ReportWire

Tag: Committee

  • Methuen council plans special meeting for Tuesday

    [ad_1]

    METHUEN — Only a day before their terms end, city councilors are expected to consider overriding three mayoral vetoes Tuesday.

    After their approval earlier this week, Mayor D.J. Beauregard announced he would veto all three, including a “no confidence” vote in former Superintendent Brandi Kwong and the School Committee, and a bid to offer city health insurance to elected officials. The proposals also include a change in policy for road improvements on private ways.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“x 5@?’E 4@?EC@= E96 r:EJ r@F?4:=[” q62FC682C5 D2:5 @7 E96 >66E:?8 D4965F=65 7@C %F6D52J E@ @G6CC:56 9:D G6E@6D] “%96J’C6 6=64E65 3J E96 AF3=:4 E@ >2<6 E96:C @H? 564:D:@?D 2D 2? 2FE@?@>@FD 3@5J]”k^Am

    kAm%96 f A]>] >66E:?8 H:== 36 96=5 G:CEF2==J 2?5 😕 A6CD@? 2E r:EJ w2==[ c` !=62D2?E $E][ H:E9 AF3=:4 4@>>6?E 2==@H65[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 286?52 2?5 2 4=2C:7:42E:@? A@DE65 3J 4@F?4:= r92:C #@? |2CD2?]k^Am

    kAm“x7 E96J DF446DD7F==J @G6CC:56 >J G6E@6D[ H6’== 92G6 E@ 28C66 E@ 5:776C[” q62FC682C5 D2:5] “x 5:5 H92E x E9@F89E H2D C:89E]”k^Am

    kAm|2CD2? D2:5 E96 >66E:?8 H2D C6BF6DE65 3J E9C66 @E96C 4@F?4:=@CD 3FE 96 564=:?65 E@ :56?E:7J E96>]k^Am

    kAm“xE’D :>>2E6C:2=[” |2CD2? D2:5] “~?46 E96J 2D< 7@C :E[ x 92G6 E@ D4965F=6 E96 >66E:?8]”k^Am

    kAmr@F?4:=@C y2?2 +2??: !6D46 D2:5 H9:=6 D96 DFAA@CED 9@=5:?8 E96 >66E:?8[ D96 H2D F?56C E96 :>AC6DD:@? :E 925 366? 42==65 3J E96 492:C 2?5 F?2H2C6 @7 E96 E9C66 4@F?4:=@CD 4:E65 3J |2CD2?]k^Am

    kAm!6D46[ H9@ DA@?D@C65 E96 962=E9 :?DFC2?46 C6D@=FE:@?[ 7@F89E 324< 282:?DE 2? 244FD2E:@? E92E E96 4@F?4:= H2D 2EE6>AE:?8 E@ C2> E9C@F89 AC@A@D2=D 2E E96 =2DE >:?FE6]k^Am

    kAm“x E9:?< :E =@@2J@C H2:E65 F?E:= E96 =2DE >:?FE6[” !6D46 D2:5] “x7 96 H2D 8@:?8 E@ G6E@ :E[ E96? 96 D9@F=5 92G6 5@?6 :E C:89E 2H2J]”k^Am

    kAm$96 2=D@ D2:5 :E D9@F=5 36 E96 4FCC6?E 4@F?4:= E92E 4@?D:56CD @G6CC:5:?8 G6E@6D C2E96C E92? E96 :?4@>:?8 8C@FA]k^Am

    kAmx? y2?F2CJ[ 7@FC ?6H >6>36CD H:== 36 DH@C? :?[ 492?8:?8 E96 >2<6FA @7 E96 ?:?6>6>36C 4@F?4:=]k^Am

    kAmx? 2 >6>@ E@ E96 AF3=:4[ q62FC682C5 D2:5 !6D46’D C6D@=FE:@?[ H9:49 2==@HD 4@F?4:=@CD 2?5 $49@@= r@>>:EE66 >6>36CD E@ C646:G6 4:EJ :?DFC2?46[ H2D 2AAC@G65 H:E9@FE 2 E9@C@F89 2?2=JD:D @7 E96 A@E6?E:2= 7:D42= :>A24E]k^Am

    kAm%96 2DD6DD>6?E H2D 4@>A=6E65 367@C6 E96 C6D@=FE:@? H2D 2>6?565 E@ :?4=F56 $49@@= r@>>:EE66 >6>36CD 2?5 @?=J E@@< 4FCC6?E :?DFC2?46 C2E6D :?E@ 4@?D:56C2E:@? 6G6? E9@F89 E96 CF=6 492?86 H:== 8@ :?E@ 67764E E96 ?6IE 7:D42= J62C]k^Am

    kAm!6D46 D2:5 E9:D 4C:E:4:D> 😀 “D6>2?E:4D” D:?46 E96 7:?2?4:2= 2?2=JD:D FD65 E@ 56E6C>:?6 E96 4@DE 7@C E96 4@F?4:= 4@F=5 36 5FA=:42E65 7@C E96 4@>>:EE66 3J FD:?8 32D:4 >F=E:A=:42E:@?]k^Am

    kAm%96 C6D@=FE:@? 92D 366? 962G:=J 4C:E:4:K65 7@C 36:?8 D6=7D6CG:?8 2?5 A@DD:3=J 4@DE=J] %96 7:D42= :>A24E 4@F=5 C2?86 H:56=J – 56A6?5:?8 @? H9@ 49@@D6D E@ @AE 😕 – 2?5 A@E6?E:2==J 4@DE 9F?5C65D @7 E9@FD2?5D @7 5@==2CD 2??F2==J]k^Am

    kAm!6D46 92D D2:5 E96 C6D@=FE:@? 😀 2 C6EFC? E@ 2 AC6G:@FD 4@F?4:= A@=:4J E92E 925 @?=J 366? 492?865 H:E9:? E96 =2DE EH@ J62CD 2?5 😀 2 >2EE6C @7 :>AC@G:?8 6BF:EJ 36EH66? 6=64E65 @77:4:2=D[ H9@ D96 D2:5 2C6 =682==J 566>65 A2CEE:>6 6>A=@J66D[ 2?5 @E96C A2CEE:>6 6>A=@J66D H9@ 2C6 2=C625J 23=6 E@ C646:G6 4:EJ :?DFC2?46]k^Am

    kAmq62FC682C5’D 4C:E:4:D> @7 E96 C@25 :>AC@G6>6?E C6D@=FE:@? 7@4FD65 @? E96 A@E6?E:2==J >FCA24E @? 4:EJ 7:?2?46D] %96 C6D@=FE:@? D66=:?6 E96 AC@46DD 7@C C6D:56?ED =@@<:?8 7@C 4:EJ 96=A E@ :>AC@G6 F?2446AE65 C@25D[ 😕 A2CE 3J C65F4:?8 E96 ?F>36C @7 4@?5:E:@?D @? H92E H@C< 42? 36 5@?6 2?5 H9:49 C@25D BF2=:7J]k^Am

    kAmq62FC682C5 D2:5 😕 9:D >6>@ E92E E96 C6D@=FE:@?[ H9:49 4@F=5 :?4C62D6 E96 ?F>36C @7 4:EJ AC@;64ED[ 😀 ?@E 7:D42==J C6DA@?D:3=6]k^Am

    kAm%96 AC@A@D2= H2D 4C27E65 2D 2 H2J E@ @776C D@>6 C6=:67 E@ C6D:56?ED =:G:?8 @? E96 G2C:@FD C@25D 24C@DD E96 4:EJ E92E H6C6 ?6G6C 2446AE65 2D AF3=:4 H2JD]k^Am

    kAm%96 >2J@C H2D 3=F?E 😕 9:D 4C:E:4:D> @7 E96 4@F?4:=’D 49@:46 E@ G@E6 “?@ 4@?7:56?46” 😕 D49@@= @77:4:2=D]k^Am

    kAm“%96 C6D@=FE:@? 😀 5:G:D:G6 2?5 5@6D ?@E @776C AC24E:42= D@=FE:@?D E@ E96 D6C:@FD 492==6?86D @FC D49@@=D 2C6 724:?8[” q62FC682C5 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm“xE D@=G6D ?@ 24EF2= AC@3=6>D 2?5 5@6D ?@E 9@=5 2?J@?6 244@F?E23=6 😕 2 DF3DE2?E:2=[ 24E:@?23=6 H2J]”k^Am

    kAm~?=J 52JD 27E6C E96 4@F?4:= :?:E:2==J 2AAC@G65 E96 “?@ 4@?7:56?46” C6D@=FE:@?[ zH@?8 D2:5 D96 H@F=5 E2<6 >65:42= =62G6 F?E:= E96 6?5 @7 E96 J62C[ 2E H9:49 A@:?E E96 D49@@= DFA6C:?E6?56?E 925 2=C625J 2??@F?465 D96 H@F=5 C6D:8?]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Teddy Tauscher | ttauscher@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • What is Gov. Gavin Newsom’s role in the California Capitol Annex project?

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week. It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion. | PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Gov. Newsom says California Legislature’s secrecy around Capitol Annex is ‘inappropriate’ Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing. “As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird. A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.” The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion. Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA. It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now. “The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday. “Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom. KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor. “Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said. “Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee. When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office. Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week.

    It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion.

    | PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Gov. Newsom says California Legislature’s secrecy around Capitol Annex is ‘inappropriate’

    Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing.

    “As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.

    But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird.

    A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.”

    The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.

    All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion.

    Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA.

    It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now.

    “The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday.

    “Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom.

    KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor.

    “Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said.

    “Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee.

    When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”

    Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office.

    Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.

    The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Unions opposing Trump agenda pouring money into Proposition 50 campaign

    [ad_1]

    With the fate of President’s Trump’s right-wing agenda at stake, the California ballot measure crafted to tilt Congress to Democratic control has turned into a fight among millionaires and billionaires, a former president, a past movie-star governor and the nation’s top partisans.

    Californians have been inundated with political ads popping up on every screen — no cellphone, computer or living-room television is spared — trying to sway them about Proposition 50, which will reconfigure the districts of the largest state congressional delegation in the union.

    Besides opposing pleas from former President Obama and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state’s powerful, left-leaning labor unions are another factor that may influence the outcome of the Nov. 4 special election.

    Unions representing California school teachers, carpenters, state workers and nurses have plowed more than $23 million into efforts to pass Proposition 50, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosure reports about donations exceeding $100,000. That’s nearly one-third of the six-figure donations reported through Thursday.

    Not only do these groups have major interests in the state capitol, including charter school reform, minimum wage hikes and preserving government healthcare programs, they also are deeply aligned with efforts by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his fellow Democrats to put their party in control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 election.
    “There are real issues here that are at stake,” said veteran Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman, who has represented several unions that have contributed to Newsom’s committee supporting Proposition 50.

    “There’s always a risk when making sizable donations, that you’re putting yourself out there,” Kaufman said. “But the truth is on Proposition 50, I think it’s much less calculated than normal contributions. It really is about the issue, not about currying favor with members of the Legislature, or the congressional delegation, or the governor. Even though, of course, it benefits them if we win.”

    High stakes brings in big money from across the nation

    Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 committee has raised more than $116 million, according to campaign disclosure filings through Thursday afternoon, though that number is sure to increase once additional donations are disclosed in the latest fundraising reports that are due by midnight Thursday.

    The multimillion-dollar donations provide the best evidence of what’s at stake, and how Proposition 50 could determine control of the House during the final two years of Trump’s presidency. If the Democrats take control of the House, not only could that derail major parts of Trumps agenda, it probably would lead to a slew of congressional hearings on Trump’s immigration crackdown, use of the military in American cities, accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from Qatari’s royal family, the cutting of research funding to universities and the president’s ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, among many others.

    The House Majority PAC — the Democrats’ congressional fundraising arm — has donated at least $15 million to the pro-Proposition 50 campaign, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) was in Los Angeles to campaign for the ballot measure last weekend. Obama joined Newsom on a livestream promoting the proposition Wednesday, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin hosted a bilingual phone bank in Los Angeles on Thursday.

    “Make no mistake about what they’re trying to do and why it’s so important that we fight back,” Martin said. “We’re not going to be the only party with one hand tied behind our back. If they want a showdown, we’re going to give them a showdown and in just a little under two weeks it starts right here with Prop. 50 in California.”

    Billionaire financier George Soros — a generous donor to liberal causes and a bogeyman to Republicans — has contributed $10 million. Others have chosen to fund separate entities campaigning in favor of Proposition 50, notably billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer, who chipped in $12 million.

    On the opposition side, the largest donor is Charles Munger Jr., the son of the longtime investment partner of billionaire Warren Buffett, who has contributed $32.8 million to one of the two main committees opposing Proposition 50. The Congressional Leadership Fund — the GOP’s political arm in the House — has donated $5 million to the other main anti-Proposition 50 committee and $8 million to the California Republican Party.

    Although Republicans may control the White House and Congress, the California GOP wields no real power in Sacramento, so it’s not surprising that Republican efforts opposing Proposition 50 have not received major donations from entities with business before the state.

    The California Chamber of Commerce opted to remain neutral on Proposition 50. Chevron and the California Resources Corp., petroleum companies that have given to California Republicans in the past, also remain on the sidelines.

    In contrast, Democrats control every statewide office and hold supermajorities in both houses of the California Legislature. The pro-Proposition 50 campaign has been showered with donations from groups aligned with Sacramento’s legislative leaders — with labor organizations chief among them.

    Among the labor donors, the powerful carpenters unions have donated at least $4 million. Newsom hailed them in July when he signed legislation altering a landmark environmental law for urban apartment developments to boost the supply of housing. The California Conference of Carpenters union has become one of the most pro-housing voices in the state.

    “This is the third of the last four years we’ve been together signing landmark housing reforms, and it simply would not have happened without the Carpenters,” Newsom said at the time.

    Daniel M. Curtin, director of the California Conference of Carpenters, pointed to a letter he wrote to legislators in August urging them to put redistricting on the ballot because of the effect of Trump’s policies on the state’s workers.

    “These are not normal times, and this isn’t politics as usual. Not only has the Trump administration denied disaster assistance to victims of California’s devastating forest fires, he’s damaging our CA economy with mass arrests of law-abiding workers without warrants,” wrote Curtin, whose union has 70,000 members in the state. “The Trump administration is now unilaterally withdrawing from legally binding union collective bargaining agreements with federal workforce unions. The President has made it clear that this is just the beginning.”

    Proposition 50 was prompted by Trump urging Republican leaders in Texas to redraw their congressional districts to boost the number of GOP members in the House and keep the party in control after the 2026 election. Newsom sought to counter the move by altering California’s congressional boundaries in a rare mid-decade redistricting.

    With 52 members in the House, the state has the largest congressional delegation in the nation. But unlike many states, California’s districts are drawn by an independent commission created by voters in 2010 in an effort to end partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection.

    The state’s districts would not have been redrawn until after the 2030 U.S. census, but the Legislature and Newsom agreed in August to put Proposition 50, which would give Democrats the potential to pick up five seats, on the November ballot.

    Money from California unions pours in

    Although much of the money supporting the efforts comes from wealth Democratic donors and partisan groups aimed at helping Democrats take control of Congress, a significant portion comes from labor unions.

    The Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 700,000 healthcare workers, social workers, in-home caregivers and school employees and other state and local government workers, has contributed more than $5.5 million to the committee.

    On Oct. 12, the union celebrated Newsom signing bills ensuring that workers, regardless of immigration status, are informed about their civil and labor rights under state and federal law as well as updating legal guidance to state and local agencies about protecting private information, such as court records and medical data, from being misused by federal authorities.

    “Thank you to Governor Newsom for … standing up to federal overreach and indiscriminate, violent attacks on our communities,” David Huerta, president of SEIU California, said in a statement.

    Huerta was arrested during the first day of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles in June and charged with a felony. But federal prosecutors are instead pursuing a misdemeanor case against him, according to a Friday court filing.

    An SEIU representative did not respond to requests for comment.

    The California Teachers Assn., another potent force in state politics, has contributed more than $3.3 million, along with millions more from other education unions such as the National Education Assn., the California Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers.

    CTA had a mixed record in this year’s legislative session.

    Newsom vetoed a bill to crack down on charter school fraud, Senate Bill 414. The CTA opposed the bill, arguing that it didn’t go far enough to target fraud in some of the schools, and had urged the governor to reject it.

    Newsom signed CTA-backed bills that placed strict limits on ICE agents’ access to school grounds. But he also vetoed union-backed bill that would have required the state Board of Education to adopt health education instructional materials by July 1, 2028.

    CTA President David Goldberg said their donations are driven not only by issues important to the union’s members, but also the students they serve who are dependent on federally funded assistance programs and impacted by policies such as immigration.

    “It’s about our livelihood but it really is about fundamental issues … for people who serve students who are just incredibly under attack right now,” Goldberg said.

    “The governor’s support for labor would be exactly the same with or without Proposition 50 on the ballot. But he would acknowledge this year is more urgent than ever for labor and working people,” said Newsom spokesperson Bob Salladay. “Trump is taking a wrecking ball to collective bargaining, to fair wages and safe working conditions. He would be backing them up under any circumstances, but especially now.”

    Critics of Proposition 50 argue that these contributions are among the reasons voters should oppose the ballot measure.

    “The independent redistricting commission exists to prevent conflicts of interest and money from influencing line drawing,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition, the committee backed by Munger Jr., who bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure to create the independent commission. “That’s why we want to preserve its independence.”

    Other labor leaders argued that although they are not always in lockstep with Newsom, they need to support Proposition 50 because of the importance of Democrats winning the congressional majority next year.

    Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the powerful California Labor Federation, said the timing of the member unions’ donations of millions of dollars to Newsom’s ballot measure committee for an election taking place shortly after the bill-signing period was “unfortunate” and “weird.”

    “Because we have so many bills in front of him, we were gun-shy,” she said, noting that the federation has sparred with the governor over issues such as the effect of artificial intelligence in the workplace. “Never be too close to your elected officials. Because we see the good, the bad, the ugly.”

    Times staff writers Andrea Flores and Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faces congressional grilling amid CDC turmoil

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., facing pointed bipartisan questioning at a rancorous three-hour Senate committee hearing on Thursday, tried to defend his efforts to pull back COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and explain the turmoil he has created at federal health agencies.Kennedy said the fired CDC director was untrustworthy, stood by his past anti-vaccine rhetoric, and disputed reports of people saying they have had difficulty getting COVID-19 shots.A longtime leader in the anti-vaccine movement, Kennedy has made sweeping changes to agencies tasked with public health policy and scientific research by laying off thousands of workers, firing science advisers and remaking vaccine guidelines. The moves — some of which contradict assurances he made during his confirmation hearings — have rattled medical groups and officials in several Democratic-led states, which have responded with their own vaccine advice.Medical groups and several Democrats in Congress have called for Kennedy to be fired, and his exchanges with Democratic senators on the panel repeatedly devolved into shouting, from both sides.But some Republican senators also expressed unease with his changes to COVID-19 policies.The GOP senators noted that Kennedy said President Donald Trump deserved a Nobel Prize for the 2020 Operation Warp Speed initiative to quickly develop mRNA COVID-19 vaccines — and that he also had attacked the safety and continued use of those very shots.”I can’t tell where you are on Operation Warp Speed,” said Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis.Tillis and others asked him why the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was fired last week, less than a month into her tenure.Kennedy said she was dishonest, and that CDC leaders who left the agency last week in support of her deserved to be fired.He also criticized CDC recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic tied to lockdowns and masking policies, and claimed — wrongly — that they “failed to do anything about the disease itself.””The people at CDC who oversaw that process, who put masks on our children, who closed our schools, are the people who will be leaving,” Kennedy said. He later said they deserved to be fired for not doing enough to control chronic disease.Democrats express hostility from the startThe Senate Finance Committee had called Kennedy to a hearing about his plans to “Make America Healthy Again,” but Democratic senators pressed Kennedy on his actions around vaccines.At the start of the hearing, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon tried to have Kennedy formally sworn in as a witness, saying the HHS secretary has a history of lying to the committee. The committee’s chair, Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, denied the Democrat’s request, saying “the bottom line is we will let the secretary make his own case.”Wyden went on to attack Kennedy, saying he had “stacked the deck” of a vaccines advisory committee by replacing scientists with “skeptics and conspiracy theorists.”Last week, the Trump administration fired the CDC’s director — a Trump appointee who was confirmed by the Senate — less than a month into her tenure. Several top CDC leaders resigned in protest, leaving the agency in turmoil.The ousted director, Susan Monarez, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday that Kennedy was trying to weaken public health protections.”I was told to preapprove the recommendations of a vaccine advisory panel newly filled with people who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric,” Monarez wrote. “It is imperative that the panel’s recommendations aren’t rubber-stamped but instead are rigorously and scientifically reviewed before being accepted or rejected.”Kennedy told senators he didn’t make such an ultimatum, though he did concede that he had ordered Monarez to fire career CDC scientists. Monarez’s attorneys later responded that she stood by the op-ed and “would repeat it all under oath.”Kennedy pushed back on concerns raised by multiple Republican senators, including Tillis and Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. Both Barrasso and Cassidy are physicians.Shouting matches and hot comebacksThe health secretary had animated comebacks as Democratic senators pressed him on the effects of his words and actions.When Sen. Raphael Warnock, of Georgia, questioned Kennedy about his disparaging rhetoric about CDC employees before a deadly shooting at the agency this summer, Kennedy shot back: “Are you complicit in the assassination attempts on President Trump?”Kennedy called Sen. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico “ridiculous,” said he was “talking gibberish” and accused him of “not understanding how the world works” when Lujan asked Kennedy to pledge to share protocols of any research Kennedy was commissioning into autism and vaccines.He also engaged in a heated, loud exchanges with Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tina Smith of Minnesota.”I didn’t even hear your question,” Kennedy replied to Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto as the Nevada Democrat repeatedly asked what the agency was doing to lower drug costs for seniors.He also told Sen. Bernie Sanders that the Vermont independent was not “making any sense.”Some senators had their own choice words.”You’re interrupting me, and sir, you’re a charlatan. That’s what you are, ” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat. “The history on vaccines is very clear.”As the hearing neared its end, Kennedy pulled his cellphone from his pocket and then tapped and scrolled as Wyden asked about mifepristone, a drug used for medication abortion.Kennedy disputes COVID-19 dataIn May, Kennedy announced COVID-19 vaccines would no longer be recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, a move opposed by medical and public health groups.In June, he abruptly fired a panel of experts that had been advising the government on vaccine policy. He replaced them with a handpicked group that included several vaccine skeptics, and then shut the door to several doctors groups that had long helped form the committee’s recommendations.Kennedy has voiced distrust of research that showed the COVID-19 vaccines saved lives, and at Thursday’s hearing even cast doubt on statistics about how people died during the pandemic and on estimates about how many deaths were averted — statistics produced by the agencies he oversees.He said federal health policy would be based on gold standard science, but confessed that he wouldn’t necessarily wait for studies to be completed before taking action against, for example, potential causes of chronic illness.”We are not waiting for everything to come in. We are starting now,” he said.A number of medical groups say Kennedy can’t be counted on to make decisions based on robust medical evidence. In a statement Wednesday, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and 20 other medical and public health organizations issued a joint statement calling on him to resign.”Our country needs leadership that will promote open, honest dialogue, not disregard decades of lifesaving science, spread misinformation, reverse medical progress and decimate programs that keep us safe,” the statement said.Many of the nation’s leading public health and medical societies, including the American Medical Association, American Public Health Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have decried Kennedy’s policies and warn they will drive up rates of vaccine-preventable diseases.___Stobbe reported from New York. Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.___The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., facing pointed bipartisan questioning at a rancorous three-hour Senate committee hearing on Thursday, tried to defend his efforts to pull back COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and explain the turmoil he has created at federal health agencies.

    Kennedy said the fired CDC director was untrustworthy, stood by his past anti-vaccine rhetoric, and disputed reports of people saying they have had difficulty getting COVID-19 shots.

    A longtime leader in the anti-vaccine movement, Kennedy has made sweeping changes to agencies tasked with public health policy and scientific research by laying off thousands of workers, firing science advisers and remaking vaccine guidelines. The moves — some of which contradict assurances he made during his confirmation hearings — have rattled medical groups and officials in several Democratic-led states, which have responded with their own vaccine advice.

    Medical groups and several Democrats in Congress have called for Kennedy to be fired, and his exchanges with Democratic senators on the panel repeatedly devolved into shouting, from both sides.

    But some Republican senators also expressed unease with his changes to COVID-19 policies.

    The GOP senators noted that Kennedy said President Donald Trump deserved a Nobel Prize for the 2020 Operation Warp Speed initiative to quickly develop mRNA COVID-19 vaccines — and that he also had attacked the safety and continued use of those very shots.

    “I can’t tell where you are on Operation Warp Speed,” said Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis.

    Tillis and others asked him why the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was fired last week, less than a month into her tenure.

    Kennedy said she was dishonest, and that CDC leaders who left the agency last week in support of her deserved to be fired.

    He also criticized CDC recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic tied to lockdowns and masking policies, and claimed — wrongly — that they “failed to do anything about the disease itself.”

    “The people at CDC who oversaw that process, who put masks on our children, who closed our schools, are the people who will be leaving,” Kennedy said. He later said they deserved to be fired for not doing enough to control chronic disease.

    Democrats express hostility from the start

    The Senate Finance Committee had called Kennedy to a hearing about his plans to “Make America Healthy Again,” but Democratic senators pressed Kennedy on his actions around vaccines.

    At the start of the hearing, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon tried to have Kennedy formally sworn in as a witness, saying the HHS secretary has a history of lying to the committee. The committee’s chair, Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, denied the Democrat’s request, saying “the bottom line is we will let the secretary make his own case.”

    Wyden went on to attack Kennedy, saying he had “stacked the deck” of a vaccines advisory committee by replacing scientists with “skeptics and conspiracy theorists.”

    Last week, the Trump administration fired the CDC’s director — a Trump appointee who was confirmed by the Senate — less than a month into her tenure. Several top CDC leaders resigned in protest, leaving the agency in turmoil.

    The ousted director, Susan Monarez, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday that Kennedy was trying to weaken public health protections.

    “I was told to preapprove the recommendations of a vaccine advisory panel newly filled with people who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric,” Monarez wrote. “It is imperative that the panel’s recommendations aren’t rubber-stamped but instead are rigorously and scientifically reviewed before being accepted or rejected.”

    Kennedy told senators he didn’t make such an ultimatum, though he did concede that he had ordered Monarez to fire career CDC scientists. Monarez’s attorneys later responded that she stood by the op-ed and “would repeat it all under oath.”

    Kennedy pushed back on concerns raised by multiple Republican senators, including Tillis and Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. Both Barrasso and Cassidy are physicians.

    Shouting matches and hot comebacks

    The health secretary had animated comebacks as Democratic senators pressed him on the effects of his words and actions.

    When Sen. Raphael Warnock, of Georgia, questioned Kennedy about his disparaging rhetoric about CDC employees before a deadly shooting at the agency this summer, Kennedy shot back: “Are you complicit in the assassination attempts on President Trump?”

    Kennedy called Sen. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico “ridiculous,” said he was “talking gibberish” and accused him of “not understanding how the world works” when Lujan asked Kennedy to pledge to share protocols of any research Kennedy was commissioning into autism and vaccines.

    He also engaged in a heated, loud exchanges with Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tina Smith of Minnesota.

    “I didn’t even hear your question,” Kennedy replied to Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto as the Nevada Democrat repeatedly asked what the agency was doing to lower drug costs for seniors.

    He also told Sen. Bernie Sanders that the Vermont independent was not “making any sense.”

    Some senators had their own choice words.

    “You’re interrupting me, and sir, you’re a charlatan. That’s what you are, ” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat. “The history on vaccines is very clear.”

    As the hearing neared its end, Kennedy pulled his cellphone from his pocket and then tapped and scrolled as Wyden asked about mifepristone, a drug used for medication abortion.

    Kennedy disputes COVID-19 data

    In May, Kennedy announced COVID-19 vaccines would no longer be recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, a move opposed by medical and public health groups.

    In June, he abruptly fired a panel of experts that had been advising the government on vaccine policy. He replaced them with a handpicked group that included several vaccine skeptics, and then shut the door to several doctors groups that had long helped form the committee’s recommendations.

    Kennedy has voiced distrust of research that showed the COVID-19 vaccines saved lives, and at Thursday’s hearing even cast doubt on statistics about how people died during the pandemic and on estimates about how many deaths were averted — statistics produced by the agencies he oversees.

    He said federal health policy would be based on gold standard science, but confessed that he wouldn’t necessarily wait for studies to be completed before taking action against, for example, potential causes of chronic illness.

    “We are not waiting for everything to come in. We are starting now,” he said.

    A number of medical groups say Kennedy can’t be counted on to make decisions based on robust medical evidence. In a statement Wednesday, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and 20 other medical and public health organizations issued a joint statement calling on him to resign.

    “Our country needs leadership that will promote open, honest dialogue, not disregard decades of lifesaving science, spread misinformation, reverse medical progress and decimate programs that keep us safe,” the statement said.

    Many of the nation’s leading public health and medical societies, including the American Medical Association, American Public Health Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have decried Kennedy’s policies and warn they will drive up rates of vaccine-preventable diseases.

    ___

    Stobbe reported from New York. Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prominent Al Jazeera journalist among several killed in Israeli strike on Gaza press tent

    [ad_1]

    Israel’s military targeted a tent for journalists in Gaza City late Sunday, killing seven people, including Anas al-Sharif, a reporter for Al Jazeera who drew millions of followers on social media and emerged as a top voice in the Arab world for his chronicling of the war in Gaza over the last 22 months.

    Killed alongside the 28-year-old Al-Sharif were Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Moamen Aliwa and their assistant Mohammed Noufal. A sixth journalist, freelancer Mohammad al-Khaldi, who was in a nearby tent, was also killed, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

    In a statement, Al Jazeera, which is funded by the government of Qatar and has long had a fraught relationship with the Israeli government, described the killings as a “targeted assassination” that was “yet another blatant and premeditated attack on press freedom.”

    “The order to assassinate Anas al-Sharif, one of Gaza’s bravest journalists, and his colleagues, is a desperate attempt to silence the voices exposing the impending seizure and occupation of Gaza,” the statement said, referring to the Israeli government’s recently approved plans for its military to take over the Palestinian enclave.

    “Al Jazeera emphasizes that immunity for perpetrators and the lack of accountability embolden Israel’s actions and encourage further oppression against witnesses to the truth,” the broadcaster’s statement said.

    Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al Thani also excoriated Israel, saying in a statement on X that “the deliberate targeting of journalists by Israel in the Gaza Strip reveals how these crimes are beyond imagination.”

    Israel’s military confirmed it conducted the attack, issuing a statement shortly before midnight Monday saying it struck “the terrorist Anas Al-Sharif” who it said “posed as a journalist” but “served as the head of a terrorist cell” in the militant group Hamas.

    It claimed that “previously disclosed intelligence information” and “many documents found in the Gaza Strip” confirmed Al-Sharif’s involvement with Hamas. The documents, which the statement said included personnel rosters, lists of terrorist training courses, among others, “provide proof of the integration of the Hamas terrorist” within Al Jazeera.

    The documents were first released in October 2024 and accused six Al Jazeera journalists of involvement with Hamas or the Islamic Jihad militant group.

    At the time, Al Jazeera, along with a United Nations expert, the Committee to Protect Journalists and other groups cast doubt on the veracity of the documents. The U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of expression, Irene Khan, denounced Israel’s accusations against Al-Sharif in July as “unfounded” and a “blatant attempt to endanger his life and silence his reporting on the genocide in Gaza.”

    The Israeli military has previously made unsubstantiated claims that journalists it targeted and killed in Gaza were terrorists. In March, Israel killed Al Jazeera correspondent Hossam Shabat; in July 2024, it killed Ismail Ghoul and his cameraman Rami al-Rifi.

    Chief correspondent Wael al Dahdouh lost his wife, son, daughter and grandson in an Israeli airstrike in October 2023. Weeks after that, he was injured in a strike that killed Al Jazeera cameraman Samer Abu Daqqa.

    Israel has barred international journalists from entering Gaza even as it has targeted local reporters. Health authorities in Gaza say 237 journalists have been killed since the war began on Oct. 7, 2023. The Committee to Protect Journalists says at least 186 have been killed.

    Sunday’s drone attack came weeks after Israel stepped up its attacks on Al-Sharif, with the military’s Arabic-language spokesman accusing the Al Jazeera correspondent in July of spreading “propaganda” and taking part in “a false Hamas campaign on starvation.”

    Later that month, the Committee to Protect Journalists said it was “gravely worried” about Al-Sharif’s safety. The group’s Middle East and North Africa director, Sara Qudah, warned that the smear campaign against Al-Sharif represented “an effort to manufacture consent to kill Al-Sharif.”

    In a statement on Monday, Qudah said, “Israel is murdering the messengers.”

    “If Israel can kill the most prominent Gazan journalist, then it can kill anyone. The world needs to see these deadly attacks on journalists inside Gaza, as well as its censorship of journalists in Israel and the West Bank, for what they are: a deliberate and systematic attempt to cover up Israel’s actions.”

    British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was “gravely concerned” over the repeated targeting of journalists in Gaza; Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders and other groups also issued condemnations. The U.S. government did not immediately provide comment.

    Al-Sharif’s killing drew tributes for a journalist who for many across the region came to embody Gaza’s suffering.

    On social media people shared poignant moments from his coverage, including when he covered his father’s killing in an Israeli airstrike in the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza City in December 2023; a video when he was reunited with his daughter this year; or when he almost broke down on air, his voice cracking.

    “Keep on going, Mr. Anas,” says an unseen passerby. “You are our voice.”

    Video posted to social media showed crowds massing at the Sheikh Radwan Cemetery for the journalists’ funeral. Video depicted mourners crying and embracing each other, while others in the crowd carried Al-Sharif’s shrouded corpse and chanted, “With our soul and blood, we will sacrifice ourselves for you, Anas.”

    Al-Sharif is survived by his wife, daughter and son.

    Minutes before the strike that killed him, Al-Sharif posted on X saying there was “intense, concentrated Israeli bombardment” of Gaza City for two hours.

    Al-Sharif’s final message, written in April to be posted in the event of his death, read: “If these words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice.”

    He continued: “I have lived through pain in all its details, tasted suffering and loss many times, yet I never once hesitated to convey the truth as it is, without distortion or falsification — so that Allah may bear witness against those who stayed silent, those who accepted our killing, those who choked our breath, and whose hearts were unmoved by the scattered remains of our children and women, doing nothing to stop the massacre that our people have faced for more than a year and a half.”

    [ad_2]

    Nabih Bulos

    Source link

  • Council debates mayor’s plan to appoint Lawrence School Committee members

    Council debates mayor’s plan to appoint Lawrence School Committee members

    [ad_1]

    LAWRENCE — A special meeting is scheduled Wednesday evening for city leaders to discuss changing the structure of the School Committee, allowing members to be appointed by the mayor.

    The committee is now made up of elected members with Mayor Brian DePena serving as its chairman.

    DePena proposed a home rule petition earlier this year to restructure the committee once Lawrence Public Schools leaves state receivership.

    Due to underperformance, Lawrence schools have been under state receivership since 2012 with the Lawrence Alliance for Education as its oversight board.

    Drafts of the home rule petition call for a 13-member hybrid/elected committee of six elected members, six appointed members, a nonvoting student member and the mayor, who would serve as chair.

    “The mayor shall appoint Committee members who represent the ethnic, racial and socioeconomic diversity of the city of Lawrence and its public school students,” according to a draft.

    The draft also said it is “highly recommended that the appointed membership will include professionals from the following fields; finance/accounting, law, engineering, education, law enforcement, athletics, and/or arts – this assuring the academic advancement of students and overall education system.”

    An eight-member ad hoc committee was organized to review the home rule petition and its specifications. The ad hoc committee is made up of three people from the mayor’s office, three School Committee members and two city councilors.

    School Committee member Myra Ortiz serves on the ad hoc committee. She said before any changes to the School Committee are made, the city needs to prepare its “transition plan” to formally exit state receivership.

    “How do we move forward?” she asked.

    Ortiz also said the intent of the mayor’s plan was that Lawrence Alliance for Education board members could be incorporated into the School Committee post-receivership.

    City Councilor Stephany Infante, who serves on the ad hoc committee, called it a “very frustrating process.”

    Infante and others commented on the ad hoc committee and proposed home rule petition at a City Council meeting Tuesday night,

    She said there was “back and forth” at the ad hoc committee meetings and their time was “very unproductive.”

    Luis Robles, an Abbott Street resident, described the ad hoc committee as “a disaster.”

    “Nothing of substance was debated,” said Robles, adding that the meetings lacked constructive dialogue.

    Kimberly Barry, president of the 1,500-member Lawrence Teachers Union, said the union believes in full democracy and puts its trust in an elected School Committee.

    School Committee member Lenin Roa urged councilors to approve the home rule petition. He said “barely anyone wants to run for School Committee positions.”

    City councilors previously received a petition signed by 120 people urging them to “Support an Elected School Committee.”

    “Converting the existing fully-elected School Committee to a majority-elected school board, as proposed by the mayor, would continue the unjust pattern of state receivership. It would strip parents, caregivers, and our entire community of a voice in how our schools are run,” according to the petition.

    The meeting Wednesday starts at 7 p.m. in council chambers at City Hall. The meeting can also be viewed on YouTube and the City Council’s Facebook page.

    Follow staff reporter Jill Harmacinski on Twitter/X @EagleTribJill.

    [ad_2]

    By Jill Harmacinski jharmacinski@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • Business briefs

    Business briefs

    [ad_1]

    PEOPLEGreg Stevens was recently announced as the new president at Cabot Wealth Management. Rob Lutts and the firm’s managing partners made the announcement last week. It was effective Jan. 1. Stevens has been with Cabot for 20 years and has been instrumental in managing the growth and success of the firm over those years. He takes over the role of president from Lutts who founded the firm in 1983. Lutts will remain with Cabot as part of the management team. “I am confident that Greg will be a solid leader for the firm and, along with other senior leadership, will continue to ensure that our key focus is the same as it has been for 40 years — doing everything we can to help our clients achieve their goals,” said Lutts. The firm, based in Salem, is a leading wealth management firm that provides a wide range of services including investment management, financial planning, estate planning, tax filing and planning. Cabot is a national firm that serves clients across the country.

    Aubrie L. Gallagher recently joined Downey Law Group, LLC/DLG Closing to its law practice based in Topsfield and Haverhill. Gallagher is an experienced estate planning, probate, and trust administration attorney, having practiced as a solo practitioner for over 10 years. An Amesbury native, she graduated from Massachusetts School of Law in 2011. She comes from three generations of estate planning and probate attorneys, following in the footsteps of her mother, attorney Janice Weyland Sinclair, and her grandfather, attorney Wendell P. Weyland, who was a CPA and estate attorney in the Topsfield/Boxford area. Gallagher lives in Amesbury with her husband and family.

    Hancock Associates, a leading provider of land surveying, civil engineering and wetland science services, has announced the semi-retirement of Don Frydryk PE, PLS. Frydryk joined Hancock Associates, which has offices in Danvers, as a Regional Office Manager when the firm acquired Sherman & Frydryk, LLC, a land surveying and civil engineering firm located in Palmer. He will continue in a smaller, part-time role as Business Development Coordinator and focus on business development for Hancock’s western Massachusetts offices and mentoring staff.

    MILESTONESConnolly Brothers Inc., a construction management firm based in Beverly, recently completed a 52,000-square-foot design-build fit-up project for Calare Properties. The facility, located in Milford, will serve as a new state 911 Public Safety Answering Point, State 911 Training Center, Municipal Police Training Committee Academy and offices for the Massachusetts Department of Correction Professional Standards Unit. The two-story building was vacant for seven years, presenting challenges for Connolly’s design team. At first, it was critical to ascertain an understanding of the existing infrastructure, such as underground plumbing and structural components. Connolly proceeded to update the structural requirements, such as reinforcing second-floor and roof bar joists, strengthening steel column brace frames and creating four new grade beams, in order to meet updated building code requirements for use group risk category of the building. Connolly provided additional accessible entrances and replaced the exterior stairs with new granite. The electrical requirements to support the 911 Communication Center required a high level of coordination between Connolly’s design and construction teams, as this included design of 22 workstation consoles that support the intricate technological infrastructure needed to support the operating requirements for a 911 emergency dispatch center. Connolly served as both Architect of Record and Construction Manager for this design-build project. The project team also included Platinum Fire Protection, D+D/DNET and Tech Mechanical.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Porter attacks Schiff for taking ‘dirty money.’ His response? ‘I gave that money to you’

    Porter attacks Schiff for taking ‘dirty money.’ His response? ‘I gave that money to you’

    [ad_1]

    Irvine Rep. Katie Porter has repeatedly attacked her top Democratic rival in California’s 2024 Senate race, Burbank Rep. Adam B. Schiff, for accepting campaign contributions from oil, pharmaceutical, financial and other influential special interests trying to sway federal policy in Washington.

    She prided herself on not taking donations from corporate political action committees, unlike Schiff, who along with Republican former baseball All-Star Steve Garvey is leading in the polls as Tuesday’s primary election fast approaches.

    “Representative Schiff may have prosecuted big oil companies before he came to Congress, but when he got to Congress he cashed checks from companies like [British Petroleum] — from fossil fuel companies,” she said at a debate in January.

    “I have delivered results on climate in my few years in Congress.”

    Schiff, who took $2,000 total from the BP North American Employee PAC in 2004 and 2006, responded curtly during that debate. Schiff said he used some of the millions he raised through the years to help Porter in her congressional campaigns.

    “I gave that money to you, Katie Porter, and the only response was thank you, thank you, thank you.”

    The Times analyzed campaign finance reports from three election cycles when Porter and Schiff overlapped in Congress to see if the candidates’ claims were true. Both have been prodigious fundraisers for their own campaigns, raising tens of millions of dollars, while also starting political action committees that they used to support other candidates.

    Here’s what we found:

    Defense, tech and pharmaceutical companies donated money to Schiff

    Schiff’s committees reported 377 contributions from corporate PACs, according to a Times analysis. The Schiff for Congress campaign committee received 357 contributions and Frontline USA, his leadership PAC, reported 20, totaling $636,625 and $75,000, respectively.

    The more than 80 corporate PAC donors included defense, tech and telecommunications companies, which were the industries that gave the most to his committee.

    The corporate PAC representing Comcast Corp. and NBCUniversal contributed more than $40,000. Schiff also received money from committees representing Wells Fargo and Amgen, among many others, during his House elections.

    “I didn’t realize how much dirty money you’ve took until I was running against you,” Porter said at that same debate.

    “You need to own your record.”

    A majority of corporate PAC donations to Frontline USA came from groups representing defense companies, including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. Frontline also received donations from PACs representing Amazon, Universal Music Group and Centene Corp. — a large insurer.

    Schiff donated over $50,000 to Porter

    A Times analysis of Federal Election Commission records found that throughout her election and reelection campaigns for the House of Representatives, Porter received $54,675 in campaign contributions from Schiff’s two committees.

    The majority of this money came from individual donors who used Frontline USA as a conduit to donate to Porter’s campaign; the PAC gave more than $33,000 in contributions to Porter’s races in 2018, 2020 and 2022.

    In May 2020, Schiff texted Porter after a fundraiser about one donation, according to messages Schiff’s campaign shared with The Times.

    “Hi Katie, sending $5,475 more from my friends Dick and Lois Gunther. Keep up the great work and see you soon,” Schiff wrote on May 14, 2020.

    “Thank you so much Adam. Your (sic) are great! I’m doing handwritten thank yous that mention you to these folks,” she wrote back days later.

    “(I do a lot of handwritten notes and like to acknowledge the source).”

    Frontline USA reported two earmarked donations for Porter from the couple in May 2020 totaling the amount. The couple also sent $5,600 to Porter’s campaign three months earlier.

    Schiff’s campaign estimates that the Senate candidate helped Porter raise close to $240,000 since she first ran in 2018. Much of this money, according to Schiff’s campaign, came from fundraising solicitations he sent on her behalf and fundraisers he hosted.

    It’s hard to avoid corporate money in politics

    Schiff’s corporate donations, which Porter hates, flow into a much larger pool of cash that’s made up of individual donations. The money is indistinguishable when it’s donated to Porter but reflects how money from corporate special interests can make its way into the accounts of someone who decries them.

    Porter’s congressional contests were high-priced affairs, and the majority of the millions she raised came from individual contributors. She has refused to accept campaign donations from corporate PACs throughout her political career. When Schiff entered the Senate contest last year, he promised to not take money from these groups, too.

    The majority of fundraising by Schiff’s committees similarly comes from individual contributions. For Frontline USA, contributions from non-political party committees — including corporate PACs, along with labor, trade and other groups — comprised 11% and 3% of its total receipts for the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, respectively.

    “Part of my job was to help elect Democrats — help them get reelected,” Schiff said about his national fundraising work.

    When asked about Schiff’s fundraising history, Porter didn’t see trying to help Democrats as a good justification for taking money from special interests actively trying to influence Congress.

    After winning in 2018, Porter created her own leadership political committee called Truth to Power PAC, which has raised a little more than $1 million since its inception. Most of the money came from individual donors, and close to $630,000 was doled out to candidates across the country who were in competitive races, according to Porter senior advisor Nathan Click.

    It didn’t take money from corporate political action committees.

    “Katie didn’t have to reach her hand out to the likes of BP oil or defense contractors or corporate payday lenders in order to help her Democratic colleagues, but Adam did,” Click said.

    [ad_2]

    Benjamin Oreskes, Aida Ylanan

    Source link

  • ROCKPORT RAMBLINGS: ‘Shed your meds’ topic for luncheon

    ROCKPORT RAMBLINGS: ‘Shed your meds’ topic for luncheon

    [ad_1]

    Worried your taking too many medicines? A presentation on Wednesday may help you advocate for yourself and keep medications in check throughout the aging process.

    The Rockport Council on Aging will host Donna Bartlett, author of “MedStrong,” at a special luncheon presentation Wednesday, Feb. 21, at noon.

    The lunch and presentation topic “Shed Your Meds” is free thanks to sponsorship from Addison Gilbert Hospital and the Friends of the Rockport Council on Aging. The event will take place at the Rockport Community House, 58 Broadway, where seats are limited and advance reservations are required.

    A board-certified geriatric pharmacist based in Worcester, Bartlett is engaged in community outreach programming specializing in older adult medication needs, affordability and prescription coverage. Bartlett has seen first-hand the effects of staying on medication longer than necessary and the impact of “over medication.”

    Those in attendance can expect to come away with a better understanding of “de-prescribing” from an expert who has been practicing, teaching and speaking on the subject for more than 15 years. Copies of Bartlett’s book “MedStrong” will be available for purchase at the event.

    Seats may be reserved by contacting the Rockport Council on Aging at 978-546-2573.

    Career Day

    The DECA chapter at Rockport High School is sponsoring Career Day on Wednesday, April 3, at the school, 24 Jerden’s Lane, from 8 to 10:30 a.m., and the chapter is seeking for volunteers for presentations. Rockport High alumni are encouraged to present. Anyone interested in participating should email DECA advisor Scott Larsen at slarsen@rpk12.org.

    [ad_2]

    Rockport Ramblings | All Hands

    Source link

  • Business briefs

    Business briefs

    [ad_1]

    PEOPLEIan Staber recently joined SV Design in Beverly as the project manager for the firm’s commercial architecture team. Staber brings 13 years of experience ranging from architectural design, kitchen and cabinet design, project management, and facilities management, having worked for multiple firms between Connecticut, the Boston area and Colorado. As project manager at SV Design, he oversees several local, affordable housing developments and is working on multifamily and institutional projects from conception to completion. Staber has a bachelor’s degree and master’s in architecture from Northeastern University. Most recently, he had worked with Seger Architects in Salem on projects ranging from office fit-outs, multifamilies, dormitories, and restaurants. He lives in Salem with his wife and two kids. On the side, he creates custom calligraphy designs and paints large scale murals as Esoteric Calligraffiti.

    Lou DiFronzo, Matthew LaLone and Carole Wedge were recently elected to the board of directors for Northeast Arc, a nonprofit organization based in Danvers that serves children and adults with disabilities. DiFronzo, who lives in North Reading, is a partner at Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, and provides advisory legal services to his clients concentrating in commercial transactions and general outside counsel counseling to private companies. He has been involved in numerous complex financing and M&A transactions helping his clients to achieve their business objectives. LaLone, who lives in Melrose, is President of Administration and General Counsel at Energy North, one of the largest wholesale distributors of fuel in New England and Upstate New York. It also operates and owns 70 gas stations, convenience stores, car washes and food service locations as well as providing 45,000 households with heating oil and propane. Wedge, who lives in Concord, recently retired as a principal at Shepley Bulfinch, a national design firm with studios in Boston, Durham, Hartford, Houston, and Phoenix. As the former president and CEO, she is recognized for her leadership in the firm’s evolution and growth into an innovative organization with an open and diverse culture.

    MILESTONESWilliam Raveis Real Estate recently won the National Top Brokerage Award at Inman Connect in Las Vegas. Since 1998, the Inman Innovator Awards have honored companies, individuals and new technology that increases productivity, efficiency and transparency for consumers and real estate professionals alike. Out of more than 150,000 real estate firms in the country, only a handful of companies meet the criteria to qualify. Inman’s highest honor of “Top Brokerage 2023” was awarded to Raveis, which has been a real estate industry leader for 50 years. “We’ve been on a winning streak with number one for global, HGTV Ultimate House Hunt, best local agency awards, and now we are officially the number one real estate company in the United States,” said founder and CEO William “Bill” Raveis. “We are very proud to be recognized and owe our outstanding success to the wonderful sales associates and employees at William Raveis.” The company has more than 4,500 sales associates, 400 employees, and over 140 office locations from Maine to Florida, with local offices in Marblehead and other North Shore communities.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s tax returns are now public after long fight with Congress

    Trump’s tax returns are now public after long fight with Congress

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee released six years of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns on Friday.

    Experts will be looking closely at large business losses reported by Trump that significantly reduced his tax liability. For instance, he paid no federal taxes in 2020.

    “Trump paid miniscule income taxes in 2015-2020, and almost no income taxes for the prior three decades,” said Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center in Washington, in an email.

    “We also have learned that, in the 1990s and 2000s, Trump claimed business losses of tens and sometimes hundreds of millions annually. I studied these a few years ago and found some real, and some fake,” he added.

    “It is still early to determine how much of Trump’s most recent losses were real or fake,” Rosenthal said.

    Read: Trump paid $0 taxes in 2020. He’s not alone

    Analysts are also going to pore over the documents for any details of Trump’s foreign business dealings.

    Some certified public accountants who looked at the documents say the returns show that the U.S. tax system has been written to “incentivize” real estate investing.

    Bottom line: In order to generate these kinds of losses, you need to be super rich. It’s not a poor man’s game,” said Jonathan Medows, managing member of Medows CPA PLLC in New York.

    Read: CPAs have questions about Trump’s tax returns

    David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize winning author and longtime Trump critic, in a post on his non-profit news organization DC Report, called the former president’s tax returns “a rich environment in which questionable conduct is found throughout the filings and needs only seasoned auditors to uncover fictional expenditures.”

    He said that Trump was warned by two New York state judges in trials about his 1984 taxes not to deduct huge expenses in businesses with no revenue.

    “That Trump persisted in using the same fraudulent technique in six years of recent tax returns is powerful evidence of criminal intent,” Johnston wrote.

    In a statement, Trump said his returns show “how I have been able to use depreciation and various other tax deductions as an incentive for creating thousands of jobs.”

    Key words: Trump on release of his tax returns

    Some experts said they were going to look at the returns for details about Trump’s foreign sources of income. The documents show that Trump had foreign bank accounts while he was president.

    See: What could be learned from Trump’s tax returns

    Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee said they voted to release the Trump tax returns to help improve the tax laws. Republicans warned that the release would set a precedent where political parties routinely release the tax returns of their opponents.

    Another question is why the Internal Revenue Service failed to audit Trump’s tax returns as it routinely does for U.S. presidents.

    See: Trump taxes could rev up fight over IRS funding

    On Jan. 3, Republicans will take control of the House along with the tax-writing committee.

    Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia who is a member of the Ways and Means Committee, said the Trump tax returns “underscore the fact that our tax laws are often inequitable and that enforcement of them is often unjust.”

    Rep. Kevin Brady, the Republican from Texas who was the minority leader of the Ways and Means panel and is leaving Congress in January, said Democrats did not release the Trump tax records for any legislative purpose but wanted to “unleash a dangerous new political weapon” at the former president.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Biggest Takeaway from the January 6 Report

    The Biggest Takeaway from the January 6 Report

    [ad_1]

    The congressional committee investigating the January 6 insurrection delivered a comprehensive and compelling case for the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump and his closest allies for their attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

    But the committee zoomed in so tightly on the culpability of Trump and his inner circle that it largely cropped out the dozens of other state and federal Republican officials who supported or enabled the president’s multifaceted, months-long plot. The committee downplayed the involvement of the legion of local Republican officials who enlisted as fake electors and said almost nothing about the dozens of congressional Republicans who supported Trump’s efforts—even to the point, in one case, of urging him to declare “Marshall Law” to overturn the result.

    With these choices, the committee likely increased the odds that Trump and his allies will face personal accountability—but diminished the prospect of a complete reckoning within the GOP.

    That reality points to the larger question lingering over the committee’s final report: Would convicting Trump defang the threat to democracy that culminated on January 6, or does that require a much broader confrontation with all of the forces in extremist movements, and even the mainstream Republican coalition, that rallied behind Trump’s efforts?

    “If we imagine” that preventing another assault on the democratic process “is only about preventing the misconduct of a single person,” Grant Tudor, a policy advocate at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, told me, “we are probably not setting up ourselves for success.”

    Both the 154-page executive summary unveiled Monday and the 845-page final report released last night made clear that the committee is focused preponderantly on Trump. The summary in particular read more like a draft criminal indictment than a typical congressional report. It contained breathtaking detail on Trump’s efforts to overturn the election and concluded with an extensive legal analysis recommending that the Justice Department indict Trump on four separate offenses, including obstruction of a government proceeding and providing “aid and comfort” to an insurrection.

    Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the former special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment, told me the report showed that the committee members and staff “were thinking like prosecutors.” The report’s structure, he said, made clear that for the committee, criminal referrals for Trump and his closest allies were the endpoint that all of the hearings were building toward. “I think they believe that it’s important not to dilute the narrative,” he said. “The utmost imperative is to have some actual consequences and to tell a story to the American people.” Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney who has closely followed the investigation, agreed that the report underscored the committee’s prioritization of a single goal: making the case that the Justice Department should prosecute Trump and some of the people around him.

    “If they wind up with Trump facing charges, I think they will see it as a victory,” Litman told me. “My sense is they are also a little suspicious about the [Justice] Department; they think it’s overly conservative or wussy and if they served up too big an agenda to them, it might have been rejected. The real focus was on Trump.”

    In one sense, the committee’s single-minded focus on Trump has already recorded a significant though largely unrecognized achievement. Although there’s no exact parallel to what the Justice Department now faces, in scandals during previous decades, many people thought it would be too divisive and turbulent for one administration to “look back” with criminal proceedings against a former administration’s officials. President Gerald Ford raised that argument when he pardoned his disgraced predecessor Richard Nixon, who had resigned while facing impeachment over the Watergate scandal, in 1974. Barack Obama made a similar case in 2009 when he opted against prosecuting officials from the George W. Bush administration for the torture of alleged terrorists. (“Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past,” Obama said at the time.)

    As Tudor pointed out, it is a measure of the committee’s impact that virtually no political or opinion leaders outside of hard-core Trump allies are making such arguments against looking back. If anything, the opposite argument—that the real risk to U.S. society would come from not holding Trump accountable—is much more common.

    “There are very few folks in elite opinion-making who are not advocating for accountability in some form, and that was not a given two years ago,” Tudor told me.

    Yet Tudor is one of several experts I spoke with who expressed ambivalence about the committee’s choice to focus so tightly on Trump while downplaying the role of other Republicans, either in the states or in Congress. “I think it’s an important lost opportunity,” he said, that could “narrow the public’s understanding as to the totality of what happened and, in some respects, to risk trivializing it.”

    Bill Kristol, the longtime conservative strategist turned staunch Trump critic, similarly told me that although he believes the committee was mostly correct to focus its limited time and resources primarily on Trump’s role, the report “doesn’t quite convey how much the antidemocratic, authoritarian sentiments have metastasized” across the GOP.

    Perhaps the most surprising element of the executive summary was its treatment of the dozens of state Republicans who signed on as “fake electors,” who Trump hoped could supplant the actual electors pledged to Joe Biden in the decisive states. The committee suggested that the fake electors—some of whom face federal and state investigations for their actions—were largely duped by Trump and his allies. “Multiple Republicans who were persuaded to sign the fake certificates also testified that they felt misled or betrayed, and would not have done so had they known that the fake votes would be used on January 6th without an intervening court ruling,” the committee wrote. Likewise, the report portrays Republican National Committee Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel, who agreed to help organize the fake electors, as more of a victim than an ally in the effort. The full report does note that “some officials eagerly assisted President Trump with his plans,” but it identifies only one by name: Doug Mastriano, the GOP state senator and losing Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate this year. Even more than the executive summary, the full report emphasizes testimony from the fake electors in which they claimed to harbor doubts and concerns about the scheme.

    Eisen, a co-author of a recent Brookings Institution report on the fake electors, told me that the committee seemed “to go out of their way” to give the fake electors the benefit of the doubt. Some of them may have been misled, he said, and in other cases, it’s not clear whether their actions cross the standard for criminal liability. But, Eisen said, “if you ask me do I think these fake electors knew exactly what was going on, I believe a bunch of them did.” When the fake electors met in Georgia, for instance, Eisen said that they already knew Trump “had not won the state, it was clear he had not won in court and had no prospect of winning in court, they were invited to the gathering of the fake electors in secrecy, and they knew that the governor had not and would not sign these fake electoral certificates.” It’s hard to view the participants in such a process as innocent dupes.

    The executive summary and final report both said very little about the role of other members of Congress in Trump’s drive to overturn the election. The committee did recommend Ethics Committee investigations of four House Republicans who had defied its subpoenas (including GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the presumptive incoming speaker). And it identified GOP Representative Jim Jordan, the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, as “a significant player in President Trump’s efforts” while also citing the sustained involvement of Representatives Scott Perry and Andy Biggs.

    But neither the executive summary nor the full report chose quoted exchanges involving House and Senate Republicans in the trove of texts the committee obtained from former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The website Talking Points Memo, quoting from those texts, recently reported that 34 congressional Republicans exchanged ideas with Meadows on how to overturn the election, including the suggestion from Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina that Trump simply declare “Marshall Law” to remain in power. Even Representative Adam Schiff of California, a member of the committee, acknowledged in an op-ed published today that the report devoted “scant attention …[to] the willingness of so many members of Congress to vote to overturn it.”

    Nor did the committee recommend disciplinary action against the House members who strategized with Meadows or Trump about overturning the result—although it did say that such members “should be questioned in a public forum about their advance knowledge of and role in President Trump’s plan to prevent the peaceful transition of power.” (While one of the committee’s concluding recommendations was that lawyers who participated in the efforts to overturn the election face disciplinary action, the report is silent on whether that same standard should apply to members of Congress.) In that, the committee stopped short of the call from a bipartisan group of former House members for discipline (potentially to the point of expulsion) against any participants in Trump’s plot. “Surely, taking part in an effort to overturn an election warrants an institutional response; previous colleagues have been investigated and disciplined for far less,” the group wrote.

    By any measure, experts agree, the January 6 committee has provided a model of tenacity in investigation and creativity in presentation. The record it has compiled offers both a powerful testament for history and a spur to immediate action by the Justice Department. It has buried, under a mountain of evidence, the Trump apologists who tried to whitewash the riot as “a normal tourist visit” or minimize the former president’s responsibility for it. In all of these ways, the committee has made it more difficult for Trump to obscure how gravely he abused the power of the presidency as he begins his campaign to re-obtain it. As Tudor said, “It’s pretty hard to imagine January 6 would still be headline news day in and day out absent the committee’s work.”

    But Trump could not have mounted such a threat to American democracy alone. Thousands of far-right extremists responded to his call to assemble in Washington. Seventeen Republican state attorneys general signed on to a lawsuit to invalidate the election results in key states; 139 Republican House members and eight GOP senators voted to reject the outcome even after the riot on January 6. Nearly three dozen congressional Republicans exchanged ideas with Meadows on how to overturn the result, or exhorted him to do so. Dozens of prominent Republicans across the key battleground states signed on as fake electors. Nearly 300 Republicans who echoed Trump’s lies about the 2020 election were nominated in November—more than half of all GOP candidates, according to The Washington Post. And although many of the highest-profile election deniers were defeated, about 170 deniers won their campaign and now hold office, where they could be in position to threaten the integrity of future elections.

    The January 6 committee’s dogged investigation has stripped Trump’s defenses and revealed the full magnitude of his assault on democracy. But whatever happens next to Trump, it would be naive to assume that the committee has extinguished, or even fully mapped, a threat that has now spread far beyond him.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Fed Makes Another Big Rate Hike In Its Battle To Fight Inflation

    Fed Makes Another Big Rate Hike In Its Battle To Fight Inflation

    [ad_1]

    The Federal Reserve has decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to 3.75% – 4%, continuing its aggressive campaign against persistent inflation. Policymakers suggested that there was more to come, but also outlined a possible rationale for slowing rate increases soon.

    That’s the sixth consecutive rate hike this year, pushing rates higher than they’ve been since December 2007. These rate hikes are a result of the Fed’s goal to achieve maximum employment and lower runaway inflation to 2%, as stated in today’s announcement following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting.

    Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell noted that Russia’s war against Ukraine is causing tremendous human and economic hardship. He said, “The war and related events are creating additional upward pressure on inflation and are weighing on global economic activity,” he said. “The Committee is highly attentive to inflation risks.”

    As recently as last month, Powell said that rate hikes “will take some time” to take effect, with potential job market losses, and both businesses and households alike feeling the pain.

    “Even with the Federal Reserve raising its short-term fed funds rate by another large amount, longer-term interest rates look to move only slightly,” said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. “The mortgage market has already priced in the latest Fed move. Still, mortgage rates are near 20-year highs, and that hurts home buyers. Once inflation is contained, mortgage rates will start to drift lower. It may be another year or two before that happens.”

    Inflated prices combined with rising interest rates have borrowers paying the price with loans, credit card debt, mortgages and more. But there’s a silver lining for savers. As the Fed continues raising rates, savings account interest rates get better.

    “The Committee anticipates that ongoing increases in the target range will be appropriate in order to attain a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive to return inflation to 2 percent over time,” according to the Fed statement. “In determining the pace of future increases in the target range, the Committee will take into account the cumulative tightening of monetary policy, the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation, and economic and financial developments. In addition, the Committee will continue reducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities, as described in the Plans for Reducing the Size of the Federal Reserve’s Balance Sheet that were issued in May. The Committee is strongly committed to returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.”

    “Mortgage rates already had risen in anticipation of this rate increase, and now they’ll go up even more before the Fed’s next rate hike, in mid-December,” said Holden Lewis, home and mortgage expert at NerdWallet. “High mortgage rates have made homeownership unaffordable for many would-be buyers. Consequently, home sales have plunged, and prices are falling in many markets. The Fed has succeeded already in slashing inflation in home prices. The rest of the economy is reacting more slowly to the central bank’s rate increases.”

    Recent indicators point to modest growth in spending and production. Job gains have been robust in recent months, and the unemployment rate has remained low. Inflation remains elevated, reflecting supply and demand imbalances related to the pandemic, higher food and energy prices and broader price pressures.

    “Most homeowners have mortgage rates that are half of the current 30-year rate, and as a result, listings have slowed along with sales,” said Ruben Gonzalez, chief economist for Keller Williams. He noted that homeowners’ equity levels are high because of the rapid appreciation, and mortgage default rates remain near all-time lows as markets cool.

    He added, “As things stand, the housing market appears well positioned to weather slower activity as we move into 2023, but unlikely to see any improvement until we are in an economic environment that will accommodate lower or, at minimum, more stable mortgage rates.”

    [ad_2]

    Brenda Richardson, Senior Contributor

    Source link