Monday, July 7, 2025
■ Today's Top News
"You are not helping by snatching people!" yelled one local woman.
By Brad Reed
Los Angeles residents lobbed profane insults at U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents on Monday after they swept through the city's MacArthur Park.
Los Angeles-based news station KTLA reports that masked, heavily-armed federal agents were in the park as "part of an apparent immigration raid" although exact details about the operation are not known as of this writing. A video taken on the scene by Mel Buer, an independent labor journalist in the California city and posted on social media website Bluesky showed many agents riding through the park on horseback.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) reacted angrily after seeing reports of the agents—some of whom had visible Border Protection patches—in the park and she went to the area to tell them to cease their operations.
"Minutes before, there were more than 20 kids playing—then, the MILITARY comes through," Bass wrote in a post on the social media website X. "The SECOND I heard about this, I went to the park to speak to the person in charge to tell them it needed to end NOW. Absolutely outrageous."
Additional videos posted on Bluesky by Buer showed angry Los Angeles residents following the agents as they drove slowly down the street away from the park while pelting them with verbal abuse.
"Get the fuck out of here!" one male resident can be heard shouting at the agents.
"You guys are a bunch of pussies!" yelled another.
Shortly after this, a woman can be heard scolding the agents: "You are not helping by snatching people!"
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, condemned the federal operations in Los Angeles shortly after they occurred.
"The actions of [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and CBP during the raids in Los Angeles are not about safety or justice—they're about meeting enforcement quotas and striking fear in communities," he wrote on Bluesky. "We've filed a brief supporting a challenge to ICE and CBP's unlawful practices. We won't back down and we won't be silent."
Los Angeles has become a focal point in the Trump administration's mass deportation operations. President Donald Trump last month deployed the National Guard to the city after some protests against ICE operations there turned violent.
"Not only is it necessary to impose a stronger burden of justice on billionaires, but more importantly, it is possible."
By Jessica Corbett
Seven Nobel laureates on Monday published an op-ed advocating for "a minimum tax for the ultrarich, expressed as a percentage of their wealth," in the French newspaper Le Monde.
"They have never been so wealthy and yet contribute very little to the public coffers: From Bernard Arnault to Elon Musk, billionaires have significantly lower tax rates than the average taxpayer," wrote Daron Acemoglu, George Akerlof, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz.
Citing pioneering research from the E.U. Tax Observatory, the renowned economists noted that "ultrawealthy individuals pay around 0% to 0.6% of their wealth in income tax. In a country like the United States, their effective tax rate is around 0.6%, while in a country like France, it is closer to 0.1%."
Although the "ultrawealthy can easily structure their wealth to avoid income tax, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of tax justice," the strategies for doing so differ by region, the experts detailed. Europeans often use family holding companies that are banned in the United States, "which explains why the wealthy are more heavily taxed there than in Europe—though some have still managed to find workarounds."
The good news is that "there is no inevitability here. Not only is it necessary to impose a stronger burden of justice on billionaires, but more importantly, it is possible," argued the economists, who say that taxing the overall wealth of the ultrarich, not just income, is the key.
The wealth tax approach, they wrote, "is effective because it targets all forms of tax optimization, whatever their nature. It is targeted, as it applies only to the wealthiest taxpayers, and only to those among them who engage in tax avoidance."
The anticipated impact would be significant. As the op-ed highlights: "Globally, a 2% minimum tax on billionaire wealth would generate about $250 billion in tax revenue—from just 3,000 individuals. In Europe, around $50 billion could be raised. And by extending this minimum rate to individuals with wealth over $100 million, these sums would increase significantly."
That's according to a June 2024 report that French economist and E.U. Tax Observatory director Gabriel Zucman prepared for the Group of 20's Brazilian presidency—which was followed by G20 leaders' November commitment to taxing the rich and last month's related proposal from the governments of Brazil, South Africa, and Spain.
"The international movement is underway," the economists declared Monday, also pointing to recent developments on the "Zucman tax" in France. The French National Assembly voted in favor of a 2% minimum tax on wealth exceeding €100 million, or $117 million, in February—but the Senate rejected the measure last month.
The economists urged the European country to keep working at it, writing that "at a time of ballooning public deficits and exploding extreme wealth, the French government must seize the initiative approved by the National Assembly. There is no reason to wait for an international agreement to be finalized—on the contrary, France should lead by example, as it has done in the past," when it was the first country to introduce a value-added tax (VAT).
"As for the risk of tax exile, the bill passed by the National Assembly provides that taxpayers would remain subject to the minimum tax for five years after leaving the country," they wrote. "The government could go further and propose extending this period to 10 years, which would likely reduce the risk of expatriation even more."
"Very exceptional meteorological conditions" preceded the Texas floods, climate scientists have found.
By Brad Reed
"When thousands more people die from not getting care, we know who to blame," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
By Jake Johnson
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that the American public "needs to know" that the blame will lie squarely at the feet of President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers if and when hospitals across the country are forced to shut their doors due to the unprecedented Medicaid cuts included in the new budget law.
"Every single American needs to know what Donald Trump and Republicans did in the 'Big Beautiful Bill,'" Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media, referring to the budget reconciliation package that the president signed late last week.
"When hospitals close their doors, we know who to blame," Warren continued. "When thousands more people die from not getting care, we know who to blame. When kids go hungry, we know who to blame."
The nation's rural hospitals, which rely heavily on Medicaid reimbursements, are expected to bear the brunt of the pain from the Republican law, which includes more than $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts as well as destructive changes to federal nutrition assistance and other programs. Nursing homes, community health centers, Planned Parenthood clinics, and other facilities are also at risk, and states are now scrambling to prevent catastrophe.
An analysis published by the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform prior to passage of the GOP legislation estimated that more than 700 rural hospitals across the U.S. are at risk of closing due to "serious financial problems."
"Republicans will try to ignore the devastation their disastrous reconciliation bill will cause. We won't."
The health policy organization KFF notes that federal Medicaid spending in rural areas is projected to fall by $155 billion under the GOP law over the next decade—an amount that far exceeds the $50 billion that Republicans allocated to a "Rural Health Transformation Program" over the next five years.
Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association, warned in a statement following the Senate's passage of the legislation earlier this month that the bill would "limit access to care for all rural patients by ending healthcare coverage for rural residents nationwide and putting financial strain on rural facilities who care for them."
Already, as Common Dreams reported last week, a healthcare clinic in rural Nebraska has announced it is shutting its doors in part due to the expected impacts of the GOP Medicaid cuts. The closure is predicted to be the first of many.
A recent analysis by the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill warned that more than 330 rural hospitals are at risk of closing or reducing services due to the Trump-GOP assault on Medicaid.
Over the weekend, Trump administration officials defended the budget law in talk show appearances by attempting to downplay its impact on Medicaid and other healthcare programs.
Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, said Sunday that he believes "nobody is gonna lose their insurance"—a claim that dramatically conflicts with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's estimate that around 17 million people will lose health coverage under the Trump-GOP law.
"He is only off by 17,000,000," quipped Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) in response to Hassett's comments.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote over the weekend that "Republicans will try to ignore the devastation their disastrous reconciliation bill will cause."
"We won't," Sanders added. "We're going to make them explain what happens when 16 million lose their healthcare and nursing homes and hospitals are forced to shut down or limit services."
A provision of the budget law that President Donald Trump signed last week will leave taxpayers to "pick up the tab for the private jet industry and billionaire high flyers."
By Jake Johnson
The Republican budget measure that U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law late last week contains a provision that analysts say will allow private jet owners to write off the full cost of their aircraft in the first year of purchase, a boon to the ultra-rich that comes as millions of people are set to lose healthcare under the same legislation.
FlyUSA, a private aviation provider, gushed in a blog post that with final passage of the unpopular budget reconciliation package, "business jet ownership has never looked more fiscally attractive or more fun to explain to your accountant."
The law, crafted by congressional Republicans and approved with only GOP support, permanently restores a major corporate tax break known as 100% bonus depreciation, which allows businesses to deduct the costs of certain assets in the first year of purchase rather than writing them off over time.
Forbes noted that the bonus depreciation policy "applies to a slew of qualified, physical business expenses which depreciate over time, such as machinery and company cars, but the policy is often associated with big-ticket luxury items, such as private aircraft, and its institution last decade led to a boom in jet sales."
"Trump and congressional Republicans have certainly delivered for the billionaire class."
Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality at the Institute for Policy Studies, called bonus depreciation "a massive tax break for billionaires and centi-millionaires that use the most polluting form of transportation on the planet."
"A corporation purchasing a $50 million private jet could potentially deduct the entire $50 million from their taxes in the year of the purchase, rather than spreading the deduction over many years," Collins wrote. "This amounts to a massive taxpayer subsidy, as ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab for the private jet industry and billionaire high flyers."
"Subsidizing more private jets on a warming planet is reckless and indefensible," he added.
The National Business Aviation Association, a lobbying group for the private aviation industry, celebrated passage of the Republican legislation, specifically welcoming the bonus depreciation policy as "effective for incentivizing aircraft purchase." (The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy argues that "depreciation tax breaks have never been shown to encourage more capital investment.")
Meanwhile, communities across the United States are bracing for the law's deep cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance, which are expected to impose damaging strains on state budgets and strip food benefits and health coverage from millions of low-income Americans.
"Trump and congressional Republicans have certainly delivered for the billionaire class," said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. "This is certainly one of the cruelest bills in American history, backtracking on the country's painfully slow history of expanding healthcare coverage and, equally remarkably, taking food away from the hungry."
"That's a lot of needless suffering just to make the richest Americans richer," he added.
"The Trump regime is gutting scientific research into climate and atmospheric science for political reasons, at the very time we need a much better understanding of it," said one environmentalist. "This is so reckless and dangerous."
By Jake Johnson
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.