This Memorial Day: ‘Eyes on the prize’ – or the lies?

Bill Knight column for Mon., Tues. or Wed., May 28, 29 or 30, 2018

Nobel Peace Prize wannabe and U.S. strongman Donald Trump on Thursday cancelled the June summit with North Korea strongman Kim Jong Un, another distraction, one diverting our attention from another foreign-policy farce that’s arguably more important.

The dust has somewhat settled after Trump this month decided to violate the U.S. treaty with Iran and six other parties. The dustup isn’t yet radioactive, but its dangers are dire. It’s antagonizing Iranian leaders into considering whether to pursue nuclear arms, confusing businesses that resumed doing business there, angering other nations, from long-time allies to China and Russia, and seemingly setting up another Mideast war.

This Memorial Day week, look at recent graduates and wonder whether they’ll be in combat over another country depicted as having “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Look at long-term care residents and ask what their futures would be with more blood and treasure spilled and spent. Look in the mirror…

The Iran treaty that Trump individually broke discouraged Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Negotiated three years ago by the Obama administration, working with Russia, China, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU), it was condemned by Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign to criticize predecessors. He called it “one of the most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into,” later adding that the U.S. “will be instituting the highest level of economic sanctions.”

Requiring Iran to convert or cut nuclear facilities and accept international monitoring in exchange for lifting some economic sanctions, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action shouldn’t be about Trump’s ignorance or zeal to undo Obama’s achievements. The deal was working. Last spring Central Intelligence Agency experts said Iran was complying, and inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency agreed.

Illinois’ U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said withdrawing was “a mistake of historic proportions. [It] isolates the United States from the world at a time when we need our allies to come together to address nuclear threats.”

Most Americans supported the Iran pact according to a survey by the nonpartisan Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA). Most Americans thought the deal helped deter nuclear proliferation; 60 percent said that the U.S. should participate in the agreement –73 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents, and 48 percent of Republicans.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded to Trump, saying, “Iran is a country that adheres to its commitments, and the U.S. is a country that has never adhered to its commitments. Who are you to decide for Iran and the world? The world today does not accept America to decide for the world.”

Indeed, EU foreign-affairs chief Federica Mogherini said, “The nuclear deal is not a bilateral agreement, and it is not in the hands of any single country to terminate it unilaterally. The nuclear deal with Iran is crucial for the security of the region, of Europe and of the entire region. As long as Iran continues to implement its nuclear-related commitments as it is doing so far, the European Union will remain committed to continued, full and effective implementation.”

            The pact was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council and was an important piece of the world’s non-proliferation goal. Trump’s decision to decide on his own to violate the agreement casts doubt on future talks with North Korea, and the value of any promise by the U.S. government. But if “Make America Great Again” means “America First,” then the world comes later.

The sanctions were and could be devastating, withholding medicine and causing poverty for regular Iranians. The Treasury Department already has restored sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last week demanded Iran agree to a dozen other unrelated demands and implied that the U.S. is ready to confront Europe and companies that do business in Iran.

 “It is one of the biggest achievements that diplomacy has ever delivered, and we have built this together,” the EU’s Mogherini said to world leaders. “It is the demonstration that win-win solutions are possible through dialogue, engagement and perseverance, that common ground that be found – even when positions and interest differ, that respect can be a universal language. This deal belongs to each and every one of us. Stay true to our commitments and we will stay true to ours, and together with the rest of the international community we will preserve this nuclear deal.”

Congress has 60 days to decide its next move. Iran also can initiate the treaty’s dispute resolution process, opening another 45-day period to express grievances and seek compromise.

As we remember the service and sacrifice made for the nation, we should also note the excuses government has used to send Americans into harm’s way. Some were just and noble; some were not and dishonest.

Proposed changes in food stamps could hurt rural areas

Bill Knight column for Thurs., Fri. or Sat., May 24, 25 or 26, 2018

Anti-hunger advocates are concerned that proposed changes to the nation’s food-stamp system could mean people made ineligible for aid will turn to already-struggling food pantries for help.

“Any additional influx of people in need because of the lack of food stamps will only exacerbate an already difficult job,” said Jeanette Wennemacher of the Peoria Area Food Bank. “We struggle year after year to keep up with demand as it is, including securing funding to keep the operation running, the lights on, heating and cooling, equipment and vehicle maintenance, etc.”

And though a bill with the changes failed 198-213 in Congress last Friday, supporters of new restrictions say it could be considered again this week. The conservative House Freedom Caucus withheld support until a vote on their controversial immigration bill.

The House Agriculture Committee last month passed the food-stamp changes as part of H.R. 2, the $867 billion Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (the Farm Bill) by a vote of 26-20, with all Republicans supporting it and all Democrats opposing it.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that over the next decade, the proposed change shifting some funds from food aid to workforce training would cut $20 billion from food stamps – now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The measure would raise from 49 to 59 the age that adults would be required to work or participate in a training program for 20 hours a week. The bill also adds work requirements for parents of children 6 and older. Recipients who don’t comply would lose about $1,800 annually by 2028, CBO says.

About 1.5 million Illinoisans use food stamps, which have an average monthly benefit of about $130, including these county percentages: Fulton 15.6, Henderson 11.3, Henry 11.7, Knox 17.8, Livingston 11.8, McDonough 12.5, Mercer 9.1, Peoria 19.6, Tazewell 11.9, Warren 14.4 and Woodford 6.1.

More than 500,000 Illinoisans may be affected, according to liberal and conservative think tanks, particularly such rural areas.

Supporters say the requirements are needed to move food-stamp recipients into jobs; Democrats oppose the tougher mandates because benefits will be reduced.

“SNAP is the sole food source for 8.5 million American families,” reported a new study from the Urban Institute, a non-partisan think tank. “Roughly 41 million people in America are considered ‘food insecure’ because they lack reliable access to affordable, nutritious food.”

The program started in the 1960s and had restrictions added during Republican Ronald Reagan’s and Democrat Bill Clinton’s administrations. For decades, the food-stamp program was seen as a win-win program since they bring money into the economy.

USDA’s Economic Research Service reported, “Not only do SNAP benefits support a household’s food purchasing needs, benefits also augment the incomes and spending of others (such as farmers, retailers, food processors, and food distributors, as well as their employees); this, in turn, has ripple effects for other parties. ERS research has estimated a multiplier of SNAP benefits on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 1.79, that is, an increase of $1 billion in SNAP benefits increases GDP by $1.79 billion and results in an increase of 8,900-17,900 full-time equivalent jobs.”

U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis, an Illinois Republican on the Agriculture Committee, said, “Why would anyone be opposed to investing in employment and training to get people into jobs? Our goal should not be to have people (receiving public assistance) in perpetuity.”

Opponents such as AARP and Democrats see dangers.

U.S. Rep. Sean Maloney (D-N.Y.) argued that the proposal is just “a backdoor way to kick people off the program.”

Many SNAP recipients already work, advocates say, and work requirements can be difficult for food-stamp users, who often resort to low-paying jobs with shifting schedules and no benefits. Others have obstacles to work, from child-care or caretaker responsibilities or a lack of in-demand skills to physical or mental conditions.

As a government program, SNAP has been successful, with little fraud or waste, according to a USDA report in 2013, and a 2016 report from Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project reported, “SNAP improves health outcomes and households’ financial well-being, and even improves the later-life outcomes of individuals who had access to the program as children.”

Doesn’t that matter to Congress?

‘Fake news’ vs. negative journalism based on facts

Bill Knight column for Mon., Tues., or Wed., May 21, 22 or 23, 2018

Remarks from former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, President Trump’s threat to withhold press credentials, a study of negative coverage of the White House, the deletion of the need for [a] free press from the guide for federal prosecutors, and tariffs targeting newspapers’ source of paper all stress the assault on journalism in general and the ongoing debate about “fake news” in particular.

On Wednesday, Tillerson said that the nation is experiencing a “growing crisis of integrity and ethics.

“When we as people, a free people, go wobbly on the truth even on what may seem the most trivial of matters, we go wobbly on America,” he said at the Virginia Military Institute. “If our leaders seek to conceal the truth and we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then as an American people we are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom.”

It’s almost not worth covering Trump’s thousands of false statements nor his repeated complaints of “fake news” or journalism as “enemy of the American people.” It’s routine. Still, it’s both shocking and not too surprising that Trump threatened to deny reporters’ permits to cover the administration (despite his promise during the campaign that he wouldn’t do so even if news stories were critical). After all, he blacklisted reporters from the Des Moines Register and other newspapers during the 2016 campaign.

Coverage of the White House on ABC, CBS and NBC has been 91 percent negative, according to study by the conservative Media Research Center.

However, negative news is not fake (nor new. Vice President Spiro Agnew, before resigning in disgrace, in 1970 blasted journalists, saying, “we have more than our share of nattering nabobs of negativism,” a phrase penned by speechwriter William Safire).

Meanwhile, Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department removed language about freedom of the press from its guidebook for federal prosecutors. The U.S. Attorneys’ Manual was edited late last year for the first time in two decades. Missing from its “Media Relations” section are reminders of the need for a free press and the public’s right to know.

Trump and his followers disparage the press by mixing fake news with articles that are negative.

“ ‘Fake news’ used to have a specific meaning,” said Pete Vernon of Columbia Journalism Review. “It referred to completely fabricated stories, often produced for partisan reasons and blasted around social media to audiences hungry for information to confirm their preexisting biases. Trump, along with his supporters and political imitators, has through repetition transformed it into a catch-all for stories he simply doesn’t like.”

Again, genuine “fake news” – if that’s not a contradiction in terms – are false stories, whether created by political operatives, Russian hackers or mischief-makers who troll social media. Think of the ridiculous, discredited allegations of Hillary Clinton’s involvement in human trafficking and a child-sex ring at the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C.

In Illinois, there were 14 mailings designed to resemble local newspapers distributed that were actually political circulars funded by conservative radio host Dan Proft and Gov. Bruce Rauner through the Liberty Principles Political Action Committee.

And Trump instituted two tariffs targeting Canadian paper mills that continue to hurt the newspaper business. His Commerce Department imposed duties on producers and exporters of paper from Canada, a 4.42 percent tariff in January and in March a whopping 22.16 percent duty for some Canadian paper exporters.

“It’s really going to have a devastating effect on the newspaper industry, and it will ripple through the rest of the printing industry,” said Rochester Institute of Technology professor emeritus Frank Romano, a printing expert. “You’re almost taxing some newspapers out of business.”

Instead of repeatedly lashing out at the news media, Trump could change the dynamic. However, he must 1) stop lying and 2) understand that his press relations are usually tied to his inconsiderate, mean-spirited and childish tweets and spontaneous comments, like last week’s statement that some undocumented immigrants are “animals.”

Liberal commentator Dana Milbank wrote, “Journalists are, with good reason, resistant to the role of advocate. But at a time when Trump is leading a successful movement to discredit the free press, advocating the First Amendment isn’t a conflict of interest.”

Concerns aren’t limited to progressive voices.

Even conservative firebrand Matt Drudge said, “I fear the future result of Trump’s crusade on ‘fake news’ will be licensing of all reporters. The mop-up on this issue is going to be excruciating.”