Text
Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week #10
March 15-22 2024
The EPA announced new emission standards with the goal of having more than half of new cars and light trucks sold in the US be low/zero emission by 2032. One of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history, it'll eliminate 7 billion tons of CO2 emissions over the next 30 years. It's part of President Biden's goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 on the road to eliminating them totally by 2050.
President Biden canceled nearly 6 Billion dollars in student loan debt. 78,000 borrowers who work in public sector jobs, teachers, nurses, social workers, firefighters etc will have their debt totally forgiven. An additional 380,000 public service workers will be informed that they qualify to have their loans forgiven over the next 2 years. The Biden Administration has now forgiven $143.6 Billion in student loan debt for 4 million Americans since the Supreme Court struck down the original student loan forgiveness plan last year.
Under Pressure from the administration and Democrats in Congress Drugmaker AstraZeneca caps the price of its inhalers at $35. AstraZeneca joins rival Boehringer Ingelheim in capping the price of inhalers at $35, the price the Biden Admin capped the price of insulin for seniors. The move comes as the Federal Trade Commission challenges AstraZeneca’s patents, and Senator Bernie Sanders in his role as Democratic chair of the Senate Health Committee investigates drug pricing.
The Department of Justice sued Apple for being an illegal monopoly in smartphones. The DoJ is joined by 16 state attorneys general. The DoJ accuses Apple of illegally stifling competition with how its apps work and seeking to undermining technologies that compete with its own apps.
The EPA passed a rule banning the final type of asbestos still used in the United States. The banning of chrysotile asbestos (known as white asbestos) marks the first time since 1989 the EPA taken action on asbestos, when it passed a partial ban. 40,000 deaths a year in the US are linked to asbestos
President Biden announced $8.5 billion to help build advanced computer chips in America. Currently America only manufactures 10% of the world's chips and none of the most advanced next generation of chips. The deal with Intel will open 4 factories across 4 states (Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico, and Oregon) and create 30,000 new jobs. The Administration hopes that by 2030 America will make 20% of the world's leading-edge chips.
President Biden signed an Executive Order prioritizing research into women's health. The order will direct $200 million into women's health across the government including comprehensive studies of menopause health by the Department of Defense and new outreach by the Indian Health Service to better meet the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Women. This comes on top of $100 million secured by First Lady Jill Biden from ARPA-H.
Democratic Senators Bob Casey, Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, and Jacky Rosen (all up for re-election) along with Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Sheldon Whitehouse, introduced the "Shrinkflation Prevention Act" The Bill seeks to stop the practice of companies charging the same amount for products that have been subtly shrunk so consumers pay more for less.
The Department of Transportation will invest $45 million in projects that improve Bicyclist and Pedestrian Connectivity and Safety
The EPA will spend $77 Million to put 180 electric school buses onto the streets of New York City This is part of New York's goal to transition its whole school bus fleet to electric by 2035.
The Senate confirmed President Biden's nomination of Nicole Berner to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Berner has served as the general counsel for America's largest union, SEIU, since 2017 and worked in their legal department since 2006. On behalf of SEIU she's worked on cases supporting the Affordable Care Act, DACA, and against the Defense of Marriage act and was part of the Fight for 15. Before working at SEIU she was a staff attorney at Planned Parenthood. Berner's name was listed by the liberal group Demand Justice as someone they'd like to see on the Supreme Court. Berner becomes one of just 5 LGBT federal appeals court judges, 3 appointed by Biden. The Senate also confirmed Edward Kiel and Eumi Lee to be district judges in New Jersey and Northern California respectively, bring the number of federal judges appointed by Biden to 188.
#Thanks Biden#Joe Biden#Democrats#politics#US politics#climate change#climate crisis#student loans#debt forgiveness#shrinkflation#women's health#drug prices
456 notes
·
View notes
Text
by Corey Walker
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) sent a letter to President Joe Biden on Wednesday demanding that his administration produce evidence that Israel has blocked humanitarian aid into Gaza, accusing Biden of engaging in a “politically driven” campaign against the Jewish state.
In the letter, Cotton wrote that he condemned “the Biden administration’s threat to impose an arms embargo on Israel.” He added that the president has made “unreasonable demands” on Israel to ramp up humanitarian aid deliveries to Gaza, the neighboring enclave ruled by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
“Denying Israel military aid is in direct opposition to the will of Congress, as expressed in the Israeli security supplemental passed earlier this year,” Cotton wrote. “Unilaterally threatening to cut off aid by declaring Israel in violation of US law also ignores Congress’s oversight role. Your administration insists on protecting a terrorist organization in the name of humanitarian aid.”
Cotton demanded that the Biden administration release any “evidence” to congressional committees that Israel has systematically prevented humanitarian aid from entering the Gaza Strip. The senator claimed that, if the Biden administration could not produce the desired evidence, then it should rescind its threats to Israel.
The White House had sent a letter, addressed to Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, expressing concern over what it said was a significant drop in aid deliveries to northern Gaza in recent months. The letter stated that the decline raised questions about Israel’s compliance with a National Security Memorandum (NSM) issued by the Biden administration earlier this year.
The memo requires US security aid recipients, including Israel, to ensure that humanitarian aid is not obstructed in areas where American-supplied weapons are being used.
59 notes
·
View notes
Text
It is disturbing that Musk's AI chatbot is spreading false information about the 2024 election. "Free speech" should not include disinformation. We cannot survive as a nation if millions of people live in an alternative, false reality based on disinformation and misinformation spread by unscrupulous parties. The above link is from the Internet Archive, so anyone can read the entire article. Below are some excerpts:
Five secretaries of state plan to send an open letter to billionaire Elon Musk on Monday, urging him to “immediately implement changes” to X’s AI chatbot Grok, after it shared with millions of users false information suggesting that Kamala Harris was not eligible to appear on the 2024 presidential ballot. The letter, spearheaded by Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon and signed by his counterparts Al Schmidt of Pennsylvania, Steve Hobbs of Washington, Jocelyn Benson of Michigan and Maggie Toulouse Oliver of New Mexico, urges Musk to “immediately implement changes to X’s AI search assistant, Grok, to ensure voters have accurate information in this critical election year.” [...] The secretaries cited a post from Grok that circulated after Biden stepped out of the race: “The ballot deadline has passed for several states for the 2024 election,” the post read, naming nine states: Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington. Had the deadlines passed in those states, the vice president would not have been able to replace Biden on the ballot. But the information was false. In all nine states, the ballot deadlines have not passed and upcoming ballot deadlines allow for changes to candidates. [...] Musk launched Grok last year as an anti-“woke” chatbot, professing to be frustrated by what he says is the liberal bias of ChatGPT. In contrast to AI tools built by Open AI, Microsoft and Google, which are trained to carefully navigate controversial topics, Musk said he wanted Grok to be unfiltered and “answer spicy questions that are rejected by most other AI systems.” [...] Secretaries of state are grappling with an onslaught of AI-driven election misinformation, including deepfakes, ahead of the 2024 election. Simon testified on the subject before the Senate Rules and Administration Committee last year. [...] “It’s important that social media companies, especially those with global reach, correct mistakes of their own making — as in the case of the Grok AI chatbot simply getting the rules wrong,” Simon added. “Speaking out now will hopefully reduce the risk that any social media company will decline or delay correction of its own mistakes between now and the November election.” [color emphasis added]
#elon musk#grok ai#false election information#democratic secretaries of state#x/twitter#the washington post#internet archive
67 notes
·
View notes
Text
ASAN welcomes the removal of Section 722 from the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. In June, some members of Congress introduced a rider to the act that would stop the FDA from banning electric shock devices for behavior modification, such as the devices used at the Judge Rotenberg Center. Section 722 said the FDA cannot ban a device that is used by court order. All of the electric shock devices used at the Judge Rotenberg Center are used because of a court order.
If this rider had passed, it would have taken away the FDA’s power to move forward with the proposed rule that ASAN and many grassroots advocates commented to support. Because of your powerful activism, this rider failed to make it into the final bill, and the FDA still has the power to #StopTheShock.
This was only possible thanks to the hard work of our grassroots. You called, emailed, and shared across social media to make your voices heard. Members of our community have fought to end the use of shock devices at the JRC for over a decade, and we will not be ignored. Your calls, along with the hundreds of public comments sent in support of the FDA’s proposed rule, have gotten us that much closer to ending this tortuous practice once and for all.
We also thank the many members of the House Appropriations Committee who supported removing Section 722. At last night’s markup of the bill, Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro and Representatives Chellie Pingree and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz all used their opening remarks to point out the harm this rider would have caused, and the urgent need to remove it. Subcommittee Ranking Member Sanford Bishop spoke in his remarks about our community’s work to educate the Committee members on this issue. We are thrilled that the House Appropriations Committee listened to our community on this urgent issue and acted to protect disabled people from torture.
We are grateful that this rider did not make it into the current version of the bill, but the fight isn’t over yet. The full House of Representatives, and the Senate, still need to vote on this bill. Thanks to your efforts, we have built strong bipartisan opposition to Section 722. We will continue to work with Congress to make sure this rider stays out of the final bill. Meanwhile, the FDA still needs to do their part with the power our community fought for them to keep. ASAN calls upon the FDA to swiftly release the final version of their proposed rule “Banned Devices; Proposal to Ban Electrical Stimulation Devices for Self-Injurious or Aggressive Behavior.”
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network seeks to advance the principles of the disability rights movement with regard to autism. ASAN believes that the goal of autism advocacy should be a world in which autistic people enjoy equal access, rights, and opportunities. We work to empower autistic people across the world to take control of our own lives and the future of our common community, and seek to organize the autistic community to ensure our voices are heard in the national conversation about us. Nothing About Us, Without Us!
39 notes
·
View notes
Text
To protect America’s vital infrastructure from hackers without relying on a moribund Congress, the Biden administration bet big on creative uses of existing laws. But the Supreme Court probably blew up that approach.
President Joe Biden’s strategy relied on agencies interpreting the laws that give them regulatory powers to include cybersecurity, with the expectation that courts would defer to their interpretations of those laws under a decades-old legal doctrine known as Chevron deference.
But in a landmark case decided in late June, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the United States Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority eliminated Chevron deference and ordered courts to determine for themselves what ambiguous laws say—without assigning nearly as much weight to agencies’ interpretations.
Now, that controversial ruling could completely upend multiple agencies’ plans to require better cybersecurity from critical infrastructure entities like hospitals, water systems, and power plants. It could even help corporate America overturn existing rules aimed at keeping hackers off cloud platforms, securing pipelines and airports, and improving disclosures of major breaches.
“There’s the possibility of lawsuits to test the waters in a lot of regulations,” says Harley Geiger, counsel with the Center for Cybersecurity Policy and Law. “It definitely becomes much more difficult to regulate on critical infrastructure cybersecurity in areas where there is not sound or clear statutory backing.”
Landmark Cyber Program Under Threat
Biden’s marquee cyber regulation may also be his most endangered: a pending requirement for critical infrastructure organizations to report cyberattacks within 72 hours and ransomware payments within 24 hours.
The regulation, authorized by the 2022 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA), is meant to close massive gaps in the government’s awareness of the cyberattacks plaguing US companies every day. But when the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released the proposed rule in April, the business community slammed it for going further than lawmakers intended. By the time the public comment period closed earlier this month, many companies and trade groups had urged CISA to pare back the rule—with some of them even citing the Loper Bright ruling.
The criticism mostly focused on three aspects of the rule that could represent its biggest vulnerabilities in a future lawsuit: the definition of a “covered entity” subject to the reporting requirements, the definition of a “covered incident” that needs to be disclosed, and the list of information that needs to be reported. Businesses say CISA used much broader language for these three provisions than Congress intended.
“They have gone well beyond the text,” says one cybersecurity-focused attorney, who requested anonymity because they represent clients in disputes with federal agencies. “There's a lot of vulnerable aspects to it.”
Senate Homeland Security Committee chair Gary Peters, whose panel led the drafting of CIRCIA, added to the regulation’s legal peril when he filed a public comment saying that “the proposed rule is overbroad and needs additional clarity,” including on the definitions of covered incidents and covered entities. Peters’ objections are significant, because courts analyzing unclear laws will likely lean heavily on congressional intent.
It’s unclear if CISA will back down in the face of these headwinds. A spokesperson says the agency is “still assessing” the Loper Bright ruling “and any potential impacts that this may have on the agency’s rulemaking actions.” The spokesperson says the final regulation will be “consistent with authorities given to us by Congress.”
CISA officials “seem quite committed to the scope that they're aiming for, because they really seem to view it as important to their mission,” says Stephen Lilley, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown who focuses on cyber matters. Even so, he added, “CISA now has to be thinking, have we pushed too far in light of these recent decisions, and do we need to be a bit more modest in our ambitions?”
The consequences of a government retreat are hard to predict but potentially serious. Scaled-back CIRCIA requirements could exempt more companies from reporting or reduce the amount of information they have to report, easing the burden on those organizations but weakening the government’s understanding of digital threats.
Most experts predict only modest changes. “I would expect them to try to make as limited a reaction as their lawyers say they need to make,” Lilley says.
Still, it’s clear that the officials behind the government’s biggest-ever cyber regulation—due to be finalized by October 2025—are on notice.
“There's no way that CISA takes the next [14] months to develop this rule without considering the effect of Loper Bright and the loss of Chevron deference,” Geiger says.
Planes, Trains, and Cloud Services
While CISA’s incident reporting mandate has attracted the lion’s share of post–Loper Bright attention, the ruling threatens a host of other existing and pending cyber regulations.
The Department of Health and Human Services is working on a rule that would condition hospitals’ receipt of federal Medicare and Medicaid funding on their compliance with cyber requirements. The closely watched HHS rule represents the Biden administration’s attempt to stem a massive tide of ransomware attacks on hospitals and the rest of the health care sector. But the powerful hospital industry has objected to new mandates, saying they will overly burden already struggling facilities. Few details are known about the rule—including its exact legal basis—so it’s unclear whether HHS has been rewriting it to address Loper Bright.
Corporate America’s most-loathed cyber regulation is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2023 rule requiring publicly traded companies to announce cyber incidents with a “material” impact within four business days. That rule may be safe from new lawsuits, given the SEC’s clear legal authority to require the disclosure of information that materially affects stock prices. But Geiger says companies might instead challenge the SEC’s authority to penalize companies for hacks, since the underlying law and regulation don’t mention cybersecurity. (The SEC declined to comment for this story.)
Lawsuits could also hit the Transportation Security Administration over its cyber requirements for pipeline, rail, and aviation operators. The TSA significantly modified its emergency directives to address industry criticism, but as the agency codifies those directives in more formal rules, disgruntled companies could seize the chance to sue. “There’s not a history of that agency doing cyber, and there’s not a great statutory hook to point to,” says the cyber attorney, who cited “a lot of frustration” with the TSA’s “perpetual invocation of an ongoing but undescribed emergency” to justify the requirements. (The TSA declined to comment.)
The Commerce Department could hit a legal snag with its proposal to require cloud companies to verify their customers’ identities and report on their activities. The pending rule, part of an effort to clamp down on hackers’ misuse of cloud services, has drawn industry criticism for alleged overreach. A major tech trade group warned Commerce that its “proposed regulations risk exceeding the rulemaking authority granted by Congress.” (Commerce declined to comment.)
Lawsuits could also target other regulations—including data breach reporting requirements from the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and financial regulators—that rely on laws written long before policymakers were thinking about cybersecurity.
“A lot of the challenges where the agencies are going to be most nervous [are] when they’ve been interpreting something for 20 years or they newly have interpreted something that’s 30 years old,” says the cyber attorney.
The White House has already faced one major setback. Last October, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew cyber requirements for water systems that industry groups and Republican-led states had challenged in court. Opponents said the EPA had exceeded its authority in interpreting a 1974 law to require states to add cybersecurity to their water-facility inspections, a strategy that a top White House cyber official had previously praised as “a creative approach.”
All Eyes on Congress
The government’s cyber regulation push is likely to run headlong into a judicial morass.
Federal judges could reach different conclusions about the same regulations, setting up appeals to regional circuit courts that have very different track records. “The judiciary itself is not a monolith,” says Geiger, of the Center for Cybersecurity Policy and Law. In addition, agencies understand cutting-edge tech issues much better than judges, who may struggle to parse the intricacies of cyber regulations.
There is only one real solution to this problem, according to experts: If Congress wants agencies to be able to mandate cyber improvements, it will have to pass new laws empowering them to do so.
“There is greater onus now on Congress to act decisively to help ensure protection of the critical services on which society relies,” Geiger says.
Clarity will be key, says Jamil Jaffer, the executive director of George Mason University’s National Security Institute and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. “The more specific Congress gets, the more likely I think a court is to see it the same way an agency does.”
Congress rarely passes major legislation, especially with new regulatory powers, but cybersecurity has consistently been an exception.
“Congress moves very, very slowly, but it’s not completely passive [on] this front,” Lilley says. “There's a possibility that you will see meaningful cyber legislation in particular sectors if regulators are not able to move forward.”
One major question is whether this progress will continue if Republicans seize unified control of the government in November’s elections. Lilley is optimistic, pointing to the GOP platform’s invocation of securing critical infrastructure with heightened standards as “a national priority.”
“There's a sense across both sides of the aisle at this point that, certainly in some of the sectors, there has been some measure of market failure,” Lilley says, “and that some measure of government action will be appropriate.”
Regardless of who controls Capitol Hill next January, the Supreme Court just handed lawmakers a massive amount of responsibility in the fight against hackers.
“It's not going to be easy,” Geiger says, “but it's time for Congress to act.”
27 notes
·
View notes
Text
Trump solicited about $1 billion from Big Oil at a fundraising conclave at Mar-a-Lago in return for future favorable treatment — if their filthy lucre helps him return to the Oval Office.
We lost four years fighting climate change during the previous Trump administration. A second term would do the planet grievous harm.
It's necessary to alert everybody concerned about the future of Earth of the danger of a second Trump presidency.
A new Washington Post report that Trump made explicit policy promises to a roomful of Big Oil executives—while urging them to raise $1 billion for his campaign—is a powerful story in part because it wrecks what’s left of that mystique. In case you didn’t already know this, it shows yet again that if Trump has employed that aforementioned knowledge of elite corruption and self-dealing to any ends in his public career, it’s chiefly to benefit himself. That counter narrative is a story that Democrats have a big opportunity to tell—if they seize on this news effectively. How might they do that? For starters, the revelations seem to cry out for more scrutiny from Congress. Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who has been presiding over hearings into the oil industry as chair of the Budget Committee, says it’s “highly likely” that the committee will examine the new revelations. [ ... ]
As the Post reports, an oil company executive at the gathering, held at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort last month, complained about environmental regulations under the Biden administration. Then this happened: Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation. Giving $1 billion would be a “deal,” Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people. Obviously industries have long donated to politicians in both parties in hopes of governance that takes their interests into account, and they explicitly lobby for this as well. But in this case, Trump may have made detailed, concrete promises while simultaneously soliciting a precise amount in campaign contributions.
Just a mention that Tumblr formatting won't permit indentations inside indentations. As a substitute, I used red to depict double indentation.
Anyway...
For instance, the Post reports, Trump vowed to scrap Biden’s ban on permits for new liquefied natural gas exports “on the first day.” He also promised to overturn new tailpipe emission limits designed to encourage the transition to electric vehicles, and he dangled more leases for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, “a priority that several of the executives raised.” “The phrase that instantly came to mind as I was reading the story was ‘quid pro quo,’” Whitehouse told me. He also pointed to a new Politico report that oil industry officials are drawing up executive orders for Trump to sign as president. “Put those things together and it starts to look mighty damn corrupt,” Whitehouse said.
Trump may just be a pile of orange flab with a porcine mouth and bad hair, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be taken seriously. Among many other bad things, Trump is a figurehead for Big Oil. Oil companies are already busy composing executive orders for Trump to sign.
If elected, Trump would throw into reverse our transition to a decarbonized future, one that’s creating untold numbers of manufacturing jobs—including in the very places that Trump has attacked Democratic elites for supposedly abandoning—all in exchange for mega-checks from chortling fat cats right out of the most garish of Gilded Age cartoons. For good measure, some of that loot could help Trump secure elite impunity for his own corruption and alleged crimes. We can’t say we weren’t warned. Trump has told us all this himself.
Progressives toying with third party temptations need to be set right: The only way to defeat Donald Trump is to vote for Joe Biden.
There will NEVER be a President RFK Jr., a President Jill Stein, or a President Cornel West. Such vanity candidates are usually little more than eccentric freaks. The last time a non-Democrat or non-Republican was elected president was 1848. But with American democracy and the future of the planet at stake, self-indulgence at the ballot box this year could lead directly to dystopia.
#donald trump#climate change#the environment#mar-a-lago#carbon-palooza#big oil#campaign contributions from oil companies#quid pro quo#tax breaks for billionaires#republicans#second trump term#sheldon whitehouse#election 2024#third parties#vote blue no matter who
16 notes
·
View notes
Note
In the US it is illegal for a politician to accept gold bars or a Mercedes. Does the BRF have similar restrictions? I know they have received gems from the Middle East but at the same time Kate returns clothing freebies. Is merching legal bc they are not elected?
From the BRF’s policy on gifts:
The fundamental principle governing the acceptance of gifts by Members of The Royal Family is that no gifts, including hospitality or services, should be accepted which would, or might appear to, place the Member of The Royal Family under any obligation to the donor. In this regard, before accepting any gift, careful consideration should always be given, wherever practicable, to the donor, the reason for and occasion of the gift and the nature of the gift itself. Equally, before declining the offer of a gift, careful consideration should be given to any offence that might be caused by such action.
2.2 Gifts from businesses. Gifts offered by commercial enterprises in the UK should normally be declined, unless they are offered as a souvenir of an official visit to the enterprises' premises, to mark a Royal marriage or other special personal occasion. When gifts are accepted, the consent of the Member of The Royal Family should be contingent upon the enterprise undertaking not to exploit the gift for commercial purposes. Gifts, including samples, should always be returned unless it is not justifiable to do so on the grounds of cost. If such gifts are not returned, they should be treated as official gifts (see Section 3.2).
3.2 Definition of official gifts. Gifts are defined as official when received during an official engagement or duty or in connection with the official role or duties of a Member of The Royal Family. These include gifts: (a) presented to Members of The Royal Family by host organisers or official participants in connection with any official UK engagement or duty; (b) given by host authorities to a Member of The Royal Family on an official or working visit overseas. This covers those given by the government concerned, as well as any official body, public authority or host organisation/individual related to the Royal programme; (c) sent in by businesses and by individuals not personally known to the Member of The Royal Family; and (d) given by individuals not personally known to the Member of The Royal Family during "walkabouts" and other similar occasions.
And for the record, the US’s policies on gifts:
The Legislative Branch (Senators and Representatives):
The Judicial Branch, including Supreme Court Justices:
The Executive Branch:
For federal employees (the career civil service)
For the President’s Administration (political appointees and White House officials) - these rules are only in effect for the presidential term. New rules are issued by each President at the beginning of their term:
It’s more than gold bars and Mercedes that are unethical here in the US. Don’t bring your political snipes here, anon.
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
Bill Bramhall, New York Daily News
* * * *
LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN
March 5, 2024 (Tuesday)
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
MAR 6, 2024
Possibly the biggest story today in terms of its impact on most Americans’ lives is that as part of its war on junk fees, the Biden administration announced an $8 cap on late fees charged by credit card issuers that have more than a million accounts. These companies hold more than 95% of outstanding credit card debt. Currently, fees average $32, and they fall on more than 45 million people. The White House estimates that late fees currently cost Americans about $25 billion a year. The rule change will save Americans about $10 billion a year.
The administration also announced a “strike force” to crack down on “unfair and illegal pricing.” Certain corporations raised prices as strained supply chains made it more expensive to make their products. But after supply chains were fixed and their costs dropped, corporations kept consumer prices high and passed on record profits to their shareholders. The strike force will encourage federal agencies to share information to enable them to identify businesses that are breaking the law.
Banking organizations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out swinging. Executive vice president Neil Bradley said that such regulation “to micromanage how private businesses set prices will have the same result: shortages, fewer choices for consumers, a weaker economy, and less jobs.”
And in what perhaps illustrates why voters don’t appear to know much about what the administration is doing, these stories have gotten far less attention today than the primaries and caucuses.
Today is Super Tuesday, when 15 states and one territory choose their primary candidates for president and for the House of Representatives and the Senate (although in Alaska, only Republicans vote today and in American Samoa, only Democrats vote today). About 36% of Republican delegates will be awarded today, and that’s the side people will be watching because on the Democratic side, Biden has a virtually uncontested lead with the exception of candidate Jason Palmer, who won the Democratic caucuses in American Samoa.
Trump is expected to win today’s Republican contests, but observers are watching to see what percentage of the vote challenger Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, takes from him. As I write this, she appears to have won Vermont and run strongly elsewhere, especially in the suburbs. Three states conducted exit polls and they, too, show warning signs for Trump as 78% of Haley voters in the North Carolina primary, 69% in California, and 68% in Virginia refused to say they would support the party’s nominee no matter who it is.
It is also notable that polls showed Trump with a much stronger margin over Haley than materialized today. As Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo notes, it is not yet clear what that means.
Trump is on his way to becoming the Republican presidential nominee. On Friday the Republican National Committee (RNC) will meet in Houston to choose a new chair. The only people running are Trump loyalist Michael Whatley and Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump, who hope to become co-chairs. Natalie Allison reported today in Politico that the RNC will not vote on a resolution that would have prohibited the RNC from covering Trump’s legal bills.
Trump is certainly in need of money. Today, his lawyers demanded a new trial in the second E. Jean Carroll case, complaining that the judge limited what he could say, and asked for a judgment figure significantly lower than the $83.3 million the jurors awarded. By the end of Friday, Trump must post either the money or a bond covering it.
This morning, Trump told Brian Kilmeade of Fox & Friends that he was not worried about coming up with the money to pay the $454 million he owes in the New York fraud case, or the interest it is accruing at more than $100,000 a day. “I have a lot of money. I can do what I want to do,” Trump said. “I don't worry about anything. I don't worry about the money. I don't worry about money.”
Yesterday, Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, admitted he lied under oath during his testimony in that case. He will be sentenced in April.
Super Tuesday is also the day that the 2024 presidential campaign begins in earnest for those who had not previously been paying much attention, and Taylor Swift today urged her 282 million followers on Instagram “to vote the people who most represent YOU into power. If you haven't already, make a plan to vote today,” she wrote.
The presidential contest is only one of the many contests on the ballot today, but most of those results are not yet in.
Although the Arizona primary will not be held until March 19, we did learn today that Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) will not run for reelection. Her exit will leave the Arizona senator’s race to election-denying Trump Republican Kari Lake, who lost the Arizona governorship in 2022 (although she continues to insist she won it), and Arizona Democratic representative Ruben Gallego.
Just as voters don’t appear to know much about what the administration has done to make their lives better, a recent study from a Democratic pollster suggests that voters don’t seem to know much about Trump’s statements attacking democracy. When informed of them, their opinion of Trump falls.
Trump has called for mass deportations of immigrants and foreign-born U.S. citizens; on February 29, he said he would use local police as well as federal troops to round people up and move them to camps for deportation. Asked yesterday by a Newsmax host if he would “order mass deportations if you win the White House,” Trump answered: “Oh, day one. We have no choice. And we’ll start with the bad ones. And you know who knows who they are? Local police. Local police have to be given back their authority, and they have to be given back their respect and immunity.”
On the one hand, caps to credit card late fees and an attempt to address price gouging; on the other hand, local police with immunity rounding up millions of people and putting them in camps, for deportation. And, in between the two, an election.
People had better start paying attention.
LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
#Heather Cox Richardson#Letters From An American#deportations#TFG#election 2024#economy#Bill Bramhall
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
The seeds of the NYPD’s 30 April raid on Columbia University were planted nearly six months ago. On 24 October, Columbia’s senior administration unilaterally created an illegitimate university event policy in the aftermath of peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstrations, granting them the power to regulate protests and “‘sole discretion’ to determine sanctions on student organizations and their members”. Thus, senior administration circumvented process and procedure and undermined shared governance, rather than adhere to the rules of university conduct, adopted by our university senate and set out in the university statutes.
...
But instead of engaging with these protesters or charging them with rules of university conduct violations, the administration chose to call the NYPD on to campus – leading to the arrests of 108 student protesters and the unsanctioned arrests of two legal observers on 18 April 2024. This action marked a gross escalation in the administration’s negligence of shared governance: ignoring a unanimous veto by the university senate executive committee, who are required to be consulted before police enter university grounds. This neglectful decision was met with harsh rebuke from much of Columbia and mischaracterized our community as violent extremists. Rather than quell the protest, tensions inflamed and a second encampment, even larger than the first, was erected within hours.
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Under intense grilling today by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a mid-level Biden-Harris administration aide repeatedly dodged direct questions about the State Department’s failure to break Azerbaijan’s genocidal blockade of Artsakh – even refusing, on national security grounds, to answer Chairman Robert Menendez’s (D-NJ) straightforward query about Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s motives for starving 120,000 indigenous Christian Armenians, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA). Thursday’s hearing, titled “Assessing the Crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh,” was chaired by Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) and featured testimony by Acting Assistant Secretary for Europe and Eurasia Yuri Kim. The chair led members of the committee in direct, often confrontational questioning of the State Department refusal to hold Azerbaijan accountable or to provide urgently needed humanitarian aid to Artsakh.[...]
when asked by Senator Menendez “why the United States is not or cannot do more to get humanitarian assistance [to Artsakh],” the Acting Assistant Secretary of State pointed to the passage of a single Russian Red Cross truck through the secondary Aghdam road to Artsakh, noting “that traffic is now flowing,” though she agreed with Senate leaders, “it is not enough.” When asked by Senator Menendez, “Why do you think, despite its signed commitments and a ruling by the International Court of Justice to open the Lachin Corridor, that Aliyev is not opening the corridor?”, Acting Assistant Secretary Kim refused to answer publicly, inferring the matter is classified.[...]
Chairman Menendez was joined by Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) in pressing the State Department to enforce Section 907 restrictions on U.S. military assistance to Azerbaijan. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) “I have repeatedly expressed my deep opposition to waiving Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, allowing the United States to send assistance to his regime. This clearly alters the balance of military power between Azerbaijan and Armenia in Aliyev’s favor. I think Azerbaijan’s actions over the past three years have vindicated my skepticism,” stated Chairman Menendez. “When you routinely give the waiver under Section 907, saying that Azerbaijan has demonstrated steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia when that’s just not the case,” stated Sen. Cardin, “we lose credibility when that happens, when we aren’t prepared to take decisive steps based upon our values.”[...]
Acting Assistant Secretary Kim defended previous waivers of Section 907, noting that assistance has been used for counter-terrorism and other purposes. She confirmed that President Biden’s 2022 waiver had expired in June. “We have not submitted a new waiver request yet because we are reviewing the situation very carefully,” stated Acting Assistant Secretary Kim.
17 Sep 23
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
dispatches from Republican America, Jan 24 2024
Texas:
“Texas saw an estimated 26,313 rape-related pregnancies during the 16 months after the state outlawed all abortions, with no exceptions for survivors of rape or incest, according to a study published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association,”
“The authors noted that while some pregnant rape survivors who need abortion care may be able to travel out of state or manage the pregnancy at home with abortion pills, the bans leave many survivors without a viable alternative.”
Oklahoma:
On Tuesday, Oklahoma's superintendent of public instruction, Ryan Walters, announced he was appointing right-wing social media influencer Chaya Raichik — best known for her controversial Libs of TikTok social media accounts — to an advisory role on the state's Library Media Advisory Committee. That will allow her to help determine which books are appropriate for Oklahoma school libraries.
Raichik's social media accounts are known for targeting liberals, LGBTQ people and teachers. Often, she uses incendiary claims and conspiracy theories to suggest without evidence that members of these groups engage in the indoctrination or sexual exploitation of children. And both Raichik and Walters have been accused of stoking bomb threats toward people and places featured in Raichik's videos: Walters has faced calls to resign over claims that he helped incite bomb threats toward a librarian when he reshared an edited Libs of TikTok video. That video also led to bomb threats against his home; Walters called such threats "reprehensible and unacceptable," according to KOCO News, and said they were being investigated. Raichik, meanwhile, has been accused of inciting threats against hospitals and schools.
Ohio:
Ohio has banned gender-affirming care for minors and restricted transgender women’s and girls’ participation on sports teams, a move that has families of transgender children scrambling over how best to care for them.
The Republican-dominated Senate voted Wednesday to override GOP Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto. The new law bans gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapies, and restricts mental health care for transgender individuals under 18. The measure also bans transgender girls and women from girls and women’s sports teams at both the K-12 and collegiate level.
Officials expect the law to take effect in roughly 90 days.
Texas (again):
Texas is apparently taking advantage of a loophole in a recent Supreme Court ruling involving the US-Mexico border in order to keep putting up more razor-wire fencing along the Rio Grande riverbank.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 Monday ruling delivered a huge win to the Biden administration in its ongoing legal battle with Texas over the southern border by allowing federal border agents to cut or move barbed wire fencing the Republican-controlled state installed at the border.
The ruling does not call for Texas to take any action in the matter — and the state's Republican governor, Greg Abbott, suggested in a post to X on Wednesday that Texas will keep putting up the fencing, even if federal border agents take it down.
"Texas' razor wire is an effective deterrent against the illegal border crossings encouraged by [President Joe] Biden's open border policies," Abbott said. "We continue to deploy this razor wire to repel illegal immigration."
#Politics#us politics#republicans#rape#transphobia#trans ban#abortion#immigration#Texas#libs of tiktok
19 notes
·
View notes
Text
by Corey Walker
One of the judges on the top United Nations court who voted on Friday to end Israel’s military operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah was previously nominated by US President Joe Biden to serve as a senior State Department official.
In Aug. 2021, Biden announced his intent to nominate Sarah Cleveland, an American, to serve as the legal adviser for the State Department in his administration. The nomination was ultimately unsuccessful, as she was not voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Two years later in November 2023, Cleveland, a former member of the UN Human Rights Committee, won election to sit on the bench of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken responded to Cleveland’s election by showering her with fawning praise. He expressed approval of Cleveland’s “vision for an ICJ that is judicially independent, preserves the integrity and authority of the court, and ensures the dignity of all people.”
The ICJ fills five seats during each general election cycle. Judges are nominated by a group of international law experts appointed by their country’s government. The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council member countries vote separately and secretly to pick the judges who will sit on the bench.
In an interview with Columbia Law School, Cleveland shared that her successful election could be attributed in part to her willingness to vote against American interests.
“Fundamentally, what the rest of the world wanted to see was that the US candidate to the court was independent from the US government, was interested in their individual countries, and understood their perspective,” Cleveland said. “They did not want a judge from a permanent member of the Security Council who would predictably vote for her own country’s interests.”
To win support from countries in the United Nations, Cleveland touted her history of standing against the US government’s positions on controversial issues.
“I have a long record of independence from the US government, since my very first case — as a student in a human rights clinic at Yale Law School — which was a lawsuit against the US government on behalf of Haitian refugees detained at Guantanamo,” she said.
On Friday, the ICJ issued a ruling demanding that Israel halt its military operations against the Hamas terrorist group in Rafah and allow for significantly more humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. Critics of the court have accused the ICJ, along with other major international organizations, of harboring substantial and unfair bias against Israel.
The order was adopted by the panel of 15 judges from around the world in a 13-2 vote, opposed by judges from Uganda and Israel itself.
If carried out, the ICJ ruling would effectively end Israel’s campaign to dismantle Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that launched the war in Gaza by invading southern Israel on Oct. 7, murdering 1,200 people, and kidnapping over 250 others as hostages.
However, Israeli officials have indicated the Jewish state will not comply with the ruling of the court, which has no enforcement powers.
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
U.S. Government to Ban Kaspersky Antivirus Software Amid Cybersecurity Concerns
To bolster national cybersecurity, the Biden administration announced plans on Thursday to prohibit the sale of antivirus software produced by Russia's Kaspersky Lab in the United States. The decision comes as concerns mount over potential Russian exploitation of the software to gather sensitive information from American computers.
Commerce Secretary Highlights Cybersecurity Risks
During a briefing call with reporters, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo emphasized the risks associated with Kaspersky's software. "Russia has demonstrated both the capability and intent to exploit Russian companies like Kaspersky to collect and weaponize Americans' personal information," Raimondo stated, underscoring the urgency of the action. The software's privileged access to computer systems could potentially enable the theft of sensitive data or the installation of malware, posing a significant threat to national security. This risk is particularly acute given Kaspersky's large U.S. customer base, which includes critical infrastructure providers and state and local governments.
New Regulations and Trade Restrictions
The comprehensive new rule, leveraging broad powers established during the Trump administration, will be implemented alongside the addition of three Kaspersky units to a trade restriction list. This dual approach aims to not only limit the software's presence in the U.S. market but also to impact the company's global reputation and overseas sales. Key points of the new regulations include: - A ban on inbound sales of Kaspersky software, including updates and licensing, effective September 29, 2024. - Prohibition of new U.S. business for Kaspersky 30 days after the announcement - Restrictions on white-labeled products incorporating Kaspersky technology. - Addition of two Russian and one UK-based Kaspersky units to the entity list, limiting their access to U.S. suppliers.
Implications for U.S. Cybersecurity Strategy
The ban on Kaspersky software reflects the Biden administration's broader strategy to mitigate the risks of Russian cyberattacks and maintain pressure on Moscow amid ongoing geopolitical tensions. It also demonstrates the government's willingness to utilize new authorities to restrict transactions between U.S. firms and technology companies from "foreign adversary" nations like Russia and China. Senator Mark Warner, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed support for the decision, stating, "We would never give an adversarial nation the keys to our networks or devices, so it's crazy to think that we would continue to allow Russian software with the deepest possible device access to be sold to Americans."
Kaspersky's History of Regulatory Scrutiny
This is not the first time Kaspersky has faced regulatory challenges in the United States. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security banned Kaspersky's flagship antivirus product from federal networks, citing potential ties to Russian intelligence and concerns over Russian laws that could compel the company to assist intelligence agencies. Media reports at the time alleged Kaspersky's involvement in the transfer of hacking tools from a National Security Agency employee to the Russian government, though Kaspersky denied any intentional involvement.
Enforcement and Implications for Users
Under the new rules, sellers and resellers violating the restrictions will face fines from the Commerce Department, with the possibility of criminal charges for willful violations. While software users will not face legal penalties, they will be strongly encouraged to discontinue use of Kaspersky products.
Kaspersky's Global Presence and Response
Kaspersky, which operates through a British holding company and maintains operations in Massachusetts, reported revenue of $752 million in 2022 from over 220,000 corporate clients across approximately 200 countries. The company's client base includes prominent organizations such as Italian vehicle maker Piaggio, Volkswagen's retail division in Spain, and the Qatar Olympic Committee. As of the announcement, Kaspersky Lab and the Russian Embassy had not responded to requests for comment. The company has previously maintained that it is a privately managed entity without ties to the Russian government. As the cybersecurity landscape continues to evolve, the U.S. government's decision to ban Kaspersky software underscores the growing importance of securing digital infrastructure against potential foreign threats. The move is likely to have far-reaching implications for both the cybersecurity industry and international relations in the digital age. Read the full article
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Outcry as Brazil congress moves to gut environment and Indigenous ministries
Plan to drastically dilute bodies’ powers would deal severe blow to Lula’s attempt to reverse Bolsonaro’s era of Amazon devastation
Brazilian activists have voiced outrage after congress moved to drastically dilute the powers of the environment and Indigenous peoples ministries in what campaigners called a potentially crippling blow to efforts to protect Indigenous communities and the Amazon.
Hopes that Brazil could turn the page on Jair Bolsonaro’s era of Amazon devastation were sky-high after the far-right leader lost last year’s presidential election to the leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. During his campaign Lula vowed to stamp out environmental crime and champion Indigenous people, and after taking power in January put the veteran environmentalist Marina Silva in charge of environmental affairs and made the Indigenous activist Sônia Guajajara head of a new ministry for Indigenous peoples.
But that optimism received a dramatic reality check on Wednesday as members of the conservative-dominated congress – where the the ruralista caucus representing agribusiness interests remains a powerful force – moved to severely weaken both ministries.
By 15 votes to 3, a congressional committee approved draft legislation that would strip the environment ministry of control of the rural environmental registry, a key tool in the fight against illegal deforestation and land-grabbing, and water resources. The rule change would also strip the ministry for Indigenous peoples of responsibility for delimiting Indigenous territories, handing those powers to the justice ministry.
Silva and Guajajara both denounced the moves, amid anger and alarm that members of Lula’s administration had not done more to oppose the changes, which are likely to be voted on by the lower house and senate in the coming days.
Continue reading.
#brazil#politics#brazilian politics#environmental justice#indigenous rights#mod nise da silveira#image description in alt#environmentalism
18 notes
·
View notes
Text
Announcements by little-known federal agencies rarely spark a “political firestorm,” but that’s what the U.S. Judicial Conference did with a March 12 proposal involving judicial orders stopping nationwide enforcement of federal policies, so-called “national injunctions.” Specifically, the Conference proposed limiting plaintiffs’ ability to “judge shop” to ensure that sympathetic judges would hear their requests for such injunctions. Shortly thereafter, 19 Republican senators slammed the proposals on its merits and for encroaching on legislative authority while nine Democratic senators praised it for restoring public confidence in courts, and those were only opening salvos. (The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the semi-annual meetings of the 26-judge Judicial Conference and appoints the over 200 members of its some 20 committees, almost all of them federal judges. The Conference says it “serves as the policymaking body for the federal courts,” a less-than-precise summation of its actual authority.)
Emblematic of the cases that led to the Conference’s March 12 action is one that made national headlines and is now before the Supreme Court. Texas federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk granted a request by a group of anti-abortion physicians to bar (“enjoin”) enforcement of Food and Drug Administration rules allowing mail distribution of abortion medicines. He applied his injunction to the whole country, not just to that part of Texas that Kacsmaryk serves. Quirks in federal court organization allowed the physicians to be sure their case would go before Kacsmaryk, whose anti-abortion views were well known. Kacsmaryk’s order is on hold pending appeal, but it raises two basic questions (apart from the abortion controversy itself).
First, should a single federal judge have the authority to stop duly enacted statutes and agency rules from being enforced anywhere in the country? Kacsmaryk’s FDA injunction is hardly the only “national” or “universal” injunction that judges (including Kacsmaryk) have issued. Parties left and right have sought them—12 during the George Bush administration, and 19 and 50 respectively during the Obama and Trump administrations. Policymakers and others, left and right, have attacked them, at least when judges have enjoined enforcement of laws that the policymakers favor. The Conference goal on March 12 was not ending such injunctions but rather making it difficult for plaintiffs seeking them to ensure that their case would go before a sympathetic judge.
Thus, the second question: Should federal court rules enable plaintiffs to secure a like-minded judge to hear their case—commonly known as “judge-shopping.” Allowing plaintiffs to pick their judge is contrary to the bedrock federal court principle of randomly assigning cases to judges through an electronic version of drawing names from a hat.
Successful judge-shopping combined with judges’ authority to issue national injunctions is obviously attractive to interest groups. Why try to change national policy by building legislative coalitions or lobbying federal agencies when one strategically selected federal judge can issue an injunction doing the same thing (at least if the appellate courts agree)?
In this post I try to:
Clarify the federal court arcanum about the dispute;
Explain the Conference’s proposed policy and the controversies over the policy and the Conference’s authority; and
Speculate briefly on what may be next.
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
Excerpt from this story from Inside Climate News:
After the House of Representatives passed legislation that would allow mining companies more legal rights to federal lands by a bipartisan vote of 216-195 earlier this month, a bipartisan group of Senate sponsors are moving it through their chamber.
“With the passage of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, we’re codifying existing precedent and unlocking our rich domestic mineral resources,” said Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, after the House passed the bill on May 8.
Nine Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the legislation, including co-sponsor Mary Peltola (D-Alaska).
Western legislators are leading the effort to pass the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act with the explicit goal of erasing the new legal precedent the 2022 Rosemont decision created. In that decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with conservation groups, ruling that the federal government was wrong to assume the Rosemont Copper Company, mining in the Santa Rita mountains in southern Arizona, had a right to dump mining waste on federal land where the company could prove no valid mineral claim. A mining claim is valid when a company discovers a physical mineral deposit, such as lithium, lead or zinc, and the company asserts their right to mine it, according to the Bureau of Land Management.
The bipartisan support for blocking the Rosemont decision follows the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which incentivized mining companies to take advantage of the Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit to develop mining projects for critical minerals included in the law. Many of the critical minerals designated by the Biden administration, such as zinc, manganese and lithium, are integral to electric vehicle batteries and the transition toward a carbon-free economy.
The passage of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act in the House and bipartisan support for it in the Senate could force the White House to intervene. The Biden administration released a statement opposing the bill in April. Senate sponsors include Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
Murkowski said she co-sponsored the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act because she believes the Rosemont decision gave federal agencies too much authority to deny claims to federal lands.
“It’s just yet another example of ensuring that our agencies are held accountable to what we have crafted in the law and don’t take too much discretionary license,” Murkowski told Inside Climate News. “I think what [the Forest Service] did was a determination that was beyond the limits of their authority.”
2 notes
·
View notes