Saturday, January 4, 2025
■ The Week in Review
Hundreds of advocacy organizations warned lawmakers that "enacting Medicaid cuts would betray your constituents of all political affiliations who are seeking more economic security, not less."
By Jake Johnson • Jan 3, 2025
As Rep. Mike Johnson won reelection as House speaker on Friday, a broad coalition of more than 300 advocacy organizations warned the incoming Republican-controlled Congress against cutting Medicaid amid reports that the GOP is eyeing work requirements and other damaging changes to the program that provides healthcare coverage to around 80 million Americans.
In a letter to the congressional leaders of both parties, Families USA, the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, Doctors for America, the NAACP, and other national and state-level organizations wrote that "cutting Medicaid was not a budget solution that American families asked for" during the 2024 election cycle.
"Doing so now would betray your constituents of all political affiliations who are seeking more economic security, not less," the groups continued. "Cutting Medicaid would shift costs and administrative burdens onto working-class families, states, and health systems. Proposals to cap funding, reduce the federal share of Medicaid spending, establish block grants, institute work reporting and community engagement requirements, cut state revenue from provider taxes, or otherwise undermine the fundamental structure of the Medicaid program all have the same effect."
"If instituted," they added, "Americans will lose access to lifesaving services, states will be strapped with massive budget holes, hospitals and clinics will lose revenues and be forced to cut staff and scale back services, and American families and workers will be unable to afford essential care and get sicker—leading to a loss in productivity and the economy suffering as a result."
"The American people are watching... and we urge you to take this opportunity to choose a different path: one that secures our country's health and economy."
The letter was sent as House members gathered on the floor of the chamber and voted to keep Johnson (R-La.) as speaker in the new Congress.
Once members are sworn in, Republicans are expected to pursue a massive tax-cut package that they will seek to fund by slashing key social programs, including Medicaid.
GOP lawmakers have discussed imposing work requirements on Medicaid recipients as part of a broader effort to offset the enormous costs of another round of tax cuts that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy and large corporations.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Medicaid work requirements, which typically entail difficult-to-navigate bureaucratic procedures, would cause roughly 600,000 people to lose insurance.
Shortly after the November election, The New York Times reported that "some Republican legislators are interested in even more sweeping changes, such as turning Medicaid into a block grant program, which would keep federal costs fixed even if more people sign up for coverage."
Edwin Park, a research Professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy's Center for Children and Families, warned in a November blog post that turning Medicaid into a block grant program would be "deeply harmful."
"To compensate for the severe federal funding cuts resulting from block grants," Park wrote, "states will either have to dramatically raise taxes and drastically cut other parts of their budget including K-12 education or, as is far more likely, institute deep, damaging cuts to Medicaid eligibility, benefits, and provider and plan payment rates."
"That includes not just dropping the Medicaid expansion, which covers nearly 20 million newly eligible parents and other adults, but gutting the rest of state Medicaid programs that serve tens of millions of low-income children, parents, people with disabilities, and seniors," Park continued.
In their letter on Friday, the advocacy coalition reminded congressional leaders that "millions upon millions of Americans rose up" in opposition to the GOP's failed attempt to cut Medicaid in 2017.
"The American people are watching once again," the groups wrote, "and we urge you to take this opportunity to choose a different path: one that secures our country's health and economy."
"We're grateful for President Biden's willingness to take bold action to maintain a strong domestic steel industry and for his lifelong commitment to American workers," said United Steelworkers International President David McCall.
By Eloise Goldsmith • Jan 3, 2025
The United Steelworkers union commended a decision by President Joe Biden, announced Friday, to block a proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel by the Japanese company Nippon Steel.
United Steelworkers International President David McCall said in a statement that the union is "grateful" to Biden for his "willingness to take bold action to maintain a strong domestic steel industry and for his lifelong commitment to American workers."
"We now call on U.S. Steel's board of directors to take the necessary steps to allow it to further flourish and remain profitable," he added.
McCall told Reuters in mid-December that Nippon Steel had not given him an assurance that the Japanese firm is committed to ensuring the lasting success of U.S. Steel. "When we've had discussions with them there's been nothing that would assure us that there's a long-term viability in the operations," McCall said in an interview with the outlet.
In December 2023, U.S. Steel—the Pittsburgh-headquartered company that played a key role in establishing U.S. industrial might—announced that it had entered an agreement to be acquired by Nippon Steel for $14.9 billion. The deal drew scrutiny from lawmakers, federal regulators, and the United Steelworkers union, causing its closing to be delayed. Biden, who has made reviving "American-style" industrial policy a key part of his presidency, has long indicated his opposition to the deal.
Biden said he ultimately decided to block the proposed acquisition because he believes that "a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry represents an essential national security priority and is critical for resilient supply chains."
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a federal committee that has the power to review certain transactions involving foreign investment in the United States to evaluate a deal's impact on national security, decided to forgo making a formal recommendation about whether the deal should be allowed to proceed last week.
The proposal also became ensnared in election year politics, with both presidential candidates saying that U.S. Steel should remain a domestically-owned firm. Rust Belt lawmakers in both parties, including Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)—both of whom lost re-election in November—and Vice President-elect JD Vance, an Ohio Republican, expressed opposition to the deal.
Shortly after the deal was unveiled, multiple Pennsylvania Democrats, including Casey and Rep. Summer Lee, wrote to the president of Nippon Steel expressing concerns about the failure of the two firms to consult or notify the United Steelworkers union ahead of the announcement, according to Reuters.
"From the beginning, the workers who power this company should have had a seat at the negotiating table—their livelihoods hung in the balance. No matter what, I will keep fighting to protect Western PA Steelworker jobs and American steelmaking," wrote Representative Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) on Friday.
U.S. Steel, for its part, has attempted to refute criticisms of the deal. David B. Burritt, the president and chief executive of U.S. Steel, penned an op-ed in The New York Times in December, arguing that blocking the deal would help China. "With this deal, our workers' jobs would be more secure, our customers would be better served and China's domination of global steel production would be weakened. Without it, we would become more vulnerable," he wrote.
"Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel are confident that our transaction would revitalize communities that rely on American steel," the two firms said in a joint statement Friday. They condemned Biden's decision as "unlawful" and said that the president's "statement and order do not present any credible evidence of a national security issue, making clear that this was a political decision."
"Following President Biden's decision, we are left with no choice but to take all appropriate action to protect our legal rights," they wrote.
This article was updated to include a statement from Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel.
The ruling creates a "dangerous regulatory gap that leaves consumers vulnerable and gives broadband providers unchecked power over Americans’ internet access," said one advocate.
By Julia Conley • Jan 2, 2025
Citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision that stripped federal agencies of their regulatory powers, an all-Republican panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on Thursday ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to reinstate net neutrality rules.
The panel ruled that broadband is an "information service" instead of a "telecommunications service," which is more heavily regulated under the Communications Act, and said the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit telecommunications companies from blocking or throttling internet content and creating "fast lanes" for certain web companies that pay a fee.
Last April the FCC voted to reinstate net neutrality rules, which were first introduced under the Obama administration but were repealed by former Republican FCC Chair Ajit Pai, who was appointed by President-elect Donald Trump.
The ruling cited by the 6th Circuit panel was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine last year. Under the decades-old legal precedent, judges have typically deferred to federal agencies' reasonable interpretation of a law if Congress has not specifically addressed an issue.
"Applying Loper Bright means we can end the FCC's vacillations" between imposing and repealing net neutrality rules, said the judges on Thursday.
The ruling serves as "a reminder that agencies are going to be neutered across any and all industries," said one observer.
John Bergmayer, legal director for the free expression and digital rights group Public Knowledge, said that by "rejecting the FCC's authority to classify broadband as a telecommunications service, the court has ignored decades of precedent and fundamentally misunderstood both the technical realities of how broadband works and Congress' clear intent in the Communications Act."
The ruling creates a "dangerous regulatory gap that leaves consumers vulnerable and gives broadband providers unchecked power over Americans’ internet access," added Bergmayer. The decision could harm the FCC's ability to protect against everything from broadband privacy violations to threats to universal service programs for low-income and rural households.
Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel for another media justice group, Free Press, said the ruling was "just plainly wrong at every level of analysis."
"In April, the FCC issued an order that properly restored the agency's congressionally granted oversight authority to protect people from any [internet service provider] discrimination and manipulation. That commonsense FCC order tried to ensure that the companies providing America with the essential communications service of this century don't get to operate free from any real oversight," said Wood.
Companies and industry groups that sued over the regulations, including the Ohio Telecom Association, "baselessly claim that any regulation will hurt their bottom line," Wood added. "Treating broadband like a common-carrier service does nothing to dampen or dissuade private investment in this crucial infrastructure. And the question for any court interpreting the Communications Act must be what is in the public's best interest, not just one industry sector's financial interests."
The groups, along with FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, called on Congress to take legislative action to protect internet users and small web businesses from discrimination.
"Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open, and fair. With this decision it is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open internet principles in federal law," Rosenworcel said.
Congress must "clarify the FCC's authority—and responsibility—to protect the Open Internet and broadband users," said Bergmayer.
Bergmayer also noted that the ruling leaves states' ability to enforce their own net neutrality laws in place, and said the group "will continue to look to states and local governments to help lead on broadband policy."
"This administration will likely be coming very quickly to try to take down the Palestinian rights movement," said a Jewish Voice for Peace Action leader.
By Jessica Corbett • Jan 2, 2025
Victims of violence by U.S.-armed Israeli forces and advocates for Palestinian rights across the United States are sounding the alarm over Republican President-elect Donald Trump's looming return to the White House and GOP control of Congress.
President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the divided 118th Congress have faced intense criticism for giving Israel diplomatic and weapons support to kill at least 45,581 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip over the past 15 months and attack Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. The outgoing Democratic administration and lawmakers have also faced backlash for their response to anti-war protests, particularly on U.S. university campuses, some of which were met with police brutality.
However, recent reporting in the United States and Israel has highlighted fear about promises from Trump and his Republican Party that, as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz put it last week, a "quick and complete" crackdown "on pro-Palestinian sentiment in America will be a defining factor of his administration's early days."
"The Palestinian rights movement is very clear-eyed in understanding that it is very likely that this Trump administration will mean that things get much worse for Palestinians."
Beth Miller, political director of the advocacy group Jewish Voice for Peace Action, told Politico on Wednesday that "the Palestinian rights movement is very clear-eyed in understanding that it is very likely that this Trump administration will mean that things get much worse for Palestinians."
"This administration will likely be coming very quickly to try to take down the Palestinian rights movement," Miller added.
Leaders with the Adalah Justice Project and Arab American Institute also noted concerns about efforts to silence advocates and even dismantle organizations—some of which are already underway. In November, 15 House Democrats joined all but one Republican in voting for the so-called Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act (H.R. 9495).
The legislation would enable the U.S. Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit it deems a "terrorist-supporting organization" without due process. Advocates for various causes have condemned what they call the "nonprofit killer bill."
Although H.R. 9495 never made it through the Democrat-held Senate, Republicans are set to take over the chamber on Friday. The GOP will also retain control of the House, which during this session has repeatedly voted to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, or discrimination against Jews.
In addition to likely facing a new wave of legislative attacks—potentially spearheaded by GOP leaders like incoming House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast (R-Fla.), a U.S. military veteran who has volunteered with the Israel Defense Forces and denied the existence of "innocent Palestinian civilians"—rights advocates in the United States could be targeted by key officials in the next Trump administration.
As Haaretz recently detailed, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump's second choice to lead the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), his nominee for secretary of state; and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), his candidate for ambassador to the United Nations, have expressed support for deporting pro-Palestinian protesters who have student visas.
Although former federal prosecutor Kash Patel, Trump's pick to direct the Federal Bureau of Investigation, "doesn't have much of a record on campus protests, he is most notorious for his desire to remove any of Trump's critics and doubters from the national security apparatus," the newspaper noted. "Further, Patel's experience as the National Security Council's senior director of counterterrorism during Trump's first term positions him to crack down on pro-Palestinian sympathizers."
Haaretz also highlighted comments from Harmeet Dhillon, Trump's pick to lead the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, and Linda McMahon, his nominee for education secretary, as well as Project Esther: A National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism—an October proposal from the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank that is also behind the sweeping Project 2025 policy agenda.
"The virulently anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-American groups comprising the so-called pro-Palestinian movement inside the United States are exclusively pro-Palestine and—more so—pro-Hamas," states the Project Esther report. "They are part of a highly organized, global Hamas Support Network (HSN) and therefore effectively a terrorist support network."
Two co-chairs of the Heritage-backed National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, James Carafano and Ellie Cohanim, wrote earlier this week at the Washington Examiner that "Project Esther is a blueprint to save the U.S. from those utilizing antisemitism to destroy it."
"The objective is to dismantle the infrastructure by denying it the resources required for its antisemitic activity," they argued. "Targeting the groups and organizations that receive the funding and deploy it to their grassroots followers who engage in antisemitic activity, the useful idiots we see on college campuses, for example, will divorce the means from the opportunity, thereby rendering these activists incapable of threatening U.S. citizens."
Posting the piece on X—the social media platform owned by billionaire Trump ally Elon Musk—Carafano declared that "when Donald Trump starts to take on the global intifada he will need partners. We will need to be there."
One analyst said the House Ethics Committee has "effectively legalized the conversion of campaign funds for personal use."
By Jake Johnson • Jan 2, 2025
The bipartisan House Ethics Committee announced earlier this week that it unanimously opted to close several investigations involving alleged campaign finance violations by three Republicans and one Democrat, a move that one expert characterized as a "New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre."
The decision to close the investigations into Reps. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Wesley Hunt (R-Texas), Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), and Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) was made public in a vaguely worded press release published the day before New Year's Eve.
The panel, composed of five Republicans and five Democrats, said while "there was evidence" that lawmakers who were under investigation "did not fully comply with the applicable standards relating to personal use of campaign funds," the committee determined there wasn't proof that "any member intentionally misused campaign funds for their personal benefit."
The committee also criticized Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules pertaining to personal use of campaign funds as "often ambiguous" and issued its own updated guidance for House members.
Additionally, the committee said it dropped "other confidential matters that have been under review," without offering specifics.
The committee said its only action in response to its findings was contacting the lawmakers to provide them with the updated campaign finance guidance "as well as specific findings and recommendations with respect to that member's campaign activity."
"The New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre is a repudiation of the Ethics Committee's job to hold members of Congress to account for their wrongdoing."
Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute, argued that the panel's decision "effectively legalized the conversion of campaign funds for personal use by members of the House of Representatives" by establishing "a new weak standard" and ignoring evidence of wrongdoing provided by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).
"They can now take dollars from donors and put them in their pocket," Schuman wrote in his newsletter. "It's not what they said they did, but under the cover of the New Year's holiday, Ethics Committee Democrats and Republicans pulled a fast one, legalizing a money laundry so blatantly corrupt it would embarrass Walter White. They also made many other allegations of wrongdoing disappear."
Schuman noted that the committee's probes into Bishop, Mooney, Hunt, and Jackson stemmed from OCE reports on each of the lawmakers dating back to 2020. Republicans have repeatedly targeted the OCE and are currently trying to drop "ethics" from its name.
In the case of Mooney, Schuman wrote, the OCE found in October 2021 that he "used campaign funds to purchase more than $17,000 in gift cards in violation of FEC rules and had the effect of concealing the ultimate recipient of those funds (which may have been Rep. Mooney's pocket)."
The West Virginia Republican said in a statement that he was "grateful" for the House Ethics Committee's decision and dismissed allegations of misconduct as "driven by politically motivated actors on the extreme left."
As for Bishop—the lone Democrat among the four lawmakers who faced House Ethics Committee probes—the OCE found on February 10, 2020 that he "may have improperly disbursed campaign funds for personal use and improperly spent his official member funds for annual holiday parties in the district," Schuman noted.
"Among the inappropriate costs incurred were golf club memberships, the purchase of golf clubs, brunch for family members, groceries, and so on," Schuman added.
"The ethics process is broken," he concluded. "There must be an independent ethics process where investigations and their recommendations are divorced from internal party politics and not designed to shield members from accountability for apparent wrongdoing. The New Year's Eve Ethics Massacre is a repudiation of the Ethics Committee's job to hold members of Congress to account for their wrongdoing and to be honest and forthright to the public about their behavior."
Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, echoed Schuman's assessment, arguing in a statement that by "summarily dismissing all charges of potential violations of ethics rules, the House Ethics Committee is shirking its responsibilities to both the House of Representatives and the American public."
"The press release from the Ethics Committee hinted that violations may have indeed occurred with personal use of campaign funds ('a gray area' and 'did not fully comply' with the rules, stated the release) and avoided any discussion of the other allegations, but dismissed the charges nonetheless," said Holman.
Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen's co-president, added that the decision "is further evidence that the House Ethics Committee, on its own, is too embedded with members of Congress to adequately enforce ethics rules."
"A fair and impartial congressional ethics process needs the public awareness and oversight provided by the outside Office of Congressional Ethics," Gilbert said.
Rep. Jim McGovern said the House GOP's rules package offers "the clearest window yet into their agenda for the next two years."
By Jake Johnson • Jan 2, 2025
Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern said Wednesday that the House GOP's newly released rules package for the incoming Congress shows that Republicans are "doubling down on their extremism" by moving to further diminish the power of the minority party and paving the way for a legislative agenda that rewards billionaires and large corporations.
McGovern (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee, said in a statement that the GOP's proposed changes "would, for the first time in American history, shield the speaker from accountability to the entire chamber by making it so that only Republicans can move to oust the speaker."
The provision in question states that a resolution to vacate the House speakership "shall not be privileged except if it is offered by a member of the majority party and has accumulated eight cosponsors from the majority party at the time it is offered." Axios noted that "for most of U.S. history, any singular House member in either party has been able to introduce a motion to vacate."
The new GOP rules package for the 119th Congress would also set the stage for fast-tracked consideration of a dozen Republican bills, including a measure to sanction the International Criminal Court and prohibit any moratorium on fracking.
Under the proposed rules, neither party would be allowed to offer amendments to the 12 bills.
In his statement Wednesday, McGovern said that the Republican bills offer "the clearest window yet into their agenda for the next two years."
"Here's what I see: Nothing to help workers. Nothing to bring down grocery prices. Nothing to lower rent or make housing more affordable. Silent on inflation and healthcare costs. Next to nothing on jobs and the economy," said McGovern. "Instead, I have no doubt they'll find time to pass tax breaks for billionaires and massive corporations at the expense of everyday Americans."
The Washington Post reported Thursday that Republicans intend to offset the massive cost of their proposed tax cut package by slashing federal nutrition assistance, imposing work requirements on Medicaid recipients, and blocking a rule that would require Medicare and Medicaid to cover anti-obesity medications, among other changes.
"The American people did not vote for whatever the hell this is," McGovern added, "and you better believe that Democrats will not let Republicans turn the House of Representatives into a rubber stamp for their extremist policies."
The GOP's proposed rules package will receive a vote in the House once a speaker is chosen—which could happen as soon as Friday. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), backed by President-elect Donald Trump, is running for reelection for the leadership post, but he has very slim margins and at least one Republican opponent—Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).
As The American Prospect's David Dayen wrote Thursday, "One problem for Republicans is that they only have three days to get the Speaker in place before January 6, when the presidential electors are confirmed by Congress, rolls around."
"The typical scenario for the House is that they must select a speaker first, and only move forward afterward. Members-elect aren't even sworn in as members of the House until there's a speaker," Dayen added. "The signs of another dysfunctional two years in Congress are all around. That doesn't completely nullify what Trump can do—much of his agenda, like mass deportations and tariffs, will be carried out mostly unilaterally—but it does mean that a unified Democratic Party could make things very difficult for Republicans. Someone should tell that to Democrats!"
"Our real problem is not so much a healthcare crisis as it is a political and economic one," he wrote in an op-ed.
By Olivia Rosane • Jan 1, 2025
Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has an ambitious New Year's resolution: a nine-point policy proposal to "Make American Healthy Again" by reforming the United States' "broken and dysfunctional healthcare system."
In an op-ed published in The Guardian on Tuesday, Sanders said his ideas were informed by his time serving as the chair of the U.S. Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which will end in 2025.
"We are the wealthiest nation on Earth," Sanders wrote. "There is no rational reason as to why we are not the healthiest nation on Earth. We should be leading the world in terms of life expectancy, disease prevention, low infant and maternal mortality, quality of life, and human happiness. Sadly, study after study shows just the opposite. Despite spending almost twice as much per capita on healthcare, we trail most wealthy nations in all these areas."
"Working-class Americans live far shorter lives than the rich because of the stress of trying to survive on a paycheck-to-paycheck existence."
Sanders first prescription for a healthier nation? Medicare for All.
"Healthcare is a human right," Sanders argued. "The function of a rational healthcare system is to guarantee quality healthcare to all, not huge profits for the insurance industry. The United States cannot continue to be the only wealthy nation that does not provide universal healthcare."
The other eight recomendations on Sanders' list are:
- Lower the cost of prescription drugs;
- Paid family and medical leave;
- Reform the food industry;
- Raise the minimum wage to a living wage;
- Lower the workweek to 32 hours with no loss of pay;
- Combat the epidemic of loneliness, isolation, and mental illness;
- Address the climate and environmental crisis; and
- Create a high-quality public education system.
Sanders also sent the list in an email to supporters on December 27 with the introduction, "Here's a New Year's resolution" and tweeted out the first six proposals in a statement on December 24. The Vermont senator's renewed call for Medicare for All comes as the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last month—and the explosion of anti-insurance industry dark humor it sparked—has highlighted persistent flaws in the country's private health-insurance system. In the aftermath of the killing and the online response, Sanders called for a political movement to reform the nation's healthcare system.
"Killing people is not the way we're going to reform our healthcare system," he said at the time. "The way we're going to reform our healthcare system is having people come together and understanding that it is the right of every American to be able to walk into a doctor's office when they need to and not have to take out their wallet."
Sanders' agenda is also a clear rejoinder to Trump supporter Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) campaign. Kennedy, who President-elect Donald Trump has tapped to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has a record of pushing dangerous health-related conspiracy theories, in particular by questioning the effectiveness and safety of vaccines. While Kennedy has voiced criticisms of the food, agriculture, and chemical industries shared by many environmentalists, he has also advocated for harmful practices such as drinking raw milk and downplayed the climate emergency.
Trump has signaled that any environmental policies Kennedy might implement during his administration would take a backseat to his commitment to Big Oil.
"Bobby, stay away from the liquid gold," he said in his election night victory speech. "Other than that, go have a good time, Bobby."
Sanders, in contrast, made tackling the climate emergency one of his priorities and called out the fossil fuel industry specifically.
"The fossil fuel industry cannot be allowed to continue making us sick, shortening our lives, and destroying the planet," he wrote Tuesday.
He also emphasized working conditions as a public health issue.
"Working-class Americans live far shorter lives than the rich because of the stress of trying to survive on a paycheck-to-paycheck existence," he wrote in his call for a higher minimum wage.
In general, Sanders argued that it was not possible to tackle health without tackling corporate power.
"Our real problem is not so much a healthcare crisis as it is a political and economic one," he wrote in The Guardian. "We need to end the unprecedented level of corporate greed we are experiencing. We need to create a government and economy that works for all and not just the wealthy and powerful few."
In his email to supporters, Sanders spoke even more directly about the need to "take on powerful special interests who make billions in profits by making us sick and shortening our lifespans."
He portrayed wealthy individuals and corporations as the force ultimately standing in the way of a healthier nation.
"The truth is that their ideology of greed requires them to want more, and more, and more. And if that greed makes us sicker or shortens our lives, that's the price they require us to pay," he wrote. "But we say NO. We are fighting back. We can and will create a government and economy that works for all, and not just the few. We can and will create a society which enhances human health and well-being, and not the wealth and power of the billionaire class."
NOTE: NETANYAHU IGNORED WARNINGS OF THE HAMAS ATTACK WHILE HE WAS BEING TRIED FOR CORRUPTION....NETANYAHU JEOPARDIZED THE LIVES OF ISRAELIS TO PROTECT HIMSELF & POSTPONE THE CORRPTION TRIAL!
NETANYAHU HAS REPEATEDLY LIED ABOUT GAZA & THE MIDDLE EAST & IS
EXPANDING HIS WARS TO DRAG THE US INTO CONFLICTS!
MAGA GOP NEED TO RECOGNIZE A WAR MONGER WHEN THEY SEE ONE!
"How did a bill to protect Netanyahu make it into the House rules package to be voted on immediately after the speaker vote?" asked one lawmaker. "Where are our priorities?!"
By Jessica Corbett • Jan 1, 2025
A Republican congressman known for sometimes clashing with his own party's leaders called them out on Wednesday for part of the proposed rules package that is an apparent response to a global court issuing arrest warrants for top Israeli politicians over the U.S.-backed assault on the Gaza Strip.
The GOP-controlled U.S. House Representatives for the 119th congressional session is scheduled to meet Friday afternoon to swear in members, hold a speaker election, and consider the 36-page package released Wednesday. Proposed changes include renaming or reestablishing some panels, making it harder to remove the speaker, and promoting electronic committee voting.
The rules resolution also states that once it is adopted, members shall consider a dozen bills listed at the end of the document. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) took issue with the inclusion of the eighth bill, which would impose sanctions over any International Criminal Court (ICC) "effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies."
The ICC issued warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, also known as Mohammed Deif, in November. Although Israel, like the United States, is not a party to the treaty establishing the ICC, the court has jurisdiction over occupied Palestinian territories—Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
Massie said on social media Wednesday: "The United States is a sovereign country, so I don't assign any credibility to decisions of the International Criminal Court. But how did a bill to protect Netanyahu make it into the House rules package to be voted on immediately after the speaker vote? Where are our priorities?!"
Massie's comments on the rules package came two days after he publicly disagreed with President-elect Donald Trump's endorsement of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to keep his job for the upcoming session, saying that "we've seen Johnson partner with the Democrats to send money to Ukraine, authorize spying on Americans, and blow the budget."
So far, at least one other lawmaker—Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—joined Massie on Wednesday in criticizing what he referred to as a "special protection provision for Netanyahu." Like her colleague from Kentucky, the Georgia Republican took aim at the court that prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
"I will not support giving any credibility or power to the International Criminal Court in our House rules package," Greene said of the ICC, which has faced opposition from both Democrats and Republicans over the years. "This clause needs to be removed."
Amid speculation that the ICC would issue the arrest warrants—as it ultimately did—the House passed Rep. Chip Roy's (R-Texas) Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act with bipartisan support in June. It never received a floor vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate, though the Biden administration reportedly worked with the Israeli government in a bid to block the warrants.
Under the American Service Members' Protection Act, a 2002 law that critics call the Hague Invasion Act, Biden has the authority to "use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release" of an American or allied person detained or imprisoned by or on behalf of the ICC. Soon, the person with that power will be Trump.
Both Biden and Trump have spoken out against the ICC warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, while a few progressive lawmakers—including Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a leading critic of the Israeli assault on Gaza and the only Palestinian American in Congress—have welcomed them and called out the U.S. government for providing billions of dollars in weapons to Israel.
"The International Criminal Court's long overdue decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity signals that the days of the Israeli apartheid government operating with impunity are ending," Tlaib said in November. "Our government must urgently end our complicity in these violations of human rights and international law."
"If there was ever a moment when progressives needed to communicate our vision to the people of our country, this is that time," wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Despair is not an option."
By Jake Johnson • Dec 31, 2024
A Bloomberg analysis of billionaire wealth published Tuesday found that the combined fortunes of the 500 richest people on the planet surpassed $10 trillion this year, a finding that came shortly after U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders issued an urgent call to action to prevent the emergence of "an oligarchic and authoritarian society."
The new analysis notes that the world's top 500 billionaires "got vastly richer" this year with the help of "an indomitable rally in U.S. technology stocks."
Just eight billionaires—Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jensen Huang, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin—added more than $600 billion to their collective wealth in 2024 and accounted for 43% of the $1.5 trillion increase in net worth among the world's 500 richest people, according to Bloomberg.
"But it was Musk—the so-called 'first buddy' of President-elect Donald Trump after unprecedented support for his reelection campaign—who dominated the world's wealthiest in 2024," Bloomberg observed, adding that Trump himself also saw his fortune surge to a record high this year, "boosted by the performance of his majority stake in Trump Media & Technology Group Corp."
Musk's use of his enormous fortune to influence the U.S. political system—including via his purchase of one of the world's largest social media platforms and donations to Trump's 2024 campaign—amplified existing concerns about the corrosive impact of massive wealth concentration on democracy.
And wealth inequality in the U.S. could soon get worse, with Trump and the incoming Republican-controlled Congress set to pursue another round of tax cuts for the ultra-rich and large corporations.
"They do not believe in democracy—the right of ordinary people to control their own futures. They firmly believe that the rich and powerful should determine the future."
In an email to supporters on Monday, Sanders (I-Vt.) called the rapid shift toward oligarchy in the U.S. "the defining issue of our time," warning that billionaires have come to increasingly dominate not only "our economic life, but the information we consume and our politics as well."
"A manifestation of the current moment is the rise of Elon Musk, and all that he stands for," Sanders wrote, pointing to Musk's outsize influence on the 2024 election and his key role in shaping Trump's billionaire-dominated Cabinet.
"But it's not just Musk. Billionaire owners of two major newspapers overrode their editorial boards' decisions to endorse Kamala Harris, while many others are kissing Trump's ring by making large donations to his inauguration committee slush fund," the senator continued. "They do not believe in democracy—the right of ordinary people to control their own futures. They firmly believe that the rich and powerful should determine the future."
Progressives, Sanders wrote, have a "radically different vision," one that prioritizes "an economic system based on the principles of justice," "a vibrant democracy based on one person, one vote," and making "healthcare a human right."
"Even though we are not going to succeed in achieving that vision in the immediate future with Trump as president and Republicans controlling Congress, it is important that vision be maintained and we continue to fight for it," wrote Sanders.
Since Trump's victory in the 2024 election, Sanders has focused heavily on the need to organize the working class to combat the threat posed by Musk and other far-right billionaires who have amassed obscene wealth and political power.
In his email on Monday, the senator said he intends to "travel, organize, hold events, and create content that reaches people where they are" in the coming weeks as part of the "struggle to determine where we go from here."
"Will this effort be easy?" asked Sanders. "No, of course it will not. Can it be done? We have no choice. If there was ever a moment when progressives needed to communicate our vision to the people of our country, this is that time. Despair is not an option. We are fighting not only for ourselves. We are fighting for our kids and future generations, and for the well-being of the planet."
"There is no better way to remember him," said Amy Carter.
By Jessica Corbett • Dec 30, 2024
Amid of flurry of reflections on former U.S. President Jimmy Carter following his death at age 100 on Sunday, his daughter Amy Carter thanked one writer for highlighting her father's historic support for Palestinian rights and criticism of Israeli apartheid.
Qasim Rashid, a human rights lawyer and former Democratic congressional candidate who has forcefully criticized the ongoing U.S.-backed Israeli assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip over the past nearly 15 months, remembered Carter on Sunday by writing on Substack about the 39th president's stance on Israel and Palestine. Rashid included a clip from a 2007 interview with Democracy Now! about a book that Carter published the previous year, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
"In this book, President Carter cogently argues that the main obstacle to peace in Israel and Palestine is in fact the hundreds of thousands of illegal settlements that Israel continues to build, all with U.S. backing and support," Rashid wrote, also emphasizing Carter's point from the interview that it is politically risky for elected officials in Washington, D.C. to support Palestinian rights. "Contrast President Carter's clarity and courageous voice with the cowardice and complicit nature of every president since, including their appeasement of the Israeli government's settlement expansion, land annexation, and apartheid enforcement."
Later Sunday, Rashid posted on social media a screenshot of Substack subscriber Amy Carter's response to his article. The 57-year-old—who was arrested as a teenager for protesting apartheid in South Africa—said in part: "There is no better way to remember him and I appreciate that you and your readers are keeping this important part of his legacy alive. Thank you."
While the former president has faced praise and scrutiny from across the political spectrum for various foreign policy decisions and positions, the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner's support for Palestinian rights does stand out from those who have held the Oval Office since his single term—which included the Camp David Accords, signed in September 1978 by him, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
Rashid was not alone in focusing on Carter's controversial 2006 book and broader position on Palestine in the wake of his death—as Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for slaughtering over 45,500 Palestinians in Gaza and starving those who have managed to survive.
On Monday morning, Democracy Now! shared on social media a version of the 2007 clip Rashid noted, during which Carter stresses that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) "is not dedicated to peace," but rather is working and succeeding at convincing the American public, media, and political leaders to support the policies of the Israeli government.
Journalist Mehdi Hasan—who recently launched Zeteo after his MSNBC show was canceled following his criticism of Israel's assault on Gaza—on Sunday shared "eight critical Jimmy Carter quotes you won't see in most mainstream media obits."
In a Sunday obituary for Foreign Policy, Jonathan Alter—author of His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life—wrote:
The Camp David Accords turned out to be the most durable diplomatic achievement since the end of World War II. "What he has done with the Middle East is one of the most extraordinary things any president in history has ever accomplished," said Averell Harriman, a veteran U.S. diplomat who sometimes gave Carter advice.
Carter was the first president to back a Palestinian state, which along with his rhetoric afterward—including a 2006 book titled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid—made him the most pro-Palestinian U.S. president ever, a fact that angered American Jews for decades. Based on the Camp David Accords alone, however, he also turned out to be the best U.S. president for Israel's security since Harry Truman. That's because the only army with the capacity to destroy Israel—the Egyptian army—has been neutralized for more than four decades.
Mitchell Plitnick, a political analyst and writer, asserted at Mondoweiss on Sunday that Carter "is a man whose legacy will forever be inextricably linked to Israel and Palestine. Yet that legacy will be built as much on myth as on reality, as with so many other aspects of the history and politics of the 'Holy Land.'"
Calling for Carter's legacy to be "scrutinized carefully and honestly," Plitnick—like Alter—wrote of the Camp David Accords that "Carter understood, as any observer would, that if Israel made peace with Egypt, it would remove the single biggest military challenger in the region and the remaining Arab states would no longer be able to mount a credible threat against Israel."
He also argued that Carter's 2006 book "itself was far less remarkable than the title," given that its substance "made it clear that he was trying to steer Israel away from its own self-immolation on the altar of its occupation."
"The hateful comments that came his way for many years, mostly from the Jewish community but also from the Christian Zionists who share his evangelical beliefs but not his understanding of what those beliefs mean, were horribly misplaced," Plitnick added. "He cared deeply and tried to do what he could to create a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike. For that, he's been called an antisemite. Every person who ever uttered that slur against him owes him an apology. Now would be a good time to send it."
As The Guardian's Chris McGreal reported on Monday, at least one key person did apologize before Carter died:
Among those outraged by Carter's book in 2006 were members of the former president's own foundation, which has built an international reputation for its work on human rights and to alleviate suffering. Steve Berman led a mass resignation from the Carter Center's board of councilors at the time.
Earlier this year, Berman revealed that he later wrote to Carter to apologize and to say that the former president had been right.
"I had started to view Israel's occupation of the Palestinians as something that started in 1967 as an accident but was now becoming an enterprise with colonial intentions," Berman said in his letter to Carter.
Shortly before Carter's death, Peter Beinart, described as "the most influential liberal Zionist of his generation," said the time had come for the former president's critics to apologize for the "shameful way that the book was received by many significant people."
Leading Muslim groups in the United States have also released statements since Carter's death on Sunday.
"President Carter was a friend of the American Muslim community and a champion for many just causes, including Palestinian freedom," said Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) national executive director Nihad Awad. "Even when President Carter faced vitriolic attacks from anti-Palestinian groups for his prescient book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, he stood firm. He was a humanitarian role model, and we pray that a new generation of political leaders will take inspiration from his legacy."
The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO)—an umbrella group that includes CAIR—said that it "joined American Muslims in commemorating former President Jimmy Carter as a principled humanitarian who dedicated his post-presidency to pursuing social and international justice, including courageously and forthrightly warning the American public about the harmful influence of pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC and the Israeli government's intent on entrenching a colonial apartheid state on Palestinian land."
In addition to praising Carter's 2006 book, USCMO said that "he candidly called the U.S. 'Road Map for Peace' a sham that intended failure. He went on record, nearly alone among U.S. politicians at the time, to debunk the so-called Israeli 'security wall' as an 'imprisonment wall' to intern West Bank Palestinians. Moreover, he stood alone among his political peers in the U.S. in unfailingly and publicly defending Islam and Muslims against a rising, politically motivated, systematic Islamophobia media campaign as a foil for promoting religious nationalism in American politics."
"We convey our sincere condolences to the family and loved ones of James Earl Carter Jr.," USCMO concluded, "and to the American people who have lost a rarity in our politics—a former president who stood for the best interests of this nation and its stated values of freedom, justice, and democracy, regardless of outside political pressure to sell out those American values."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.