Viewpoint |
The twelve day war was an important reset moment

Sentinel logo
The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that equal rights for all people are the foundation for peace in the world.


by Terry Hansen
      Guest Commentary

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller claims that, as a result of the U.S. bombing of Iran, "We have the beginnings of a new era of stability and peace and security in the Middle East."

Similarly, Vice President J.D. Vance stated, " And I think the president really hit the reset button and said, look, let's actually produce long term peace for the region....I actually think when we look back, we will say the twelve day war was an important reset moment."

You can kill 100 Gazans in one night … And nobody in the world cares.

Yet no mention is made of the relentless suffering of Palestinians, who were also excluded from the Abraham Accords, the agreements negotiated during President Trump's first term that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states.

Meanwhile, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich recently asserted, “We are disassembling Gaza, and leaving it as piles of rubble...And the world isn’t stopping us.” Zvi Sukkot, a member of the Israeli Parliament, went so far as to boast, “Everyone got used to the idea that you can kill 100 Gazans in one night … And nobody in the world cares.”

As Jewish American scholar Judith Butler has observed:

"The Palestinians have been labeled as ungrievable. That is to say, they are not a group of people whose lives are being considered as worthy of value, of persisting, of flourishing in this world. If they are lost, it is not considered to be a true loss."

In his 2006 book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," President Jimmy Carter contends that Israel's construction of illegal settlements in the occupied territories is the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East. It has long been understood that settlement expansion, which has recently intensified, is a method of "changing the reality on the ground," thereby undermining hope for a two-state solution.

It's important to note that the Arab League has repeatedly offered to normalize relations with Israel, in exchange for ending the occupation and allowing the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders—about 22% of historic Palestine. This offer is embodied in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

In fact, in September 2024, Jordan's Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi, representing 57 Arab and Muslim countries, declared:

"I can tell you here, very unequivocally, all of us, right now, are willing to guarantee the security of Israel in the context of Israel ending the occupation and allowing the emergence of a Palestinian state."

Yet, as Smotrich has provocatively stated, "My life’s mission is to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that equal rights for all people are the foundation for peace in the world. True stability in the Middle East cannot be achieved through military victories or diplomatic agreements that ignore the rights and aspirations of Palestinians.


Terry Hansen is an opinion writer who frequently comments on Gaza, focusing on humanitarian issues, U.S. policy and Israel’s actions in the region. He is a retired educator from Milwaukee, Wisconsin.


Editor's note:
June 30, 2025 - Originally, this Viewpoint was published with an inaccurate figure. At the author's request, "57 Arab countries" was updated to "57 Arab and Muslim countries" since there are only 22 Arab countries.


at

Commentary |
Six ways Trump's budget will damage rural Americans' way of life

Republicans in Congress are jamming through a sweeping bill to fund handouts to the rich - at the cost of jobs, health care, and food in rural America.
Rural American farm at sunset
Photo: Jakob Owens/Unsplash
by Michael Chameides
      OtherWords

Right now, Congress is working on a giant, fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

As the Communications and Policy Director for the Rural Democracy Initiative, I’ve been hearing from rural leaders across the country about the devastating impacts this bill would have.

The good news is it’s not too late. But there’s little time to spare.

This dangerous, unpopular bill would increase costs for rural working families by thousands of dollars per year, leaving millions hungry and without health care — all to provide tax breaks and handouts to the wealthy and special interests.

Here are just six of the worst provisions.

1. It guts rural healthcare.

The bill would drastically cut Medicaid and impose new barriers to care. It would take healthcare away from 13.8 million Americans and increase the cost for millions more. In some states, 50 percent of rural children get healthcare from Medicaid. Millions more rely on access to clinics and hospitals that would likely close because of these cuts.

Other Stories ~
  • Global Zionist citizenship, an updated anifesto
  • State Representative says Illinois needs to focus on its citizens
  • American holiday efficiency, a three-for-one on June 14

    • 2. It takes food off the tables of rural people.

    The plan includes approximately $290-$319 billion in cuts to SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps) even as the cost of groceries continues to escalate. More than 15 percent of families in small towns and rural areas rely on this support to feed their families.

    3. It shifts costs to states and local governments.

    State and local governments in rural areas depend more on federal funding from programs like SNAP and Medicaid than other states. Slashing federal funding to states would create new burdens for rural states that are already struggling to provide critical public services like health care, transportation, and emergency response services to local communities.

    4. It takes away local control.

    Landowners have fought to stop the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines by passing bans and moratoria, as well as enacting county setbacks and safety requirements to protect their communities.

    But this bill would overrule state and local laws and ordinances, override local voices, and deprive residents of a fair opportunity to evaluate the adverse impacts of pipelines. It also sets up a “pay to play” system under which companies can simply pay for pipeline, mining, and drilling permits — and avoid public comment and legal challenges.

    5. It ends clean energy and infrastructure funding.

    The bill would phase out existing tax credits for wind, solar, batteries, geothermal, clean energy, and advanced manufacturing. It would also take away $262 million in funding for energy efficiency and conservation grants as well as transportation infrastructure.

    Ending these tax credits will increase household energy costs, which are already higher in many rural communities. These changes would also reduce new clean energy projects — and jeopardize billions in rural investments in clean energy manufacturing.

    6. It gives handouts to agribusiness and mega farms.

    Leaders in Congress are using the budget reconciliation process to give big farms a $50 billion windfall. Add the heightened pressures and instability caused by the Trump administration’s erratic trade policy and more family farmers would lose their farms — while Big Ag consolidates more of the market.

    In short, this bill would make it harder for rural people to meet their basic needs — all so the wealthy and corporations can avoid paying their fair share of taxes like the rest of us do.

    Lawmakers have already heard from the giant corporations who helped write the bill. Now, they need to hear from the rest of us. It’s up to us to alert our communities and tell our lawmakers: Don’t sell rural America out to big corporations and the wealthy.


    Michael Chameides is the Communications and Policy Director for the Rural Democracy Initiative. A longer version of this op-ed was originally published by Barn Raiser. This version was distributed for syndication by OtherWords.org.


    Letters to the Editor Subscribe

    at

    Op-Ed |
    New study reveals obesity ages individuals by 27 years

    Findings highlight wide-ranging health impacts and alarming cost implications
    by Patty Starr
    President and CEO, Health Action Council

    Newly released claims data from more than 220,000 people reveal the latest evidence on the role obesity plays in health and health care costs, underpinning the need for supportive measures and interventions.

    The new study, which analyzed Health Action Council (HAC) members with health plans administered by UnitedHealthcare, found that people with obesity cost their employers 2.3 times more than those without the condition and paid 66% more out-of-pocket ($662) per year than their peers without obesity. Notably, Millennials with obesity incurred over 8% higher per member per month (PMPM) costs than Baby Boomers without obesity who were 27 years older, due to the increased likelihood of chronic condition diagnoses.

    Multifaceted health consequences

    Comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and musculoskeletal issues were major cost drivers. The more comorbidities a person with obesity experienced, the higher their costs became. Obesity significantly increased the risk of various cancers, including breast, colon, rectum, and upper stomach cancers, and increased the risks for anxiety, substance use disorders, and depression.

    Obesity among women of childbearing age

    The report highlighted a 19-percentage-point rise in obesity rates between Gen Z women (9%) and Millennial women (28%), the largest generation in today’s workforce. This was particularly concerning due to the heightened maternal mortality risks and mental health issues associated with obesity.

    The ripple effect on children

    Children of parents with obesity are generally twice as likely to develop the condition themselves, but this risk tripled for children of HAC members if at least one parent had obesity. These children were also 44% more likely to experience depression, 39% more likely to have ADHD, and had higher rates of developmental disorders, asthma and diabetes.

    Whole person weight management solutions

    Effective strategies will require more than GLP-1s, which are unlikely to meaningfully impact obesity rates due to their high costs and low compliance rates. Consistent with the Food and Drug Administration’s label, these medications should be used in tandem with a life-style modification program for the treatment of obesity.

    Strategies for employers

    Following are a few steps employers can take to build a healthier workplace culture.
    • Understand your population. Analyze claims to determine the percentage of your workforce and dependents impacted by obesity. Identify prevalence, most impacted groups, as well as other health risks and social drivers of health.
    • Foster a healthy environment. Encourage a positive relationship with food, activity, and stress management by offering classes on exercise, nutrition, and mindfulness and providing non-processed foods at meetings, events, and in common areas. Encourage daily physical activity, less screen time, and quality sleep.
    • Offer comprehensive health solutions. Implement wellness solutions that integrate whole-person health by providing access to virtual providers such as network dietitians, digital health tools like mental health apps, and wearable technologies such as continuous glucose monitors.


    About the author ~

    Patty Starr, CEO of Health Action Council
    Patty Starr is President and CEO of Health Action Council and is responsible for driving the strategic direction of the organization--build stronger, healthier communities where business can thrive.
    at

    Why do politicians keep blaming DEI for disasters when it’s a laughably lie

    At best, these false claims help politicians cover for corporate misdeeds. At worst, they foster division for its own sake. Neither makes us safer.
    by Peter Certo
          OtherWords


    In this chaotic news cycle, America’s worst plane crash in a generation already feels a generation old.

    But the administration’s response to the tragic January collision that killed 67 people over the Potomac is worth revisiting. Not only because the loved ones of those lost deserve answers, but because it highlights a MAGA playbook we’ve seen repeatedly now — and we’ll see again very soon.

    Trump suggested that unqualified minority hires caused the accident ...

    We don’t yet know what caused the crash. But shortly before it, President Trump disbanded a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety committee, fired the FAA administrator, and implemented a federal hiring freeze despite a shortage of air traffic controllers. (Staffing at the local tower was “not normal” the night of the collision, The New York Times reported.)

    Speculation has even emerged that Elon Musk, the unelected billionaire bureaucrat who’s been illegally gutting the federal government, urged the FAA administrator’s firing in retaliation for past fines against his SpaceX company.

    Did any of that contribute? That’s for a proper investigation to determine. But one thing’s for sure: It wasn’t the “DEI” initiatives President Trump immediately blamed.

    Trump suggested that unqualified minority hires caused the accident because the prior administration thought “the workforce was too white.” When pressed for even a shred of evidence, he shrugged that it was “common sense.” Administration figures like Vice President Vance stuck with the claim even after learning that both pilots involved were white.

    The claim was ridiculous, but it sucked up attention that might have gone to the Trump administration’s own moves instead. And that’s exactly why we keep seeing lies like these — to protect incompetent politicians and the corporate interests that prop them up.

    Once you realize that, you’ll start noticing it everywhere.

    For instance, there’s ample evidence that climate change contributed to Southern California’s horrific wildfires this winter. But rather than implicate the campaign-contributing fossil fuel companies that have supercharged these disasters, right-wing influencers blamed “DEI” hires like women firefighters.

    About a year ago, when a foreign cargo ship destroyed Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, the same crowd had nothing to say about regulating shipping companies or infrastructure safety. Instead, they just started calling the city’s Black mayor, Brandon Scott, the “DEI mayor.”

    At best, these obviously false claims suck the oxygen out of any discussions that might involve the incompetence of politicians or misdeeds of their corporate supporters.

    And finally, we saw an earlier version of this script when a Norfolk Southern train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, spilling toxic chemicals and burning them up in a noxious cloud over the impoverished town.

    Norfolk Southern had skimped on maintenance, overstretched its workers, and plowed the savings into stock buybacks rather than safety. The company had also poured money into Ohio’s statehouse, which killed a bipartisan rail safety bill the company had lobbied against.

    The talking heads on Fox News didn’t have anything to say about that — or about President Trump’s decision to nix an Obama-era regulation to prevent accidents like these during his first term.

    Instead, right-wing multimillionaires like Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk claimed the accident happened because President Biden didn’t care about the poor whites of rural Ohio. (Kirk even claimed the episode proved there was a whole “crusade against white people.”)

    At best, these obviously false claims suck the oxygen out of any discussions that might involve the incompetence of politicians or misdeeds of their corporate supporters. At worst, they foster division for its own sake. Neither makes us safer.

    As Trump, Musk, and their allies illegally purge federal agencies and open the floodgates to corporate malfeasance of all varieties, more disasters like these are almost inevitable. And just as inevitably, they’ll blame DEI, immigrants, LGBTQ people, or some other scapegoat when that happens.

    For our hard-earned tax dollars, most of us just want the government to protect our communities and our planet — even when that’s less profitable for a few corporations. But to get that, we’ll have to pull together across the divides their backers like to drive between us.


    Peter Certo
    Peter Certo is the communications director of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of OtherWords.org.

    Letters to the Editor

    at

    Commentary |
    Beware of Tax “Bipartisanship”

    Op-Ed by Dr. Todd J. Barry

    In 2012, United States President Barack Obama faced a choice regarding how to legislate the permanency of the President George W. Bush Tax Cuts. In some ways, the dire economic growth of “the Great Recession” called for one obvious path, of making the tax cuts permanent. But, in other ways, President Obama was “suckered” into supporting this path, because of exhortations that economic calamity would otherwise result (then termed the “fiscal cliff”) which was largely an exaggeration. Mr. Obama opted to push to make some of the tax cuts permanent, for the middle-class, but this policy still greatly increased the United States (U.S.) deficit and debt.

    Trump tax cuts will cause excessive demand, much of it going to people who do not need it, leading to higher prices.

    Currently, Democrats in Congress will have to decide whether or not to be “suckered” into Mr. Trump’s tax permanency proposals, which are reminiscent of Mr. Bush’s. But, the economic situation today is different. Illinois Senators Dick Durban-(D) and Tammy Duckworth-(D) have, previously, sent letters to Republican leaders calling for tax “bipartisanship.” More recently, a similar letter from Michigan’s Senators was vague, though saying than that the tax cuts’ “permanency” would increase the U.S. deficit from $1.9 trillion dollars to $2.9 trillion.

    America’s economy grew in 2024’s 3rd quarter at 3.1%, a very strong number. However, several Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson-(R-LA), have said, paraphrasing, that “we have to get the economy going again,” but the problem is not that the economy is sluggish, but that it is overheated.

    This situation also has little to do with the absence of shovel-ready projects, that outgoing-President Joseph Biden lamented about. Consequently, a best-policy approach would not be one that is expansionary, but one that is actually contractionary, yet at the same time helps Americans buy more at the grocery store.

    Hillary Clinton’s economic team created a novel idea, of giving tax credits for businesses that would share that money with workers.

    To put it simply, the Trump tax cuts will cause excessive demand, much of it going to people who do not need it, leading to higher prices. These prices are on top of the proposed tariffs, whereby it is unfathomable that since the middle of the 20th Century presidents have had powers uncheckable by Congress. Also, the inflation is largely due to the dovish policies of the Federal Reserve, which continues to cater to gullible investors on Wall Street. Deficits will soar, leading to higher interest rates, to even more inflation, and eventually to greater unemployment.

    In 2016, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s economic team created a novel idea, of giving tax credits for businesses that would share that money with workers. The plan, though, was ambiguous, and poorly promoted. Alternatively, a supply-side approach, of giving tax credits to businesses that cut prices, risks becoming bureaucratically complex in American’s capitalist framework, an enforcement conundrum.

    Wage controls, vis-a-vie the President Nixon era, are equally complex, as are anti-price-gouging measures. While making the middle-class tax cuts alone permanent is feasible, it could engender political challenges. And, unfortunately, these topics did not arise during the 2024 presidential election, because political leaders misinterpret economics, albeit 16 Nobel Laureate economists sent a petition to Washington warning about the economy’s’ health.

    Yet, today, I propose an idea similar to Mrs. Clinton’s, which could help Americans to buy more, while costing the government less. Congress could provide a tax credit to businesses sharing 50% of the credit to workers’ wages. Here-named “demand-supply-side economics,” the supply-side aspect would expand production, but even if some resources ended up in CEO’s pockets, the other half going to blue collar workers would increase demand. The combination of the increase in the demand and supply curves at the same time, albeit disregarding their elasticities (the slope of the curves), would result in little changes to prices, but a greater output for Americans- more “bang for the dollar” at the grocery store.

    Unfortunately, unresponsive companies might experience labor strikes, but the labor market helps to keep wages consistent with inflation. Furthermore, the government could choose the size of the program, and its time-length, without adding as much to the debt, which is now $31.5 trillion dollars and growing, every time one blinks.

    The permanency and details of the Trump tax cuts, including those for the middle-class, need to debated, carefully, before mistakes are made that lead to even higher prices, and to even greater deficits and debt into the future.


    Dr. Todd J. Barry holds a PhD from the U. of Southern Mississippi, and teaches economics, with Hudson County Community College in NJ, USA. Sean R. Barry holds a master’s degree in public administration, and has served on town committees in Branford, CT.

    Letters to the Editor

    at

    Sentinel Digest |
    Our stories this week

    Dec 26, 2024 05:30 pm  .::. 
    Sweeping up the homeless doesn't actually solve homelessness

    Dec 26, 2024 05:12 pm  .::. 
    Viewpoint |Bring back normalization with Cuba; the benefits will be well worth it

    Dec 26, 2024 04:41 pm  .::. 
    Viewpoint |Think you are exempt, you're not - If they can take my rights, Republicans will take yours, too

    Dec 26, 2024 03:11 pm  .::. 
    3 Spartans deliver double-digits in 14-point win over Bago at State Farm basketball tournament

    Dec 26, 2024 02:13 pm  .::. 
    SJO girls fall in opener at State Farm Holiday Classic, Erickson leads scoring effort

    St. Joe-Ogden Athletics


    Related articles:
    at

    Sweeping up the homeless doesn't actually solve homelessness

    Instead, governments should prioritize safe, affordable, dignified, and permanent housing for all.

    homeless camp

    Image: Pete Linforth/Pixabay

    by Farrah Hassen
          OtherWords

    This summer, the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass ruling made it much easier for local governments to criminalize homelessness. Since then, cities and states across the country have stepped up their harassment of people for the “crime” of not having a place to live.

    Penalizing homelessness has increasingly taken the form of crackdowns on encampments — also known as “sweeps,” which have received bipartisan support. California Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered state agencies to ramp up encampment sweeps, while President-elect Donald Trump has also pledged to ban encampments and move people to “tent cities” far from public view.

    Evidence shows that these sweeps are harmful and unproductive — and not to mention dehumanizing.

    Housing justice advocates caution that sweeps disrupt peoples’ lives by severing their ties to case workers, medical care, and other vital services. Many unhoused people also have their personal documents and other critical belongings seized or tossed, which makes it even harder to find housing and work.

    According to a ProPublica investigation, authorities in multiple cities have confiscated basic survival items like tents and blankets, as well as medical supplies like CPAP machines and insulin. Other people lost items like phones and tools that impacted their ability to work.

    Teresa Stratton from Portland told ProPublica that her husband’s ashes were even taken in a sweep. “I wonder where he is,” she said. “I hope he’s not in the dump.”

    Over the summer, the city of Sacramento, California forcefully evicted 48 residents — mostly women over 55 with disabilities — from a self-governed encampment known as Camp Resolution. The camp was located at a vacant lot and had been authorized by the city, which also owned the trailers where residents lived.

    Sweeps, like punitive fines and arrests, don’t address the root of the problem — they just trap people in cycles of poverty and homelessness.

    One of the residents who’d been at the hospital during the sweep was assured that her belongings would be kept safe. However, she told me she lost everything she’d worked so hard to acquire, including her car.

    The loss of her home and community of two years, along with her possessions, was already traumatizing. But now, like most of the camp residents, she was forced back onto the streets — even though the city had promised not to sweep the lot until every resident had been placed in permanent housing.

    Aside from being inhumane, the seizure of personal belongings raises serious constitutional questions — especially since sweeps often take place with little to no warning and authorities often fail to properly store belongings. Six unhoused New Yorkers recently sued the city on Fourth Amendment grounds, citing these practices.

    Sweeps, like punitive fines and arrests, don’t address the root of the problem — they just trap people in cycles of poverty and homelessness. Encampments can pose challenges to local communities, but their prevalence stems from our nation’s failure to ensure the fundamental human right to housing.

    People experiencing homelessness are often derided as an “eyesore” and blamed for their plight. However, government policies have allowed housing, a basic necessity for survival, to become commodified and controlled by corporations and billionaire investors for profit.

    Officials justify sweeps for safety and sanitation reasons, but in the end they harm and displace people who have nowhere else to go.

    Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage has remained stagnant at $7.25 since 2009 and rent is now unaffordable for half of all tenants. Alongside eroding social safety nets, these policies have resulted in a housing affordability crisis that’s left at least 653,000 people without housing nationwide.

    While shelters can help some people move indoors temporarily, they aren’t a real housing solution, either.

    Human rights groups report that shelters often don’t meet adequate standards of housing or accommodate people with disabilities. Many treat people like they’re incarcerated by imposing curfews and other restrictions, such as not allowing pets. Safety and privacy at shelters are also growing concerns.

    Officials justify sweeps for safety and sanitation reasons, but in the end they harm and displace people who have nowhere else to go. Instead, governments should prioritize safe, affordable, dignified, and permanent housing for all, coupled with supportive services.

    Anything else is sweeping the problem under the rug.


    About the author:
    Farrah Hassen, J.D., is a writer, policy analyst, and adjunct professor in the Department of Political Science at Cal Poly Pomona. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.


    More Viewpoints:
    Letters to the Editor
    at

    Op-Ed |
    Hating on immigrants hurts everyone - except for elites

    Photo: Photo by Manny Becerra/Unsplash
    by Sonali Kolhatkar
         OtherWords

    Republicans are counting on fears of immigrants to draw white conservatives to the polls. This calculation is dangerous — and it lets the real villains in our politics off the hook.

    There’s a direct line between Donald Trump’s 2015 declaration about Mexican “rapists” and his 2024 lie about Haitians eating pets. Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance (R-OH), has echoed the horrific contention about Haitians even while admitting it was a lie.

    In Vance’s world, immigrants are smuggling fentanyl and importing illegal guns.

    Both men are married to women of immigrant origins and may not even believe their own lies. In fact, as a Yale law student in 2012, Vance wrote a blog post decrying Republican anti-immigrant rhetoric. But after he found how convenient it is to bash immigrants for votes, Vance asked his former professor to delete it.

    During the vice presidential debate between Vance and Governor Tim Walz (D-MN), Vance scapegoated immigrants every chance he got. In Vance’s world, immigrants are smuggling fentanyl and importing illegal guns. They’re also driving up housing prices while simultaneously putting downward pressure on wages by working for pittances.

    Never mind that it’s mostly U.S. citizens smuggling fentanyl, and that illegal guns are flowing the other way across the border — from the U.S. into Mexico. Never mind that it makes no sense for immigrants to be working for less while paradoxically being able to afford homes that Americans cannot.

    Truth and logic are beside the point. Fear of the “other” is the plan. This makes life very dangerous for immigrants. Haitian migrants, among others, are facing threats to their safety.

    Beating the racist, anti-immigrant drum is the first step toward violence.

    Trump has repeatedly deployed Hitlerian language to describe immigrants, blaming them for “poisoning the blood” of the country and claiming that they commit homicide because they have “bad genes.” (One can hardly imagine him extending the same logic to mass shooters, who tend to be overwhelmingly white and male, or to the two white men who recently tried to assassinate him. According to Trump, being white means you have “good genes.”)

    Beating the racist, anti-immigrant drum is the first step toward violence. The United Nations identifies hate speech as a “precursor to atrocity crimes, including genocide,” and scholars of past genocides have drawn clear links between language that “otherizes” whole communities and pogroms aimed at them.

    Anti-immigrant lies also harm native-born Americans. Trump, Vance, and their supporters recently unleashed rumors falsely blaming immigrants for disaster relief difficulties. Elon Musk jumped on the bandwagon, claiming that “FEMA used up its budget ferrying illegals into the country instead of saving American lives.”

    FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell called these lies part of a “truly dangerous narrative.” Even Republican governors of hurricane-hit states are deeply appalled, warning that these lies threaten to disrupt disaster recovery efforts.

    If right-wing politicians really want to help Americans struggling with economic stressors, they could ban hedge fund managers from buying up homes.

    Most importantly, the purveyors of anti-immigrant hate let corporate power and wealthy elites — like Musk — off the hook for the problems facing Americans.  Hedge fund managers, not immigrants, are outbidding Americans for housing. Corporate employers keep wages low and privatization has ruined healthcare, not immigrants.

    Oil and gas corporations are responsible for the catastrophic climate change fueling hurricanes like Helene and Milton, not immigrants. (Indeed, migrant workers often help rebuild after these catastrophes as communities struggle with a labor shortage).

    If right-wing politicians really want to help Americans struggling with economic stressors, they could ban hedge fund managers from buying up homes, support single-payer health care, increase the federal minimum wage, tax billionaires, divert money from war to climate, hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate crimes, and back a renewable energy transition.

    Instead, they attack immigrants — and do nothing.

    Attacking immigrants and calling for mass deportations will do nothing to ease the very real struggles people face. What it will do is whip up hate and violence, give the purveyors of hate the political power they desperately seek, and let corporate vultures off the hook.


    About the author:
    Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
    Letters to the Editor

    Keywords:
    at

    Op-Ed |
    Tipped wage system isn't working, removing taxes won't save it

    Photo:Bimo Luki/Unsplash
    by Red Schomburg
          OtherWords

    Both major presidential candidates have called for eliminating taxes on tips. But that won’t help most restaurant workers.

    What will? Replacing the subminimum wages that tipped workers make with one fair wage nationwide.

    The vast majority of tipped workers in America ... don’t earn enough to have to pay federal payroll taxes.

    The federal minimum wage for most workers is just $7.25. But for workers who get tips, employers are allowed to pay them $2.13 an hour. If tips don’t raise your hourly pay to at least the regular minimum wage, bosses are supposed to make up the difference — but very often don’t.

    I was a bartender in Boston for over a decade. Technically, I was paid $6.75 an hour — the current subminimum in Massachusetts, which is thankfully higher than the $2.13 federal rate. But my coworkers and I made next to nothing anyway.

    Like us, the vast majority of tipped workers in America — 66 percent — don’t earn enough to have to pay federal payroll taxes. So eliminating those taxes won’t benefit two-thirds of us at all.

    It would only help the upper earners, like fancy waiters at the fancy restaurants — or millionaire Wall Street types, lawyers, or hedge fund managers who could reclassify their incomes as tips to dodge taxes.

    Donald Trump has proposed ending taxes on tips as a clear attempt to pander to tipped workers. But as president, Trump actually gutted overtime regulations and tried to make it easier for our employers to steal our tips. So it’s clear to me he doesn’t really want to help us.

    It’s a telling sign that the National Restaurant Association (NRA), which is backed by corporations and wealthy business owners, has embraced Trump’s plan.

    The NRA is constantly looking for ways to get around having to actually pay their workers a full, fair minimum wage like every other industry in America. Their lobbying is the reason the subminimum wage has been stuck at $2.13 for over 30 years in the first place.

    Many of my coworkers and I are pressured to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior because our livelihood depends on being likable.

    Kamala Harris has also embraced ending taxes on tips. But unlike Trump, Harris has also voiced support for ending the subminimum wage. That would mean that my coworkers and I would be paid a full, fair minimum wage just like all other workers in our country — plus get tips on top.

    In that scenario, not having to pay taxes on tips would be meaningful for all of us.

    When employers can pay a subminimum wage, it forces our income to depend on uncontrollable factors — like weather, customer traffic, and tips.

    Even worse, many of my coworkers and I are pressured to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior because our livelihood depends on being likable. This especially harms women and contributes to the restaurant industry’s notoriously high rates of harassment.

    That’s why I’m helping turn out votes for a ballot measure this fall that would end the subminimum wage in Massachusetts and ensure all restaurant workers are paid one fair wage with tips on top. There’s similar legislation pending in 12 more states.

    The good news is we know this policy works.

    It’s great that politicians are talking about tipped workers.

    One fair wage is already law in seven states and two major metro areas (Chicago and Washington, D.C.). And in those places, wages are higher, rates of tipping are the same or higher, and restaurant growth is higher.

    Tipping is so ingrained in our culture that in places like California, which recently eliminated its subminimum wage, customers routinely continue to tip their usual amount — which workers receive on top of the full minimum wage. It’s a win-win solution.

    It’s great that politicians are talking about tipped workers. We’re a powerful voting block and we’re invested in voting for meaningful change. Tipped workers see beyond the lies and the pandering and know that one fair wage is the change we need to put more dollars in our pockets.


    About the author:
    Red Schomburg is a worker and leader with One Fair Wage. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
    Letters to the Editor

    Keywords: Minimum Wage, Restaurant Workers, National Restaurant Association, Tipped Workers, Federal Minimum Wage
    at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

    More Sentinel Stories