Mediaboss Marketing

Congress has quietly replaced a farm loan assistance program for racial minorities that was under threat from White farmers legal challenges.

The new provision no longer mentions race. Instead, it provides loan relief for distressed borrowers and additional aid for farmers, ranchers, and foresters who have experienced discrimination. The change comes after White farmers claimed the program, established by the 2021 American Rescue Plan, discriminated against them by specifying that loan assistance was available only for socially disadvantaged groups.

Supporters of the pivot including some Black lawmakers say the workaround is more legally airtight and will quickly get aid to the groups that need it. Yet some Black farmers are concerned its just another example of the Agriculture Department leaving them behind after generations of discrimination that made it more difficult and at times impossible for them to get loans.

When you put Black farmers in with everybody, we come up last based on all the numbers and all the history, said John Boyd Jr., president of the National Black Farmers Association.

Democrats climate, tax, and health-care law (Public Law 117-169), provides $3.1 billion for loan relief for at-risk borrowers encompassing distressed farmers regardless of minority status and $2.2 billion for farmers who experienced discrimination in USDA lending. For the latter program, farmers outside of race-based socially disadvantaged groups, such as White women and members of the LGBTQ community, could be eligible. The Agriculture Department said it intends to get the relief out to farmers as quickly as possible.

Under the American Rescue Plan (Public Law 117-2), socially disadvantaged farmers were set to get $4 billion in loan relief. The funds were supposed to correct the Agriculture Departments historic denial of loans to ethnic minorities based on race, saving scores of Black farmers with untenable debts from foreclosure.

BGOV Bill Summary: Democrats Reconciliation Bill

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Glenn Morris watches as his corn is unloaded at the elevator on Oct. 11, 2021 in Princeton, Ind. Morris is one of two Black farmers still working full time in Lyles Station, a region of Indiana once dominated by Black farmers.

There are less than 50,000 Black farmers in the US, down from 950,000 at their peak in 1920. Advocates warn that many remaining farmers are hanging on by a thread.

The debt relief was a contract between the Black farmers, the farmers of color, and USDA, Boyd said, and they broke that agreement by repealing it. He added that hes considering filing new litigation based on the cancellation of the program.

U.S. Black Farmers Lost Billions in Land Value, Study Shows

The new language has been in the works for over a year, a Senate aide said, but was only added in a managers amendment before the Senate vote.

The White farmers who sued the Biden administration for discrimination through the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty cheered the repeal of the earlier assistance for socially disadvantaged groups.

The devil may be in the details, of course, and we will be closely monitoring the program to ensure USDA adheres to the constitutionally mandated principles of nondiscrimination, Rick Esenberg, WILLs president and general counsel, said in a statement.

Some underrepresented farmers groups are optimistic the new program will actually help them and avoid the legal hurdles that stalled the aid from the American Rescue Plan.

The immediate aid just needs to get out to the folks who are the most distressed, said Kari Jo Lawrence, the executive director of the Intertribal Agriculture Council.

Lloyd Wright, who grew up on a family farm in Virginia and served as the director of the USDA Office of Civil Rights in the 1990s, said eliminating the earlier section of the American Rescue Plan makes the program even better.

I dont think they could have done a better job in writing it, Wright said, adding that the White farmers lawsuits that held up aid werent going anyplace.

Boyd said hes concerned this funding could be used up by other farmers, such as White women.

That scenario seems plausible to Cesar Escalante, a professor of agricultural and applied economics at the University of Georgia. Compiling and submitting evidence of discrimination have been challenges for Black farmers in the past for reasons including lack of access to documents and computer literacy, Escalante said.

So even if more racial minority farmers are victims of discrimination, not a majority of them can argue and prove their case, Escalante said. But more female farmers could, even if their absolute number is lower than victims from certain racial minority groups.

Warren, Booker Press USDA to Address Bias Against Black Farmers

But many Black farmers do have a documented history of discrimination, Wright said, especially those whose family operations got their start before 1964, when the Civil Rights Act made segregation illegal. He said Native American farmers should also be able to easily prove theyve dealt with discrimination, since settlers took their land in the first place.

The laws language directs the USDA to create a program to determine who was subject to discrimination, said Stephen Carpenter, an attorney with the Farmers Legal Action Group and that will be hard for them to do.

Supporters of the new program argue the alternative would have been no aid at all if the White farmers won their case against the Biden administration. This way, they say distressed Black farmers and other disadvantaged racial groups will still be eligible for loan modifications, as well as the discrimination assistance.

But Boyd said Black farmers in his community feel left behind by an administration they helped elect.

Its going to be hard for me to go out there and ask our Black farmers in midterm elections to vote for people who aint helping, he said.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who sits on the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee and was involved in drafting the provision in the Democrats bill with Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), said he understands why some Black farmers are skeptical given the history of the federal government breaking promises to them.

I wish that right-wing extremists and activist judges had not held up the debt forgiveness we passed in the American Rescue Plan, Booker said in a statement. But it was clear that those resources were going to be held up in court for years, with an uncertain outcome at the conclusion.

The legislation is key to lessening the weight of debt threatening to make Black farmers shut down their operations, Lorette Picciano, executive director of the farmers network Rural Coalition, said. Likely these farmers are going to get a resolution much faster than they would have without the bill language, she said.

Many Black farmers who approve of the new bill language acknowledge that more is needed to make up for years of discrimination by the federal government. But Wright said hes hopeful that it will at least stop the country from losing the Black producers who now make up less than 2% of all the nations farmers.

This bill wasnt designed to do that, Wright said. This bill as its designed can put a thumb in the dike so we dont lose all the rest of them.

To contact the reporter on this story: Maeve Sheehey in Washington at msheehey@bloombergindustry.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Robin Meszoly at rmeszoly@bgov.com; Sarah Babbage at sbabbage@bgov.com

See the original post here:
Democrats Pivot on Race-Based Loan Relief as White Farmers Sue | Bloomberg Government - Bloomberg Government

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar urged Democrats to better serve and engage with working people in a Saturday keynote speech at the annual progressive political convention Netroots Nation.

"We cannot assume that the politics of transaction will turn out the votes when Americans are longing for the politics of transformation."

The Minnesota Democrat's 11-minute address in Pittsburgh wrapped up a session about the upcoming midterm elections titled, "On to November: How We Win and Save Democracy."

Omar celebrated recent victories, stating that "our movement is at a watershed moment. Over the past several years, we've seen the biggest resurgence of progressive organizing and movement-building in our lifetimes."

"Across the country young people are reviving the labor movement," she said, noting unionization efforts by Amazon, Google, Starbucks, and Trader Joe's workers. "We have taken on some of the biggest, wealthiest multinational corporations in the worldand we are winning."

"I'm proud that workers in my office led a movement to unionize the staff of the United States Congress and we are just getting started," Omar said. "But friends, it is not just unions."

The Somali-born congresswoman cited her youth in a refugee camp, her historic election to Congress, and the campaigns and wins of other diverse, progressive candidates despite well-funded efforts to defeat them.

Omar also highlighted recent legislative successes, including healthcare expansion for veterans, a gun safety measure, and the Inflation Reduction Act, a compromise package on Medicare, taxation, and climate action that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) negotiated with obstructionist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

She further noted public safety changes currently underway in her districtover two years after Minneapolis police murdered George Floyd, an unarmed Black man.

"The reality is none of these things would be possible without a massive, vocal, organized progressive movement driving the narrative and pushing for change," Omar said. "Because I know this: when you show up, it gives us the power to organize the base and to work to push for change on the inside."

The congresswoman continued:

I want to be clear about something else: We cannot take any of that for granted now. It is when you start to get comfortable that your opponents strikeand I know this very well. We have to be alert. We have to protect our victories as vigorously as we fight for them, because we cannot build on those wins if they are rolled back.

Labor rights, abortion rights, criminal justice reform, even the very survival of our democracy is being threatened at this moment. We are up against forces that are willing to suppress the vote, overturn election results, and literally commit treason against our country to get their way. We are up against corporate donors, landlords, and war profiteers spending millions of dollars to take out progressive members of Congress.

"The only way to protect our wins is with a massive, historic voter turnout," Omar argued. "We cannot go after the same tiny slices of swing voters we go after election after electionusing the same poll-tested talking points we use every election. We cannot assume that the politics of transaction will turn out the votes when Americans are longing for the politics of transformation."

Noting that in 2016, a notable share of votersparticularly those who supported former President Barack Obama four years earliercast their ballots for a third-party candidate or simply stayed home, Omar explained that "these nonvoters are more likely to be working class, they are more likely to be immigrants, and they are more likely to be people of color. In fact, more than half of them have an income of less than $30,000 a year."

"These are the people the Democratic Party should stand for," she argued, adding that "we cannot rely on" the likes of outgoing Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) or Manchin "to save us."

Instead, "we need to elevate people who have fluency in the day-to-day struggles of the people they seek to represent," Omar asserted. "For every moderate suburban Republican there are line cooks, homeworkers, dishwashers, cashiers, farmworkers who would vote a straight Democratic ticket if they were given a reason to."

"Progressives win when turnout is high and we lose when turnout is low," she noted. "So this election, we cannot let fear defeat us. Let us focus on those who don't have a voice and who will support our boldest, most endearing ideas as a party."

"Let's elevate the people who are closest to the pain. Let's give working folks a reason to turn out to vote for us," she added. "That's who our party should be for, that's who our party should be talking to, and that's who we should be counting on to help us save our democracy in November."

See more here:
Omar to Democrats: 'Let's Give Working Folks a Reason to Turn Out to Vote for Us' - Common Dreams

HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled mail-in ballots constitutional and they are here to stay.

It is called pre-canvassing, which is a fancy term for opening mail-in ballots and preparing them to be fed into a machine for counting.

Act 77 says pre-canvassing cannot start until 7 a.m. on election day, but, with it being a task that both takes time and manpower, counties are begging lawmakers to let them begin the sorting process sooner.

It is a very small thing, said Democratic Analyst Danielle Gross, with Shelly-Lyons Communications.

However, it could be too big of a leap for legislative Republicans like Seth Grove, who chairs the House State Government Committee.

When you do pre-canvassing youre opening everything up. You separate envelope from the ballot, and the game is over on election integrity, theres no way to go back in and analyze anything, it is over, Grove said.

Pre-canvassing was part of Groves comprehensive election overhaul bill that passed both the House and Senate but was vetoed by Governor Tom Wolf because of voter ID requirements. But why not do a stand-alone bill that would give counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican-controlled, the ability to pre-canvass?

I think theres a good number of members in General Assembly that would not do that without the proper protocols in place, Grove said. They are taking an issue thats overwhelmingly bipartisan, overwhelmingly non-controversial, and making it fit their narrative about elections in Pennsylvania and their narrative is just not true.

They [Republicans] are taking an issue thats overwhelmingly bipartisan, overwhelmingly non-controversial and making it fit their narrative about elections in Pennsylvania and their narrative is just not true, said Gross.

But one thing Grove insists is not true is the narrative around pre-canvassing.

Oh, were doing pre-canvassing. Everythings fixed, were gonna have smooth elections everythings running great. Thats not the case, Grove said.

The election is on November 8 and it is likely it will happen without any of the reforms counties have asked for.

Link:
Republicans and Democrats on pre-canvassing ballots in Pennsylvania - ABC27

OPINION:

Democrats rushed to impose destructive price controls on medicine in their reckless tax-and-spend bill. These provisions will reduce access to new cures and treatments and will increase, not decrease, health care spending at the expense of consumers. This is a lunge towards socialized medicine.

Democrats reconciliation bill gives the Health and Human Services Secretary the authority to negotiate the price of prescription drugs on behalf of Medicare, enforceable by a 95% excise tax on companies who charge more. Of course, a 95% tax enforcement mechanism creates a mandate not a negotiation.

In 2023, the secretary will be able to determine the prices of 10 prescription drugs. The determined price would go into effect in 2026. The number of drugs the HHS Secretary could set prices for would then increase to 15 in 2028 and 20 in 2029.

The government is incapable of determining the equilibrium market price of any given product it will always set the price of a product too low or too high. When the government sets a price of a product too low, as it will under the Democrats bill, it results in shortages. Drug manufacturers will not sell or create products they will lose money on. Simply put, this bill will stunt the creation of new medicines and access to existing medicines.

The U.S. is currently a world leader in medical innovation and access because it promotes free market competition. As a result, the majority of cures are developed in the United States and are launched years before other developed nations which impose price controls have access to them.

According to research by the Galen Institute, 290 new medical substances were launched worldwide between 2011 and 2018. The U.S. had access to 90% of these cures. By comparison, the United Kingdom had access to 60% of medicines, Japan had 50%, and Canada had just 44%.

Further, one study found that, over 20 years, Democrats price control provisions would reduce the number of new drugs introduced into the market by 135. Notably, the treatments that manufacturers will be discouraged from making will be highly effective ones that treat common but serious ailments. After all, these are the drugs price setters will deem most important to take control over. In this way, price controls will disproportionately discourage the innovations humankind needs most.

So, why have Democrats passed measures that depress medical innovation? Allegedly, to save Medicare money and reduce U.S. spending on health care. Recent research finds, however, that this proposal would increase total health spending.

Pharmaceutical treatments tend to alleviate the need for more expensive interventions like surgeries and hospitalizations. The introduction of more medicines reduces money spent on costlier interventions, thus reducing total health spending. Because Democrats bill discourages the flow of new medicines, it will increase total health spending.

Specifically, while price controls are supposed to raise $101.8 billion over ten years, a study by Tomas J. Philipson and Giuseppe di Cera out of the University of Chicago estimate that total health care spending would actually increase by $50.8 billion over a 20-year period, largely at the expense of consumers.

The authors results, as they note, demonstrate that more medical innovation is cost-effective to consumers because new drugs create cost offsets, or reductions in total health care spending.

If not to save money, the purpose of price controls is to ultimately yield control over all drug price setting. Imposing price controls through Medicare Part D, a program designed to rely on free market forces is just the first step.

Democratic Rep. Peter Welch a cosponsor of the Medicare for All Act said the quiet part out loud when he threatened that price negotiations are just the beginning of Democrats fight for socialized medicine. Dont underestimate the power of the slippery slope, he bragged. Thats exactly why pharma fights so hard. They know if we get price negotiation, its the beginning, its not the end.

While so-called moderates like Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have opposed socialized medicine in the past, their support of ruinous price controls suggests they are unserious in their opposition.

Unfortunately, while the country struggles to pay for gas and groceries, congressional Democrats have prioritized measures that limit Americans access to medical cures and treatments while spending even more taxpayer dollars.

Isabelle Morales is policy communications specialist at Americans for Tax Reform.

View post:
Democrat price controls are yet another step toward socialized medicine - Washington Times

ALBANY If you have ever "liked" the Facebook accounts of the reality show "Duck Dynasty," the Michigan pop star Kid Rock or the comedian Larry the Cable Guy, dont expect to see campaign ads on the platform from Matt Castelli or Matt Putorti ahead of Tuesday's congressional primary.

But if you like NPR's "Morning Edition," "CNN Health" or the New York Times' Style section, you're more likely to see an ad for the two Democrats vying for the chance to take on U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik. And it could happen whether you live in Rome, N.Y., or Rome, Iowa.

While the Democrats have spent a total of less than $20,000 on Facebook ads over the past month most of it by Castelli they've hauled in roughly $2 million. The data that informs the targeting of those ads gives a sense of what's become a nationalized race to unseat or retain Stefanik, now the third-most-powerful member of the GOP conference.

Castelli, who has the endorsement of the district's Democratic county committees, and Putorti have waged national campaigns online that take advantage of Stefanik's polarizing transformation into a self-described "ultra-MAGA" defender of former President Donald J. Trump. There has been no publicly released polling in the primary face-off.

Facebook is not the only battlefield in what's become a social media war. Castelli has 72,000 followers on Twitter; Putorti has 136,000. But Stefanik has amassed almost 900,000 across her campaign and congressional accounts.

"In Washington, politicians like Elise Stefanik put their own interests and party loyalty first," Castelli says in a campaign ad that's pinned to the top of his Twitter feed (128,000 views). Putorti's pinned ad claims Stefanik is "too busy kissing Donald Trump's ass to look out for ours" (240,000 views).

Castelliwas a CIA officer and later the director of counterterrorism efforts for President Barack Obama's National Security Council. Putorti is a civil rights lawyer who has focused on LGBTQ equality, gun violence and immigration issues.

Castelli, a Glens Falls resident who grew up near Poughkeepsie, was raised in a Catholic household by parents with divergent political loyalties. Purtorti, who lives in Whitehall, went through the public school system before moving on to Boston College, Oxford University and Fordham Law School.

Castelli has positioned himself as the moderate in a campaign focused on the economy, prescription drug costs and health care access for women. Putorti has taken a slightly more progressive path, highlighting abortion rights, climate change and firearms.

Headed into the final days of the campaign, Castelli had raised $1.1 million and spent $683,000, while Putorti raised $880,000 and spent $649,000.

Less than 18 percent of Castelli's donors gave less than $200, while Putorti raised a third of his money from those donors. Both candidates received at least a third of their donations from out of state although campaign finance records don't specify the geographic point of origin for small donations.

The candidates' Facebook ads are clearly designed to appeal to a national audience those who can't vote in the district but can send a check.

Castelli spent $15,000 on Facebook ads over the past month. Public data from the platform showed that 84 percent of those ads were served up to viewers outside the North Country district. The candidate's campaign made sure the ads did not target people interested in Kid Rock, the conservative action star Chuck Norris or NASCAR, among several other topics and personalities. Instead, Castelli targeted people with interests in social change, community issues and activism.

Putorti spent $3,200 on Facebook ads over the same period, with two-thirds aimed at a national audience and the rest to anyone in New York. Similar to his primary rival's spots, these ads excluded people interested in the MAGA guitarist Ted Nugent, Barstool Sports and Clint Eastwood in favor of people interested in Politico, social change and feminist philosophy.

Stefanik has spent $23,000 on Facebook ads, almost exclusively targeting voters in New York. Her ads offered no tailored target demographics.

The incumbent holds a massive lead in campaign cash, especially as the two Democrats are forced to burn campaign dollars to win the nomination. Stefanik has raised $7.3 million over the past two years, and spent or disbursed $6.7 million $2.6 million of which was transferred to other political accounts. She maintains $2.6 million in her campaign account.

Beyond her incumbency and rising status as a Trump loyalist, Stefanik benefits from a district that has become more conservative in its voter makeup after the state's recent redistricting process. In the newly drawn district which extends significantly farther into Rensselaer County than Stefanik's current map Trump won 56 percent of voters in 2020. (He earned 54 percent in the current 21st District.)

Stefanik won 59 percent of the vote that year, besting Tedra Cobb; in 2018, Stefanik beat Cobb with 56 percent of the vote. In that election cycle, both candidates saw significant success fundraising off the Republican's high profile as a member of Trump's defense team during his first impeachment. (She was joined in that effort by U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin of Long Island, who is challenging Gov. Kathy Hochul.)

On Thursday, Castelli asked his Twitter followers in the district to "Share with a friend or neighbor ... why you'll be voting." While there were only a few initial replies, one came from an account based out of San Francisco: "Defeat Elise!"

An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated where Matt Castelli is from. He grew up in the Hudson Valley near Poughkeepsie. The story also stated Stefanik had spent $6.7 million of her campaign fund but $2.5 million of that was transferred to other political accounts.

Read this article:
Democrats angling to defeat Stefanik look to donors nationwide - Times Union