How Billionaires Are Shaping the Most Expensive Court Race in U.S. History

By Megan O’Matz, ProPublica 

Ten years ago, when Wisconsin lawmakers approved a bill to allow unlimited spending in state elections, only one Republican voted no.

“I just thought big money was an evil, a curse on our politics,” former state Sen. Robert Cowles said recently of his 2015 decision to buck his party.

As Wisconsin voters head to the polls next week to choose a new state Supreme Court justice, Cowles stands by his assessment. Voters have been hit with a barrage of attack ads from special interest groups, and record-setting sums of money have been spent to sway residents. What’s more, Cowles said, there’s been little discussion of major issues. The candidates debated only once.

“I definitely think that that piece of legislation made things worse,” Cowles said in an interview. “Our public discourse is basically who can inflame things in the most clever way with some terrible TV ad that’s probably not even true.”

More than $80 million has been funneled into the race as of March 25, according to two groups that have been tracking spending in the contest — the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy group that follows judicial races, and the news outlet WisPolitics. That surpasses the previous costliest judicial race in the country’s history, approximately $56 million spent two years ago on the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin.

Money is pouring into this swing state election so fast and so many ads have been reserved that political observers now believe the current race is likely to reach $100 million by Tuesday, which is election day.

“People are thoroughly disgusted, I think, across the political spectrum with just the sheer amount of money being spent on a spring Supreme Court election in Wisconsin,” said Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, which has long advocated for campaign finance reform.

But the elected officials who could revamp the campaign finance system on both sides of the aisle or create pressure for change have been largely silent. No bills introduced this session. No press conferences from legislators. The Senate no longer even has a designated elections committee.

The current election pits former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel, now a circuit court judge in conservative-leaning Waukesha County, against Susan Crawford, a judge in Dane County, the state’s liberal bastion.

Though the race technically is nonpartisan, the Democratic Party, including former President Barack Obama, has endorsed Crawford; the party has received financial support from liberal billionaire George Soros. On the other side, President Donald Trump posted a message on his social media platform on March 21 urging his supporters to vote for Schimel, and much of Schimel’s money comes from political organizations tied to Elon Musk.

The stakes are high. Whoever wins will determine the ideological bent of the seven-member court just two years after Janet Protasiewicz won a seat on the court and swung it to the liberals. With Protasiewicz on the court, the majority struck down state legislative maps, which had been drawn to favor Republicans, and reinstated the use of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots.

A Schimel victory could resurrect those and other voting issues, as well as determine whether women in the state will continue to be able to access abortion.

Two pro-Schimel groups linked to Musk — America PAC and Building America’s Future — had disclosed spending about $17 million, as of March 25. Musk himself donated $3 million this year to the Republican Party of Wisconsin. In the final stretch of the campaign, news reports revealed that Musk’s America PAC plans to give Wisconsin voters $100 to sign petitions rejecting the actions of “activist judges.”

That has raised concerns among some election watchdog groups, which have been exploring whether the offer from Musk amounts to an illegal inducement to get people to vote.

On Wednesday night, Musk went further, announcing on X a $1 million award to a Green Bay voter he identified only as “Scott A” for “supporting our petition against activist judges in Wisconsin!” Musk promised to hand out other million-dollar prizes before the election.

Musk has a personal interest in the direction of the Wisconsin courts. His electric car company, Tesla Inc., is suing the state over a law requiring manufacturers to sell automobiles through independent dealerships. Musk and Tesla did not respond to requests for comment about his involvement in the race.

Also on Schimel’s side: billionaires Diane Hendricks and Richard Uihlein and Americans for Prosperity, a dark-money group founded by billionaire Charles Koch and his late brother David. Americans for Prosperity has reported spending about $3 million, primarily for digital ads, canvassing, mailers and door hangers.

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund, a union-supported electioneering group, has ponied up over $6 million to advance Crawford. In other big outlays, Soros has given $2 million to the state Democratic Party, while Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another billionaire, gave $1.5 million. And California venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, donated $250,000.

In Wisconsin, political parties can steer unlimited amounts to candidates.

State Sen. Jeff Smith, a Democrat and a minority leader, called the spending frenzy “obscene.”

“There’s no reason why campaigns should cost as much as they do,” he said.

Asked for comment about the vast amount of money in the race, Crawford told ProPublica: “I’m grateful for the historic outpouring of grassroots support across Wisconsin from folks who don’t want Elon Musk controlling our Supreme Court.”

Schimel’s campaign called Crawford a “hypocrite,” saying she “is playing the victim while receiving more money than any judicial candidate in American history thanks to George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and JB Pritzker funneling money to her campaign.”

Quizzed Monday by a TV reporter on whether he would recuse himself if the Tesla case got to the state’s high court, Schimel did not commit, saying: “I’ll do the same thing I do in every case. I will examine whether I can truly hear that case objectively.”

A decade after Wisconsin opened the floodgates to unlimited money in campaigns in 2015, some good government activists are wondering if the state has reached a tipping point. Is there any amount, they ask, at which the state’s political leaders can be persuaded to impose controls?

“I honestly believe that folks have their eyes open around the money in a way that they have not previously,” Nick Ramos, executive director of the nonpartisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks campaign spending, told reporters during a briefing on spending in the race.

A loosely organized group of campaign reformers is beginning to lay the groundwork for change. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign recently called a Zoom meeting that included representatives of public interest groups inside and outside of Wisconsin, dark-money researchers and an election security expert.

They were looking for ways to champion reform during the current legislative session. In particular, they are studying and considering what models make sense and may be achievable, including greater disclosure requirements, public financing and restricting candidates from coordinating with dark-money groups on issue ads.

But Republicans say that the spending is a natural byproduct of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which equated campaign spending with free speech and opened the spigots for big-money races.

“For the most part, we don’t really, as Republicans, want to see the brakes on free speech,” said Ken Brown, past chair of the GOP Party of Racine, a city south of Milwaukee. Noting he was not speaking for the party, Brown said he does not favor spending limits. “I believe in the First Amendment. It is what it is. I believe the Citizens United decision was correct.”

Asked to comment on the current system of unlimited money, Anika Rickard, a spokesperson for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, did not answer the question but instead criticized Crawford and her funders.

Post-Reform Bill Opened Floodgates

At one point, Wisconsin was seen as providing a roadmap for reform. In 2009, the state passed the Impartial Justice Act. The legislation, enacted with bipartisan support, provided for public financing of state Supreme Court races, so candidates could run without turning to special interests for money.

The push for the measure came after increased spending by outside special interests and the candidates in two state Supreme Court races: the 2007 election that cost an estimated $5.8 million and the 2008 contest that neared $6 million, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

Candidates who agreed in 2009 to public financing and spending limits received grants of up to $400,000 for the race. The money came from the Democracy Trust Fund, which was supported by a $2 income tax check-off.

“​​Reformers win a fight to clean up court races,” the headline on an editorial in The Capital Times read at the time.

But the law was in place for only one election, in April 2011. Both candidates in the court’s general election that year agreed to take public funding, and incumbent Justice David Prosser, a conservative, narrowly won reelection. Then Republicans eliminated funding for the measure that summer. Instead, the money was earmarked to implement a stringent voter ID law.

By 2015, GOP leaders had completely overhauled the state’s campaign finance law, with Democrats in the Assembly refusing to even vote on the measure in protest.

“This Republican bill opens the floodgates to unlimited spending by billionaires, by big corporations and by monied, special interests to influence our elections,” Rep. Lisa Subeck, a Democrat, said in the floor debate.

Wisconsin is no longer cited as a model. Activists point to other states, including Arizona, Oregon and Rhode Island. Arizona and Oregon established disclosure measures to trace the flow of dark money, requiring campaign spenders to reveal the original source of donations. Rhode Island required ads to name not only the sponsor but the organization’s top donors so voters can better access the message and its credibility.

Amid skepticism that Wisconsin will rein in campaign spending, there may be some reason for optimism.

A year ago, a proposed joint resolution in Wisconsin’s Legislature bemoaned Citizens United and the spending it had unleashed. The resolution noted that “this spending has the potential to drown out speech rights for all citizens, narrow debate, weaken federalism and self-governance in the states, and increase the risk of systemic corruption.”

The resolution called for a constitutional amendment clarifying that “states may regulate the spending of money to influence federal elections.”

And though it never came to a vote, 17 members of the Legislature signed on to it, a dozen of them Republicans. Eight of them are still in the Legislature, including Sen. Van Wanggaard, who voted for the 2015 bill weakening Wisconsin’s campaign finance rules.

Wanggaard did not respond to a request for comment. But an aide expressed surprise — and disbelief — seeing the lawmaker’s name on the resolution.

This story was originally published by ProPublica.

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

The Creationz Collection by Aditya Basu

	BLOG TAGS

How Zelensky Rebuilt His Relationship With Trump

By Natasha Lindstaedt, University of Essex

After Donald Trump’s “very good and productive” phone call with Vladimir Putin earlier this week, all eyes were on his subsequent call with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Would it, as it did when they last met in the flesh on February 28 at the White House, descend into disastrous acrimony? Or would Zelensky manage to engage with the US president in a cooperative way that encourages him to see Ukraine and its leader in a more favourable light?

The latter, it seems. In a post on his Truth Social site, Trump referred to their “very good telephone call”, which got the two leaders “very much on track”. Zelensky for his part, talked of a “very good” and “frank” phone call and seemed to agree with everything the US president had to say, taking pains to emphasise and praise Trump and America’s leadership.

With his vocal support of Trump’s proposal for peace, Zelensky has put the attention back on Putin. He clearly wants to appear to be the more reasonable negotiating partner by going along with the US president’s proposals.

In spite of Zelensky’s misgivings about how trustworthy Putin is, he has agreed to a limited ceasefire with Russia on energy infrastructure (while stressing that, unlike Putin, he agrees with Trump’s aim for a complete ceasefire).

Zelensky clearly knows that Russia has a great deal to gain from a pause on attacks on energy grids and oil refineries, given Ukraine’s increasing capacity to use long-range drone attacks. And a maritime ceasefire, if agreed, would also favour Russia.

But by publicly voicing Ukraine’s support for Trump’s plan for a ceasefire, Zelensky has exposed Putin’s disinterest in stopping hostilities.

In the call, Zelensky emphasised that Ukraine was happy to support the US call for a ceasefire, without conditions. Putin, meanwhile, in his call with Trump laid out a set of frankly unreasonable demands.

These included the complete cessation of military aid and intelligence sharing by Ukraine’s allies, including the US. He also demanded a complete halt on Ukrainian troop mobilisation and rearmament.

The demands were so ridiculous, they were designed to get Ukraine to reject them. Interestingly Trump, when he was interviewed after his phone call with Putin, denied that the pair had discussed aid. Crucially, he didn’t say whether this was something he would agree to.

But the fact that the two leaders discussed the possibility of an ice hockey match between their two countries is an indication of how Putin is able to manipulate the US president with flattery. It helps that Trump clearly admires Putin and has repeatedly said that he trusts the Russian leader.

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

Has Putin Overplayed His Hand?

But this could come with a time limit. Trump, who wants a peace deal to trumpet as a crowning achievement, could well get tired of the fact that Putin has made no concessions to allow that deal to progress.

The Russian leader is clearly hoping that by seeming to engage with the “peace” process, while at the same time dangling the prospect of doing business with Russia – for example by offering the US the chance to explore Russia’s own reserves of rare earth minerals – he can keep Trump on side.

But while Trump still leans toward Putin, his relationship with Zelensky seems to have improved. The Ukrainian president appears to have learned that Trump doesn’t have a long memory and that flattery goes a long way with the US president.

Trump, meanwhile, is no longer calling Zelensky a dictator, and as yet there is no mention of halting US military aid or intelligence to Ukraine. There is the opposite, in fact, as the US has said it will assist in finding more Patriot missile defence systems after Zelensky mentioned that they were sorely needed.

By giving Trump credit for the ceasefire initiative, Zelensky is putting the ball in Russia’s court. And his apparent receptiveness to Trump’s idea about the US taking over Ukraine’s nuclear power plants will appeal to Trump’sTransactional instincts. In addition to offering Trump business deals, Zelensky is now consistently offering Trump praise for his peace efforts.

And it’s clear from the tone of the briefing given by White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, after the call that the US was happy with how it went. Leavitt stressed Zelensky’s praise for Trump’s leadership several times.

The White House reports on a “fantastic” phone call between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky.

Zelensky has also successfully turned Trump’s attention to the 35,000 missing children abducted from Ukraine into Russia during the war. The US state department had stopped tracking them and had deleted the evidence it had gathered, but Trump is now vowing to return the children home.

Putin is generally thought to be stringing these negotiations out as long as possible in order to maximise the amount of Ukrainian territory his army occupies. This could be a risky strategy.

Ending the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible was one of Trump’s repeated campaign promises. So the question is how long Trump can remain distracted or satisfied by Putin’s false engagement with the peace process.

The American president seems to be changing his tune on Ukraine more generally. His disastrous Oval Office press conference last month with Zelensky was viewed by some as a ploy to portray Ukraine as a difficult and ungrateful partner compared to Russia who he maintained was only interested in achieving a peaceful end to the war. Now, with Zelensky seemingly agreeing with whatever Trump says, it’s become harder for him to take that line.

For now, at least, the pressure is back on Putin.

Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

The Creationz Collection by Aditya Basu

	BLOG TAGS

Decoding the Challenges Hampering the Growth of Indian Manufacturing

By Mudit Jain, edited by Naveed Ahsan, Fair Observer

Between April 2022 and March 2023, India's trade deficit in manufacturing exceeded $250 billion. This serves as a stark reminder of the challenges and lack of competitiveness of Indian manufacturing. The roots of this decline began in the 1990s and a lack of comprehensive reforms has limited the sector's ability to compete effectively on a global scale.

Image by Swastik Arora from Pixabay

Following India’s hard-fought independence in 1947, the nation stood at the threshold of a transformative journey toward industrialization. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proclaimed the ascendancy of factories as the “temples of modern India.”

However, navigating the complexities of this nascent industrialization required a delicate balance between fostering domestic growth and safeguarding against the influx of cheaper imports. To that end, Nehru implemented a policy of imposing high import duties, thereby erecting a protective barrier around domestic industries.40

In the 1990s, India, under the leadership of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, confronted a pressing foreign exchange crisis that required urgent action. The government turned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistance, securing loans that would ultimately have far-reaching implications for the nation’s economic trajectory. The conditions attached to these loans marked a decisive turning point, as they compelled India to embark on a path of liberalization and open its economy to the world.

​​In compliance with the IMF’s prescriptions, India embarked on a momentous journey of economic liberalization, dismantling trade barriers and embracing free trade. Over the span of a mere decade, the government drastically changed its policy. It slashed import duties for industrial goods to the bone. The reduction, however, occurred without commensurate comprehensive reforms.

Amidst the rapid decline in import duties, the manufacturing industry found itself grappling with a confluence of factors that eroded its competitiveness. 

The costs of essential inputs for manufacturing, including furnace oil, power, loans and infrastructure, witnessed a notable uptick. Often, government-backed entities supplied these inputs. The cost escalations imposed a significant burden on domestic manufacturers, impeding their ability to compete on a level playing field.

Further red tape and corruption have plagued the implementation of a number of laws, including the Factories Act and the Environment and Pollution Control Act. This impedes the growth of the manufacturing industry and hinders its potential.

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

To Meet Local Demand, Look Overseas

In the early 2000s, a noticeable trend emerged within India’s business landscape. An increasing number of domestic companies opted to outsource their manufacturing operations overseas and import products.

This strategic decision aimed at minimizing costs and capitalizing on global supply chains. Simultaneously, however, it contributed to the closure of numerous domestic industries that were unable to compete with the influx of cheaper imports.

Despite its vast size and burgeoning population, India finds itself heavily reliant on imports to meet a significant portion of its domestic demand. This has forced many industries in India to shutter their operations, as they are unable to withstand the onslaught of more cost-effective imports.

A notable example can be found in the calcium carbide industry, where Indian companies have increasingly turned to foreign suppliers for imports. By 2004, this had led to closures in the domestic industry due to the inflow of cheaper foreign sources, despite the presence of a heavy import duty.

The soda ash industry also outsourced production in the early 2000s as many big names like Tata Chemicals and Nirma bought plants overseas and imported soda ash into India rather than expanding their domestic operations.

Another striking example is India’s status as the largest importer of PVC resin globally. There has been no concurrent expansion of domestic companies. Neither have there been foreign companies establishing their own plants in the country.

These dynamics contribute to a business culture in India in which non-technocrats occupy leadership positions; their primary focus often lies in navigating the business environment rather than spearheading technological advancements. 

Subsidies, Taxes and Red Tape

The decline of India’s manufacturing sector can be attributed, in part, to the comparatively higher input costs imposed by the Indian government. This discrepancy in cost has made it arduous for domestic companies to thrive amidst global competition.

A glaring example of this disparity lies in the freight costs incurred for transporting goods. It is almost twice as expensive to ship goods to the north of India from the south of India than it is to ship them from China! This is largely due to the burdensome 100% taxes levied on petrol and diesel.

Remarkably, it is less expensive to fly from Mumbai to Dubai than to travel the same distance from Mumbai to Calcutta. This is due to the exemption of aviation turbine fuel taxes for international flights.

India’s practice of subsidizing the government without yielding significant benefits has also become evident. The case of calcium carbide in the late 1990s exemplifies this. Despite a substantial duty on the chemical, imports of calcium carbide from China are far cheaper than domestically manufactured calcium carbide.

This is due to the exorbitant power costs imposed by State Electricity Boards in India. These elevated power costs significantly inflate the cost of producing calcium carbide domestically, rendering it less competitive compared to its imported counterpart.

India’s high indirect taxes also contribute to the burdensome costs of the manufacturing sector. It should be noted that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has recommended that exports should be exempt from such taxes.

Lastly, the acts and regulations governing the manufacturing industry in India often take on a policing approach rather than fostering a partnership for growth. 

For instance, in the airline industry, companies seeking regulatory approval to operate are not only required to obtain licenses but must also pay the regulation agency’s employees to develop the necessary skills for certification. Generally, these authorities lack the expertise of the industries they oversee.

This necessitates a reevaluation of the regulatory framework in India. By fostering a collaborative and supportive approach, authorities can align themselves with the needs of the sector. This entails developing a deep understanding of the specific industries they regulate and providing necessary guidance.

While I have not exhausted all of the factors, these are the core reasons why manufacturing is less than 15% of India’s gross domestic product. Despite the country’s abundant natural resources and a large pool of human talent, outdated methods of governance have continued to hinder the growth of the manufacturing sector. It is crucial to address these issues comprehensively.

Regulators Can Do Better

Addressing the decline in manufacturing requires proactive measures from the government. 

Establishing a collaborative body: Creating a Ministry of International Trade and Industry-style body, similar to post-World War II Japan, can facilitate closer collaboration between businesses and industries.

Drastically reducing indirect taxation: Reducing the burden of indirect taxes can significantly alleviate the cost pressures on manufacturers. Additionally, allowing for the set-off of all indirect taxes at different stages of the production process would further enhance their competitiveness.

Embracing blockchain technology: Removing regulations and encouraging the adoption of blockchain technology can enhance transparency and efficiency in the approval process. By leveraging blockchain, the government can create a transparent and traceable system that streamlines regulatory procedures and reduces bureaucracy.

Incentivizing foreign investment: Providing attractive incentives to foreign companies can encourage them to invest in India’s manufacturing sector. Foreign investment can bring in advanced technologies, expertise and capital, leading to job creation and economic growth. Drawing lessons from Margaret Thatcher’s approach in the 1980s, India should embrace foreign ownership of companies to revitalize the manufacturing sector.

Implementing these strategies requires a change in mindset and a commitment to prioritizing growth. Government officials and policymakers need to adopt a proactive approach that encourages and supports industry rather than excessively regulating it. By fostering a conducive environment for manufacturing, India can move closer to achieving the goal of self-reliance—atmanirbharta—and become a global manufacturing hub.

Mudit Jain is third generation member of his family-owned company, which manufactures industrial chemicals. He has played an active role in various chambers of commerce.  In addition to his business responsibilities, Mudit is actively engaged in various activities and organizations. Outside of his business endeavors, Mudit Jain was a former Director on the board of the Rotary Club of Bombay. Additionally, he has been a part of the executive committee of the Museum Society of Bombay. 

Naveed Ahsan is the former North America editor of Fair Observer. He is a graduate student at St. John's College, Annapolis. 

This article was originally published in Fair Observer under CC 3.

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

The Creationz Collection by Aditya Basu

	BLOG TAGS

The Two Decades That Created World’s First Middle Class

By Sam Pizzigati, Editor, Inequality.org

If we take on our rich, we can recreate that success.

Urban Housing - Picture from Pixabay

Amazing things can happen when societies realize they don’t need an awesomely affluent.

What sort of amazing things? Take what happened in the United States between 1940 and 1960, as economists William Collins and Gregory Niemesh do in a just-published research paper on America’s mid-century home ownership boom.

Over a mere 20-year span, the United States essentially birthed a “new middle class.” The share of U.S. households owning their own homes, Collins and Niemesh note, jumped an “unprecedented” 20 percentage points. By 1960, most American families resided in housing they owned “for the first time since at least 1870” — for the first time, in effect, since before the Industrial Revolution.

This home ownership surge, the two economists posit, rested in large part on an equally unprecedented surge in worker earnings. Median annual incomes in the mid-20th century “nearly doubled” as Americans realized wage gains “both large on average and widely spread across workers.”

This “widespread and sustained increase in the level of income,” Collins and Niemesh detail, “allowed more people to afford and select into owner-occupied housing than in previous generations.”

What brought about that “widespread and sustained” income increase? That question lies beyond the scope of the new Collins-Niemesh paper. But not much mystery surrounds the answer. The years of the mid-20th century saw a vast expansion of America’s trade union movement. The struggles of new unions — in major basic industries ranging from auto to steel — essentially forced the rich to begin sharing the wealth workers were creating.

This massive mid-century labor surge also changed the face of the American political landscape. Union-backed lawmakers put in place programs that helped average families on a wide variety of fronts, everything from making mortgages affordable to expanding access to higher education.

And those union-backed lawmakers helped pay for those new programs by raising taxes on America’s wealthiest. Between 1940 and 1960, the federal tax rate on income in the nation’s top tax bracket consistently hovered around 90 percent.

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

That worker-friendly world of the mid-20th century has, of course, long since disappeared. Over the past half-century, we’ve witnessed an enormous redistribution — upwards — of the nation’s income and wealth.

Back in 1982, in the early stages of that redistribution, Forbes began publishing an annual compilation of the nation’s 400 grandest private fortunes. The initial Forbes 400 list included just 13 billionaires. Their combined wealth: $92 billion. Over the next four decades, Forbes notes, the combined net worth of America’s richest 400 would rise to “a staggering $4.5 trillion — making them nearly 50 times better off than their 1982 counterparts, far outpacing the consumer price index’s near tripling.”

Overall wealth in the United States, the Federal Reserve relates, now totals $140 trillion. The bottom half of Americans hold just $4 trillion of that.

The United States, adds the New York Times in a new analysis, is approaching an unprecedented “intergenerational transfer of wealth” that “will largely reinforce” this current record inequality. Households worth over $5 million, the Boston-based Cerulli Associates financial research firm calculates, make up just 1.5 percent of total U.S. households. Between now and 2045, this tiny share of the nation’s households will account for 42.5 percent of expected wealth transfers.

Making that top-heavy transfer even worse: Under existing U.S. tax law, wealthy married couples can pass on to their heirs as much as $26 million without paying a penny in federal estate tax.

Meanwhile, observes a top research exec at the Vanguard Group, tens of millions of American workers aging into their seventies can’t afford to retire. “All but the most wealthy” among us, Vanguard’s Fiona Greig tells the New York Times reporter Talmon Joseph Smith, appear to be — to some degree — financially unprepared for retirement.

Smith’s conclusion? The headline over his economic preview published earlier this week tells it all: “The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, With Familiar (Rich) Winners.”

But our upcoming transfer of generational wealth doesn’t have to play out that way. The vast 1940-to-1960 expansion of America’s middle class, we need to keep in mind, didn’t just happen. Advocates for greater equality made it happen. Back before the Great Depression, those advocates confronted a maldistribution of income and wealth just as severe as the maldistribution we confront today. They battled for greater equity, and their success in that battle held up for a generation.

The challenge we confront today? We need to do more than create a much more equitable distribution of income and wealth. We need to create a much more equitable distribution of income and wealth that can last.

Sam Pizzigati co-edits Inequality.org. His latest books include The Case for a Maximum Wage and The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970. Twitter: @Too_Much_Online. This article was originally published on Inequality.org under CC 3

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

The Creationz Collection by Aditya Basu

	BLOG TAGS

The Chronicles of Lili - A Must-Read Children's Adventure Book

 A Magical Journey Around the World

The Chronicles of Lili - Volume 1

Welcome to a world of imagination, excitement, and thrilling adventures! We are thrilled to present to you "The Chronicles of Lili - Vol 1," a delightful children's book that will take young readers on a journey they will never forget. Join Lili, Bruno, Inge, and Mr. Squeak as they embark on captivating escapades around the globe. With its vivid illustrations, engaging stories, and heartwarming characters, this book is sure to captivate the minds and hearts of children aged 6-12.

In "The Chronicles of Lili - Vol 1," readers will meet Lili, a little Bavarian girl with a big heart, who sets off on extraordinary adventures alongside her loyal companions. Bruno, the talking bear, adds a touch of magic to their travels, while Fräu Inge, the shape-shifting duck, brings a unique perspective to their missions. And let's not forget Mr. Squeak, the detective mouse, whose keen eye for detail helps them solve perplexing mysteries along the way.

Together, this quartet takes on thrilling challenges and encounters adversaries in the most unexpected places. From the enchanting forests of Bavaria to the majestic Pyramids of Egypt, young readers will be immersed in a world of wonder and excitement. Along their journeys, Lili and her friends assist those in need, championing justice and spreading kindness wherever they go.

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

Book Features:

"The Chronicles of Lili - Vol 1" is an enchanting children's book that offers:

• Colourful illustrations that bring the characters and their adventures to life
• Engaging stories that captivate young imaginations
• Exciting escapades filled with mystery, action, and heartwarming moments
• Inspirational themes of friendship, bravery, and compassion
• Suitable for children aged 6-12, making it perfect for both independent reading and shared family moments

Based on Series Concept developed by Aditya Basu, "The Chronicles of Lili" is written by Lisa Emma von Wagner, a talented writer who has expertly crafted these delightful tales. With a passion for storytelling and a deep understanding of what captivates young readers, Lisa Emma von Wagner has brought these characters and their adventures to life, inspiring children to embrace the power of imagination and embark on their own exciting journeys. The series has been edited and published by Aditya Basu.

So, gather your young adventurers and embark on an unforgettable reading experience with "The Chronicles of Lili - Vol 1"! Order your copy today and let the magic of Lili, Bruno, Inge, and Mr. Squeak transport you to a world of wonder, mystery, and friendship.

Available Editions:

• Audio Book
• eBook
• International Paper Back
• International Hard Cover
• Indian Paperback
• Indian Hardcover

Get your copy Today! Access all the >>> Purchase Links <<<

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

The Creationz Collection by Aditya Basu

	BLOG TAGS

The Collective Psychological Effect of Mass Shootings

By Arash Javanbakht, Wayne State University

The deadly shooting of at least 19 children and two adults in Texas on May 24, 2022, is the latest in an ever-growing list of national tragedies, leaving families and friends of the victims gripped with grief, anguish and despair.

The latest mass shooting, at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, has plunged the country into yet another cycle of collective trauma. Jordan Vonderhaar/Getty Images News via Getty Images

In addition to those who experience direct loss, such events also take a toll on others, including those who witnessed the shooting, first responders, people who were nearby and those who hear about it – yet again – through the media.

I am a trauma and anxiety researcher and clinician, and I know that the effects of such violence reach millions. While the immediate survivors are most affected, the rest of society suffers, too.

First, the Immediate Survivors

It is important to understand that no two people experience such horrific exposure in the same way. The extent of the trauma, stress or fear can vary. Survivors of a shooting may want to avoid the neighborhood where the shooting occurred or the context related to shooting, such as grocery stores, if the shooting happened at one. In the worst case, a survivor may develop post-traumatic stress disorder.

PTSD is a debilitating condition that develops after exposure to serious traumatic experiences such as war, natural disasters, rape, assault, robbery, car accidents – and, of course, gun violence. Nearly 8% of the U.S. population deals with PTSD. Symptoms include high anxiety, avoidance of reminders of the trauma, emotional numbness, hypervigilance, frequent intrusive memories of trauma, nightmares and flashbacks. The brain switches to fight-or-flight mode, or survival mode, and the person is always waiting for something terrible to happen.

When the trauma is caused by people, as in a mass shooting, the impact can be profound. The rate of PTSD in mass shootings may be as high as 36% among survivors. Depression, another debilitating psychiatric condition, occurs in as many as 80% of people with PTSD.

Grief-stricken community members attend a prayer vigil following the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24, 2022. Jordan Vonderhaar/Getty Images News via Getty Images

Survivors of shootings may also experience survivor’s guilt, the feeling that they failed others who died or did not do enough to help them, or just guilt at having survived.

PTSD can improve by itself, but many people need treatment. There are effective treatments available in the form of psychotherapy and medications. The more chronic it gets, the more negative the impact on the brain, and the harder to treat.

Children and adolescents, who are developing their worldview and deciding how safe it is to live in this society, may suffer even more. Exposure to horrific experiences such as school shootings or related news can fundamentally affect the way people perceive the world as a safe or unsafe place, and how much they can rely on the adults and society in general to protect them.

They can carry such a worldview for the rest of their lives, and even transfer it to their children. Research is also abundant on the long-term detrimental impact of such childhood trauma on a person’s mental and physical health and their ability to function through their adult life.

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

The Effect on Those Close By, or Arriving Later

PTSD can develop not only through personal exposure to trauma, but also via exposure to others’ severe trauma. Humans have survived as a species particularly because of the ability to fear as a group. That means we learn fear and experience terror through exposure to the trauma and fear of others. Even seeing a frightened face in black and white on a computer will make our amygdala, the fear area of our brain, light up in brain imaging studies.

People in the vicinity of a mass shooting may see exposed, disfigured, burned or dead bodies. They may also see injured people in agony, hear extremely loud noises and experience chaos and terror in the post-shooting environment. They must also face the unknown, or a sense of lack of control over the situation. The fear of the unknown plays an important role in making people feel insecure, terrified and traumatized.

A group whose chronic exposure to such trauma is usually overlooked is the first responders. While victims and potential victims try to run away from an active shooter, the police, firefighters and paramedics rush into the danger zone.

Many of these first responders might have their own children in that school or nearby. They frequently face uncertainty; threats to themselves, their colleagues and others; and terrible bloody post-shooting scenes. This exposure happens to them too frequently. PTSD has been reported in up to 20% of first responders to mass violence.

Widespread Panic and Pain

People who were not directly exposed to a disaster but who were exposed to the news also experience distress, anxiety or even PTSD. This happened after 9/11. Fear, the coming unknown – is there another strike? are other co-conspirators involved? – and reduced faith in perceived safety may all play a role in this.

Every time there is a mass shooting in a new place, people learn that kind of place is now on the not-very-safe list. People worry not only about themselves but also about the safety of their children and other loved ones.

Is There Any Good to Come of Such Tragedy?

We can channel the collective agony and frustration to encourage meaningful changes, such as making gun laws safer, opening constructive discussions, informing the public about the risks and calling on lawmakers to take real action. In times of hardship, humans often can raise the sense of community, support one another and fight for their rights, including the right to be safe at schools, concerts, restaurants and movie theaters.

One beautiful outcome of the tragic shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in October 2018 was the solidarity of the Muslim community with the Jewish. This is especially productive in the current political environment, with fear and division being so common.

Sadness, anxiety, anger and frustration can be channeled into actions such as becoming involved in activism and volunteering to help the victims. It is also important not to spend too much time watching television coverage; turn it off when it stresses you too much.

Finally, studies have shown that exposure to media coverage for several hours daily following a collective trauma can lead to high stress. So check the news a couple of times a day to be informed, but don’t continue seeking out coverage and exposure to graphic images and news. The news cycle tends to report the same stories without much additional information.

Arash Javanbakht, Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University, is the director of the Stress, Trauma, and Anxiety Research Clinic (STARC) at Wayne State University. Dr Javanbakht and his work have been featured on the National Geographic, The Atlantic, CNN, Aljazeera, NPR, Washington Post, Smithsonian, PBS, American Psychiatric Association, Anxiety and Depression Association of America, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and tens of other media.

This article was originally published on The Conversation under CC4

Published by Aditya Basu - Grab Your Copy now!

The Creationz Collection by Aditya Basu

	BLOG TAGS