Wednesday, December 18, 2024
■ Today's Top News
"We do not need to spend almost a trillion dollars on the military, while half a million Americans are homeless and children go hungry," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
By Brett Wilkins
The United States Senate overwhelmingly passed an $895 billion military funding bill on Wednesday as critics blasted what many called misplaced spending priorities and highly controversial provisions that ban gender-affirming health coverage for children of active-duty service members and prohibit the Pentagon from citing casualty figures issued by the Gaza Ministry of Health.
Senators voted 85-14 for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2025. The following senators voted against the legislation: Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), the vice president-elect, did not vote on the bill.
"We do not need to spend almost a trillion dollars on the military, while half a million Americans are homeless and children go hungry," Sanders explained earlier this month.
The peace group CodePink said it was "disappointed" by the Senate's passage of the NDAA, "which allocates nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars to weapons and warfare while essential services like healthcare, education, food, and housing remain underfunded."
"Half of the budget will go directly to the pockets of private military companies in the form of contracts and weapons deals," the group continued. "On top of the massive topline and the large allocation to private companies, the Pentagon has never been able to pass an audit. Much like every Pentagon budget before, this money will be largely unaccounted for, with very little transparency."
"This budget is a huge slap in the face to working-class families who are struggling to make ends meet," CodePink added.
An amendment introduced on Monday by Baldwin and co-sponsored by two dozen of her Democratic colleagues "to remove language that would strip away service members' parental rights to access medically necessary healthcare for their transgender children" failed to pass.
Speaking on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Baldwin said that Congress has "broken" its commitment to the troops "because some Republicans decided that gutting the rights of our service members to score cheap political points was more worthy."
"We're talking about parents who are serving our country in uniform, having the right to consult their family's doctor and get the healthcare they want and need for their transgender children," she added. "Some folks poisoned this bill and turned their backs on those in service and the people that we represent."
Olivia Hunt, director of federal policy at Advocates for Trans Equality, said in a statement Wednesday that "every military family deserves respect and access to essential healthcare—free from the interference of political agendas."
Hunt continued:
Denying lifesaving, medically necessary care to trans members of military families creates profound hardships, forcing service members to make impossible choices between their duty and the health and well-being of their loved ones. Politicizing access to evidence-based healthcare undermines the principles of fairness, dignity, and respect that our nation aspires to. No one should have to choose between their duty and protecting their family.
By passing this harmful legislation, the Senate has failed our service members and their families. This decision prioritizes political gamesmanship over the dignity, rights, and well-being of those who serve our nation and sets a dangerous precedent of governmental overreach into decisions that should remain between doctors and families.
Some advocates including Hunt want President Joe Biden to veto the bill.
"If signed by the president, the passage of the NDAA will mark the first piece of federal legislation to restrict access to medically necessary healthcare for transgender adolescents," Hunt added. "It would be heartbreaking for an administration that has sought to advance the rights of LGBTQI+ Americans more than any other to date, to enact a law that would endanger countless trans youth. We urge President Biden to take a strong stance for trans youth and their families and veto this bill."
Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson said that "President Biden has the power to put a stop to this cruelty."
"He should make good on his promises to protect LGBTQ+ Americans, defend military service members and their families, and ensure this country's politics reflect the best of who we are," Robinson added. "President Biden must veto this bill."
The NDAA also contains a provision prohibiting the Department of Defense from officially citing "fatality figures that are derived by United States-designated terrorist organizations" or governmental entities or organizations that rely upon such data. Critics say the measure is meant to censor the truth about Israel's 14-month assault on Gaza, which has left more than 162,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing. Various United Nations agencies, international charities and rights groups, and even the Israeli military and U.S. State Department have cited Gaza Health Ministry casualty figures, which have been deemed accurate—and likely an undercount—by experts around the world, including Israeli military intelligence and U.S. officials.
"In other words," Security Policy Reform Institute co-founder Stephen Semler said of the provision, "it's effectively a ban on talking about deaths in Gaza."
"If Amazon Teamsters are forced onto the picket line, it's because the company has failed its workforce," said Teamsters general president Sean O'Brien.
By Eloise Goldsmith
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters announced Wednesday that workers at an eighth Amazon facility—DGT8 outside of Atlanta, Georgia—unanimously voted to authorize a strike in response to the global retailer's refusal "to recognize their union and begin negotiations for a first contract."
"If Amazon Teamsters are forced onto the picket line, it's because the company has failed its workforce," said Teamsters general president Sean O'Brien in a Wednesday statement. "Amazon workers want to earn a good living, have decent healthcare, and be safe on the job. They are done with the disrespect, and if Amazon keeps pushing them, they will push them to strike."
Workers in three other states had already joined the strike threat. On Tuesday, the Teamsters announced that workers at four California facilities—DFX4, DAX5, KSBD, and DAX8—had voted to authorize a strike, and a day before that workers at the Amazon delivery station DIL7 in Skokie, Illinois authorized a strike. On Friday, December 13, workers at Staten Island warehouse JFK8 and the DBK4 delivery station in Queens announced approval of strike authorizations.
In June, workers at JFK8—who first voted in favor of creating a union two years ago—joined the Teamsters and chartered the Amazon Labor Union (ALU)-IBT Local 1.
The Teamsters have also been organizing drivers drivers who work for Amazon Delivery Service Partners (DSP), such as those at the DGT8 facility. The union argues that "Amazon wields absolute control over the terms and conditions of employment for its delivery drivers" through its DSP program, and therefore the company has an obligation to bargain with the Teamsters. Amazon argues these workers are the employees of its contractors, not employees of Amazon, according to CNN.
Over the summer, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Amazon is a joint employer for some subcontracted drivers who deliver Amazon packages in California—a win for the Teamsters and those workers.
In response to the potential labor action, an Amazon spokesperson told ABC News last week that the Teamsters "have continued to intentionally mislead the public—claiming that they represent 'thousands of Amazon employees and drivers.' They don't."
Following the NYC votes, the Teamsters gave Amazon until this past Sunday to start talks. The union said Wednesday that "by ignoring the December 15 deadline set by the Teamsters to come to the table and negotiate a contract, Amazon has set itself up to face large-scale labor actions during the busy holiday season."
The strike threat also comes on the heels of a report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, published on Monday, which alleges that Amazon repeatedly ignored or rejected worker safety measures that were recommended internally—and even misleadingly presents worker injury data so that its warehouses seem safer than they actually are.
Amazon has released a statement decrying the report.
"For the second straight year, President Biden and the Democrats are poised to sacrifice a significant chunk of one of their biggest accomplishments," one critic lamented.
By Brett Wilkins
Economic justice advocates are urging House Democrats to do more to defend Internal Revenue Service funding after leaders of the minority party agreed to Republican draft legislation that would continue a freeze on more than $20 billion in IRS modernization and enforcement funds in order to avert a government shutdown.
The $20.2 billion freeze is part of a continuing resolution that would guarantee funding for the federal government through March 14. Although the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law by President Joe Biden in August 2022 allocated $80 billion in supplemental funding to the IRS, Congress subsequently rescinded $21.6 billion of that and added a rider for the $20.2 billion freeze in an earlier continuing resolution.
The freeze means that the funds are neither permanently rescinded nor available for use. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the effective $20.2 billion funding reduction would increase the federal deficit by $46 billion "due to a drop in the agency's capacity to enforce taxes on wealthy individuals owed under existing federal law."
As Dylan Gyauch-Lewis wrote Wednesday for The American Prospect, "For the second straight year, President Biden and the Democrats are poised to sacrifice a significant chunk of one of their biggest accomplishments: funding for the IRS to go after wealthy tax cheats."
"With the latest maneuver, more than 90% of the money invested to scale up IRS auditing and oversight could be gone before it can even be used," Gyauch-Lewis added. "Yet again, Democrats seem to have been outplayed by Republican leadership."
Conversely, the infusion of IRA funding has boosted IRS recovery of unpaid taxes.
"The IRS has collected $4.7 billion in back taxes from wealthy tax cheats thanks to funding from the Inflation Reduction Act," Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens said in a statement Wednesday. "But since its passage, Republicans have clawed back nearly half of the enforcement budget to make it easier for the ultra-wealthy to get away with not paying their share."
Democrats helped this happen. In order to secure a 2023 debt ceiling deal with then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Biden agreed to multi-year spending caps in the so-called Fiscal Responsibility Act, as well as the $21.6 billion IRS funding recision. Now it is uncertain whether the outgoing Biden administration or congressional Democrats will fight to defend IRS funding or once again acquiesce to GOP cuts in order to keep the government running.
IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel warned during a recent media call that Republicans' proposed cuts to the agency's funding would "be critically damaging to our capacity to do the work we need to do to make sure that large corporations and complex partnerships are paying what they owe."
Owens said "it's clear congressional Republicans are paving the way for the Trump administration to make it open season for tax cheats."
Such fears mounted this month after Republican President-elect Donald Trump tapped former Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) to head the IRS. Long sponsored multiple bills to dismantle the IRS and legislation to repeal all estate taxes, which are overwhelmingly paid by the wealthiest Americans. He has also promoted a dubious pandemic-era tax credit that the IRS has called a magnet for fraud.
"Even before the new administration takes office, we are seeing Republicans take steps to hamstring the IRS to ensure the ultra-wealthy can continue to evade their taxes," Anna Aurilio, senior director of campaigns at Economic Security Project Action, said in a statement Wednesday.
"A well-funded IRS is vital to administering a fair tax code. Slashing funding for the agency, which recently collected nearly $5 billion from wealthy tax evaders and crime rings, only hurts the efficiency and efficacy of the government," Aurilio added. "By starving the agency that helps deliver vital tax credits to the American people, Congress will make it more difficult for people to file their taxes and get the credits they qualify for—all while making it easier for the wealthiest individuals and big businesses to avoid paying their fair share."
"When companies larger, wealthier, and more powerful than most world governments threaten individual liberty with coercive private taxation and regulation, it threatens our way of life," said U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter.
By Eloise Goldsmith
Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, the antitrust head at the Department of Justice who helped turbocharge the agency's efforts to rein in monopoly power, bid farewell to his post in a speech Tuesday during which he warned that "plutocracy is its own kind of dictatorship."
Kanter's deputy, Doha Mekki, will take over leading the Antitrust Division starting Friday. President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Gail Slater, a tech and media policy advisor who worked for Vice President-elect JD Vance, to permanently replace Kanter.
In his speech, Kanter described how President Joe Biden's administration had a clear mandate from the public to break with the antitrust approach of previous decades: "When I took office in 2021, questions about monopoly power were no longer just a technocratic concern relegated to the narrow halls of white-shoe law firms and elite academic institutions. Our nation was experiencing a remarkable moment unlike any I had seen in my lifetime. Americans across the country had become acutely aware of the powerful forces that were suppressing their economic freedom."
To get himself ready for the role, he looked for inspiration from the "storied trustbusters of yesteryear"—particularly Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson, who led antitrust enforcement at the Department of Justice under FDR. "In 2021, the similarities to 1936 were unmistakable. They say that history rhymes. Well, it sure does. And this time it had 'bars,' as the youth say."
Then, as now, antitrust enforcement is an engine for economic prosperity, Kanter said. It can lower prices by limiting the market power of large companies, increase growth and prosperity by curbing corporate-imposed private regulation that "sap entrepreneurs of opportunity," and provide greater mobility and higher wages for workers, he argued.
With that "why" in mind, the division "confronted the Herculean task of operationalizing our mandate to restore, revive, and reimagine antitrust enforcement for our nation."
In many respects, Kanter was successful in that mission. During his time with the Department of Justice, the agency notched a major legal victory over the company Google, which Kanter's team and states had argued held an illegal monopoly in the search engine and advertising market. In August, a federal judge ruled that Google was an illegal monopolist for spending tens of billions on default search deals, a decision that has been called the "biggest antitrust case of the 21st century."
The Antitrust Division has also filed ongoing cases against Visa, the rent-fixing software RealPage, Ticketmaster, and others. Cases brought by the division also successfully blocked a merger between publishing giants Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, as well as JetBlue's acquisition of Spirit.
In response to the news that Kanter is stepping down, Nidhi Hegde, interim executive director at the American Economic Liberties Project, said Tuesday that under Kanter's leadership "the DOJ Antitrust Division has become an enforcer fit for the modern economy—and a powerful ally of American consumers, workers, and small businesses."
Kanter offered advice to future enforcers, such as engaging people outside of the Beltway and "dispel[ling] the myth that less competition at home helps the U.S. compete more abroad."
The stakes of lax enforcement are high, he warned: "When companies larger, wealthier, and more powerful than most world governments threaten individual liberty with coercive private taxation and regulation, it threatens our way of life."
PROTECT LINA KHAN AT FTC! SHE HAS WORKED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS!
Andrew Ferguson has opposed several major initiatives championed by Lina Khan, including FTC rules banning anti-worker noncompete agreements and making it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions.
By Jake Johnson
President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Federal Trade Commission cast the lone no vote Tuesday against a newly finalized rule banning deceptive junk fees in live-event ticketing and short-term lodging.
The rule, according to an FTC release, "targets specific and widespread unfair and deceptive pricing practices in the sale of live-event tickets and short-term lodging, while preserving flexibility for businesses."
"It does not prohibit any type or amount of fee, nor does it prohibit any specific pricing strategies," the agency said. "Rather, it simply requires that businesses that advertise their pricing tell consumers the whole truth up-front about prices and fees."
FTC Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, Trump's choice to head the bipartisan agency, was the only member to vote against the junk fees rule. In his dissenting statement, Ferguson wrote that his opposition had "nothing to do with the merits" of the finalized rule but was rather a vote against any additional rulemaking by the Biden administration.
"It is particularly inappropriate for the Biden-Harris FTC to adopt a major new rule that it will never enforce, as the final rule will not take effect until many months after President Trump takes his oath of office," Ferguson wrote.
Ferguson has been a consistent opponent of causes championed by FTC Chair Lina Khan, including the agency's rules banning anti-worker noncompete agreements and making it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions.
Nidhi Hegde, interim executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, said in response to the newly finalized rule that "banning junk fees is broadly popular across the country because Americans are tired of being tricked by hidden costs that inflate prices and distort competition."
"Finalizing this rule with bipartisan support demonstrates Chair Khan and the commission's commitment to delivering real results for consumers, saving Americans both time and money," said Hegde. "We're pleased to see the FTC work to get this done, and encourage federal and state policymakers to build on this effort to put an end to junk fees once and for all."
With his dissent on Tuesday, Ferguson offered a glimpse of "how he plans to lead the FTC—and how the Trump administration plans to run the independent agencies put in the crosshairs by the Project 2025 plan," political reporter Matt Sledge wrote for The Intercept on Wednesday.
"While calling on the FTC to stop issuing rules until Trump takes office might win favor with the incoming president, it is sharply at odds with positions on the agency's independence that Republicans were putting out just weeks ago," Sledge noted. "As recently as October, the House Oversight Committee released a report dinging Khan for a supposed lack of independence from the Biden administration."
"Since Trump's election, however, Republicans have shown newfound enthusiasm for the idea of bringing independent agencies under executive control," he added. "That vision was laid out in Project 2025."
Since he's already a commissioner at the agency, Ferguson will not require Senate confirmation to become FTC chair once Trump takes office next month.
In his job pitch to Trump's team, Ferguson pledged to use his tenure as FTC chair to "reverse Lina Khan's anti-business agenda" and halt her "war on mergers."
"I think these should be on the table," GOP Rep. Greg Lopez said of Social Security and Medicare.
By Jake Johnson
A House Republican said Tuesday that he believes there "will be some cuts" to Social Security and Medicare as he entered a conference room at the U.S. Capitol for the first meeting of the DOGE Caucus, a new congressional group formed to support an advisory commission led by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Outside the conference room, Social Security Works executive director Alex Lawson asked Republicans passing through whether they would uphold President-elect Donald Trump's campaign pledge to protect Social Security and Medicare.
One lawmaker, Rep. Greg Lopez (R-Colo.), told Lawson that "when we look to reduce our national debt, I think these should be on the table," referring to the two programs.
"I am a strong advocate of discussing this and reevaluating them, and I do believe, at the end of the day, there will be some cuts," Lopez added.
Asked if cuts to Social Security and Medicare would be "on the table" for the DOGE Caucus, Lopez replied, "We're about to find out."
The House Delivering Outstanding Government Efficiency Caucus was founded last month by Reps. Aaron Bean (R-Fla.) and Pete Sessions (R-Texas) with the stated goal of backing the so-called Department of Government Efficiency "in its mission to dismantle the out-of-control government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies."
Musk and Ramaswamy, Trump's picks to lead the advisory panel, have openly attacked Social Security in recent weeks, intensifying advocates' warnings that the commission is a ploy to enact steep cuts to critical antipoverty programs.
Sessions, co-chair of the DOGE Caucus, refused to answer when Lawson pressed him on whether he would commit to protecting Social Security and Medicare in line with Trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail.
"Most of the responses have been what I would say are no comments," Lawson said at the entrance of the DOGE Caucus meeting. "That's the safest position for a member of Congress, to have no position that they have to defend in front of their constituents."
"If they had their way," Lawson added, "they'll close every door and make all the decisions out of the light and the watch of their constituents."
The House DOGE Caucus is expected to hit triple-digit membership shortly, and its makeup is almost entirely Republican. Just three Democrats have joined thus far: Reps. Steven Horsford of Nevada, Val Hoyle of Oregon, and Jared Moskowitz of Florida.
Horsford said in a statement after Tuesday's caucus meeting that he is in the group "to defend the working families in Nevada that I represent."
In an appearance on Fox News following the meeting, Bean said that "we had a packed caucus room" and that attendance was higher than he expected, with over 50 Republicans and three Democrats. Asked to provide some specifics on programs that could be cut, the first category Bean mentioned was "education."
There's also a Senate DOGE Caucus led by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa.), who has previously said she's open to Social Security privatization and argued lawmakers should "sit down behind closed doors" to "have an open and honest conversation" about changes to the New Deal program.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.