ThinkProgress Logo

Health

How Sequester Cuts Are Undermining Tribal Health Care

Indian Health Service Director Yvette Roubideaux

The New York Times editorial board published a column Thursday slamming Congress for the disproportionate impact that sequestration will have on native tribes’ access to health care services, asserting that the “federal government cannot use its budget nihilism to avoid its moral and legal obligations.” Considering the dismal health care demographics of American tribal populations and the Indian Health Service’s (IHS) already-paltry funding, their outrage may be justified.

The IHS was formed in 1955 and tasked with overseeing health care services for American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Unfortunately, a combination of factors including anemic funds and oversight failures has left IHS in perennial disarray, prompting a 2010 Senate panel to conclude that it suffered from “chronic mismanagement,” unfilled vacancies in top positions, and subpar medical facilities at risk of losing their accreditation.

According to Indian Country Today, things began looking up in 2008 when appropriations for benefits such as the Contract Health Service — which funds medical services outside of the regular tribal health network — and the Improving Patient Care program were increased substantially, opening up tribes’ access to preventative screenings and affordable primary care, as well as boosting patient satisfaction by nearly 20 points.

Unfortunately, that all came to a screeching halt with sequestration. The budget cuts were only supposed to affect discretionary spending, while entitlements for the needy, such as Medicaid and nutritional assistance, were meant to be spared from austerity. But IHS funding doesn’t fall under this protected category. Rather, IHS believed that its funds would be shielded by a 1980s law barring Congress from cutting its budget by more than 2 percent — as it turns out, IHS was dead wrong:

IHS Director Yvette Roubideaux and her staffers had said at various tribal meetings and in letters throughout 2011 and early 2012 that “the worst-case scenario would be a 2 percent decrease from current funding levels” for IHS, rather than the 9 percent that was forecasted for most federal agencies if the sequester went into effect.

But Indian country began to learn late last year that Roubideaux’ predictions were wrong. IHS would be cut on March 1 at the same rate as every other non-protected agency. And since IHS was late to the game in planning for the larger cut, it didn’t work as aggressively at saving and protecting its resources as it could have. Also—and perhaps most egregiously—it fed tribes misinformation that cost them months of planning and advocacy time. “It’s unfortunate that we all relied on [IHS’s] earlier interpretation, because we could have addressed this earlier with the administration—especially the OMB—and the Congress,” said Jim Roberts, a policy analyst with the Northwest Portland Indian Health Board.

“Had IHS communicated the correct information in the previous fiscal year, tribal care providers that receive IHS funding would have been able to modify their budgets so they would have had more resources for this year—and thus the cuts to tribal citizens wouldn’t be as steep,” added Lloyd Miller, an Indian affairs lawyer with Sonosky Chambers who has worked on many lawsuits involving the agency. “The earlier tribal providers could have been planning for disaster, the better. In this case, tribes lost a whole year.”

Public health issues already disproportionately impact Native tribes in America. Over one third of all Native Americans lack health insurance coverage; tribes have higher rates of smoking and alcoholism than other populations; and over 13 percent of Natives self-report being in “fair” or “poor” health — a much higher figure than most other racial groups. Unfortunately, congressional dysfunction may end up adding more problems to the list.

LGBT

Ohio Governor Flip Flops On Civil Unions Support In 10 Hours

Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) briefly wavered on his staunch opposition to all forms of same-sex unions in an interview on Thursday morning. When pressed about fellow Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman’s recent embrace of gay marriage, Kasich claimed he supported civil unions but not marriage for gay couples:

Kasich was asked if he could imagine a situation that might cause him to change his position.
“I really can’t see one, I mean, I talked to Rob and encouraged him,” Kasich said. “If people want to have civil unions and have some way to transfer their resources, I’m for that. I don’t support gay marriage.”
“I’ve got friends that are gay and I’ve told them ‘Look, (same sex marriage) is just not something I agree with’ and I’m not doing it out of a sense of anger or judgment, it’s just my opinion on this issue.”
“I just think marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you want to have a civil union that’s fine with me,” Kasich said.

Despite this fairly strong endorsement for civil unions, his office quickly walked back the governor’s statement, stressing that Kasich maintains his opposition to all forms of same-sex unions. Spokesperson Rob Nichols told Buzzfeed, “He’s opposed to discrimination against any Ohioan and, while he may have used the term ‘civil union’ loosely in this instance, he recognizes the existing rights of Ohioans to enter into private contracts to manage their personal property and health care issues.”

Kasich holds a long anti-gay record, beginning into his time in Congress, where he voted to ban adoptions by gay parents, as well as for the Defense of Marriage Act and the military’s defunct “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. As governor, Kasich broke his pledge to extend anti-discrimination protections for LGBT individuals, allowing state and contracted employers to fire anyone based on sexual orientation.

Kasich may have felt pressure on the spot to be flexible in his views, as his hardline stance on gay marriage and civil unions is now far outside the norm. Support for gay marriage is at an all-time high. Civil unions are currently banned in Ohio, but a ballot initiative this fall could change that.

Justice

Leaked Video Of Captain Pepper-Spraying Restrained Inmate Riles Maine Officials

Over the weekend the Portland Press Herald reported on and released a video of Capt. Shawn Welch at the Maine Correction Center pepper-spraying a restrained inmate in the face and leaving him in distress for more than twenty minutes while he repeatedly pleaded that he could not breath. The inmate was reportedly recovering from a self-inflicted wound and on several medications for bipolar disorder and depression at the time when officers in protective gear placed him in a restraining chair for medical personnel to examine his wounds.

After he was physically restrained in the chair, he struggled as guards pinned his head under an arm, at which point Welch used a pepper spray canister intended for multiple subjects at a 18 to 20 feet range to spray the inmate in the face at close range. Welch was initially fired by the institution’s supervisor, but reinstated with a 30-day suspension by Maine Corrections Commissioner Joseph Ponte.

Spurred by the leaked video, the Chairman of the Maine Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee is now seeking a review of the incident in the context of use of force by the Maine Department of Corrections  – but the Maine Department of Corrections appears more concerned about finding the source of the leak. Citing the privacy of the inmate, they launched an investigation to find out who released the video to reporters, with Associate Commissioner Jody Breton saying the facility “certainly will be tightening up security — where (information) is stored, who has access.”

Judy Garvey of the Maine Prisoner Advocacy Coalition told the Portland Press Herald she believes the department has their priorities wrong:

“The use of the department’s resources should be going into training of their staff and officers and management so this kind of incident doesn’t happen again[...] Trying to find out how the information got into the hands of a reporter shows a reluctance to have transparency. It reeks of government heavy-handedness in oversight.

Certainly, the inmate’s right to privacy should be respected. There’s always a fine line between (that and) what the public needs to know to keep abuse and tragedy from happening [...] We feel the department itself is probably not the best arbiter of that kind of decision.”

This disturbing incident serves to highlight both the issue of prisoner abuse in U.S. correctional facilities as well as the failure of our prison system and our society to provide adequate care and support for the mentally ill: The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated there were 705,600 mentally ill adults incarcerated in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons and 479,900 in local jails in 2006, with the number swelling after the closure of many state run mental hospitals in 1980s left many mentally ill people with no other place to go.

Video of some of the most disturbing parts of the incident has been posted here, but be forewarned that the video is graphic.

Economy

The Myth Of ‘Dependency’: Almost All Households On Food Stamps Will Be Employed Within A Year

One of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) favorite ways of defending the House Republicans’ budget is to claim the social safety net represents a moral threat to Americans’ character, as well as a fiscal threat to their country’s budget. He’s incessantly warned of luring “able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency” and depriving them “of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.” In his latest budget, he introduced his cuts to Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and other support programs for low-income Americans with a warning that the safety net “can create a powerful disincentive to get ahead.”

Included in those cuts is a massive reduction in spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). But the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities took a look at the employment situation of Americans who rely on the program, and the reality belies Ryan’s rhetoric:

Among households with children that include an adult who isn’t elderly or disabled, 87 percent of the households receiving SNAP in a given month include an individual who worked in the prior year or will work in the following year.

Ryan actually has an ongoing problem when it comes to honestly representing the SNAP program. Last year, he claimed it was “growing at unsustainable rates” — a notion that fails to account for the effects of the recession, that fails to differentiate spending in raw dollars from spending as a share of the economy, and which utterly ignores the program’s projected path over the next decade.

Ryan’s budget would cut SNAP spending by $135 billion between now and 2023 — requiring either 12 to 13 million of the 44.7 million people currently on the program to be kicked off, or a reduction in benefits of $190 a month for the poorest of American families by 2019. Nor did the 1996 welfare reform law — on which Ryan models his current budget proposals — turn out to be the success he presents it as. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, welfare’s case load grew only 16 percent, even as the numbers of the unemployed increased by 88 percent; an utter failure to keep up with the needs of impoverished Americans.

As for the safety net as a whole, CBPP cites research from the National Bureau of Economic Research that one of every seven Americans would be poor without the safety net, but are above the poverty line because of it — a total of over 40 million people.

Climate Progress

Theda Skocpol Doubles Down With Self-Contradictory, Blame-The-Victim Misanalysis Of Cap-And-Trade Failure

Theda Skocpol is a leading sociologist and political scientist at Harvard University who has entered the fray of the climate bill debate.

Because Skocpol’s academic credentials are in areas largely unrelated to climate and energy politics/policy, her views on those subjects must stand or fall on their own. As one leading scholar wrote me after my previous post disputing key Skocpol assertions:

I thought your analysis was dead on — I really appreciated that you pointed out that no single person’s opinion (especially without facts) should carry any more weight than another person’s opinion.

In particular, Skocpol has been widely criticized for holding President Obama blameless while spending so much time criticizing the environmental community. As readers know, I have been as critical of the environmental community as anyone, but they were the ones who put this issue on the table — and kept it there. So even though their strategy and tactics were not optimal, it’s hard to see how they deserve a significant portion of the blame for the failure of the climate bill, in my opinion.

Skocpol has written a new, self-contradictory analysis at Grist, “Learning from the cap-and-trade debate.” I don’t generally think we need even more Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday-morning quarterbacking at this point, but I do think it is important not to learn the wrong lessons from the climate bill’s failure.

Probably Skocpol’s most revealing paragraph, offered with no justification whatsoever, is:

Now that President Obama has been reelected and some new supporters made it into the Senate, established environmental organizations are happily reveling in the president’s new willingness to give speeches about global warming and signal that he will support regulatory steps through the Environmental Protection Agency and other executive bodies. One can almost hear the sigh of relief that, now, most professionally run organizations can go back to doing what they do best: writing reports and recommending regulatory actions. That has been the well-worn groove of action since the 1970s. Throw in occasional chain-yourself-to-fences demonstrations and short visits to jail, and we’ll be on a roll, global-warming reformers think.

Ouch! Or it would be “ouch” if there were any truth to this harsh caricature.

It is beyond insulting to suggest that the major environmental organizations would “sigh with relief” as the chances for a serious climate bill collapse. Anyone who thinks those groups prefer “writing reports” (or even half-measures by the EPA) to federal legislation doesn’t know the first thing about them — doesn’t know how deeply they care about averting catastrophic climate change and how tirelessly many of them worked to keep this issue on the table when it seemed utterly hopeless for years (i.e. during the Cheney/Bush Administration).

Not one single person I know in any established environmental NGO is “happily reveling” in the grim situation we are now in. Quite the reverse, they are all despairing of it and trying to figure out a new strategy.

And I know some of you thought that Skocpol’s critique of the established environmental groups meant she endorsed the growing grassroots actions of groups like 350.org and the anti-Keystone campaign led by Bill McKibben — certainly McKibben himself thought that. But no, Skocpol holds them in the same contempt, as her mocking final line above makes clear.

So why does Skocpol have such disdain for the environmental community? Why does she write things like, “Global-warming reformers must stop being blind and tone-deaf to the real-life circumstances of typical American families in an era of astonishing socioeconomic inequality”? The answer is clear:

Because like it or not, environmentalism has long been primarily a cause of the educated upper-middle class in the United States, and it remains largely populated by experts and activists from that relatively privileged, non-majority class background (including university students headed for that stratum).

Let’s set aside the fact that this applies to her Harvard University far more than it does modern environmentalism.

While her criticism was true decades ago, the environmental community in general and the global warming community in particular have made great strides in expanding to the “majority.” Indeed, the climate bill coalition in particular had

Skocpol seems entirely unaware of this effort, which was certainly the biggest and most coordinated inter-organizational alliance effort ever put together by the environmental community. Obviously it wasn’t enough, but the climate bill push simply wasn’t the elitist effort Skocpol describes.

Here is where Skocpol’s critique becomes absurdly self-contradictory. She spends her entire blog post explaining why environmental groups are privileged non-majority elitists, poor at lobbying, “blind and tone-deaf” to the realities of average Americans, and generally disorganized — but her report paints them as all powerful:

To hold a “failure of leadership” by Obama responsible for the ultimate shortfall for cap and trade, we would have to imagine that, in the spring of 2010, the President could have done something better or different than the USCAP leaders or Senate bargainers to satisfy Rahm Emmanuel’s realistic demand to “get me some Republicans.” We have to picture Barack Obama being more persuasive with leading Republicans than, say, Environmental Defense Fund honcho Fred Krupp, who had successfully cajoled votes out of GOP Senators in the past. I do not find that plausible. Presidential arm-twisting and sweet-talking were not the issue. Developments in the two parties, especially among Republicans, were pivotal.

No, seriously, it’s right there on page 20 of her report.

So what is it, Prof. Skocpol? Are the environmental groups incompetent, disorganized elitists who don’t represent average Americans and who would rather write reports than do the hard work needed to pass a climate bill — or are they so friggin’ powerful that the head of just one group is more persuasive than the president of the United States, the single most powerful person on the planet?

[For the record, the answer is "neither."]

As you can see, there is no coherent substance to her critique — nor to her “solution”:

Read more

Health

Why Montana’s Proposal To Legalize Eating Roadkill May Not Be As Crazy As You Think

On Wednesday, Montana’s state Senate advanced legislation that “would allow people to salvage roadkill for food,” arguing that preventing the practice would mean throwing away a perfectly acceptable nutritional source. As bill supporter Sen. Larry Jent (D) put it, “It really is a sin to waste good meat.” But setting aside the inevitable jokes over the proposed “finders, eaters” law, the debate surrounding the measure’s public health implications provides a lens into America’s food safety regulatory scheme — and it’s more complicated than you might think.

Montana is hardly the first state to propose something like this. In fact, there are already roadkill-salvaging laws on the books in at least seven states — including Alaska, Illinois, Georgia, Kentucky, and West Virginia — with varying degrees of regulatory requirements. Most of these laws either require the would-be roadkill consumer to carry a permit that allows them to salvage the kill, or report the salvaging to law enforcement and state wildlife departments. While there are guidelines for how to safely consume the “smooshed meat” — for instance, almost all such laws are limited to run-over game such as elk and deer, which should be “bled, gutted, and quartered” as quickly as possible to cool off the carcass and prevent infections — there isn’t really an enforcement mechanism for them, so the consumer takes on some individual risk.

However, whether or not that risk is greater than the risk of eating mass-produced meats is an open question. Animal protection groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have actually advocated for loosening roadkill standards, claiming that “[e]ating roadkill is healthier for the consumer than meat laden with antibiotics, hormones, and growth stimulants, as most meat is today.” The historical data — and recent events — shows that there is something to that argument. American-produced meat tends to exceed acceptable levels of contamination by most countries’ standards, and the consolidation of meat resources by mammoth corporate distributors like Cargill Beef makes it so that just one contaminated batch necessitates nationwide recalls of tens of thousands of pounds of product. Many public health advocates also argue that food regulators are woefully impotent to hold the meat industry accountable for its shortcomings in the face of lax regulatory enforcement and “ag gag laws” that silence whistleblowers who expose facilities violating food safety standards.

And the argument that roadkill-salvaging laws help prevent the waste of good meat actually could be an important point for low-income communities. Some of this type of legislation is intended to address food insecurity in secluded communities. For instance, Alaska’s caribou- and bear-salvaging provisions are meant to help churches and soup kitchens distribute food to the homeless and the poor in a state where access to roads and super markets isn’t always easy to come by. Montana’s proposed law has similar intentions.

Some Montana legislators have raised concerns over law enforcement’s capacity to evaluate whether or not roadkill is safe for consumption, and the ambiguous liability laws governing shelters and food banks that might distribute such meats. “Despite its good intention, it doesn’t pass the smell test for me,” said state Sen. Kendall Van Dyk (D). But considering America’s lackluster record on meat safety and the widespread — and relatively safe — U.S. culture of hunting big game for personal consumption, those concerns might very well be overstated.

LGBT

New Mexico Same-Sex Couples Sue For Right To Marry

Kim Kiel, Rose Griego, Miriam Rand, and Ona Lara Porter

Two same-sex couples have filed suit in New Mexico state court demanding that the Albuquerque county clerk issue them marriage licenses. As some Santa Fe lawmakers pointed out earlier this week, nothing in New Mexico law prohibits same-sex marriage.

Both couple have compelling stories about combining their families, including children from past relationships, as well as taking care of each other in times of need. From the complaint, here is some background about Kim Kiel and Rose Griego:

Before they spent the thousands of dollars necessary to duplicate only some of the rights married couples automatically enjoy, Rose was hospitalized. Even though Kim had taken her to the emergency room, the hospital refused to provide Kim with any information about Rose’s condition or treatment. It was only after Rose’s family arrived that Kim was able to learn Rose’s prognosis.

Kim has two children from a previous relationship, who are now in college. Her children refer to Rose as their step-mother. Her children recognize the couple’s love for and commitment to one another, but Kim and Rose want everyone else to recognize the same. Kim and Rose want to get married, but are unable to do so in New Mexico.

And here is some background about Miriam Rand and Ona Lara Porter:

When they first started dating, Miriam had one daughter from a previous relationship and Ona had two, all of whom are now adults. From the time they combined households, Miriam and Ona loved each other’s children as if they were their own. Their youngest daughter who was just three when they combined families went so far as to go to court to change her surname to Porter-Rand in order to reflect the importance of both of the mothers in her life.

Miriam and Ona’s middle daughter, Cherif, who is now 41, is debilitated by multiple sclerosis. Miriam and Ona are caring for Cherif, and Ona has adopted Cherif’s fourteen-year-old daughter, who herself has cerebral palsy, because Cherif is no longer able to care for her daughter as a result of her disability. Miriam plans to initiate a second parent adoption to ensure that if something were to happen to Ona, their granddaughter would be protected. Although Miriam, Ona, and their granddaughter are a family to all that know them, as individuals, Miriam and Ona do not have automatic legal authority to make important decisions for one another or their child, and they have had to pay significant legal bills to protect their relationship and prove it to others, unlike different-sex couples who can simply marry.

The suit is not the only effort to figure out if same-sex couples can marry. At the request of Doña Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins, state Rep. Bill McCamley (D) is formally requesting that Attorney General Gary King (D) provide guidance about whether clerks can proceed with offering marriage licenses. Ellins said that “Doña Ana County stands ready to stand on the right side of history, given a green light by the Office of the Attorney General.” For now, the question remains unresolved.

Justice

Faced With Overcrowded Prisons, Chicago Considers Ending Felony Arrests For Prostitution

Elected officials in Chicago are calling for a moratorium on felony charges for prostitution to reduce overcrowding at Cook County jail. The jail now houses 10,008 detainees and is likely to exceed the maximum capacity of 10,150 soon. In a news conference Wednesday, several county commissioners pointed to the law’s disproportionate focus on non-violent felonies like prostitution:

With the Cook County jail nearing capacity, Cook County Commissioner Bridget Gainer, backed by Board President Toni Preckwinkle and several other commissioners, is asking State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez to place a moratorium on charging suspected prostitutes with a felony. . . .

“Cook County puts too much focus on non-violent felonies,” Preckwinkle said at a news conference Wednesday. “We’re holding people in detention who ultimately will be sentenced to probation and released or have their charges against them dropped.”

“Cook County jail far exceeds the national percentage for people held pre-trial,” she said, citing U.S. Department of Justice statistic showing 48 percent of suspects remain behind bars as their cases wind their way through court.

According to Illinois Department of Corrections records, there were 127 prostitution admissions in 2012, costing $2 million. End Demand Illinois, an advocacy group against sex traffickers, estimates that holding an individual facing felony prostitution charges costs Cook County $5.3 to $9.5 million every year. Illinois has one of the harshest prostitution policies in the nation; only 7 other states still charge prostitution as a felony, and Illinois is the only state to allow felony prosecution after one offense.

At best, targeting sex workers is unproductive; at worst, it discourages these women — most of whom were recruited into the sex trade at age 16 or younger — from leaving or reporting their pimps. Moreover, the criminal justice system tends to dole out sentences with a racial bias. A recent study conducted in Cook County found that black defendants are at least 30 percent more likely to be sent to prison by a judge than white defendants for the same crime.

Cook County may be motivated to relax this draconian policy by budget troubles, if not by compassion. State prison spending has more than tripled over the last 3 decades, making it the second fastest-growing burden on state budgets. The problem has become so unsustainable that even conservative social scientists now recommend alternative sentencing programs that would reduce the prison population by at least one-third. While the moratorium on felony charges is a stopgap measure, the Illinois Senate is also considering a bill to do away with felony sentencing for prostitution entirely.

Economy

How Two Republican Senators Are Using A Bait-And-Switch To Scuttle Democrats’ Revenue Goals

Sens. Roy Blunt (center) and John Thune (left)

Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and John Thune (R-SD) this afternoon offered an amendment to the Senate Democratic budget that they claim will protect the charitable tax deduction from elimination or restriction under the tax reform sought by Democrats. In reality, though, the amendment is a simple bait-and-switch attempt to reduce the budget’s overall revenue levels and would have no bearing on the charitable deduction.

The Democratic budget, authored by Washington Sen. Patty Murray (D), includes $975 billion in new revenues over the next decade to be gained through the closure of tax loopholes and elimination of tax expenditures that benefit the wealthy and corporations. The charitable deduction is among the most popular expenditures on both sides of the partisan spectrum, making it the perfect candidate for Blunt and Thune’s ploy.

The purpose statement at the top of the amendment reads:

To protect charitable organizations from being used as a source of revenue to pay for more spending by protecting the deduction for charitable giving from being capped, limited, or eliminated to pay for new spending as part of any tax increase.

Aside from that totally meaningless sentence that has no legislative significance, the amendment does not mention the charitable deduction. Instead, it simply cuts revenue levels for each year between 2014 and 2023. In total, the amendment would cut the amount the revenue originally sought by the Democratic budget roughly in half. It would have no impact on the charitable deduction, one way or the other, and would not in any way protect the tax break for charitable giving. The amendment, despite what Thune and Blunt would have people believe, is nothing more than a massive reduction in the budget’s revenue goals masked as protection of a popular tax deduction.

Climate Progress

4th Grade Class Uses Kickstarter To Finanace A Solar Array Multiple Times Over

Aaron Sebens' 4th grade class. (Photo: Sebens.)

Here’s a small story to warm the heart, via Clean Technica: At the start of March, a group of fourth graders from Central Park School in Durham, North Carolina — along with their teacher, Aaron Sebens — set up a Kickstarter campaign to raise $800 to set up a solar array to power their classroom.

“We believe in the sun,” their Kickstarter page says. “And would like to fundraise to get enough money to buy solar panels for our classroom so we do not have to use any electricity from the power plant.”

Apparently, they reached the $800 mark within a single day. Not only that, but they’ve blown so far past their initial target that they’ve set up a list of further goals:

If we can raise $3000 we’ll be able to buy 2 more 145w panels (6 total) and make more than 1kw of clean energy for our classroom. We will be able to send whatever extra electricity we make back through the grid to other classes in the school!

If we can raise $3500 we will be able to buy enough materials for every student in the class to build their own wind turbine!

As of Thursday morning, the class had raised just over $5,800.

Adam James from the Center for American Progress recently argued that this form of online crowdfunding — through sites like AngelList and Gust as well as Kickstarter — could play a big role in clean tech financing, especially now that President Obama’s recent;y-passed JOBS Act has opened up this form of financing to smaller investors.

In fact, companies like Mosaic are already stepping in to provide solar array financing at unusually low interest rates by taking advantage of crowdfunding’s potential.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up