ReportWire

Tag: Biden Administration

  • Biden to announce $2.6B in funding to replace all lead pipes throughout the U.S.

    Biden to announce $2.6B in funding to replace all lead pipes throughout the U.S.

    [ad_1]

    Milwaukee, Wisconsin – President Biden is set to announce $2.6 billion in funding to replace all lead pipes in the United States as part of a new EPA rule that will require lead pipes to be identified and replaced within 10 years using the new funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. 

    The EPA estimates that nine million homes in the U.S. have lead pipes. 

    The city of Milwaukee, where Mr. Biden will make the announcement, has 65,000 lead pipes, which the city says will cost an estimated $700 million to remove.

    “The science has been clear for decades. There is no safe level of lead in drinking water,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told reporters on Monday. 

    President Biden Departs The White House
     President Joe Biden speaks to the media before he departs the White House on Oct. 5, 2024, in Washington, DC.

    Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images


    The final rule will require better lead testing requirements and mandating a complete inventory of lead water pipes. The $2.6 billion is the latest disbursement by the Biden administration for lead pipes in the $50 billion from the 2021 infrastructure law for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.

    Legal challenges could arise but a senior administration official believes the ruling is within the EPA’s “statutory authority” and on solid legal footing. 

    Mr. Biden’s visit comes amid a flurry of stops to the swing state of Wisconsin by both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Mr. Biden’s last visit was nearly a month ago to Westly, Wisconsin for an announcement on providing electricity to rural America. 

    The political focus on Wisconsin by Mr. Biden reflects the hopes that Democrats can hold on to the state that they flipped in 2020 by a slim margin after losing it in 2016. 

    Wisconsin is one of six states where lead levels in the blood of children are more than double the national rate, according to a 2021 study published in JAMA pediatrics. 

    Even low lead levels can cause small amounts of intellectual impairment depending on the child, according to Dr. Adam Blumenberg, emergency medicine physician and toxicology expert at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.

    “If there’s any amount of concerning lead in the child, you really want to figure out where it’s coming from and remove the source of exposure. That’s always going to be one of the most important things to do,” says Blumenberg. 

    Deanna Branch, a mother and lead-poisoning awareness activist from Milwaukee, told CBS News that she is finally seeing the money from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act being used to remove lead pipes in her community. 

    Branch’s son Aidan suffered from lead poisoning while they were living in a home with lead in the paint, windows, pipes and soil. Her son’s lead levels were so high they had to move out of the home and into a homeless shelter for almost three months while they searched for safe housing. Branch said the experience was terrifying for her son and left him with health issues he will have to face for the rest of his life. 

    The Branch’s live in a lead paint free home now, but they still have lead pipes. 

    “When I first started advocating there was a 50 year plan that went down to a 40 year plan, now there is a nine year plan to remove all the lead pipes in Milwaukee, Branch tells CBS News. “I should be alive to see the lead pipes being removed out of Milwaukee and that gives me hope for other places as well.” 

    There is still more the Milwaukee community needs to live in a lead-free safe environment: more housing and more clinics. 

    Branch says there is not enough safe housing available in the community. Her old home where her son was lead poisoned was still being rented out as recently as a few years ago according to Branch. As for the Next Door Pediatrics Clinic where her son was first tested for lead positioning, it has since shut down, creating a healthcare gap in the community. Branch credits the work of the clinic for her youngest daughter being lead free. 

    There is a sense of shame for parents whose children suffered from lead poisoning, but Branch wants to remove the shame from the equation of asking for help. 

    “I want them to know it’s not on you,” says Branch. “We’re not receiving justice, And it’s a human right to have clean drinking water.”  

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden Already Has Resources In Place To Respond To Hurricane Milton

    Biden Already Has Resources In Place To Respond To Hurricane Milton

    [ad_1]

    [ad_2] Jason Easley
    Source link

  • Judge puts Biden’s student loan cancellation on hold again

    Judge puts Biden’s student loan cancellation on hold again

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge in Missouri put a temporary hold on President Joe Biden’s latest student loan cancellation plan on Thursday, slamming the door on hope it would move forward after another judge allowed a pause to expire.Related video above: Delinquency reports for student loan borrowers restart in OctoberJust as it briefly appeared the Biden administration would have a window to push its plan forward, U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp in Missouri granted an injunction blocking any widespread cancellation.Six Republican-led states requested the injunction hours earlier, after a federal judge in Georgia decided not to extend a separate order blocking the plan.The states, led by Missouri’s attorney general, asked Schelp to act fast, saying the Education Department could “unlawfully mass cancel up to hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans as soon as Monday.” Schelp called it an easy decision.Biden’s plan has been on hold since September, when the states filed a lawsuit in Georgia arguing Biden had overstepped his legal authority. But on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge J. Randal Hall decided not to extend the pause after finding that Georgia doesn’t have the legal right to sue in this case.Hall dismissed Georgia from the case and transferred it to Missouri, which Hall said has “clear standing” to challenge Biden’s plan.Proponents of student loan cancellation briefly had a glimmer of hope the plan would move forward — Hall’s order was set to expire after Thursday, allowing the Education Department to finalize the rule. But Schelp’s order put the question to rest.“This is yet another win for the American people,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement. “The Court rightfully recognized Joe Biden and Kamala Harris cannot saddle working Americans with Ivy League debt.”Biden’s plan would cancel at least some student loan debt for an estimated 30 million borrowers.It would erase up to $20,000 in interest for those who have seen their original balances increase because of runaway interest. It would also provide relief to those who have been repaying their loans for 20 or 25 years, and those who went to college programs that leave graduates with high debt compared to their incomes.Video below: Older Borrowers Struggle with High Student Loan DebtBiden told the Education Department to pursue cancellation through a federal rulemaking process after the Supreme Court rejected an earlier plan using a different legal justification. That plan would have eliminated up to $20,000 for 43 million Americans.The Supreme Court rejected Biden’s first proposal in a case brought by Republican states including Missouri.In his order Wednesday, Hall said Georgia failed to prove it was significantly harmed by Biden’s new plan. He rejected an argument that the policy would hurt the state’s income tax revenue, but he found that Missouri has a strong case.Missouri is suing on behalf of MOHELA, a student loan servicer that was created by the state and is hired by the federal government to help collect student loans. In the suit, Missouri argues that cancellation would hurt MOHELA’s revenue because it’s paid based on the number of borrowers it serves.In their lawsuit, the Republican states argue that the Education Department had quietly been telling loan servicers to prepare for loan cancellation as early as Sept. 9, bypassing a typical 60-day waiting period for new federal rules to take effect.Also joining the suit are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota and Ohio.

    WASHINGTON —

    A federal judge in Missouri put a temporary hold on President Joe Biden’s latest student loan cancellation plan on Thursday, slamming the door on hope it would move forward after another judge allowed a pause to expire.

    Related video above: Delinquency reports for student loan borrowers restart in October

    Just as it briefly appeared the Biden administration would have a window to push its plan forward, U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp in Missouri granted an injunction blocking any widespread cancellation.

    Six Republican-led states requested the injunction hours earlier, after a federal judge in Georgia decided not to extend a separate order blocking the plan.

    The states, led by Missouri’s attorney general, asked Schelp to act fast, saying the Education Department could “unlawfully mass cancel up to hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans as soon as Monday.” Schelp called it an easy decision.

    Biden’s plan has been on hold since September, when the states filed a lawsuit in Georgia arguing Biden had overstepped his legal authority. But on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge J. Randal Hall decided not to extend the pause after finding that Georgia doesn’t have the legal right to sue in this case.

    Hall dismissed Georgia from the case and transferred it to Missouri, which Hall said has “clear standing” to challenge Biden’s plan.

    Proponents of student loan cancellation briefly had a glimmer of hope the plan would move forward — Hall’s order was set to expire after Thursday, allowing the Education Department to finalize the rule. But Schelp’s order put the question to rest.

    “This is yet another win for the American people,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement. “The Court rightfully recognized Joe Biden and Kamala Harris cannot saddle working Americans with Ivy League debt.”

    Biden’s plan would cancel at least some student loan debt for an estimated 30 million borrowers.

    It would erase up to $20,000 in interest for those who have seen their original balances increase because of runaway interest. It would also provide relief to those who have been repaying their loans for 20 or 25 years, and those who went to college programs that leave graduates with high debt compared to their incomes.

    Video below: Older Borrowers Struggle with High Student Loan Debt

    Biden told the Education Department to pursue cancellation through a federal rulemaking process after the Supreme Court rejected an earlier plan using a different legal justification. That plan would have eliminated up to $20,000 for 43 million Americans.

    The Supreme Court rejected Biden’s first proposal in a case brought by Republican states including Missouri.

    In his order Wednesday, Hall said Georgia failed to prove it was significantly harmed by Biden’s new plan. He rejected an argument that the policy would hurt the state’s income tax revenue, but he found that Missouri has a strong case.

    Missouri is suing on behalf of MOHELA, a student loan servicer that was created by the state and is hired by the federal government to help collect student loans. In the suit, Missouri argues that cancellation would hurt MOHELA’s revenue because it’s paid based on the number of borrowers it serves.

    In their lawsuit, the Republican states argue that the Education Department had quietly been telling loan servicers to prepare for loan cancellation as early as Sept. 9, bypassing a typical 60-day waiting period for new federal rules to take effect.

    Also joining the suit are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota and Ohio.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.S.-funded armies fight each other in Lebanon

    U.S.-funded armies fight each other in Lebanon

    [ad_1]

    It’s a story that has happened before in the Middle East: an army with American weapons shot at another army with American weapons. Sometimes it’s an intentional ploy; during the war between Iran and Iraq, the Reagan administration armed both sides, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal. And sometimes it’s an unintended consequence, like the Syrian rebel infighting that led to the infamous headline, “In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA.”

    The fighting between the U.S.-funded army of Israel and the U.S.-funded army of Lebanon seems to be another such consequence of U.S. policy. When the Lebanese militia Hezbollah and Israel began fighting last year, the Lebanese government tried its best to stay out of the fray. It reportedly even pulled troops away from the border when Israel announced a ground invasion and ordered Lebanese citizens to evacuate north of the Awali River. But on Thursday, the Lebanese army announced that it had, in fact, been sucked into the conflict.

    “One of the soldiers was martyred as a result of the Israeli enemy targeting an army center in the area of Bint Jbeil South, and the center’s personnel have responded to the source of fire,” the army stated on social media. An official in Lebanon told Agence France-Presse that it was the first time the Lebanese army fired on Israeli forces throughout the war.

    Two hours before, the Lebanese army had announced that one of its soldiers was killed by Israeli fire while “carrying out an evacuation and rescue mission alongside the Lebanese Red Cross in the town of Taybeh-Marjayoun,” down the road from Odaisseh, a town that several Israeli troops were killed trying to enter on Wednesday morning. The Red Cross said that four of its paramedics were injured, and the Israeli army said that it would be investigating the incident.

    American taxpayers have helped arm and train both the armies that are now apparently shooting at each other—and the U.S. funding was designed to prevent exactly this outcome. Israel received $124 billion in U.S. aid from 1949 to 2023, and at least $6.5 billion over the past year. The United States has also provided around $3 billion in military aid to Lebanon since 2006, including around $2 billion in weapons. Last year, the Biden administration began paying the salaries of Lebanese soldiers and police directly.

    Congress sends Lebanon this aid on the condition that it will be used to “professionalize the [Lebanese Armed Forces] to mitigate internal and external threats from non-state actors, including Hizballah [sic]” and “implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701,” which was passed after the past Israeli-Lebanese war in 2006, and calls on Hezbollah to disarm.

    However, Hezbollah has refused to lay down its weapons, claiming that Israel still occupies Lebanese land in the disputed Shebaa Farms. After Hamas’ October 7 attacks on Israel last year, Hezbollah began firing on the Shebaa Farms, which escalated to Israel and Hezbollah bombarding each other’s border cities, forcing tens of thousands of people on both sides of the border to flee. Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.N. that he would fight for “total victory” in order to “return our citizens to their home safely.”

    Biden administration officials have encouraged Israel’s strategy of “de-escalation through escalation,” and are privately pitching the war as an opportunity to “reshape the Middle East for the better for years to come,” according to Politico.

    But President Joe Biden is publicly calling for the war to end. “We should have a ceasefire now,” he told reporters on Monday. Asked whether he is comfortable with Israel launching a ground invasion of Lebanon, the president said that he is “comfortable with them stopping.” If only he had some leverage over the two sides.

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Petti

    Source link

  • Russia’s adaptability to US sanctions stymied their effectiveness, economists say

    Russia’s adaptability to US sanctions stymied their effectiveness, economists say

    [ad_1]

    Waves of sanctions imposed by the Biden administration after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine haven’t inflicted the devastating blow to Moscow’s economy that some had expected. In a new report, two researchers are offering reasons why.Oleg Itskhoki of Harvard University and Elina Ribakova of the Peterson Institute for International Economics argue that the sanctions should have been imposed more forcefully immediately after the invasion rather than in a piecemeal manner.Related video above: Russia can only be forced into peace, Zelensky says to the United Nations Security Council”In retrospect, it is evident that there was no reason not to have imposed all possible decisive measures against Russia from the outset once Russia launched the full scale invasion in February 2022,” the authors state in the paper. Still, “the critical takeaway is that sanctions are not a silver bullet,” Ribakova said on a call with reporters this week, to preview the study.The researchers say Russia was able to brace for the financial penalties because of the lessons learned from sanctions imposed in 2014 after it invaded Crimea. Also, the impact was weakened by the failure to get more countries to participate in sanctions, with economic powers like China and India not included. The report says that “while the count of sanctions is high, the tangible impact on Russia’s economy is less clear,” and “global cooperation is indispensable.”The question of what makes sanctions effective or not is important beyond the Russia-Ukraine war. Sanctions have become critical tools for the United States and other Western nations to pressure adversaries to reverse actions and change policies while stopping short of direct military conflict.The limited impact of sanctions on Russia has been clear for some time. But the report provides a more detailed picture of how Russia adapted to the sanctions and what it could mean for U.S. sanctions’ effectiveness in the future. The paper will be presented at the Brookings Institution next week. Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. has sanctioned more than 4,000 people and businesses, including 80% of Russia’s banking sector by assets.The Biden administration acknowledges that sanctions alone cannot stop Russia’s invasion — it has also sent roughly $56 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the 2022 invasion. And many policy experts say the sanctions are not strong enough, as evidenced by the growth of the Russian economy. U.S. officials have said Russia has turned to China for machine tools, microelectronics and other technology that Moscow is using to produce missiles, tanks, aircraft and other weaponry for use in the war.A Treasury representative pointed to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s remarks in July during the Group of 20 finance ministers meetings, where she called actions against Russia “unprecedented.””We continue cracking down on Russian sanctions evasion and have strengthened and expanded our ability to target foreign financial institutions and anyone else around the world supporting Russia’s war machine,” she said. Still, Russia has been able to evade a $60 price cap on its oil exports imposed by the U.S. and the other Group of Seven democracies supporting Ukraine. The cap is enforced by barring Western insurers and shipping companies from handling oil above the cap. Russia has been able to dodge the cap by assembling its own fleet of aging, used tankers that do not use Western services and transport 90% of its oil.The U.S. pushed for the price cap as a way of cutting into Moscow’s oil profits without knocking large amounts of Russian oil off the global market and pushing up oil prices, gasoline prices and inflation. Similar concerns kept the European Union from imposing a boycott on most Russian oil for almost a year after Russia invaded Ukraine.G-7 leaders have agreed to engineer a $50 billion loan to help Ukraine, paid for by the interest earned on profits from Russia’s frozen central bank assets sitting mostly in Europe as collateral. However, the allies have not agreed on how to structure the loan. __Associated Press reporter Dave McHugh in Frankfurt contributed to this report.

    WASHINGTON —

    Waves of sanctions imposed by the Biden administration after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine haven’t inflicted the devastating blow to Moscow’s economy that some had expected. In a new report, two researchers are offering reasons why.

    Oleg Itskhoki of Harvard University and Elina Ribakova of the Peterson Institute for International Economics argue that the sanctions should have been imposed more forcefully immediately after the invasion rather than in a piecemeal manner.

    Related video above: Russia can only be forced into peace, Zelensky says to the United Nations Security Council

    “In retrospect, it is evident that there was no reason not to have imposed all possible decisive measures against Russia from the outset once Russia launched the full scale invasion in February 2022,” the authors state in the paper. Still, “the critical takeaway is that sanctions are not a silver bullet,” Ribakova said on a call with reporters this week, to preview the study.

    The researchers say Russia was able to brace for the financial penalties because of the lessons learned from sanctions imposed in 2014 after it invaded Crimea. Also, the impact was weakened by the failure to get more countries to participate in sanctions, with economic powers like China and India not included.

    The report says that “while the count of sanctions is high, the tangible impact on Russia’s economy is less clear,” and “global cooperation is indispensable.”

    The question of what makes sanctions effective or not is important beyond the Russia-Ukraine war. Sanctions have become critical tools for the United States and other Western nations to pressure adversaries to reverse actions and change policies while stopping short of direct military conflict.

    The limited impact of sanctions on Russia has been clear for some time. But the report provides a more detailed picture of how Russia adapted to the sanctions and what it could mean for U.S. sanctions’ effectiveness in the future.

    The paper will be presented at the Brookings Institution next week.

    Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. has sanctioned more than 4,000 people and businesses, including 80% of Russia’s banking sector by assets.

    The Biden administration acknowledges that sanctions alone cannot stop Russia’s invasion — it has also sent roughly $56 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the 2022 invasion. And many policy experts say the sanctions are not strong enough, as evidenced by the growth of the Russian economy. U.S. officials have said Russia has turned to China for machine tools, microelectronics and other technology that Moscow is using to produce missiles, tanks, aircraft and other weaponry for use in the war.

    A Treasury representative pointed to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s remarks in July during the Group of 20 finance ministers meetings, where she called actions against Russia “unprecedented.”

    “We continue cracking down on Russian sanctions evasion and have strengthened and expanded our ability to target foreign financial institutions and anyone else around the world supporting Russia’s war machine,” she said.

    Still, Russia has been able to evade a $60 price cap on its oil exports imposed by the U.S. and the other Group of Seven democracies supporting Ukraine. The cap is enforced by barring Western insurers and shipping companies from handling oil above the cap. Russia has been able to dodge the cap by assembling its own fleet of aging, used tankers that do not use Western services and transport 90% of its oil.

    The U.S. pushed for the price cap as a way of cutting into Moscow’s oil profits without knocking large amounts of Russian oil off the global market and pushing up oil prices, gasoline prices and inflation. Similar concerns kept the European Union from imposing a boycott on most Russian oil for almost a year after Russia invaded Ukraine.

    G-7 leaders have agreed to engineer a $50 billion loan to help Ukraine, paid for by the interest earned on profits from Russia’s frozen central bank assets sitting mostly in Europe as collateral. However, the allies have not agreed on how to structure the loan.

    __

    Associated Press reporter Dave McHugh in Frankfurt contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Trump’s child care policy incoherence matters

    Why Trump’s child care policy incoherence matters

    [ad_1]

    By now, most of us who pay attention to politics have grown accustomed to tuning out the word-salad responses that former President Donald Trump frequently offers when asked a specific, policy-oriented question.

    But even by Trump’s standards, the answer he gave on Thursday when asked to explain how he’d propose to lower child care costs was a doozy.

    “It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about—that, because, look, child care is child care—you know, there’s something you have to have it in this country. You have to have it,” Trump began. “But when you talk about those numbers, compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to—but they’ll get used to it very quickly—and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us.”

    It goes on from there. Read the whole thing here or watch it here.

    If you’re being very generous to Trump, you might conclude that he’s proposing to use tariff revenue to cover child care costs—though it’s not clear how much he’d spend or what the mechanism for redistributing that money would be. In short, what it seems Trump is promising here is a huge expansion of taxes on Americans to somehow pay for child care costs: growing government on the revenue side to pay for an expansion of government on the spending side.

    Of course, it’s hard to tell exactly what he was saying there, so let’s not get bogged down in the specifics. Trump certainty isn’t.

    It may be tempting to simply write this off as “Trump being Trump” and move on. But the Republican presidential nominee’s consistent inattention to the details of policymaking does matter—even if it has no bearing on the election—and the child care issue is a perfect example of why.

    This sort of issue is a liability for Trump because he can’t just bluster or pander his way through it. Trump excels when he can turn complex policies into simple, partisan us-vs.-them arguments that allow him to avoid any attention on the specifics. On issues like taxes and immigration, this technique works because one party broadly wants the policy to shift in one direction, so Trump can simply promise to do the opposite—never mind the details.

    But no one wants higher child care costs. Both sides want to reduce them. The argument, then, must turn on which side can offer the better plan for accomplishing that goal. As Thursday’s answer makes obvious, Trump has no such plan.

    That’s a problem because Vice President Kamala Harris can offer at least the semblance of a plan—and it’s a bad one. Harris has “signaled that she plans to build on the ambitions of outgoing President Joe Biden’s administration, which sought to pour billions in taxpayer dollars into making child care and home care for elderly and disabled adults more affordable,” the Associated Press summarized last month.

    Harris has not offered sufficient policy details to say exactly what she supports, but Biden’s plan mostly involved throwing more money at child care providers. In a supplemental budget request last year, for example, Biden asked Congress to approve $16 billion in additional subsidies for child care. Both Biden and Harris also support an expansion of the child tax credit—which many parents would presumably use to pay for rising child care costs.

    There are a number of alternatives that a conservative presidential candidate could discuss—even if many of them depend on state and local policymakers. Ease zoning laws to allow more child care facilities to open. Eliminate foolish barriers to entry like occupational licensing laws or requirements that child care providers have college degrees. Loosen rules that require certain staff-to-child ratios. The goal of those proposals is to increase the supply of child care, which is what the country actually needs.

    At the very least, a more capable candidate would explain why subsidizing demand—by redistributing more money into parents’ pockets or having taxpayers prop up providers—is a terrible way to reduce costs. Just look at what decades of similar federal subsidies have done to the cost of college! Why would you want to repeat that mistake?

    But the Republican Party does not have a candidate capable of or interested in making that argument. And if the Republican presidential candidate can’t articulate supply-side alternatives and a rhetorical counterweight to costly, counterproductive Democratic proposals, then what good is he?

    Again, Trump’s inability to discuss child care policy in a serious way may not affect the outcome of the election. Certainly, his lack of policy specifics did not hinder him from winning in 2016.

    In the bigger picture, however, this matters. Millions of Americans are worried about soaring child care costs. For the next two months, they will hear lots of bad ideas from Harris’ campaign about how to allegedly fix those problems. Many won’t seek out alternatives, and they will come away from this election cycle with the idea that more subsidies and more spending are the only things that can be done, and the question is which party will be more effective at delivering those things.

    As a result, child care costs will continue to rise, the government will get more expensive, and the efforts to solve both those problems will face a steeper climb.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Boehm

    Source link

  • Court rules that the government can hide its own report on CIA torture

    Court rules that the government can hide its own report on CIA torture

    [ad_1]

    The government investigated itself—and you’re not allowed to see the results. On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) doesn’t apply to the Senate’s 2012 report on CIA torture programs. The decision blocks off an avenue to find out what’s in the 6,700-page paper, which the CIA has fought to keep under wraps for more than a decade.

    The ruling comes after a small victory for transparency. On Friday, defense lawyers at the Guantanamo Bay military tribunal were allowed to release a photo of their defendant handcuffed and nude at a CIA black site in 2004. Defense lawyers have mentioned the existence of disturbing photos from black sites, but because almost all evidence at the Guantanamo trials is classified, they have never been able to release these photos to the public.

    Over the weekend, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin canceled military prosecutors’ controversial plea deal for three accused Al Qaeda members. Their cases may go to trial—which would allow lawyers to uncover more evidence related to the CIA torture program.

    The Senate investigation had been prompted by past CIA attempts to cover its tracks. After learning that the CIA had destroyed tapes of prisoners being tortured, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence began an investigation into the CIA’s entire interrogation program. (CIA officer Gina Haspel, who helped destroy the tapes and had personally watched torture sessions, later became CIA director during the Trump administration.)

    By 2012, staffers had dug up reams of evidence on CIA malfeasance. They reported not only the specific torture methods, but also that the CIA had tortured innocent people (including a mentally challenged man and two of the agency’s own informants), that CIA leaders had lied to the public and Congress about the program, and that much of the intelligence gained under torture was useless or worse.

    For example, the false reports linking Iraq to Al Qaeda, ultimately used to justify the Iraq War, may have come from a tortured prisoner, according to the Senate report. Another prisoner, Mohamedou Ould Slahi, was tortured into making a false terrorism confession. The military held Slahi at Guantanamo Bay for 14 years before unceremoniously releasing him. FBI agent Ali Soufan—whose memoir the CIA also fought to keep secret—alleges that the CIA refused to believe a real confession warning about a real plot in 2002 because it wasn’t extracted under torture.

    After the Senate committee finished its investigation, the CIA pushed hard to stop the results from seeing the light of day, arguing that the details must stay classified for national security reasons. When a Senate staffer locked up one incriminating document in a committee safe, fearing that the CIA would destroy it, the CIA proved his fears right by hacking into the Senate’s computer network.

    The Senate was finally allowed to publish a 525-page summary of its findings in 2014, but the details remain classified to this day. Even some pseudonyms of CIA officers and code names for countries were censored in the declassified summary, making it impossible to piece together a coherent timeline of many events.

    City University of New York law professor Douglas Cox tried a different route: a FOIA request. Although FOIA doesn’t apply to the Senate, it does apply to the executive branch. Luckily for Cox, the Senate committee had provided copies of the reports to different executive agencies, including the FBI, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Department of State.

    Cox asked all of those agencies for their copy in December 2016. The Department of Justice argued that, even if it possessed a copy of the report, the document still belonged to the Senate, so FOIA didn’t apply. In June 2017, the Trump administration asked several of the agencies to return their copies to the Senate committee, hoping to prevent this kind of disclosure. Cox decided to sue, alleging that the administration was violating FOIA.

    The case dragged on through years of appeals, and the Biden administration continued to fight Cox in court to keep details of CIA torture hidden. This week, a panel of three judges for the 2nd Circuit upheld the administration’s argument. The Senate “manifested a clear intent to control the report at the time of its creation, and because the Committee’s subsequent acts did not vitiate that intent, the report constitutes a congressional record not subject to FOIA,” the judges wrote.

    The Senate committee had disagreed on what to do with the report. Late committee chair Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) wrote that the report “should be made available within the CIA and other components of the Executive Branch for use as broadly as appropriate to help make sure that this experience is never repeated.” But then-ranking member Richard Burr (R–N.C.) called the report a “highly classified and committee sensitive document” that “should not be entered into any executive branch system of records.”

    Feinstein’s statement was “ambiguous over who retains full power over the ultimate disposition of the report,” and “does not clearly address whether the report may be disseminated outside of the Executive Branch to, for example, the public,” Judge William Nardini stated in the Monday ruling. So the torture report is still legally a Senate document, outside of FOIA.

    Of course, nothing is stopping the Senate itself from releasing more of the torture report. But ordinary citizens apparently don’t have a right to sue for its disclosure. For now, that decision will have to be a political one.

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Petti

    Source link

  • Americans released in prisoner swap with Russia celebrate emotional return

    Americans released in prisoner swap with Russia celebrate emotional return

    [ad_1]

    Americans released in prisoner swap with Russia celebrate emotional return – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Marine veteran Paul Whelan, Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and journalist Alsu Kurmasheva, all of whom were wrongfully detained in Russia, are back in the U.S. after being part of a complex swap involving a total of two dozen prisoners. When asked Friday about Pennsylvania teacher Marc Fogel, who in 2022 was sentenced to 14 years in a Russian penal colony for allegedly possessing medical marijuana, President Biden told reporters Friday that “we’re not giving up on that.” Weijia Jiang reports from the White House.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden and Trump are pushing the same failed trade policies

    Biden and Trump are pushing the same failed trade policies

    [ad_1]

    In a letter to House Democrats urging their support for his re-election, President Joe Biden slammed Donald Trump’s recent call for a 10-percent across-the-board tariff on imported products, complaining that it will boost household costs on the average American by $2,500 a year.

    He’s onto something. Tariffs, which are levies imposed on foreign products generally as a means to prop up domestic manufacturers, are just a fancy term for tax hikes. They limit consumer choices as other countries stop shipping goods to our markets. They boost inflation. For instance, Trump’s steel tariffs protected the U.S. steel industry, but raised the price on every item that relies upon steel.

    They lead to trade wars, as other countries retaliate by placing tariffs on U.S. products. By limiting competition, tariffs reduce innovation. Competition is the key to building better mousetraps, but why innovate and cut costs when the government protects your industry from market forces? Unlike with, say, sales taxes, consumers never know why that Toyota suddenly costs an extra thousand bucks.

    The letter understands that Trump’s proposed tariffs will erode Americans’ buying power, but here’s a report from The Wall Street Journal two days later about Biden’s latest policy: “The U.S. will levy a 25 percent tariff on Mexican imports containing steel from China and a 10 percent duty on products made with aluminum from the country.” How can anyone take his letter seriously?

    The media have focused intently on Biden’s fitness for office after a debate performance that focused attention on his age. Reporters love horse race stories. Will he stay or will he go? It’s a legitimate topic, as are stories about Trump’s rallies with his characteristic free associations and rabble-rousing. But there’s been insufficient news coverage of both candidates’ economic policies.

    The problem is their trade policies are roughly the same. Sure, they embrace high tariffs for different reasons. Democrats want to protect domestic unions. Republicans of the populist and national-conservative variety are mostly worried about threats from China. They all sound more radical these days than Bernie Sanders.

    “We must put American workers first, bring jobs back to American soil, and reject radical climate mandates that make China rich and America poor,” said U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), known for giving January 6 protesters a fist pump, while introducing a bill to slap tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. At a recent National Conservatism conference, Hawley attacked the free market in a way not much different than leftists.

    As I regularly note, we’re seeing the horseshoe theory of politics, as right and left find themselves in roughly the same place (like ends of a horseshoe) rather than far apart along a line. As a Politico in May explained, Trump’s plans for tariffs in 2018 were met with “widespread derision,” but now are broadly embraced by both parties.

    “The contrasting reactions to similar policy moves just a few years apart is yet another reminder of just how much the U.S. political consensus has shifted against free trade,” according to the article. There are many reasons for our current bout of inflation, but I’ve yet to see intense news coverage of the likely link between tariffs and rising prices.

    It’s time to revisit the basics. The Heritage Foundation, the group now closely associated with Trumpism, argued in 2021 that tariffs helped push aluminum prices up 50 percent. It defanged one of the main progressive/national-conservative arguments in favor of them—that they’re needed to prevent countries from “dumping” low-priced goods in the United States.

    “In fact, the idea of dumping is one of the great unicorns of trade policy: oft-imagined but rarely seen in reality,” Heritage researchers concluded. “Even state-supported Chinese firms cannot sustain such losses, bleeding money with each shipment of aluminum sent across the ocean.” Indeed. But tariff advocates need scare stories to pump up their high-tax policies, as they put rent-seeking corporations and unions above American consumers.

    I always love to quote Ronald Reagan, especially now that conservatives have largely abandoned his legacy: “Free trade serves the cause of economic progress, and it serves the cause of world peace. When governments get too involved in trade, economic costs increase and political disputes multiply.” Of course, Reagan sometimes violated his own principles.

    The year after that 1982 speech, he spearheaded 45-percent tariffs on imported heavy motorcycles—a blatant attempt to protect Harley Davidson from Japanese competition. The Japanese mainly adjusted their model lineups and Harley doubled down on its niche market and has been in perpetual decline. Many observers trace the company’s current struggles to those tariffs.

    I’m for free trade because it promotes freedom, reduces government control, promotes innovation, reduces prices, relieves international tensions, lessens overseas poverty, reduces pressure for immigration, and boosts worldwide living conditions. Sadly, whichever of these candidates wins the 2024 election, we’re stuck with a new round of terrible trade policies.

    [ad_2]

    Steven Greenhut

    Source link

  • The Feds Have Until November To Help Veterans

    The Feds Have Until November To Help Veterans

    [ad_1]

    Soldiers have returned with PTSD and other serious ailments. The AMA and science said medical marijuana can help – but time may be running out.

    In an acknowledgement from the medical community, the American Medical Association supports the rescheduling of cannabis to a Schedule III because it has proven medical benefits. A portion of the medical benefits help soldiers returning from service with both physical and mental scars. Unfortunately, time may be running out to help.

    RELATED: California or New York, Which Has The Biggest Marijuana Mess

    Both Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did the research and agreed to the rescheduling. They are important organizations being clear it will help are military veterans. PTSD is real to the point of over 30,000 active duty personnel and veterans who have served in the military since 9/11 have committed suicide. That is the roughly the same amount of wiping out all of Fairbanks, Alaska.  More veterans committed suicide, almost 100,000, after Vietnam, than in the war (roughly 58,000). Opioid addiction, which medical marijuana can combat, is raging among veterans with PTSD and chronic pain. But leaders like Mike Johnson (R-LA) have worked hard to block help.

    Photo by SDI Productions/Getty Images

    While veteran facilities are federal property and therefore do not allow marijuana on premise, even in legal states, they have become supportive of medical marijuana. There have been significant treatment changes including:

    • Veterans will not be denied VA benefits because of marijuana use.
    • Veterans are encouraged to discuss marijuana use with their VA providers.
    • VA health care providers will record marijuana use in the Veteran’s VA medical record in order to have the information available in treatment planning. As with all clinical information, this is part of the confidential medical record and protected under patient privacy and confidentiality laws and regulations.

    The clear case for medical marijuana has been proven by science, but with veterans, it is an important step to helping them in a return to civilian life. Representative Johnson has indicted with more control, marijuana could return to the outlaw status and the new GOP VP has stated he is not a fan of cannabis. The DEA must follow the recommendations and make a move quickly for this to happen and to help soldiers.

    RELATED: Science Says Medical Marijuana Improves Quality Of Life

    Bipartisan congressional lawmakers are seeking to remove a controversial section of a Johnson approved spending bill which would block the Justice Department from rescheduling marijuana.

    [ad_2]

    Terry Hacienda

    Source link

  • Biden administration says it wants to cap rent increases at 5% a year. Here’s what to know.

    Biden administration says it wants to cap rent increases at 5% a year. Here’s what to know.

    [ad_1]

    The Biden administration is proposing a new way to keep rents around the U.S. from soaring: limit corporate landlords to annual rent increases of no more than 5%, or else they would lose a major tax break. 

    The proposal comes as many households across the U.S. struggle to afford rents, which have surged 26% nationally since early 2020, according to a recent report from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. Although costs for many items are easing as inflation cools, housing prices remain stubbornly high, rising 5.2% on an annual basis in June. 

    The idea behind the plan is to push midsize and large landlords to curb rent increases, with the Biden administration blaming them for jacking up rents far beyond their own costs. That has resulted in corporate landlords enjoying “huge profits,” the administration said in a statement. 

    “Rent is too high and buying a home is out of reach for too many working families and young Americans,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Today, I’m sending a clear message to corporate landlords: If you raise rents more than 5%, you should lose valuable tax breaks.”

    To be sure, the proposal would need to gain traction in Congress, and such a price cap may not be palatable in the Republican-controlled House and some Democrats also potentially opposed.

    But the idea, even if it doesn’t come to fruition, could prove popular with some voters ahead of the November presidential election, especially those who feel pinched by several years of rent increases. The proposal is one of a number of strategies the Biden administration is promoting to improve housing affordability, including a plan introduced in March to create a $10,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. 

    How the 5% rent cap would work

    The rent cap, which would need to be enacted through legislation, would require large and midsize landlords to either cap annual rent increases to no more than 5%. Those that failed to comply would lose the ability to tap faster depreciation that is available to rental housing owners. 

    The law would apply only to landlords that own more than 50 units, and the Biden administration said it would cover more than 20 million units across the U.S. That “accounts for roughly half of the rental market” in the U.S., according to National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard, who spoke on a call with reporters about the proposal. 


    Renting vs. buying, here’s what you need to know

    02:45

    Accelerated depreciation is a tax strategy that allows landlords to front-load costs associated with their properties, such as wear and tear. That’s useful because such write-offs can lead to paper losses that allow landlords to offset income from rent, for example. Residential landlords can depreciate their properties over 27.5 years, compared with 39 years for commercial landlords.

    The risk of losing the tax benefit would incentivize landlords to raise the rent less than 5% per year because keeping the depreciation would prove to be a better deal financially, senior administration officials said on the call.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden trying to rally support in Detroit amid more calls for him to drop out

    Biden trying to rally support in Detroit amid more calls for him to drop out

    [ad_1]

    Biden trying to rally support in Detroit amid more calls for him to drop out – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    President Biden campaigned in the key battleground state of Michigan to rally support Friday night as lawmaker confidence in his candidacy continues to unravel on Capitol Hill. CBS News senior White House and political correspondent Ed O’Keefe has the latest.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • President Biden holds solo press conference after NATO summit | Special Report

    President Biden holds solo press conference after NATO summit | Special Report

    [ad_1]

    President Biden holds solo press conference after NATO summit | Special Report – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    President Biden held a rare solo news conference Thursday to conclude the NATO summit in Washington, D.C., where he had working sessions with world leaders. Mr. Biden spoke amid pressure from some Democratic lawmakers to withdraw from the 2024 race in the wake of his debate performance last month. Watch CBS News’ special report.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Vice President Kamala Harris to visit Greensboro, her sixth trip to NC

    Vice President Kamala Harris to visit Greensboro, her sixth trip to NC

    [ad_1]

    GREENSBORO, N.C. (WTVD) — Vice President Kamala Harris is visiting Greensboro on Thursday.

    This will be Harris’ sixth trip to NC this year.

    She will be speaking at James B. Dudley High School.

    Other speakers include Governor Roy Cooper, Greensboro Mayor Nancy Vaughan, Deputy Minority Leader State Senator Gladys Robinson, community leader and civil rights activist Shirley Frye, and field organizer Avi Dintenfass.

    The Vice President is expected to emphasize the stakes of the 2024 November election for North Carolinians and Black communities in particular. She may call attention to Project 2025 and highlight the stark contrast between President Biden, who fights for the American people, and Donald Trump, who cares only about himself.

    This marks the Vice President’s sixth trip to North Carolina this year and 14th visit since taking office. Vice President Harris was last in Greensboro in September 2023 and visited NC A&T on her “Fight for Our Freedoms” College Tour.

    The Vice President stopped at NC A&T to talk to students about the importance of voting.

    It all comes as the Biden campaign has gone all in on making a play for North Carolina in 2024 and the state may become even more important after a poor debate performance by the president against former president Donald Trump.

    First lady Jill Biden made another campaign stop in the state with a visit to Wilmington on Monday.

    Copyright © 2024 WTVD-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WTVD

    Source link

  • The 2024 GOP Platform Promises To ‘Make America Affordable Again.’ So Why Are They Embracing Fiscal Insanity?

    The 2024 GOP Platform Promises To ‘Make America Affordable Again.’ So Why Are They Embracing Fiscal Insanity?

    [ad_1]

    The Republican National Committee just released its 2024 platform. While calling it a platform is a stretch, the list of bullet points gives an idea of what the potential next Trump administration’s goals are. Here’s one issue that should be front and center: End inflation and make America affordable again.

    To be sure, “make America more affordable” would be a great slogan and a great objective. It’s similar to what many have called an “abundance agenda.” While there is plenty to dislike in a platform that at times feels unserious and destructive, this part I like.

    Abundance isn’t achieved by the same old subsidies or tax breaks for special interests, price controls, or spending loads of taxpayer money on transfer payments. It’s achieved by freeing up the supply side of our economy. That means freeing producers and innovators from excessive regulatory obstacles and heavy tax burdens (including tariffs) so they can provide more of what Americans need.

    The Trump administration platform assures us it will move in this direction. For instance, it wants to increase America’s dominance as an energy producer, which will only be achieved through a deregulation agenda. Apart from counterproductive tax incentives for first-time homeowners, it expresses a commitment to lowering housing costs through deregulation.

    The platform states it will “cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations” as well as “end the Socialist Green New Deal.” I assume that means ending the expensive subsidies and tax breaks in the Inflation Reduction Act. Great idea, but get ready to hear all the recipients of these handouts cry that they won’t be able to do what they were already doing before being given the subsidies.

    A deregulation agenda would serve the Republicans’ goal of boosting manufacturing much better than tariffs, which former President Donald Trump continues to love despite overwhelming evidence that they don’t do what he claims. Most tariffs raise the prices of inputs used by American firms, including manufacturing, to produce outputs that serve their customers.

    Something similar could be said about Republicans’ swipes at immigrants. Fewer immigrants will create labor supply shortages, hurt manufacturing, and slow the economy.

    Still, even with their disastrous trade and immigration agenda and the many contradictory goals espoused by this platform, implementing the deregulatory part of the agenda will make some strides at freeing the supply side and hence lowering prices. Indeed, President Joe Biden has not only maintained many of Trump’s tariffs, but he’s added some of its own. He’s also systematically favored subsidizing the demand for certain things—nudging customers to buy what he wants them to buy—while taking actions that restrict supply. That’s a recipe for affordability failure.

    But as far as affordability goes, I’m less optimistic about the prospect of the next administration ending inflation. That’s because Trump and other Republicans are firmly embracing fiscal irresponsibility and excessive debt. The platform contains no mention of a plan to get government debt under control. Instead, it pledges to “fight for and protect Social Security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age.”

    Many voters love hearing this promise. But maintaining these two objectively underfinanced programs will inevitably explode the debt burden over the next 30 years. In the entire history of the United States so far, Uncle Sam has accumulated roughly $34 trillion in debt. Under the Trump plan, the government would need to borrow another $124 trillion for these programs alone.

    Leaving aside the question of who will lend us all this money when foreign buyers are already scaling back purchases of U.S. Treasuries, remember that most of the inflation we’ve recently suffered is the product of massive Biden administration spending on top of the COVID-19 spending without any plan to pay for it. As such, announcing that the U.S. will simply go on another borrowing spree sends a poor signal, and it might even increase inflation.

    This is made more important because Trump wants to make permanent the tax cuts that are set to expire after 2025, end taxes on tips, and more. If Congress and the president do this without any offsetting spending reductions, it will add at least another $4 trillion in debt over 10 years. With more inflationary fuel, we could easily see the Federal Reserve raise interest rates again, making borrowing money even more expensive than it already is.

    The bottom line is that Trump’s deregulatory agenda could have a shot at lowering some prices. But it will only be a game-changer if he becomes serious about fiscal responsibility. Right now, he isn’t, so I wouldn’t count on it.

    COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM

    [ad_2]

    Veronique de Rugy

    Source link

  • Biden’s border order gets bipartisan disapproval

    Biden’s border order gets bipartisan disapproval

    [ad_1]

    In April, Axios reported that President Joe Biden was planning “to issue an executive order to dramatically limit the number of asylum-seekers who can cross the southern border” in an attempt to “stem illegal border crossings.” The Biden administration announced sweeping asylum restrictions in early June, but the move immediately drew backlash from both immigrant advocates and border hawks.

    “The entry of any noncitizen into the United States across the southern border is hereby suspended and limited,” said Biden’s order. When border encounters between ports of entry hit a daily average of 2,500 over a seven-day period, migrants will be barred from seeking asylum unless they qualify for a narrow exception or request an appointment at a port of entry through an app (a glitchy and cumbersome process). Restrictions will lift 14 days after daily encounters between ports of entry fall below 1,500 per day on average over a seven-day period.

    Border crossings have fallen recently, but it’s been years since they were as low as Biden’s order would demand for asylum processing to resume. And like many of Biden’s actions on the border, the order has satisfied basically nobody.

    The International Refugee Assistance Project called it and other restrictive measures “a remarkable capitulation by the Biden administration to xenophobic politicians who thrive on fear-mongering and scapegoating immigrant communities.” Jennie Murray, president and CEO of the National Immigration Forum, said the action would be “only a Band-Aid without action from Congress.” Several Democratic lawmakers expressed similar concerns, and the American Civil Liberties Union has sued Biden over the order.

    Restrictionists, meanwhile, criticized Biden’s intent and timing. “It’s window dressing,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson (R–La.) of the “weak” order. “Everybody knows that if he was concerned about the border, he would have done this a long time ago.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) claimed the order “is about the Biden administration trying to give themselves political cover” before the presidential election. “The executive order will still allow thousands of illegal aliens to come across the border per day. That’s absurd.”

    The order will have a very real and negative impact on migrants. Border measures like this push sufficiently desperate migrants into more remote, dangerous, and deadly crossing corridors—or, for those who choose to wait for restrictions to lift, into tent cities along the border where they may experience rape, torture, or kidnapping.

    Biden has embraced some effective policies at the border, including sponsorship programs that let private citizens welcome refugees and other migrants. Those initiatives have been successful in reducing unauthorized migration among eligible nationalities. That’s because they acknowledge a simple fact: Cracking down on migrants does nothing to address their demand for a safe immigration pathway and the opportunity to work.

    The administration’s asylum restrictions deny that fact and will have unintended consequences, likely contribute to border chaos, and—most certain of all—fail to make anyone happy.

    [ad_2]

    Fiona Harrigan

    Source link

  • Job market cools but remains resilient, report shows

    Job market cools but remains resilient, report shows

    [ad_1]

    Job market cools but remains resilient, report shows – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The U.S. added 206,000 new jobs in June, marking a slight cooling in the labor market, but still a sign that hiring remains strong. Michael George has more on what this could mean for interest rates moving forward.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Playing In Our Faces: Donald Trump Tries To Distance Himself From #Project2025 Backlash — ‘I Know Nothing’

    Playing In Our Faces: Donald Trump Tries To Distance Himself From #Project2025 Backlash — ‘I Know Nothing’

    [ad_1]

    Source: The Washington Post / Getty

    Donald Trump questionably claims he’s an expert on everything else, but now he expects us to believe he has “no knowledge” of Project 2025 and its oppressive plans to give him unprecedented power as president. After the plan, directed by Trump’s former chief of staff, exploded online, that would make him the last person in the country to hear about it. 

    In his Philly campaign rally speech, Trump stated, “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying, and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.”

    According to AP News, he posted a statement distancing himself from Project 2025 on his social media website. “Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

    Wish them luck? PLEASE.

    Project 2025: The Drastic Plan Trump “Doesn’t Know About”

    Let’s break down what Trump is desperately trying to distance himself from. Project 2025 is a 922-page plan that proposes a massive expansion of presidential power. The project includes but isn’t limited to: 

    • firing up to 50,000 government workers to replace them with Trump loyalists (JUST SICK)
    • National abortions ban
    • Birth control, IVF, and STD Testing restrictions
    • Patient Data exposure
    • Eliminating the Department of Education and free school lunch programs
    • Enforcing Christian principles
    • Removing Environmental Protection Agency and protections for endangered species
    • Implementing tax policies that benefit the wealthy
    • Weaken unions and workplace safety regulations
    • End FBI efforts to combat disinformation
    • Repeal Acts for Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Fair Housing
    • End gender equality protections
    • Getting rid of DEI workers and training programs
    • Criminalizing LGBTQ+ rights and homelessness
    • Using the U.S. military against the U.S. citizens

    Yet Trump would have us believe he’s completely in the dark about it. It’s hard to swallow, especially given his past authoritarian actions and statements.

    The Social Media Firestorm

    What’s really pushed Trump into this awkward denial is the social media uproar. Project 2025 has been trending online and on television screens. As BOSSIP previously covered, celebrities such as Taraji P. Henson are taking part in the activism against it.

    Taraji didn’t hold back at the BET Awards, calling the oppressive overthrow of the government for what it is. Her bold move has put even more pressure on Trump and spread awareness of the initiative. Now, he’s backtracking and expecting us to fall for it despite his party’s track record of calling for these extremist policies.

    Trump can try to address the elephant in the room, but his response is far from convincing.

    Trump’s Ties to Project 2025 Figures

    The key players behind Project 2025 are all Trump insiders:

    • Paul Dans, the project’s director, was a former chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under Trump.
    • John McEntee, a senior adviser, was the director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office.
    • Russ Vought, a significant contributor, is on the Republican National Committee’s platform writing committee.

    With such close ties, Trump’s denial is more than just suspicious; it’s strategic.

    Conservative Leaders’ Radical Agenda

    Conservative leaders are openly declaring their revolutionary intentions to drag the U.S. back to the 1800s.

    AP News states that Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation President, declared on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

    With over 110 conservative groups involved, they’re pushing policy and personnel recommendations for the next conservative president. This isn’t just about Trump; it’s a full-blown attempt to reshape America.

    Trump’s Extreme Agenda

    Even if he’s trying to sidestep Project 2025, Trump’s own plans are still alarming. Research shows that he’s gearing up for a massive deportation operation and wants to potentially tariff all imports if he gets a second term.

    These proposals, when combined with Project 2025, paint a chilling picture of the future. It’s devastating enough that his SCOTUS picks have lifetime control over our laws and seemingly use it to dismantle more civil rights by the day.

    Trump’s campaign has previously warned outside allies not to speak for him, yet Karoline Leavitt, a campaign spokeswoman, has been featured in Project 2025’s videos. The hypocrisy is staggering.

    It’s as if they want to distance themselves while simultaneously keeping the radical base riled up. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too. 

    Democrats Sound the Alarm

    The Democratic response has been fierce. The Biden campaign has slammed Project 2025 as a “violent revolution to destroy the very idea of America.”

    AP found that Ammar Moussa from the Biden campaign described it as an “extreme policy and personnel playbook for Trump’s second term that should scare the hell out of the American people.”

    On Independence Day, the Biden campaign posted a dystopian image from “The Handmaid’s Tale” on X, captioned, “Fourth of July under Trump’s Project 2025.”

    It’s a clear warning about the dangerous path ahead. 

    What’s Next?

    Trump’s comments come as the Republican Party prepares to draft its party platform, and Project 2025 is gearing up to share a 180-day agenda for the next administration privately.

    As these developments unfold, the American public must stay alert and informed. Trump’s denial might be a tactical move, but the implications of Project 2025 are too significant and dangerous to ignore. 

    This isn’t just about political maneuvering; it’s about the future of our democracy and lives.

    [ad_2]

    Lauryn Bass

    Source link

  • Biden set for pivotal 24 hours with primetime interview

    Biden set for pivotal 24 hours with primetime interview

    [ad_1]

    Biden set for pivotal 24 hours with primetime interview – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    President Biden is set for a make-or-break weekend for his political future as his reelection campaign tries to hit reset following last week’s disastrous debate. Biden again vowed to stay in the race Friday at a campaign rally in the battleground state of Wisconsin, and will sit down for a primetime interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News. Scott MacFarlane has the latest.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden, Trump, and RFK Jr. are all anti-freedom

    Biden, Trump, and RFK Jr. are all anti-freedom

    [ad_1]

    Last week, presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asked me to moderate what he called “The Real Debate.”

    Kennedy was angry with CNN because it wouldn’t let him join its Trump-Biden debate.

    His people persuaded Elon Musk to carry his Real Debate on X, formerly Twitter. They asked me to give RFK Jr. the same questions, with the same time limits.

    I agreed, hoping to hear some good new ideas.

    I didn’t.

    As you know, President Joe Biden slept, and former President Donald Trump lied. Well, OK, Biden lied at least nine times, too, even by CNN’s count.

    Kennedy was better.

    But not much.

    He did acknowledge that our government’s deficit spending binge is horrible. He said he’d cut military spending. He criticized unscientific COVID-19 lockdowns and said nice words about school choice.

    But he, too, dodged questions, blathered on past time limits, and pushed big government nonsense like, “Every million dollars we spend on child care creates 22 jobs.”

    Give me a break.

    Independence Day is this week.

    As presidential candidates promise to subsidize flying cars (Trump), free community college tuition (Biden), and “affordable” housing via 3 percent government-backed bonds (Kennedy), I think about how bewildered and horrified the Founding Fathers would be by such promises.

    On the Fourth of July almost 250 years ago, they signed the Declaration of Independence, marking the birth of our nation.

    They did not want life dominated by politicians. They wanted a society made up of free individuals. They believed every human being has “unalienable rights” to life, liberty, and (justly acquired) property.

    The blueprints created by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution gradually created the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

    Before 1776, people thought there was a “divine right” of kings and nobles to rule over them.

    America succeeded because the Founders rejected that belief.

    In the Virginia Declaration of Rights, George Mason wrote, “All power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.”

    By contrast, Kennedy and Biden make promises that resemble the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” U.N. bureaucrats say every person deserves “holidays with pay…clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.”

    The Founders made it clear that governments should be limited. They didn’t think we had a claim on our neighbor’s money. We shouldn’t try to force them to pay for our food, clothing, housing, prescription drugs, college tuition.

    They believe you have the right to be left alone to pursue happiness as you see fit.

    For a while, the U.S. government stayed modest. Politicians mostly let citizens decide our own paths, choose where to live, what jobs to take, and what to say.

    There were a small number of “public servants.” But they weren’t our bosses.

    Patrick Henry declared: “The governing persons are the servants of the people.”

    Yet now there are 23 million government employees. Some think they are in charge of everything.

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.), pushing her Green New Deal, declared herself “the boss.”

    The Biden administration wants to decide what kind of car you should drive.

    During the pandemic, politicians ordered people to stay home, schools to shut down and businesses to close.

    Then, as often happens in “Big Government World,” people harmed by government edicts ask politicians to compensate them.

    After governments banned Fourth of July fireworks, the American Pyrotechnics Association requested “relief in the next Senate Covid package to address the unique and specific costs to this industry,” reported The New York Times. “The industry hopes Congress will earmark $175 million for it in another stimulus bill.”

    Today the politically connected routinely lobby passionately to get bigger chunks of your money.

    For some of you, the last straw was when the administration demanded you inject a chemical into your body.

    When some resisted vaccinations, Biden warned, “Our patience is wearing thin.”

    His patience? Who does he think he is? My father? My king?

    At least Kennedy doesn’t say things like that. But he does say absurd things. In a few weeks I’ll release my sit-down interview with him, and you can decide for yourself whether he’s a good candidate.

    This Fourth of July, remember Milton Friedman’s question: “How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect?”

    COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

    The post Biden, Trump, and RFK Jr. Are All Anti-Freedom appeared first on Reason.com.

    [ad_2]

    John Stossel

    Source link