Just have a billionaire buy you a luxury RV

In a report from almost two weeks ago A Martínez and Jennifer Ludden of NPR take a look at a case before the Supreme Court about whether people can be punished for sleeping outside. The cases come from Oregon and Idaho. The 9th Circuit Court ruled that fining someone for sleeping outside when there is no shelter space is cruel and unusual punishment. The cities say they need to be able to clear homeless encampments because they are a threat to health and safety. Lawsuits over the issue mean judges are micromanaging the issue. Cities want the litigation to end because that’s paralysis when they need action. They also want clarity. What is adequate shelter? What if someone refuses shelter? Homeless advocates say the cities are targeting the people simply because they are homeless, which courts say is not allowed. What the cities really want to do is drive the homeless out of town. Punishing a person for something they have no control over is not going to change their situation. Criminalization means getting stable housing is harder. Putting the people in jail diverts money from better solutions. There are a quarter million unhoused and whatever the ruling not much will change until more housing is built. That will take years. Barry Deutsch posted a cartoon on Daily Kos of a cop rousing a homeless man sleeping in a doorway. The man pretends to call his butler for suggestions on which mansion he should sleep in tonight. The cop thinks, “Next step: outlaw sarcasm.” Pedro Molina posted a cartoon on Kos showing a homeless man beside a bench that explains why he might be sleeping on it: “Lack of affordable housing, lack of access to effective addiction treatments, lack of access to mental health care, lack of empathy.” One way to reduce homelessness is giving basic income payments. More cities are showing this can be quite effective in alleviating poverty and giving people enough financial space to get into better jobs. Kevin Hardy, in an article for the Arizona Mirror posted on Kos, reported that Republicans in various state legislatures are passing laws banning basic income programs. Ken Paxton, AG of Texas, sued Harris County (Houston) to block a pilot program. Republicans complain a person must work before getting free money (most do work and for poverty wages) or claim the government giving money away is unconstitutional (though they don’t complain when their corporations get bailouts). One claimed it gets people “addicted” to a government check. A big reason for these bills is blue states are seeing basic income programs work and they’re starting to spread them, perhaps statewide. The article reviews some of the basic income pilot programs that have been done around the country. They show how helpful the programs can be in changing lives. Recent polling shows there is broad support for programs that supplement safety net programs. Ludden of NPR also reported on this Republican effort. She adds this to the story:

All of this is part of a coordinated push, says Harish Patel, a vice president with the Economic Security Project, which advocates for guaranteed income. He says the backlash is spearheaded by the lobbying arm of a conservative think tank, the Foundation for Government Accountability. "They helicopter in, hire lobbyists in a bunch of states, and then they provide these copycat bills to undo this very popular program," Patel says.

The FGA also promotes work requirements for federal anti-poverty programs and also opposes Medicaid expansion. They’ve contributed to the nasty guy’s campaign and have contributed to Project 2025. In the comments of a pundit roundup for Kos is one by Drew Sheneman. It shows Clarence Thomas talking to a homeless man: “Just have a billionaire buy you a luxury RV.” And a cartoon by Ted Littleford: “If the election was rigged... Why didn’t those Democrats rig it so that every Republican lost?” Jessica Huseman, in an article for Votebeat posted on Kos, reported on the talk by the nasty guy, Speaker Johnson, and other Republicans about advocating for a bill banning noncitizens from voting. The response to it is simple: First, it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote and has been since 1926 in all states. Second, it’s not a problem. Third, it’s unoriginal, going back 200 years.

Fear-mongering over noncitizen voting is among the oldest tactics in American electoral politics. The Republican Party is not trying to assemble a squad of noncitizen-voting hardliners; it is fomenting this fear to anger its base into turning out. Parties have done it dozens of times in our history, even before noncitizen voting was illegal in this country.

The article provides several examples of that history and concludes:

It is not logical that an immigrant who’s ineligible to vote would risk jail or deportation to cast a single ballot in an election. The cost-benefit analysis for such a vulnerable person doesn’t make any sense. The reason bans on noncitizen voting have never caught on as federal legislation is that there is simply nothing to legislate.

The movie Civil War has been doing quite well at the box office the last few weeks. Charles Jay of the Kos community used that as an opportunity to remind us:

But viewers, liberals and conservatives alike, should be aware that Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s propagandists are hoping that a second American Civil War actually happens.

Then Jay reviewed what several Russian propagandists have been saying for years.