copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: “There is racism physically built into some of our highways.” (Pete Buttigieg, 2021-04-06)
Evidence (2021-09-26): House Republicans are about to tank a bipartisan infrastructure bill because it isn’t perfect, or because it might give Biden a boost when he’s down. In a way I sympathize. I wish we did have an infrastructure bill that didn’t include billions for electric car charging stations for urban Tesla drivers, that didn’t earmark highway money to fix what Mayor Pete called "the racism physically built into some of our highways," and that wasn’t so full of the word "equity" that you wonder if highway signs are going to start being posted with preferred pronouns at the bottom. But we are in the minority in both houses, and Dementia Joe is at the Resolute Desk. So what did you think we were going to get?
Claim: “There is racism physically built into some of our highways.” (Pete Buttigieg, 2021-04-06)
Evidence (2021-04-28): In an interview, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg had noted that "there is racism physically built into some of our highways," a sentiment that may seem odd at first glance but is rooted in facts that can be found in highways and other infrastructure across the country.
Claim: “There is racism physically built into some of our highways.” (Pete Buttigieg, 2021-04-06)
Evidence (2021-08-09): Civil rights activists call this mile of the interstate a "racist highway" because roads like this one divide minority neighbourhoods and pollute these communities. Urban planners want to tear it down - and now, President Joe Biden also has it in his sights. [...] "There is racism physically built into some of our highways," Pete Buttigieg, the US transportation secretary, has said. [...] Joquin Paskel, 28, agreed that the highway is racist. A businessman who rents out bouncy houses for children's parties, he lamented that it cuts his neighbourhood off from the rest of the city. "It just creates division," he said, likening the road to a red line that demarcates a kind of segregation.
Claim: “There is racism physically built into some of our highways.” (Pete Buttigieg, 2021-04-06)
Evidence (2021-05-15): (ideas.work.) Much has been made recently of the fact that many of America’s highways are racist. It started when USDOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg told April Ryan in an interview with TheGrio, "Often this wasn’t just an act of neglect. Often this was a conscious choice. There is racism physically built into some of our highways, and that’s why the jobs plan has dollars specifically committed to reconnect some of the communities that were divided…" I have eternal admiration for that kind of talk at such a high-level. The truth is so fresh. After all, most urban highways are racist. Some white neighborhoods were also carved up by highways over the last century, of course, but because decisions about the location of highways were determined by the discriminatory mindset of American public policy prior to federal civil rights legislation like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, they did far more damage to Black and Brown communities. For example, not long after Fortune magazine famously called Auburn Avenue the "richest Negro street in the world" in 1956, the planned downtown connector’s mind-boggling, traffic-inducing "Grady Curve" was intentionally warped around the east side of the central business district to break the back of Sweet Auburn.
Claim: “There is racism physically built into some of our highways.” (Pete Buttigieg, 2021-04-06)
Evidence (2021-04-23): By — Candice Norwood Candice Norwood Leave a comment 0comments Share Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-infrastructure-has-historically-promoted-inequality Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr Share on Facebook Share on Twitter How infrastructure has historically promoted inequality Politics Apr 23, 2021 1:31 PM EDT It’s no secret that U.S. infrastructure is struggling. This year’s report from the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the country a C-, citing public roadways in "poor or mediocre" condition, "structurally deficient" bridges and aging power grids. But what has historically received less attention is the role infrastructure construction and maintenance have played in promoting inequality and racial segregation. "There is racism physically built into some of our highways," Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in an interview with the Grio this month. That recognition shaped President Joe Biden’s $2.3 trillion plan to improve U.S. infrastructure. In addition to fixing highways, bridges and roads, the proposal calls for an investment of $20 billion into communities that have historically been hurt by infrastructure projects. It would also provide $45 billion to replace lead pipes and service lines in communities like Flint, Michigan, as well as billions to expand broadband access and affordable housing options.
Claim: “There is racism physically built into some of our highways.” (Pete Buttigieg, 2021-04-06)
Evidence (2021-04-06): "There is racism physically built into some of our highways, and that’s why the jobs plan has specifically committed to reconnect some of the communities that were divided by these dollars," Buttigieg said during the interview, which was published on April 6. He was referring to President Joe Biden’s proposal known as the American Jobs Plan, which would provide funding for various types of infrastructure, including roads, highways and bridges. [...] Buttigieg referred to the racist legacy in "some of our highways." But some racially mixed or predominantly white neighborhoods also found themselves in the path of urban Interstate projects. [...] Gothamist, "Buttigieg Observed Some Highways Have A Racist Past. Here's What That Meant In NYC," April 11, 2021
Claim: “There is racism physically built into some of our highways.” (Pete Buttigieg, 2021-04-06)
Evidence (2022-12-12): We can examine the same exact situation in the North Side of Milwaukee, a predominantly Black area, where "white flight" to the suburbs occurred once more as a result of these highways being built. Black and Latinx families didn’t carry the generational wealth that their white counterparts had to their access, so they were unable to leave the city. The lives of these low-income Black and Latinx communities were not taken into account when it came to the creation of these racist pieces of infrastructure. The government of the US not only systemically discriminated against these communities, but enabled state governments to do the same, furthering segregation that is still prominent in 2022. These highways were physical lines drawn between communities, leading to further segregation between minorities and white Americans in Milwaukee. In 2021, the United States Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, himself recognized the harm that these slabs of concrete created, stating plainly, "There is racism physically built into some of our highways." Even now, we drive into Milwaukee and can physically witness when we travel to wealthier areas compared to the low-income neighborhoods, but sometimes we ignore what is right in front of our eyes. [...] Highways and Racism: A brief history | Sierra Club
Claim: “There is racism physically built into some of our highways.” (Pete Buttigieg, 2021-04-06)
Evidence (2021-04-07): A Brief History Of How Racism Shaped Interstate Highways [...] "What is not clear is whether and how that money will be distributed in a way that will address the racial inequalities that are built into our transportation system and our infrastructure," she tells NPR's Morning Edition. [...] Some of the time, yes, that was actually the case. The highways were being built just as courts around the country were striking down traditional tools of racial segregation. So, for example, courts were striking down the use of racial zoning to keep Black people in certain communities and white people in other communities. And so the highway development popped up at a time when the idea, the possibility of integration in housing was on the horizon. And so very intentionally, highways were sometimes built right on the formal boundary lines that we saw used during racial zoning. Sometimes community members asked the highway builders to create a barrier between their community and encroaching Black communities.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2021-08-16): News reports show the Pentagon spent $107.9 billion on contracted services in Afghanistan. To be sure, not all of the money was spent appropriately, according to a new report from a special inspector general.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2021-08-16): News reports show the Pentagon spent $107.9 billion on contracted services in Afghanistan. [...] When asked for back up for the statement, Barnes’ spokesman Christian Slater pointed us to a April 23, 2021 Bloomberg Law report which found that "Since 2002, the Pentagon has spent $107.9 billion on contracted services in Afghanistan, a Bloomberg Government analysis shows." [...] A Bloomberg Law report found that the Pentagon has spent $107.9 billion on contracted services in Afghanistan. Those contracted services include lodging, laundry, food, transportation, equipment maintenance and fuel.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2023-08-31): The United States’ and its allies’ massive military spending and contracts contributed significantly to already existing corruption in Afghanistan. U.S. military contracts, like the Host Nation Trucking (HNT) agreement — a $2.16 billion contract providing logistical support to NATO — morphed into a mechanism for wielding money as a weapon in rewarding warlords and political elites for security and safety of its logistical supplies. International military spending and aid became the biggest creditors of "rent" for Afghanistan, by large margins. U.S. money permeated all levels of Afghan polity and society, perpetuating an environment conducive to embezzlement, fraud, and favoritism.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2021-08-15): "2 trillion dollars to train and equip the Afghan military over the past 20 years. They fell in a week," Ojeda, a Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House in 2018, said in his Aug. 15 tweet. "It was never about real training. It was about military contractors and corporations raking in the profits. I am numb. I am sure everyone who spent years there feels the same!" [...] According to the Costs of War project, the Pentagon spent just over $83 billion within the last two decades specifically to support Afghan military and security forces [...] While the U.S. is credibly estimated to have spent more than $2 trillion during its involvement, only a fraction of that -- an estimated $83 billion -- was specifically spent on training and equipping Afghan military and security forces.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2021-08-16): Since 2001, the United States has spent $2.26 trillion in Afghanistan, the Costs of War Project at Brown University calculates – an investment that has yielded a chaotic, humiliating end to America’s longest war. [...] Since 2001, the US has appropriated more than $144bn to Afghan reconstruction. Much of that money went to private contractors and NGOs the US government tasked with implementing programmes and projects to build Afghanistan’s security forces, improve governance, aid economic and social development and combat illicit drugs. The most critical failure of those reconstruction efforts – and the most expensive – was the $88.3bn spent training and equipping the Afghan army from May 2002 to March this year.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2022-01-11): The Lessons Learned From America's Reliance On Military Contractors In Afghanistan The Lessons Learned From America's Reliance On Military Contractors In Afghanistan 2020 turned out to be a record year for government contractors. The federal government spent the most in its history on contracted goods and services. It's also the fifth year in a row that spending increased. In terms of signing those contracts, one federal department reigns supreme. In 2020, the Department of Defense awarded more money in federal contracts than all other government agencies combined. And one study found that nearly half of defense spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went to private contractors.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2021-07-27): A Breakdown of U.S. Military Spending in Afghanistan America’s own government watchdog says oversight of the money spent on military efforts in Afghanistan has been poor with hundreds of millions of dollars misspent and corruption rife The U.S. and NATO have promised to pay $4 billion a year until 2024 to finance Afghanistan’s military and security forces, which are struggling to contain an advancing Taliban. Already, the U.S. has spent nearly $89 billion over the past 20 years to build, equip and train Afghan forces.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2024-04-01): And what has happened historically is that at the beginning of wars, there has been emergency money because it wasn't foreseen in advance. And then after the initial period, the money has been gradually brought into the military system where it goes through all of the kinds of checks and balances and what's called the PPBS system in the Pentagon and goes through all of the congressional committees and so forth. Now, in this case, for 10 years, we funded the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars as an emergency. So even when we had built a hundred bases in Iraq and we had more than 200,000 U.S. troops. So what was clearly going to be happening in the next fiscal year, we were still funding this as a quote-unquote "emergency," which means that this money, even though we were spending tens of billions of dollars per year, did not go through any of the oversight mechanisms that regular appropriations must undergo.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2021-04-30): The Defense Department’s latest 2020 report said war-fighting costs totaled $815.7 billion over the years. That covers the operating costs of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, everything from fuel and food to Humvees, weapons and ammunition, from tanks and armored vehicles to aircraft carriers and airstrikes. [...] Washington has poured over $143 billion into that goal since 2002, according to the latest figures from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Of that, $88 billion went to training, equipping and funding Afghan military and police forces. Another $36 billion was spent on reconstruction projects, education and infrastructure like dams and highways, the SIGAR report said. Another $4.1 billion has gone to humanitarian aid for refugees and disasters. The campaign to deter Afghans from selling heroin around the world cost over $9 billion.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2020-03-02): The war is estimated to have cost the United States around $2 trillion, including money spent on counternarcotics efforts, development projects, and support for Afghan security forces. Billions of dollars have been spent on medical and disability care for U.S. veterans. [...] India. New Delhi is a strong supporter of the Afghan government and has given $3 billion to develop infrastructure and cultivate business in Afghanistan since 2001. Its main goals are to minimize Pakistan’s influence and prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for anti-India militants. The Indian government did not back U.S. efforts to reach an agreement with the Taliban and disagreed with legitimizing the group as a political actor. [...] International aid. Dozens of countries continue to provide assistance to Afghanistan, with 75 percent of the government’s public expenditures currently covered by grants from international partners, according to a World Bank report. The report warned that Afghanistan will continue to require billions of dollars in aid for years to come. Some experts believe that aid could be used as leverage to keep the Taliban in negotiations with the Afghan government.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2021-08-19): The United States has spent about $2.26 trillion between 2001 and 2021 on the war in Afghanistan according to an analysis by Brown University’s Costs of War project. [...] The project found that the United States since 2001 has spent about $2.26 trillion on the Afghanistan war. The total includes interest on war borrowing and $296 billion for veterans’ care. The total figure does not include lifetime care for veterans or future interest payments on money borrowed to pay for the war.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2024-01-01): Over the 20-year period of the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, the U.S. Department of Defense paid various companies about $108 billion in contracts for work performed in the country, according to our latest research. This is in addition to the trillions of dollars spent on Department of Defense contracts performed in the U.S. over that period – and does not include other goods and services produced in the U.S. and used in the war in Afghanistan, such as weapons. What’s more, this figure is just a fraction of the over $14 trillion in Pentagon spending since the start of the war in Afghanistan in total, with one-third to one-half of the total going to military contractors. Over one-third of the contract spending went to "undisclosed" recipients – domestic and foreign businesses who are not uniquely identifiable in the publicly available contracting databases – USASpending.gov and the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). Of the $108 billion spent in Afghanistan from fiscal years 2002-2022, over 40 percent went to the 14 largest companies, which each received over one billion dollars in total contract spending, with the largest receiving over $13.5 billion. There were also thousands of smaller contracts.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2022-02-22): In the months leading up to the U.S. ending its 20-year war in Afghanistan and the Taliban gaining control of the country, major defense companies were awarded contracts in Afghanistan worth hundreds of millions of dollars and spent tens of millions lobbying the federal government on defense issues. The Department of Defense issued nearly $1 billion dollars in contracts to 17 companies related to work in Afghanistan that was set to continue past the May 1 withdrawal date. [...] Over the last 20 years of war in Afghanistan, the U.S. spent $89 billion in taxpayer dollars to fund the building and training of the Afghan National Army with an estimated $2.26 trillion in total operating costs funded by U.S. taxpayers.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2021-10-07): These are part of a catalog of "waste, fraud and abuse" complaints made against the United States’ reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan – an effort totaling $145 billion over 20 years – made by the United States’ own inspector general into the war. But the in-depth audits detailing these findings have, for the most part, been taken offline at the request of the State Department, citing security concerns. [...] An extensive ring road around Afghanistan was funded by multiple grants and donors, totaling billions during the course of the war. Towards the end of the project, a 233-kilometer section in the North, between the towns of Qeysar and Laman, led to $249 million being handed out to contractors, but only 15% of the road being built, a SIGAR audit reported. [...] Over half the money actually spent by TFBSO – $359 million of $675 million – was "spent on indirect and support costs, not directly on projects in Afghanistan," SIGAR concluded in an audit.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2021-09-03): According to the US Department of Defense, external, the total military expenditure in Afghanistan (from October 2001 until December 2020) was $825bn, with about another $130bn spent on reconstruction projects. [...] The UK and Germany - who had the largest numbers of troops in Afghanistan after the US - spent an estimated $30bn and $19bn respectively over the course of the war. [...] The bulk of the money spent in Afghanistan has been on counter-insurgency operations, and on the needs of troops such as food, clothing, medical care, special pay and benefits.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2022-08-09): Pentagon contractors operating in Afghanistan over the past two decades raked in nearly $108 billion--funds that "were distributed and spent with a significant lack of transparency," according to a report published Tuesday. [...] \u201cBreaking: Nearly one year after the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, our latest report finds that $108 billion went to contractors working inside the country during the 20-year war. Over 1/3 of this total went to undisclosed recipients. [1/7] https://t.co/NT7hNTf3Fg\u201d— The Costs of War Project (@The Costs of War Project) 1660055042 [...] "One hundred billion is an enormous amount of money, but it's also just a drop in the bucket when it comes to the full costs of the post-9/11 wars," Savell noted. "Nearly a million people have lost their lives in these wars and U.S. taxpayers have paid over $2.3 trillion for the war in Afghanistan alone--and over $8 trillion total for the post-9/11 wars in other places as well."
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2021-08-31): That is the guiding principle behind my decisions about Afghanistan. I simply do not believe that the safety and security of America is enhanced by continuing to deploy thousands of American troops and spending billions of dollars a year in Afghanistan. [...] After more than $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan — a cost that researchers at Brown University estimated would be over $300 million a day for 20 years in Afghanistan — for two decades — yes, the American people should hear this: $300 million a day for two decades.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2018-02-28): While it is true that the BCA has affected defense capability somewhat, its effect has been mitigated by two factors. First, Congress granted the Department of Defense more than $200 billion in relief between 2013 and 2017 from the spending caps; and the FY 2018 base defense budget exceeds the caps by another $100 billion. Second, the Pentagon has used the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), or warfighting, account to get around the caps. According to the Department of Defense comptroller, about half of the OCO account has funded Pentagon programs that have nothing to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the European Deterrence Initiative has been funded in the OCO account since FY 2017, when the Pentagon received $3.4 billion for it. The Pentagon admits that even with the large increase in the FY 2019 base budget, $17 billion of this year’s OCO account contains items normally funded in the base budget. President Trump’s own Office of Management and Budget director, Mick Mulvaney, has labeled the OCO account a "slush fund."