Latest news with #GreatSociety
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ruling bars shutdown, for now, of Job Corps programs nationally, including 3 Mass. sites
Actions ordered by the Trump administration to shutter the Westover Job Corps program in Chicopee, and nearly a hundred similar job-training sites for disadvantaged young people, must stop immediately, a judge ruled Wednesday. The order by a U.S. District Court judge in New York City comes less than a week after the Department of Labor announced that 99 Job Corps programs across the U.S. would close. The 60-year-old program is credited with helping participants gain skills that lift them out of poverty. On Tuesday, the National Job Corps Association, a trade group, sued the labor department and Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, claiming the decision to close the nation's largest residential career training program was unlawful and based on faulty information about its effectiveness. Late Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. granted the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that bars the labor department from continuing a fast-paced plan to dismantle the Job Corps. Carter's ruling says both job losses and the removal of students from program sites must stop, pending hearings later this month. The action doesn't remove the possibility the programs will end, but will at least slow that down. In Chicopee, David Baker, the center director, had been ordered to begin to move some of the program's 352 students off the campus it occupies on the grounds of the Westover Air Reserve Base. He said in an interview that he and other center directors faced a June 30 deadline to end all activities. The closing would have also ended operations of the Shriver Job Corps Center in Devens and the Grafton Job Corps Center in North Grafton. All Job Corps programs nationally work to provide both vocational and academic skills to young people, aged 16 to 24, who come from difficult backgrounds and were not able to consider attending college. In the Chicopee program, nearly a third of participants were considered homeless before joining. The judge's ruling says the government cannot take 'any further action to eliminate the Job Corps program without Congressional authorization.' Congress created the program in 1964 at the time of President Lyndon B. Johnson's 'Great Society' legislative initiatives to fight poverty and inequality. Since then, hundreds of thousands of young people, including those from poor families and rough neighborhoods, have gained job skills. The complaint notes that when Congress created the program, it anticipated that the labor department might elect to close certain Job Corps sites, 'but did not provide authorization for DOL to cancel the program wholesale. And Congress has imposed specific guardrails on the closure of any individual Job Corps campus.' Carter gave the defendants a deadline of June 17 to provide motions related to the case. In their request for judicial intervention, the plaintiffs, including Education & Training Resources, the entity that manages the Chicopee, argued that eliminating the Job Corps program was illegal. 'It contravenes the statutory provisions governing Job Corps and DOL's own regulations concerning the program,' the complaint filed Tuesday reads. 'It is fundamentally irrational. Shuttering Job Corps will have disastrous, irreparable consequences, including displacing tens of thousands of vulnerable young people, destroying companies that have long operated Job Corps centers in reliance on the Government's support for the program, and forcing mass layoffs of workers who support the program,' the complaint reads. On Monday, dozens of participants of the Westover Job Corps rallied to save their program. Students told The Republican that the closing would interrupt their efforts to master new trades — and to significantly improve their chances of making a living wage as young adults. Justin Quiles of Pittsfield said he had expected to eventually earn $45 an hour as a bricklayer, once his training was complete and his career launched. But the shutdown, he said, would likely force him to take a job at Walmart for $16 an hour. 'Wow, it's getting taken away from us,' he said Monday afternoon of his intended career. 'I won't be able to complete my trade.' In interviews, several students said that finding a career path meant a great deal to them after early disappointments, family poverty and lack of opportunity. 'All I knew was taking care of kids,' said Brianna Sasnowitz, 19, of Monson, who came to the Chicopee program a year and a half ago and is now student body president studying welding. 'I thought I was going to be stuck with that.' As many as 80 of the program's 352 students were expected to have left by Tuesday, Baker said. The complaint notes that other federal courts have acted to halt similar moves to end programs mandated by Congress. 'Plaintiffs urge this Court to do the same.' Education & Training Resources, the company that runs the Westover Job Corps, was created in 1991, the complaint notes, and has operated Job Corps sites since 1997. Today, including the Chicopee program, it oversees 11 campuses with 3,325 students. In all, more than 25,000 students are participating in Job Corps programs. Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's Out-of-Control Debt Is Not a Bug. To the GOP, It's a Feature.
Republicans are so gravely concerned about the national debt, right? After all, they're the party of prudence and fiscal responsibility. They're the grown-ups in the room, the ones who tap the brakes while those crazy, irresponsible Democrats keep pumping the accelerator, spending like drunken sailors on shore leave in Macau. So, a question for you. Of all the non-wartime presidents going back to 1900, who are the top five in terms of adding to the national debt? First, I stipulate 'non-wartime presidents' because financing a war, by definition, means adding massively to the debt. During wartime, everybody understands this. In this sense Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt are the debt kings. They each increased the national debt by a staggering percentage—nearly 800 percent in both cases. But the former helped win World War I, aiding the cause of democracy and making the United States a global power for the first time, and the latter defeated fascism. Especially in the second case, it was worth every penny. After them, who's next, do you suppose? Maybe LBJ, with all that Great Society money sluicing through those shambolic, on-the-take community organizations? Jimmy Carter, the first modern president to leave us with what seemed at the time like a gaping deficit? The answer is: No and no. The top five modern presidents in terms of percentage added to the national debt are, in order: Ronald Reagan; George W. Bush; Barack Obama; George H.W. Bush; and Donald Trump, term one. That's right. Four of the top five were Republicans. And though I know some would not agree, I'd put an asterisk next to Obama's name. He took office during the heat of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, which happened under George W. Bush's watch, and with the private-sector economy in freefall and credit drying up, he had little choice at the time but to pump money into the economy. (And one of the biggest knocks on Barack is that he didn't go bigger. He took a lot of stick for the slowness of the recovery for the sake of not adding more to the debt.) But generally speaking, it's been Republican presidents who've piled up the debt. And it's not very close. Reagan's percentage was 160.8; Dubya's was 72.6. Obama's was 64.4, Bush Sr.'s 42.3 and Trump's 39.2 (those last two, remember, in just four years, not eight). So, golly—how can it be that the party of fiscal prudence is the party that runs up the debt? It's not a coincidence, folks. The debt is the amount of money the government has to borrow to cover its expenses. Said expenses are incurred, of course, when the government spends more than it takes in. Conservatives like to blame excessive spending, and it does no one a disservice to say that at times, they're onto something. But here's an interesting point for us to chew on. In the 34 years after 1946 (that is, after World War II), the national debt went from 106 percent of GDP to just 25 percent. The government was spending like crazy in those years: constructing a vast national security state, building Interstate highways, creating Medicare and Medicaid, expanding the welfare state in myriad other ways. And yet, the debt remained under control. What changed after 1980? Massive tax cutting is what changed. In the 1970s, the right cooked up the lie that cutting taxes would actually increase revenues. Since this is what rich people in the donor class were aching to hear, it was really, really popular. But guess what? It didn't pan out that way. The 1981 tax cuts cost the treasury $445 billion over the next four years (see this 2006 study; go down to page 16, line nine, and add up the first four numbers). The tax cuts blew a huge hole in the deficit, and that's when the government started borrowing to beat the band. The same thing happened under Dubya. And now here we sit, a generation later, with the GOP House having passed their big, beautiful bill that will add a whopping $3.8 trillion to the current national debt of $36 trillion. Astonishingly, House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed on Meet the Press Sunday that the bill is 'not going to add to the debt.' This is an unusual lie even by his standards. The number is real, and $3.8 trillion is the low estimate. How can the party of fiscal responsibility do such a thing, you may ask? We answer this question by asking another one. What are the potential impacts of excessive debt? Here's a list from the fiscally hawkish Peterson Institute of Top 10 reasons why the national debt matters. Some are more persuasive than others, but for our purposes, reasons three and six in particular caught my eye: 'Higher interest costs could crowd out important public investments that can fuel economic growth — priority areas such as education, research & development, and infrastructure.' 'The unsustainable fiscal path threatens the safety net and the most vulnerable in American society. If the government does not have sufficient resources, essential programs like Medicaid and Social Security could be put in jeopardy.' You following me? Republicans want these crises. Crowd out public investments? Put essential safety net programs at risk? You and I might call these potential calamities. Republicans call them an essential part of the platform. So a large debt, and big yearly budget deficits, are for Republicans a feature, not a bug. They're the best arguments Republicans have for attacking Democrats over excessive spending. Which, by the way, is kind of funny in and of itself, because far and away the biggest spender on non-defense discretionary items of the last 20 years? Donald Trump (see Figure 4). That was pandemic-related, so it was understandable. But the point remains that for the better part now of 50 years, Republicans talk one game and play another. Democrats are not of course blameless here. First of all, too many of them, in the 1980s and the early 2000s (though not in 2017), went along with these huge tax cuts. Second, one lesson they need to ponder from the Biden years is where to draw the line on spending. The Biden spending bills didn't cause inflation, but they did contribute to it. As Democrats draw up their plans to reconnect with working-class voters, they need to keep in mind that sometimes, there are other ways to respond to social ills than by creating a big new government program. But at least they're trying to address social ills—all while being the more fiscally responsible party, and the party that, as I've written several times, has been far better for the economy in recent history. Republicans want social ills—they keep people angry at government. And once the nation is reeling, Republicans are less interested in solving them than using them as a political bludgeon against Democrats. Because who cares? Like Joni Ernst says, we're all gonna die anyway.
Fast Company
29-05-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Today's housing crisis could learn from this 1960s anti-poverty program
In cities across the U.S., the housing crisis has reached a breaking point. Rents are skyrocketing, homelessness is rising and working-class neighborhoods are threatened by displacement. These challenges might feel unprecedented. But they echo a moment more than half a century ago. In the 1950s and 1960s, housing and urban inequality were at the center of national politics. American cities were grappling with rapid urban decline, segregated and substandard housing, and the fallout of highway construction and urban renewal projects that displaced hundreds of thousands of disproportionately low-income and Black residents. The federal government decided to try to do something about it. the Model Cities Program. As a scholar of housing justice and urban planning, I've studied how this short-lived initiative aimed to move beyond patchwork fixes to poverty and instead tackle its structural causes by empowering communities to shape their own futures. Building a great society The Model Cities Program emerged in 1966 as part of Johnson's Great Society agenda, a sweeping effort to eliminate poverty, reduce racial injustice and expand social welfare programs in the United States. Earlier urban renewal programs had been roundly criticized for displacing communities of color. Much of this displacement occurred through federally funded highway and slum clearance projects that demolished entire neighborhoods and often left residents without decent options for new housing. So the Johnson administration sought a more holistic approach. The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act established a federal framework for cities to coordinate housing, education, employment, health care and social services at the neighborhood level. To qualify for the program, cities had to apply for planning grants by submitting a detailed proposal that included an analysis of neighborhood conditions, long-term goals and strategies for addressing problems. Federal funds went directly to city governments, which then distributed them to local agencies and community organizations through contracts. These funds were relatively flexible but had to be tied to locally tailored plans. For example, Kansas City, Missouri, used Model Cities funding to support a loan program that expanded access to capital for local small businesses, helping them secure financing that might otherwise have been out of reach. Unlike previous programs, Model Cities emphasized what Johnson described as 'comprehensive' and 'concentrated' efforts. It wasn't just about rebuilding streets or erecting public housing. It was about creating new ways for government to work in partnership with the people most affected by poverty and racism. A revolutionary approach to poverty What made Model Cities unique wasn't just its scale but its philosophy. At the heart of the program was an insistence on ' widespread citizen participation,' which required cities that received funding to include residents in the planning and oversight of local programs. The program also drew inspiration from civil rights leaders. One of its early architects, Whitney M. Young Jr., had called for a ' Domestic Marshall Plan ' – a reference to the federal government's efforts to rebuild Europe after World War II – to redress centuries of racial inequality. Young's vision helped shape the Model Cities framework, which proposed targeted systemic investments in housing, health, education, employment and civic leadership in minority communities. In Atlanta, for example, the Model Cities Program helped fund neighborhood health clinics and job training programs. But the program also funded leadership councils that for the first time gave local low-income residents a direct voice in how city funds were spent. In other words, neighborhood residents weren't just beneficiaries. They were planners, advisers and, in some cases, staffers. This commitment to community participation gave rise to a new kind of public servant – what sociologists Martin and Carolyn Needleman famously called ' guerrillas in the bureaucracy.' These were radical planners—often young, idealistic and deeply embedded in the neighborhoods they served. Many were recruited and hired through new Model Cities funding that allowed local governments to expand their staff with community workers aligned with the program's goals. Working from within city agencies, these new planners used their positions to challenge top-down decision-making and push for community-driven planning. Their work was revolutionary not because they dismantled institutions but because they reimagined how institutions could function, prioritizing the voices of residents long excluded from power. Strengthening community ties In cities across the country, planners fought to redirect public resources toward locally defined priorities. In some cities, such as Tucson, the program funded education initiatives such as bilingual cultural programming and college scholarships for local students. In Baltimore, it funded mobile health services and youth sports programs. In New York City, the program supported new kinds of housing projects called vest-pocket developments, which got their name from their smaller scale: midsize buildings or complexes built on vacant lots or underutilized land. New housing such as the Betances Houses in the South Bronx were designed to add density without major redevelopment taking place—a direct response to midcentury urban renewal projects, which had destroyed and displaced entire neighborhoods populated by the city's poorest residents. Meanwhile, cities such as Seattle used the funds to renovate older apartment buildings instead of tearing them down, which helped preserve the character of local neighborhoods. The goal was to create affordable housing while keeping communities intact. What went wrong? Despite its ambitious vision, Model Cities faced resistance almost from the start. The program was underfunded and politically fragile. While some officials had hoped for US$2 billion in annual funding, the actual allocation was closer to $500 million to $600 million, spread across more than 60 cities. Then the political winds shifted. Though designed during the optimism of the mid-1960s, the program started being implemented under President Richard Nixon in 1969. His administration pivoted away from 'people programs' and toward capital investment and physical development. Requirements for resident participation were weakened, and local officials often maintained control over the process, effectively marginalizing the everyday citizens the program was meant to empower. In cities such as San Francisco and Chicago, residents clashed with bureaucrats over control, transparency and decision-making. In some places, participation was reduced to token advisory roles. In others, internal conflict and political pressure made sustained community governance nearly impossible. Critics, including Black community workers and civil rights activists, warned that the program risked becoming a new form of ' neocolonialism,' one that used the language of empowerment while concentrating control in the hands of white elected officials and federal administrators. A legacy worth revisiting Although the program was phased out by 1974, its legacy lived on. In cities across the country, Model Cities trained a generation of Black and brown civic leaders in what community development leaders and policy advocates John A. Sasso and Priscilla Foley called ' a little noticed revolution.' In their book of the same name, they describe how those involved in the program went on to serve in local government, start nonprofits and advocate for community development. It also left an imprint on later policies. Efforts such as participatory budgeting, community land trusts and neighborhood planning initiatives owe a debt to Model Cities' insistence that residents should help shape the future of their communities. And even as some criticized the program for failing to meet its lofty goals, others saw its value in creating space for democratic experimentation.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Could a bold anti-poverty experiment from the 1960s inspire a new era in housing justice?
In cities across the U.S., the housing crisis has reached a breaking point. Rents are skyrocketing, homelessness is rising and working-class neighborhoods are threatened by displacement. These challenges might feel unprecedented. But they echo a moment more than half a century ago. In the 1950s and 1960s, housing and urban inequality were at the center of national politics. American cities were grappling with rapid urban decline, segregated and substandard housing, and the fallout of highway construction and urban renewal projects that displaced hundreds of thousands of disproportionately low-income and Black residents. The federal government decided to try to do something about it. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched one of the most ambitious experiments in urban policy: the Model Cities Program. As a scholar of housing justice and urban planning, I've studied how this short-lived initiative aimed to move beyond patchwork fixes to poverty and instead tackle its structural causes by empowering communities to shape their own futures. The Model Cities Program emerged in 1966 as part of Johnson's Great Society agenda, a sweeping effort to eliminate poverty, reduce racial injustice and expand social welfare programs in the United States. Earlier urban renewal programs had been roundly criticized for displacing communities of color. Much of this displacement occurred through federally funded highway and slum clearance projects that demolished entire neighborhoods and often left residents without decent options for new housing. So the Johnson administration sought a more holistic approach. The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act established a federal framework for cities to coordinate housing, education, employment, health care and social services at the neighborhood level. To qualify for the program, cities had to apply for planning grants by submitting a detailed proposal that included an analysis of neighborhood conditions, long-term goals and strategies for addressing problems. Federal funds went directly to city governments, which then distributed them to local agencies and community organizations through contracts. These funds were relatively flexible but had to be tied to locally tailored plans. For example, Kansas City, Missouri, used Model Cities funding to support a loan program that expanded access to capital for local small businesses, helping them secure financing that might otherwise have been out of reach. Unlike previous programs, Model Cities emphasized what Johnson described as 'comprehensive' and 'concentrated' efforts. It wasn't just about rebuilding streets or erecting public housing. It was about creating new ways for government to work in partnership with the people most affected by poverty and racism. What made Model Cities unique wasn't just its scale but its philosophy. At the heart of the program was an insistence on 'widespread citizen participation,' which required cities that received funding to include residents in the planning and oversight of local programs. The program also drew inspiration from civil rights leaders. One of its early architects, Whitney M. Young Jr., had called for a 'Domestic Marshall Plan' – a reference to the federal government's efforts to rebuild Europe after World War II – to redress centuries of racial inequality. Young's vision helped shape the Model Cities framework, which proposed targeted systemic investments in housing, health, education, employment and civic leadership in minority communities. In Atlanta, for example, the Model Cities Program helped fund neighborhood health clinics and job training programs. But the program also funded leadership councils that for the first time gave local low-income residents a direct voice in how city funds were spent. In other words, neighborhood residents weren't just beneficiaries. They were planners, advisers and, in some cases, staffers. This commitment to community participation gave rise to a new kind of public servant – what sociologists Martin and Carolyn Needleman famously called 'guerrillas in the bureaucracy.' These were radical planners – often young, idealistic and deeply embedded in the neighborhoods they served. Many were recruited and hired through new Model Cities funding that allowed local governments to expand their staff with community workers aligned with the program's goals. Working from within city agencies, these new planners used their positions to challenge top-down decision-making and push for community-driven planning. Their work was revolutionary not because they dismantled institutions but because they reimagined how institutions could function, prioritizing the voices of residents long excluded from power. In cities across the country, planners fought to redirect public resources toward locally defined priorities. In some cities, such as Tucson, the program funded education initiatives such as bilingual cultural programming and college scholarships for local students. In Baltimore, it funded mobile health services and youth sports programs. In New York City, the program supported new kinds of housing projects called vest-pocket developments, which got their name from their smaller scale: midsize buildings or complexes built on vacant lots or underutilized land. New housing such as the Betances Houses in the South Bronx were designed to add density without major redevelopment taking place – a direct response to midcentury urban renewal projects, which had destroyed and displaced entire neighborhoods populated by the city's poorest residents. Meanwhile, cities such as Seattle used the funds to renovate older apartment buildings instead of tearing them down, which helped preserve the character of local neighborhoods. The goal was to create affordable housing while keeping communities intact. Despite its ambitious vision, Model Cities faced resistance almost from the start. The program was underfunded and politically fragile. While some officials had hoped for US$2 billion in annual funding, the actual allocation was closer to $500 million to $600 million, spread across more than 60 cities. Then the political winds shifted. Though designed during the optimism of the mid-1960s, the program started being implemented under President Richard Nixon in 1969. His administration pivoted away from 'people programs' and toward capital investment and physical development. Requirements for resident participation were weakened, and local officials often maintained control over the process, effectively marginalizing the everyday citizens the program was meant to empower. In cities such as San Francisco and Chicago, residents clashed with bureaucrats over control, transparency and decision-making. In some places, participation was reduced to token advisory roles. In others, internal conflict and political pressure made sustained community governance nearly impossible. Critics, including Black community workers and civil rights activists, warned that the program risked becoming a new form of 'neocolonialism,' one that used the language of empowerment while concentrating control in the hands of white elected officials and federal administrators. Although the program was phased out by 1974, its legacy lived on. In cities across the country, Model Cities trained a generation of Black and brown civic leaders in what community development leaders and policy advocates John A. Sasso and Priscilla Foley called 'a little noticed revolution.' In their book of the same name, they describe how those involved in the program went on to serve in local government, start nonprofits and advocate for community development. It also left an imprint on later policies. Efforts such as participatory budgeting, community land trusts and neighborhood planning initiatives owe a debt to Model Cities' insistence that residents should help shape the future of their communities. And even as some criticized the program for failing to meet its lofty goals, others saw its value in creating space for democratic experimentation. Today's housing crisis demands structural solutions to structural problems. The affordable housing crisis is deeply connected to other intersecting crises, such as climate change, environmental injustice and health disparities, creating compounding risks for the most vulnerable communities. Addressing these issues through a fragmented social safety net – whether through housing vouchers or narrowly targeted benefit programs – has proven ineffective. Today, as policymakers once again debate how to respond to deepening inequality and a lack of affordable housing, the lost promise of Model Cities offers vital lessons. Model Cities was far from perfect. But it offered a vision of how democratic, local planning could promote health, security and community. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Deyanira Nevárez Martínez, Michigan State University Read more: Detroit's next mayor can do these 3 things to support neighborhoods beyond downtown How building more backyard homes, granny flats and in-law suites can help alleviate the housing crisis Should architecturally significant low-income housing be preserved? Deyanira Nevárez Martínez is a trustee of the Lansing School District Board of Education and is currently a candidate for the Lansing City Council Ward 2.
Epoch Times
26-05-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
It's Time to Have a Guns Versus Butter Debate
Commentary As Congress debates President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' the members of both the House of Representative and the Senate should also have a long overdue 'guns versus butter' debate. At a time when the United States spends 80 percent of federal revenue ($4 trillion) on entitlement programs and the other 20 ($880 billion) percent on debt repayment, all while borrowing $2 trillion (30 percent of federal spending) to pay for defense and other government operations, it is time to have the conversation everyone is avoiding. With China, North Korea, and Russia attempting to topple the international order built by the United States, members of Congress must finally come clean on their profligate spending and its implications for the future security of this country. When President Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20, 2025, he did so promising Americans he would President Trump is In 2010, then–Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen In short, Related Stories 5/19/2025 5/17/2025 There is a State and local governments spend an estimated 50 percent of their budgets on entitlement programs, which adds another $2 trillion to the entitlement behemoth that exists in this country. Many Americans may not know that the United States actually Some may argue that increasing taxes, particularly those on high income earners, is the solution to addressing annual deficits and the need to increase defense spending. Again, the consensus in the academic literature suggests that increasing income taxes, particularly on high income earners, With the top one percent of income earners already With the Welfare and entitlement spending are In the first fifty years of the Great Society, which created the modern welfare state, American taxpayers Some readers may have a negative reaction to an article that challenges the welfare state, but there is a simple truth that is inescapable, the United States cannot effectively counter China, North Korea, and Russia while entitlement spending is crowding out defense spending. This is a simple reality that the national security community does not seem to want to talk about. Instead, national security insiders advocate for the programs they value, all while knowing that the piggy bank is empty. This is largely the result of a desire to avoid having this very discussion. Now, however, as the United States faces its greatest threat since 1941 as three nuclear armed adversaries seek to topple the international system built by the United States. There is a reluctance to turn off the seemingly endless supply of free money that is so useful to members of Congress in buying votes. Even conservative stalwarts like Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), when discussing potential cuts to the single largest welfare program in the federal budget, Medicaid, Entitlement programs That would require the defense budget increase from $847 billion to about $1.5 trillion just to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense. Absent dramatic cuts to entitlement programs and a balancing of the budget, the United States will not field conventional and nuclear forces of sufficient size and capability to effectively deter or defeat Chinese, North Korean, and/or Russian aggression. Welfare and entitlement spending buys votes, but no nation ever grew its economy or increased its military strength because politicians redistributed the paychecks of workers. It is time for a guns versus butter debate. Without one, the United States may fade into the middling power China so desperately wants. Americans should never allow that to happen. From Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
