In the wake of the recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling related to in vitro fertilization clinics/practices‚ policymakers are likely to respond by overreacting and making hasty policy decisions. Suggesting a new federal benefit mandate is one of those ill-advised ideas. A federal benefit mandate for IVF would not only raise the cost of health care coverage‚ but it would further entrench efforts by the Left to consolidate federal control over health care that intensified under Obamacare. All health insurance benefit mandates—whether enacted at the state or federal level—increase the cost of health insurance‚ thus harming consumers. While the same arguments apply to state benefit mandates‚ enacting a federal benefit mandate would be worse because of its broader scope—applying not only to health insurance regulated by any state‚ but also to employer self-insured plans and federal health care programs. Indeed‚ one of the biggest problems with Obamacare was that it preempted state regulatory authority to create a federal health insurance benefit floor called “Essential Health Benefits” for the individual and small-group health insurance markets. Obamacare’s EHB requirements have been among the factors responsible for increasing the cost of coverage in those markets.  Mandating coverage for what are essentially elective treatments‚ such as infertility treatments or cosmetic surgeries‚ raise other practical issues and can entail additional costs. The cost and therefore premium impact could vary widely‚ depending on the specifics of the mandate with respect to factors such as technologies and services that must be paid for and the circumstances to which the benefit applies and the frequency with which enrollees can use the services. Today‚ according to an analysis by Forbes‚ the 2024 monthly premium cost of an average Obamacare plan for a single 40-year-old individual is $469‚ and for a 40-year-old couple‚ it is $937. If that couple also has a child‚ the monthly premium is $1‚214‚ and if they have two children‚ it’s $1‚491. That translates into $17‚892 in annual health insurance premiums for a family of four. Furthermore‚ in addition to premiums‚ there is also the cost of deductibles and other enrollee co-payments. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average weighted deductible for Obamacare plans is $3‚057 and can reach $7‚258 for certain plan types. Some individuals may qualify for subsidies to offset premiums and cost sharing‚ but not all. A federal benefit mandate would also affect employer-sponsored coverage. In its 2023 annual Employer Health Benefits survey‚ the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that “[a]nnual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $23‚968 this year‚ with workers on average paying $6‚575 toward the cost of their coverage. The average deductible among covered workers in a plan with a general annual deductible is $1‚735 for single coverage.” Adding new federal benefit mandates would further increase the already high cost of health insurance coverage. From a larger health policy perspective‚ conservatives have long warned that efforts to consolidate control over health care through the federal government is the liberal playbook for achieving a single-payer‚ government-run health care model in the U.S. The misguided federal one-size-fits-all response to COVID-19 should serve as a cautionary example to policymakers about the dangers and costs associated with relying on federal bureaucrats to micromanage America’s health care system.   When it comes to health insurance coverage‚ Congress should instead focus on reducing the cost of health care for Americans and restoring state authority over the regulation of health insurance. Any new federal benefit mandates would do the opposite. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Why New Federal Health Care Benefit Mandates Must Be Avoided appeared first on The Daily Signal.

There's a lot more to being the first lady than just standing next to the president at White House functions. These women have important roles‚ and as such‚ they also have some rules to live by. Everything from how they decorate the White House to the gifts they receive must follow specific guidelines. Some rules are actually quite liberating‚ like the ability to hold an outside job or opt not to... Source

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The UK has a new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy‚ Conservative MP Saqib Bhatti‚ and the politician seems very enthusiastic when talking about things like “cooperation” with Big Tech‚ particularly in terms of elections. That’s because‚ critics will say‚ those in power want to absolutely control the conversation‚ what can and can’t be said online‚ and thus directly influence the vote; whereas those in power say‚ it’s all just a perfectly benevolent effort to make sure misinformation plays no part in the campaign. One person’s “cooperation” is another’s “collusion.” And so Bhatti hinted in a recent interview that ahead of the UK’s upcoming general election a key task to be achieved is to have the government and Big Tech “reconvene” for another round of “misinformation tackling.” And that‚ as easy as not‚ may mean aggressive online censorship of views critical of the ruling party. After possibly offending any real “tech geek” by calling himself that – Bhatti in time revealed that actual technology is not the most important thing a person in charge of Tech and the Digital Economy‚ as well those in the Department for Science‚ Innovation and Technology (DSIT)‚ have to work on in the UK. No – instead‚ it’s “misinformation and disinformation.” A very succinct way of demonstrating that those in power think about staying in power far more energetically than they consider things such as innovation‚ economic progress tied to digital tech‚ and even properly regulating the field. And so people who call themselves “tech geeks” are deeply involved in making sure “moderation” (i.e.‚ censorship) is alive and well on major platforms‚ and also‚ framing all this as a crucial “battle for democracy.” It’s all politics in other words – and no “tech.” “In October‚ Science‚ Innovation and Technology Secretary‚ Michelle Donelan‚ hosted a roundtable with the UK leaders of social media companies Google‚ Meta‚ X‚ TikTok‚ and Snapchat to discuss the spread of antisemitism‚ violent content‚ and misinformation following the Hamas attack on Israel‚” one report said. And Bhatti‚ the “tech nerd‚” thinks another such “intervention” could be needed – this time related to the general election. Bhatti’s by no means an outlier here – this is clearly the current UK government’s policy. Only this week‚ Home Secretary James Cleverly was in the US‚ to “convene” with Apple‚ Google‚ Meta‚ and X. Why? Said a government source: “(To make sure there are) safeguards against attempts at malign influence in the democratic process.” The post UK Government Pressures Social Media Giants To Tackle “Misinformation” Ahead of Elections appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A court has ruled that the reaction (in this case‚ YouTube) video “genre” represents fair use under copyright rules (DMCA). The case involves Thiccc Boy Productions suing Kyle Swindelles for alleged copyright infringement. Thiccc Boy claimed that the violation happened regarding videos of a podcast the company produces – The Fighter and the Kid‚ hosted by Brendan Schaub. Swindelles included a number of segments from Thiccc YouTube material in his own reaction videos. The US District Court for Rhode Island which dealt with the lawsuit‚ stated that while there is no doubt that this had happened – Swindelles’ defense was that his inclusion of the said material is protected by the fair use rule. We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here. The fair use doctrine‚ the court remarked‚ was added to the Copyright Act in order to limit “the otherwise exclusive rights enjoyed by copyright holders.” The decision to rule in Swindelles’ favor is explained by stating that the four videos cited by Thiccc Boy‚ instead of infringing‚ “undisputedly commented on the quality of the discussion in the copyrighted works.” As for the videos whose copyright was allegedly violated‚ the court found that their nature – three people in a basic “studio” consisting of chairs and microphones‚ discussing popular culture and events in their own lives‚ is effectively the equivalent of TV talk show clips. Once again‚ because of the nature of it all – those very same (Thiccc Boy) videos being reaction and commentary on copyrighted content of others – they are “more factual than creative.” As for Swindelles also showing frames of that copyrighted martial of others‚ first included in the Thiccc Boy videos – the court said this was not a violation because Swindelles neither commented on nor criticized those. Examining the question of whether the audience could be fooled into thinking Thiccc Boy videos are actually made by Swindelles‚ the judge decided that the commentary and criticism expressed in the reaction videos make sure this does not happen. All in all‚ the ruling concludes that‚ “Mr. Swindelles’ use of the copyrighted material serves a public benefit.” And it doesn’t seem that the podcast host Schaub decided it was a good idea to state he was going after those “harassing him online‚ including comics” – (so was it harassing – or infringement that’s the problem?) Schaub went on to make threats of “monster lawyers and friends in dark places who are going to get the job done.” “Troublesome‚” is how the court described these comments. The post Court Confirms Reaction Videos Are Fair Use appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. For some reason quietly‚ X has started enforcing revised rules‚ detailed in its platform guidelines for users – among other things‚ adding a section to the “Abuse and Harassment” that concerns the use of pronouns‚ and speech referring to persons “transitioning” (in terms of transgenderism). The “amended” rules came into force at some point between January 24 and 27 this year‚ and should an X user be found to “purposefully” address another using a pronoun different than what that user has chosen for themselves‚ they can expect to be (and they ostensibly already are) punished by having their posts’ visibility on the platform “reduced.” Related: Rep. Jim Banks criticizes Twitter for locking his official account It’s not entirely clear if this constitutes straight-forward shadowbanning‚ i.e.‚ if the supposed guidelines violator is immediately notified of this; but given the nebulous nature of any attempt to determine if someone is doing this “purposefully” – the revised rules spell out that those addressed using “the wrong pronouns” will be consulted. Some see this as a slow return to the policies and general trends in content moderation/censorship that once blossomed so wildly on Twitter. What is undeniable is that the “Abuse and Harassment” guidelines now go into the pronouns of it all‚ although they were not mentioned in the June 2023 version. But now they feature under the section‚ “Insults.” The January 2024 version includes a subtitle‚ “Use of Prior Names and Pronouns.” It reads as follows: “We will reduce the visibility of posts that purposefully use different pronouns to address someone other than what that person uses for themselves‚ or that use a previous name that someone no longer goes by as part of their transition.” But how does X‚ or anyone for that matter‚ decide that something of this kind is “purposeful”? The near impossibility of doing so is referred to as‚ “complexity.” “Given the complexity of determining whether such a violation has occurred‚ we must always hear from the target to determine if a violation has occurred‚” the new guidelines read‚ again – no word if X will also “hear” from those accused of making the offense. It seems that X has decided to expend a lot of time and energy‚ and no doubt money‚ in order to make this work. It remains to be seen (and evidence so far from users to be heard) about how the whole thing works‚ or doesn’t – but meantime‚ X looks dead set to torment itself – and its users – by trying to figure out what is done on purpose‚ what is accidental‚ what might be thoughtless‚ or just light-heated. Says one of the paragraphs added to the guidelines: “Some posts may appear to be harmful when viewed in isolation‚ but may not be when viewed in the context of a larger conversation. For example‚ friends may consensually use certain terms or phrases to engage with each other that could appear abusive without this context.” The post X Says It Will Reduce the Visibility of Posts That Purposely Ignore a Person’s Preferred Pronouns appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Sign Up To Keep Reading This post is for Reclaim The Net supporters. Gain access to the entire archive of features and supporters-only content. Help protect free speech‚ freedom from surveillance‚ and digital civil liberties. Join Already a supporter? Login here The post A Private‚ Open-Source‚ Self-Hosted Photo and Video Backup Solution appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Do Newly Released Documents Provide a Smoking Gun for the Lab Leak Theory?

'Three-Alarm Fire': Marianne Williamson Unsuspends Campaign

Former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan‚ who is launching his own media company‚ traveled to CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip on Thursday to discuss the conflicting narratives behind the deaths of several Gazans who were gathered around an aid truck. While Hasan had no problems relying on Hamas-supplied statistics‚ he condemned the media for trusting the Israeli military while comparing it to Russian and Syrian dictators and war criminals Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad. At the same time‚ Hasan demanded the U.S. let Hamas off the hook by forcing Israel to end the war now. Phillip asked‚ “Look‚ Israel‚ as we just laid out in the last few hours‚ have tried to frame this as a tragedy‚ but just not one that is their fault. The IDF says it fired warning shots to try to disperse the crowd around that convoy. Do you lend any credibility to that explanation? And from the eyes of the world‚ does it matter what the explanation is for what we saw unfold?”     The IDF also states that the warning shots came about as the crowd moved towards Israeli soldiers after armed looters opened fire at the aid convoy. However‚ for Hasan‚ the IDF should be treated like the police in America‚ “In terms of believing the Israelis‚ I would say that it took multiple innocent black people to die at the hands of police in this country‚ whether it's Breonna Taylor‚ whether it's Freddie Gray‚ whether it's George Floyd‚ for people in our industry‚ Abby‚ to start saying‚ well‚ maybe we shouldn't just blindly believe police statements after shootings happen.” Even if one were to grant that point‚ it doesn’t follow that whatever the Palestinians say is accurate. For instance‚ Hasan condemned the IDF for saying there was “a command and control center under the Al-Shifa Hospital‚” when we know that there were tunnels and weapons found there despite all the claims to the contrary. Phillip’s omission of the IDF’s claim that armed looters were present was important because absent that information‚ Hasan’s claims look more plausible than they are “Doctors say that the bodies they got at the hospital‚ you showed the pictures of people on donkeys‚ were mostly bullet wounds‚ not stampede wounds. The Israelis opened fire on hungry people trying to get flour‚ it's being called a flour massacre for that reason.” Moving from the local incident to the bigger picture‚ Hasan added‚ “And you asked‚ is it a tipping point? I mean‚ in any normal world‚ it should be. In any other conflict‚ it would be‚ Abby. When Putin did stuff like this in Ukraine‚ we condemned him. When Assad did stuff like this in Syria‚ we condemned him.” Israel is fighting because it is defending itself after being attacked in the most brutal way on October 7. Vladimir Putin is fighting Ukraine because he thinks he’s the heir to Catherine the Great’s imperial legacy. Speaking of Putin and Assad‚ there have been more people killed‚ according to the U.N. in specific Syrian cities than in all of Gaza. Later‚ Hasan turned his ire to the U.S. and after claiming the media should not treat IDF statements as fact‚ he treated Hamas statistics as fact‚ “Joe Biden has the power to pick up the phone and end this war. He can ring the Israeli prime minister and say‚ we're cutting you off. We're cutting off aid. We're cutting off armaments. Israel‚ Israelis themselves‚ Israeli generals‚ say we can't do this war without America. He hasn't done it. He didn't do it after 10‚000 dead. He didn't do it after 20‚000 dead. Today‚ we crossed 30‚000 dead.” An end to the war now means Hamas survives and lives to violate whatever ceasefire Hasan demands‚ but he doesn’t care “How on earth has he not stopped the war until now? How on earth are we still debating this?” Hasan would also claim‚ “It simply is get a ceasefire and it is within his power to get a ceasefire. It's within the power of the U.N. Security Council to get a ceasefire. Remember‚ the rest of the world wants a ceasefire. It's America that has blocked us at the U.N. Security Council. Even other Western nations have backed a ceasefire. It's Biden blocking it.” As shocking as it may be for Hasan to believe‚ what is right is not determined by roll call votes at the United Nations. Here is a transcript for the February 29 show: CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip 2/29/2024 10:05 PM ET ABBY PHILLIP: Look‚ Israel‚ as we just laid out in the last few hours‚ have tried to frame this as a tragedy‚ but just not one that is their fault. The IDF says it fired warning shots to try to disperse the crowd around that convoy. Do you lend any credibility to that explanation? And from the eyes of the world‚ does it matter what the explanation is for what we saw unfold? MEHDI HASAN: Well‚ Abby‚ thanks so much for having me on the show‚ and thank you for that very important‚ very powerful intro you did just there. In terms of believing the Israelis‚ I would say that it took multiple innocent black people to die at the hands of police in this country‚ whether it's Breonna Taylor‚ whether it's Freddie Gray‚ whether it's George Floyd‚ for people in our industry‚ Abby‚ to start saying‚ well‚ maybe we shouldn't just blindly believe police statements after shootings happen. And I feel that we still haven't quite reached that point in the Middle East with the Israeli military. The Israeli military tend to say things that turn out not to be true‚ both before Gaza‚ when they killed Shireen Abu Akhle‚ a U.S. citizen‚ and lied about it‚ or during this conflict‚ so many lies the Israeli military has told about‚ you know‚ a terrorist guard list under the Rantisi Hospital‚ a command and control center under the Al-Shifa Hospital‚ a documentary in Lebanon that they claimed was Palestinians faking their own wounds‚ so many‚ you can't even count. And now we are told today‚ well‚ actually‚ it was just a stampede‚ even though eyewitnesses‚ Abby‚ say that the Israelis opened fire‚ Israeli tanks opened fire‚ without warning‚ according to one eyewitness in the Washington Post. Doctors say that the bodies they got at the hospital‚ you showed the pictures of people on donkeys‚ were mostly bullet wounds‚ not stampede wounds. The Israelis opened fire on hungry people trying to get flour‚ it's being called a flour massacre for that reason. And you asked‚ is it a tipping point? I mean‚ in any normal world‚ it should be. In any other conflict‚ it would be‚ Abby. When Putin did stuff like this in Ukraine‚ we condemned him. When Assad did stuff like this in Syria‚ we condemned him. Then Israel starves hundreds of thousands of people and then shoots people who go to get flour‚ where's the condemnation from the United States government? The State Department spokesman would not condemn Israel today. So‚ it's a tragedy. Is it a tipping point? I wish it was. I suspect it isn't. PHILLIP: What President Biden has said is that he has acknowledged the events that happened and says it will likely complicate the negotiations that they've been working on for a temporary ceasefire. From Biden's perspective‚ do you think this could be the incident that pushes him to actually rethink how he approaches this relationship with this particular Israeli government and this war? HASAN: As I argued in a Guardian piece recently‚ Joe Biden has the power to pick up the phone and end this war. He can ring the Israeli prime minister and say‚ we're cutting you off. We're cutting off aid. We're cutting off armaments. Israel‚ Israelis themselves‚ Israeli generals‚ say we can't do this war without America. He hasn't done it. He didn't do it after 10‚000 dead. He didn't do it after 20‚000 dead. Today‚ we crossed 30‚000 dead. You have to ask the question why this is a man who's seen as the great comforter-in-chief‚ the great empath‚ has had huge personal tragedy in his own family and yet 30‚000 Palestinians‚ according to his own Defense secretary today‚ 25‚000 women and children. How on earth has he not stopped the war until now? How on earth are we still debating this? And‚ Abby‚ on the situation on aid‚ I've just got to point out here‚ four out of five of the hungriest people in the world are in Gaza right now. Even with or without those aid trucks‚ people are starving. A two- month-old baby called Mahmoud Fatou (ph) starved to death earlier this week in Gaza. This is not a natural disaster. This is a man-made famine. Food is plentiful. It's available. It's a few miles away‚ and yet it's being blocked. In fact‚ at the Israeli crossing‚ I don't know how many CNN viewers know‚ people are putting up bouncy castles‚ Israeli protesters‚ and eating popcorn and candy-- cotton candy and blocking the aid. That is crazy. PHILLIP: Do you think‚ Mehdi‚ that there is -- look‚ I think you understand that President -- you say President Biden can just pick up the phone and cut it all off. You also understand he probably won't do that. So‚ if you were to give him advice today‚ knowing what he is likely to be able to get to a yes on‚ what is the one thing that you think he should do today that would make this better‚ marginally better tomorrow for Gazans? HASAN: It simply is get a ceasefire and it is within his power to get a ceasefire. It's within the power of the U.N. Security Council to get a ceasefire. Remember‚ the rest of the world wants a ceasefire. It's America that has blocked us at the U.N. Security Council. Even other Western nations have backed a ceasefire. It's Biden blocking it.

America has made tremendous progress on race relations and we’re a long way from the eras of slavery and segregation; we’ve even had a black president. But the anti-American narrative CBS Mornings pushed on Friday would have viewers believe that America was only worth a pathetic letter grade of “C+” and that it would take a frightening “180 years” for there to be true “parity” between white and black Americans. That was... unless we enacted sweeping socialist policies. CBS welcomed Marc Morial‚ president of the left-wing National Urban League and husband to CBS reporter Michelle Miller (which they did disclose)‚ who brought with him the “State of Black America” report his organization published just that morning. Convenient‚ right? “Now‚ this report assesses how black Americans are faring economically and socially compared to white Americans. They gave it a score of just under 76 percent. 100 percent would be full equality‚” co-anchor Gayle King announced. Chiding: “76 percent when I was in school was a C+‚ never great. I used to get in trouble for getting a grade of C+.” Morial explained how the actual number crunchers at the National Urban League came to their determination that America was awful: So‚ thanks for having me‚ and good morning. We look at 300 data sets‚ and those data sets include everything from unemployment rates‚ death rates‚ health insurance pickup rates‚ capital formation rates‚ and when we put them all together they are an index. And so‚ the status of white Americans is at one‚ and black Americans is a percentage of one. So‚ the comparative would be –let's look at family income‚ median family income for blacks. Maybe $45‚000‚ maybe for whites‚ $75‚000. So that's a fundamental idea with the comparison is.     “And so‚ that 75 percent represents‚ Gayle‚ a little bit of a change over the last three or four years‚ but at that rate‚ we're 180 years away from parity‚” he warned. “That's the number that drew my attention. 180 years. Why‚ Marc? How?” she implored him to explain. Morial started throwing out liberal talking points hinting at Jim Crow 2.0 and whining about pushback to racist DEI programs: I think one of the reasons is is because while there are those who push for progress‚ there have also been those who push against progress. Witnessed today‚ the over 1‚000 bills that have been introduced at state legislatures to make it more difficult for people to vote. Witness today the effort to‚ in effect‚ push back on DEI which is simply an effort to push back on equal economic opportunity. “I mean‚ there is a resistance movement to the kinds of change that the nation needs. And there was one in 1964‚ and there's one in 2024‚ and it’s intensified‚” he lamented. Then came the policy solution. “Yeah. 180 years seems like a daunting number to look at…Is there a way for us to narrow that gap in those areas quicker than that?” co-anchor Nate Burleson wanted to know. In addition to the liberal talking points about voting‚ he wanted policies that would take “a hard‚ hard line to address the issues of economics‚ poverty‚ the economic divide‚ and the racial wealth divide.” He wanted something akin to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and the War on Poverty; socialist spending programs which only served to make things worse. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Mornings March 1‚ 2024 7:30:22 a.m. Eastern (…) GAYLE KING: That‚ of course‚ was addressing the country right before he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. That landmark piece of legislation made it illegal to discriminate based on race and color‚ religion‚ sex‚ and national origin. 60 years later‚ the National Urban League says there's still work to be done. It is all outlined in his 2024 state of black America report that comes out today. Now‚ this report assesses how black Americans are faring economically and socially compared to white Americans. They gave it a score of just under 76 percent. 100 percent would be full equality. The president of the National Urban League‚ Marc Morial‚ joins us at the table. Good morning to you. MARC MORIAL:  Good morning. Great to be with you all. KING: You're well-known in this building. Also known as Michelle Miller’s better half. MORIAL: Mrs. Michelle Miller. KING: Mr. Michelle Miller‚ if you please. We’re very glad to have you. MORIAL: Appreciate it. KING: 76 percent when I was in school was a C+‚ never great. I used to get in trouble for getting a grade of C+. How did you come up with this score? What exactly does it mean? MORIAL: So‚ thanks for having me‚ and good morning. We look at 300 data sets‚ and those data sets include everything from unemployment rates‚ death rates‚ health insurance pickup rates‚ capital formation rates‚ and when we put them all together they are an index. And so‚ the status of white Americans is at one‚ and black Americans is a percentage of one. So‚ the comparative would be –let's look at family income‚ median family income for blacks. Maybe $45‚000‚ maybe for whites‚ $75‚000. So that's a fundamental idea with the comparison is. And so‚ that 75 percent represents‚ Gayle‚ a little bit of a change over the last three or four years‚ but at that rate we're 180 years away from parity. KING: That's the number that drew my attention. 180 years. Why‚ Marc? How? MORIAL: Let's say this‚ the Civil Rights Act of '64 that President Johnson signed has had a dramatic impact on America. Look at you and Nate. Look at others who work here at CBS. It's just an example. There were no blacks‚ there were no women sitting at any anchor desk in 1964. I think one of the reasons is is because while there are those who push for progress‚ there have also been those who push against progress. Witnessed today‚ the over 1‚000 bills that have been introduced at state legislatures to make it more difficult for people to vote. Witness today the effort to‚ in effect‚ push back on DEI which is simply an effort to push back on equal economic opportunity. KING: Yeah. MORIAL: I mean‚ there is a resistance movement to the kinds of change that the nation needs. And there was one in 1964‚ and there's one in 2024‚ and it’s intensified. NATE BURLESON: Yeah. 180 years seems like a daunting number to look at. MORIAL: Yes. KING: Because none of us will be here. BURLESON: Right. KING: In this room. BURLESON: Right. Is there a way for us to narrow that gap in those areas quicker than that? MORIAL: I think we could accelerate by‚ number one‚ ensuring that the access to the right to vote and democracy is unfettered. Number two‚ by taking a hard‚ hard line to address the issues of economics‚ poverty‚ the economic divide‚ and the racial wealth divide. I think we also can make a difference if we focus on children. For example‚ the child tax credit‚ which passed in the early days of the Biden administration but then expired‚ cut child poverty by one half in a short period of time. Are there things that we can do? Look‚ what's dramatic is that the Civil Rights Act of '64‚ the Voting Rights Act of '65‚ the great society programs in the middle 1960s probably cut the American poverty rate in half in a 15-year period. So can we? Yes. BURLESON: There are ways. MORIAL: There are ways. (…)