MoJo Author Feeds: Dave Gilson | Mother Jones

These Early '70s Ads Tried to Convince Kids the US Army Wasn't Totally Uptight

Dave Gilson — Sat, 27 May 2017 10:00:09 +0000

In the early 1970s, the US Army had a serious problem with its brand. It was stuck in an unpopular and bloody war. Morale stank; even President Richard Nixon conceded to West Point cadets that "it is no secret that the discipline, integrity, patriotism, self-sacrifice, which are the very lifeblood of an effective armed force…can no longer be taken for granted in the Army." Plus, Nixon had promised to stop the draft and the Pentagon had agreed to reintroduce an all-volunteer force in 1973. That meant military brass could no longer rely on a steady stream of warm bodies to fill the ranks—they would have go out and convince new recruits that Army life wasn't a drag.

Iconic and unseen war photos from Vietnam and Iraq AP Photo

So in 1971, the Army enlisted Madison Avenue to help. Not literally Madison Avenue, but N.W. Ayer, a venerable Philadelphia advertising firm that held the Army recruitment account and had coined copywriting gems such as "A diamond is forever." Armed with a $18.5 million budget—a sixfold increase from 1970—would-be Don Drapers and Peggy Olsons started brainstorming ways to sell the Army to a target demographic that had come of age amid peace protests and love beads.

This wasn't the first time Ayer had tried to convince young Americans that the military got them. In 1969, it created an ad targeting young women titled "The Army Needs Girls as Well as Generals." Beneath a photo of an aging staff officer and his fresh-faced assistant—his hand creepily touching hers beneath a manila folder—the ad gushed about the need for "girls who can keep things moving in the office." And if the chance to wage bureaucratic warfare in a potentially hostile work environment wasn't enticing enough, the copy promised the chance to meet "young people who want to go places and do things."

N. W. Ayer Advertising Agency Records, Archives Center, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution

The generals who oversaw the 1971 Army rebranding project were unimpressed by Ayer's initial pitches. One rejected concept, described by historian Beth Bailey, featured an image of a chicken wearing dog tags with the tag line "Bye Bye Birdie." (Sorry, Sal Romano.)

Eventually, the firm sold a reluctant Army Chief of Staff General William C. Westmoreland on the slogan "Today's Army Wants to Join You"—a twist on the old "I Want You for U.S. Army" posters that one ad exec said was meant to evoke "individual expression and changing lifestyles." (The other branches of the armed services also deployed new slogans to woo the Me Generation: the Navy: "If you're going to be something, why not be something special?" The Air Force: "Find yourself in the United States Air Force.")

N. W. Ayer Advertising Agency Records, Archives Center, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution

The resulting youth-friendly campaign featured a variety of print ads published in mainstream magazines such as Popular Science and Field and Stream. Ads aimed at African Americans ran in Ebony, Jet, and other black magazines. "When was the last time you got promoted?" asked an ad depicting a young African American woman in an office. There was no mention of doing a general's paperwork; instead, the ad talked up interesting work—"at the same starting salary our men get."

N. W. Ayer Advertising Agency Records, Archives Center, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution

The campaign also included TV and radio ads as well as records like the one below. Inconveniently, Bailey notes, the TV spots rolled out just as Lt. William Calley was being tried for his role in the 1968 My Lai massacre. A survey found that the ads didn't shift young men's interest in enlisting; some unswayed viewers called them "slick garbage." The TV campaign ended after three months and its funding was not renewed. But Westmoreland later reported that the short-lived campaign was "eminently successful."

The external rebranding effort was matched by an internal one. In preparation for the end of the draft, the Army rolled out reforms at a few bases as part of Project VOLAR (Volunteer Army). Changes included an end to reveille and bed checks, fewer inspections and more privacy, and other moves toward easing discipline and breaking down military hierarchy. Commanders could even allow the sale of low-alcohol beer in mess halls and barracks.

Operation Dessert Storm: The military loves giant cakes National Archives

In 1971, a couple of recent enlistees hit the road on their motorcycles on a new kind of recruiting mission. "Rapping with kids on street corners, at dances, at bowling alleys and high schools from New York to Baton Rouge," according to the Soliders magazine, the duo talked up the perks of the new, laid-back Army. At one high school, Specialist Mike Speegle boasted about his two-person room: "I had black light posters, peace signs, a little styrofoam beer cooler in the corner."

The changes went all the way to the top. Following "an extensive study of Army policy on haircuts," restrictions on longer hairstyles, sideburns, and mustaches were eased. A LIFE magazine article on "liberated" Fort Carson, Colorado, reported that the new three-inch haircut rule allowed "enough for a spectacular Afro." One recruitment ad focused on the new hair policies. "You'll find that today's Army is pretty relaxed about how you cut and style your hair," it read. "You'll discover that we care more about your head than we do about your hair."

In 1971 LIFE asked cartoonist Bill Mauldin to view "the new Army" through the eyes of his grizzled World War II dogfaces. Life/Google Books

Soliders

The closest the "Today's Army" campaign came to acknowledging the Sexual Revolution was an ad that suggested a tour of duty in Germany was a chance to see some action. In it, a GI in civvies and almost-civilian-length sideburns fraternizes with an attentive blonde at what looks like a Parisian café.

N. W. Ayer Advertising Agency Records, Archives Center, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution

A photographer follows soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan—and back. Peter van Agtmael

By the mid-1970s, many of the VOLAR reforms were scrapped. Officers and lawmakers alike worried that the changes, exemplified by the "Today's Army…" slogan, were indicators of deteriorating post-Vietnam morale and readiness. "Because of slogans like that, and because of the felling that they have beer in the barracks, no reveilles, and things like that, it was perceived by a great many Americans that the Army would be an undisciplined Army," Secretary of the Army Bo Callaway told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1974.

In 1973, "Today's Army Wants to Join You" was replaced with a new slogan, "Join the People Who've Joined the Army." (N.W. Ayer would later lose the Army account after a kickback scandal.) But the campaign's basic message—that a stint in uniform was a chance for self-realization rather than mindless submission to conformity—would remain a fixture of future recruitment campaigns, from "Be All You Can Be" to "An Army of One."

The Photo That May Help Unlock the Trump-Russia Scandal

Dave Gilson — Tue, 23 May 2017 19:57:44 +0000

On Monday, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) announced that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has documents indicating that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn appears to have lied in the process of obtaining top-level security clearance to be President Donald Trump's national security advisor. The disclosure was made in a letter to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) that urged the committee chairman to issue subpoenas for additional documents related to Flynn's brief tenure at the White House. "We need to know what the President, the Vice President, White House Counsel, and other top officials knew about General Flynn—and when they knew it," Cummings wrote. Flynn resigned in mid-February after it became public that he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence and other White House officials about his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kisylak.

Cummings' letter focused on Flynn's trip to Russia in December 2015 for a conference and dinner celebrating the 10th anniversary of RT, the Kremlin-backed news channel. Little noticed at the time, Vladimir Putin's guests that night included Flynn and future Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein—an odd couple who reflected the Russian president's efforts to court fringe figures on both the right and the left and otherwise meddle in US politics. (Also at the table were Putin's spokesman, chief of staff, and deputy chief of staff.)

Stein said the soiree was "a great opportunity to lay out some of my foreign policy proposals and get Russian reactions to them." Flynn, who commanded a $45,000 fee to speak at the event, said he didn't ask to be seated next to Putin. "I found it a great learning opportunity," he told the Washington Post.

According to Cummings' letter, Flynn told security investigators that "I didn't take any money from Russia" in connection with the event. Yet Cummings wrote that his committee has documents showing how the $45,000 payment was transferred from RT to Flynn's lobbying firm, as well as an email in which an RT official states, "We will be covering the payment of General Flynn's fee."

Flynn downplayed his dinner with Putin during his security check, telling investigators that during his foreign trips he "had only unsubstantial contact with foreign nationals." Cummings wrote, "It is difficult to understand how General Flynn could have believed that his dinner with Russian President Vladimir Putin was an 'insubstantial contact.'"

The White House has refused to provide the House oversight committee with any documents related to its vetting, hiring, and firing of Flynn. Flynn has refused to comply with a subpoena from the Senate intelligence committee, citing the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

5 Terrifying Nuke Videos That Were Kept Secret for Decades—With Good Reason

Dave Gilson — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:48:14 +0000

This week, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory released a batch of unclassified films of above-ground nuclear tests conducted by the United States between 1945 and 1962. So far, it's posted more than 60 clips on YouTube. More are coming: The federal lab has scanned more than 4,000 of these aging high-speed films and declassified 750. The footage is mesmerizing and terrifying. National security may not have been the only reason they were kept secret.

The effort to locate, review, and preserve the films is not entirely archival. "The legacy that I'd like to leave behind is a set of benchmark data that can be used by future weapon physicists to make sure that our codes are correct so that the US remains prepared," said Greg Spriggs, a weapon physicist at the Northern California lab who is overseeing the project. Though he added that he hopes atomic weapons will never be used again, his data probably will help refine our nuclear capabilities in preparation for the day when they might be used. The United States still spends more than $50 billion annually to maintain its nuclear arsenal and is producing a new generation of customizable bombs that are expected to cost more than $1 trillion.

President Donald Trump has said that he wants to expand the United States' nuclear arsenal, breaking with decades of bipartisan policies aimed at reducing the global nuclear threat. He has also spoken fatalistically, if semi-coherently, about nuclear weapons. "For me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me," he said during a Republican debate in 2016. Shortly after Trump took office, the keepers of the Doomsday Clock set it at two minutes to midnight—right where it was put in 1952 after the development of the hydrogen bomb.

Even if you're familiar with the frightening and beautiful images of nuclear explosions, these newly unearthed videos are a sobering reminder of the world-altering power we have spent decades perfecting—and have entrusted to a single person. Grab your Bhagavad Gita and take a look.

Why Trump's Military Budget Boost Doesn't Add Up

Dave Gilson — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:00:18 +0000

President Donald Trump is proposing to increase defense spending by $54 billion while slashing the budgets the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Agency for International Development. Trump has called his plan, which he will officially unveil tonight at a speech before Congress, "a landmark event, a message to the world, in these dangerous times, of American strength, security and resolve."

Trump campaigned on a promise to increase the Pentagon's budget and reverse the Obama administration's alleged "hollowing out" of the military. Yet a look at the numbers shows that while military spending has been decreasing due to bipartisan budget caps and the drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Defense Department is still getting more money than it has at any time since the end of World War II. Its 2016 budget was more than $600 billion. In 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, it was $569 billion (in current dollars).

And while Trump says increased military spending will reassert America's strength, the United States already is the world's 800-pound gorilla. In 2015, it was responsible for more than one third of all military spending on the planet. China and Russia, the United States' main military competitors, don't even come close.

Trump's budget plans also feature drastic cuts to international and environmental spending. He's reportedly pushing for a 24 percent cut to the EPA budget and a 37 percent cut to the State Department and USAID budget. While such reductions would have profound effects on these agencies, they are a drop in the bucket compared with the Pentagon budget. In 2016, the Department of State and USAID received an estimated $50.6 billion, or 1.3 percent of all federal spending. The EPA received $8.3 billion, or 0.2 percent of all federal spending. Meanwhile, the Pentagon got 15 percent.

While $54 billion would represent a more than 10 percent increase in the base military budget (which doesn't include the extra money it receives for overseas operations), it's massive compared to what the federal government spends on many social, science, environmental, and cultural programs—some of which could be on the chopping block. The Trump administration has reportedly been eyeing the National Endowment of the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for elimination and privatization, respectively. The combined budgets of those two agencies was $593 million in 2016—or 0.98 percent of all defense spending.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon's books are such a mess that it has never been audited, and the Government Accountability Office has repeatedly (though politely) criticized it for its "long-standing financial management deficiencies." Even as Trump talks about shaking things up in Washington, DC, his budget plans reveal that he won't challenge a costly budgetary tradition: giving the Pentagon a pass.

Sources: Office of Management and Budget, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, United States Agency for International Development, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts

Most Presidents Ignore Products That Rip Off Their Names. Will Trump?

Dave Gilson — Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:00:15 +0000

No one has entered the White House with a greater sense of self-worth than Donald Trump. The president considers his personal brand to be one of his biggest assets—valued at $3.3 billion, in his own estimation. (Forbes, which has spent years reporting how Trump inflates his net worth, says the actual value is intangible.) Trump and his companies have registered hundreds of trademarks with his name in them, from The Donald to The Trump Follies. Never in American history has there been a president more concerned with controlling his image, not simply as a matter of personal pride, but as a matter of preserving his bottom line.

And yet, as he's become a politician and now a public servant, Trump seems to have lost control of his image. A quick search turns up tons of unofficial Trump gear, from t-shirts to Chinese-made Make America Great Again hats. Then there are the cheesy commemorative statues, creepy dolls, and bobbleheads. Also Trump punching bags, dartboards, and toilet paper. And if a recent trademark application is accepted, you may soon be able to purchase "novelty toy items in the nature of fake poop" called Trump Turdz.

So does Trump still control his name and likeness now that he's become the biggest household name on the planet? The short answer is yes. Which means it's probably just a matter of time before the famously litigious president threatens to sue someone for using his name or image without his permission.

If he does so, Trump will likely invoke his "right of publicity"—the right to control the commercial use of his own name and image. This right is most often cited by celebrities whose faces end up in ads or on products without their permission. But politicians also enjoy the right of publicity, though they seldom claim it. "It's extremely rare for a politician to invoke the right of publicity," says Tyler Ochoa, a professor of law at Santa Clara University who's an expert on publicity rights. "Mostly because it would look bad. It makes it look like they're trying to capitalize on their office for private gain or trying to suppress freedom of speech."

While celebrities are usually forgiven for jealously guarding their personal brands, Americans treat politicians' images as public property. "Political figures are supposed to be busy running the country," says Jonathan Faber, an intellectual property attorney whose clients have included Rosa Parks, the estate of Princess Diana, and a couple of former presidents (whom he's not at liberty to name). "If a sitting official has lawyers sending cease-and-desist letters to an ad agency or a company manufacturing products, it often doesn't play out very well."

Most unapproved portrayals of politicians are protected by the First Amendment, particularly if they involve opinion, commentary, parody, or other forms of protected speech. But unapproved commercial uses of politicians' names and likenesses are not protected, especially if someone is transparently trying to make a buck. Shortly after taking office, President Barack Obama fired a couple of legal warning shots at companies that tried to cash in on his and his family's popularity, including a clothing firm that put up a Times Square billboard showing him in one of its jackets, and the maker of Beanie Babies, which had cranked out dolls named Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia. After that, companies largely respected the line Obama had drawn. "The president has a lot of clout," Faber says. "Most companies don't want to do something that might offend the president."

Despite his initial promise to keep a close watch on his image, Obama would eventually ignore thousands of products with no political message that likely infringed on his publicity rights. Sean Masson, a civil litigator who has written about the presidential right of publicity, notes some obvious examples, such as a "Yes We Can" can opener, chicken "Obama-Fingers," and Obama condoms ("The ultimate stimulus package"). Yet Masson thinks Obama was smart to pick his intellectual property battles, and would advise Trump to do the same. Faber agrees that politicians should exercise discretion when enforcing their right of publicity. "You should respond to things that are clear infringements and would be well advised to tolerate things that are nonactionable," he says.

Nonetheless, a handful of major politicians have gone after personalized products or ads that bothered them. In 2004, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger filed a right of publicity suit against the maker of a bobblehead that depicted him wearing a suit with a bandolier and an assault rifle. Ochoa describes it as a case of "stealth defamation"—meaning that Schwarzenegger was trying to shelve a product that made him look bad without actually filing a defamation case, which would have forced him to prove that he'd been intentionally disparaged. Such Hollywood hubris wasn't a good look for the newly-elected Governator, and "he was pretty quick to settle once the news hit the media," Ochoa recalls. (The bobblehead maker agreed to disarm the figure and made a donation to Schwarzenegger's nonprofit afterschool program.)

In 1997, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani sued New York magazine for running ads on buses that used his name without permission. A federal judge rejected his complaint, noting that "one who has chosen to be Mayor, and therefore to be the subject of daily commentary and controversy, cannot avoid the limelight of publicity—good and bad." In 1999, Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura sent a cease-and-desist letter to a woman who made a Valentine's Day card featuring him in the signature feather boa he'd worn as a pro wrestler. (She stopped making them.) And in 1970, Vice President Spiro Agnew complained his privacy had been violated by a dartboard that featured a drawing of his face and the phrase "Et Tu, Spiro!" The dartboard's makers responded that their product was making a political comment and was protected by the First Amendment. The company enlisted the help of radical lawyer William Kunstler, and the matter was settled out of court.

It's not hard not to imagine the president following in the footsteps of similarly thin-skinned personalities like Agnew and Giuliani and celebrity politicians like Ventura and Schwarzenegger. In 2013, Trump got into a beef with Mac Miller, accusing the rapper of "illegally" using his name without permission in a song titled "Donald Trump":

Little @MacMiller, you illegally used my name for your song “Donald Trump” which now has over 75 million hits.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 31, 2013

Last February, a Los Angeles artist named Illma Gore published a portrait of a naked, un-bigly endowed Trump tilted "Make America Great Again" that quickly went viral. Gore says that she was contacted by people claiming to represent Trump who threatened both copyright and right of publicity claims, but no lawsuit materialized. (The incident recalls the 1978 case in which Muhammad Ali sued Playgirl [NSFW] for running an illustration of a nude boxer who looked just like "The Greatest"—at least above the trunks.) Not long after Trump trademarked "Make America Great Again" in 2015, his lawyers sent cease-and-desist letters to CafePress and other sites that were selling unapproved Trump merch.

Though the president has yet to object about his image being exploited since his election, Faber believes "it's only a matter of time." Trump's ongoing business interests give him additional incentives for pursuing anyone he thinks is ripping off his brand. And he has more resources and avenues to do so than his predecessors. For the first time, "we have a president who has the ability to lean on trademark registration as an added argument," Faber says. "There are some pending trademark applications that I'm sure Donald Trump would not be particularly fond of."

If Trump does pursue a right of publicity case, he'd be wise to do it on his own time and with his money, says Masson: "It's important to pursue it in your personal capacity, not in your capacity as a sitting president." And while there are no laws or rules prohibiting presidential lawyers from getting involved in publicity suits, Masson says, "This is not a job for White House counsel." Since Trump has not completely separated himself from his companies and investments, using taxpayer money to protect his personal brand would look unseemly. Not that bad PR or the appearance of conflicts of interest have ever deterred Trump. "The president has a track record for really knee-jerk policy decisions," Masson says. "And the chances are that if he tries to enforce his right of publicity rights, he'll do it in an equally ham-fisted manner. While he's legally entitled to do so, I don't think it gains him anything politically. In fact, I think it hurts him."

Anyone who's holding off on releasing a Trump product until his name and image enter the public domain has a long wait ahead. They're his for the rest of his life. Federal law also prohibits anyone from using a deceased former president's "name, portrait, or signature" without the approval of his widow, if she outlives him. A president's estate may control his intellectual property for many years following his death. (The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, for example, owns the rights to the Gipper's signature.) And the Trump Organization could lay claim to its namesake's image well into the 21st century.

When—or if—the day comes when someone wants to name a public building or piece of infrastructure after Trump, there's little chance of stepping on his publicity rights. That means that, conceivably, a name whose value stems from its use on luxury hotels and vanity brands could end up on a sanitary landfill or sewage treatment facility. (In 2008, San Francisco voters considered a ballot measure that would have named the municipal wastewater plant after President George W. Bush; it was rejected.) If Trump tried to stop such a move, Ochoa says, "I think a court would probably say that the criticism falls under the First Amendment. And if they name an airport or a school after him, he's not going to object. He loves that kind of adulation."

Unlike Trump, California Pays Its Taxes

Dave Gilson — Mon, 06 Feb 2017 23:31:08 +0000

During an alternative-fact-filled interview with Bill O'Reilly on Sunday, President Donald Trump launched into a diatribe about California pushing back against his immigration policies, suggesting that he would try to cut off the Golden State's federal funding. "We give tremendous amounts of money to California," he said. "California in many ways is out of control, as you know."

Assuming that Trump was speaking on behalf of the federal government, he was, in fact, correct that "we" give lots of money to California. Annually, the feds spend nearly $368 billion in California, which includes everything from paying government contracts to cutting Social Security checks. Yet implicit in Trump's comments was the assumption that Californians are gobbling up or blowing through "tremendous amounts" of government spending without paying their fair share in return. That's wrong.

An accumulation of data from various sources shows that California routinely pays more in federal taxes than it receives in federal spending. A 2015 study by the New York state comptroller found that in 2013 Californians paid $9,086 per capita in federal taxes and received $9,040 per capita in federal spending—or about 99 cents of spending for every tax dollar. (This is an improvement: The Tax Foundation found that California received about 78 cents in spending for every tax dollar in 2005, and Census and IRS data showed the state getting back 87 cents on the dollar in 2010.) In comparison, the average state gets about $1.29 in federal money for every dollar it sends to Washington.

California pays about 13 percent of all federal taxes and receives about 11 percent of federal expenditures. It's one of 11 states with a deficit between what it pays the feds and what it gets back. New Jersey has the biggest annual gap between spending and taxes, at more than $2,600 per person. New Mexico enjoys the biggest surplus, at more than $7,700 per person.

Here's how all the states stack up in terms of federal taxes paid and spending received.

States pay a wide range of taxes per capita. Connecticut pays nearly $14,000 per person, while Mississippians pay about $4,800 apiece.

Federal spending by state also varies widely. Swamp-adjacent Virginia gets more than $16,800 per person. (Washington, DC, itself brings in a whopping $65,000 per resident.) Arid Utah, on the other hand, gets just $7,000 per person per year.

Meanwhile, there remains insufficient data to calculate how much Trump has paid in taxes relative to the tremendous amounts of benefits he has received from the federal government.

What's Lily White, Filthy Rich, and Has 14 Penises?

Dave Gilson and Einat Gilboa — Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:00:14 +0000

In his election victory speech, Donald Trump promised that "the forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer." Since then, he's assembled the wealthiest administration in US history, with key posts going to billionaires, millionaires, Wall Street insiders, and big donors who embody "the rigged, broken, corrupt system" he vowed to fix.

Illustrations by Mattias Mackler

Data as of February 2, 2017, before Viola withdrew as the nominee for secretary of the Army. The Cabinet includes the 15 executive department heads and the vice president. Cabinet-level positions include the heads of the Small Business Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council of Economic Advisors, and the White House chief of staff, US trade representative, and United Nations ambassador.

Sources

Net worth of Trump Cabinet picks: Financial disclosures, Bloomberg, Forbes

Net worth of Obama and Bush Cabinets: Forbes

Countries' DP: World Bank

Medicaid expansion: AP, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Trump University fraud settlement: New York Times

Wealth of 126 million Americans: Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances; Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University; Census Bureau

128 million Americans voted: David Wasserman, Cook Political Report

1% net worth: Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances; Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University

Median net worth of US households: Edward Wolff, New York University

Past Cabinet diversity: New York Times

Growth of 1% incomes: World Wealth & Income Database

Growth of federal minimum wage: Department of Labor

Cohn bonus: New York Times

Viola net worth: Bloomberg

Warren net worth: Bloomberg

Paulson net worth: Forbes

Hamm net worth: Bloomberg

Icahn net worth: Bloomberg

Mercers net worth: The Atlantic

Trump campaign donations from millionaires and billionaires: Demos

Trump net worth: Forbes

Trump’s self-claimed net worth: Forbes; Trump; Timothy O’Brien, Bloomberg; Wall Street Journal; New York Times; Trump financial disclosure form

Think Like a Billionaire sales: Trump financial disclosure form

The Brutal (and Fact-Checked) Numbers on Killing Obamacare

Meagan Day and Dave Gilson — Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:00:13 +0000

Donald Trump and congressional Republicans emerged victorious in November thanks in part to their repeated denunciations of Obamacare. At a rally in July, Trump noted the efficacy of attacks on the Affordable Care Act: "One of the things that gets constantly…the biggest applause is a repeal and replacement of Obamacare." Since the election, some Republican lawmakers have softened their stance a bit, suggesting that Obamacare may simply be "scaled back." But there's little doubt that they will still make a show of upholding their promise to chip away at, if not totally repeal, Obamacare. Trump, who once advocated universal health coverage, has said he will replace the existing plan with "something terrific," though he has yet to offer a serious alternative.

Here's another catch: While most Americans say they dislike Obamacare, they actually like most of its provisions. According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, every major part of the Affordable Care Act is exceedingly popular except for one—the imposition of fines for not having health coverage. This might explain why some Trump voters are reacting with alarm now that they realize some kind of ACA repeal looks likely.

If Obamacare is fully repealed, most Americans will see a modest tax cut, while tens of millions will face a loss of coverage or become uninsurable. And thousands could die from lack of access to medical care. As Obamacare slips back into critical condition, here's a look at these and other consequences of its possible demise.

Sources

Map and uninsured rates: Department of Heath and Human Services, Urban Institute

Uninsured if fully repealed: ACASignups

Currently uninsured; uninsured if partially repealed: Urban Institute

Breakdown of future uninsured: ACASignups

Preexisting conditions: Kaiser Family Foundation

Premium increases: Congressional Budget Office

Estimated annual deaths: Urban Institute, Annals of Internal Medicine

Support for Obamacare repeal: Kaiser Family Foundation

Approval ratings for Obamacare provisions: Kaiser Family Foundation

Tax cuts for top 400: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Tax cuts: Tax Policy Center

Job losses: Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University, the Commonwealth Fund

11 Charts That Show Income Inequality Isn't Getting Better Anytime Soon

Edwin Rios and Dave Gilson — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:00:10 +0000

It's no secret that the United States has a glaring—and growing—problem with inequality. The Great Recession made things worse, and the recent economic recovery remains uneven, and unevenly distributed. Families in the bottom 99 percent of households have recovered just 60 percent of their income losses from the economic slump, according to a recent analysis of tax data by University of California-Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez.

Meanwhile, the superrich keep getting richer: The average family in the top 1 percent of earners makes 40 times more than the average family in the bottom 90 percent of households. Families in the top 0.01 percent—the 1 percent of the 1 percent—make, on average, a whopping 198 times more than those in the bottom 90 percent, according to Saez and fellow economist Thomas Piketty's data.

It's no wonder, then, that despite millions of jobs being added under President Barack Obama and an economy that looks good on paper, many voters who felt left out of the recovery turned out for Donald Trump. "An economy that fails to deliver growth for half of its people for an entire generation is bound to generate discontent with the status quo and a rejection of establishment politics," Saez, Piketty, and fellow economist Gabriel Zucman recently wrote in a post for the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Trump tapped into that discontent—now we'll see if he and his billionaire-packed Cabinet can recover those decades of lost prosperity for most Americans.

Here's a closer look at the current state of income and wealth inequality:

The middle class is still struggling

First, some good news: Last year, middle-class households reaped an income gain of 5.2 percent, the highest level since 2007. Now the bad news: Despite such overdue gains, average American households are barely making more than they did in 1980. Median household incomes have risen just 17 percent (in real dollars) during the past 35 years, lagging far behind GDP growth. Meanwhile, the corporate profits and the average income of the top 1 percent of earners has skyrocketed.

The superrich are still thriving

The average income for the top 0.01 percent of households grew an astounding 322 percent, to $6.7 million, between 1980 and 2015. Despite seeing 3.9 percent growth in the last year, the highest rate since 1998, the average income of the bottom 90 percent has effectively flatlined, increasing just 0.03 percent since 1980.

Half of all income goes to the top

As of 2015, half of all US income was going to the top 10 percent of earners. Piketty, an economist at the Paris School of Economics, predicts that if the current trend holds, their share will eventually reach 60 percent.

Most post-recession gains went to the top

Like millions of Americans, top earners took a hit during the Great Recession. But when the slump officially ended, they bounced back much faster and further than most. In fact, more than half of all income gain during the six years following the downturn went to the top 1 percent.

Minimum wage can't keep up

The situation for workers earning minimum wage remains bleak. In real dollars, the current federal minimum wage is worth 26 percent less than it was in 1970. Compare that to the increase in top incomes (like those of Trump's pick for labor secretary, fast-food CEO Andy Puzder, a staunch opponent of minimum-wage hikes).

It's not just about income, but wealth

The richest households have not only seen an upsurge in incomes, but also an accumulation of wealth in the form of property and assets. The recession tanked many Americans' net worth: The median household net worth dropped 45 percent between 2007 and 2010.

More wealth is trickling up

Here, too, the superrich are capturing the lion's share of gains. Since 1983, the 1 percent's share of total net worth has jumped to 37 percent, while the share of net worth held by the bottom 90 percent has slumped to 23 percent. "Income inequality has a snowballing effect on wealth distribution," Saez and Zucman wrote in a May paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. "[T]his snowballing effect has been sufficiently powerful to dramatically affect the shape of the US wealth distribution over the last 30 years."

Race and inequality are linked

Not all families benefited equally from the economic recovery. The median wealth of white households remains 13 times more than that of black households and 10 times more than Latino households'.

Education also matters

Education levels also affect income disparities. David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that between 1979 and 2012, the gap in median earnings between high school-educated and college-educated households grew by $28,000. If these households benefited from the same income gain as the top 1 percent, they would have seen an increase of $7,000 each.

Location, location, location

Economic inequality also isn't distributed evenly geographically. Children growing up poor in Baltimore, Maryland, will make 17 percent less than the average low-income American by the time they becomes 26. But children family who live just 46 miles west in Montgomery County could earn 10 percent more than average low-income adults.

Upward mobility is slipping

For decades, Americans have assumed they might be more prosperous than their parents. But that dream of upward mobility is becoming harder to realize. As research from the Equality of Opportunity Project shows, a child born in 1980 is half as likely to make more money than their parents by the time they reach adulthood, while a person born in 1940 had a 92 percent chance of doing so. And as more income has become concentrated at the very top, even children born into wealthy homes are seeing their prospects decline.

How Liberals Can Use the Tea Party Playbook to Stop Trump

Dave Gilson — Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:00:11 +0000

Since the election, progressives have been huddling on social media to plan ways to stymie, if not stop, President-elect Donald Trump. Last week, new inspiration came in the form of a link leading to a 23-page Google document titled "Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda." In clear, confident prose, it lays out a well-reasoned, step-by-step strategy for building a grassroots movement to challenge Trump and his Republican allies in Congress. And it openly acknowledges that its playbook is cribbed from a surprising source: the tea party.

The guide was put together as a side project of a largely anonymous group of former Democratic congressional staffers who sought to help fellow progressives do something more constructive than signing online petitions. "Hill staffers don't have a lot of skills—that's why so many become lobbyists," explains 31-year-old Ezra Levin, the collaboration's unofficial spokesman, whose day job is at an anti-poverty think tank. "The one thing that we have is knowledge of how Congress works."

Some of that knowledge was earned the hard way. "We know what worked when we were in Congress. We saw the tea party adopt a very effective strategy that effectively slowed down Congress and defeated many progressive priorities," says Levin, who previously worked as deputy policy director for Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas). "Indivisible" explains how the tea party did it, and how progressives can do the same—without the vitriol. ("The Tea Party's ideas were wrong and their behavior was often horrible," it states. "We are better than this.") The guide explains how to effectively pressure lawmakers—exploiting their political self-interest to get them to do the right thing—or at least not do the wrong thing.

From "Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda."

Since it was published, the guide has been read thousands of times. (Exactly how many isn't clear; Google doesn't track how many people view public documents. You can now download it here.) It's been shared by liberal celebrities such as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Star Trek's George Takei. "There have been some high-profile folks—it's nice to see that," Levin says. "But I think that's less important and heartwarming than the people in rural districts in California or Georgia or Florida saying, 'Oh my gosh this is exactly what I've been looking for.'"

Levin spoke more about the two-pronged plan to challenge a newly elected president—and why you shouldn't bother contacting members of Congress who don't represent you.

Mother Jones: How did the group come up with this idea?

Ezra Levin: We thought our value-add to this conversation is to demystify Congress for everybody else. The tea party had a lot of nasty tactics that were needlessly aggressive and petty and scary. But they proved it is indeed possible for a committed, relatively small number of folks across the country to make Congress listen to them and to slow and stop an agenda. The way we see it, there is a much larger group of people around the country now that feel that way than there was in 2009 and 2010. Progressives are the majority; we won the popular vote by a long shot and Donald Trump and the congressional Republicans representing mainly rich old white men are a minority. If we stand up together and use the effective strategies and tactics the tea party used, we believe we can stop them.

MJ: What in particular do you think the tea party did effectively?

EL: We point to a two-pronged strategy that made the tea party successful. One, you have to be local. You have to focus on your local members of Congress. Looking around at all these great groups that have popped up, we've seen people say, "Hey, contact the committee chair. Contact the leadership or this member of Congress." What we knew from our time on the Hill is that members of Congress care about reelection most of all. And that means they care about their constituents. So you have to be a constituent to make your voice heard.

The second strategy that the tea party smartly embraced was one of being almost entirely defensive. They consciously decided not to figure out which of their really abominable conservative policy priorities to prioritize. Instead, anything that came out of the Obama White House they were against. What they recognized is that when you've lost the White House and the House of Representatives and the Senate, you're not setting the agenda anymore. We progressives find ourselves in a similar situation now. So when you're talking to your member of Congress, your leverage is responding to whatever is on his or her plate right now.

This does not mean abandoning a vision for the future. This guide is really meant for the local activists on the ground who are trying to make their voices heard. The hard truth is that they are going to have to respond to the Republican, very conservative agenda that is being set.

MJ: Do you think that Republican members of Congress listen to their progressive constituents?

EL: The answer is absolutely yes. The bottom line is that every single member of Congress has to get voted into office every two or six years. That means they need to look really good in their home district and state. That means good local press. That means people in their district thinking, "Man, I really don't like Congress, but I like Senator Bob." I really do not think there is a serious split between Republicans and Democrats in Congress in how responsive they are to constituents.

MJ: On the flip side, you're telling progressives in blue districts or bubbles that they shouldn't spend their time calling Texas or North Carolina; they should also focus on their local members of Congress. Why is that?

EL: That's absolutely right, for the same reason. When someone is running for reelection in Texas, they're not looking for votes in California or New York. It is really crucial that folks focus on their own representatives. If you call or write a member who does not represent you, I can tell you that contact is going to be a waste of time. You might as well just talk to yourself in your living room.

What if your members of Congress are great? Another crucial thing the tea party did really well is to focus in on the folks who are more or less on your side, and make sure they are as bold as possible. The way the most damage will get done in Congress during the next administration is when Democrats go along with the authoritarianism or racism or corruption being proposed by the other side. Stiffening the spine of progressive members of Congress is crucial.

MJ: What do you see as the best-case scenario for this strategy? Will it take the sting out of Trump's policies or will it stop them in their tracks?

EL: A mix of both. The bottom line is that our ideas are supported by more Americans than theirs. We're standing for more Americans than they do. To the extent that we can shine a light on the bad things being done, that's going to have a positive impact. And to the extent that we can slow down the things they're really going to try to ram through Congress, that's going to have a positive impact, too. Their goal is to quickly pass as much bad legislation and regulatory changes as possible because they know their ideas aren't popular and they know they don't represent the vast majority of the country.

MJ: Do you think Trump and Republicans are more vulnerable now than Obama and Dems were in 2009 during the rise of the tea party?

EL: Structurally, that is clearly the case. Obama had a mandate for change and Trump clearly does not. The Democrats had much larger majorities in Congress when Obama first took office. Our position now is actually stronger—though it's hard to imagine. But it's only stronger if people act. If people don't get as engaged as the tea party was, we're going to lose.

MJ: A lot of people are talking about how we're seeing many of our democratic norms being eroded by Trump. If that continues, does this approach remain effective? Or does it depend on the way we've always done things, like members of Congress responding to constituents?

EL: That's a scary question and I think it's one of the reasons folks are so engaged right now. A lot of people are worried that many of our rights and privileges we've come to expect as part of the American democratic process will be abandoned or restricted in some way. That is a valid fear and it makes it all the more important that people get together now to prevent any possible damage.