Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren released a new plan on Friday to “level the playing field for entrepreneurs of color” by providing business grants to minorities in order to close the startup capital gap — the difference in capital available to white entrepreneurs versus entrepreneurs of color.

Warren argues that “every American should have a fair shot at starting a small business” but says the playing field is currently drastically uneven, with entrepreneurs of color starting businesses with far less money than their white counterparts. She writes that disparity severely affects minority-owned businesses’ ability to attract investors and apply for credit, as well as their bottom lines.

“Disparity in startup capital is the single biggest reason that promising Black-owned businesses on average are less profitable and bring on fewer employees than white-owned businesses,” she said.

In order to level the playing field for entrepreneurs, Warren has a plan to distribute $7 billion to minority businesspeople.

How the plan will work

Warren proposes distributing $7 billion in grants through a new “Small Business Equity Fund.” She stresses that the money will be in the form of grants, “not loans or loan guarantees,” in order to ensure entrepreneurs can focus on growing their businesses rather than on repaying debt.

The fund would be managed by Warren’s comprehensive new Department of Economic Development, which Vox’s Matthew Yglesias explained in a piece on Warren’s “economic patriotism”:  

One specific bullet point on Warren’s policy agenda is to create a unified Department of Economic Development that would combine the functions of the Commerce Department with the Small Business Administration, the Patent and Trademark Office, various job training and R&D programs scattered around the bureaucracy, and the export and trade agencies including the Office of the US Trade Representative.

The bureaucratic reorganization, however, is basically just to set the stage for a mission statement: “the new Department will have a single goal: creating and defending good American jobs.”

Although the Small Business Equity Fund would be overseen at the federal level, Warren sees state and local stakeholders as being key to distributing funds; she says her program will be modeled on the State Small Business Credit Initiative, a federal program that gave states a great degree of say in how they chose to distribute $1.5 billion. This freedom was given as officials felt local leaders have a better grasp of the needs of entrepreneurs in their states than federal officials would. Under Warren’s plan, local governments would be required to work with minority investment managers to decide how the funds would be spent.

The federal government would also create guidelines for who would be eligible for the grants: They would be limited to entrepreneurs who are eligible for the Small Business Administration’s existing 8(a) program. To be eligible for that program, a business must be at least 51 percent owned and controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual who has less than $100,000 in household wealth. This figure encompasses a large percentage of minority families; according to the Federal Reserve, the median net worth of a black family is $17,600, while the median net worth of a Latinx family is $20,700.

Warren would also work at the federal level to increase the Minority Business Development Agency’s budget — she pledges to triple its funding in her presidential budget.

As with many of Warren’s other plans, the cost of this proposal would be entirely covered by her proposed wealth tax, a 2 percent tax on every dollar of wealth an American owns above $50 million, and a 3 percent tax on every dollar of wealth above $1 billion. According to the candidate, the $7 billion investment would help create 100,000 new minority-owned businesses and as a result provide 1.1 million jobs.

The startup capital gap, and why it matters 

Warren’s proposal states that the startup capital gap is the single biggest reason minority-owned businesses are less profitable on average than white-owned businesses. And that capital gap is vast.

The typical black entrepreneur, the candidate notes, starts a business with one-third the startup capital of the typical white entrepreneur. Part of this is due to difficulties receiving loans; another part of it is that minority families often have less wealth to invest in a family member’s startup than white families do. As a Stanford Business School report found, “Latino business owners tend to depend on personal savings and seed funding from friends and family to start their businesses,” and are “much more likely [than white entrepreneurs] to use personal guarantees than business assets to secure financing.”

Having less money at the beginning of a business makes it more difficult to attract money later on, as it limits the amount an entrepreneur can invest in things like prototyping, real estate, inventory, and marketing, all things that, when done successfully, attract new investors and credit.

While the wealth threshold to quality for Warren’s program may seem relatively low, $100,000 is far more than most minority families have on hand, according to the senator, who cites research that found $100,000 is roughly five times the median net worth of Latinx and black families and more than 10 times the median net worth of Native American families.

Warren’s plan invokes the language of reparations, something she has vocally endorsed on the campaign trail, particularly when it suggests that the government has an obligation to address the racial wealth gap “because the government helped create that wealth gap with decades of sanctioned discrimination.” It is important to note, however, that this policy is for all minorities rather than just for black Americans.

How Warren’s plan compares to other candidates’ plans

Warren released her plan ahead of the Black Economic Alliance’s presidential forum in South Carolina, which she will be attending alongside a number of other Democratic presidential candidates, including Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg.

O’Rourke released his own small business plan on Saturday, focusing on women, communities of color, and small businesses more generally. His plan hopes to create 200,000 new small businesses to Warren’s 100,000, and pledges a $10 billion small business credit initiative for “economically distressed areas” to Warren’s $7 billion Small Business Equity Fund. Notably, O’Rourke’s plan doesn’t give funding directly to small-business owners in the form of grants. Instead, it funds a range of programs designed to increase loan accessibility and reduce discrimination. Like Warren, he has pledged to triple investment in the Minority Business Development Agency in order to provide resources and mentorship to minority small business owners.

Booker is attending several South Carolina events around this weekend’s forum, and is expected to use his stops to discuss the racial wealth gap and growing small businesses owned by African Americans, although he has not released a specific policy proposal.

Others Democrats have proposed more small-business-friendly policies. Both O’Rourke and Tulsi Gabbard have suggested cutting or offering deductions on small business taxes, but proposals such as these fail to account for the wealth gap that prevents entrepreneurs of color from opening a business in the first place.

This plan fits in well with Warren’s myriad other plans

Warren has the most plans of any 2020 candidate, but almost all of her plans have the same overarching purpose: erasing the wealth gap. Her overall platform is focused on what she calls “economic patriotism,” and this new plan fits right into that larger vision.

As Vox’s Ezra Klein explained:

Warren’s tagline is “I have a plan for that.” And on one level, it’s true: She has a lot of plans. But a clearer way of understanding her pitch is she’s got one plan that she applies over and over again.

As Warren sees it, there’s been a massive hoarding of wealth — and thus of power and opportunity — in this country. She wants to tax the wealth and redistribute both the money and the opportunity. She wants to break up concentrations of economic power by putting workers on corporate boards and unleashing antitrust regulators on Amazon and Facebook and ending Washington’s revolving door. These are different policies, yes, but they all say the same thing: The wealthy have too much money and power, and Warren wants to change that.

Her newest proposal is grounded in these same themes: It disparages an “uneven playing field,” and she argues that it will “move us closer to an America where everyone has a fair shot to succeed.”

Economic issues remain a top concern for Democratic voters, and by adding her entrepreneurial investment plan to her portfolio of “economic patriotism” initiatives, Warren continues to suggest that addressing that concern is one of her top priorities.

Hong Kong’s chief executive Carrie Lam will “indefinitely suspend” a contentious extradition bill that would allow Hong Kong citizens to be extradited to mainland China following a series of massive and sometimes violent street protests.

The New York Times reports the pro-Beijing Lam has consulted with her superiors in mainland China, and will hold off on attempting to push the bill through again in an attempt to quell public anger and avoid further violence. The government announced its decision ahead of another large protest planned for Sunday.

Lam, who is reportedly known for “never backing down in a fight,” had previously vowed to press on with the bill, comparing protesters to “stubborn children,” even after as many as 1 million people took to the streets last Sunday. A follow-up protest delayed a debate on the bill Wednesday.

Although the bill’s progress through the city’s legislative council has been delayed, Lam said the measure has not been abandoned.

“I believe that we cannot withdraw this bill, or else society will say that this bill was groundless,” the chief executive said.

Leading opposition figures say nothing less than the full withdrawal of the bill is acceptable, and protest leaders have said Sunday’s demonstration will proceed as planned.

Some activists made it clear they do not trust Lam; a spokesperson for the  Civil Human Rights Front, one of the groups in charge of organizing the recent protests, said, “Hong Kong people do understand what is happening and we can see through the lies of Carrie Lam.” Another group, Demosistō, called on the protests to continue because “the Hong Kong government may restart the legislative process anytime in the future.”

This position was echoed by some lawmakers, including pro-democracy lawmaker Claudia Mo, who responded to Lam’s decision by telling the Times, “This is not good enough, simply not right. We demand a complete scrapping of this controversial bill.”

The suspended proposal

The controversial extradition bill empowers Hong Kong officials to extradite wanted criminal suspects to stand trial in mainland China, and requires Hong Kong to extradite suspects to jurisdictions it lacks extraditions agreements with. China and Hong Kong don’t currently share an extradition agreement — when Hong Kong finalized its extradition accords in 1997 after being released from British rule, it didn’t include China due to its “fundamentally different criminal justice system” and “concerns over the mainland’s track record on the protection of fundamental rights.”

While Hong Kong is technically under the control of the People’s Republic of China, under the terms of the 1997 handover of power from the UK to China, the city is supposed to be allowed to govern itself until 2047 under a policy known as “one country, two systems.” Essentially, this means that while Hong Kong is under Chinese sovereignty, it is supposed to be free to retain its own political and legal systems. However, Beijing has been pressuring Hong Kong’s leaders to pass laws that bring it more closely in line with the Chinese government, including this recent extradition law, which is sponsored by the pro-Beijing government.  

Many fear that the new powers would allow China to target any person in Hong Kong that it wants. But as Vox’s Alex Ward writes, the protests are about much more than just this particular bill. Rather, they are about the future of democracy, with protesters viewing the proposed amendments as part of China’s creeping attempts to assert its authority over the semi-autonomous Hong Kong: 

Experts say the newest flare-up is part of the long-term resistance movement to keep the city as independent as possible.

“The proposed change to the extradition law, which would open up Hong Kongers and others passing through the city to the vicissitudes of mainland Chinese justice, is the latest in a long list of actions that undermine democratic freedoms and the rule of law,” says [Hong Kong expert at the Lowy Institute in Australia Ben] Bland, who also wrote a book about life in post-handover Hong Kong.

The protests, which were mostly peaceful when they began last Sunday, saw even self-described “regular citizens” take to the streets, with one protestor telling the New York Times, “We are not activists. Even as regular citizens, we can’t stand to see China eroding away our freedom.”

The protests have escalated in recent days. Riot police clashed with protesters on Wednesday, firing tear gas, rubber bullets, and beanbags at the crowd as demonstrators tried to rush Hong Kong’s main legislative buildings. The protesters ultimately delayed a scheduled debate on the bill, although, at the time, few expected that they would be able to delay it indefinitely.

Demonstrations continued immediately following Lam’s announcement. One protester fell to his death Saturday evening. The man had attached a banner reading “No extradition to China, total withdrawal of the extradition bill, we are not rioters, release the students and injured, Carrie Lam step down, help Hong Kong” to the side of a luxury mall. He died after missing an inflatable cushion first responders erected for him to jump onto.

Lawmaker Ray Chan blamed Lam for the protester’s death on Twitter, writing, “As butcher Carrie Lam’s regime remains in power, sad events including the loss of life are bound to happen.” He went on to call on the public to demonstrate Sunday in the fallen activist’s memory, writing, “We’ll honor the nameless hero and show the world the heartless bitch has no credibility. Kill the bill & get Carrie Lam fired!”

Lam has not yet made it clear when she plans to take the issue of the bill back up; she has, however, promised to listen to those who are against the measure.

“We will adopt the most sincere and humble attitude to accept criticisms and make improvements,” Lam said.

Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden officially kicked off his 2020 campaign with a Saturday rally in Pennsylvania, birthplace of both himself and the Declaration of Independence, and home to his campaign headquarters.

The former vice president used the speech to push his “unity” theme, hitting directly back at those who criticize his desire to reach across the aisle, as well as highlighting his links to former President Barack Obama.

Many have argued that Biden’s desire to return to consensus politics is naive, including Lee Drutman, who explained in a Vox article why Biden’s “epiphany” theory — that Republicans will have an epiphany about the power of bipartisanship once Trump is gone and start working with Democrats again — is misguided. As Drutman argued:

The problem with Biden’s theory is that Republicans’ hostility to Democrats did not begin with Donald Trump (see, the Obama administration).

Today, as in 2012, the partisan hostility is highly transferable. It is based neither in opposition to one president nor loyalty to another. It is based in the underlying zero-sum electoral logic that defines the American two-party system and the winner-take-all elections that make the two-party system possible.

Others on the left oppose the idea of consensus politics on ideological grounds, arguing that there is no “middle ground” when it comes to existential threats like climate change.

At his kickoff, Biden appeared to speak directly to his critics. “Some say Democrats don’t want to hear about unity. That they are angry, and the angrier you are, the better,” he said. “That’s what they are saying you have to do to win the Democratic nomination. Well, I don’t believe it. I believe Democrats want to unify this nation.”

He went on to contrast his consensus-based style of politics with Trump’s leadership style, labeling the president the “divider-in-chief,” and also — implicitly — lumped his Democratic opponents in with Trump.

“If the American people want a president to add to our division, to lead with a clenched fist, closed hand and a hard heart, to demonize the opponents and spew hatred — they don’t need me. They already have a president who does just that. I am running to offer our country — Democrats, Republicans, and independents — a different path.”

In highlighting his years of experience in Congress and in the White House, Biden said, “I know how to make government work. Not because I’ve talked or tweeted about it, but because I’ve done it.” Pivoting again to his consensus theme, he continued, “Our principles must never be compromised, but compromise itself is not a dirty word.”

The former vice president also stressed his links to Obama, something he has done since the early days of his campaign. At the rally, Biden said he “watched up [Obama] close,” claiming — somewhat absurdly considering his audience — that people don’t talk often enough about how great the 44th president was.

Biden attempted to specifically address his critics on climate change, with some supporters concerned he has underestimated its electoral importance. Reports that Biden is working on a climate change plan that tries to find a “middle ground” on the issue were met with disdain from Democrats for whom the climate has become a central issue, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other presidential hopefuls, like Bernie Sanders, who said bluntly, “There is no ‘middle ground’ when it comes to climate policy.”

“There’s not much time left, we need a green climate energy revolution and we need it now,” Biden said Saturday with some attempt at passion, before focusing back in on his unity pitch. “Let’s stop fighting and start fixing, because we can only do it together.”

The former vice president failed, however, to unveil any concrete “fixing” policies; his campaign has promised that detailed policies are forthcoming.

In a Saturday Night Live cold open based on It’s a Wonderful Life, Alec Baldwin’s Donald Trump and Keenan Thompson’s angel visit a reality in which Trump was never elected president, attending a holiday party full of returning cameos: Ben Stiller’s Michael Cohen, Matt Damon’s Brett Kavanaugh, and Robert De Niro’s Robert Mueller.

”Wow, everyone looks so different. What are those things on their faces?” Baldwin asked.

“Those are called smiles,” Thompson replied.

Pretty much everyone in the Trump orbit seemed better off in this alternate reality. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders (Aidy Bryant) had gone into PR at Trump’s suggestion, making lots of money working for Facebook, the dating site Ashley Madison, and the Romaine Lettuce Association.

People’s love lives were doing better, too. Kellyanne Conway (Kate McKinnon) and her anti-Trump husband George were on speaking terms, and Kellyanne looked healthier, partly because “I’m no longer eaten from within by lies.”

Melania (Cecily Strong) and Donald’s relationship had been improved by divorce, as had Melania’s English: “Being around you all the time was hurting my language skills,” she revealed. “You’re still smocking hot,” Baldwin told her, mocking Trump’s recent “smocking gun” typo.

It’s been a while since the real Donald Trump tweeted about Saturday Night Live, but this sketch and its implications seemed to especially upset him, with the president tweeting this morning that the show was a “Democrat spin machine:”

The highlight of the sketch was Matt Damon as not-so-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who in this reality was not on the bench. “Me, on the Supreme Court? With my temperament? Are you insane?” asked Damon incredulously when Baldwin brought it up. “But on the plus side when I tell people that I like beer, they find it charming and not like I’m threatening violence.” Damon again fluctuated magnificently from teary — the calendars made a return — to fiery, though this time he was fired up to party.

But the cameo that seemed to really get under the real Trump’s skin was Stiller’s Michael Cohen, who, as well as being in unusually high spirits in this alternate reality, rattled off (now ironic) affirmations of their “close” relationship. “I would never ever flip on you,” said alternate reality Cohen, who in this reality flipped on Trump and then did an interview about it. “You’re my best friend.”

“And since it’s Christmas,” Stiller said meaningfully. “I just wanna say that you taught me everything I know. Every single thing I’ve done is because you directed me to do it.”

The Cohen jokes seemed to really affect the president, who tweeted next that Cohen only flipped because the FBI raided his office.

At the end of it all, fake Trump had an epiphany: “I guess the world does need me to be president after all.” “Yeah, that was not the lesson at all,” said Thompson. Trump wished to be president again and his wish came true, with the sketch returning to color just as a bell began to ring.

“Listen, Donald,” said McKinnon’s Conway. “Every time a bell rings, someone you know quits or goes to jail!”