Faith leaders urge Braun to condemn Beckwith's remarks on Three-Fifths Compromise
The Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis, a group founded as part of the Civil Rights Movement, is asking Gov. Mike Braun to condemn Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith's statement that the Three-Fifths Compromise was "a great move." The 18th century law counted an enslaved person as 60% of a free person.
The agreement made during the 1787 Constitutional Convention counted an enslaved person as three-fifths of a person when measuring states' populations for taxation and congressional representation. The measure was rendered unconstitutional in 1868 by the 14th Amendment , which granted equal protection and due process to all American citizens.
Beckwith's statements came after an emotional debate over Senate Bill 289 on April 24. The bill curbs diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, allowing people to sue publicly-funded schools or government entities if they're required to undergo trainings that use a characteristic like race or sex to blame one group of people for actions in the past.
During the debate, opponents said the bill ignores the U.S.'s historical legacy of discrimination, citing examples such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, Jim Crow laws and real estate redlining.
After Thursday's debate, Beckwith took to X to post a video that he called a history lesson for Indiana's Senate Democrats. In the clip, which is just under four minutes long, Beckwith sits on the edge of his desk and speaks directly to the camera, arguing that the Three-Fifths Compromise actually worked against slavery rather than promoting it.
"I would like to share with you, the Three-Fifths Compromise is not a pro-discrimination compromise. It was not a pro-discrimination or a slave-driving compromise that the founders made. It was actually just the opposite," Beckwith says.
The compromise gave slave states less representation than they would have had if slaves were counted as people, preventing the constitutional enshrinement of slavery, he argues.
He does not address the fact that the law increased slaveholding states' representation in U.S. Congress relative to their number of voters, making it difficult — if not impossible — to pass an amendment abolishing slavery.
In their statement condemning Beckwith's interpretation of history, members of the faith coalition demanded Braun publicly denounce the remarks, mandate that Beckwith issue a formal retraction as well as an apology and affirm Indiana's commitment to an accurate education of history.
"This language is not merely insensitive, it is an affront to human dignity and an echo of a racist ideology that sought to legitimize the inhuman treatment of Black people in America," a Friday news release from the Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis reads in part.
Beckwith — who is himself a pastor — has landed in hot water over social media activity before.
A Feb. 6 post also about Senate Bill 289, which described "taxpayer-funded race hustling," caused a stir on the Senate floor. In October 2024, during his campaign for the lieutenant governor position, Beckwith called his female election opponent a "Jezebel spirit," while in a livestreamed interview, referring to the Bible's archetypal evil woman.
Senate Bill 289 has passed through both chambers of the Indiana legislature with the House voting 64-26 and the Senate voting 34-16. It now awaits Braun's signature.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Defying debt warnings, Republicans push forward on Trump tax agenda
By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress are determined to enact his tax-cut agenda in a political push that has largely abandoned longtime party claims of fiscal discipline, by simply denying warnings that the measure will balloon the federal debt. The drive has drawn the ire of Elon Musk, a once-close Trump ally and the biggest donor to Republicans in the 2024 election, who gave a boost to a handful of party deficit hawks opposed to the bill by publicly denigrating it as a "disgusting abomination," opening a public feud with Trump. But top congressional Republicans remain determined to squeeze Trump's campaign promises through their narrow majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives by July 4, while shrugging off warnings from the official Congressional Budget Office and a host of outside economists and budget experts. "All the talk about how this bill is going to generate an increase in our deficit is absolutely wrong," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo told reporters after a meeting with Trump last week. Outside Washington, financial markets have raised red flags about the nation's rising debt, most notably when Moody's cut its pristine "Aaa" U.S. credit rating. The bill also aims to raise the government's self-imposed debt ceiling by up to $5 trillion, a step Congress must take by summer or risk a devastating default on $36.2 trillion in debt. "Debt and deficits don't seem to matter for the current Republican leadership, including the president of the United States," said Bill Hoagland, a former Senate Republican aide who worked on fiscal bills including the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. The few remaining Senate Republican fiscal hawks could be enough to block the bill's passage in a chamber the party controls 53-47. But some have appeared to be warming to the legislation, saying the spending cuts they seek may need to wait for future bills. "We need a couple bites of the apple here," said Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a prominent fiscal hardliner. Republicans who pledged fiscal responsibility in the 1990s secured a few years of budget surpluses under Democratic former President Bill Clinton. Deficits returned after Republican President George W. Bush's tax cuts and the debt has pushed higher since under Democratic and Republican administrations. "Thirty years have shown that it's a lot easier to talk about these things when you're out of power than to actually do something about them when you're in," said Jonathan Burks, who was a top aide to former House Speaker Paul Ryan when Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted into law in 2017. "Both parties have really pushed us in the wrong direction on the debt problem," he said. Burks and Hoagland are now on the staff of the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank. DEBT SET TO DOUBLE Crapo's denial of the cost of the Trump bill came hours after CBO reported that the legislation the House passed by a single vote last month would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Interest costs would bring the full price tag to $3 trillion, it said. The cost will rise even higher - reaching $5 trillion over a decade - if Senate Republicans can persuade Trump to make the bill's temporary business tax breaks permanent, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The CRFB projects that if Senate Republicans get their way, Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act could drive the federal debt to $46.9 trillion in 2029, the end of Trump's term. That is more than double the $20.2 trillion debt level of Trump's first year at the White House in 2017. Majorities of Americans of both parties -- 72% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats -- said they were concerned about the growing government debt in a Reuters/Ipsos poll last month. Analysts say voters worry less about debt than about retaining benefits such as Medicaid healthcare coverage for working Americans, who helped elect Trump and the Republican majorities in Congress. "Their concern is inflation," Hoagland said. "Their concern is affordability of healthcare." The two problems are linked: As investors worry about the nation's growing debt burden, they demand higher returns on government bonds, which likely means households will pay more for their home mortgages, auto loans and credit card balances. Republican denial of the deficit forecasts rests largely on two arguments about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that independent analysts say are misleading. One insists that CBO projections are not to be trusted because researchers predicted in 2018 that the TCJA would lose $1.8 trillion in revenue by 2024, while actual revenue for that year came in $1.5 trillion higher. "CBO scores, when we're dealing with taxes, have lost credibility," Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin told reporters last week. But independent analysts say the unexpected revenue gains resulted from a post-COVID inflation surge that pushed households into higher tax brackets and other factors unrelated to the tax legislation. Top Republicans also claim that extending the 2017 tax cuts and adding new breaks included in the House bill will stimulate economic growth, raising tax revenues and paying for the bill. Despite similar arguments in 2017, CBO estimates the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased the federal deficit by just under $1.9 trillion over a decade, even when including positive economic effects. Economists say the impact of the current bill will be more muted, because most of the tax provisions extend current tax rates rather lowering rates. "We find the package as it currently exists does boost the economy, but relatively modestly ... it does not pay for itself," said William McBride, chief economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The legislation has also raised concerns among budget experts about a potential debt spiral. Maurice Obstfeld, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the danger of fiscal crisis has been heightened by a potential rise in global interest rates. "This greatly increases the cost of having a high debt and of running high deficits and would accelerate the point at which we really got into trouble," said Obstfeld, a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: The scariest AI reality
The wildest, scariest, indisputable truth about AI's large language models is that the companies building them don't know exactly why or how they work. Sit with that for a moment. The most powerful companies, racing to build the most powerful superhuman intelligence capabilities — ones they readily admit occasionally go rogue to make things up, or even threaten their users — don't know why their machines do what they do. Why it matters: With the companies pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into willing superhuman intelligence into a quick existence, and Washington doing nothing to slow or police them, it seems worth dissecting this Great Unknown. None of the AI companies dispute this. They marvel at the mystery — and muse about it publicly. They're working feverishly to better understand it. They argue you don't need to fully understand a technology to tame or trust it. Two years ago, Axios managing editor for tech Scott Rosenberg wrote a story, "AI's scariest mystery," saying it's common knowledge among AI developers that they can't always explain or predict their systems' behavior. And that's more true than ever. Yet there's no sign that the government or companies or general public will demand any deeper understanding — or scrutiny — of building a technology with capabilities beyond human understanding. They're convinced the race to beat China to the most advanced LLMs warrants the risk of the Great Unknown. The House, despite knowing so little about AI, tucked language into President Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" that would prohibit states and localities from any AI regulations for 10 years. The Senate is considering limitations on the provision. Neither the AI companies nor Congress understands the power of AI a year from now, much less a decade from now. The big picture: Our purpose with this column isn't to be alarmist or " doomers." It's to clinically explain why the inner workings of superhuman intelligence models are a black box, even to the technology's creators. We'll also show, in their own words, how CEOs and founders of the largest AI companies all agree it's a black box. Let's start with a basic overview of how LLMs work, to better explain the Great Unknown: LLMs — including Open AI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude and Google's Gemini — aren't traditional software systems following clear, human-written instructions, like Microsoft Word. In the case of Word, it does precisely what it's engineered to do. Instead, LLMs are massive neural networks — like a brain — that ingest massive amounts of information (much of the internet) to learn to generate answers. The engineers know what they're setting in motion, and what data sources they draw on. But the LLM's size — the sheer inhuman number of variables in each choice of "best next word" it makes — means even the experts can't explain exactly why it chooses to say anything in particular. We asked ChatGPT to explain this (and a human at OpenAI confirmed its accuracy): "We can observe what an LLM outputs, but the process by which it decides on a response is largely opaque. As OpenAI's researchers bluntly put it, 'we have not yet developed human-understandable explanations for why the model generates particular outputs.'" "In fact," ChatGPT continued, "OpenAI admitted that when they tweaked their model architecture in GPT-4, 'more research is needed' to understand why certain versions started hallucinating more than earlier versions — a surprising, unintended behavior even its creators couldn't fully diagnose." Anthropic — which just released Claude 4, the latest model of its LLM, with great fanfare — admitted it was unsure why Claude, when given access to fictional emails during safety testing, threatened to blackmail an engineer over a supposed extramarital affair. This was part of responsible safety testing — but Anthropic can't fully explain the irresponsible action. Again, sit with that: The company doesn't know why its machine went rogue and malicious. And, in truth, the creators don't really know how smart or independent the LLMs could grow. Anthropic even said Claude 4 is powerful enough to pose a greater risk of being used to develop nuclear or chemical weapons. OpenAI's Sam Altman and others toss around the tame word of " interpretability" to describe the challenge. "We certainly have not solved interpretability," Altman told a summit in Geneva last year. What Altman and others mean is they can't interpret the why: Why are LLMs doing what they're doing? Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, in an essay in April called "The Urgency of Interpretability," warned: "People outside the field are often surprised and alarmed to learn that we do not understand how our own AI creations work. They are right to be concerned: this lack of understanding is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology." Amodei called this a serious risk to humanity — yet his company keeps boasting of more powerful models nearing superhuman capabilities. Anthropic has been studying the interpretability issue for years, and Amodei has been vocal about warning it's important to solve. In a statement for this story, Anthropic said: "Understanding how AI works is an urgent issue to solve. It's core to deploying safe AI models and unlocking [AI's] full potential in accelerating scientific discovery and technological development. We have a dedicated research team focused on solving this issue, and they've made significant strides in moving the industry's understanding of the inner workings of AI forward. It's crucial we understand how AI works before it radically transforms our global economy and everyday lives." (Read a paper Anthropic published last year, "Mapping the Mind of a Large Language Model.") Elon Musk has warned for years that AI presents a civilizational risk. In other words, he literally thinks it could destroy humanity, and has said as much. Yet Musk is pouring billions into his own LLM called Grok. "I think AI is a significant existential threat," Musk said in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, last fall. There's a 10%-20% chance "that it goes bad." Reality check: Apple published a paper last week, "The Illusion of Thinking," concluding that even the most advanced AI reasoning models don't really "think," and can fail when stress-tested. The study found that state-of-the-art models (OpenAI's o3-min, DeepSeek R1 and Anthropic's Claude-3.7-Sonnet) still fail to develop generalizable problem-solving capabilities, with accuracy ultimately collapsing to zero "beyond certain complexities." But a new report by AI researchers, including former OpenAI employees, called " AI 2027," explains how the Great Unknown could, in theory, turn catastrophic in less than two years. The report is long and often too technical for casual readers to fully grasp. It's wholly speculative, though built on current data about how fast the models are improving. It's being widely read inside the AI companies. It captures the belief — or fear — that LLMs could one day think for themselves and start to act on their own. Our purpose isn't to alarm or sound doomy. Rather, you should know what the people building these models talk about incessantly. You can dismiss it as hype or hysteria. But researchers at all these companies worry LLMs, because we don't fully understand them, could outsmart their human creators and go rogue. In the AI 2027 report, the authors warn that competition with China will push LLMs potentially beyond human control, because no one will want to slow progress even if they see signs of acute danger. The safe-landing theory: Google's Sundar Pichai — and really all of the big AI company CEOs — argue that humans will learn to better understand how these machines work and find clever, if yet unknown ways, to control them and " improve lives." The companies all have big research and safety teams, and a huge incentive to tame the technologies if they want to ever realize their full value.
Axios
12 minutes ago
- Axios
Popular Stephen Starr restaurants boycotted by Democrats
Top Democrats in the House and Senate are boycotting hot Washington, D.C. restaurants that include those owned by famed Philadelphia restaurateur Stephen Starr over labor disputes. Why it matters: The targeted restaurants in Starr's empire include some of the buzziest spots for Democratic fundraisers. Driving the news: More than 50 House and Senate Democrats have signed onto Unite Here Local 25's pledge to avoid six D.C. venues. Zoom in: Starr, who is a Democratic donor, is facing boycotts of his Le Diplomate, Osteria Mozza and The Occidental. The other three boycotted restaurants are founded by chef Ashok Bajaj of Knightsbridge Restaurant Group. The list: Among the signers are some of Democrats' top fundraisers and biggest names, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are also on the list. Meanwhile, Philly Reps. Brendan Boyle, Dwight Evans and Mary Gay Scanlon signed the boycott list, per Unite Here's website. U.S. Sen. John Fetterman and Philly-regional Rep. Madeleine Dean were not on the pledge list as of Friday. Between the lines: Political groups and candidates have spent thousands of dollars at those spots over the past year, federal campaign records show. Former President Obama and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos made headlines when they dined at Osteria Mozza in January. Then-President Biden was a repeat customer at Le Diplomate during his presidency. What they're saying: Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told Axios: "We can have big policy debates, but we also have to show the American people some concrete examples." He added: "This is our opportunity when we're here in Washington, D.C. to not just go vote in the Capitol but actually go out in the community and make a difference." "We can say that all members on the list are personally boycotting," Benjy Cannon, a spokesperson for the union, told Axios in a message. "Many of them have been meeting personally with STARR and Knightsbridge workers all year." The other side:"Local 25's call for a boycott is baseless," Starr restaurants said in a statement. "A boycott of any kind can result in lost hours, wages, and tips that hardworking employees rely upon." "It is unfortunate that an organization that claims to want to represent employees would call for an action that would harm them." "We respect our employees' wishes," Bajaj said. "How many of these congress members even know themselves that they're signing?" Zoom out: Starr's restaurant group has accused Unite Here Local 25 of overly aggressive tactics. That includes union reps showing up with petitions outside employees' homes, leading one bartender to sign it even though she planned to vote against a union, as Eater reported in February. Francisco López, a Le Diplomate server of five years, told Axios some employees are holding counter protests to the union.
