ReportWire

Tag: Biden Administration

  • The Real Difference Between Trump and Biden

    The Real Difference Between Trump and Biden

    [ad_1]

    Listen to this article

    Produced by ElevenLabs and NOA, News Over Audio, using AI narration.

    Americans likely face a choice this fall between two men they don’t want for president. Or they can stay home and get one of the two guys they don’t want for president anyway. The reasons for voter disdain are clear enough: Poll respondents say Joe Biden is too old, an impression reinforced by last week’s special-counsel report, and they have always been troubled by Donald Trump’s judgment and character (though a majority think he’s too old too.)

    Voters have genuine questions about both men. But we’ve seen each occupy the presidency. One thing the two administrations have made clear is that whereas Biden follows an approach to governance that seems to offset some of his weaknesses, Trump’s preferred managerial style seems to amplify his.

    Many people treat elections as a chance to vote a single individual into office; as a result, they tend to focus disproportionately on the personality, character, and temperament of the people running. But voters are also choosing a platform—a set of policies as well as a set of people, chosen by the president, who will shape and implement them. The president is the conductor of an orchestra, not a solo artist. As the past eight years have made very clear, the difference in governance between a Trump administration and a Biden administration is not subtle—for example, on foreign policy, border security, and economics—and voters have plenty of evidence on which to base their decision.

    But for the sake of argument, let’s consider the potential effects of Biden’s failures of memory and Trump’s … well, it’s a little tough to say what exactly is going on with Trump’s mental state. The former president has always had a penchant for saying strange things and acting impulsively, and it’s hard to know whether recent lapses are indications of new troubles or the same deficits that have long been present. His always-dark rhetoric has become more apocalyptic and vengeance-focused, and he frequently seems forgetful or confused about basic facts.

    To what extent would either of their struggles be material in a future presidential term? One key distinction is that Biden and Trump have fundamentally different conceptions of the presidency as an office. Biden’s approach to governance has been more or less in keeping with the traditions of recent decades. Biden’s Cabinet and West Wing are (for better or worse) stocked with longtime political and policy hands who have extensive experience in government. Cabinet secretaries largely run their departments through normal channels. Policy proposals are usually formulated by subject-area experts. The president’s job is to sit atop this apparatus and set broad direction.

    Read: The presidency is not a math test

    Biden doesn’t always defer to experts, and he has clashed with and overruled advisers on some topics, including, notably, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such occasional clashes are fairly typical—as long as they’re occasional. As my colleague Graeme Wood wrote this week, “The presidency is an endless series of judgment calls, not a four-year math test. In fact, large parts of the executive branch exist, in effect, to do the math problems on the president’s behalf, then present to him all those tough judgment calls with the calculations already factored in.”

    This doesn’t mean that Biden’s readily apparent aging doesn’t bring risks. The presidency requires a great deal of energy, and crises can happen at all hours and on top of one another, testing the stamina of any person. The oldest president before Biden, Ronald Reagan, struggled with acuity in his second term, an administration that produced a huge, appalling scandal of which he claimed to be unaware.

    In contrast to the model of the president as the ultimate decision maker, Trump has approached the presidency less like a Fortune 500 CEO and more like the sole proprietor of a small business. (Though he boasts about his experience running a business empire, the Trump Organization also ran this way—it is a company with a large bottom line but with concentrated and insular management by corporate standards.) As president, Trump had a tendency to micromanage details—the launching system for a new aircraft carrier, the paint scheme on Air Force One—while evincing little interest in major policy questions, such as a long-promised replacement for Obamacare.

    At times, Trump has described his role in practically messianic terms: “I alone can fix it,” he infamously said at the 2016 Republican National Convention. He has claimed to be the world’s foremost expert on a wide variety of subjects, and he often disregarded the views of policy experts in his administration, complaining that they tried to talk him out of ideas (when they didn’t just obstruct him). He and his allies have embarked on a major campaign to ensure that staffers in a second Trump administration would be picked for their ideological and personal loyalty to him. Axios has reported that the speechwriter Stephen Miller could be the next attorney general, even though Miller is not an attorney.

    Perhaps as a result of these different approaches to the job, people who have served under the men have divergent views on them. Whereas Biden can seem bumbling and mild in public, aides’ accounts of his private demeanor depict an engaged, incisive, and sometimes hot-tempered president. That’s also the view that emerges from my colleague Franklin Foer’s book The Last Politician. “He has a kind of mantra: ‘You can never give me too much detail,’” National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has said. “The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it, because he is sharp, intensely probing, and detail-oriented and focused,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said last weekend. (As Jon Stewart noted on Monday night, the public might be more convinced were these moments videotaped, like the gaffes.)

    Former Trump aides are not so complimentary. Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly called Trump “a person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law,” adding, “God help us.” Former Attorney General Bill Barr said that he “shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.” Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper described him as “unfit for office.” Of 44 former Cabinet members queried by NBC, only four said they supported Trump’s return to office. Even allowing for the puffery of politics, the contrast is dramatic.

    Read: A Hail Mary to save ‘The Daily Show’

    None of this is to say that Biden’s memory lapses aren’t worth concern or that he is as vigorous as he was as a younger man. But someone voting for Biden is selecting, above all, a set of policy ideas and promises that he has laid out, with the expectation that the apparatus of the executive branch will implement them.

    Voting for Trump is opting for a charismatic individual who brings to office a set of attitudes rather than a platform. Considering the presidency as a matter of individual mental acuity grants the field to Trump’s own preferred conception of unified personal power, so it’s striking that the comparison makes the dangers posed by Trump’s mentality so stark.

    [ad_2]

    David A. Graham

    Source link

  • After searing inflation,

    After searing inflation,

    [ad_1]

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said “American workers are getting ahead” now that their pay is growing faster than inflation, making the Biden administration’s case that the U.S. has rebounded from the economic calamity caused by the pandemic. 

    “We know that Americans are experiencing discomfort because some important prices are higher than they were pre-pandemic,” Yellen told “CBS Evening News.” “But what I think is really important is that wages have gone up along with prices, so people are better off than they were pre-pandemic.”

    Inflation ranked as the most important problem facing the U.S. in a December poll of American adults by CBS News, even outpacing issues like immigration and the state of democracy. Prices skyrocketed in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, with inflation reaching a 40-year high of 9.1% in June 2022, squeezing millions of households whose incomes failed to keep pace. 

    Inflation has rapidly cooled since then, thanks in part to a series of interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve starting in March 2022 aimed at dampening consumer demand and slowing economic growth. Experts now say the economy is on solid ground, pointing to strong growth, robust consumer spending and low unemployment, developments that Yellen stressed in her discussion with CBS News. 

    As of the end of 2023, the typical U.S. worker could afford the same goods and services as in 2019, prior to the pandemic, and had an additional $1,400 to spend or save per year, according to a January analysis by Treasury officials. That’s partly because wages are now outrunning inflation, with hourly earnings jumping 4.5% in January, compared with an annualized inflation rate of 3.1%.

    Despite the pinch of inflation, consumers are continuing to spend — one reason why the U.S. economy has so far defied predictions of a recession. And workers are behaving in ways that suggest they are optimistic about the future, Yellen said.

    “We’ve seen a record number of small businesses formed, and Americans don’t start up a small business unless they think the prospects are going to be good,” she said. “So I take that as a vote of confidence in where this economy is going.”

    “A slap in the face”

    Still, many Americans don’t view the economy through the same lens as bullish economists. And Yellen acknowledged that life remains precarious for millions of people. 

    “Childcare is expensive. Education is expensive,” Yellen said. “We know that almost half of Americans on one occasion or another have felt they couldn’t afford to fill a prescription. It was that or not having enough to eat, so there’s no question that Americans have experienced burdens.”

    Voters in the battleground state of Michigan who spoke with “CBS Evening News” expressed a host of economic worries, from housing prices to student debt. One of them, Demar Byas of Pontiac, referred to experts touting the nation’s economic performance as a “slap in the face.”

    “You’re celebrating these numbers, but we are struggling,” said Byas, who juggles several jobs to make ends meet. “It’s no relief in sight, and just say those numbers and to celebrate that, and as I said stuff becomes a slap in the face.”

    Underlying many of their concerns is anxiety about the surging cost of car insurance and housing, as well as a sense that it’s more difficult now to achieve the same standard of living as in prior generations. So-called “referred pain,” or fears about the state of the world, from climate change to gun violence, is one reason why some experts believe voters view the economy negatively despite evidence it is doing well. 

    Another Michigan resident, Elizabeth Nelson of Ann Arbor, said she worries about the future for her children, ages 19 and 21.

    “What I’m reading and hearing about the job market, I’m scared for them. I’m really scared for them,” Nelson said. She added, “We’re losing some real low rungs on the ladder of economic security across lifetimes.”

    Where does inflation go from here?

    Yellen said that President Joe Biden’s policies are aimed at addressing some of the anxieties experienced by voters, from capping insulin prices to bringing down energy costs. She also predicted that inflation will continue to recede.

    “Americans should feel confident that inflation will come down to levels that will no longer really be noticeable or worrisome to them,” Yellen said. 


    Inflation didn’t drop to expected rate in January

    03:52

    She also expects relief on another key issue for many voters — the ongoing increase in home prices and rents. “What we can see is that the rental prices for new apartments are no longer rising. And in some cities they’re actually falling,” Yellen said. 

    As for the broader economy, Yellen said a recession is unlikely at this point. That’s a stark change from a year ago, when many economists were predicting a steep downturn. 

    “I consider the odds [of a recession] very low,” Yellen said. “We have a very well-performing economy that has the ability to keep doing what it’s doing, namely grow, create jobs and improve living standards.”

    Aimee Picchi

    Aimee Picchi is the associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, where she covers business and personal finance. She previously worked at Bloomberg News and has written for national news outlets including USA Today and Consumer Reports.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House to brief lawmakers on ‘serious national security threat’ related to Russia

    White House to brief lawmakers on ‘serious national security threat’ related to Russia

    [ad_1]

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner, R-Ohio, released an unusual statement Wednesday warning of a “serious national security threat” without providing additional details, pre-empting what the White House said was a planned briefing for congressional leaders.

    Four sources with knowledge of the issue said the threat is a Russian military capability.

    Turner, in his statement, did not identify the threat but said, “Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has made available to all Members of Congress information concerning a serious national security threat.”

    Turner said he’s requesting that President Joe Biden “declassify all information relating to this threat so that Congress, the Administration, and our allies can openly discuss the actions necessary to respond to this threat.”

    The statement didn’t offer any additional details, including the nature of the threat. On Wednesday afternoon, House members began trickling in and out of the highly secure room in the basement of the Capitol, known as the SCIF, where the most sensitive, classified information is shared with lawmakers.

    White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan addressed Turner’s statement at a press briefing a short time later and suggested he was perplexed by the congressman’s statement because they already had a briefing planned for Thursday. A U.S. official confirmed that the Thursday briefing is related to the threat highlighted by Turner.

    Sullivan said that earlier this week, he reached out to the Gang of Eight, the top leaders from the House and Senate, “to offer myself up for a personal briefing.”

    “That’s been on the books so I am a bit surprised that Congressman Turner came out publicly today, in advance of a meeting on the books, for me to go sit with him alongside our intelligence and defense professionals tomorrow,” Sullivan told reporters.

    He continued, “That’s his choice to do that. All I can tell you is that I’m focused on going to see him, sit with him, as well as the other House members of the Gang of Eight tomorrow and I’m not in a position to say anything further from this podium.”

    Sullivan declined to provide additional details about the briefing but made clear that he was the one who initiated the meeting.

    “I personally reached out to the Gang of Eight. It is highly unusual, in fact, for the national security adviser to do that, and I did that,” he said.

    Asked whether the public should be concerned about the threat, Sullivan said, “In a way, that question is impossible to answer with a straight ‘yes’ … because Americans understand that there are a range of threats and challenges in the world that we’re dealing with every single day, and those threats and challenges range from terrorism to state actors, and we have to contend with them.”

    “I am confident that President Biden, in the decisions that he has taken, is going to ensure the security of the American people going forward, and I will stand here at this podium and assert that, look you in the eye with confidence that we believe that we can and will and are protecting the national security of the United States and the American people.”

    A Democratic source familiar with the threat told NBC News: “This is a serious issue that could lead to a destabilizing situation and a national security threat.”

    The source described it as a “potential foreign threat” but would not identify where the threat is coming from.

    Several key lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said there was no reason to be alarmed.

    “I want to assure the American people there is no need for public alarm,” Johnson said at the Capitol. “We are going to work together to address this matter, as we do all sensitive matters that are classified and beyond that, I’m not at liberty to disclose classified information and really can’t say much more, but we just want to assure everyone steady hands are at the wheel, we’re working on it, and there’s no need for alarm.”

    “People should not panic — that is unequivocal. People should not panic,” said Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.

    Turner “is right to highlight this issue, but it’s so sensitive that he is right now not publicly discussing it,” Himes told reporters. “And I don’t want people thinking that martians are landing or that your Wednesday is going to be ruined. But it is something that the Congress and the administration does need to address in the medium to long run.”

    Rep Mike Garcia, R-Calif., said he urges all members to look at the intelligence. “I urge the president to take this matter seriously as well. And it’s not a political issue. It’s something that needs the attention of members of Congress and the executive branch,” he said.

    Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., said this is one of several “very volatile things that we have to address. … This is something that requires our attention. There’s no doubt. It’s not an immediate crisis but certainly something we have to be very serious about.”

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Wednesday, “I think more information will be made available as appropriate, hopefully, sooner rather than later.”

    Senate leaders are not expected to attend the briefing Thursday because the upper chamber is now on a two-week recess.

    Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., and its ranking member, Marco Rubio, R-Fla., were briefed weeks ago on the national security threat identified by Turner, according to two sources with direct knowledge. The intelligence has been made available to all members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    One source with knowledge noted that the threat is “not unrelated” to the issues addressed by the currently stalled national security supplemental funding package, which includes aid for Ukraine Israel and Taiwan, but that they are not “directly tied.” The source declined to elaborate further.

    This story first appeared on NBCNews.com. More from NBC News:

    [ad_2]

    Rebecca Shabad, Scott Wong, Julie Tsirkin and Kyle Stewart | NBC News

    Source link

  • Trump’s terrible, popular tariffs

    Trump’s terrible, popular tariffs

    [ad_1]

    In this week’s The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Peter Suderman counter the twisted logic of former President Donald Trump’s recent claim that he would raise tariffs on all Chinese imports if he were to retake the White House.

    00:24—Trump proposes more tariffs

    15:24—Bidenomics and the weird economy

    30:49—Weekly Listener Question

    44:22—Senate hearing on social media harms

    52:41—This week’s cultural recommendations

    Mentioned in this podcast:

    “Can Free Markets Win Votes in the New GOP?” by Stephanie Slade

    “David Stockman on Why Trump Can’t Fix the Debt: ‘This Guy Is Part of the Swamp,’” by Nick Gillespie

    “Josh Hawley Thinks the White House Can Force an Aluminum Plant To Stay Open,” by Eric Boehm

    “On Economic Issues, the Populist Right and Left Share a Lot of Common Ground,” by Veronique de Rugy

    “The Bankruptcy of Bidenomics,” by Peter Suderman

    “Biden Considering Higher Tariffs on E.V.s Imported from China, Raising Prices for Americans,” by Joe Lancaster

    “Protectionism Ruined U.S. Steel,” by Eric Boehm

    “Americans Unhappy With Politicians They’ll Soon Vote Back Into Office,” by J.D. Tuccille

    “How Will Reason Staffers Vote in 2020?” by Reason staff

    “Who’s Getting Your Vote?: Reason‘s Revealing Presidential Poll,” by Reason staff

    “Why Are Political Journalists More Scared of Revealing Their Votes Than Baseball Writers?” by Matt Welch

    “Why Aren’t Other Journalism Outlets Disclosing Their Presidential Votes?” by Matt Welch

    “Show Us Your Vote!” by Matt Welch

    “Mark Zuckerberg Is Not a Murderer, Mr. Senator,” by Robby Soave

    “Mark Zuckerberg Is Calling for Regulation of Social Media To Lock in Facebook’s Position,” by Nick Gillespie

    “Is True Detective the Most Libertarian Show on TV?” by Nick Gillespie

    “Enthusiasm, Curbed,” by Nick Gillespie

    “All Culture, All the Time,” by Nick Gillespie

    Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

    Today’s sponsors:

    • The world would be a better, freer, and happier place if constitutional protections for private property were taken just a tad more seriously. That’s according to our friends over at the Institute for Justice, who have just begun releasing a new season of their legal history podcast, Bound By Oath. Bound By Oath tells the story of how the Supreme Court has cleared the way for government officials to abuse property rights: to trespass on private land without a warrant, to restrict peaceful and productive uses of property, to seize and keep property without sufficient justification, and much more. Featuring interviews not only with scholars and litigators but also with the real-life people behind some of the Supreme Court’s most momentous property rights decisions, the new season explores the history behind today’s civil rights battles. So plug Bound By Oath into wherever you get your podcasts, and start with Episode 1.

    Audio production by Ian Keyser; assistant production by Hunt Beaty.

    Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve

    [ad_2]

    Matt Welch

    Source link

  • Biden walks tightrope in Middle East

    Biden walks tightrope in Middle East

    [ad_1]

    Biden walks tightrope in Middle East – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    It’s unclear whether Friday’s U.S. strikes on Iranian-backed militias will deter Iran from escalating the violence in the Middle East. Israel’s ongoing war with Hamas has the entire region on a knife’s edge. Margaret Brennan examines how the tense situation could play out.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden says U.S. strikes on Iranian-linked targets

    Biden says U.S. strikes on Iranian-linked targets

    [ad_1]

    Biden says U.S. strikes on Iranian-linked targets “will continue” – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Following retaliatory airstrikes in Iraq and Syria on targets associated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard and its affiliated militias, President Biden declared in a statement Friday that strikes “will continue at times and places of our choosing.” David Martin has more from the Pentagon.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to Make of Biden’s Historic Sanctions on Israeli Settlers

    What to Make of Biden’s Historic Sanctions on Israeli Settlers

    [ad_1]

    As much of the world’s attention has focused on the ongoing carnage in Gaza, where Israel’s war of retribution will soon enter its fourth month, the issue of rising Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank largely fell by the wayside. But on Thursday, the Biden administration unveiled an executive order imposing new financial sanctions on Israeli settlers who have been implicated in such violence, in what is perhaps the most significant step taken by any U.S. administration on the issue to date.

    “The situation in the West Bank—in particular high levels of extremist settler violence, forced displacement of people and villages, and property destruction—has reached intolerable levels,” the order reads, dubbing the unprecedented levels of settler violence a threat to both the region and to U.S. personnel and interests. 

    Although only four Israeli settlers have been targeted in the first round of sanctions—for actions that include initiating and leading deadly riots, assaulting civilians, and destroying property, according to Haaretz—the scope of the order is much wider, applying to any foreign individual deemed to have directed or participated in violence against Palestinian civilians, including intimidation, terror, and property damage and seizure. Most notably, the order can also apply to Israeli leaders or government officials deemed to have engaged directly or indirectly in such violence.

    Matt Duss, the executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former chief foreign policy advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders, told TIME the move constitutes a “big step” by the Biden administration and could be a “potentially very big tool.” He says the administration is “doing the S part of BDS,” referencing the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement that seeks to mobilize international pressure on Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories. “This will send shockwaves through this entire economic infrastructure, both in Israel but also in the United States and elsewhere in the world, that exists to fund these illegal activities.”

    The order was roundly criticized by far-right ministers in the Israeli government, under which the country’s settlement enterprise has flourished. The country’s national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is himself a settler, wrote that Biden “is wrong about the citizens of the State of Israel and the heroic settlers” and urged his administration to “rethink its policy.” Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also resides in a West Bank settlement, dismissed the very notion of settler violence as an “anti-Semitic lie” and pledged to continue his work in expanding Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law. “If the price is the imposition of American sanctions on me,” he wrote in an X post, “so be it.”

    In a statement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office called the sanctions “exceptional” and “unnecessary.”

    How the Biden administration chooses to use this new foreign-policy stick, and on whom, will ultimately determine the impact that it has. “These individuals are going to have U.S.-based assets frozen, their financial transactions will not be able to go through U.S. financing institutions. and people will not be able to support them financially either—that’s a big deal,” says Yousef Munayyer, a nonresident fellow at the Arab Center in Washington, D.C. and an expert on Israeli and Palestinian affairs. “The extent to which that actually becomes enforceable really depends on how many people you put on this list and who those individuals are.”

    Settler violence in the West Bank is hardly a new phenomenon, though the crisis has been exacerbated by the war in Gaza, under the cover of which settler violence has seen a notable surge. Since Oct. 7, there have been nearly 500 Israeli settler attacks on Palestinian civilians, according to the U.N.’s humanitarian agency. That’s more than a third of the total overall settler attacks that were recorded by the agency in 2023, a year that saw the highest number of settler attacks on record.

    While the timing of this executive order can be read as a direct response to this surge, some observers note that there may also be political motivations at play. The announcement coincides with President Biden’s visit to Michigan on Thursday, where his support among the state’s large Arab American population has soured over his handling of the war in Gaza. Indeed, the first national poll of Arab Americans published in November found that only 17% of Arab American voters intended to back Biden’s reelection bid, down from 59% who supported the president in 2020. For Biden, whose victory over Trump four years ago hinged on narrow victories in a number of key battleground states, Michigan is considered a must-win. Recent polls show Biden trailing Trump by 10 points.

    Insofar as the executive order can rectify Biden’s relationship with Arab Americans, Munayyer says it’s not a panacea. “This is something that the administration can point to and say that they did something for accountability for those hurting Palestinians in the West Bank that has never been done before, and that’s true,” he says. But “the reality is that it should have been done a very long time ago. The easiest and lowest-hanging fruit is to deal with settler violence.”

    Meanwhile, the war in Gaza continues—something that “is a much, much bigger problem that the administration is supporting and continuing to make worse in Gaza,” Munnayer adds. “I think any credit that they’re hoping to get is going to be put in that context.” 

    As Duss sees it, however, the step can also be interpreted as part of Biden’s effort to introduce his own vision for the Middle East as the U.S. and others begin to articulate their preference for what comes after the Gaza war ends. “Steps like this are a good way to show that they are serious this time,” he says. “Consequences for Israeli violence against Palestinians—whether in the form of just physical violence, settlement growth, expulsion of families, demolition of homes—that has always been a missing piece in the U.S.-led peace process. There have always and only been consequences imposed on one side, the weaker side, the Palestinian side. So what I think the administration is importantly signaling here is that’s going to change.”



    [ad_2]

    Yasmeen Serhan

    Source link

  • Debunking antitrust assumptions: More concentration in an industry doesn’t necessarily mean higher prices

    Debunking antitrust assumptions: More concentration in an industry doesn’t necessarily mean higher prices

    [ad_1]

    Some ideas that animate government regulators achieve what seems like universal belief purely due to the volume of repetition. For example, many proponents of antitrust regulation believe increased concentration will increase consumer prices, even though evidence does not solidly back this up.

    The theory behind why concentration in a market would lead to increased prices is so ubiquitous most people could probably recite some version of it by memory. It goes something like this: A firm without enough competitors can more or less raise prices at will; with few alternatives, consumers just have to accept the price gouging and pay up.

    That claim, espoused by regulators and policy makers, can often be found alongside a similar claim about profit. The White House went so far as to say, “In an economy without adequate competition, prices and corporate profits rise, while workers’ wages decrease.” That tired old song has also been sung by The New York Times and the Economic Policy Institute. Most recently, this claim has led many to insist that the primary driver of the inflation we have been suffering is corporate profits, or “greedflation.”

    Former Clinton administration Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and others have so much faith in the “greedflation” explanation that they insist the recent inflation is caused by increased concentration over the last few decades. Underlying the claim about concentration and prices is a claim about concentration and profits, which is the cost consumers pay minus the cost of production to industry. According to greedflation logic, corporate profits indicate that concentration is leading to higher consumer prices.

    The problem for proponents of this theory is that studies on corporate profits and concentration are often flawed, or sometimes even find an inverse relationship to their “concentration=inflation” narrative. Out of the studies that find relationships between markups (which are essentially another way of measuring profits) and concentration, the methodology is often flawed, focusing too much on assumptions about market structure.

    The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) ran a series of studies on myths about monopolies, one of which focused on the claim that concentration leads to increased profits. This became particularly relevant as inflation climbed and economists searched for causes.

    The ITIF study examining the relationship between profits and concentration found that nonfinancial domestic profits as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) decreased when former Secretary of Labor Reich claimed concentration had increased. Profit shares are lower today than during the 1960s when antitrust regulators were far more proactive against mergers and acquisitions. Though profits are hard to measure over entire markets, the study did not find any relationship between them and the concentration in the market.

    The evidence, then, does not indicate that profits, prices, and concentration have a concrete relationship. And the theory behind why they would runs into trouble when you look at the real-world practices of some feared bigger companies. In practice, accused “monopolists” such as Amazon are not often attacked for inflating prices but for harming competition by deflating prices. That’s because, in reality, large firms often have the lowest prices and markups.

    The claim that consumer prices increase with concentration is far from settled fact. Yet it still has been used to block mergers under the structural presumption that they will create higher profits and prices on goods and thus harm consumers. Misinformation on the relationship between concentration and profits deprives consumers of the most efficient market, so such claims should be reexamined by antitrust policy makers in light of existing evidence.

    [ad_2]

    Isaac Schick

    Source link

  • The Stakes of the Lawsuit Alleging Biden is Complicit in Palestinian Genocide

    The Stakes of the Lawsuit Alleging Biden is Complicit in Palestinian Genocide

    [ad_1]

    A federal court case filed against President Joe Biden and two U.S. cabinet officials for allegedly being complicit in Israel’s genocide against Gazans will move forward with a hearing on Friday.

    The case, which names Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin as defendants, was filed by Palestinian human rights groups and individuals with help from the nonprofit Center for Constitutional Rights. Defense for Children International–Palestine v. Biden seeks to stop the U.S. from supporting Israel, which plaintiffs say has cost them the lives of family members, and will be heard in Oakland, Calif.  

    “We have lost so many people, but there are still many more who are living, and we owe it to them to do everything possible to stop this genocide,” said Mohammad Herzallah, a plaintiff in the case who has family in Gaza. “I have done everything in my power: I have participated in protests, sit-ins, wrote letters to my representatives, civil disobedience. Now I am asking the courts to end this ongoing genocide.”

    Read More: For Antony Blinken, the War in Gaza Is a Test of U.S. Power

    More than 25,000 people in Gaza have died since the beginning of the war on Oct. 7, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry. The military offensive campaign in Gaza began after Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis and kidnapped another 240. 

    Throughout the conflict, the U.S. has supported their Middle-Eastern ally, vetoing United Nations resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire, affirming support for Israel and its right to self-defense, and providing financial and military aid to the country since last fall. 

    The Biden Administration is seeking to dismiss the case. “This suit raises quintessential political questions because Plaintiffs seek to have this Court superintend the Executive Branch’s foreign policy and national security judgment and compel the government to prevent Israel from purportedly committing genocide in Gaza,” the defendants said in their motion to dismiss.

    The lawsuit is unusual, experts say. “In the past, when such complaints have been filed with an American court, usually the courts tended to throw them out… because of issues of national security,” says George Washington University professor Michael Barnett. “That said, the fact that you have complaints filed in an American court brings attention to the very support that the U.S. continues to give to Israel.”

    Israeli forces’ flares light up the night sky in Gaza City, Monday, Nov. 6, 2023. Abed Khaled—AP

    ‘What really matters is that you make noise’

    On Nov. 13, Palestinians filed a lawsuit against Biden, Blinken, and Austin to prevent them from providing more “arms, money, and diplomatic support” because they allege Israel is committing genocide “against the civilian population of Gaza.” 

    The U.S. government previously filed a motion to dismiss, saying that plaintiffs lacked jurisdiction, the complaint presents a “nonjusticiable political question,” and that the Genocide Convention does not “create a private right of action.” 

    But the case is still moving forward to a public hearing on Jan. 26, after which plaintiffs hope the court issues a preliminary injunction that will force the U.S. to “take all measures within their power to prevent Israel from committing genocide,” the complaint says. 

    Plaintiffs include Omar Al-Najjar, Ahmed Abu Artema, and Mohammed Ahmed Abu Rokbeh—all currently in Gaza; Mohammad Monadel Herzallah, Laila Elhaddad, Waeil Elbhassi, Basim Elkarra, and “A.N.”—all U.S. citizens with family members in Gaza; and human rights groups Defense for Children International–Palestine and Al-Haq. Seventy-seven international human rights organizations, bar associations and lawyers filed an amicus brief in favor of the plaintiffs.

    Plaintiffs have spoken out about the emotional toll the Israel-Hamas war has taken on them and their families. “To be honest, it’s difficult to revisit all the scenes of the past weeks. They open a door to hell when I recall them,” said plaintiff Al-Najjar, a 24-year-old intern physician at Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis. “I’ve lost five relatives, treated too many children who are the sole survivors of their families, received the bodies of my fellow medical students and their families, and seen the hospital turn into a shelter for tens of thousands of people as we all run out of fuel, electricity, food, and water. The U.S. has to stop this genocide. Everyone in the world has to stop this.” (Khan Younis, which houses thousands of displaced citizens and health workers, has recently been under attack after Israel Defense Forces increased their military operations in southern Gaza.) 

    The legal grounding for the case is based in part on the 1948 Genocide Convention, which the U.S. signed along with 152 other countries. Every signatory to that treaty is obligated to not commit genocide, as well as punish and prevent genocide. Barry Trachtenberg, one of three genocide scholars who submitted a declaration in favor plaintiffs’ motion, will speak at Friday’s hearing. 

    U.S. officials have previously denounced genocide allegations against Israel, with John Kirby, the strategic communications coordinator for the National Security Council, calling them “unfounded.”

    “That’s not a word that ought to be thrown around lightly. And we certainly don’t believe that it applies here,” Kirby said during a Jan. 11 press briefing.  

    As part of its defense, the Biden Administration says Israel is a sovereign nation that controls its own operations. It claims the plaintiffs have not done enough to show that “their alleged injuries” can be traced specifically to U.S. support of Israel. Defendants also note that the U.S. has provided aid “while complying with international humanitarian law.” One example their filing points to includes the Administration’s work to “mitigate the humanitarian crisis” in Gaza, as U.S. officials helped facilitate a seven-day pause in fighting. The Administration also cites the political question doctrine, which limits federal courts ability to answer some questions that are best resolved by the political branches of government.

    Even if the court does decide to throw out the case, it could have political effects rather than legal ones. “What really matters is that you make noise, raise the attention and volume,” Barnett says. “You get the ability to stand in court, and register your overall concerns and make your case.”

    Public opinion on U.S. involvement in the war has been controversial. Only 35% of adults approve of the Biden Administration’s response to the Israel-Hamas war, according to a Pew Research Center survey published in December. 

    “The fact that the U.S. is being charged with actual complicity in these crimes against its longtime ally and friend, Israel, is extraordinary,” Barnett adds. “I think it’s worth pausing and taking in this moment because you’re beginning to see American politicians and people in the executive wing begin to reconsider that relationship.”

    [ad_2]

    Solcyre Burga

    Source link

  • Senate border talks broaden to include Afghan evacuees, migrant work permits and high-skilled visas

    Senate border talks broaden to include Afghan evacuees, migrant work permits and high-skilled visas

    [ad_1]

    Washington — While focused on plans to deter illegal border crossings, the ongoing immigration negotiations in the Senate have also included conversations about Afghan evacuees, the children of high-skilled visa-holders, and work permits for asylum-seekers, three people familiar with the talks told CBS News.

    For weeks, the Biden administration and a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Senate have been trying to strike a deal on a series of policies they hope will reduce unlawful border crossings, which have reached all-time highs over the past three years. Top Biden administration officials, led by White House deputy chief Natalie Quillian, have repeatedly met with Senate negotiators — Sens. James Lankford (R), Chris Murphy (D) and Kyrsten Sinema (I) — each week since mid-December.

    Up until recently, the talks centered on tightening U.S. asylum laws, with negotiators focused on plans to allow border agents to swiftly expel migrants when a certain level in illegal crossings is reached, raise the standard to pass asylum interviews and expand expedited deportations of families traveling with children.

    But negotiators have put other immigration items on the table, the three sources said, requesting anonymity to discuss closed-door talks. Most notably, there have been discussions to have the potential deal include the Afghan Adjustment Act, a bill that would allow tens of thousands of Afghans evacuated from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to gain permanent legal status. Those evacuees are currently in legal limbo, unless they have been granted asylum or special visas for those who assisted American military forces.

    Also under consideration is a plan to provide relief to the children of immigrants working in the U.S. on H-1B visas for high-skilled workers. This population, known as “Documented Dreamers,” often face self-deportation when they turn 21 because they lose the legal status derived from their parents’ visas.

    Another proposal being negotiated would make certain migrants eligible to work in the U.S. legally if they pass their preliminary asylum interviews. The plan would likely be welcomed by Democratic leaders who have complained about receiving large numbers of migrants who can’t work and sustain themselves.

    The three items under discussion, which have not been previously reported, could make it easier for Democrats to support a border deal that, if finalized, would likely include stricter asylum and deportation provisions that have already alarmed progressives and advocates for migrants. But they may also fuel some divisions within Republicans ranks, since conservatives have increasingly rejected efforts to legalize immigrants or grant them work permits.

    While all sides have signaled progress in recent weeks, the White House and Senate negotiators have not reached a final deal on overhauling U.S. border policy, which Republicans have said is a prerequisite to them supporting further military aid to Ukraine. 

    The main sticking point centers on the immigration parole authority, a 1950s law the Biden administration has used at unprecedented scale to resettle refugee-like populations — such as the Afghan evacuees and Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion — and to divert migrants away from the U.S. border by offering them opportunities to enter the country legally. While it does not offer recipients permanent legal status, parole allows federal officials to quickly welcome foreigners who would otherwise not be eligible to enter the country.

    After telling congressional Democrats it would reject any limits on parole, the White House has recently put revisions to it on the table, recognizing that there’s no path to a deal without it since Republicans have not dropped the demand, people familiar with the internal deliberations said. Still, the administration does not want to see the authority gutted, since it has relied on it so heavily to reduce pressure at the U.S. southern border. 

    One limit suggested by Republican lawmakers — who view the administration’s use of parole as an abuse of the authority — would impose a numerical cap on the number of people who could be allowed to enter the U.S. via parole.

    Negotiators eye harsher asylum laws

    While the White House and lawmakers have continued to debate limits on parole, they have reached a general consensus on the border-related provisions, including making initial asylum screenings, known as credible fear interviews, harder to pass.

    They have also been working on plans to expand a fast-track deportation program for families traveling with children and the creation of a legal authority that would allow the U.S. to summarily expel migrants to Mexico.

    One proposal being considered would empower border officials to expel migrant adults and families from the U.S. unless they affirmatively ask for asylum, three sources said. The expulsions would be carried out similarly to those authorized by Title 42, the Trump-era pandemic-related order that expired last year. But it would be triggered by a certain threshold in migrant crossings, not public health conditions.

    Those who are not expelled because they affirmatively claim fear of being persecuted in Mexico would undergo an asylum screening with a heightened, more-difficult-to-pass standard while in U.S. custody. Migrants who fail these interviews would be expelled from the U.S., while those who pass them would generally be released into the U.S. with access to work permits.

    Migrants Continue To Cross Southern Border As Washington Lawmakers Struggle To Find Solution
    Immigrants from Venezuela walk towards a U.S. Border Patrol transit center after crossing the Rio Grande into the United States on Jan. 8, 2024, in Eagle Pass, Texas. 

    Getty Images


    The Biden administration’s openness to stricter border measures and sweeping restrictions on asylum, some of which resemble Trump-era policies, represents a remarkable shift. Early on in his tenure, President Biden vowed to “restore” the U.S. asylum system and reject Trump-era policies that “contravened our values and caused needless human suffering.”

    “We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” Mr. Biden said during one of the Democratic primary debates in 2019.

    But three years into his presidency, Mr. Biden finds himself facing a humanitarian, operational and political crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border of unprecedented proportions. Over two-third of Americans disapprove of Mr. Biden’s handling of the situation there, according to a recent CBS News poll. More recently, Democratic mayors of cities struggling to house migrants have joined Republicans in criticizing the White House’s response to the crisis.

    Of late, about a quarter-million migrants per month have been processed by U.S. border authorities. In December alone, Customs and Border Protection processed more than 300,000 migrants at and in between official ports of entry along the southern border — a record high.

    Camilo Montoya-Galvez


    screen-shot-2022-12-06-at-11-01-10-pm.png

    Camilo Montoya-Galvez is the immigration reporter at CBS News. Based in Washington, he covers immigration policy and politics.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • HUD refuses to release Secretary Marcia Fudge's email address in response to ‘Reason’ FOIA request

    HUD refuses to release Secretary Marcia Fudge's email address in response to ‘Reason’ FOIA request

    [ad_1]

    Want to know Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Marcia Fudge’s government email address? Too bad, it’s a secret.

    In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Reason, HUD released a list of email addresses for all political appointees—with two exceptions. The agency redacted HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge and Deputy Secretary Adrianne Todman’s addresses, citing an exemption from releasing any records that would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

    “The interest of the general public in reviewing those portions of government documents does not outweigh the individuals’ right to privacy,” Sandra Wright, the chief of HUD’s FOIA office, wrote.

    The withholdings are an unusual and concerning attempt to conceal one of the most basic pieces of information about a public servant: their contact info.

    Glancing at the consistent format of every other address on the HUD list, one could make a reasonable assumption about Fudge’s address, but one would likely be wrong. You see, cabinet members and high-ranking officials often use pseudonymous or alias email accounts.

    For example, while he was vice president, Joe Biden used at least three pseudonyms—”Robin Ware,” “Robert L. Peters,” and “JRB Ware”—on emails that mixed family and government business.

    The practice has been fairly widespread since the Clinton administration. Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency Administrator (EPA) Lisa Jackson used the alias “Richard Windsor” and her private email address in communications with lobbyists. Former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch also used alias email addresses. Trump-Era EPA administrator Scott Pruitt had four government email addresses.

    Administrations have defended using alternate email addresses as necessary for high-level political appointees because of the flood of emails to their public inboxes. However, the practice worries transparency advocates and watchdog groups because it creates doubts over whether FOIA offices are performing complete searches, and whether communications are being properly archived.

    Reason was curious about what pseudonyms high-ranking Biden officials are using, so we filed FOIA requests in September of last year to cabinet-level agencies requesting the email addresses for all political appointees, including pseudonyms. To its credit, HUD is the only agency so far that has produced any documents.

    Reason is filing a FOIA appeal to challenge the redactions. While officials may argue they need a secret inbox to get work done, convenience is not a factor in the balancing test between the public’s right to know and the privacy interests of government employees. Notably, HUD does not consider the release of dozens of other political appointees’ email addresses a privacy concern.

    HUD’s position is also undermined by the fact that other agencies have turned over similar records in response to FOIA requests. The Health and Human Services Department released former Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ secret email address to the Associated Press in 2013.

    HUD’s public affairs office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    C.J. Ciaramella

    Source link

  • 1/4: Prime Time with John Dickerson

    1/4: Prime Time with John Dickerson

    [ad_1]

    1/4: Prime Time with John Dickerson – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    John Dickerson reports on a deadly school shooting in Iowa, more court documents linked to Jeffrey Epstein are released, and why President Joe Biden is meeting with prominent historians.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden, Republicans trade blame for border crisis

    Biden, Republicans trade blame for border crisis

    [ad_1]

    Biden, Republicans trade blame for border crisis – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Republicans have blamed President Biden for a surge in migrant crossings at the southern border. But Mr. Biden pointed the finger at the GOP blocking a funding bill that would have provided billions for border security. Weijia Jiang reports.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Joe Biden Can't Ignore The Internal Pressure Over The Israel-Hamas Conflict

    Joe Biden Can't Ignore The Internal Pressure Over The Israel-Hamas Conflict

    [ad_1]

    President Joe Biden appears to be facing mounting pressure from within his administration—and his reelection campaign—over his handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict. On Wednesday, a second administration official, Tariq Habash, a policy advisor to the Education Department, resigned in protest, writing in a letter that Biden had “turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed against innocent Palestinian lives” by Israeli forces.

    The same day, seventeen Biden campaign staffers called on the president to demand a ceasefire, describing it, in an anonymous letter, as his “moral and electoral imperative” to de-escalate violence in Gaza. “You have said numerous times that silence in the face of human rights violations is complicity,” the staffers wrote. “We agree, which is why we are speaking out now. Every minute that passes without a ceasefire is another life that is lost—a life that could have been saved with political action from you.” They added, “Only with an end to violence can we achieve a real and lasting peace that upholds the right to self-determination, safety, and freedom for Palestinians and Israelis alike.”

    At least 20,000 people have been killed in Gaza since Israel began its counter-offensive to Hamas’ October 7 terror attack, according to Gaza’s health ministry. The United Nations said in a report late last month that one in four people in Gaza is starving. “It doesn’t get any worse,” Arif Husain, chief economist for the UN’s World Food Program, said at the time. “I have never seen something at the scale that is happening in Gaza. And at this speed.”

    Biden has expressed frustrations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government but has also emphasized that Israel has his “unshakeable” support. He has pressed for a two-state solution and warned that the country is losing international support over its “indiscriminate bombing” of Gaza. “I think he has to change,” Biden said of Netanyahu last month. But his administration has also stood in the way of UN ceasefire resolutions and enabled Netanyahu’s bombardment—including by bypassing Congress twice in December, most recently last week, to provide weapons to Israeli forces. “The United States is committed to the security of Israel,” the State Department said in announcing the sale, “and it is vital to US national interests to ensure Israel is able to defend itself against the threats it faces.”

    But voters and members of Biden’s party have expressed frustration with his approach. “Why should the Admin bypass Congress on arms sales to any nation?” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine wrote last week, suggesting the move was “keeping the American public in the dark.” Independent Senator Bernie Sanders called on lawmakers to reject the unconditional military aid to Israel the administration has sought. He said in a statement Tuesday, “The taxpayers of the United States must no longer be complicit in destroying the lives of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza.”

    The matter could also have political implications for the president, who is heading into what is expected to be a tight reelection bid—likely against Donald Trump, who represents a dire threat to democracy at home and the international order Biden has strained to hold together abroad. Indeed, as his campaign staffers warned in their open letter Wednesday, Biden’s lack of moral clarity on the humanitarian crisis threatens to erode voter enthusiasm and the fragile coalition that put him in office the first time—with some Muslim leaders saying they’ll withhold support from Biden and younger voters expressing disapproval in polls over his handling of the conflict. “It is not enough to merely be the alternative to Donald Trump,” the staffers cautioned, urging the campaign to “shift the feeling in the pits of voters’ stomachs” by de-escalating. “This Administration’s profound sense of empathy is one of the reasons we felt inspired to join your reelection campaign,” the staffers added. “Now, we have faith that you will listen to the two-thirds of the country and three-quarters of our fellow Democrats who support a ceasefire.”

    [ad_2]

    Eric Lutz

    Source link

  • America borrowed $1 trillion since the start of football season

    America borrowed $1 trillion since the start of football season

    [ad_1]

    Here’s how fast the federal government is borrowing piles of money: when the national debt hit $33 trillion in mid-September, the current National Football League (NFL) season was already two weeks old.

    You don’t have to be a fan of sports to know that football season in America isn’t particularly long—excluding the playoffs, teams play 17 games over the span of 18 weeks. The final games of the season are scheduled to be played this upcoming weekend, a few days after the national debt officially surpassed a new threshold: $34 trillion, according to an announcement made Wednesday morning by the Treasury Department.

    In other words, don’t feel bad about how much money you’ve probably lost on sports betting and fantasy leagues this year. The federal government has run up a $1 trillion tab in less time—and the next trillion-dollar threshold isn’t far off.

    “Looking ahead, debt will continue to skyrocket as the Treasury expects to borrow nearly $1 trillion more by the end of March,” said Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, in a statement. “Adding trillion after trillion in debt, year after year, should be a flashing red warning sign to any policymaker who cares about the future of our country.”

    Indeed, it’s astounding how quickly the federal government is piling up new debt. Equally remarkable is how much sooner it has hit some of these thresholds compared to the expected trajectories before the COVID-19 pandemic. As the Associated Press (AP) points out, as of January 2020 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the federal government wouldn’t be $34 trillion in debt until 2029.

    Since then, the debt has grown faster due to the unprecedented levels of fiscal stimulus unleashed during the pandemic and because baseline federal spending has failed to return to pre-pandemic levels. In the fiscal year that ended in September, the federal government spent $6.1 trillion, up from $4.4 trillion in fiscal year 2019 (the last one before the pandemic). Federal revenue has climbed in recent years as well—$4.4 trillion last year, up from $3.5 trillion in 2019—but those increases haven’t been large enough to keep up with the surge in new spending.

    In that January 2020 CBO report cited by the AP, federal spending was expected to hit $5.3 trillion by 2023. The federal government is now running about $800 billion ahead of that pace—and that doesn’t account for any of the one-time emergency COVID-related spending—and so naturally the annual budget deficits are bigger and the national debt is growing at a faster rate.

    “Though our level of debt is dangerous for both our economy and for national security, America just cannot stop borrowing,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit that advocates for lower deficits, in a statement. “This is a moment of consequence and continuing to refuse to pay our own bills will not lead us to where we need to be as a nation.”

    In some ways, it seemed like 2023 was the start of a political reckoning with the government’s addiction to borrowing. In August, Fitch cut the federal government’s credit rating, and Moody’s warned in November that it might soon do the same. Against that backdrop, Congress navigated a debt ceiling increase that placed some new limits on future discretionary spending—even though so-called mandatory spending on things like Social Security and Medicare are the bigger drivers of the long-term budget problems.

    The debt is likely to become an even bigger story in the new year: “The Debt Matters Again,” proclaimed The New York Times this week, noting that economists who spent the past decade downplaying concerns about the debt are now getting more worried because of how higher interest rates have made borrowing more expensive.

    That’s a nasty feedback loop—one that Reason and others have been warning about for years—that means the federal government will have to borrow more money in future years to afford the payments on the money it has already borrowed. The Peterson Foundation estimates that the government spends about $2 billion per day just to service the cost of existing debt.

    Oh, and Congress still hasn’t passed a budget for the year. The current continuing resolution expires in two stages: one later this month and a second in early February.

    Until lawmakers make some serious changes to fiscal policy, expect these announcements to keep coming with greater frequency—at least for a little while. The United States has about 20 years until “no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt,” economists at the University of Pennsylvania warned in October.

    One of the things that makes professional football so compelling is the urgency that comes with each week. With so few games on the schedule, each one is seemingly the most important of the year, and even a single loss early in the season can have a significant impact on a team’s long-term aspirations.

    Congress would do well to embrace that same sense of urgency when it comes to the country’s fiscal status, which is a game no one should want to lose.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Boehm

    Source link

  • Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson says Texas governor creating “chaos” with migrant transport

    Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson says Texas governor creating “chaos” with migrant transport

    [ad_1]

    Mayors Brandon Johnson of Chicago and Mike Johnston of Denver, who have pushed the Biden administration for more help in dealing with the influx of migrants, join “Face the Nation” to discuss how immigration is affecting their communities. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is “determined to continue to sow seeds of chaos” with migrant transport to their cities.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Netanyahu Says Gaza War On Hamas Will Go On For ‘Many More Months’

    Netanyahu Says Gaza War On Hamas Will Go On For ‘Many More Months’

    [ad_1]

    DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Saturday that Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza will continue for “many more months,” pushing back against persistent international cease-fire calls after mounting civilian deaths, hunger and mass displacement in the besieged enclave.

    Netanyahu thanked the Biden administration for its continued backing, including approval for a new emergency weapons sale, the second this month, and prevention of a U.N. Security Council resolution seeking an immediate cease-fire. Israel argues that ending the war now would mean victory for Hamas, a stance shared by the Biden administration, which at the same time urged Israel to do more to avoid harm to Palestinian civilians.

    In new fighting, Israeli warplanes struck the urban refugee camps of Nuseirat and Bureij in the center of the territory Saturday as ground forces pushed deeper into the southern city of Khan Younis.

    The Health Ministry in Gaza said Saturday that more than 21,600 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s unprecedented air and ground offensive since the deadly Oct. 7 Hamas attack on southern Israel. The ministry, which does not distinguish between the deaths of civilians and combatants, said 165 Palestinians were killed over the past 24 hours. It has said about 70% of those killed have been women and children.

    The number of Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza combat rose to 170, after the military announced two more deaths Saturday.

    The war has displaced some 85% of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents, sending swells of people seeking shelter in Israeli-designated safe areas that the military has nevertheless bombed. Palestinians are left with a sense that nowhere is safe in the tiny enclave.

    With Israeli forces expanding their ground offensive this week, tens of thousands more Palestinians streamed into the already crowded city of Rafah at the southernmost end of Gaza.

    Thousands of tents and makeshift shacks have sprung up on Rafah’s outskirts next to U.N. warehouses. Displaced people arrived in Rafah on foot or on trucks and carts piled high with mattresses. Those who did not find space in overwhelmed shelters pitched tents on roadsides.

    “We don’t have water. We don’t have enough food,” Nour Daher, a displaced woman, said Saturday from the sprawling tent camp. “The kids wake up in the morning wanting to eat, wanting to drink. It took us one hour to find water for them. We couldn’t bring them flour. Even when we wanted to take them to toilets, it took us one hour to walk.”

    In the Nuseirat camp, resident Mustafa Abu Wawee said a strike hit the home of one of his relatives, killing two people.

    “The (Israeli) occupation is doing everything to force people to leave,” he said over the phone while helping to search for four people missing under the rubble. “They want to break our spirit and will, but they will fail. We are here to stay.”

    MORE U.S. WEAPONS FOR ISRAEL

    The State Department said Friday that Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Congress he approved a $147.5 million sale for equipment, including fuses, charges and primers, that is needed for 155 mm shells Israel bought previously.

    It marked the second time this month that the Biden administration is bypassing Congress to approve an emergency weapons sale to Israel. Blinken made a similar decision on Dec. 9 to approve the sale to Israel of nearly 14,000 rounds of tank ammunition worth more than $106 million.

    Both moves have come as President Joe Biden’s request for a nearly $106 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other national security needs remains stalled in Congress, caught up in a debate over U.S. immigration policy and border security. Some Democratic lawmakers have spoken of making the proposed $14.3 billion in American assistance to its Mideast ally contingent on concrete steps by Netanyahu’s government to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza during the war with Hamas.

    THE WAR’S TIMELINE

    Blinken, who has repeatedly traveled to the Middle East during the war, was expected back in Israel and other countries in the region in January. U.S. officials have urged Israel to start shifting from high intensity combat to more targeted operations, but said they were not imposing a deadline.

    Netanyahu said Israel needs more time.

    “As the chief of staff said this week, the war will continue many more months,” he told a televised news conference Saturday. “My policy is clear. We will continue to fight until we have achieved all the objectives of the war, first and foremost the annihilation of Hamas and the release of all the hostages.”

    More than 120 hostages remain in Gaza, after militants seized more than 240 in the Oct. 7 assault that also killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians.

    Netanyahu is also at odds with the Biden administration over who should run Gaza after the war. He has rejected the U.S.-backed idea that a unified Palestinian government should run both Gaza and parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank as a precursor to eventual statehood. Instead, he has insisted on open-ended Israeli security control in Gaza, without saying what would come next.

    TRADING FOR HOSTAGES

    Families of hostages and their supporters have demanded that the government prioritize hostage releases over other war objectives, and have staged large protests every weekend, including Saturday.

    Egypt, one of the mediators between Israel and Hamas, has proposed a multistage plan that would kick off with a swap of hostages for prisoners, accompanied by a temporary cease-fire — along the lines of an exchange during a weeklong truce in November.

    Hamas insists the war must end before it will discuss hostage releases. Osama Hamdan, a senior Hamas official in Beirut, reiterated that position Saturday, but also told The Associated Press that “we have not given any final answer so far” to the Egyptian proposal.

    Asked about reports of possible progress toward a deal, Netanyahu said Saturday that “we see a possibility, maybe, for movement” but that he did not want to raise “exaggerated expectations.”

    DIFFICULTIES IN DELIVERING AID

    More than a week after a U.N. Security Council resolution called for the unhindered delivery of aid at scale across besieged Gaza, conditions have only worsened, U.N. agencies warned.

    Aid officials said the aid entering Gaza remains woefully inadequate. Distributing goods is hampered by long delays at two border crossings, ongoing fighting, Israeli airstrikes, repeated cuts in internet and phone services and a breakdown of law and order that makes it difficult to secure aid convoys, they said.

    Nearly the entire population is fully dependent on outside humanitarian aid, said Philippe Lazzarini, head of UNRWA, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees. A quarter of the population is starving because too few trucks enter with food, medicine, fuel and other supplies — sometimes fewer than 100 trucks a day, according to U.N. daily reports.

    Magdy reported from Cairo. Associated Press writer Jack Jeffery in London contributed to this report.

    Find more of AP’s coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden Administration Bypasses Congress On Israel Weapons

    Biden Administration Bypasses Congress On Israel Weapons

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — For the second time this month the Biden administration is bypassing Congress to approve an emergency weapons sale to Israel as Israel continues to prosecute its war against Hamas in Gaza under increasing international criticism.

    The State Department said Friday that Secretary of State Antony Blinken had told Congress that he had made a second emergency determination covering a $147.5 million sale for equipment, including fuses, charges and primers, that is needed to make the 155 mm shells that Israel has already purchased function.

    “Given the urgency of Israel’s defensive needs, the secretary notified Congress that he had exercised his delegated authority to determine an emergency existed necessitating the immediate approval of the transfer,” the department said.

    “The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to ensure Israel is able to defend itself against the threats it faces,” it said.

    The emergency determination means the purchase will bypass the congressional review requirement for foreign military sales. Such determinations are rare, but not unprecedented, when administrations see an urgent need for weapons to be delivered without waiting for lawmakers’ approval.

    Blinken made a similar decision on Dec. 9, to approve the sale to Israel of nearly 14,000 rounds of tank ammunition worth more than $106 million.

    Both moves have come as President Joe Biden’s request for a nearly $106 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other national security needs remains stalled in Congress, caught up in a debate over U.S. immigration policy and border security. Some Democratic lawmakers have spoken of making the proposed $14.3 billion in American assistance to its Mideast ally contingent on concrete steps by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza during the war with Hamas.

    The State Department sought to counter potential criticism of the sale on human rights grounds by saying it was in constant touch with Israel to emphasize the importance of minimizing civilian casualties, which have soared since Israel began its response to the Hamas attacks in Israel on Oct. 7.

    “We continue to strongly emphasize to the government of Israel that they must not only comply with international humanitarian law, but also take every feasible step to prevent harm to civilians,” it said.

    “Hamas hides behind civilians and has embedded itself among the civilian population, but that does not lessen Israel’s responsibility and strategic imperative to distinguish between civilians and Hamas terrorists as it conducts its military operations,” the department said. “This type of campaign can only be won by protecting civilians.”

    Bypassing Congress with emergency determinations for arms sales is an unusual step that has in the past met resistance from lawmakers, who normally have a period of time to weigh in on proposed weapons transfers and, in some cases, block them.

    In May 2019, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made an emergency determination for an $8.1 billion sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan after it became clear that the Trump administration would have trouble overcoming lawmakers’ concerns about the Saudi and UAE-led war in Yemen.

    Pompeo came under heavy criticism for the move, which some believed may have violated the law because many of the weapons involved had yet to be built and could not be delivered urgently. But he was cleared of any wrongdoing after an internal investigation.

    At least four administrations have used the authority since 1979. President George H.W. Bush’s administration used it during the Gulf War to get arms quickly to Saudi Arabia.

    [ad_2]

    MATTHEW LEE / AP

    Source link

  • Biden Administration Once Again Bypasses Congress On An Emergency Weapons Sale To Israel

    Biden Administration Once Again Bypasses Congress On An Emergency Weapons Sale To Israel

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — For the second time this month the Biden administration is bypassing Congress to approve an emergency weapons sale to Israel as Israel continues to prosecute its war against Hamas in Gaza under increasing international criticism.

    The State Department said Friday that Secretary of State Antony Blinken had told Congress that he had made a second emergency determination covering a $147.5 million sale for equipment, including fuses, charges and primers, that is needed to make the 155 mm shells that Israel has already purchased function.

    “Given the urgency of Israel’s defensive needs, the secretary notified Congress that he had exercised his delegated authority to determine an emergency existed necessitating the immediate approval of the transfer,” the department said.

    “The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to ensure Israel is able to defend itself against the threats it faces,” it said.

    The emergency determination means the purchase will bypass the congressional review requirement for foreign military sales. Such determinations are rare, but not unprecedented, when administrations see an urgent need for weapons to be delivered without waiting for lawmakers’ approval.

    Blinken made a similar decision on Dec. 9, to approve the sale to Israel of nearly 14,000 rounds of tank ammunition worth more than $106 million.

    Both moves have come as President Joe Biden’s request for a nearly $106 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other national security needs remains stalled in Congress, caught up in a debate over U.S. immigration policy and border security. Some Democratic lawmakers have spoken of making the proposed $14.3 billion in American assistance to its Mideast ally contingent on concrete steps by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza during the war with Hamas.

    The State Department sought to counter potential criticism of the sale on human rights grounds by saying it was in constant touch with Israel to emphasize the importance of minimizing civilian casualties, which have soared since Israel began its response to the Hamas attacks in Israel on Oct. 7.

    “We continue to strongly emphasize to the government of Israel that they must not only comply with international humanitarian law, but also take every feasible step to prevent harm to civilians,” it said.

    “Hamas hides behind civilians and has embedded itself among the civilian population, but that does not lessen Israel’s responsibility and strategic imperative to distinguish between civilians and Hamas terrorists as it conducts its military operations,” the department said. “This type of campaign can only be won by protecting civilians.”

    Bypassing Congress with emergency determinations for arms sales is an unusual step that has in the past met resistance from lawmakers, who normally have a period of time to weigh in on proposed weapons transfers and, in some cases, block them.

    In May 2019, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made an emergency determination for an $8.1 billion sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan after it became clear that the Trump administration would have trouble overcoming lawmakers’ concerns about the Saudi and UAE-led war in Yemen.

    Pompeo came under heavy criticism for the move, which some believed may have violated the law because many of the weapons involved had yet to be built and could not be delivered urgently. But he was cleared of any wrongdoing after an internal investigation.

    At least four administrations have used the authority since 1979. President George H.W. Bush’s administration used it during the Gulf War to get arms quickly to Saudi Arabia.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • She Immigrated Legally. She Married a U.S. Citizen. But She Was Denied Citizenship for Working in Legal Cannabis. – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    She Immigrated Legally. She Married a U.S. Citizen. But She Was Denied Citizenship for Working in Legal Cannabis. – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    She Immigrated Legally. She Married a U.S. Citizen. But She Was Denied Citizenship for Working in Legal Cannabis. – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news






























    [ad_2]

    AggregatedNews

    Source link