What the NewsClick Raid Says About Declining Press Freedom in India

Journalists and media outlets across India are raising questions about press freedom and their ability to work without the “threat of reprisal” after police raided the offices and homes of journalists working for NewsClick, an independent digital news outlet in the Indian capital on Tuesday, Oct. 3.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Launched in 2009 by veteran Indian journalist Prabir Purkayastha, NewsClick describes itself as “one of India’s most consistent chroniclers of diverse people’s movements and struggles.” It employs less than a hundred journalists and has a social media following of just over 70,000.

During the early hours of Tuesday morning, Delhi police raided the homes of at least 30 staff, including editors, reporters, and freelancers, to question them under an anti-terror law called the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act before seizing all electronic devices including personal mobile phones and laptops. The police also arrested Purkayastha, along with NewsClick’s head of human resources, Amit Chakravarty, over allegations of money laundering.

On Wednesday, sixteen journalists and news organizations, including the press clubs of various cities across the country, wrote a joint plea to the Indian Supreme Court Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud to ask the judiciary to intervene. They say the raids are the latest example of the attacks leveled against the press by the current government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

“The fact is that today, a large section of journalists in India finds itself working under the threat of reprisal,” the letter stated.

A longstanding target of Indian agencies

NewsClick claims to report on news and views “ignored by corporate media, whose agenda is dictated by the rich and powerful in the country.” In the past, its journalists have ruffled feathers by reporting contentious stories like the farmers’ protest in 2020 and the government’s overhaul of history textbooks this past April. Abhisar Sharma, a prominent Hindi-language journalist with nearly three million subscribers on YouTube, recently reported on a caste census carried out in the northern state of Bihar that contradicted the government’s claims, while Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, another veteran journalist, has become critical in exposing the government’s ties with the Indian billionaire, Gautam Adani.

Read More: India’s School Textbooks Are the Latest Battleground for Hindu Nationalism

As a result, the news outlet has been under the watchful eye of Indian authorities since 2021, when Delhi police first alleged that it was violating Indian laws on foreign direct investment by receiving funding from an American company. In February of that year, the Enforcement Directorate, the federal agency overseeing money laundering claims, raided NewsClick’s offices along with Puryakastha’s home.

In August, a report from the New York Times claimed that according to corporate filings, NewsClick had been financed by Neville Roy Singham, a U.S. millionaire accused of working closely with Beijing and financing its propaganda internationally. The report also stated that the Indian news outlet had “sprinkled its coverage with Chinese government talking points.”

Indian authorities have since seized on these claims to register a case against NewsClick and its journalists. The New York Times has also come under scrutiny for its role in publishing the story that led to the police crackdown, with protests held outside its offices on Tuesday. 

‘An attempt to shut down and stifle independent and fearless voices’ 

In a statement published Wednesday, NewsClick rejected all the allegations leveled against it, adding that it still hadn’t received a copy of the First Information Report that outlines official police charges, as required by law. It pushed back against money laundering charges by saying that in the last two years, authorities haven’t called on Purkayastha for questioning, nor filed any charges against the outlet despite possessing all of its information, documents, and communications.

It also addressed the New York Times‘ claims by saying that it doesn’t publish any news or information “at the behest of any Chinese entity or authority, directly or indirectly,” or “propagate Chinese propaganda on its website.” 

It added that the government is attempting to “shut down and stifle independent and fearless voices that portray the story of the real India—of peasants, of laborers, of farmers, and other oft-ignored sections of society.”

Another example of declining press freedoms in India

Along with the letter to the Supreme Court Justice, several national and international news organizations have expressed concerns about the raids, saying they are reminiscent of the 1975 Emergency when the voices of those critical of the then-ruling Congress party were silenced through arrests, detentions, and raids.

Many also point to shrinking press freedoms in India. Since Modi came into power in 2014, India has drastically slipped places from 140 to 161 out of 180 in the annual World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, coming below countries like Laos, the Philippines, and neighboring Pakistan.

Read More: Why India Is Using Emergency Laws to Ban a Documentary About Prime Minister Modi

In official statements, the Press Club of India said it was “deeply concerned” about the raids, adding that it stood in “solidarity with the journalists,” while the Editor’s Guild of India urged the government to “not create a general atmosphere of intimidation under the shadow of draconian laws” by following due process. The Network of Women in Media India stated the government should be “transparent about its actions” and not use anti-terror laws indiscriminately against journalists and dissenters, while Digipub, a news foundation in India, said the raids had taken “the government’s pattern of arbitrary and intimidatory behavior to another level.”

“India has been in a downward spiral on press freedom and other rankings on civil liberties and human rights, and the Indian government’s war against the media is a blot on the world’s largest democracy,” Digipub added.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has also called for the immediate release of Purkayastha, urging the government to “stop trying to intimidate journalists” through tactics like police raids.

“This is the latest attack on press freedom in India,” said Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “We urge the Indian government to immediately cease these actions as journalists must be allowed to work without fear of intimidation or reprisal.”

source https://time.com/6320395/india-newsclick-raid-press-freedom/

Why Millions of Phones Will Go Off Today

The U.S. government will be conducting a nationwide emergency alert drill Wednesday at around 2:20 p.m. E.T., which will send a message to cell phones, radios, and televisions around the country.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is conducting the test to check whether the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) are effective in warning people about emergencies. The EAS system will send alerts to cell phones that are turned on, while the WEA portion of the test will send alerts to radios and televisions.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

FEMA is required by law to test their emergency alert systems at least once every three years. The last national test took place in 2021.

All major U.S. wireless carriers will automatically participate in the test, meaning no one has to enroll in order to receive the alert.

Here’s what to know about the test.

What is the Wireless Emergency Alert test?

The Wireless Emergency Alert test, which targets cell phones, is estimated to last around 30 minutes, though people should only receive the alert once.

This afternoon, residents should expect to receive the following message on their phone: “THIS IS A TEST of the National Wireless Emergency Alert System. No action is needed.” Phones that are programmed to Spanish will see the same message in their preferred language.

Phones that are turned off, on airplane mode, or are not connected or associated with a cell tower will not receive the message. If a phone is turned back on after the WEA test is over, they will not receive a message.

Residents should expect the cell phone alert to be “accompanied by a unique tone and vibration,” according to FEMA. This is done to ensure the alert is accessible, including to those with disabilities.

If someone is on a phone call while the test is taking place, their call will not be interrupted. If a phone has its ringer or vibration off, they may not feel or hear the WEA message.

What is the Emergency Alert System test?

The EAS test, which will alert television and radio stations, is scheduled to last for about one minute.

Any radio or television that is on and connected to a broadcast station, a satellite radio or TV service or cable or wireless TV, should receive an alert.

People can expect to see or hear a message similar to the EAS alert: “This is a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, covering the United States from 14:20 to 14:50 hours ET. This is only a test. No action is required by the public.”

If someone did not receive the alert, or has other feedback on the test, they can email: FEMA-National-Test@fema.dhs.gov.

source https://time.com/6320377/emergency-alert-system-test/

What Pope Francis’ Statement About Possible Blessings for Same-Sex Couples Could Mean

A response letter to five conservative cardinals who were asking Pope Francis to clarify whether blessings of same-sex unions are permitted went public on Monday, signaling a slight shift in the Catholic Church’s previous stance on LGBTQ+ unions. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“We cannot be judges who only deny, push back and exclude,” Pope Francis wrote in a July letter. “As such, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or several people, that do not convey a wrong idea of a matrimony. Because when one seeks a blessing, one is requesting help from God.” It’s a step back from a 2021 Vatican statement—made by an official who Francis has since removed—that said blessings of same-sex couples were not permitted. 

While the pope’s note denounces same-sex marriages, religious leaders say it also recognizes the possibility for change in an institution with decreasing rates of attendance, and acknowledges the need to address issues of inclusion within the religion.

The topic will likely be at the center of conversations beginning on Wednesday, when bishops from across the globe, and for the first time ever, female clergy, will gather for a meeting known as the synod in Rome. “The pope, especially in what he’s doing, is calling the church to a time of communicating, of listening and sharing, of growing, of moving ahead together,” says Rev. John P. Alvarado, a now-retired pastor who moderates an LGBTQ faith sharing group in New Jersey.

But although the pope’s letter does not state an official stance by the church, some see the papacy’s written statement as a point of celebration. 

“Pope Francis’ statement recognizes a reality already happening in many parts of the church. There are Catholic communities in many parts of the world that extend some type of blessings to same-sex couples,” said Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of Dignity USA, an organization working for the inclusion and respect of LGBTQ+ Catholics.

Understanding the pope’s message

Francis’s letter falls short of supporting the blessings of queer couples, but clarifies that the church is open to discerning whether blessings of same-sex unions can be permitted on a case-by-case basis. He encourages church leaders to act with “pastoral charity,” meaning that people should not “deny, push back and exclude” people from the church. 

“He’s not saying that we should create a ritual that can be done anywhere, anytime, but [that blessings] can be a response to individuals or couples or groups of people who ask for a special blessing on an occasion,” Bishop John Stowe of the Catholic Diocese of Lexington, Kentucky, tells TIME. “How do we be faithful to who and what the church has always been, while not alienating people today?”

The Catholic Church believes marriage can only occur between a man and a woman, but a blessing can still hold great significance to queer couples because they act as prayers for God’s presence and help, Stowe says. “It almost signifies God’s approval.”

Francis has been explicit in saying that acting on same-sex attraction is a sin. But he’s also signaled greater support for the queer community, to which he has faced much criticism. Francis first made headlines in 2013 when he said, “If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them?” the pope said. In January 2020, he signaled that he agreed that queer couples should have civil protections, separate from the church, noting that “you can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this.” And this January, the pope spoke out against the criminalization of homosexuality.

Stowe says that the idea of same-sex attraction as sin comes from medieval theology, which says that “everything has its purpose and the purpose of sexual relations is procreation.” But he admits that many lay people are reconsidering that ideal. “The discipline of theology means faith seeking understanding. So we have to explore how we best understand that and best apply that in light of what we now know about anthropology, about human development, [and] about sexual orientation not being something that one freely chooses.”

Alvarado agrees. “What is the difficulty with blessing people even of the same sex, who are willing to commit themselves to loving each other in a very formal structured way?” he says.

Nearly one in seven “highly religious” LGBTQ people are in a same-sex relationship, according to a UCLA Williams Institute survey.

Francis DeBernardo, the executive director of New Ways Ministry in Maryland, says that the Catholic Church has made substantial changes and clarifications in the past. The most popular one involves usury—the practice of charging interest on a loan—which was previously prohibited. The Catholic Church has also previously clarified its stance on slavery and the death penalty, which Pope Francis condemned in 2018. These issues do not concern an individual’s personal identity, but DeBernardo says that they show openness to adaptation over time.

“Pope Francis’ response is both unprecedented and compassionate and continues to urge every Catholic and leader toward acceptance and recognition of LGBTQ people,” said GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis in a press release. “This is not full marriage recognition, but it will make a significant difference in the lives of LGBTQ families.”

Inclusion in the church

Discussions concerning the inclusion of queer people in the Catholic church also arrive at a pivotal moment.  

A June 2023 Gallup poll revealed that from 2020 through the present, an average of 30% of adults say they have attended a worship service in the past seven days. The biggest drop in church attendance was experienced among Catholics, one of the largest faith groups in the U.S. It also comes at a moment of increasing violence against the LGBTQ+ community, as record numbers of laws targeting queer folks are passed nationwide. 

Some sects of Abrahamic religions, like Reform Judaism, have passed rules supporting LGBTQ+ individuals since the 70s. Germanic Catholic churches are also catching on. Bishops in the European country approved blessings for same-sex unions after their own synodal assembly in March.

Francis spoke out against the measure but will likely take on the topic for discussion during this year’s Synod on Synodality. The gathering, DeBernardo says, signals that Francis is looking to church leaders to figure out how to engage in better dialogue among each other, share new ideas, and consult people other than bishops in the decisions of the church. Smaller discussions among dioceses have already been occurring over the past two years leading up to this meeting, which is what prompted the cardinals to ask the papacy to better explain his stance towards blessing same-sex unions. 

The meeting is a longtime coming. Global leaders last gathered at this scale to discuss the future of Catholicism some 60 years ago, during the Second Vatican Council. That gathering, which was only open to bishops, largely modernized the church, although changes were later rolled back under the leadership of the conservative popes that followed.

This synod, which serves to advise the papacy, will last until Oct. 29. Once that is completed, laymen and women will vote on what they believe the church’s stance should be regarding certain teachings or practices. An initial report will be presented to the pope after which Francis will take another six to eight months to reflect and study it before he releases his own official document that could deliver the church’s official stance on the blessings of same-sex couples.

Serious decision-making may also be prolonged until next year, when leaders will meet again for the second part of the synod in October 2024. 

For now, religious leaders hope that decision-makers will do what’s right. “It’s a challenge,” says Alvarado when speaking of the purpose of the gathering. “We want to do what’s good and holy. But is it in line with the gospel? Is it in line with the gospel that speaks of love? That speaks of mercy? Of healing? And of inclusion, not exclusion?” 

source https://time.com/6320335/pope-francis-inclusion-lgbtq-religion/

Why House Democrats Refused to Save McCarthy

For the first time in U.S. history, a motion to vacate the Speaker of the House has succeeded, with the chamber’s Democrats shrugging as a small group of mostly far-right Republicans provided the crucial votes to oust Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

On Tuesday, Democrats voted unanimously alongside Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida and seven other GOP members to remove McCarthy as Speaker. Despite talk over the weekend that some Democrats might cut a deal with McCarthy to save him, the Speaker ultimately refused to offer members of the opposition party any concessions, leaving Democrats united against him. In the narrowly divided House, only a handful of Republicans needed to join Democrats to create the majority needed to win the vote. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Even though the effort to oust McCarthy was instigated by Republicans, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries urged House Democrats to join them in voting against the Speaker. In a statement released before the vote, Jeffries explained his reasoning, saying McCarthy had brought this on himself by using his short tenure as Speaker to cater to extremists in his party. He pointed to the chaotic 15 rounds of voting that the House endured back in January to pick McCarthy as Speaker, a process in which McCarthy made concessions to far-right Republicans, including allowing any one member to force a motion to vacate. 

“It is now the responsibility of the GOP members to end the House Republican Civil War,” Jeffries wrote. “Given their unwillingness to break from MAGA extremism in an authentic and comprehensive manner, House Democratic leadership will vote yes on the pending Republican Motion to Vacate the Chair.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was out of town and missed the vote, also laid the chaos at the feet of the GOP, and said Democrats had no reason to help McCarthy. 

“The Speaker of the House is chosen by the Majority Party,” Pelosi wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. “In this Congress, it is the responsibility of House Republicans to choose a nominee & elect the Speaker on the Floor. At this time there is no justification for a departure from this tradition. The House will be in order.” 

Over the weekend, as talk of Gaetz’s plan to push for a vote to oust McCarthy intensified, Washington was buzzing with talk of even just a handful of Democrats making a deal with  Republican leadership to shield the Speaker. Moderate Democrats remained under pressure through Tuesday afternoon. 

In the end, no rank-and-file Democrats felt moved to help McCarthy or his party get out of a mess of their own making. 

“I think he’s likely the most unprincipled person to ever be Speaker of the House,” Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Virginia Democrat, told reporters ahead of the vote. “He’s disdainful, he lies about us, he lies about the process of governance. It’s not even a question of whether or not we should take any particular action.”

In a final, doomed plea ahead of the vote, it was Rep. Patrick McHenry, a North Carolina Republican and a McCarthy ally, who suggested that Democrats might be making the right political move for them. 

“With this record of success that we’ve seen Kevin McCarthy and a Republican majority produce in a Washington run by Democrats, we’re going to throw that away, resulting in more liberal outcomes, not more conservative ones,” McHenry told his colleagues. “So I understand why the left is where you are today. You don’t like an effective conservative majority, and I don’t blame you. But on the right, rethink this.” 

Democrats are running some risk in that they are gambling that the next Speaker of the House won’t turn out to be worse, in their assessments. But many Democrats in the chamber felt helping prop up McCarthy’s speakership carried its own risks.

“This is the Republican’s civil war and they haven’t shown they can govern,” California Rep. Ted Lieu, the vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, told TIME immediately after the speakership vote. “Hopefully the Republicans will be able to put forward someone that doesn’t break his word and we’ll see what happens. I am voting for Hakeem Jeffries.”

Asked what happens if the next Speaker isn’t Jeffries and refuses to work with Democrats, Lieu said “It’s too early to speculate.”

Following the vote on the motion to vacate, McHenry was selected as Speaker Pro Tem of North Carolina off of a secret list put together by McCarthy. McHenry immediately called for a recess before the House began the process of selecting a new Speaker. When those votes do happen, McCarthy could continue to put his name forward. Possible successors include Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Majority Whip Tom Emmer, and Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, all of whom backed McCarthy and say that they are not interested in replacing him.

“Right now I think all of us are just trying to think through what the path ahead is,” California Rep. Pete Aguilar, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, told TIME immediately after the vote. “It’s incredibly unfortunate that we’re in this situation, but the reality is Kevin McCarthy ran to the extremes at every possible turn from the very beginning. That’s why it took them 15 votes, he made a lot of promises.”

Nik Popli contributed reporting.

source https://time.com/6320202/house-democrats-refused-save-kevin-mccarthy/

In Dramatic Vote, McCarthy Becomes First House Speaker to be Ousted in U.S. History

For the first time in American history, a Speaker of the House has been stripped of the gavel. 

A small group of Republican hardliners led by Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida provided the pivotal votes on Tuesday needed to remove Speaker Kevin McCarthy from his leadership position, marking a dramatic but expected end to McCarthy’s contentious 10-month tenure as leader of the House and setting the stage for an intense intraparty search for his replacement.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The move to oust McCarthy began after the California Republican relied on Democrats to avert a government shutdown. Gaetz, after days of warning and mounting tension, went on the House floor on Monday night to introduce a resolution that declared the speakership vacant, triggering an exceedingly rare process to compel a vote to determine whether McCarthy would retain his post as Speaker. All Democrats present and 8 Republicans supported the measure in a 216-210 vote that followed an hour of floor debate, during which hard-right Republicans railed against their own leader and verbally sparred with his defenders while Democrats listened silently.

“Chaos is Speaker McCarthy,” Gaetz said. “Chaos is somebody who we cannot trust with their word.”

But others argue the chaos is what comes next. There’s no clear consensus on which lawmaker might be elected to replace McCarthy, and so far no Republican has put themself forward to serve as Speaker. Republican Rep. Tom Cole, a key McCarthy ally, urged members to “think long and hard before you plunge us into chaos” by voting to vacate the speakership. “He put his political neck on the line, knowing this day was coming, to do the right thing—the right thing for the country,” Cole said, referring to McCarthy’s efforts to end the government shutdown.

Gaetz’s motion has thrust the House into uncharted territory. Only two other speakers in history have faced similar motions to vacate, neither of which succeeded: once in 1910 and more recently in 2015 when Rep. Mark Meadows attempted to oust Speaker John Boehner. (That motion was not introduced on the floor, but it ultimately led to Boehner’s resignation from Congress.)

The decision to boot McCarthy came on the heels of his strategic maneuver to avert a government shutdown over the weekend, when he relied on Democratic votes to pass a clean stopgap spending bill after Gaetz’s faction refused to back the House GOP measure. Conservatives said that McCarthy, who made a series of pledges to win the speakership after a marathon 15 rounds of voting in January, broke his word to conservatives by striking the short-term deal. 

“It is becoming increasingly clear who the Speaker of the House already works for, and it’s not the Republican conference,” Gaetz declared on Monday as he argued for McCarthy’s removal. He criticized McCarthy’s reliance on Democratic support to pass the funding bill and accused him of deceiving his fellow Republicans during spending negotiations and making undisclosed agreements with Democrats, particularly regarding funding for Ukraine, a matter that many conservatives vehemently opposed.

The move by Gaetz represented a significant escalation in the ongoing power struggle between McCarthy and the hardliners in his party. Since McCarthy’s election as Speaker in a chamber where his party holds a razor-thin five-seat majority, more than five Republicans have intermittently threatened to challenge his leadership, subjecting him to numerous votes of confidence, some of which were politically painful for McCarthy and moderate Republicans.

This bitter feud between Gaetz and McCarthy has roots dating back to McCarthy’s initial ascent to the speakership. In January, Gaetz took to the House floor to accuse McCarthy of engaging in questionable financial dealings, a narrative that continued to simmer. As a concession to Gaetz and the 19 other Republicans who initially opposed his speakership, McCarthy altered House rules to enable any member to call for a snap vote on his ouster—which ultimately led to his failure to keep the position. 

Still, the ultimate success of Gaetz’s bid to remove McCarthy wasn’t assured, as it hinged on the support of some fellow Republicans and all Democrats. Even some Republicans who had expressed reservations about McCarthy’s leadership weren’t on board with Gaetz’s plan. “Mr. McCarthy is an accurate reflection of the current House Republican Conference,” Rep. Dan Bishop, a rightwing North Carolina Republican who has sparred with McCarthy, said in a statement before voting no on the resolution to vacate the speakership. 

In the days leading up to the vote, several moderate and conservative-leaning Democrats indicated that they would be hesitant to punish McCarthy for his efforts to work across the aisle and prevent a government shutdown. Others saw no reason to bail him out, given the series of concessions McCarthy had made to appease the right flank of his party, including opening an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden and reneging on spending agreements made with the President during the debt ceiling crisis. 

But in the end, every Democrat present voted for the motion to vacate. In a statement released early Tuesday afternoon, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries announced that Democrats would not lend their support to McCarthy: “Under the Republican majority, the House has been restructured to empower right-wing extremists, kowtow to their harsh demands and impose a rigid partisan ideology,” he said. 

Several Democrats echoed that sentiment ahead of the vote. “Republican leadership is in such a dysfunctional state and we need them to be functional in order to take up things for the American people,” Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, tells TIME.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Virginia Democrat, said ahead the vote that McCarthy is “likely the most unprincipled person to ever be speaker of the House” before listing off reasons she would not back him. “He’s disdainful, he lies about us, he lies about the process of governance. It’s not even a question of whether or not we should take any particular action,” she told reporters.

Gaetz’s move, while celebrated by his supporters, incited the ire of McCarthy’s allies within the Republican Party, who viewed the push as a publicity stunt driven by personal animus. “I cannot conceive of a more counterproductive and self-destructive course,” Rep. Tom McClintock, a Republican from California, said on the House floor. McCarthy remained stoic throughout the vote Tuesday, occasionally smiling but making little eye contact with his detractors.

With McCarthy removed from his leadership position, House Republicans will now look to find a replacement that can appease both far-right members and moderates in the party. (Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina will serve as acting Speaker until a new one is elected.) Asked on Monday if he had any lawmakers in mind for the job, Gaetz suggested House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican and McCarthy ally.

source https://time.com/6320197/in-dramatic-vote-mccarthy-becomes-first-house-speaker-to-be-ousted-in-u-s-history/

The Surprising Poverty Levels Across the U.S.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The U.S. poverty rate saw its largest one-year increase in history. 12.4% of Americans now live in poverty according to new 2022 data from the U.S. census, an increase from 7.4% in 2021. Child poverty also more than doubled last year to 12.4% from 5.2% the year before.

The U.S. poverty level is now $13,590 for individuals and $23,030 for a family of three. The new data shows that 37.9 million people lived in poverty in 2022.

America had previously experienced tremendous improvements in poverty reduction over the last two years. Safety net programs including expanded child tax credit lifted millions out of poverty and provided direct aid to low-income households. However, as programs like this were allowed to expire, the data shows that those programs were a short-lived lifeline. The Supplement Poverty Measure (SPM), which has now largely replaced the “official” poverty rate, calculates the poverty rate after accounting for many of the governments’ most important anti-poverty programs as well as differences in the cost of living.

The expiration of government support wasn’t the only reason poverty rose dramatically. Inflation and an overall increased cost of living created new financial challenges for families. SPM is based on the cost of essential items like food and housing, which rose sharply last year. In 2021, a family of four was considered poor if their income was $31,453. In 2022 though, that number increased nearly 10% to $34,518, capturing more households under this higher bar. 

While low-income households struggled disproportionately, the average American household took hits as well. Median household income adjusted for inflation fell 2.3% last year to $74,580, The fastest rising inflation rate since 1981 dominated the gains of increased employment and rising wages.

California, Florida, and Mississippi are the three states with the highest percent of residents living in poverty. These represent an interesting mix of regions that economists don’t typically see together. 

Much of California’s poverty occurs in Northern counties which are home to farming, mining, and manufacturing communities. High costs across the state have also led to higher poverty rates as often seen in San Francisco and Los Angeles, with 4.5 million living in poverty.

Florida’s higher poverty rates largely occur across the state’s panhandle. In Gadsden County, for example, one in four people live in poverty while two in five children do as well. Residents of Gadsden graduate high school at only half the rate as their peers in the rest of Florida. For decades, these low levels of educational attainment have plagued the region with high levels of unemployment and corresponding higher rates of poverty.

Poverty in Mississippi is not concentrated in one area but spreads far across the state. The regions with the highest poverty rates are concentrated around the Mississippi River, which are also the regions with the highest Black populations. Mississippi’s Black residents are three-times more likely to live in poverty than White residents, one of the worst ratios of any state in America. In Tunica County, right where the Mississippi river meets Tennessee, 68% of Black families live in poverty and 23.8% are unemployed according to a US Commission on Civil Rights, versus 12% of White families in poverty and 2% unemployed.

The highest increases in poverty occurred in the South, where research has shown the Child Tax Credit had the greatest effect in helping low-income families get the support they needed.

The White House was quick to jump in after the Census data release, blaming the rise in child poverty on congressional Republicans. President Biden derided “Republicans’ refusal to extend the enhanced Child Tax Credit” and went further to say that “The rise reported today in child poverty is no accident.” Economists found that child poverty would have been nearly 50% lower in 2022 if the expanded Child Tax Credit had remained in place.

Researchers at American Inequality have also found that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has had a profound impact in poverty reduction. The number of children living below the poverty line would have been 25% higher without the EITC and the program also decreased poverty severity for another 17 million people. President Biden’s 2024 budget proposed expanding this tax credit, though Republicans remain opposed. 

Current poverty rates though are still below historic levels, and look most similar to rates seen in 2019. While financial hardship has decreased for Black and Hispanic Americans, poverty rates have now returned to pre-pandemic levels. A tremendous influx of funds to low-income households during the pandemic actually improved poverty in America. 

For Americans over 65, support has not arrived. The poverty rate rose to 14.1% for these older Americans, reaching levels not seen since 2016. This happened despite the 8.7% cost-of-living adjustment in social security payments, largely because labor force participation among older people has remained low as pandemic job losses have made it harder for this group to re-enter the workforce. 

Poverty in America reflects the inequality that plagues U.S. households. While certain regions have endured this pain much more than others, this new rising trend may spell ongoing challenges for even more communities. The federal support over the last 3 years showed just how much progress communities can make to reduce poverty, but the data now reveals what happens when those resources dry up.

source https://time.com/6320076/american-poverty-levels-state-by-state/

Why Trump’s Attack on Liberal Jews Might Hurt Him

Over eight years, we’ve become desensitized to the outrageous—and often offensive or bigoted—things that Donald Trump says. They’ve become a regular feature of our politics, and while they ignite a temporary furor, they quickly fade into the background, with little long-term impact on Americans’ attitudes about Trump.

Yet, when it comes to his Rosh Hashanah message, which on the Jewish new year holiday attacked “liberal Jews who voted to destroy America & Israel,” history suggests there could be more staying power and political impact.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In fact, in 1990, a similar episode cost another independently wealthy Republican businessman an election after he attacked the allegiance of a liberal American Jew. The episode exposed the political perils of questioning people’s adherence to their religious faith. 

In 1990, two-term incumbent Senator Rudy Boschwitz (R-Minn.) was heavily favored to win reelection. Boschwitz was the founder of Plywood Minnesota and famous locally for his flannel shirts and milk booth at the Minnesota State Fair. Leading Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL, the official name of Minnesota’s Democratic Party) candidates like former vice president Walter Mondale declined to run against him. Thus, the mantle fell to Carleton College professor Paul Wellstone, an experienced grassroots organizer but a political newbie save for an impulsive run for State Auditor in 1982. Early in the campaign Wellstone appeared to be little more than a speed bump for the politically connected, well-liked Boschwitz.

Read More: The History of Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories, from the Rothschilds to George Soros

Yet, after winning a contested DFL primary, Wellstone adopted what became his political signature: a green school bus that he rode around the state building a genuine grassroots effort. Despite frequent breakdowns, the bus helped Wellstone build an “everyman” image reinforced by quirky advertisements. In “Fast-Paced Paul,” Wellstone admitted “unlike my opponent, I don’t have $6 million, so I’m gonna have to talk fast,” and then appeared running scene to scene, listing his policy stances at breakneck speed. Despite being a curly-haired Jewish professor from a liberal college town in a state whose citizens knew when someone was not “one of us” (read: white, Christian, often straight), Wellstone endeared himself to unionists on the mining-dominated Iron Range and with fifth-generation farmers alike while still building support in urban Minneapolis. Ideas of economic democracy, at least in 1990, trumped identity-baiting.

By mid-October, this strategy had enabled Wellstone to overcome low name recognition and to cut a 15-point deficit in half. Boschwitz felt the heat.

As election day neared, the Republican stepped up his attacks, taking a page out of the slash-and-burn playbook that had proved so successful for George H.W. Bush and his campaign manager Lee Atwater during the 1988 presidential campaign. Wellstone was a “tax-and-spend liberal.” Even worse, he was a “self-promoting little fake.” Boschwitz’s attacks claimed his challenger “welcomed” the support of Minneapolis gangs like the Vice Lords, distributing literature on DFLers’ behalf.

This onslaught took its toll, and the progressive challenger slipped in the polls, though without the race ever feeling out of reach. 

Then, the Saturday before Election Day, Boschwitz forces made a critical blunder. They circulated a letter to “Friends in the Minnesota Jewish Community,” which was written by Boschwitz supporters Ruth and Allen Aaron of Minnetonka and mailed on “People for Boschwitz” stationery including his trademark smiley face symbol. The letter read like one of the senator’s tough attack ads: Wellstone had married a Christian woman. He was raising his children outside the Jewish faith. He supported Jesse Jackson, who had embraced Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. “Wellstone has no connection with the Jewish Community or our communal life,” they wrote. Boschwitz, Jewish himself, was “the Rabbi of the Senate.”

The backlash was swift and severe. The Minneapolis-St. Paul media denounced the letter. Jewish community leaders condemned the invective, with rabbi emeritus Bernard Raskas of St. Paul-based Temple of Aaron noting “its appeals to religion and racism are contrary to the American concept of democracy.” Rural DFLers recounted that even their socially-conservative districts were abuzz with disapproval. Polls for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune showed Boschwitz slipping five points over the weekend, making the race a virtual dead heat.

The uproar provided Wellstone with an opportunity to reaffirm his support for a two-state solution while denouncing Israel’s “iron fist policy” of suppressing Palestinian demonstrations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. He also decried Boschwitz’s attack on his faith and the faith of so many voters as “unforgivable.” The letter reflected poorly on the senator’s “character,” and Wellstone asserted that no candidate who would  “write such a letter deserves to be a United States senator from Minnesota.”

Though Ruth Aaron denounced Wellstone as a “little whiner,” three days after her letter circulated, Wellstone pulled off a stunning two-point victory in a race where he had never led in the polls. Boschwitz’s Jew-baiting backfired, the final nail in a mismanaged campaign. One Tel Aviv newspaper remarked, tongue-in-cheek, “The Bad Jew Beat the Good Jew—Thank God!”

Read More: All the Ways We Deny Antisemitism

Boschwitz apologized the following Friday, and senator-elect Wellstone accepted, praising the “tremendous amount of sincerity and conviction” in Boschwitz’s statement. But the damage had been done. The Aaron letter provided both an excuse for independents to abandon Boschwitz and an opportunity for Democrats to restate the broad humanitarian objectives of their Israel policy.

Trump’s Rosh Hashanah statement provoked less immediate backlash—probably because it’s not a particularly unusual type of attack for the former president. Many Republican voters appreciate Trump’s incendiary, sometimes bigoted rhetoric and willingness to thumb his nose at those who denounce it. Additionally, there are probably fewer undecided voters in 2023 than there were in 1990.

Yet, that does not mean Trump’s message won’t hurt him. As in 1990, it offers up an opportunity for Democrats to reaffirm their support for a humane resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for American Jews at a time of rising antisemitism. It also could backfire with devout Americans of all religions, who find questioning people’s faith offensive. Certainly in 1990, voters in overwhelmingly Christian Minnesota blanched at making someone’s faith practices a public matter and in just a few days abandoned Boschwitz.

While we won’t see a similarly immediate impact on Trump’s political standing, he has still ventured into territory that could prove damaging, especially in a close election.

Cory Haala serves as assistant professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and is a political historian of the Midwest and American liberalism. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here.

source https://time.com/6319419/trump-rosh-hashanah-message-history/