of the excuses we have, right? I mean, you come to a brand new country, you know, you work nine to nine grind almost, you know, if include traffic, right. Or, you know, seven to seven, you know, and you've done all this stuff. And then you built from the bottom up. I mean, you start with individual houses all the way to buying a hundred, 200 type unit apartment buildings. I mean, that's incredible. I mean, that really is. So I really appreciate you sharing experience and we'll put your information in the show notes that people can have see, InvestWithOla.com as well as your show there. So again, thank you so much for your time, Ola.
Ola Dantis (21:21): Thank you Chris. I really appreciate.
Chris Miles (21:23): Hey everybody else, like thanks for joining us today. Again, check out Ola's stuff, you know, and remember like everything, almost everything starts with your brain first. Educate yourself, empower yourself, reduce the risk and do something that actually will create great wealth now because now is as good of opportunity as any trade amazing wealth. And so, and Ola is a perfect example of that. So everybody, I appreciate you guys coming on, have a wonderful and prosperous week. We'll see you later.
8 notes ยท View notes
victor-reid ยท 4 years
Text
Hi! My nameโ€™s Lipe, Iโ€™m 24 (he/him) and Iโ€™m playing Victor, aka the Mesmerizer. Heโ€™s here to be pretty, and pretty petty. The local harbinger of drama.
Tumblr media
( froy gutierrez, cismale ) did you hear how VICTOR REID is applying to columbia university as an UNDECIDED major ?! the 19 year old is living in the HARTLEY HALL. i heard that they got in because they are ENTICING and CHARISMATIC, but honestly i think HE can be NARCISSISTIC and SELF-SERVING. theyโ€™re a real MESMERIZER. oh well, only time will tell if the FRESHMAN will make it til the end.
+ Rosewater, Black Lace, Mirrors, Seeing his own reflection in someone elseโ€™s eyes, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Camera flashes, Soft Instagram filters, Selfies galore, Marina And The Diamonds songs, Orange desert sands, Liquid glitter, Black credit cards, Pool parties under the desert sky.ย 
FULL NAME: ย Victor Lucero Reid
NICKNAME(S) OTHER NAMES: ย Vic.
DATE OF BIRTH: ย April 23rd, 2000
ETHNICITY:ย  Latino/White
OCCUPATION:ย  Model/College student
RELIGION: ย Non-practicing Catholic
SEXUALITY: ย Homosexualย 
HEIGHT: ย 5โ€ฒ11โ€ณ
WEIGHT: ~150 lbs
HAIR COLOR:ย  Light brown
EYE COLOR: Blue
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES: Always dressed up and good-looking.
Victor Lucero Reid was born in Albuquerque, and from a very young age, he knew how to work his charm to get what he wanted. There is no endearing story of an ugly duckling who suddenly grew up into his features at puberty, no. Victor was always a cute kid, and a part of him was always aware of that, even if subconsciously. The first time he realized he could use his looks to get ahead was when he was 7 years old and some lady on the supermarket bought him the expensive chocolate he wanted. He didnโ€™t throw a tantrum, he just flashed his big blue eyes at his mom and the lady behind her intervened, much to his pleasure and his momโ€™s embarrassment.ย  Victorโ€™s mom is Lydia Lucero, a Paralegal at a local law practice, she married her high school sweetheart, but it turned out they werenโ€™t such sweethearts to begin with, since his dad bailed on them when Victor was 4. Joshua Reid isnโ€™t a deadbeat parent or anything, no. They were just incompatible, and so they followed their lives. In fact, his family was purely W.A.S.P and he could feel the different treatment his cousins and aunts dished him when he went to visit his fatherโ€™s family in Maine. The complete opposite of how warm and fun to be around the Luceros were. One would think this would make Victor draw a conclusion about his place in the world. Well, he did. It just wasnโ€™t the best one... Victor saw both that he was a pretty boy and that there was money to be made off being pretty and that it was an white manโ€™s world, and he could even look the part, but unless he cut the ties with his other heritage, he just knew people would see him as a bundle of stereotypes.ย 
Victor did everything in his power to not be a stereotype and to not end up like his parents, or rather, like his mom, just working and sleeping like a zombie. He started making his own money at the age of 15, when a modeling agent approached him on the local mall on a totally random (wink wink) stroll with his mom. Ever since then, heโ€™s made some petty change on the side with photoshoots and runways on a regional level, but he just knew there was more to it than just being New Mexico-pretty. As soon as he entered freshman year of high school, he sweet talked his parents into letting him move to college if he passed an Ivy League one. They took the bet, but didnโ€™t expect him to actually do so well academically. What do you know, with some studying, the help of all the nerds that had crushes on him and a killer application, he got accepted into Columbia, right in the heart of New York, and is now living his best life.ย 
Right now Victor is an undecided freshman at Columbia University and looking for any opportunity that involves money, love, fun or any combination of the three.ย 
--------------------------
WANTED CONNECTIONS:
- Friends
- Friends with benefits
- Rivals
- Smitten nerds to do his bidding
- A romantic interest
- A bad/good influence
13 notes ยท View notes
darcyckennedy ยท 5 years
Text
Tumblr media
โ˜†โ€” HEY UPPER EAST SIDERS, SPOTTED: ย d who looks just like kendall jenner. according to an anonymous source she is perfect contour, wild after parties, & teddy coats to make up for a lack of cuddles. she was last caught listening to miss you by louis tomlinson. the cisfemale is from the upper east side and attended constance billard. DARCY COX KENNEDY still lives in the city at twenty three and is currently a socialite & philanthropist. letโ€™s see what she is going to do next. xoxo, gossip girl. ( admin tamia. nineteen. est. she/her. )
WOW okay, hi there ! iโ€™m tamia, the admin of the group...can i just say i love you all already for applying and applying with such amazing characterโ€™s that i cannot waitย to start plotting with. a little about me i guess, iโ€™m a nineteen year old college student who lowkey doesnโ€™t wanna be a college student...the dream is the be an actress but my momโ€™s allย โ€œgo to collegeโ€ย โ€œthe only way to make something of yourself is through collegeโ€ so yeah. iโ€™m a part-time waitress at the OG aka olive garden so i make alot of Bread jokes that are really bad, i get them from the guests honestly. but thatโ€™s enough about me, letโ€™s get to my lil peanut here who is truly a mess, i apologize in advance for her guys.
darcy was born to two elite heavy weights. her mother, georgina cox, is a american billionaire heiress the great-granddaughter of james m. cox the founder of cox enterprises. her father, john f. kennedy jr, was a american lawyer and the son of president john f. kennedy. yes, sheโ€™s a kennedy guys.ย 
one month old. her parents broke up after a six year relationship. staying amicable to co-parent although she mostly lived with her father. staying with her mother a couple days of of the week. as her mother was often off in atlanta, with darcyโ€™s grandmother. it was clear from infancy that she was daddyโ€™s little girl, so the fact that she was with him more only made sense.
one year old. her father and carolyn bessette got married. darcy was the flower girl, and truly adored carolyn. the wedding is one of the few days she vividly remembers with her father.ย 
four years old. her mom decided to bring her down to georgia with her for a family event. her dad and carolyn decided to go out to marthaโ€™s vineyard during this time where they inevitably crashed the plane and were lost at sea. she was supposed toย be picked up by her father three days after but was instead brought back to manhattan by her aunt caroline.ย 
two months later. her aunt kept what happened to her parents a secret for months, initiallyย telling her they couldnโ€™t leave massachussetts due to bad weather conditions, then they suddenly went to africa for philanthropic work. before she knew it darcy had become a completely different child, starting to project her her anger and fear that her father had abandonedย her onto others.ย 
the truth. during this time her mother finally stepped forward, brought darcy on a trip to marthaโ€™s vineyard and told her about her father and stepmotherโ€™s death. it became clear that the trip was specifically meant for darcy to say goodbye to them at their burial.
the aftermath. darcy was distraught for months, it was hard for a young child to wrap her head around the sole person she had attachedย to being gone forever. her mom immediatelyย found her a psychiatristย who darcy saw twice a week. instead of moving back in with her aunt she moved in with her mom, the two never got close but her mom was the only person that darcy felt she could trust because she was the only one who told her the truth about her father.ย 
ten years old. her attitude became worse. she had truly turned into the stereotypicalย ues child. it had become too much for her mother to bear and so darcy moved in with her great uncle ted kennedy at the kennedy compound in cape cod. he was possibly the best thing to ever happen to her, he told her endless stories about her father and grandfather which helped her feel closer to both of them. this was when she really started to grow back into the young women her father would have wantedย her to become.
thirteen years old. ted and darcy set up a memorial service for her father, at the same cathedral in washington d.c that her grandfatherโ€™s service was held. the whole family was invited and because of this it became extremelyย publicizedย but darcy didnโ€™t care, this was meant for her to say a proper goodbye to her father and nothing could ruin that for her.
fourteen years old. her greatย uncle had been diagnosedย with brain cancer fifteen months prior, she had stayed with him throughout the whole journey, refusing to leave his side, he had become the closest thing to her father over the years that she lived with him. he died at the kennedy compound in the summer and darcy reluctantly had to move back to manhattan and live with her mom. his death affected her nearly as much as her fatherโ€™s and itโ€™s a death she carries with her everyday.ย 
psychiatricย state: upon her return to the ues her mom once again immediatelyย put darcy into counselingย a different and more renownedย psychiatristย this time. darcy quickly started to feel like her mother stuck her with a psychiatristย so she wouldnโ€™t have to talk to her daughter about everything thatโ€™s gone on, her mother instilled this idea that you donโ€™t talk to anyone about your troubles but a psychiatrist, to everyone else you need to come off happy and content with life no matter how hard it gets. her psychiatristย dr. hill has helped her through alot but she still struggles everyday feeling like sheโ€™s a victim of the infamous kennedy curse.ย 
return to the ues. darcyโ€™s return to the upper east side was a whirlwind to say the least. she came back right in time four the first day of highschool. it was a big day to say the least as no one expected her arrival. she reunitingย with old friends, was swarmed by paparazzi once again, and made new friendships. she was different this time though, poised, friendly, and charismatic unlike the blair waldorf-esque self she was as a child.
constance billard. during school she was very academic. history was possibly her favorite, maybe because her family was apart of it. she participated in debate team and lacrosse, which she became captainย of both by her senior year. she graduated constanceย with a 3.9 gpa and was acceptedย into columbia, harvard, and brown. she was tempted to attend brown just to feel a bit closer to her dad but decidedย to opt out of college all together.ย 
socialite & philanthropy. coming out of school she decided to dive head first into some charity work, from working with unicef to the national brain tumor society. by twenty she becameย a unicef ambassador and started her own foundation, the darcy kennedy foundation, a nonprofit organization focusing on finding better treatments for cancer patients as well as helping children who have lost their parents due to any sort of fatal event. and of course being who she is sheโ€™s been paid to attend events, galas, and parties since she was about fifteen years old, a true american socialite lol.
publicity. as much as everyone tried, it was an impossible feet for a kennedy to stay out of the lime light, especially when youโ€™re the daughter of jfk jr. despite the attempts made by her parents and other family members darcy was often spread across magazine covers, and webpages. as she grew older it only seemed to get worse.ย 
personality. today, darcy is kind, caring, and charismatic. sheโ€™s the girl who walks around with a resting bitch face but will walk up to you with a bright smile and compliment your head to toe and genuinely mean every word. to piggyback off that she is extremelyย genuine and because of this she is also rather loyal, if she cares for you, you never have to worry about her doing somethingย to hurt you or that could hurt you int he slightest. she is rather mature due to everything sheโ€™s gone through in life and because of this is often the voice of reason, a total mom friend but donโ€™t think for a minute she doesnโ€™t know how to have fun, because darcy can truly be the life of the party and is always down for an adventure; she is loud, witty, and just overall a good time think, imari stuart.ย 
romantic life. when it comes to relationships the girl is a mess. she dated a brooklyn boy during sophomore year, but she never got past the lust phase with him and so she broke things off withย him six months later (wanted connection *cough* *cough*). during junior year she started dating a guy who was everything she was looking for in the last, she fell head over heels for him almost immediately, which was really her downfall in the end. heโ€™s broken her heart more times than one, but she canโ€™t seem to let him go even six years later. sheโ€™s had hook ups and short lived relationships sprinkled in between while her and sawyer arenโ€™t together but no one compares in her eyes; sheโ€™s been with girls, guys, and everyone in between in an attempt to find someone to get her mind off of her ex but nothing works.
fun facts. her first car was a used 1994 saab that was not in style or cool by any means it was her dad so she didnโ€™t car, but now she owns a few cars that could genuinelyย put most cars to shame lmao (found here), loves all kinds of music and you never wantย to put her on aux unless you wantย to listen to a whole lot of classics/throwbacks like queen, frank sinatra, usher, the beatles, and britney spears, sheโ€™s slept with leonardo dicaprio (weird flex i know), she moved out when she was 18 and currently lives at 12 east 88th street (found here), if youโ€™re ever looking for her you can probably find her at a bar with a burger in one hand and a glass of sangria in the other, she is 5โ€ฒ10โ€ณ and has a tendency of wearing high heeled boots with give her even more height, sheโ€™s never done a narcotic a day in her life but will drink anyone and their father under the table, her great-uncle left most of his belongings to his widow but he did leave darcy 50million dollars for her trust fund, while her father left her everything from material assets to 100million dollars that also went to her trust, when she was 18 she was given her trust found including 100million from her mother.
11 notes ยท View notes
fenton-bus ยท 6 years
Text
Sagan's Comet
(a prologue)
ย ย ย โˆž
2020
ย If there is a causal relationship between the popularity of Barry Eisenberg's autobiography and the complete loss of journalistic integrity exhibited by the Manhattan press no one acknowledges it. In spaces formerly occupied by actual news, one can now find awed descriptions of the fun way the eighteen year old Portland native verbally decimates the Buzzfeed contributor brave enough to cross the threshold of his lair. Articles dedicated to examining the significance of his hoodie collection (consisting solely of secondary colors) are written with the zest and intensity of individuals delivering the defining information of the age. Between covering Syrian conflicts and Zayn's solo career these adults with journalism degrees they allegedly worked hard for print wild speculation about what Barry's digital watch says about him as a person, maps his evolution from monosyllables to making a Newsweek reporter cry whilst thanking him for the opportunity through her tears, and publishes three thousand word think pieces heavily suggesting that he is the voice of his generation.
Two months into his junior year at Columbia, Barry becomes a meme.
According to the lanky, mustachioed Starbuck's barista (who enjoys all the benefits of tumblr fame for two glorious minutes before he's brought down by an old "problematic" Burning Man post.) he waits in line every other Thursday before his Applied Calc class, and one morning he is informed-with an unfathomable regret-that they are currently out of bran muffins.
Barry allegedly makes a face that defies the descriptive power of the written word.
Skylar totally believes in fate. He was meant to come in that day, despite dancing on the precipice of being fired for coming to work after ingesting some "herbal refreshment". He was meant to get dragged behind the counter to fix the espresso machine, meant to turn around to grab the wrench at the exact moment Barry made That Face. He grabs his phone, snaps a pic and before Todd can offer the dude a blueberry substitute, twelve hundred people have added gross looking block text to Skylar's post. That Face becomes a universal constant just as relevant when describing reactions to sexism (When ur in a patriarchal society ) as it is to receiving troubling medical news (TMW UR DOCTORS ALL: GENITAL WARTS!!!?!1) . Kids aim That Face at unprepared parents in the aisles of Toys R Us. Girls just trying to enjoy happy hour with their besties clock the dudes halfway across the bar with The Face and the "you're the only ten I see" dies in the bros' throats. Tired moms schlepping their kids from one hellish interpretative dance class to another collapse against the seats of their Subaru Foresters and That Face all over the traffic cop worried about his quota and are let on their merry way with a stern warning. After announcing a pop quiz in Applied Calculus Professor Bevens is hit with sixty-two different versions of That Face.
The effect is so powerful\disturbing the professor decides to take lunch in his office that day.
When Mike Wallace asks Dr. Josef Stenberg why we, as a culture, are so fascinated the noted historian and scholar replies that The Face "effortlessly and intrinsically captures the depth of the human experience."
โˆž
There is a three day period wherein The New York Times makes a genuine attempt at substance before all parties involve realize how difficult it actually is and decide that mining Barry's first two years at MIT for scandal is much more creative use of their time.
The seven article series proves so popular the rate of traffic often causes the site to crash, to the point where the NYT puts an ad for a new head of IT in its own newspaper. (An error brought to their attention by the former IT supervisor as she storms out of their office making two very rude gestures with both of her hands.) The articles come dangerously close to reporting the significance of the solar ray that's currently powering the campus greenhouses and the fifteen classroom\lecture halls running on fossil fuels before remembering it's audience and veering back to the good stuff: in addition to campaigning long and hard to get one of his professors fired, (because the individual is a plaintiff in a current lawsuit his name has been redacted from all documentation in order to protect his identity. In any further documentation he shall be referred to as Mr. S.) Barry starts a (still active) war between the physics and computer science majors, stages a ninety-day sit in at Lanctom Hall and refuses to attend class until the United States converts to the metric system, attends seven out of his ten classes in his pajamas, builds a Death Ray, stages his own funeral, and has regular off-campus lunches with Neil Degrasse-Tyson where (according to an unnamed source) they discuss plans to reanimate Carl Sagan.
The Times receives countless emails from current and former MIT professors the content of which ranges from "Come on guys" to paragraphs of legal jargon, but because facts are annoying and can easily ruin a good time, they only publish one. For Mr. S who is, at this very ย moment, teaching a remedial chemistry class in a Hoboken public school, seeing his words in print gives him the necessary courage to take out an entire page of the Op Ed column for the sole purpose of calling Barry an "odious, mouth-breathing cretin" (among other, more foul monikers) and insist that his time at MIT is "the most convincing super villain origin story I've ever seen." Buried in the seventh paragraph under piles of incoherent rage is a fairly lucid comparison to Lex Luthor, which all things considered, Barry rather likes.
At six-thirty the following morning,
Don't you have young minds to compromise?
appears in the comments section of Mr. S's article. The user name is something banal and forgettable, but the 25 x 37 armadillo icon is responsible for the overjoyed intern's giggle snort and the frantic search for a 2013 Scientific American article in which Barry mentions that armadillos are often underestimated because of their size and deceptively docile demeanor.
โˆž
2017
So.
Barry wakes up in Naldo's body, which because he invents time travel when he's fifteen and perfects localized teleportation over summer break his freshman at year at MIT isn't even the weirdest sentence he's ever had to type. It isn't even the strangest thing that happens that year, (that literal prizes goes to Sergey Abermoff a stunningly mediocre marine biologist who wins the Noble Prize for his contributions to Alaskan Puffer Fish research. From March to August Barry is engaged in a furious letter-writing campaign to the Academy because seriously? Dr. Gloria Hernandez discovers and isolates what appears to be a second God particle but generous funds are being allocated to his dad's favorite Red Lobster entree? No.) While he makes a concentrated effort to document his daily experiments, and somewhat less dedicated attempts to record his thoughts about more personal subjects (he objects to the use of the word "personal" in this context because it implies a mutual exclusivity between the personal and the scientific where no such distinction exists, but he digresses) spontaneous ionic transference is apparently unworthy of documentation. Reading through the accounts of the incidents of that spring, scholars and historians alike are surprised to find only the briefest, most perfunctory outline of events.
It's an odd, tangential footnote in most textbooks, and even the larger more expansive biographies tend to refer to it transiently. One of the foremost examples of this phenomenon being Edgar Chen's Event Horizon which glosses over the events in a way Joan Collins of the New York Times calls "whimsically dismissive". Of the archived articles, research papers, essays, books, films, digital recordings and miscellaneous sundries that number in the thousands only two hundred and eighty-six contain references to the events of the spring of 2017. Of that number one hundred and thirty-seven are passing references, eighty-five are footnotes, five are visual references ( two screen grabs, a gif, and two vague scenes in the Cern documentary and the feature film Singularity, all of which are subject to intense and varying interpretation) forty- two are allusions in popular fiction, ย twelve are auditory, and seventeen are references to supplementary reading material that contain descriptions of the events so vague they border on unintelligible. In chapter four of Jackie Iron's (famed director of the Crabnormal Behavior Octo-thrilogy) tell-all Shellin' Out, Barry writes:
"I've never been fond of the "body-swap" trope. At best it's a cheap device used to create a sense of empathy between two characters possessing diametrically opposing viewpoints. At worst it's a study of the traumatic power of unrelenting body horror, a state of such brutal, paradigm-shifting physical and emotional dissonance that it's difficult to imagine surviving the encounter without constantly testing the tensile strength of ย reality for the remainder of one's natural life. Why would a writer subject their audience to something so terrible?"
Strangely, Barry's autobiography makes only a passing reference to the event. He glosses over his years at Columbia (there are a few offhand references to a Washington think tank he attends in the summer of 2017) but expands upon graduate school in such unrelenting, excruciating detail that chapters forty-seven through fifty-three are known to make a few students nauseous. The clinical, almost detached narrative ย prompts ย Melanie Fung, freshman human interest columnist of the Columbia Daily Spectator, to write: "The text habitually ย bathes Eisenberg in the soft light of scientific heroism, but the more personal, and possibly, more interesting threads of the narrative are glaringly absent."
It isn't until Jill Suarez publishes The Eisenberg Principle that the personal elements of Barry's life-coming out to his parents, the bullying he experiences in school, the two week period he spends in Renaldo Montoya's body-are recounted in detail.
2 notes ยท View notes
polixy ยท 3 years
Text
Election night marks the end of one phase of campaign 2020 โ€“ and the start of another
Election night marks the end of one phase of campaign 2020 โ€“ and the start of another;
Tumblr media
A worker processes ballots at the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana, California, on Oct. 16, 2020. (Jeff Gritchen/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images)
On Nov. 3, millions of Americans will trek to their local polling places to cast their ballots for the next president. That evening, after the polls close, theyโ€™ll settle down in front of their televisions to watch the returns roll in from across the country. Sometime that night or early the next morning, the networks and wire services will call the race, and Americans will know whether President Donald Trump has won a second term or been ousted by former Vice President Joe Biden.
Just about every statement in the previous paragraph is false, misleading or at best lacking important context.
Over the years, Americans have gotten used to their election nights coming off like a well-produced game show, with the big reveal coming before bedtime (a few exceptions like the 2000 election notwithstanding). In truth, theyโ€™ve never been quite as simple or straightforward as they appeared. And this year, which has already upended so much of what Americans took for granted, seems poised to expose some of the wheezy 18th- and 19th-century mechanisms that still shape the way a president is elected in the 21st century.
Hereโ€™s our guide to what happens after the polls close on election night. While you may remember some of the details from high school civics class, others were new even to us. Keeping them in mind may help you make sense of what promises to be an election night like no other.
Between the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, fierce partisanship and intense public interest, this yearโ€™s elections are likely to play out rather differently than Americans have gotten used to. We developed this explainer to help people understand how, and why, the complex U.S. electoral process is even more so this time around.
Much of the procedural description was derived from various reports and background papers from the Congressional Research Service. Data on current state rules regarding mail-ballot deadlines, ballot-processing timetables and the binding of presidential electors was obtained โ€“ and if necessary cross-checked โ€“ from CRS, the National Conference of State Legislatures, individual state election authorities and state statutes. Historical data on absentee/mail voting trends came from our analysis of data from the U.S. Electoral Assistance Commission.
By Election Day, much of the voting already will have happened
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic struck, Americans had been shifting away from lining up at the polls on Election Day. In 2016, only 54.5% of all ballots nationwide were actually cast in person on Election Day, according to data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The share was roughly the same (55.4%) in the 2018 midterms.
More people than ever before are likely to vote in person before Election Day, by absentee or mail ballot, or by taking ballots theyโ€™ve filled out at home to a drop box or other secure location. Close to half (47.3%) of the ballots cast in this yearโ€™s primary season (among the 37 states, plus the District of Columbia, for which data was available) were by absentee or mail ballot or by voting early in person. As of this writing, nearly 47 million voters already had cast ballots.
Counting the votes will take longer than usual
Mail ballots pose a challenge to election workers, because they must be manually removed from their envelopes and verified as valid before they can be fed into the tabulating machines. Although election workers in at least 32 states can start processing ballots (but not, in most cases, counting them) a week or more before Election Day, these counts may not be finished by election night depending on how many come in. In a half-dozen states, including the battlegrounds of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, processing canโ€™t start until Election Day itself.
Also, in 23 states (plus D.C.), mail ballots postmarked by Election Day (or in a few cases the day before) can still be counted even if they arrive days later โ€“ further lengthening the counting process. Bottom line: Any vote totals reported on election night will be even more unofficial than they typically are.
Itโ€™s all about the electors
Unlike other U.S. elections, in which voters pick the winners directly, those millions of presidential votes wonโ€™t actually be cast for Trump or Biden. Instead, theyโ€™ll count toward a statewide tally to select the electors โ€“ the mostly little-known men and women who will actually elect the president.
Each state has as many electoral votes as it has senators and representatives combined (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, as many as it would have if it were a state). There are 538 in total, with 270 votes needed to win. As the Congressional Research Service puts it, the electors โ€œtend to be a mixture of state and local elected officials, party activists, local and state celebrities, and ordinary citizens.โ€
In all but two states, the candidate with the most popular votes statewide (regardless of whether itโ€™s a majority or a plurality) gets all that stateโ€™s electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska do it differently: The statewide popular-vote winner gets two of the electoral votes, and the winner in each House district gets an electoral vote. Thatโ€™s why Democrats this year are targeting Nebraskaโ€™s 2nd District and Republicans have their eyes on Maineโ€™s 2nd District. Both parties hope to squeeze a precious electoral vote out of a state thatโ€™s otherwise likely to go against them.
A key date in making this yearโ€™s election outcome final: Dec. 14
According to federal law, each state will have until Dec. 8 this year to resolve any โ€œcontroversy or contestโ€ concerning the appointment of its slate of electors under its own state laws. That effectively gives states more than a month after Election Day to settle any challenges to their popular votes, certify a result and award their electoral votes. If they do so by this โ€œsafe harborโ€ date, Congress is bound to respect the result. (The U.S. Supreme Courtโ€™s 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore involved whether Florida was properly applying its own recount rules, and whether those rules ran afoul of the Constitutionโ€™s equal-protection guarantee.)
The electors will meet in their respective states on Dec. 14 โ€“ officially, the Monday after the second Wednesday in December โ€“ and formally cast their votes for president and vice president. The Constitution expressly forbids them from meeting as a single nationwide group, a provision the Framers put in to reduce the chances of mischief. The electors are supposed to vote for the candidates whose name they were elected under โ€“ in fact, 32 states (plus D.C.) have laws intended to bind the electors to their candidates. The Supreme Court this summer unanimously upheld such laws.
So-called โ€œfaithless electorsโ€ have on occasion broken their pledges, though never enough to actually swing the outcome. In 2016, for instance, five Democratic electors voted for people other than Hillary Clinton and two Republican electors voted for people other than Donald Trump.
In any event, the electorsโ€™ votes are supposed to be delivered to the vice president (in his capacity as president of the Senate) and a handful of other officials by Dec. 23 (the fourth Wednesday in December).
Wait โ€“ Congress has a role in this too?
Indeed it does. The newly elected 117th Congress will be sworn in on Jan. 3, 2021. Three days later, it is supposed to assemble in joint session to formally open the electorsโ€™ ballots, count them and declare a winner. Only then is the president officially โ€œelected.โ€
Any pair of one senator and one representative can object to any of those votes as โ€œnot having been regularly givenโ€ (that is, not cast according to law). Following the 2004 election, for instance, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., filed an objection against Ohioโ€™s 20 electoral votes, alleging โ€œnumerous, serious election irregularitiesโ€ in that state. But to sustain such an objection, both chambers must vote (separately) to do so. In the Ohio case, they both overwhelmingly rejected the challenge.
Each state is supposed to submit one set of electoral votes to Congress, and thatโ€™s what usually happens. Following the disputed Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, in which three states submitted two conflicting sets of returns, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act to try to set rules in case such a thing ever happened again. Under that law, if two conflicting sets are submitted โ€“ say, one by a Republican-run legislature and one by a Democratic governor โ€“ and the House and Senate cannot agree on which set is the legitimate one, then the electoral votes certified by the stateโ€™s governor are supposed to prevail. (Even stranger things are possible: In 1960, Hawaiiโ€™s governor first certified Vice President Richard Nixonโ€™s electors, but after a recount certified Sen. John F. Kennedyโ€™s electors. Both slates of electors met and voted for their pledged candidate; when the time came for Congress to decide which slate was the legitimate one, Nixon voluntarily deferred to Kennedy.)
Assuming that the usually ceremonial counting goes smoothly this year, Vice President Mike Pence will then announce whether he and President Trump have their jobs for another four years, or whether Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will take their places.
; Blog (Fact Tank) โ€“ Pew Research Center; https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/22/election-night-marks-the-end-of-one-phase-of-campaign-2020-and-the-start-of-another/; https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FT_20.10.13_ElectionExplainer_feature.jpg?w=1200&h=628&crop=1; October 22, 2020 at 04:13PM
0 notes
bountyofbeads ยท 4 years
Text
William Barr got his law degree at night school while working as a CIA agent during the Nixon CIA abuse period. He's never been a trial lawyer or a prosecutor. He's a rogue @CIA agent who hates American values of justice. The @FBIWFO @NSAGov @ODNIgov should consider him an enemy.
Laurence Tribe: Barr and Trump could permanently alter the balance of power among the branches of government.
"If those views take hold, we will have lost what was won in the Revolutionโ€”we will have a Chief Executive who is more powerful than the king."
William Barr, Trumpโ€™s Sword and Shield
The Attorney Generalโ€™s mission to maximize executive power and protect the Presidency.
Byย David Rohde | Published January 13, 2020 | New Yorker Magazine | Posted January 14, 2020 |
PART ONE
Last October, Attorney General William Barr appeared at Notre Dame Law School to make a case for ideological warfare. Before an assembly of students and faculty, Barr claimed that the โ€œorganized destructionโ€ of religion was under way in the United States. โ€œSecularists, and their allies among the โ€˜progressives,โ€™ have marshalled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values,โ€ he said. Barr, a conservative Catholic, blamed the spread of โ€œsecularism and moral relativismโ€ for a rise in โ€œvirtually every measure of social pathologyโ€โ€”from the โ€œwreckage of the familyโ€ to โ€œrecord levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic.โ€
The speech was less a staid legal lecture than a catalogue of grievances accumulated since the Reagan era, when Barr first enlisted in the culture wars. It included a series of contentious claims. He argued, for example, that the Founders of the United States saw religion as essential to democracy. โ€œIn the Framersโ€™ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious peopleโ€”a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order,โ€ he said. Barr ended his address by urging his listeners to resist the โ€œconstant seductions of our contemporary societyโ€ and launch a โ€œmoral renaissance.โ€
Donald Trump does not share Barrโ€™s long-standing concern about the role of religion in civic life. (Though he often says that the Bible is his favorite book, when he was asked which Testament he preferred, he answered, โ€œThe whole Bible is incredible.โ€) What the two men have in common is a sense of being surrounded by a hostile insurgency. A few days after Barrโ€™s speech, Trump told an audience at the conservative Values Voter Summit, โ€œExtreme left-wing radicals, both inside and outside government, are determined to shred our Constitution and eradicate the beliefs we all cherish. They are trying to hound you from the workplace, expel you from the public square, and weaken the American family, and indoctrinate our children.โ€ As the effort to remove the President has gathered strength, Barrโ€™s and Trumpโ€™s political interests have converged. Both men combine the pro-business instincts of traditional Republicans with a focus on culture clash and grievance. Both believe that any constraint on Presidential power weakens the United States.
Eleven months after being sworn in, Barr is the most feared, criticized, and effective member of Trumpโ€™s Cabinet. Like no Attorney General since the Watergate era, he has acted as the Presidentโ€™s political sword and shield. When the special counsel Robert Mueller released the findings of his inquiry into connections between Trumpโ€™s 2016 campaign and Russia, Barr presented a sanitized four-page summary before the report was made public, which the President used to declare himself cleared. At the behest of the President, Barr launched an investigation of the F.B.I.โ€™s Trump-Russia probe and the intelligence communityโ€™s assessment that Russia intervened on Trumpโ€™s behalf in the election. Rather than seek a nonpartisan commission, Barr appointed a federal prosecutor, reinforcing the Presidentโ€™s claims of a โ€œcoup.โ€ When an exhaustive review by the Justice Departmentโ€™s inspector general found no evidence of political bias in the F.B.I. investigation, Barr issued a statement misrepresenting its findings and arguing that the evidence in the Russia probe was โ€œconsistently exculpatoryโ€โ€”leaving out the fact that five people connected to Trumpโ€™s campaign have been indicted for lying to investigators.
Barr maintains that Article II of the Constitution gives a President control of all executive-branch agencies, without restriction; in practice, this means that Trump would be within his rights to oversee an investigation into his own misconduct. (Barr declined multiple interview requests.) Throughout the Houseโ€™s impeachment inquiry, Trump dismissed subpoenas for documents and testimony from Administration officialsโ€”a step taken by no other President. Barr and Pat Cipollone, a White House lawyer who once worked as Barrโ€™s speechwriter, have also rejected subpoenas, flouting a congressional power plainly delineated in the Constitution. Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under George H.ย W. Bush, said, โ€œThey take the position that they donโ€™t even have to show up. Thatโ€™s totally outrageous. Itโ€™s denying the legitimacy of another branch of government in the name of executive supremacy.โ€ Ayer described Barrโ€™s ideas about Presidential power as โ€œchillingโ€ and โ€œdeeply disturbing.โ€ If Trump survives a trial in the Senate, a Presidentโ€™s ability to resist congressional oversight will vastly expand. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, warned that Barrโ€™s and Trumpโ€™s efforts could permanently alter the balance of power among the branches of American government. โ€œIf those views take hold, we will have lost what was won in the Revolutionโ€”we will have a Chief Executive who is more powerful than the king,โ€ Tribe said. โ€œThat will be a disaster for the survival of the Republic.โ€
At the age of sixty-nine, Barr is grayer, heavier, wealthier, and more combative than he was when he served as George H.ย W. Bushโ€™s Attorney General, twenty-eight years ago. But his ideology has not changed much, according to friends and former colleagues. โ€œI donโ€™t know why anyone is surprised by his views,โ€ Jack Goldsmith, a law professor who headed the Justice Departmentโ€™s Office of Legal Counsel during the Georgeย W. Bush Administration, told me. โ€œHe has always had a broad view of executive power.โ€
Aย longtime member of the capitalโ€™s legal establishment, Barr is described by both allies and adversaries as a formidable thinker who relishes debating issues of Roman history, Christian theology, and modern morality. During his first tenure as Attorney General, he earned the nickname Rage and Cave: when he felt that his principles had been violated, he tended to bluster, then gradually accept the situation. Colleagues describe him as both supportive and self-regarding, happy to delegate but impatient with incompetence. A self-styled polymath, Barr has strong opinions on issues ranging from legal arcana to the proper mustard to apply to a sandwich. He designed his own home, a sprawling house in McLean, Virginia, and is not above boasting about it. During a trip to Scotland with a friend, he quizzed the owner of a local inn about whether the paint on the wall was โ€œCard Room Green or Green Smoke, by Farrow & Ball.โ€ The innkeeper had no idea what he was talking about.
Like other prominent conservatives, Barr formed his politics in reaction to a liberal consensus around him. He grew up on Riverside Drive, in Manhattan, among the bookish รฉlite of the Upper West Side. As his neighbors hoped that Lyndon Johnsonโ€™s Great Society would flourish, the Barr family supported Barry Goldwater for President.
Barrโ€™s mother, Mary, taught at Columbia, and worked as an editor atย Redbook. His father, Donald, was the headmaster at Dalton, a progressive private school on the Upper East Side. During the Second World War, Donald had served in the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the C.I.A. As headmaster, he believed that discipline instilled morality, helping to fend off the โ€œsocial pathologyโ€ that his son warned about decades later. While birth control and feminism were reshaping conventions around sex and work, Donald insisted on the old ways. Chip Fisher, who attended Dalton at the time, remembered him as brilliant but out of place: โ€œIt was like having Jonathan Edwards at the pulpit.โ€ Dalton parents saw Barr as autocratic, insular, and obsessed with adherence to rules. In the early seventies, after a protracted and ugly public fight with the schoolโ€™s board, he was forced out of his job.
Mary Barr, an observant Catholic, sent William and his three brothers to Corpus Christi elementary school. Even there, Barr was an outlier. In the first grade, he delivered a speech in favor of Dwight Eisenhowerโ€™s Presidential campaign. Later, he declared his support for Richard Nixon, and a nun promised to pray for him. In high school, at Horace Mann, Barrโ€”known then as Billyโ€”presented fellow-students with a line-by-line exegesis of the Constitution. One classmate told me that Barr delighted in intellectual combat: โ€œThat smug, low-key demeanorโ€”he really loved to push peopleโ€™s buttons.โ€ Garrick Beck, another classmate, disliked Barrโ€™s politics but admired his integrity. Even then, he said, Barr was convinced that only a strong President could protect America from threats. โ€œHow else does a nice guy like Barr defend this boorish tycoon?โ€ Beck said, of Trump. โ€œI think he is doing it because he is a true believer.โ€
When Barr was an undergraduate, at Columbia, his classmates marched against the war in Vietnam. Barr wanted instead to buttress American power. He had told a guidance counsellor that he hoped one day to lead the C.I.A., and, during breaks from school, he spent two summers as an intern there. In 1973, he finished a masterโ€™s degree in Government and Chinese Studies and returned to the C.I.A. as an intelligence analyst. At the time, a Senate investigationโ€”known as the Church Committeeโ€”was uncovering decades of abuses at the C.I.A., and laws were being passed to curtail them. Barr later recalled the effort as a kind of assault, delivering โ€œbody blowsโ€ to the agency.
Barr spent two years as an analyst, but he was also considering a career in law. He started taking night classes at George Washington University Law School, and, in 1975, he transferred to the agencyโ€™s Office of Legislative Counsel. The following year, Georgeย H.ย W. Bush became the C.I.A. director, and Barr helped prepare him for testimony on Capitol Hill. One hearing involved a bill that would require the C.I.A. to send a written notification to Americans whose mail the agency had secretly opened. Among the billโ€™s sponsors was Bella Abzug, a liberal Democrat who represented Barrโ€™s old neighborhood in New York. As a defense attorney, Abzug had won a stay of execution for Willie McGee, a black man convicted of raping a white woman in Mississippi; she had also represented several Americans accused by Senator Joseph McCarthy of being Communists. The C.I.A. spied on her for twenty years, at times opening her mail.
As Abzug and her colleagues grilled Bush about the C.I.A.โ€™s activities, Barr saw a chance to impress the new director. โ€œI went up and sat in the seat thatโ€™s behind the witness,โ€ he recalled in a 2001 oral history of the Bush Administration. โ€œSomeone asked him a question, and he leaned back and said, โ€˜How the hell do I answer this one?โ€™ I whispered the answer in his ear, and he gave it, and I thought, โ€˜Who is this guy? He listens to legal advice when itโ€™s given.โ€™ย โ€
When Barr began his career in government, the idea that the Presidency was too weak might have been considered eccentric, even radical. Mostly, people were concerned that it had grownย too strong. As the Watergate scandal unfolded, the former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., published an influential book called โ€œThe Imperial Presidency,โ€ in which he enumerated the habits of potential autocrats: โ€œThe all-purpose invocation of โ€˜national security,โ€™ the insistence on executive secrecy, the withholding of information from Congress, the refusal to spend funds appropriated by Congress, the attempted intimidation of the press, the use of the White House as a base for espionage and sabotage directed against the political opposition.โ€
Jimmy Carter took office in 1977, and embodied an image that was anything but imperial. He carried his own luggage, enrolled his daughter in public school, and shunned โ€œHail to the Chiefโ€ as an excessive display of pomp. More important, he enacted reforms that curtailed executive-branch power. He signed strict ethics legislation that empowered independent counsels and inspectors general to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. Critics, including the conservative legal scholar Antonin Scalia, complained that the changes crippled the Presidency, but the new regulations had broad support from Congress and from the public.
With Ronald Reaganโ€™s election in 1980, things began to change. The Republican Party, after three decades as a minority in Congress, took control of the Senateโ€”part of a conservative resurgence that Reagan hailed as โ€œmorning in America.โ€ In 1982, the White House hired Barr as a deputy assistant director for legal policy. He fell in with a like-minded group of young lawyers, who began devising a legal armature for the executive branch as it tried to restore its power.
In 1986, Reagan appointed Scalia to the Supreme Court. That same year, aides sent Attorney General Edwin Meese a report, recommending steps to widen the power of the Presidency. Reagan, they said, should veto more legislation, and decline to enforce laws that โ€œunconstitutionally encroach upon the executive branch.โ€ The report outlined a legal argument that the President had unrestricted control of all executive-branch functions, and also questioned the constitutionality of special counsels and inspectors general. In a speech, Meese argued that even Supreme Court rulings should not be viewed as โ€œthe supreme law of the land.โ€ (Two years later, Meese resigned, amid accusations of helping to steer federal contracts to a friend.)
In 1987, an independent counsel was appointed to investigate whether a Justice Department official named Ted Olson had lied to Congress during testimony regarding the Environmental Protection Agency. Meese and other conservatives challenged the move as unconstitutional. In their view, independent prosecutors were nothing more than unaccountable, costly political weapons, which Democrats used to smear Republican Administrations. (In fact, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York Universityโ€™s law school, both parties have sought to use such counsels for political advantage. But, he added, they remain necessary to limit abuses: โ€œWhat the special counsel does is provide a check.โ€)
The resulting case, Morrison v. Olson, went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that independent counsels did not interfere โ€œundulyโ€ or โ€œimpermissiblyโ€ with the powers of the executive branch. The sole dissent came from Scalia, who cautioned that a politically biased prosecutor could carry out โ€œdebilitating criminal investigationsโ€ for minor crimes. โ€œNothing is so politically effective,โ€ he wrote, โ€œas the ability to charge that oneโ€™s opponent and his associates are not merely wrongheaded, naive, ineffective, but, in all probability, โ€˜crooks.โ€™ย โ€ (Ultimately, prosecutors declined to charge Olson.)
For Reagan and his aides, the Supreme Court ruling was not an abstract concern. The year before, news had broken of what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. In an extraordinary series of crimes, the C.I.A. director William Casey and several White House aides sold sophisticated weaponry to Iran and funnelled the profits to anti-Communist rebels in Central America, in defiance of a law that specifically barred support for the group. All the while, Casey and the aides brazenly lied to Congress about their actions. When the scheme was uncovered, Reaganโ€™s poll numbers sank, but he denied knowledge of the operation and avoided impeachment.
In televised hearings, the National Security Council aide Oliver North argued that Presidents and their aides should be able to do whatever they deem necessary to protect the country from threats. Dick Cheney, then a congressman from Wyoming, argued that North and his allies had done nothing improper, because foreign policy and national security should be controlled solely by the executive branch. But Democrats and a majority of Republicans said that Congress must be able to act as a check on a wayward President. At the hearings, Daniel Inouye, a Democratic senator from Hawaii, who headed the inquiry, warned that a โ€œcabalโ€ of officials who believed they had a โ€œmonopoly on truthโ€ could lead to โ€œautocracy.โ€ Barr was unmoved. He later told an interviewer, โ€œI think people in the Iran-Contra matter have been treated very unfairly.โ€
When Georgeย H.ย W. Bush ran for President in 1988, Barr, who was then thirty-eight, seized an opportunity to continue the mission of the Reagan years. He joined the campaign as an adviser, and, after Bush won, he was appointed to run the Justice Departmentโ€™s Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the President and all federal agencies.
Barr immediately produced a memo, arguing that Congress was a menace to the Presidency. He urged Administration officials to be alert to legislative encroachment, and cited ten recent examples, from โ€œMicromanagement of the Executive Branchโ€ to โ€œAttempts to Restrict the Presidentโ€™s Foreign Affairs Powers.โ€ He wrote, โ€œOnly byย consistently and forcefully resisting such congressional incursions can executive branch prerogatives be preserved.โ€ Barr began chairing meetings in which the general counsels of executive-branch departments drafted a strategy to work against Congress. He recalled in 2001 that the President supported the mission: โ€œBush felt that the powers of the Presidency had been severely eroded since Watergate and [by] the tactics of the Hill Democrats.โ€ But Bush favored an incremental approach, saying, โ€œI donโ€™t want you stretchingโ€”I think the way to advance executive power is to wait and see, move gradually.โ€
In a series of decisions involving government actions overseas, Barr helped expand Presidential power. In 1989, Bush was in a standoff with Manuel Noriega, the strongman leader of Panama, and considered having him arrested, on charges that included drug trafficking and money laundering. The Justice Department had traditionally considered that the President lacked the power to order arrests on foreign soil. But, in June, Barr issued a legal opinion arguing that Bush had โ€œinherent constitutional authorityโ€ to order the F.B.I. to take foreign antagonists into custody.
The following year, after the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein moved his forces into Kuwait, Bush asked at a White House meeting if he needed congressional approval to mount a counterinvasion. Barr, who by then had been promoted to Deputy Attorney General, said that the mandate to defend national security gave the President the power to go to war whenever he wantedโ€”even to launch a preรซmptive attack on Iraqi forces, if he believed that they were preparing to deploy chemical weapons against American troops.
But Barr feared that lawmakers would try to block such an action, and so he urged Bush to cover himself by obtaining Congressโ€™s support. Even the other conservatives in the room were startled; Justice Department officials were expected to maintain scrupulous impartiality. According to Barr, Cheney, at that time the Secretary of Defense, reprimanded him: โ€œYouโ€™re giving him political advice, not legal advice.โ€ Barr recalled that he said, โ€œIโ€™m giving him both political and legal advice. Theyโ€™re really sort of together when you get to this level.โ€ In August, 1990, Bush invaded Kuwait, with congressional approval. The following year, he named Barr Attorney General.
Since Barrโ€™s days at Horace Mann, he has felt that the transformations of American society that began in the sixties have worsened its social problems. For decades, he registered unflinching disdain for criminal-justice reform, support for religion, and sympathy for big business. In a 1995 symposium on violent crime, he argued that the root cause was not poverty but immorality. โ€œViolent crime is caused not by physical factors, such as not enough food stamps in the stamp program, but ultimately by moral factors,โ€ he said. โ€œSpending more money on these material social programs is not going to have an impact on crime, and, if anything, it will exacerbate the problem.โ€ Barr also dismissed the idea of wrongful convictions. โ€œThe notion that there are sympathetic people out there who become hapless victims of the criminal-justice system and are locked away in federal prison beyond the time they deserve is simply a myth,โ€ he wrote. โ€œThe people who have been given mandatory minimums generally deserve themโ€”richly.โ€
As Attorney General, Barr increased sentences for drug-related crimes and cracked down on illegal immigration. In 1992, rioting erupted in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers who had been videotaped beating the motorist Rodney King. Barr deployed two thousand federal agents on military planes to stop the unrest. He later argued that civil-rights charges should have been broughtโ€”not just against the offending officers but also against the rioters on the streets of L.A. โ€œWe could have cleaned that place up,โ€ he lamented in 2001. โ€œUnfortunately, we just brought the federal case against the cops and never pursued the gangsters.โ€
During his tenure, Barr turned down multiple requests to name prosecutors to examine potential executive-branch abuses. โ€œThe public integrity section told me that I had received more requests for independent counsel in eighteen months than all my predecessors combined,โ€ Barr recalled. โ€œIt was a joke.โ€ In one case, Barr opposed the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Administrationโ€™s dealings with Iraq before the invasion of Kuwait. Even some conservatives objected; William Safire, theย Timesย columnist, called him โ€œcover-up general Barr.โ€
After Bush lost the 1992 Presidential election, to Bill Clinton, he blamed the defeat on Lawrence Walsh, the lead prosecutor in the Iran-Contra affair. Four days before the election, Walsh had filed a new criminal charge against former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, and revealed an entry from Weinbergerโ€™s diary that cast doubt on Bushโ€™s long-running claim that he opposed trading arms for hostages. Bush was furious, Barr later recalled: โ€œHe felt that that indictment had cost him the election.โ€ On Christmas Eve, 1992, Bush pardoned four former officials whom Walsh had prosecuted, and two more who were awaiting trialโ€”a decision that Barr supported. In a statement accompanying the pardons, Bush complained of โ€œthe criminalization of policy differences,โ€ and wrote that criticisms of the President should be expressed in โ€œthe voting booth, not the courtroom.โ€
To Democrats, the pardons were outrageous; officials had defied Congress to carry out a dangerous and illegal scheme, which provided arms to an avowed enemy of the U.S. Barr dismissed those concerns and suggested that Walshโ€™s investigation had unfairly hobbled the Bush Presidency. โ€œIt was very difficult because of the constant pendency of theย Iran-Contra case and Lawrence Walsh, who I thought was aโ€”I donโ€™t know what to say in polite company,โ€ he recalled in 2001. โ€œHe was certainly a headhunter and had completely lost perspective.โ€
Three blocks from the White House, on K Street, is a storefront with signs in its windows advertising โ€œsolidarityโ€ and โ€œmercy and justice.โ€ The building houses the Catholic Information Center, a bookstore and a chapel where federal workers and tourists can attend morning and evening services. On a recent weekday afternoon, a sign announced an upcoming debate between conservative writers, called โ€œNationalism: Vice or Virtue?โ€ A skateboard with an image of the Virgin Mary hung not far away, in the hope of attracting a younger crowd.
Led by a member of the archconservative group Opus Dei, the center is a hub for Washingtonโ€™s influential conservatives. Its rise began in 1998, with the arrival of a charismatic new director, the Reverendย C.ย John McCloskey, a forty-four-year-old banker turned priest. Hard-charging and unabashedly political, McCloskey liked to say, โ€œA liberal Catholic is oxymoronic.โ€ During the nineties, he helped convert a series of prominent conservatives to Catholicism, including the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is a vocal Trump backer. In 2003, McCloskey quietly left his post, and Opus Dei later paid a settlement of nearly a million dollars to a woman who said that he had sexually harassed her. But the centerโ€™s board of directors remains a nexus of politically connected Catholics. Pat Cipollone and Barr have both served on the board, as has Leonard Leo, the executive vice-president of the Federalist Society. Asked about Barrโ€™s role, the centerโ€™s chief operating officer, Mitch Boersma, confirmed that he had served as a board member from 2014 to 2017 but said, โ€œWe donโ€™t have anything to add.โ€
After Bill Clinton took office, in 1993, Barr stepped away from government work and continued promoting his version of an ideal society through various religious organizations. He served on the boards of groups whose charitable work is widely praised, such as the Knights of Columbus and the New York Archdioceseโ€™s Inner-City Scholarship Fund. For years, Barr has paid the tuition of eighteen students a year at a parochial school in New York.
But Barrโ€™s instinct for ideological combat did not wane. In 1995, he wrote an article for a journal calledย The Catholic Lawyer. Two years earlier, the F.B.I. had mounted a disastrous raid on a compound inhabited by a cult in Waco, Texas. In his article, Barr complained that journalists had made โ€œsubtle effortsโ€ to liken the cult to the Church. โ€œWe live in an increasingly militant, secular age,โ€ he wrote. โ€œAs part of this philosophy, we see a growing hostility toward religion, particularly Catholicism.โ€ He argued that religious Americans were increasingly victimized: โ€œIt is no accident that the homosexual movement, at one or two percent of the population, gets treated with such solicitude, while the Catholic population, which is over a quarter of the country, is given the back of the hand.โ€
His position on executive power wavered over time, depending on which party controlled the White House. When Clinton was under investigation in the Whitewater affair, a Senate committee subpoenaed documents, and Clintonโ€™s team claimed that they were protected by lawyer-client privilege. Barr called the rationale โ€œpreposterous,โ€ and later complained that Clinton had diminished his office: โ€œIโ€™ve been upset that a lot of the prerogatives of the presidency have been sacrificed for the personal interests of this particular president.โ€ When Georgeย W. Bush entered the White House, Barr resumed his arguments that the President should have โ€œmaximum powerโ€ in national security. In op-eds and in congressional hearings, he spoke in favor of military tribunals, the Patriot Act, and sweeping surveillance. In the Obama years, as Republicans in Congress launched a campaign to thwart the Presidentโ€™s initiatives, Barr largely went silent again.
In the private sector, Barr built a reputation as a pugnacious opponent of federal regulation. As the general counsel of G.T.E., one of the countryโ€™s largest telephone companies, he persuaded regulators to approve mergers that benefitted his employer while arguing against those which benefitted rivals. Around the office, he talked at times about such moral doctrines as natural law, but never expected secular colleagues to share his beliefs. Barr didnโ€™t socialize much with co-workers; he commuted each week to New York from Washington, where he and his wife, Christine, raised three daughters amid a Catholic community centered on a tight circle of churches, schools, and social clubs. The girls went to a Catholic school in Bethesda, where Christine worked as a librarian. (Barrโ€™s daughters later attended Catholic colleges, and all became lawyers.)
After years of government work, Barr began to grow rich. He helped lead G.T.E. when it merged with Bell Atlantic to form Verizon, the countryโ€™s largest telephone company. From 2001 to 2007, he was paid an average of $1.7 million a year in salary and bonuses, in addition to stock options, the use of a company jet, and a spending allowance. When Barr took an early retirement, in 2008, he received twenty-eight million dollars in deferred income and separation paymentsโ€”a large enough sum that a watchdog group cited the payouts as an example of poor corporate governance. Barr had amassed a fortune thatย Forbesย recently estimated at forty million dollars, and he made millions more serving on corporate boards, including those of Time Warnerย and Dominion Energy. He also joined Kirkland & Ellis, a Washington firm known for its leading conservative lawyers. And he and Christine built their house in McLean, a few miles from C.I.A. headquarters.
In July, 2012, Barr learned that his youngest daughter, Meg, had a recurrence of non-Hodgkinโ€™s lymphoma. Meg, who was then twenty-seven years old, faced a roughly twenty-per-cent chance of survival. He stopped working and focussed on his daughterโ€™s care. The family had Meg treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, and Barr and his wife moved to be near her. After Meg underwent chemotherapy and a stem-cell transplant, Barr rented a house in the town of Scituate, outside Boston, so that Meg could be isolated from other patients and avoid infection. They read books, walked on the beach together, and talked about what Meg would do if she survived. โ€œThose three months were the best and worst of times,โ€ Meg told Fox News in 2019. โ€œThe hardest part of my illness was accepting the randomness of it, the fact that you canโ€™t control the outcome. Both my father and I tend to be control freaks.โ€
Meg survived. But, Barr told Fox, โ€œMegโ€™s illness changed our family. It changed me.โ€ Friends of Barrโ€™s said that he approached both his professional life and his personal life with a renewed zeal. Chuck Cooper, a litigator who worked with Barr in the Reagan Administration, told me, โ€œI think he has an intense appreciation for life and our tenuous hold on it. And that to squander any of it is unforgivable.โ€
Barr was late to join the Trump revolution. In the nineties and the early two-thousands, he donated more than half a million dollars to Republican candidates, mostly such mainstream figures as Georgeย W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. (Barr even supported Jeff Flake, the Arizona senator whose occasional criticisms of Trump ended up turning constituents against him.) In 2016, Barr gave twenty-seven hundred dollars to Trumpโ€™s campaignโ€”and about twenty times that amount to support Jeb Bush.
After Trump won, though, Barr demonstrated a convertโ€™s enthusiasm, writing op-eds for the Washingtonย  Postย in which he endorsed Trumpโ€™s controversial positions. When Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General, refused to carry out a ban on travellers from predominantly Muslim countries, Barr accused her of โ€œobstruction,โ€ and assailed news coverage of the situation. โ€œThe left, aided by an onslaught of tendentious media reporting, has engaged in a campaign of histrionics unjustified by the measured steps taken,โ€ he wrote. In another article, Barr criticized Robert Mueller for hiring prosecutors who had donated to Democratic politiciansโ€”but did not disclose his own donations to Republicans.
In February, 2017, Trump appointed his first Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, and quickly grew disenchanted. When Sessions recused himself from the Mueller investigation, Trump asked, โ€œWhereโ€™s my Roy Cohn?โ€โ€”a reference to his former personal lawyer, who was a close aide to Senator McCarthy during the Red Scare of the fifties. According to Bob Woodwardโ€™s reporting, Trump lambasted Sessions as a โ€œdumb southernerโ€ and โ€œmentally retarded.โ€ (Trump has denied this.) That fall, Sessions ignored Trumpโ€™s demand to appoint an independent counsel to investigate a debunked theory about Hillary Clintonโ€™s role in the sale of uranium to Russia. Theย Timesย contacted ten former Attorneys General for comment, and Barr was the only one to reply. โ€œThere is nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation,โ€ he said. Barr added that he saw more basis for an investigation in the uranium deal than in any supposed collusion between Trump and Russia. โ€œTo the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,โ€ he wrote.
Barr has said that he wasnโ€™t interested in the position of Attorney General. But in June, 2018, he sent an unsolicited, nineteen-page legal memo to Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, who was overseeing the Mueller investigation. He spent much of the letter elaborating an argument that a Presidentโ€™s Article II powers rendered him essentially incapable of obstructing justice. He acknowledged that such blatant acts as destroying evidence and encouraging perjury were impermissible. But, he wrote, โ€œMuellerโ€™s core premiseโ€”that the President acts โ€˜corruptlyโ€™ if he attempts to influence a proceeding in which his own conduct is being scrutinizedโ€”is untenable.โ€ Benjamin Wittes and Mikhaila Fogel, of the blog Lawfare, described the memo as โ€œbizarre.โ€ Barr, without firsthand knowledge of the facts in the case, had devised a legal theory of obstruction, attributed it to Mueller, and then declared it โ€œfatally misconceived.โ€
Barr had strong advocates. Cipollone, his former speechwriter and fellow board member at the Catholic Information Center, lobbied on his behalf. Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host, added her support. After the midterm elections, Trump forced out Sessions and nominated Barr, calling him โ€œmy first choice since Day One.โ€
On January 15, 2019, Barr arrived on the Hill for confirmation hearings, accompanied by his wife and daughters. Many Democrats in Congress, particularly those who hadnโ€™t studied Barrโ€™s record, hoped that he would be an institutionalist who would curb Trumpโ€™s legal excesses. They also faced a stark political reality: they did not have the votes to block his nomination. Ignoring the advice of some aides, Democrats did not dwell on Barrโ€™s statements regarding criminal justice, or on whether his religious beliefs might affect his views.
Most of the hearings focussed on how Barr would handle the release of the Mueller report. In his openingย  statement, he repeated a reassuring pledge that he had made at his confirmation hearings as Bushโ€™s nominee: โ€œThe Attorney General must insure that the administration of justiceโ€”the enforcement of the lawโ€”is above and away from politics.โ€ He testified that he believed that Mueller, a longtime associate whom he described as a โ€œgood friend,โ€ should be allowed to complete his investigation. But he also signalled skepticism about the idea that Trump had colluded with Russia, and repeatedly expressed support for the Presidentโ€™s policies. Four weeks later, he was confirmed, in a largely party-line vote, as Trumpโ€™s second Attorney General.
On February 14, 2019, Barr took over a Justice Department plagued by dissension and low morale. Trumpโ€™s public attacks on Sessions and Mueller had unnerved staffers. And though career employees supported Sessionsโ€™s decision to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation, some staffers said that he was distant and seemed over his head in meetings. โ€œWhen he got confused or distracted, which seemed pretty often, he would tell some story about a bank robbery in Mobile,โ€ a former department official said. โ€œHe was a nice enough man, but I donโ€™t think he had any idea what we did for a living.โ€
Current and former Justice Department officials told me that the main problem was not Sessions but Trump, whose Administration required them to defend contorted legal positions. Under Sessions, the department defended the travel ban, a prohibition on transgender people joining the military, a policy of separating immigrant children from their parents, and a dismissal of claims that the President had violated the emoluments clause. Several career officials declined to put their names on legal memos. โ€œMorale has been low since Trump came in,โ€ Matthew Collette, a former senior official who worked for thirty years at the Justice Department, told me. โ€œThe incredibly controversial and difficult cases started and kept coming.โ€
When past Presidents resisted sending materials to Congress by claiming โ€œexecutive privilege,โ€ Justice Department lawyers tried to help resolve the disputes. Under Trump, that practice has stopped, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse told me. As Brett Kavanaugh was going through confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, Congress requested documents describing his work in the Georgeย W. Bush Administration. The White House refused access to more than a hundred thousand pages of them. Blank sheets of paper arrived on Capitol Hill stamped โ€œConstitutional privilege,โ€ a category that members of Congress said they had never heard of before.
Rather than avoiding the partisanship of the Trump era, Barrโ€™s actions have placed his department at its center. One divisive fight has been over immigration. In March, 2018, the Administration announced that it intended to add a citizenship question to the forthcoming national censusโ€”a measure that liberals said was designed to disadvantage Hispanics. The effort fuelled bitter division in the department. Collette said that lawyers were comfortable with implementing a new Administrationโ€™s policy priorities, but not with โ€œtwisting legal views to fit the personal views or needs of the President.โ€
Barr has steadfastly supported Trumpโ€™s crackdown on immigrants. He directed judges to deny some migrants the opportunity to post bail, and restricted migrantsโ€™ ability to claim asylum based on connections to family members who face threats of violence. The Justice Department is trying to reverse a recent court decision that helps protect people from fast-track deportations. It has also sued โ€œsanctuary cities,โ€ in California and other states, which offered to protect migrants fleeing the crackdown.
After months of fierce legal battles, the Supreme Court ruled against the Administration in its bid to add a citizenship question to the census. In a 5โ€“4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the โ€œsole stated reasonโ€ for the change โ€œseems to have been contrived.โ€
Trump responded to the defeat by issuing an executive order, giving the President the ability to collect the citizenship data by other means. Legal experts widely dismissed the order as a pointless fig leaf, but, in a Rose Garden ceremony, Barr declared it a triumph. Standing a few feet from Trump, he said, โ€œCongratulations again, Mr. President, on taking this effective action.โ€
Barr showed no sign of tempering Trumpโ€™s instincts. Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, told me, โ€œI think he was nominated for his ability to protect Trump. His belief in executive power was his primary qualification.โ€ In high-profile cases, Barr has repeatedly aided Trump politically. When Barr issued his summary of the Mueller report, he quoted part of a sentence saying that no conclusive proof of collusion had been found, but left out the rest, which suggested that Russia and the Trump campaign had worked at armโ€™s length toward similar goals. He mentioned that the report identified potential incidents of obstruction of justice, but did not enumerate or describe them. (There were ten, including Trumpโ€™s firing of the F.B.I. director James Comey, who had declined to promise him loyalty.)
Three days later, Mueller wrote Barr a letter, complaining that the summary โ€œdid not fully capture the context, nature, and substanceโ€ of his report and had created โ€œpublic confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.โ€ Mueller had prepared an introduction and executive summaries, and he urged Barr to release them. Barr declined, and took another three weeks to redact the full report, allowing Trumpโ€™s claim of โ€œtotal exonerationโ€ to dominate the news.
When Barr finally released the report, in April, he held a press conference beforeย journalists had access to it, which prevented them from asking detailed questions about its contents. Barr repeated four times that no collusion had been found and argued that โ€œthe President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his Presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fuelled by illegal leaks.โ€ Four days later, congressional Democrats subpoenaed Don McGahn, the White House counsel, who had witnessed some of Trumpโ€™s potential acts of obstruction; the Justice Department issued a legal opinion that he was not required to testify.
Trump has often advanced a revisionist view of the 2016 election, claiming that Ukraine interfered and playing down Russiaโ€™s role. In his telling, the F.B.I.โ€™s inquiry was a secret effort, endorsed by Barack Obama, to spy on his campaign. A government official, who asked not to be named, told me that, while Barr does not believe that the โ€œdeep stateโ€ is plotting to force Trump from power, he is convinced that there was something nefarious in the F.B.I.โ€™s conduct of its investigation. Last April, Barr spoke about the matter before a Senate subcommittee. โ€œSpying on a political campaign is a big deal,โ€ he said. โ€œI think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated.โ€
By then, the Justice Departmentโ€™s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, had spent thirteen months on an investigation of the F.B.I.โ€™s handling of the Trump-Russia probe. But Trump directed Barr to begin his own investigation, and also to look into the intelligence assessment that Russia aided his candidacy. Trump gave Barr a far-reaching power: to unilaterally declassify top-secret documents in order to review the work of the countryโ€™s intelligence agencies.
To conduct the probe, Barr appointed John Durham, the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, who, during the Obama Administration, investigated the C.I.A.โ€™s use of torture against suspected terrorists. Barr and Durham made trips to the U.K., Italy, and Australia, where they asked officials for evidence of misconduct by the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon, who has served on the Intelligence Committee since 2001, told me that Barr was ignoring Justice Department norms: โ€œHe is flying around the world trying to get evidence that would confirm these bizarre conspiracy theories and exonerate Russia.โ€ Intelligence officials worried that the trips would make longtime allies hesitant to share information with the U.S., for fear of being drawn into a partisan fight.
David Laufman, a former senior counter-intelligence official at the Justice Department who helped investigate Russian interference, said that the probe has also sent a clear message to U.S. officials: challenge Trump at your peril. โ€œWeโ€™re into Crazy Town,โ€ Laufman told me. The investigation, he said, was โ€œevocative of regimes in history that conduct purges for perceived disloyalty.โ€
Barrโ€™s convictions about the place of faith in government are widely shared in the Administration. The day of his Notre Dame speech, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an address called โ€œBeing a Christian Leader,โ€ in Tennessee. โ€œI know some people in the media will break out the pitchforks when they hear that I ask God for direction in my work,โ€ Pompeo said. โ€œIโ€™m proud to say that President Trump has let our State Department do that. Indeed, he has demanded that we do.โ€ Pompeo is an evangelical Christian; many of his peers in Trumpโ€™s inner circle are conservative Catholics, who have achieved a degree of influence rivalling that of evangelicals in the Georgeย W. Bush Administration. Along with Barr and Cipollone, there are the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney; the White House counsellor Kellyanne Conway; the National Economic Council director, Larry Kudlow; and the former chief strategist Steve Bannon. Leonard Leo, of the C.I.C. and the Federalist Society, has guided Trump in his selection of judges.
An Administration official acknowledged that religious leaders โ€œare acutely aware of Trumpโ€™s shortcomingsโ€ but also recognize his value to their cause. โ€œName a political leader who has done more for conservatives,โ€ the official said. Trump has reshaped the countryโ€™s legal system, appointing two Supreme Court Justices and a hundred and sixty-two other judges, most of whom can be counted on to rule with conservative principles in mind. Barrโ€™s Justice Department has supported efforts to restrict access to abortion, and has aided attempts to secure taxpayer funding for Christian schools. Barr has also helped Trump restore the use of the federal death penalty, which Presidents of both parties have frozen for sixteen years.
Barr likes to describe Trump as the heir to Ronald Reagan. But in some ways his Administration, with its fixation on enemies and its willingness to bend laws for political gain, is more reminiscent of Richard Nixonโ€™s. In September, Honda, Ford, Volkswagen, and BMW agreed with California to observe emissions standards tougher than those endorsed by the White House. After the Administration derided the move as a โ€œP.R. stunt,โ€ the Justice Department opened an antitrust investigation of the automakers. Barrโ€™s work on the Presidentโ€™s behalf extends to keeping his tax returns secret. Last year, Trumpโ€™s personal lawyers argued that his financial records should not be given to New York City prosecutors, who were investigating whether he had made an illegal payment to the adult-film actress Stephanie Clifford. The Justice Department filed an amicus brief, arguing that turning over the records would โ€œimpose substantial burdens on the Presidentโ€™s time, attention, and discharge of his constitutional duties.โ€ Stephen Gillers, the legal-ethics professor, argued that Barrย was failing to challenge Trump when he should. โ€œWe donโ€™t have an Attorney General now,โ€ he said. โ€œWe have an additional lawyer for the President.โ€
Last September, an explosive news story involving Barr strained the distinction between these roles. An unnamed whistle-blower had filed a complaint, based on a phone call between Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine. In the call, Trump urged Zelensky, who was dependent on U.S. military aid, to investigate Biden for links to corrupt behavior. He suggested that he talk to his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giulianiโ€”and also to Barr.
Barr denied any role in the matter and said that he had never spoken with Zelensky. Meanwhile, the Justice Department halted the whistle-blowerโ€™s complaint. First, the Office of Legal Counsel ruled that the complaint was not an โ€œurgent concernโ€ and therefore did not need to be handed over to congressional oversight committees. Then the departmentโ€™s Criminal Division dismissed the whistle-blowerโ€™s allegation that the President had broken a federal law forbidding candidates to solicit support from foreigners. The department reasoned that a publicly announced Ukrainian investigation into Bidenโ€™s conduct cannot be a campaign contribution, because there is no way to precisely enumerate its value.
On November 15th, Marie Yovanovitch, the former Ambassador to Ukraine, testified before the House about being forced out of her position, by what she described as a โ€œsmear campaign.โ€ As she spoke, Trump simultaneously assailed her on Twitter, an experience that she described as โ€œvery intimidating.โ€ That same day, Barr gave a fiery speech to the Federalist Society. โ€œIn waging a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred war of resistance against this Administration, it is the left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law,โ€ he said. He portrayed the President as a victim of โ€œencroachmentโ€ by the other branches of government. โ€œThere is a knee-jerk tendency to see the legislative and judicial branches as the good guys, protecting the people from a rapacious would-be autocrat,โ€ Barr said. โ€œThis prejudice is wrongheaded and atavistic.โ€
In December, Michael Horowitz released a report on his investigation of the F.B.I., which Barr and his allies hoped would support their argument. For months, Trump and Fox News commentators had predicted that Horowitzโ€™s report would find clear political bias. Instead, it concluded that Trumpโ€™s allegations of an F.B.I. โ€œcoupโ€ were false.
The reportโ€”based on more than a hundred and seventy interviews and a million-plus pages of documentsโ€”did find misconduct, most of it involving applications to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court. During the campaign, low-level F.B.I. officials had asked for permission to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump foreign-policy adviser. While doing so, a lawyer falsified an e-mail to make it appear that Page was not coรถperating with the C.I.A., when the opposite was true. Agents also withheld concerns about the reliability of allegations against Trump compiled by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.
Horowitzโ€™s work showed that the governmentโ€™s secretive surveillance process requires significant reform. But the report found that the opening of the probe was legally justified, and that the officialsโ€™ failures did not induce leaders to commit improper acts. โ€œWe did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions,โ€ Horowitz wrote. (A separate investigation into Peter Strzok, a senior counter-intelligence agent who had sent scornful text messages about Trump, came to a similar conclusion.) James Baker, the former general counsel of the F.B.I., told me that the Bureau began the investigation before receiving a copy of the Steele dossier and before the Page e-mail was altered. At the time, Democratic Party communications stolen by Russia were circulating online, and Trump had publicly called for Russia to steal and release Hillary Clintonโ€™s e-mails; several of his campaign officials had been in contact with Russian officials and with suspected intelligence operatives. โ€œWe have an obligation to protect the United States from Russia,โ€ Baker said. โ€œPresented with the same facts, I would open the investigation again.โ€
Barr released a response to the report, disputing Horowitzโ€™s conclusions. Despite the core finding that the investigation was initiated properly, Barr argued that the report โ€œmakes clear that the F.B.I. launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions.โ€ Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed to carry out a separate investigation, suggested that he and Barr had gathered evidence that contradicted Horowitz. โ€œWe advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the reportโ€™s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened,โ€ he said. This statement violated a Justice Department practice of not commenting on investigations until they are finished.
Trump went further, suggesting that Horowitz was part of a cabal formed in the previous Administration. โ€œRemember that I.G.ย Horowitz was appointed by Obama,โ€ he tweeted. โ€œThere was tremendous bias and guilt exposed, so obvious, but Horowitz couldnโ€™t get himself to say it. Big credibility loss. Obama knew everything!โ€
Christopher Wray, the F.B.I. director, immediately admitted the Bureauโ€™s errors and announced forty reforms designed to prevent improper surveillance. But, in a television interview, he pushed back about other false claims. When asked about Trumpโ€™s calls for an investigation into Ukraineโ€™s meddling in the election, Wray replied, โ€œWe have no information that indicates that Ukraine interfered.โ€ Wray also urged Americans to vet their sources of information. โ€œThereโ€™s all kinds of people saying all kinds of things outย there,โ€ he said. โ€œAnd I think part of us being well protected against malign foreign influence is to build together an American public thatโ€™s resilient, that has appropriate media literacy, and that takes its information with a grain of salt.โ€
After Wray defended the F.B.I., Trump attacked him as well. โ€œI donโ€™t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasnโ€™t the one given to me,โ€ he tweeted. โ€œWith that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!โ€
Wray is still in his job, but others have faced significant consequences. One of these is Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence, a moderate Republican who publicly questioned some of Trumpโ€™s claims. Last summer, after months of pressure, Coats resigned, and Trump suggested replacing him with John Ratcliffe, a congressman from Texas who has trafficked in conspiracy theories. (After evidence suggested that Ratcliffe may have exaggerated his rรฉsumรฉ, the White House withdrew the nomination; the position remains vacant.) Trump also revoked the security clearance of the former C.I.A. director John Brennan, who has criticized him. Agents recognized the implications; many intelligence officials, after years of low-paying government work, rely on their security clearances to obtain private-sector jobs when they retire. More recently, the President denounced the whistle-blower in the Ukraine case, who has subsequently received many death threats. When the threats spike, armed agents drive him to and from work.
In dozens of interviews, current and former law-enforcement and intelligence officials said that three years of Trumpโ€™s Twitter attacks, conspiracy theories, and high-profile firings have left their leaders wary of speaking in public, testifying before Congress, or talking to reporters. They know that they will be asked about Trumpโ€™s false claims. If they respond accurately, they risk being fired for contradicting the President.
The countryโ€™s intelligence agencies continue to produce private assessments that counter Trumpโ€™s specious assertions. They affirm that Russia, not Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election and predict that it is likely to meddle again in 2020, according to members of the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees. The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. have also assessed that white nationalists andย isisย members represent continued threats, issues that Trump has downplayed. But agency directors believe that they can best protect their institutions by keeping such concerns private. โ€œSurvival is victory,โ€ the government official told me. โ€œIf you are able to go out on your own terms, or go out last, itโ€™s a victory for the institution.โ€
If Barrโ€™s inquiry results in criminal charges, it would be a radical departure from past practice. When Durham investigated C.I.A. officers for torture, he pressed no criminal charges. Previous investigations into intelligence failures that cost American livesโ€”such as missing warning signs before the 9/11 attacks or wrongly concluding that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destructionโ€”carried no possibility of criminal sanction. James Clapper, who was the director of National Intelligence in 2016, cautioned that the election assessment is a work of analysis. โ€œIf a prosecuting attorney is investigating analysts for their intelligence judgments, thatโ€™s not good,โ€ Clapper said. James Baker worried that Trumpโ€™s intimidation of investigators would have consequences at the F.B.I. โ€œIt could reduce the willingness to give frank assessments or to pursue controversial cases,โ€ he said, adding, โ€œIโ€™m nervous about the institution.โ€
In private gatherings, current and former F.B.I. agents and Justice Department officials register exhaustion at Trumpโ€™s attacks on the F.B.I. Recent retirees told me that they were surprised by how little they missed working at the Bureau.
Some agents have embraced Wrayโ€™s admonition to do their work and ignore the political brawl around them. After two and a half years on the job, Wray, a low-key former prosecutor and corporate lawyer, has inspired loyalty for handling a difficult situation gracefully. The Bureau, like the country, is deeply divided; even some agents who find Trump personally distasteful say that they support his policies. Comey was a popular director, but agents complain that his calls for people to vote against Trump play into conspiracy theories about the Bureau. The clearest sentiment is disdain for the political class. Last winter, during the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, the Bureauโ€™s thirteen thousand agents and twenty thousand support staffers struggled to pay their bills. After employees walked into supervisorsโ€™ offices in tears, agents set up impromptu food banks to help colleagues. Trump caused the shutdown by demanding that Congress fund his border wall with Mexico, but many agents argued that politicians on both sides were responsible. โ€œThey didnโ€™t do their job,โ€ Tom Oโ€™Connor, a retired F.B.I. agent, told me.
The political combat of the Trump era was breeding apathy and disgust. F.B.I. and Justice Department officials said that if Trump was reรซlected there would be an exodus of employees. Some retired agents fear that the institution will not survive another four years.
Stephen Gillers suggested that Trumpโ€™s attacks were part of a drive for increased power. โ€œOne way that Trump seeks to maximize control is minimizing the disclosure of information and undermining the credibility of information,โ€ he said. โ€œThe Congress needs information to do its job, and the President has frozen it outโ€”especially in the impeachment investigation. Another check is the media, and the Presidentโ€™s use of the term โ€˜fake newsโ€™ can cause people to loseย faith in the media. What remains are the courts, which are slow and cumbersome.โ€
Donald Ayer, the former Bush Administration Deputy Attorney General, warned that Barrโ€™s interpretations of executive power could be validated. โ€œThe ultimate question is what happens when these reach the Supreme Court, which has two Trump appointees,โ€ he said. โ€œThere is a real danger that he succeeds.โ€ Some legal analysts believe that Barr is overplaying his hand. Benjamin Wittes, of Lawfare, predicted that the Supreme Court would reject Barrโ€™s extreme positions, creating precedents that ultimately reduce the power of the Presidency. โ€œThe idea that the President gets to assert executive privilege over material that has already been made public is laughable,โ€ Wittes told me. โ€œI think they are very likely to lose a lot of this.โ€
Chuck Cooper, the conservative litigator, disagreed. He said that Barrโ€™s tenure represented the achievement of the legal project launched during the Reagan Administration. โ€œHe is building and extending on a foundation,โ€ Cooper said. โ€œIt was popularized and very robustly advanced by the Meese Justice Department.โ€ Last October, in the Oval Office, Trump awarded Meese the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the countryโ€™s highest civilian honor. Barr attended, and Meese thanked him for carrying on his legacy: โ€œYouโ€™ve risen to continue the string of great Attorneys General in this country.โ€
As Barr insists on expanded Presidential power, Republican voters are starting to agree. According to the Pew Center, forty-three per cent of Republicans believe that โ€œpresidents could operate more effectively if they did not have to worry so much about Congress and the courts.โ€ That number has increased from fourteen per cent when Trump took office. A House G.O.P. report about Ukraine endorsed his singular authority; slightly misquoting John Marshall, it argued that Trump was, โ€œconstitutionally, the โ€˜nationโ€™s sole organ of foreign affairs,โ€™ย โ€ and thus had unlimited latitude in his dealings with Ukraine.
Ayer fears that Barr has combined a Reagan-era drive to dismantle government with a Trump-era drive to politicize it. As the White House succeeds in holding off congressional attempts at removing Trump from office, Barr is winning his long war on the power of the legislative branch. In the 2020 campaign, Trump will argue that he alone can protect the country from the dangers posed by the left, immigrants, and other enemies. And Barrโ€™s vision of Presidential power will be the Partyโ€™s mainstream position. โ€œBarr sought out the opportunity to be Donald Trumpโ€™s Attorney General,โ€ Ayer said. โ€œThis, I believe, was his opportunityโ€”the opportunity of a lifetimeโ€”to make major progress on advancing his vision of an all-powerful Chief Executive.โ€ย โ™ฆ
Published in the print edition of theย January 20, 2020, issue, with the headline โ€œSword and Shield.โ€
________
David Rohde is an executive editor of newyorker.com. He is the author of โ€œIn Deep: The F.B.I., the C.I.A., and the Truth about Americaโ€™s โ€˜Deep Stateโ€™,โ€ forthcoming in April, 2020.
*********
0 notes
rolandfontana ยท 5 years
Text
A โ€˜Destructiveโ€™ Climate Fostered the 25-Year-Old Crime Act. Can We Fix It?
As we mark the 25th anniversary of passage of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, it is being disavowed by many who had previously supported it, including leading presidential candidates.
Rejecting the punitive provisions of the Act, passed at the height of the โ€œtough-on-crimeโ€ era, and the destructive political climate it helped bolster is a critical step in recognizing the harms caused by mass incarceration.
But much more than rhetoric is needed. Equally important is championing reforms that address the effects some sections of the law have had on low-income communities, particularly communities of color,
At 356 pages, the 1994 law remains the most far-reaching crime bill in our nationโ€™s history. The legislation, which covered a wide range of issues, included elements that are worth praisingโ€”and remain popular todayโ€”such as protections for battered women and support for substance abuse programs.
But it also included measures that many now oppose. The law, for example, authorized the death penalty for dozens of federal crimes, and created an โ€œhabitual offenderโ€ law that mandated life imprisonment for third felonies in many circumstances.
In another measure with far-reaching and damaging impact, people in prison were no longer eligible for Pell grants that enabled low-income individuals to take college-level courses and gain the educational qualifications that would help them better integrate with civilian society on their release.
Given that 90 percent of incarcerated people are under state and local jurisdiction, federal lawmakers did their best to ensure that their punitive approach was duplicated at the state level, by authorizing $9.7 billion in grants to encourage states to build new prisons and adopt โ€œtruth-in-sentencingโ€ laws that required individuals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence before being eligible for release.
While not all the federal grant monies were spent, an Urban Institute study focused on studying the impact of the crime legislation found a total of 28 states and the District of Columbia received truth-in-sentencing grants between 1996 and 1999.
Between 1995 and 1999, nine states adopted truth-in-sentencing laws and another 21 states changed their pre-existing truth-in-sentencing lawsโ€”although there isnโ€™t certainty on how many of these changes were directly linked to the 1994 Crime Bill.
Most states had already passed harsh sentencing laws before the 1994 Crime Bill, but the federal bill provided a bipartisan push to continue down the tough-on-crime road, and go even further.
The number of people in prison continued to grow for 15 years following enactment of the legislation, even though crime rates had been going down before passage of the bill and continued downward long after. According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of state and federal correctional facilities grew from 1,277 in 1990 to 1,821 in 2005, representing a 43 percent increase.
The 1994 Act certainly did not create mass incarceration, but there is no question that it helped accelerate its growth, both directly and indirectly. An equally, if not more dangerous, consequence of the law was the impact that it had on national and state politics. The Act gave the green light for Democratic and Republican lawmakers, voters and prosecutors to support locking up more people and building more prisons.
It solidified the tough-on-crime era as a bipartisan one.
Official party platforms adopted tough-on-crime policies and called for more punitive criminal justice measures. Just a few months following passage of the federal bill, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 184, which created a three-strike law that set a minimum sentence of 25 years to life for people convicted of offenses for the third time. And between 1994 and 2008, there was a nearly 40 percent increase in felony charges filed by prosecutors, who began to more aggressively assert their authority due to the changing political climate.
While the Act is still on the books, the politics of mass incarceration are finally beginning to change. Americans are beginning to hold policymakers accountable for the racial injustices created by our system of mass incarceration, and the exponential growth in the nationโ€™s jail, prison, parole, and probation populations.
So while denouncing the Act is welcome, there are concrete steps that policymakers should take to put teeth behind the rhetoric and mend the black and brown communities who are disproportionately suffering the legacy of the policies enshrined in the legislation.
First, policymakers must begin to rebalance spending priorities. Bernie Sanders recently accused South Carolina of spending more on prisons than on schools, leading to a โ€œfact checkโ€ by PolitiFact.
Yet Sanders was right, and South Carolina is not unique. Every single state in the nation averages more spending on prisons than on students. This must change.
A direct repudiation of the 1994 Actโ€™s emphasis on federal spending involves direct investments into communities harmed by mass incarceration, including investing in substance abuse programs, mental health clinics, youth programs, and supportive housing.
These investments should be determined through a โ€œPeopleโ€™s Assembly Processโ€ that draws input from directly affected communities nationwide, as recently called for by the Vision for Justice initiative launched by The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and supported by the ACLU and many others.
Second, the nationโ€™s sentencing systems must be revised dramatically.
This includes eliminating the death penalty and mandatory minimums โ€” including life without parole. A maximum sentence of no more than 20 years in prison should be created, along with โ€œSecond Lookโ€ legislation that allows anyone who has served 10 years or more to apply for resentencing. All reforms should be made retroactive to apply to currently incarcerated people.
Finally, policymakers must commit to specific decarceration goals.
At the American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU) weโ€™ve launched a campaign to get all of the presidential candidates to commit to a 50 percent decarceration goal during their presidential term. So far, 14 presidential candidates have committed to this goal, including almost all of the leading candidates.
This represents a seismic shift from the presidential politics that drove crime and justice policymaking in the 1990s.
A 2018 ACLU Smart Justice poll found that 59 percent of likely voters prefer a candidate who supports reducing the number of people in jails and prisons, and 75 percent of voters prefer a candidate who supports reducing racial disparities in the criminal legal system.
Voters are hungry for change, and dismantling the impact of the 1994 legislation is a way to begin feeding their emerging hunger for social and racial justice.
Udi Ofer is a deputy national political director and director of the Justice Division at the American Civil Liberties Union. He welcomes readersโ€™ comments.
A โ€˜Destructiveโ€™ Climate Fostered the 25-Year-Old Crime Act. Can We Fix It? syndicated from https://immigrationattorneyto.wordpress.com/
0 notes
reneeacaseyfl ยท 5 years
Text
Trump is kicking 3 million more people off food stamps for the stupidest possible reason โ€“ ThinkProgress
Three million poor people could be booted from the food stamps system under a Trump administration regulatory proposal issued Tuesday.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is aware the proposal will shrink grocery budgets for that massive share of people. It just cares more about making a conservative millionaire in Minnesota happy.
That was the message on a brief press call Monday evening, as USDA Acting Deputy Undersecretary Brandon Lipps described the agencyโ€™s proposed elimination of a policy called โ€œBroad-based Categorical Eligibilityโ€ (BBCE) to reporters.
The new rules will also force state program administrators to revert to old systems that pile up additional paperwork, staff hours, and costs. It was unclear if the agency factored those costs into the $2.5 billion in annual savings Lipps projected from the maneuver โ€” a vanishingly small drop in the multi-trillion-dollar federal spending ocean.
The rule will also knock more than a quarter-million children out of free school meals programs. Though the agency expects almost every one of them would be able to win access at least to the reduced-price meal options in their schools, Lipps did not say what the agency might do to alert parents that they would need to fill out new applications for the program.
That is, if the rules ever get implemented. An initial public-comment period of 60 days begins on Wednesday.
The rule will likely attract huge numbers of formulaic objections, as advocacy groups provide their members suggested language to submit. But substantive notes challenging the USDA on facts, data, and academic research theyโ€™ve failed to acknowledge in their proposal are more likely to force further review, public policy experts told ThinkProgress. Luckily for opponents, the facts are not friendly to the administration here.
The BBCE system that Lipps and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue are attacking has been around for 20 years, enjoying broad bipartisan support until very recently. Under the current rules, states can choose โ€“ but are never forced โ€“ to expand access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beyond the relatively meager scope built into federal anti-hunger legislation.
Twenty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and the territorial governments of Guam and the Virgin Islands have adopted the modest expansion of income limits BBCE allows. The 20-year-old rules also allow states to suspend the harsh โ€œasset testsโ€ in federal law that deny SNAP to any recipient who manages to accumulate roughly $2,000 in personal savings. More than 40 jurisdictions have used BBCE authority to cancel their asset tests.
Millions of people across those states will become poorer, and their children less likely to get adequate nutrition every day, if the regulatory proposal takes effect. Every low-income worker in those states will also be actively discouraged from working more, taking a job with better pay, and saving up for future education or emergency expenses.
All in all, the changes would make working-poor Americans less independent, more prone to hunger and eviction, and more miserable than they already are.
These are not, of course, explicit stated goals of the conservatives who have spent years trying to trim back SNAP benefits. But right-wing lawmakers have embraced this technocratic crusade thanks to a millionaire right-wing activist in Minnesota, the conservative media that amplified his stunt, and some wonky ideological disputes over whose numbers are correct and whose are bogus.
What categorical eligibility is โ€“ and what it isnโ€™t
In recent years, conservatives have been on the warpath over both BBCE and the food stamp program in general. Perdueโ€™s team already pushed through a similarly counterproductive policy that restricts poor working familiesโ€™ access to SNAP earlier this year, imposing additional work requirements and time limits that states have often chosen to waive in the past.
But Perdueโ€™s new regulatory attack on working families finds its roots in a deeper fight over what it means to be poor, and who the government should count as impoverished.
The definition of poverty baked into federal statistics is unrealistically narrow and fails to capture the reality of American need. It is based on measures of family expenses from the 1950s that have been updated mathematically but not methodologically for half a century. The explosion in housing, healthcare, and childcare costs over the past few decades donโ€™t show up in those figures as a result.
The government is miscounting โ€“ and almost certainly undercounting, rather than overcounting โ€“ the number of citizens living in severe privation.
Food stamps law acknowledges the imprecision of these metrics by offering SNAP benefits to families above the federal poverty line (FPL). All households earning 130% or less of FPL income are statutorily eligible for SNAP. Thatโ€™s a hard floor that requires both houses of Congress and a sitting president all agree to change it.
Think of BBCE as a spare bedroom built onto that legislative house after the fact: Families earning more than the statutory eligibility break-point of 130%. FPL are still tremendously poor, and BBCE exists to alleviate their suffering under the same logic that led past policymakers to design SNAP to reach beyond FPL in the first place.
States can use BBCE to invite SNAP applications from households earning as much as 200% FPL, provided they qualify for some other low-income program funded through the separate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) system. These families donโ€™t just automatically start getting these benefits โ€” their incomes and expenses are still verified by caseworkers. The SNAP benefits they ultimately receive, if any, are less generous than those provided to so-called core food stamps recipients earning 130% FPL and below.
This bipartisan addition to the rules has in the past been embraced by such notorious liberal squishes as Saxby Chambliss and George W. Bush. But unlike the 130% rule in the law, BBCE rests entirely on regulatory decisions and political coalitions. As such, itโ€™s a lot easier to tear down.
Perdueโ€™s team is taking advantage of that vulnerability now, roughly a year after it became clear that Republicans in the House were not going to be able to slash the food stamps system through the Farm Bill. In fact, as Lipps tacitly confirmed on Mondayโ€™s press call, the ideological war against BBCE began long before then โ€” and in suburban Minnesota, not around a table full of policy experts and poor peopleโ€™s advocates.
A millionaire stunt and the right-wing hype machine
Conservatives have previously supported BBCE because it serves their longstanding goal of encouraging food stamp recipients to start earning enough money that they can exit the public assistance system.
BBCE helps cure a problem safety-net experts call the โ€œbenefit cliff.โ€ Whenever policymakers draw an eligibility line, they risk doing major harm to the people just barely on the right side of it. Someone making 50 cents more than the FPL-plus-thirty mark is not meaningfully less needy than someone right on the line would be. BBCE rules allow state administrators of federally-funded SNAP to lump in those families wrong-footed by the precision of the statutory eligibility line.
Liberals tend to emphasize the social and economic value of helping low-income people buy food, and conservatives tend to emphasize the welfare-to-work aspects of BBCEโ€™s cliff-smoothing. But whatever the cosmetic differences, conservatives repeatedly joined the political coalition preserving BBCE under both Presidents Bush and Obama.
But under President Donald Trump, a more radical wing of the conservative policymaking world has gained new traction. This administration has even tried to shrink the already-limited technical definition of โ€œbeing poor,โ€ arguing that only 1 in 50 Americans is actually poor. BBCE is just the latest good idea to be sacrificed in this ideological campaign for a radically emaciated version of public assistance to struggling people.
The family of five making half a dollar too much in wages or holding one dollar too much in the bank to qualify for SNAP is an easy example for categorical eligibilityโ€™s defenders. Conservatives like to hunt for one-off outliers scamming the system to argue that this is so generous and loose that it generates abuse.
Enter Robert Undersander, a Minnesota retiree with a net worth north of $1 million. He and his wife applied for and received food stamps, intending to serve as living examples of the Republican argument that the program is systematically rotten. Had Minnesota not gotten rid of the asset-limit component of its eligibility test for SNAP, Undersander claimed, people like him never could have fleeced taxpayers.
Undersanderโ€™s story quickly went viral in conservative media circles after he published an op-ed in his local paper recounting the stunt. When Democrats convened a House Agriculture Committee hearing this June in anticipation of the kind of regulatory assault on BBCE that Perdue unveiled Tuesday morning, Undersander didnโ€™t make the official witness list but became the star of the show anyhow, after Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) recounted the Minnesota millionaireโ€™s story.
โ€œMr. Undersander is not alone,โ€ Johnson (R-SD) said, claiming that โ€œtens of thousandsโ€ of similar millionaires might be skimming food stamps thanks to the current rules.
Even as he insinuated that Undersanderโ€™s intentional, political act to sabotage a system benefiting working-poor families was just one example among many, Johnson stopped short of saying there are tons of millionaires on SNAP.
And thatโ€™s because there arenโ€™t. Three-quarters of all SNAP-receiving households in states with BBCE have less than $500 in liquid assets. Just under 7% have total assets valued above $10,000 that would be counted in non-BBCE states. There is no epidemic, no army of Undersanders abusing SNAP.
โ€œIf you actually play through whoโ€™s benefiting, it doesnโ€™t line up with maybe more of a popular narrative about people who quote unquote take advantage or abuse welfare,โ€ Urban Institute safety-net expert Elaine Waxman told ThinkProgress.
Back in June, Waxman, Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes (D), and other policymakers explained to the House panel how BBCE supports goals conservatives have pursued for decades, from encouraging work to administrative efficiency. But the Republicans at the hearing seemed to only have eyes for the millionaire dilettante in the gallery and the cheap, singular stunt he was there to perform.
โ€œMy thought is there was some intent there to sort of disrupt the conversation,โ€ Waxman recalled. โ€œBecause again, when you unpack BBCE it frankly supports goals from both sides of the aisle.โ€
Undersander has been a fixture on Fox News, as well as the right-wing Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), which has led the effort to discredit BBCE for about as long as Trump has been on the political scene. This has enabled Undersanderโ€™s political project to thrive.
โ€œA lot of newer members donโ€™t know all the ins and outs of these programs. They acquire their information from popular media, and their understanding of it is pretty thin,โ€ Waxman said. โ€œAnd [BBCE] is hard for people to understand, so when they hear simplified explanations โ€” that it letโ€™s people with more money get on SNAP โ€” thatโ€™s something people respond to from a just-common-sense point of view.โ€
For every one rich household like Undersanderโ€™s thatโ€™s skimming money it doesnโ€™t need, there are hundreds of low-income families trying to diligently save for emergencies, who might lose a modest food assistance check if their state reverts to punishing poor people who save money. If Perdue succeeds in killing BBCE, most of them would quickly face devastating choices between eating and paying their bills.
โ€œGenerally the group that benefits from this program are working families who pay a huge share of their income on rent and childcare,โ€ Dean said.
โ€œThereโ€™s no question if you roll back BBCE you increase food insecurity and you increase poverty, for both families of children and others,โ€ Waxman said. โ€œYou can decide there are tradeoffs youโ€™re willing to make, but those should be acknowledged. And I wanted to make sure the committee heard that clearly: If you choose that, for whatever priority youโ€™re supporting, you need to acknowledge youโ€™re willing to accept increases in the problems that concern us.โ€
Lipps, Perdue, and their staffs know all of this. Itโ€™s well-established fact with 20 years of data backing it up. Lipps was a staffer on the key committee handling food aid for years prior to his promotion to the agency gig heโ€™s currently in.
So why do any of this?
โ€œAs you know thereโ€™s a millionaire whoโ€™s come out to say he got on the program specifically to prove that he could. Americans wonโ€™t support a program that allows SNAP benefits to go to people like millionaires,โ€ Lipps said Monday night. Undersanderโ€™s story, Lipps said, means โ€œthere may be other millionairesโ€ getting food stamps.
But rather than just take the steps necessary to weed out the rogue millionaires, Lipps and Perdue will cut benefits for millions. Many millions, as it turns out.
โ€œUSDAโ€™s estimating that a little over three million people are likely not to qualify for SNAP benefits after they are subjected to income and asset testsโ€ waived under the current BBCE rules, Lipps said.
In other words: Theyโ€™re knowingly choosing to throw 3.1 million babies out the window just to get rid of Rob Undersanderโ€™s bathwater. (The USDA declined to make Lipps available to ThinkProgress for follow-ups, but a spokesman doubled down on his claims in an email.)
Whatever role malevolence may be playing in Perdueโ€™s maneuvers, simple ignorance seems to be an issue too. Republicans who think they hate BBCE appear to misunderstand what the system is, how it actually works, and what it accomplishes.
Hypocrisy and conservative self-sabotage
The key political attribute of the current regulations is that non-cash programs funded with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) money can be used to trigger SNAP eligibility.
TANF replaced traditional welfare in the bipartisan safety net reforms of the Clinton presidency. Now, states get a chunk of money for TANF that they can spend in a variety of ways; fewer and fewer put any of it into basic cash assistance for the poor. Many of these programs are informational or advisory, rather than conferring something the current USDA administrators view as โ€˜real.โ€™
Ending BBCE means that people served by the programs states choose to support with TANF money will face new hurdles to receiving SNAP. The new regs define a โ€œsubstantial and ongoingโ€ TANF service that qualifies people for automatic enrollment in SNAP as services with a monetary value of $50 per month lasting six or more months, Lipps explained.
Like Johnson and Undersander and the FGA before him, Lipps invoked the specter of people getting automatically enrolled in SNAP just because they were handed a brochure that was printed using TANF money. The interaction between those programs and SNAP, the right argues, in effect opens a back-door into food stamps for anyone who gets handed the right informational pamphlet.
But just because a pamphlet gives someone the right to applyย for SNAP under BBCE doesnโ€™t entitle them to receive it.
โ€œFamilies still have to go through the application process, they have to document their income and circumstances the same way any other household would,โ€ Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in an interview. โ€œThis isnโ€™t just some bypass of the scrutiny the program applies.โ€
Lipps repeatedly told reporters this regulatory attack on poor families is really about making sure the rules for food stamps are the same across all states. But the suggestion that the new crop of conservatives now dislikes the ways states are using the flexibility block-granting proponents have always insisted is crucial is also at odds with longstanding conservative doctrine that holds that state-based systems deliver better service for the needy. Trump himself has repeatedly proposed converting Medicaid into a TANF-style block grant.
If the states know best, then the current BBCE relationship between safety net programs are products of that superior knowledge. The people getting it are truly needy, under the block-grantersโ€™ logic, and thus exactly the sort of people who should get a bit of extra help. Undersanderโ€™s narrative โ€” and the wonky, contentious smears of BBCEโ€™s execution across the country that have accompanied it โ€” seem to have lured conservatives into an internally incoherent position on poverty assistance writ large.
โ€œI think thereโ€™s an enormous disconnect between what states can achieve with the categorical eligibility option โ€ฆ and what some members of Congress believe it actually does,โ€ Dean said. โ€œSome seem to be under the misinformed impression that it lets non-needy people participate in the program, and nothing could be further from the truth.โ€
Waxman was similarly charitable, saying sheโ€™s โ€œnot sure that people have necessarily thought through all the implications.โ€
โ€œThe conversation is mostly ideological, not necessarily connecting all of these dots [to] support work in low-income communities,โ€ she said. The critics are โ€œnot realizing that sometimes these benefits are a really important work support.โ€
But itโ€™s also possible they know exactly what theyโ€™re doing.
โ€œThose families are doing everything we would want them to do, working hard and struggling to get by, and the federal work support programs donโ€™t reach them,โ€ Dean said.
โ€œThis allows them to get a little bit of food assistance to make it through the month. And itโ€™s just shocking that thatโ€™s the group they want to target.โ€
Credit: Source link
The post Trump is kicking 3 million more people off food stamps for the stupidest possible reason โ€“ ThinkProgress appeared first on WeeklyReviewer.
from WeeklyReviewer https://weeklyreviewer.com/trump-is-kicking-3-million-more-people-off-food-stamps-for-the-stupidest-possible-reason-thinkprogress/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=trump-is-kicking-3-million-more-people-off-food-stamps-for-the-stupidest-possible-reason-thinkprogress from WeeklyReviewer https://weeklyreviewer.tumblr.com/post/186491865357
0 notes
velmaemyers88 ยท 5 years
Text
Trump is kicking 3 million more people off food stamps for the stupidest possible reason โ€“ ThinkProgress
Three million poor people could be booted from the food stamps system under a Trump administration regulatory proposal issued Tuesday.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is aware the proposal will shrink grocery budgets for that massive share of people. It just cares more about making a conservative millionaire in Minnesota happy.
That was the message on a brief press call Monday evening, as USDA Acting Deputy Undersecretary Brandon Lipps described the agencyโ€™s proposed elimination of a policy called โ€œBroad-based Categorical Eligibilityโ€ (BBCE) to reporters.
The new rules will also force state program administrators to revert to old systems that pile up additional paperwork, staff hours, and costs. It was unclear if the agency factored those costs into the $2.5 billion in annual savings Lipps projected from the maneuver โ€” a vanishingly small drop in the multi-trillion-dollar federal spending ocean.
The rule will also knock more than a quarter-million children out of free school meals programs. Though the agency expects almost every one of them would be able to win access at least to the reduced-price meal options in their schools, Lipps did not say what the agency might do to alert parents that they would need to fill out new applications for the program.
That is, if the rules ever get implemented. An initial public-comment period of 60 days begins on Wednesday.
The rule will likely attract huge numbers of formulaic objections, as advocacy groups provide their members suggested language to submit. But substantive notes challenging the USDA on facts, data, and academic research theyโ€™ve failed to acknowledge in their proposal are more likely to force further review, public policy experts told ThinkProgress. Luckily for opponents, the facts are not friendly to the administration here.
The BBCE system that Lipps and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue are attacking has been around for 20 years, enjoying broad bipartisan support until very recently. Under the current rules, states can choose โ€“ but are never forced โ€“ to expand access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beyond the relatively meager scope built into federal anti-hunger legislation.
Twenty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and the territorial governments of Guam and the Virgin Islands have adopted the modest expansion of income limits BBCE allows. The 20-year-old rules also allow states to suspend the harsh โ€œasset testsโ€ in federal law that deny SNAP to any recipient who manages to accumulate roughly $2,000 in personal savings. More than 40 jurisdictions have used BBCE authority to cancel their asset tests.
Millions of people across those states will become poorer, and their children less likely to get adequate nutrition every day, if the regulatory proposal takes effect. Every low-income worker in those states will also be actively discouraged from working more, taking a job with better pay, and saving up for future education or emergency expenses.
All in all, the changes would make working-poor Americans less independent, more prone to hunger and eviction, and more miserable than they already are.
These are not, of course, explicit stated goals of the conservatives who have spent years trying to trim back SNAP benefits. But right-wing lawmakers have embraced this technocratic crusade thanks to a millionaire right-wing activist in Minnesota, the conservative media that amplified his stunt, and some wonky ideological disputes over whose numbers are correct and whose are bogus.
What categorical eligibility is โ€“ and what it isnโ€™t
In recent years, conservatives have been on the warpath over both BBCE and the food stamp program in general. Perdueโ€™s team already pushed through a similarly counterproductive policy that restricts poor working familiesโ€™ access to SNAP earlier this year, imposing additional work requirements and time limits that states have often chosen to waive in the past.
But Perdueโ€™s new regulatory attack on working families finds its roots in a deeper fight over what it means to be poor, and who the government should count as impoverished.
The definition of poverty baked into federal statistics is unrealistically narrow and fails to capture the reality of American need. It is based on measures of family expenses from the 1950s that have been updated mathematically but not methodologically for half a century. The explosion in housing, healthcare, and childcare costs over the past few decades donโ€™t show up in those figures as a result.
The government is miscounting โ€“ and almost certainly undercounting, rather than overcounting โ€“ the number of citizens living in severe privation.
Food stamps law acknowledges the imprecision of these metrics by offering SNAP benefits to families above the federal poverty line (FPL). All households earning 130% or less of FPL income are statutorily eligible for SNAP. Thatโ€™s a hard floor that requires both houses of Congress and a sitting president all agree to change it.
Think of BBCE as a spare bedroom built onto that legislative house after the fact: Families earning more than the statutory eligibility break-point of 130%. FPL are still tremendously poor, and BBCE exists to alleviate their suffering under the same logic that led past policymakers to design SNAP to reach beyond FPL in the first place.
States can use BBCE to invite SNAP applications from households earning as much as 200% FPL, provided they qualify for some other low-income program funded through the separate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) system. These families donโ€™t just automatically start getting these benefits โ€” their incomes and expenses are still verified by caseworkers. The SNAP benefits they ultimately receive, if any, are less generous than those provided to so-called core food stamps recipients earning 130% FPL and below.
This bipartisan addition to the rules has in the past been embraced by such notorious liberal squishes as Saxby Chambliss and George W. Bush. But unlike the 130% rule in the law, BBCE rests entirely on regulatory decisions and political coalitions. As such, itโ€™s a lot easier to tear down.
Perdueโ€™s team is taking advantage of that vulnerability now, roughly a year after it became clear that Republicans in the House were not going to be able to slash the food stamps system through the Farm Bill. In fact, as Lipps tacitly confirmed on Mondayโ€™s press call, the ideological war against BBCE began long before then โ€” and in suburban Minnesota, not around a table full of policy experts and poor peopleโ€™s advocates.
A millionaire stunt and the right-wing hype machine
Conservatives have previously supported BBCE because it serves their longstanding goal of encouraging food stamp recipients to start earning enough money that they can exit the public assistance system.
BBCE helps cure a problem safety-net experts call the โ€œbenefit cliff.โ€ Whenever policymakers draw an eligibility line, they risk doing major harm to the people just barely on the right side of it. Someone making 50 cents more than the FPL-plus-thirty mark is not meaningfully less needy than someone right on the line would be. BBCE rules allow state administrators of federally-funded SNAP to lump in those families wrong-footed by the precision of the statutory eligibility line.
Liberals tend to emphasize the social and economic value of helping low-income people buy food, and conservatives tend to emphasize the welfare-to-work aspects of BBCEโ€™s cliff-smoothing. But whatever the cosmetic differences, conservatives repeatedly joined the political coalition preserving BBCE under both Presidents Bush and Obama.
But under President Donald Trump, a more radical wing of the conservative policymaking world has gained new traction. This administration has even tried to shrink the already-limited technical definition of โ€œbeing poor,โ€ arguing that only 1 in 50 Americans is actually poor. BBCE is just the latest good idea to be sacrificed in this ideological campaign for a radically emaciated version of public assistance to struggling people.
The family of five making half a dollar too much in wages or holding one dollar too much in the bank to qualify for SNAP is an easy example for categorical eligibilityโ€™s defenders. Conservatives like to hunt for one-off outliers scamming the system to argue that this is so generous and loose that it generates abuse.
Enter Robert Undersander, a Minnesota retiree with a net worth north of $1 million. He and his wife applied for and received food stamps, intending to serve as living examples of the Republican argument that the program is systematically rotten. Had Minnesota not gotten rid of the asset-limit component of its eligibility test for SNAP, Undersander claimed, people like him never could have fleeced taxpayers.
Undersanderโ€™s story quickly went viral in conservative media circles after he published an op-ed in his local paper recounting the stunt. When Democrats convened a House Agriculture Committee hearing this June in anticipation of the kind of regulatory assault on BBCE that Perdue unveiled Tuesday morning, Undersander didnโ€™t make the official witness list but became the star of the show anyhow, after Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) recounted the Minnesota millionaireโ€™s story.
โ€œMr. Undersander is not alone,โ€ Johnson (R-SD) said, claiming that โ€œtens of thousandsโ€ of similar millionaires might be skimming food stamps thanks to the current rules.
Even as he insinuated that Undersanderโ€™s intentional, political act to sabotage a system benefiting working-poor families was just one example among many, Johnson stopped short of saying there are tons of millionaires on SNAP.
And thatโ€™s because there arenโ€™t. Three-quarters of all SNAP-receiving households in states with BBCE have less than $500 in liquid assets. Just under 7% have total assets valued above $10,000 that would be counted in non-BBCE states. There is no epidemic, no army of Undersanders abusing SNAP.
โ€œIf you actually play through whoโ€™s benefiting, it doesnโ€™t line up with maybe more of a popular narrative about people who quote unquote take advantage or abuse welfare,โ€ Urban Institute safety-net expert Elaine Waxman told ThinkProgress.
Back in June, Waxman, Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes (D), and other policymakers explained to the House panel how BBCE supports goals conservatives have pursued for decades, from encouraging work to administrative efficiency. But the Republicans at the hearing seemed to only have eyes for the millionaire dilettante in the gallery and the cheap, singular stunt he was there to perform.
โ€œMy thought is there was some intent there to sort of disrupt the conversation,โ€ Waxman recalled. โ€œBecause again, when you unpack BBCE it frankly supports goals from both sides of the aisle.โ€
Undersander has been a fixture on Fox News, as well as the right-wing Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), which has led the effort to discredit BBCE for about as long as Trump has been on the political scene. This has enabled Undersanderโ€™s political project to thrive.
โ€œA lot of newer members donโ€™t know all the ins and outs of these programs. They acquire their information from popular media, and their understanding of it is pretty thin,โ€ Waxman said. โ€œAnd [BBCE] is hard for people to understand, so when they hear simplified explanations โ€” that it letโ€™s people with more money get on SNAP โ€” thatโ€™s something people respond to from a just-common-sense point of view.โ€
For every one rich household like Undersanderโ€™s thatโ€™s skimming money it doesnโ€™t need, there are hundreds of low-income families trying to diligently save for emergencies, who might lose a modest food assistance check if their state reverts to punishing poor people who save money. If Perdue succeeds in killing BBCE, most of them would quickly face devastating choices between eating and paying their bills.
โ€œGenerally the group that benefits from this program are working families who pay a huge share of their income on rent and childcare,โ€ Dean said.
โ€œThereโ€™s no question if you roll back BBCE you increase food insecurity and you increase poverty, for both families of children and others,โ€ Waxman said. โ€œYou can decide there are tradeoffs youโ€™re willing to make, but those should be acknowledged. And I wanted to make sure the committee heard that clearly: If you choose that, for whatever priority youโ€™re supporting, you need to acknowledge youโ€™re willing to accept increases in the problems that concern us.โ€
Lipps, Perdue, and their staffs know all of this. Itโ€™s well-established fact with 20 years of data backing it up. Lipps was a staffer on the key committee handling food aid for years prior to his promotion to the agency gig heโ€™s currently in.
So why do any of this?
โ€œAs you know thereโ€™s a millionaire whoโ€™s come out to say he got on the program specifically to prove that he could. Americans wonโ€™t support a program that allows SNAP benefits to go to people like millionaires,โ€ Lipps said Monday night. Undersanderโ€™s story, Lipps said, means โ€œthere may be other millionairesโ€ getting food stamps.
But rather than just take the steps necessary to weed out the rogue millionaires, Lipps and Perdue will cut benefits for millions. Many millions, as it turns out.
โ€œUSDAโ€™s estimating that a little over three million people are likely not to qualify for SNAP benefits after they are subjected to income and asset testsโ€ waived under the current BBCE rules, Lipps said.
In other words: Theyโ€™re knowingly choosing to throw 3.1 million babies out the window just to get rid of Rob Undersanderโ€™s bathwater. (The USDA declined to make Lipps available to ThinkProgress for follow-ups, but a spokesman doubled down on his claims in an email.)
Whatever role malevolence may be playing in Perdueโ€™s maneuvers, simple ignorance seems to be an issue too. Republicans who think they hate BBCE appear to misunderstand what the system is, how it actually works, and what it accomplishes.
Hypocrisy and conservative self-sabotage
The key political attribute of the current regulations is that non-cash programs funded with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) money can be used to trigger SNAP eligibility.
TANF replaced traditional welfare in the bipartisan safety net reforms of the Clinton presidency. Now, states get a chunk of money for TANF that they can spend in a variety of ways; fewer and fewer put any of it into basic cash assistance for the poor. Many of these programs are informational or advisory, rather than conferring something the current USDA administrators view as โ€˜real.โ€™
Ending BBCE means that people served by the programs states choose to support with TANF money will face new hurdles to receiving SNAP. The new regs define a โ€œsubstantial and ongoingโ€ TANF service that qualifies people for automatic enrollment in SNAP as services with a monetary value of $50 per month lasting six or more months, Lipps explained.
Like Johnson and Undersander and the FGA before him, Lipps invoked the specter of people getting automatically enrolled in SNAP just because they were handed a brochure that was printed using TANF money. The interaction between those programs and SNAP, the right argues, in effect opens a back-door into food stamps for anyone who gets handed the right informational pamphlet.
But just because a pamphlet gives someone the right to applyย for SNAP under BBCE doesnโ€™t entitle them to receive it.
โ€œFamilies still have to go through the application process, they have to document their income and circumstances the same way any other household would,โ€ Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in an interview. โ€œThis isnโ€™t just some bypass of the scrutiny the program applies.โ€
Lipps repeatedly told reporters this regulatory attack on poor families is really about making sure the rules for food stamps are the same across all states. But the suggestion that the new crop of conservatives now dislikes the ways states are using the flexibility block-granting proponents have always insisted is crucial is also at odds with longstanding conservative doctrine that holds that state-based systems deliver better service for the needy. Trump himself has repeatedly proposed converting Medicaid into a TANF-style block grant.
If the states know best, then the current BBCE relationship between safety net programs are products of that superior knowledge. The people getting it are truly needy, under the block-grantersโ€™ logic, and thus exactly the sort of people who should get a bit of extra help. Undersanderโ€™s narrative โ€” and the wonky, contentious smears of BBCEโ€™s execution across the country that have accompanied it โ€” seem to have lured conservatives into an internally incoherent position on poverty assistance writ large.
โ€œI think thereโ€™s an enormous disconnect between what states can achieve with the categorical eligibility option โ€ฆ and what some members of Congress believe it actually does,โ€ Dean said. โ€œSome seem to be under the misinformed impression that it lets non-needy people participate in the program, and nothing could be further from the truth.โ€
Waxman was similarly charitable, saying sheโ€™s โ€œnot sure that people have necessarily thought through all the implications.โ€
โ€œThe conversation is mostly ideological, not necessarily connecting all of these dots [to] support work in low-income communities,โ€ she said. The critics are โ€œnot realizing that sometimes these benefits are a really important work support.โ€
But itโ€™s also possible they know exactly what theyโ€™re doing.
โ€œThose families are doing everything we would want them to do, working hard and struggling to get by, and the federal work support programs donโ€™t reach them,โ€ Dean said.
โ€œThis allows them to get a little bit of food assistance to make it through the month. And itโ€™s just shocking that thatโ€™s the group they want to target.โ€
Credit: Source link
The post Trump is kicking 3 million more people off food stamps for the stupidest possible reason โ€“ ThinkProgress appeared first on WeeklyReviewer.
from WeeklyReviewer https://weeklyreviewer.com/trump-is-kicking-3-million-more-people-off-food-stamps-for-the-stupidest-possible-reason-thinkprogress/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=trump-is-kicking-3-million-more-people-off-food-stamps-for-the-stupidest-possible-reason-thinkprogress from WeeklyReviewer https://weeklyreviewer.tumblr.com/post/186491865357
0 notes
weeklyreviewer ยท 5 years
Text
Trump is kicking 3 million more people off food stamps for the stupidest possible reason โ€“ ThinkProgress
Three million poor people could be booted from the food stamps system under a Trump administration regulatory proposal issued Tuesday.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is aware the proposal will shrink grocery budgets for that massive share of people. It just cares more about making a conservative millionaire in Minnesota happy.
That was the message on a brief press call Monday evening, as USDA Acting Deputy Undersecretary Brandon Lipps described the agencyโ€™s proposed elimination of a policy called โ€œBroad-based Categorical Eligibilityโ€ (BBCE) to reporters.
The new rules will also force state program administrators to revert to old systems that pile up additional paperwork, staff hours, and costs. It was unclear if the agency factored those costs into the $2.5 billion in annual savings Lipps projected from the maneuver โ€” a vanishingly small drop in the multi-trillion-dollar federal spending ocean.
The rule will also knock more than a quarter-million children out of free school meals programs. Though the agency expects almost every one of them would be able to win access at least to the reduced-price meal options in their schools, Lipps did not say what the agency might do to alert parents that they would need to fill out new applications for the program.
That is, if the rules ever get implemented. An initial public-comment period of 60 days begins on Wednesday.
The rule will likely attract huge numbers of formulaic objections, as advocacy groups provide their members suggested language to submit. But substantive notes challenging the USDA on facts, data, and academic research theyโ€™ve failed to acknowledge in their proposal are more likely to force further review, public policy experts told ThinkProgress. Luckily for opponents, the facts are not friendly to the administration here.
The BBCE system that Lipps and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue are attacking has been around for 20 years, enjoying broad bipartisan support until very recently. Under the current rules, states can choose โ€“ but are never forced โ€“ to expand access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beyond the relatively meager scope built into federal anti-hunger legislation.
Twenty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and the territorial governments of Guam and the Virgin Islands have adopted the modest expansion of income limits BBCE allows. The 20-year-old rules also allow states to suspend the harsh โ€œasset testsโ€ in federal law that deny SNAP to any recipient who manages to accumulate roughly $2,000 in personal savings. More than 40 jurisdictions have used BBCE authority to cancel their asset tests.
Millions of people across those states will become poorer, and their children less likely to get adequate nutrition every day, if the regulatory proposal takes effect. Every low-income worker in those states will also be actively discouraged from working more, taking a job with better pay, and saving up for future education or emergency expenses.
All in all, the changes would make working-poor Americans less independent, more prone to hunger and eviction, and more miserable than they already are.
These are not, of course, explicit stated goals of the conservatives who have spent years trying to trim back SNAP benefits. But right-wing lawmakers have embraced this technocratic crusade thanks to a millionaire right-wing activist in Minnesota, the conservative media that amplified his stunt, and some wonky ideological disputes over whose numbers are correct and whose are bogus.
What categorical eligibility is โ€“ and what it isnโ€™t
In recent years, conservatives have been on the warpath over both BBCE and the food stamp program in general. Perdueโ€™s team already pushed through a similarly counterproductive policy that restricts poor working familiesโ€™ access to SNAP earlier this year, imposing additional work requirements and time limits that states have often chosen to waive in the past.
But Perdueโ€™s new regulatory attack on working families finds its roots in a deeper fight over what it means to be poor, and who the government should count as impoverished.
The definition of poverty baked into federal statistics is unrealistically narrow and fails to capture the reality of American need. It is based on measures of family expenses from the 1950s that have been updated mathematically but not methodologically for half a century. The explosion in housing, healthcare, and childcare costs over the past few decades donโ€™t show up in those figures as a result.
The government is miscounting โ€“ and almost certainly undercounting, rather than overcounting โ€“ the number of citizens living in severe privation.
Food stamps law acknowledges the imprecision of these metrics by offering SNAP benefits to families above the federal poverty line (FPL). All households earning 130% or less of FPL income are statutorily eligible for SNAP. Thatโ€™s a hard floor that requires both houses of Congress and a sitting president all agree to change it.
Think of BBCE as a spare bedroom built onto that legislative house after the fact: Families earning more than the statutory eligibility break-point of 130%. FPL are still tremendously poor, and BBCE exists to alleviate their suffering under the same logic that led past policymakers to design SNAP to reach beyond FPL in the first place.
States can use BBCE to invite SNAP applications from households earning as much as 200% FPL, provided they qualify for some other low-income program funded through the separate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) system. These families donโ€™t just automatically start getting these benefits โ€” their incomes and expenses are still verified by caseworkers. The SNAP benefits they ultimately receive, if any, are less generous than those provided to so-called core food stamps recipients earning 130% FPL and below.
This bipartisan addition to the rules has in the past been embraced by such notorious liberal squishes as Saxby Chambliss and George W. Bush. But unlike the 130% rule in the law, BBCE rests entirely on regulatory decisions and political coalitions. As such, itโ€™s a lot easier to tear down.
Perdueโ€™s team is taking advantage of that vulnerability now, roughly a year after it became clear that Republicans in the House were not going to be able to slash the food stamps system through the Farm Bill. In fact, as Lipps tacitly confirmed on Mondayโ€™s press call, the ideological war against BBCE began long before then โ€” and in suburban Minnesota, not around a table full of policy experts and poor peopleโ€™s advocates.
A millionaire stunt and the right-wing hype machine
Conservatives have previously supported BBCE because it serves their longstanding goal of encouraging food stamp recipients to start earning enough money that they can exit the public assistance system.
BBCE helps cure a problem safety-net experts call the โ€œbenefit cliff.โ€ Whenever policymakers draw an eligibility line, they risk doing major harm to the people just barely on the right side of it. Someone making 50 cents more than the FPL-plus-thirty mark is not meaningfully less needy than someone right on the line would be. BBCE rules allow state administrators of federally-funded SNAP to lump in those families wrong-footed by the precision of the statutory eligibility line.
Liberals tend to emphasize the social and economic value of helping low-income people buy food, and conservatives tend to emphasize the welfare-to-work aspects of BBCEโ€™s cliff-smoothing. But whatever the cosmetic differences, conservatives repeatedly joined the political coalition preserving BBCE under both Presidents Bush and Obama.
But under President Donald Trump, a more radical wing of the conservative policymaking world has gained new traction. This administration has even tried to shrink the already-limited technical definition of โ€œbeing poor,โ€ arguing that only 1 in 50 Americans is actually poor. BBCE is just the latest good idea to be sacrificed in this ideological campaign for a radically emaciated version of public assistance to struggling people.
The family of five making half a dollar too much in wages or holding one dollar too much in the bank to qualify for SNAP is an easy example for categorical eligibilityโ€™s defenders. Conservatives like to hunt for one-off outliers scamming the system to argue that this is so generous and loose that it generates abuse.
Enter Robert Undersander, a Minnesota retiree with a net worth north of $1 million. He and his wife applied for and received food stamps, intending to serve as living examples of the Republican argument that the program is systematically rotten. Had Minnesota not gotten rid of the asset-limit component of its eligibility test for SNAP, Undersander claimed, people like him never could have fleeced taxpayers.
Undersanderโ€™s story quickly went viral in conservative media circles after he published an op-ed in his local paper recounting the stunt. When Democrats convened a House Agriculture Committee hearing this June in anticipation of the kind of regulatory assault on BBCE that Perdue unveiled Tuesday morning, Undersander didnโ€™t make the official witness list but became the star of the show anyhow, after Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) recounted the Minnesota millionaireโ€™s story.
โ€œMr. Undersander is not alone,โ€ Johnson (R-SD) said, claiming that โ€œtens of thousandsโ€ of similar millionaires might be skimming food stamps thanks to the current rules.
Even as he insinuated that Undersanderโ€™s intentional, political act to sabotage a system benefiting working-poor families was just one example among many, Johnson stopped short of saying there are tons of millionaires on SNAP.
And thatโ€™s because there arenโ€™t. Three-quarters of all SNAP-receiving households in states with BBCE have less than $500 in liquid assets. Just under 7% have total assets valued above $10,000 that would be counted in non-BBCE states. There is no epidemic, no army of Undersanders abusing SNAP.
โ€œIf you actually play through whoโ€™s benefiting, it doesnโ€™t line up with maybe more of a popular narrative about people who quote unquote take advantage or abuse welfare,โ€ Urban Institute safety-net expert Elaine Waxman told ThinkProgress.
Back in June, Waxman, Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes (D), and other policymakers explained to the House panel how BBCE supports goals conservatives have pursued for decades, from encouraging work to administrative efficiency. But the Republicans at the hearing seemed to only have eyes for the millionaire dilettante in the gallery and the cheap, singular stunt he was there to perform.
โ€œMy thought is there was some intent there to sort of disrupt the conversation,โ€ Waxman recalled. โ€œBecause again, when you unpack BBCE it frankly supports goals from both sides of the aisle.โ€
Undersander has been a fixture on Fox News, as well as the right-wing Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), which has led the effort to discredit BBCE for about as long as Trump has been on the political scene. This has enabled Undersanderโ€™s political project to thrive.
โ€œA lot of newer members donโ€™t know all the ins and outs of these programs. They acquire their information from popular media, and their understanding of it is pretty thin,โ€ Waxman said. โ€œAnd [BBCE] is hard for people to understand, so when they hear simplified explanations โ€” that it letโ€™s people with more money get on SNAP โ€” thatโ€™s something people respond to from a just-common-sense point of view.โ€
For every one rich household like Undersanderโ€™s thatโ€™s skimming money it doesnโ€™t need, there are hundreds of low-income families trying to diligently save for emergencies, who might lose a modest food assistance check if their state reverts to punishing poor people who save money. If Perdue succeeds in killing BBCE, most of them would quickly face devastating choices between eating and paying their bills.
โ€œGenerally the group that benefits from this program are working families who pay a huge share of their income on rent and childcare,โ€ Dean said.
โ€œThereโ€™s no question if you roll back BBCE you increase food insecurity and you increase poverty, for both families of children and others,โ€ Waxman said. โ€œYou can decide there are tradeoffs youโ€™re willing to make, but those should be acknowledged. And I wanted to make sure the committee heard that clearly: If you choose that, for whatever priority youโ€™re supporting, you need to acknowledge youโ€™re willing to accept increases in the problems that concern us.โ€
Lipps, Perdue, and their staffs know all of this. Itโ€™s well-established fact with 20 years of data backing it up. Lipps was a staffer on the key committee handling food aid for years prior to his promotion to the agency gig heโ€™s currently in.
So why do any of this?
โ€œAs you know thereโ€™s a millionaire whoโ€™s come out to say he got on the program specifically to prove that he could. Americans wonโ€™t support a program that allows SNAP benefits to go to people like millionaires,โ€ Lipps said Monday night. Undersanderโ€™s story, Lipps said, means โ€œthere may be other millionairesโ€ getting food stamps.
But rather than just take the steps necessary to weed out the rogue millionaires, Lipps and Perdue will cut benefits for millions. Many millions, as it turns out.
โ€œUSDAโ€™s estimating that a little over three million people are likely not to qualify for SNAP benefits after they are subjected to income and asset testsโ€ waived under the current BBCE rules, Lipps said.
In other words: Theyโ€™re knowingly choosing to throw 3.1 million babies out the window just to get rid of Rob Undersanderโ€™s bathwater. (The USDA declined to make Lipps available to ThinkProgress for follow-ups, but a spokesman doubled down on his claims in an email.)
Whatever role malevolence may be playing in Perdueโ€™s maneuvers, simple ignorance seems to be an issue too. Republicans who think they hate BBCE appear to misunderstand what the system is, how it actually works, and what it accomplishes.
Hypocrisy and conservative self-sabotage
The key political attribute of the current regulations is that non-cash programs funded with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) money can be used to trigger SNAP eligibility.
TANF replaced traditional welfare in the bipartisan safety net reforms of the Clinton presidency. Now, states get a chunk of money for TANF that they can spend in a variety of ways; fewer and fewer put any of it into basic cash assistance for the poor. Many of these programs are informational or advisory, rather than conferring something the current USDA administrators view as โ€˜real.โ€™
Ending BBCE means that people served by the programs states choose to support with TANF money will face new hurdles to receiving SNAP. The new regs define a โ€œsubstantial and ongoingโ€ TANF service that qualifies people for automatic enrollment in SNAP as services with a monetary value of $50 per month lasting six or more months, Lipps explained.
Like Johnson and Undersander and the FGA before him, Lipps invoked the specter of people getting automatically enrolled in SNAP just because they were handed a brochure that was printed using TANF money. The interaction between those programs and SNAP, the right argues, in effect opens a back-door into food stamps for anyone who gets handed the right informational pamphlet.
But just because a pamphlet gives someone the right to applyย for SNAP under BBCE doesnโ€™t entitle them to receive it.
โ€œFamilies still have to go through the application process, they have to document their income and circumstances the same way any other household would,โ€ Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in an interview. โ€œThis isnโ€™t just some bypass of the scrutiny the program applies.โ€
Lipps repeatedly told reporters this regulatory attack on poor families is really about making sure the rules for food stamps are the same across all states. But the suggestion that the new crop of conservatives now dislikes the ways states are using the flexibility block-granting proponents have always insisted is crucial is also at odds with longstanding conservative doctrine that holds that state-based systems deliver better service for the needy. Trump himself has repeatedly proposed converting Medicaid into a TANF-style block grant.
If the states know best, then the current BBCE relationship between safety net programs are products of that superior knowledge. The people getting it are truly needy, under the block-grantersโ€™ logic, and thus exactly the sort of people who should get a bit of extra help. Undersanderโ€™s narrative โ€” and the wonky, contentious smears of BBCEโ€™s execution across the country that have accompanied it โ€” seem to have lured conservatives into an internally incoherent position on poverty assistance writ large.
โ€œI think thereโ€™s an enormous disconnect between what states can achieve with the categorical eligibility option โ€ฆ and what some members of Congress believe it actually does,โ€ Dean said. โ€œSome seem to be under the misinformed impression that it lets non-needy people participate in the program, and nothing could be further from the truth.โ€
Waxman was similarly charitable, saying sheโ€™s โ€œnot sure that people have necessarily thought through all the implications.โ€
โ€œThe conversation is mostly ideological, not necessarily connecting all of these dots [to] support work in low-income communities,โ€ she said. The critics are โ€œnot realizing that sometimes these benefits are a really important work support.โ€
But itโ€™s also possible they know exactly what theyโ€™re doing.
โ€œThose families are doing everything we would want them to do, working hard and struggling to get by, and the federal work support programs donโ€™t reach them,โ€ Dean said.
โ€œThis allows them to get a little bit of food assistance to make it through the month. And itโ€™s just shocking that thatโ€™s the group they want to target.โ€
Credit: Source link
The post Trump is kicking 3 million more people off food stamps for the stupidest possible reason โ€“ ThinkProgress appeared first on WeeklyReviewer.
from WeeklyReviewer https://weeklyreviewer.com/trump-is-kicking-3-million-more-people-off-food-stamps-for-the-stupidest-possible-reason-thinkprogress/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=trump-is-kicking-3-million-more-people-off-food-stamps-for-the-stupidest-possible-reason-thinkprogress
0 notes