

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.

Sarah Crozier, sarah@mainstreetalliance.org, 303-868-9600
Today,
Today, President Biden announced several fixes to the rules of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), including one that will ensure a more accurate determination of the level of small business relief that sole proprietors and independent contractors need and are entitled to receive.
Over 100 organizations supporting African American, Latino and immigrant-owned businesses recently called for immediate changes to ensure that relief gets to the business owners who need it the most. This important change will help millions of small businesses owners across the country, in rural and urban areas alike. Organizations signing on included the Main Street Alliance, Center for Responsible Lending, Local Initiatives Support Coalition, American Business Immigration Coalition, Asian/Pacific Islander American Chamber of Commerce and Entrepreneurship (National ACE), United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Black Chambers, Inc., Opportunity Finance Network and dozens of others.
Before this fix, the Small Business Administration (SBA) calculated the loan amounts for sole proprietors and independent contractors based on net profit rather than gross income, which does not give a true representation of their business relief needs. Changes in the rules for the latest round of funds provided a remedy for this issue for small farmers and ranchers, but other micro-businesses were not able to take advantage of that change.
This change will apply to new first time PPP loans as well as second draw loans. While the SBA cannot retroactively apply the fix to loans made prior to today's change, Congress can, and in fact has already done so for small farmers and ranchers.
The $800 billion PPP had structural flaws since its inception that favored larger, more well-resourced businesses. Nearly 95% of Black-owned firms and 91% of Latino-owned firms have no employees beyond the owners, as compared to 78% of white-owned firms. The flaw in the rules related to tax forms was one of several structural impediments to access for minority-owned firms.
The Administration also announced fixes that will increase access by removing barriers for borrowers with student debt delinquencies, making barriers less restrictive for business owners who have had criminal justice system involvement in the past, and by removing restrictions for eligible immigrant business owners. Last week, the SBA also improved its practices around collecting demographic data by moving these questions to the first page of the application form.
Main Street Alliance Government Affairs Director Didier Trinh had this to say:
"The Biden Administration's updates to the PPP are a welcome recognition of the major gaps and challenges to the program. These updates will help expand access, but more is needed to support small businesses. From retroactive application of these updates, to flexible grants outside the PPP program itself we look forward to continuing to work with the Administration to center Black, brown, women-owned and our smallest business owner needs, who have been disproportionately impacted by both the crisis and least likely to receive support."
Center for Responsible Lending Director of Federal Advocacy Ashley Harrington made the following statement:
"In concert with the 100-plus organizations who joined the call for a much-needed fix to the rules of the PPP, we extend our appreciation for the quick response from President Biden, Treasury Secretary Yellen, and the Small Business Administration. We ask that Congress move just as swiftly to make the adjustment retroactive, so that businesses who missed out on the level of relief they needed previously might survive this perilous time and thrive as we move forward.
These businesses owned by people of color are a vital part of the very communities who have been hit so hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. We must ensure all vulnerable businesses have equitable access to the relief they need to weather this crisis."
American Business Immigration Coalition's Executive Director Rebecca Shi made the following statement:
"Fueling Black, Latino and immigrant owned businesses is critical to our nation's recovery from the Pandemic. President Biden, Treasury Secretary Yellen and the Small Business Administration's fix for the Paycheck Protection Program breaks down prosperity barriers and provides full access to relief where it is urgently needed."
Under this change, the proprietor of a mobile food truck in Greenville, NC, a Black woman who received $3,273 in PPP funds, would be eligible for $20,678. And a Latino-owned auto repair business with one part-time employee in addition to the owner would be eligible for $23,216 - five times the $4,680 this business received under the previous rules. These businesses need funds that are adequate to stay afloat during the shutdown and care for their families, and under the previous rules, they were not eligible for enough funding.
The Main Street Alliance (MSA) is a national network of small business coalitions working to build a new voice for small businesses on important public policy issues. Main Street Alliance members are working throughout the country to build policies that work for business owners, their employees, and the communities they serve.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."