02 March 21
Bad February, March Will Be Important
RSN’s funding took a hit in February. We tried everything we could think of to pull in enough money to cover our budget but we just couldn’t get the engine started.
A number of you did help-out. We sincerely thank you, it made and it always makes a huge difference.
Onward with a bit more urgency.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
02 March 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Rep Ro Khanna: Democrats Should Ignore the Senate Parliamentarian and Pass $15 Minimum Wage Hike
Democracy Now!
Excerpt: "'I don't know any part of this country where someone can survive on $7.25,' Ro Khanna says."
he House of Representatives has voted to pass President Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package that includes an increase to the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour, which could now be stripped out in the final bill after the unelected Senate parliamentarian found it does not comply with budget rules. Democratic Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have also said they’ll oppose the measure. Congressmember Ro Khanna of California says the parliamentarian “misruled” in this case and that Democrats should pass the wage hike anyway. “I don’t know any part of this country where someone can survive on $7.25,” he says. “There is precedent for not listening to the parliamentarian’s advice, and we are hopeful that the vice president, or whoever is in the Senate chair, will do that.”Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
In a party-line vote, the House voted Saturday to pass President Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package, which includes $1,400 stimulus checks to people who make less than $75,000 a year, as well as funding for expanded unemployment insurance, vaccination programs, school reopenings, and more relief for small businesses.
The package also includes a measure to increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour, over five years, which could now be stripped out as it heads to the Senate after the unelected Senate parliamentarian ruled it does not comply with budget rules around reconciliation. In response to the Senate parliamentarian declaring last week that including that $15-an-hour minimum wage increase in the package goes against the rules of reconciliation, Senators Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden say they’ll push for an amendment to penalize large companies that pay workers less than $15 an hour. Democratic Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have also said they’ll oppose the $15-an-hour minimum wage, despite the fact that the people of their states support it. The White House said Biden would respect the parliamentarian’s decision, but progressives are pushing back on this.
For more, we go to Ro Khanna, Democratic congressmember from Silicon Valley in California.
Your response to what happened? And explain exactly what this part of the bill is, that you passed in the House. And what is going happen in the Senate?
REP. RO KHANNA: Amy, at the heart of what Democrats stand for, it’s giving working-class Americans, middle-class Americans a raise. The minimum wage is at $7.25. I don’t know any part of this country where someone can survive on $7.25. The bill we passed says it needs to be raised to $15. It’s a gradual raising. The $15 isn’t until 2024. Many states already have $15 laws. As you pointed out, this is popular in both blue states and red states. Florida passed recently a $15 minimum wage.
The reality is that we will not be able to get this done unless we do it through reconciliation or eliminating the filibuster. We simply don’t have 10 Republican votes. And that’s why we believe that we need to have this part of the reconciliation package in the Senate.
The parliamentarian, though a person, in my view, of integrity, misruled or gave a false opinion in this case. I believe the minimum wage clearly has a budget impact. If you raise people’s wages, they will pay more taxes. It certainly has more of a budget impact than the repeal of the ACA had, which the parliamentarian had ruled in order in reconciliation.
This is why ultimately the decision belongs to the Senate chair — that is either the vice president or someone the vice president designates. There is precedent for not listening to the parliamentarian’s advice. And we are hopeful that the vice president, or whoever’s in the Senate chair, will do that in this case.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain that, Congessman Khanna. Explain exactly what can happen and what that precedent was, a previous vice president.
REP. RO KHANNA: So, Parliamentarian Robert Dove — it’s worth listening to his entire testimony; it’s on YouTube video — basically explains that Hubert Humphrey often disregarded the parliamentarian when he was vice president. Nelson Rockefeller, in 1975, famously disregarded the parliamentarian to bring the threshold required for overcoming a filibuster from 67 votes, which is what it used to be, down to 60 votes. So, we see clearly that there is a pattern of the vice presidents overturning or disregarding the parliamentarian, especially when there are procedural issues regarding the filibuster. The vice president here can do the same thing, or whoever is in the Senate chair, and that would allow the $15 minimum wage to be in the Senate package.
Now, people say, “Well, you already have a couple senators who are going to vote against it anyway.” First of all, people often say one thing. It’s very different to vote against the president’s first major initiative. I don’t think they will sink the entire COVID deal over this issue. Secondly, if we are even going to have compromise or negotiation with senators who may disagree with the $15, we first have to rule it in, so they have an incentive to negotiate, understanding that it can be part of the reconciliation package.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you have people like Raphael Warnock, who won but has to run again in two years, from Georgia. It’s wildly popular in Georgia, $15 an hour. You have Mark Kelly, Arizona. It’s popular in Arizona. He also runs again in two years. The significance of these congressmembers — these senators, like Manchin, where it’s popular in West Virginia — he’s now proposing a $11-an-hour minimum wage — but that this is bipartisan, multipartisan, $15 an hour is supported across the country?
REP. RO KHANNA: It is. And it’s a moral issue. I think people recognize the extraordinary wealth generation that we’ve seen, especially in the pandemic, where districts like mine, in Silicon Valley, many have done extraordinarily well because of the digitization of the economy, made trillions of dollars, that we can afford in this county for every person to make at least a $15 wage, that that can be and should be the floor. This is one of the few issues that has broad support across the political spectrum. And it is something that we must deliver on because of our core principles and because it will help us mobilize people that we need to continue to maintain our majority and continue to succeed politically.
AMY GOODMAN: What that means — right? — for Democrats to maintain the majority, is respond to what most people want. I think Politico shows 76% of Americans, more than three-quarters of Americans, back the overall bill, including 60% of Republicans. But not a Republican voted for it. And that goes larger than the $15 an hour. But I wanted to ask you about what other means of getting that passed, if it’s stripped out of the Senate bill.
REP. RO KHANNA: There are really only two means of getting $15. One is to make sure that it’s in reconciliation. If it’s not in this reconciliation, it would have to be in a second reconciliation. But at any point, that requires disregarding the parliamentarian, because the parliamentarian is not going to change their view on whether minimum wage should be in reconciliation. So, either you have to overturn the parliamentarian or you have to eliminate the filibuster; otherwise, there is simply not a path to getting $15 minimum wage.
AMY GOODMAN: And what does eliminating the filibuster mean?
REP. RO KHANNA: Eliminating the filibuster means that it would take a 51-vote — 51 votes to pass any major bill in the Senate. And right now, of course, it takes 60 votes.
Adam Jentleson has a brilliant book which explains — and I didn’t understand the history of the filibuster, but he explains that it was actually an invention of Calhoun, who used the 60-vote requirement to do the bidding of the slave states. And then it was invoked time and time again in the civil rights era to block civil rights legislation. And as I pointed out, actually, it’s ironic that Nelson Rockefeller overrules the parliamentarian to try to lower the impact of the filibuster from 67 votes to 60 votes.
But this history of the filibuster being tied to Jim Crow is important and highlights why we need to overturn it. Reverend Barber has said — I was talking to him recently — this is a moral issue of our time. The people who are often most affected with low wages are Black and Brown, many women. This is an issue of justice. And we cannot let these procedures stand in the way — illegitimate procedures stand in the way of what is just and right.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the $15-an-hour proposal will die if it’s not included in the Senate law — in the Senate bill?
REP. RO KHANNA: Well, Amy, I’m never going to concede defeat, and we will continue to fight. The next fight then would be: Let’s make sure it’s in the next reconciliation.
But I think this is a moment to act. This is our best chance, for the reasons you mentioned. There are a lot of good things in this bill. They have aid for state and local governments, aid to help schools open, aid for vaccination, aid for children in poverty. And so, in a bill that is so popular, that is our best chance of having minimum wage part of it, at the height of the president’s popularity, approval, in his first hundred days. It is always the best chance to get meaningful legislation.
One point: While the bill is tremendous in many ways, and I voted for it, and I will vote for the final package, whatever is in it, but the important thing is that the $15 minimum wage is not just one year. It represents a move toward structural change in this country about an economy that isn’t working for people. And that’s really the question: Do you believe that we need structural change in America for those left behind? I do.
AMY GOODMAN: Ro Khanna, I want to thank you for being with us, Democratic congressmember from California, member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Mary Altaffer/AP)
ALSO SEE: Progressives Won't 'Accept' a Loss on $15 Minimum Wage
Sanders Vows to Force Vote on $15 Minimum Wage
Alexander Bolton, The Hill
Bolton writes: "Sanders on Monday declared he would not back down on his signature wage initiative after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled last week that a provision setting the federal minimum wage at $15 an hour would not be eligible under special budget rules Democrats are using to avoid a filibuster while passing their coronavirus relief bill."
enate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says Democrats should “ignore” the recent ruling of the Senate parliamentarian and is vowing to force the Senate to vote this week on an amendment to set the federal minimum wage at $15 an hour.
Sanders on Monday declared he would not back down on his signature wage initiative after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled last week that a provision setting the federal minimum wage at $15 an hour would not be eligible under special budget rules Democrats are using to avoid a filibuster while passing their coronavirus relief bill.
“My personal view is that the idea that we have a Senate staffer, a high-ranking staffer, deciding whether 30 million Americans get a pay raise or not is nonsensical. We have got to make that decision, not a staffer who’s unelected, so my own view is that we should ignore the rulings, the decision of the parliamentarian,” Sanders told reporters.
Sanders added, “Given the enormous crises facing this country and the desperation of working families, we have got to as soon as possible end the filibuster.”
“We cannot have a minority of members define what the American people want,” he said.
Sanders said he will force a vote on an amendment raising the federal minimum wage this week.
“To the best of my knowledge, there will be a vote on the minimum wage, and we’ll see what happens,” he said. “I intend to offer the bill that will raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and we’ll see how the votes go.”
“If we fail in this legislation, I will be back,” he warned. “We are going to keep going.
“We are going to raise that minimum wage very shortly to $15 an hour,” he said.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), another leading Senate progressive, on Monday said she favors a vote to overrule the parliamentarian.
“I agree,” she said.
But Warren said the Senate filibuster rule, which requires 60 votes to pass most controversial legislation, is the biggest obstacle facing President Biden’s agenda.
“Understand, the only reason that we're in this mess is because of the filibuster. If we would get rid of the filibuster, then we wouldn't have to keep trying to force the camel through the eye of the needle,” she said.
“Instead, we would do what the majority of Americans want us to do, and in this particular case, that's raise the minimum wage,” she added.
New York governor Andrew Cuomo makes what has been described as an unwanted advance on Anna Ruch at a wedding reception in September 2019. (photo: Anna Ruch cellphone)
Third Cuomo Accuser Comes Forward: 'Can I Kiss You?'
Matt Flegenheimer and Jesse McKinley, The New York Times
The young woman’s account follows two separate accusations that Gov. Andrew Cuomo sexually harassed two female state employees.
nna Ruch had never met Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo before encountering him at a crowded New York City wedding reception in September 2019. Her first impression was positive enough.
The governor was working the room after toasting the newlyweds, and when he came upon Ms. Ruch, now 33, she thanked him for his kind words about her friends. But what happened next instantly unsettled her: Mr. Cuomo put his hand on Ms. Ruch’s bare lower back, she said in an interview on Monday.
When she removed his hand with her own, Ms. Ruch recalled, the governor remarked that she seemed “aggressive” and placed his hands on her cheeks. He asked if he could kiss her, loudly enough for a friend standing nearby to hear. Ms. Ruch was bewildered by the entreaty, she said, and pulled away as the governor drew closer.
The U.S.-Mexico border wall. (photo: Getty Images)
Border Barrier Boondoggle
Jonathan Thompson, High Country News
Thompson writes: "By the end of Trump's term, his administration had completed construction of about 450 miles of barrier, none of which was concrete and all of which was demonstrably pregnable, at a cost at least five times that of the existing barriers."
would build a great wall — and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me. And I’ll build them very inexpensively,” Donald Trump said in 2015 as he announced his presidential run. “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.” During the campaign, Trump offered more details. His wall would span the entire length of the border, or nearly 2,000 miles, it would be fashioned with concrete — not unlike the Berlin Wall — and would be “impregnable” and “big and beautiful.”
It didn’t quite work out that way. By the end of Trump’s term, his administration had completed construction of about 450 miles of barrier, none of which was concrete and all of which was demonstrably pregnable, at a cost at least five times that of the existing barriers. Mexico did not pay a dime for it. And the “beautiful” part? That, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
When Trump first promised to build the wall along the border, he apparently didn’t realize that his predecessors had already constructed hundreds of miles of barriers. It all started in 1996, when President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act. Fences were constructed in urban areas, such as Nogales and San Diego, with the intention of driving border crossers into the desert, where they could be more easily apprehended — but also where they were at greater risk of dying of heat-related ailments.
A decade later, President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing the construction of 700 miles of barriers. As a result, 652 miles of pedestrian and vehicle barriers already lined the border, mostly between El Paso and San Diego, by the time Trump was elected. All the evidence, however, suggests that it did very little to stop undocumented migration, in part because at least two-thirds of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. arrived on visas and then overstayed them.
Besides, no wall is truly impregnable, as Trump himself indicated in a speech on the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, when he said: “Let the fate of the Berlin Wall be a lesson to oppressive regimes and rulers everywhere: No Iron Curtain can ever contain the iron will of a people resolved to be free.” Oddly enough, “iron curtain” may be the most accurate description of Trump’s new segments of the wall.
On the day of his inauguration, President Joseph Biden signed an executive order halting further construction. Now, many observers are urging him to go further and dismantle the barrier, as well as try to repair the damage done. Or, as President Ronald Reagan put it in 1987, “Tear down this wall!”
U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn was surrounded at Emanuel AME Church on Thursday, Feb. 21, 2019, by supporters of a legislative effort to close the so called 'Charleston Loophole.' (photo: Wade Spees/Post and Courier)
With Hope in Democrat-Led Congress, SC's Clyburn Reintroduces 'Charleston Loophole' Bill
Maayan Schechter, McClatchy DC
Schechter writes:
his time facing a House and Senate held by Democrats, South Carolina’s Jim Clyburn will try again to get a measure passed that would require a completed background check before buying a gun.
The U.S. House passed a similar measure to close the so-called “Charleston loophole” in 2019, only for it to stall in the Republican-controlled Senate shortly after. But with two chambers controlled by Democrats and President Joe Biden in the White House, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives could find a path to success much easier this time.
House Majority Whip Clyburn’s proposal — called the Enhanced Background Checks Act — would extend the time frame law enforcement has to complete a background check before a gun can be purchased from three to 10 days. But if a review is not completed in 10 days, the buyer could request a faster review to start an FBI investigation.
Under current law, a seller can move forward with a gun sale if the background check hasn’t been completed within the three day time frame, known as a “default proceeds” sale, what many refer to as the “Charleston loophole.”
Clyburn’s bill allows the sale to process should the faster review not get done within the 10 days.
With 60 co-sponsors, the legislation is expected to get a vote in the full House next week, Clyburn’s office said.
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, plans to file a companion measure in his chamber.
“Enacting common-sense gun control measures is a priority for President Biden and this Democratic Congress, and this legislation is a good first step,” Clyburn said in a statement. “A large majority of Americans, including gun owners, support universal background checks. This legislation is needed to keep weapons out of the hands of those who should not have them and save lives.”
Nearly six years after the mass shooting of nine Black churchgoers, that included a state senator, at Charleston’s historic “Mother” Emanuel AME Church, Democrats have tried and failed to pass more restrictive gun measures. Republicans have been unwillingly to back more restrictive national gun laws that they say would infringe on their Second Amendment rights.
Attempts to pass similar measures in the South Carolina State House also have failed to gain traction.
In June 2015, self-professed white supremacist Dylann Roof bought a gun he used to kill nine Black parishioners weeks before the killing. Normally subject to a three-day FBI waiting period for a background check to be completed, those weeks came and went before authorities determined Roof should have been ineligible to buy a weapon. Roof had a record of illegal drug possession, but a mix-up in the records and miscommunication did not surface the charge within the three-day period, and Roof was able to buy the gun.
Extending the background check time frame from three to 10 days with the additional request for review option would give authorities enough time to ensure people like Roof do not get their hands on weapons, supporters say.
A candlelight vigil for Jamal Khashoggi. (photo: Anadolu Agency)
WaPo Publisher: Biden Set to Give Saudi Crown Prince "One Free Murder" Pass on Khashoggi
Fadel Allassan, Axios
Allassan writes:
ashington Post publisher Fred Ryan on Monday accused President Biden of giving Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a "'one free murder' pass" after U.S. intelligence confirmed that he personally approved the killing of Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.
Why it matters: Biden has faced criticisms that the U.S. response to the finding — which includes sanctions on entities implicated in the murder but not on Bin Salman directly — does not square with his campaign pledge to make the Saudi regime “pay the price and make them, in fact, the pariah that they are.”
- The sanctions fall "far short of honoring" Biden's promise, Ryan wrote in a Post op-ed out Monday.
- "American voters took Biden at his word that he would reestablish the United States as a champion of human rights and not allow exceptions based on personal relationships or strategic needs of the moment."
Background: Khashoggi was a prominent Saudi journalist and royal insider who became an outspoken critic of MBS in 2017.
- He fled Saudi Arabia in 2017 and went into self-imposed exile in Virginia, where he wrote columns for the Washington Post that were frequently critical of the regime.
- His grisly murder in 2018 inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul sparked worldwide outrage.
What he's saying: Ryan called on further action from the Biden administration to "show the world that there is stability and continuity in upholding our enduring principles."
- "We should not make exceptions to favor one brutal dictator over another based on favors they do for us or fears that they might not always respond as we would like them to," Ryan wrote.
- "How can we be a credible champion of human rights when we demand accountability in one country and are willing to look the other way in another?"
The bottom line: Ryan writes: "There is no legal, moral or logical reason to apply sanctions to the lower-level players in this conspiracy, who were following orders, while letting the criminal mastermind get away without consequence."
Pollution from a factory. (photo: Science Focus)
Fossil Fuel Emissions in Danger of Surpassing Pre-Covid Levels
Jillian Ambrose, Guardian UK
Ambrose writes:
International Energy Agency data shows steady climb over second half of 2020
he world has only a few months to prevent the energy industry’s carbon emissions from surpassing pre-pandemic levels this year as economies begin to rebound from Covid-19 restrictions, according to the International Energy Agency.
New figures from the global energy watchdog found that fossil fuel emissions climbed steadily over the second half of the year as major economies began to recover. By December 2020, carbon emissions were 2% higher than in the same month the year before.
The return of rising emissions began only months after Covid-19 triggered the deepest slump in carbon dioxide output since the end of the second world war, and threatens to dash hopes that the world’s emissions might have peaked in 2019.
Dr Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, said: “We are putting the historic opportunity to make 2019 the definitive peak of global emissions at risk. If in the next few months governments do not put the right clean energy policies in place, we may well be returning to our carbon-intensive business as usual. This is in stark contrast with the ambitious commitments made by several governments one after the other.”
The IEA was one of many influential groups to call on global governments to put in place plans to use green energy policies as an economic stimulus in the wake of the coronavirus crisis. However, a Guardian investigation revealed that only a small number of major countries began pumping rescue funds into low-carbon efforts such as renewable power, electric vehicles and energy efficiency last year.
The agency’s first ever report to record monthly carbon emissions by region found a strong correlation between countries that put in place economic stimulus packages with a net environmental benefit – such as France, Spain, the UK and Germany – and those that have kept a lid on the carbon emissions rebound.
Meanwhile, the countries that had made the smallest contributions to green economic stimulus measures, such as China, India, the United States and Brazil, recorded steep carbon rebounds in the second half of last year as their economies began to reopen.
“This is a clear signal that governments did not put as many green energy policies in their economic recovery packages as they should have. We warned that if the policies were not put in place, we would go back to where we were before the crisis – which is what is happening today,” he said.
China was the first major economy to emerge from the pandemic and lift restrictions, and the only major economy to grow last year, causing its emissions in the last month of the year to climb 7% higher than the levels in December 2019. Its emissions fell 12% below 2019 levels in February last year, but for the year as a whole China’s carbon emissions were 0.8% above 2019.
In India and Brazil, the monthly carbon emissions recorded for December were both 3% higher than at the end of 2019, a stark increase from the depths of lockdown restrictions in April last year, when India’s emissions were 41% lower than in 2019 and Brazil’s 23% lower than the year before.
The EU also reached an emissions nadir last April of 22% below 2019 levels, and emissions remained 5% lower than the year before by December, in part due to ongoing restrictions on travel to help limit the spread of Covid-19 and its variants.
Birol said it was “not too late” for governments to prevent remissions from rebounding to higher levels than before the coronavirus pandemic, “but it is becoming a very daunting task”.
“Governments of all countries, and especially major economies such as the US, China, India, Europe and Japan, need to include clean energy policies in their economic recovery packages,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.