SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
RANDALL WRAY, WrayR at umkc.edu
Currently in New York, Wray, is professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He recently wrote the piece "With $300 Billion, The President Could Reduce Unemployment to Zero," which was published by TruthDig and is available on Wray's blog: https://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com
RANDALL WRAY, WrayR at umkc.edu
Currently in New York, Wray, is professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He recently wrote the piece "With $300 Billion, The President Could Reduce Unemployment to Zero," which was published by TruthDig and is available on Wray's blog: https://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com
He said today: "President Obama gave a good, strong speech and the $450 billion plan is 50 percent bigger than rumored. Still, most of the provisions simply extend programs set to expire (the payroll tax holiday for workers, unemployment benefits), or continue tried-and-failed schemes to raise business confidence (tax credits for investment, cutting red tape). Extension of the payroll tax holiday to employers is a good idea, but it won't create many jobs since firms need sales before they will hire. Ditto business tax cuts or deregulation: firms are laying off workers because sales are down, not because they are burdened with taxes and regulations. They need sales before they will hire, and consumers will not buy until they get jobs. We are in a Catch 22 that business confidence cannot resolve.
"Finally, the President's insistence that every dollar in the plan will be 'paid for' by spending cuts or tax hikes elsewhere means that the net benefits must be quite small. Private economists have estimated the plan will create 1.5 million new jobs -- I expect that will prove to be optimistic. But in any case we need 25 million jobs to employ all those seeking work. And note that for $450 billion we could easily create those 25 million jobs if we followed President Roosevelt's example and simply created the jobs directly, through a WPA [Works Progress Administration] new New Deal type program. That could also be used to create all the infrastructure President Obama spoke of plus provide all the public services that we need to bring our nation into the 21st century. And those new WPA workers will generate the sales that firms need to justify more hiring. Now that would really be an American Jobs Act." Wary is also senior scholar at the Levy Economics Institute and his books include "Understanding Modern Money."
THOMAS FERGUSON, thomas.ferguson at umb.edu, https://www.newdeal20.org/author/thomas-ferguson
Ferguson is professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Boston and a senior fellow of the Roosevelt Institute. He said today: "We have known for a long time that President Obama is no Franklin Roosevelt. The urgent question now, though, is whether he is Herbert Hoover.
"We won't see the real plan until next week, but here is one way of thinking about his speech. The output gap - the difference between what we could produce and what we are producing - is at least a trillion dollars. Never mind conservative claims that Keynes is dead; the multiplier on government spending right now is probably about 1.5. So a $447 billion plan amounts to a bit more than a half measure. But the chances that our money-driven, highly partisan Congress will enact it all are zero. And I'll believe the talk of large scale mortgage refinancing schemes when I see bankers fly. And that's no detail, it's key, along with measures to make bankers lend instead of buying back their stocks and paying bonuses. Most alarming of all, much of the 'new' spending simply extends existing programs, such as unemployment insurance. It will just hold up aggregate demand at current levels.
"So think of it in Zen terms: we are likely to get half of the famous glass that is half full. But with banks and consumers still intently 'deleveraging' (paying down debts), in the end the new package may, like the earlier stimulus, strike many people as a lot of nothing." Ferguson's books include "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems."
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
"Trump explicitly threatened to use the state to target anyone he and MAGA scapegoat for Kirk's murder," said New Republic writer Greg Sargeant.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller vowed Friday that he and President Donald Trump would use this week's assassination of Charlie Kirk to "dismantle" the organized left using state power.
In a rant on Fox News, Miller—the architect of Trump's mass roundups and deportations of immigrants—shouted that the best way to honor Kirk's memory was to carry out a political purge against the left, which he called a "domestic terrorism movement in this country."
Miller provided few details on what specific left-wing figures or groups he believed were stoking this violence. He claimed the left was waging "doxxing campaigns" against right-wing figures, though he cited no specific examples.
He did, however, cite many examples of harsh, but nevertheless First Amendment-protected, speech that he considered an incitement to violence, including that "the left calls people enemies of the republic, calls them fascists, says they're Nazis, says they're evil," and claimed that many people online were "celebrating" Kirk's assassination.
"The last message that Charlie Kirk gave to me before he joined his creator in heaven," Miller said, was, "that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence, and we are going to do that."
"Under President Trump's leadership," Miller vowed to shut down these unspecified leftist groups.
"I don't care how," he said. "It could be a RICO charge, a conspiracy charge, conspiracy against the United States, insurrection. But we are going to do what it takes to dismantle the organizations and the entities that are fomenting riots, that are doxxing, that are trying to inspire terrorism, that are committing acts of wanton violence."
RICO refers to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which the government has traditionally used to prosecute organized crime groups. Trump later said one of his targets for these charges may be the billionaire liberal donor George Soros, the owner of the Open Society Foundations nonprofit, whom Trump accused of funding "riots," a charge Soros denied.
Miller did not limit his call to destroying those who commit crimes. He also spoke of those "spreading this evil hate," telling them, "You will live in exile. Because the power of law enforcement under President Trump's leadership will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, to take away your power, and if you've broken the law, to take away your freedom."
An official White House account on X reposted a clip of Miller's comments calling for the "dismantling" of left-wing organizations:
"Trump signaled he intended to use Kirk's shooting as a pretext for a broad crackdown on the left," said Jordan Weissman, a journalist at The Argument. "Here's Stephen Miller being much more explicit. He's talking about RICO and terrorism charges, echoing right-wing influencers."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, meanwhile, pointed out the irony of the threat coming from Miller, noting that he "routinely slanders his political opponents with vile language that treats disagreement as if it’s treason."
Little is still known about what, if any, political ideology precisely motivated Kirk's alleged shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, who was apprehended in Utah on Friday. Robinson was not affiliated with any political party, and the scrawlings he left behind at the scene of the crime contain a mishmash of hyper-online but only vaguely political symbols and phrases.
But even before the suspect had been identified or apprehended, efforts had begun on the right to use Kirk's murder as an excuse to crack down on their left-wing enemies. In an ominous speech Thursday night, Trump blamed the shooting on the "radical left," saying it was “directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now."
On Fox News Friday, Trump indicated that he was extending this dragnet to anyone who has expressed harsh words for figures on the right. The president said:
For years those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country and must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges and law enforcement officials.
(Graphic by The Economist, data from the Prosecution Project)
The portrayal of the left as a unique "national security threat" is not borne out by data. On Friday, The Economist published an analysis of data from the Prosecution Project, an open-source database that catalogues crimes that seek "a socio-political change or to communicate."
The findings reaffirm what has been found in previous studies: That "extremists on both left and right commit violence, although more incidents appear to come from right-leaning attackers."
During the same Fox interview, when a host noted the prevalence of right-wing extremism, Trump said: "I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They’re saying, ‘We don’t want these people coming in. We don’t want you burning our shopping centers. We don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.’”
Trump concluded: “The radicals on the left are the problem.”
Meanwhile, virtually all prominent figures and groups on the left—from politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani to writers for left-wing publications like Jacobin or The Nation to activist groups like Public Citizen, MoveOn, the ACLU, and Indivisible—have unequivocally condemned violence against Kirk, even while repudiating his views.
"Trump explicitly threatened to use the state to target anyone he and MAGA scapegoat for Kirk's murder," said New Republic writer Greg Sargeant. "We really could see Stephen Miller and Kash Patel use the FBI for 60s-style domestic persecution."
Citing US President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive actions, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Friday unveiled a proposal to end a program that requires power plants, refineries, landfills, and more to report their emissions.
While Zeldin claimed that "the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality," experts and climate advocates emphasized the importance of the data collection, which began in 2010.
"President Trump promised Americans would have the cleanest air on Earth, but once again, Trump's EPA is taking actions that move us further from that goal," Joseph Goffman, who led the EPA Office of Air and Radiation during the Biden administration, said in a statement from the Environmental Protection Network, a group for former agency staff.
"Cutting the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program blinds Americans to the facts about climate pollution. Without it, policymakers, businesses, and communities cannot make sound decisions about how to cut emissions and protect public health," he explained.
As The New York Times reported:
For the past 15 years, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program has collected data from about 8,000 of the country's largest industrial facilities. That information has helped guide numerous decisions on federal policy and has been shared with the United Nations, which has required developed countries to submit tallies of their emissions.
In addition, private companies often rely on the program's data to demonstrate to investors that their efforts to cut emissions are working. And communities often use it to determine whether local facilities are releasing air pollution that threatens public health.
"By hiding this information from the public, Administrator Zeldin is denying Americans the ability to see the damaging results of his actions on climate pollution, air quality, and public health," Goffman said. "It's a further addition to the deliberate blockade against future action on climate change—and yet another example of the administration putting polluters before people's health."
Sierra Club's director of climate policy and advocacy, Patrick Drupp, stressed Friday that "EPA cannot avoid the climate crisis by simply burying its head in the sand as it baselessly cuts off its main source of greenhouse gas emissions data."
"The agency has provided no defensible reason to cancel the program; this is nothing more than EPA's latest action to deny the reality of climate change and do everything it can to put the fossil fuel industry and corporate polluters before people," he added. "The Sierra Club will oppose this proposal every step of the way.”
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, similarly said that "the Trump administration's latest pro-polluter move to eliminate the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is just another brazen step in their Polluters First agenda."
Responding to the administration's claim that the proposal would save businesses up to $2.4 billion in regulatory costs, Alt said that "under the guise of saving Americans money, this is an attempt on the part of Trump, Lee Zeldin, and their polluter buddies to hide the ball and avoid responsibility for the deadly, dangerous, and expensive pollution they produce."
"If they succeed, the nation's biggest polluters will spew climate-wrecking pollution without accountability," she warned. "The idea that tracking pollution does 'nothing to improve air quality' is absurd," she added. "If you don't measure it, you can't manage it. Hiding information and allowing fossil fuel companies to avoid accountability are the true goals of this rule."
The Trump admin is now proposing to kill the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which since 2010 has required 8,000+ coal plants, refineries, and factories to report their climate pollution.Without it, polluters get a free pass.No reporting = no accountability.
— Climate Action Now (@climateactapp.bsky.social) September 12, 2025 at 7:04 PM
BlueGreen Alliance executive director Jason Walsh declared that "the Trump administration continues to prove it does not care about the American people and their basic right to breathe clean air. This flies in the face of the EPA's core mission—to protect the environment and public health."
"The proposal is wildly unpopular with even industry groups speaking against it because they know the value of having this emissions data available," he noted. "Everybody in this country deserves to know the air quality in their community and how their lives can be affected when they live near high-emitting facilities."
“Knowledge is power and—in this case—health," he concluded. "The administration shouldn't be keeping people in the dark about the air they and their neighbors are breathing."
This proposal from Zeldin came a day after the EPA moved to reverse rules protecting people from unsafe levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called "forever chemicals," in US drinking water, provoking similar criticism. Earthjustice attorney Katherine O'Brien said that his PFAS decision "prioritizes chemical industry profits and utility companies' bottom line over the health of children and families across the country."
"Looking forward to the contortions of people whose paychecks are dependent on denying that any of this is the case," said one observer.
Belying persistent efforts by Israel and its defenders to deny the staggering number of Palestinians killed during the 23-month Gaza genocide, the general who led the Israel Defense Forces during most of the war acknowledged this week that around 220,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded.
Former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi—who stepped down in March after leading the IDF since January 2023—told residents of Ein Habor in southern Israel earlier this week that "over 10%" of Gaza's population of approximately 2.2 million "were killed or injured" since October 2023.
"This is not a gentle war, we took the gloves off from the first minute" Halevi said, adding that "not once" has any legal authority "limited" his wartime conduct.
Following the October 7 attack, the IDF dramatically loosened its rules of engagement, effectively allowing an unlimited number of civilians to be killed when targeting a single Hamas member, no matter how low-ranking.
The IDF’s use of massive ordnance, including US-supplied 1,000- and 2,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs capable of leveling entire city blocks, and utilization of artificial intelligence to select targets has resulted in staggering numbers of civilian deaths, including numerous instances of dozens or more people being massacred in single strikes.
Halevi insisted that "we are doing everything in accordance with international law."
The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague disagrees, having issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes including forced starvation and murder. Israel's conduct in the war is also the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case filed by South Africa and supported by around two dozen nations.
Halevi's admission tracks with official Gaza Health Ministry figures showing at least 228,815 people killed or wounded by Israeli forces in Gaza. GHM also says that around 9,000 people are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble. Experts—including the authors of multiple peer-reviewed studies in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet—assert that the actual death toll in Gaza is much higher than reported.
The remarks by Halevi come less than a month after a joint investigation by Israeli journalist and filmmaker Yuval Abraham of +972 Magazine and Local Call and Guardian senior international affairs correspondent Emma Graham-Harrison revealed that, as of May, 5 in 6 Palestinians—or 83%—killed by the IDF through the first 19 months of the war were civilians. The report, which drew from classified IDF intelligence data, blew the lid off of Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio.
Responding to Halevi's admission, Drop Site News national security and foreign affairs reporter Murtaza Hussain said on social media that he is "looking forward to the contortions of people whose paychecks are dependent on denying that any of this is the case."
Israeli officials and media, along with their supportive US counterparts during both the Biden and Trump administrations, have generally cast doubt or outright denied GHM figures—which have been found to be reliable by the IDF, US officials, and researchers—by linking them to Hamas. This comes in addition to widespread Israeli and US denials of Israel's forced famine and starvation deaths and IDF war crimes in Gaza.
However, there have been rare instances of frankness, including when Barbara Leaf, a senior State Department official during the Biden administration, said that Gaza casualties could be "even higher than are being cited." Biden-era State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller also admitted that the Gaza death toll "could very well be more" than GHM reported, even as he lied to the public about who was thwarting ceasefire efforts.