Protesters obstruct an entrance to Bath Iron Works where a christening was taking place for its 41st guided missile destroyer, USS Patrick Gallagher, on July 27, 2024.

 (Staff photo by Derek Davis/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images)

With Regards to the Christening of the USS Patrick Gallagher

Because we strongly believe, nay absolutely know, that the U.S. does not need another warship.

To Whom It May Concern:

Because I have twice visited the West Bank and know the personal stories of 40 year-old Palestinian men who were imprisoned as boys for simply yelling at Israeli soldiers—and beaten and dehumanized for months before being released without trial;

And because I now know that those horrific, forever haunting experiences were and remain commonplace for Palestinian youth and are symptomatic of a world where, “we (Israelis) believe they are worth more than they” (Palestinians);

And because by paying close attention to non-main-stream American and foreign media I know the horrific truth of Gaza;

And because I have a good sense that when thousands are killed under months of ceaseless bombing and thousands more remain buried under the rubble yet to be found, the crime rises beyond war to become, inarguably, a “genocide”;

And because I know of the influence of AIPAC and U.S. defense industry corporations on U.S. Congress members and, hence, on American foreign policy;

And because I know well that the siege of Gaza could not continue without U.S. cover and support;

And because, as not much more than an adolescent, as a consequence of the fiction fed me by a conventional education, I volunteered to go off to Vietnam;

And because I know that, as a consequence of that war of choice, two to three million Vietnamese were killed in defense of their country---and that 2-3 million others are institutionalized today unable to take care of themselves as 2nd and 3rd generation victims of Agent Orange;

And, because I also mourn the 58,281 Americans commemorated on “the wall”, lost in that war, generally, perhaps, believing the same fiction I had;

And because I know that millions, yes millions, of innocents have died in my lifetime, arguably victims of American wars of choice, endorsed and promoted by the American defense industry, in Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Syria, Yemen, etc., (hardly an all-inclusive list);

And because I and others, on many occasions since the Berrigan brothers, in a Prince of Peace Plowshares action on February 12, 1997, have returned again and again to protest other
christenings” at Bath;

And because we strongly believe, nay absolutely know, that the U.S. does not need more warships, but rather that General Dynamics ought to be “converting” to the manufacture of “green” technologies.

It is for these reasons, in the spirit of the “Plowshares” movement, we chose to inconvenience the so-called “christening” attendees on July 27th—that they might give pause to consider the merits of our actions. That they too, might join us in a virtual revolution—to turn away from violence, to demand that our country do the same, to be a force for cooperation among the brotherhood of nations, rather than endorsing endless militarism.

For these reasons I chose to join like-minded fellow citizens in our efforts to make more widely known our nation’s reckless conduct. I proclaim my innocence and will be very pleased to have the opportunity to defend that position in court.

Not in my name!

Dud Hendrick
Deer Isle, Maine
USNA Graduate —1963
USAF Officer — 1963-1967

COMMON DREAMS

 

The Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project is seen on December 20, 2016 in Houston, Texas.

 (Photo: Marie D. De Jesus/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

'Colossal Waste': US Leads Way in Public Spending on False Climate Solutions

"The fossil fuel industry delays climate action, distracts from real solutions that would end the fossil fuel era, and does everything in its power to squeeze the last drops of profit from a dying industry, at the expense of all of us."

Among the world's wealthiest countries, the U.S. leads the way in spending public money on so-called climate "solutions" that have been proven to "consistently fail, overspend, or underperform," according to an analysis released Thursday by the research and advocacy group Oil Change International.

The group's report, titled Funding Failure, focuses on international spending on carbon capture and fossil-based hydrogen subsidies, which continues despite ample data showing that the technological fixes have "failed to make a dent in carbon emissions" after 50 years of research and development.

The report details how five countries account for 95% of all carbon capture spending, with the U.S. investing the most taxpayer money in the technology, at $12 billion in subsidies over the last 40 years.

Norway comes in second with $6 billion going to carbon capture and storage, while Canada has spent $3.8 billion, the European Union has spent $3.6 billion, and the Netherlands has poured $2.6 billion into the technology, with which carbon dioxide emissions are compressed and utilized or stored underground.

"It is nothing short of a travesty that funds meant to combat climate change are instead bolstering the very industries driving it."

Harjeet Singh, global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, told The Guardian that the subsidies amount to a "colossal waste of money."

"It is nothing short of a travesty that funds meant to combat climate change are instead bolstering the very industries driving it," said Singh.

While proponents claim carbon capture and storage reduces planet-heating carbon emissions, OCI notes, it was originally developed in the 1970s "to enhance oil production, and this remains its primary use," with the technology "barely" reducing emissions.

High-profile carbon capture failures in the U.S. include the Petra Nova project in Houston, Texas, which cost nearly $200 million in taxpayer funds and whose captured emissions were later used for crude oil production, and the FutureGen project, "which swallowed $200 million and never materialized."

"Investing in carbon capture delays the transition to renewable energy," reads OCI's report. "Instead of wasting time and money on technologies that do not work, governments must commit to justly and urgently phasing out fossil fuels before it's too late."

Despite the lack of data supporting the use of carbon capture, the group said, countries including the U.S. are "preparing to waste hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on these ineffective technologies, further benefiting the fossil fuel industry."

OCI highlighted how the U.S. and Canada, while ostensibly fighting the climate crisis, have spent a combined $4 billion in public money to explicitly "pay oil companies to produce more oil," with the subsidies going to carbon capture for "enhanced oil recovery."

The report also found that in addition to the $12 billion in taxpayer funds the U.S. has spent on carbon capture and fossil hydrogen—a leak-prone gas produced through energy-intensive processes that cause their own emissions—the government has spent an estimated $1.3 billion on the 45Q tax credit, which allows companies to write off tax for every ton of carbon dioxide they store underground.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) increased the amount given to companies in 45Q tax credits from $35 to $60 per ton, meaning that the subsidy could grow to over $100 billion in the next 10 years.

OCI's Policy Tracker shows that overall public spending on carbon capture and hydrogen could grow by between $115 billion and $240 billion in the coming decades.

"We need real climate action, not fossil fuel bailouts!" said OCI in a post on social media.

The group's report also highlights that fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil have shifted from carbon capture skeptics to outspoken proponents of the technology—with the company bragging to investors that carbon capture and hydrogen would help its Low Carbon Business Unit make "hundreds of billions of dollars" and grow to be "larger than ExxonMobil's base business."

Exxon didn't launch its carbon capture efforts until 2018, having spent several years and hundreds of millions of dollars on another "climate solution" that ultimately failed: the use of algae to make biofuels.

Since then, Exxon has "pushed for direct government funding for carbon capture, particularly at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)," successfully lobbying for $12 billion allocated in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill in 2021 for "carbon management research, development, and demonstration."

Exxon also lobbied for the increased rate of the 45Q tax credit in the IRA and "played a 'central role' in drafting a 2019 DOE-sponsored report on carbon capture that determined Congress would need to create an incentive of around $90 to $110 per ton to support carbon capture deployment," according to OCI.

The Guardian on Thursday reported that Exxon still "chases billions in U.S. subsidies for a 'climate solution' that helps drill more oil," describing how the oil giant hosted an event at the Democratic National Convention earlier this month where senior climate strategy and technology director Vijay Swarup praised the IRA for helping Exxon pursue carbon capture and said: "We need new technology and we need policy to support that technology. We need governments working with private industry."

Exxon's enthusiasm for carbon capture, said OCI, is an example of how "the fossil fuel industry delays climate action, distracts from real solutions that would end the fossil fuel era, and does everything in its power to squeeze the last drops of profit from a dying industry, at the expense of all of us."

COMMON DREAMS

 

European Union foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell rings a small bell to open an informal meeting of foreign ministers from the 27-nation bloc in Brussels on August 29, 2024.

 (Photo: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images)

EU's Top Diplomat Seeks Sanctions on Israeli Leaders for 'Incitement to Commit War Crimes'

While welcoming the move, one Amnesty International campaigner asserted that "the E.U.'s call for a cease-fire and curbing settler violence rings hollow until it takes concrete action."

European Union foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell said Thursday that he has recommended sanctioning Israeli leaders for hate speech and inciting war crimes in Gaza and the illegally occupied West Bank.

Borrell said during a meeting of E.U. foreign ministers in Brussels that he has asked member states if they support imposing sanctions on some Israeli Cabinet ministers who have disseminated "unacceptable hate messages against the Palestinians" and have proposed "things that clearly go against international law" and amount to "an incitement to war crimes."

At least one E.U. member said it supports Borrell's recommendation.

"This is a war against Palestinians, not just against Hamas. The level of civilian casualties and dead is unconscionable," Irish Foreign Minister Micheál Martin said Thursday in Brussels. "It's a war on the population. No point in trying to fudge this."

"It cannot be business as usual," Martin added. "It is very clear to us that international humanitarian law has been broken."

Earlier this year, the Irish Senate voted to impose sanctions on Israel, prohibit the transfer of U.S. weapons to Israel via Ireland, and push for an international arms embargo against the country.

While E.U. nations such as Ireland, Spain, Norway, and Slovenia have been outspoken critics of Israel's Gaza onslaught and have responded with moves including recognizing Palestinian statehood, other members of the bloc—notably Germany and France—have been staunch supporters of Israel, even as its forces have killed and wounded more than 144,000 Gazans and displaced, starved, or sickened millions more.

Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz has threatened "severe consequences" for European nations that recognize Palestinian statehood.

Like the United States—Israel's biggest international backer—the E.U. has imposed sanctions on a handful of far-right Israeli individuals and groups, including extremist settler colonists who incited deadly West Bank pogroms and an organization whose members have blocked humanitarian aid shipments from entering Gaza.

While Borrell did not publicly identify specific Israeli ministers he believes should be sanctioned, he has recently condemned the words and actions of far-right figures including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

Ben-Gvir was widely condemned for defending Israeli soldiers accused of gang-raping a Palestinian man detained at the notorious Sde Teiman prison and for taking part in a highly controversial visit to Islam's third-holiest site, the al-Aqsa mosque compound—which is located on what Jews call the Temple Mount, Judaism's most sacred site. Ben-Gvir infuriated Muslims and other critics by declaring he wanted to "put an Israeli flag" and build a synagogue there.

Smotrich, who has also defended the alleged Sde Teiman rapists as "heroic warriors," has drawn condemnation for promoting new and expanded Israeli settler colonies in the West Bank, a policy he attributed partly to increasing international recognition of Palestinian statehood and the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) recent ruling affirming that Israel's 57-year occupation is a form of apartheid and illegal.

Statements by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich—who recently asserted that it may be "justified and moral" to starve 2 million Palestinians to death—have been entered as evidence in the South African-led ICJ genocide case concerning Israel's war on Gaza.

Borrell has mentioned some of the ministers' words and actions in previous calls for accountability for those who incite hate and violence.

"While the world pushes for a cease-fire in Gaza, Minister Ben-Gvir calls for cutting fuel and aid to civilians," he said on social media earlier this month. "Like Minister Smotrich's sinister statements, this is an incitement to war crimes."

"Sanctions must be on our E.U. agenda," Borrell added.

While human rights defenders welcomed Borrell's sanctions recommendations, some groups urged him to go even further.

"The [ICJ's] findings clearly point to violations of international law committed by Israel and to the obligations of third states not to legitimize or provide any assistance to Israel's illegal conduct," Eve Geddie, director of Amnesty International's European Institutions Office, said on Thursday.

Geddie continued:

E.U. members states' supply of arms and equipment as well as their trade and investment with illegal Israeli settlements are enabling Israel's violations of international law and are contrary to their obligations under international law. There can be no business as usual with a state maintaining a brutal, unlawful occupation and perpetrating serious violations of international law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, on a mass scale.

The relentless bombardment of Gaza amid a clear risk of genocide, the deadly spike in state-backed settler violence, and the latest military offensive in the West Bank are all byproducts of Israel's unlawful occupation and decades of impunity enabled by E.U. inaction.

"The E.U.'s call for a cease-fire and curbing settler violence rings hollow until it takes concrete actions—an immediate arms embargo, a ban on trade with Israeli settlements, and support for action at the U.N. to bring an end to Israel's unlawful occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory," Geddie added.

COMMON DREAMS

 

Activists hold a white sign reading "Rosebank will kill us" on September, 27, 2023 in London, United Kingdom. 

(Photo: Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images)

'Big Win': UK Won't Defend Fossil Fuel Projects in North Sea

Oceana U.K.'s leader called the decision "a massive win for campaigners and another step towards... a cleaner, greener future for our seas, planet, and climate."

Climate campaigners celebrated Thursday after the United Kingdom's new Labour government announced it will not legally defend decisions to allow controversial offshore drilling in a pair of areas in the North Sea.

The two sites are Shell's Jackdaw gas field and the Rosebank oil field, owned by Equinor and Ithaca Energy. Both projects have been loudly criticized by international green groups as well as U.K. opponents.

"This is amazing news and a BIG WIN for the climate. The government must now properly support affected workers and prioritize investment in green jobs," declared Greenpeace U.K., which along with the group Uplift had demanded judicial reviews.

The approvals for both North Sea sites occurred under Conservative rule—in 2022 for Jackdaw and last year for Rosebank, the country's biggest untapped oil field. Voters handed control of the government back to the Labour Party in May.

Then, as The Guardian detailed, "in June, the cases against the oil and gas fields received a boost when the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that 'scope 3' emissions—that is, the burning of fossil fuels rather than just the building of the infrastructure to do so—should be taken into account when approving projects."

"Now we need to see a just transition plan for workers and communities across the U.K. and an end extraction in the North Sea for good!"

The U.K. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, led by Secretary Ed Miliband, cited the "landmark" Supreme Court ruling in a Thursday statement that highlighted the government's decision not to defend the approvals "will save the taxpayer money" and "this litigation does not mean the licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank have been withdrawn."

"Oil and gas production in the North Sea will be a key component of the U.K. energy landscape for decades to come as it transitions to our clean energy future in a way that protects jobs," the department claimed, while also pledging to "consult later this year on the implementation of its manifesto position not to issue new oil and gas licenses to explore new fields."

Welcoming the U.K. government's acceptance of the recent high court ruling, Uplift founder and executive director Tessa Khan said on social media that "the immediate consequence... is that the Scottish Court of Session is very likely to quash the decision approving Rosebank, although we're likely to have to wait a while before that's confirmed."

"If Equinor and Ithaca Energy decide they still want to press ahead with developing the field," Khan explained, "then the next step will be for them to submit a new environmental statement to the [government] and regulator... that includes the scope 3 emissions from the field."

"If you need reminding, those emissions are massive: the same as 56 coal-fired power plants running for a year or the annual emissions of the world's 28 poorest countries," she added. "If Equinor and Ithaca try to push Rosebank through again, the U.K. [government] must reject it."

Greenpeace similarly stressed that "Rosebank and Jackdaw would generate a vast amount of emissions while doing nothing to lower energy bills," and "the only real winners from giving them the greenlight would be greedy oil giants Shell and Equinor."

"To lower bills, improve people's health, upgrade our economy," the group argued, the government must: increase renewable energy; better insulate homes; and boost support for green jobs.

Celebrations over the government's decision and calls for further action weren't limited to the groups behind the legal challenges.

Oceana U.K. executive director praised the "incredible work" by Greenpeace and Uplift, and called the government dropping its defense "a massive win for campaigners and another step towards... a cleaner, greener future for our seas, planet, and climate."

Oil Change International also applauded the government's "incredibly important and correct decision."

"There is no defending more fossil fuel extraction," the organization said. "Now we need to see a just transition plan for workers and communities across the U.K. and an end extraction in the North Sea for good!"

Global Witness similarly celebrated the government's move, declaring on social media that "this is brilliant news!"

"New oilfields are an act of climate vandalism," the group added. "Governments must prioritize people, not polluters' profit."

COMMON DREAMS

 

A waitress takes a customer's order at Tiny's Restaurant in Ayer, Massachusetts on July 30, 2024. 

(Photo: Suzanne Kreiter/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Experts Explain Why 'No Taxes on Tips' Is Not What Tipped Workers Need

"There are plenty of policies that would improve the lives of low-wage workers—raising the federal minimum wage, for starters, and ending the subminimum wage for tipped workers is a good place to start," wrote one economist.

An ostensibly pro-worker policy proposal embraced by the presidential nominees of both the Republican and Democratic parties could actually be detrimental to the U.S. working class, potentially undercutting efforts to abolish subminimum wages and lift the long-stagnant federal pay floor while creating more ways for the rich to dodge taxes.

The proposal in question is exempting tips from federal income taxes, an idea that former President Donald Trump endorsed in June in a bid to win over hospitality and hotel workers. Vice President Kamala Harris backed the proposal weeks later, drawing "copycat" allegations from Trump. Unlike Trump, Harris also expressed support for increasing the federal minimum wage while outlining ways to prevent rich Americans from reclassifying their income as tips to avoid taxation.

But economists have argued in recent days that while it appears sensible and obviously pro-worker on its face, ending taxes on tips is not a meaningful solution to starvation wages and could ultimately harm low-paid employees.

"For starters, tip workers make up a small fraction of the U.S. workforce—about 2.5%—and more than one-third of them do not even earn enough to pay income taxes in the first place," Sylvia Allegretto, a senior economist at the Center for Economic Policy and Research, wrote for The Progressive magazine earlier this week.

"Cutting the federal tax does nothing for this group, except reduce the amount that they contribute to Social Security. Some of these workers could also lose out on other vital programs, like the Earned Income Tax Credit," Allegretto wrote, dismissing the "no taxes on tips" proposal as a "gimmick."

Allegretto also warned that "without adequate safeguards, some high earners would simply reclassify a portion of their income as tips," creating "one more avenue for the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share."

"There are plenty of policies that would improve the lives of low-wage workers—raising the federal minimum wage, for starters, and ending the subminimum wage for tipped workers is a good place to start," she argued.

"You're not hearing Trump or any Republicans talk about [raising the minimum wage], and they probably won't, but it's a big piece of the picture."

Other experts and advocates have similarly warned that the push to exempt tips from federal taxes is little more than a distraction from broader, desperately needed policy solutions for workers struggling with low wages, badly inadequate or nonexistent benefits, and a lack of on-the-job representation.

"The good news is that lawmakers have designed way better ways of helping working families... from eliminating the subminimum wage that allows workers who receive tips to be paid a paltry $2.13 an hour, to raising all minimum wages above the $7.25 where it has been mired for a decade and a half, to making it easier for workers to unionize," Joe Hughes, a senior policy analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, wrote in a blog post last week.

"In terms of tax solutions," Hughes added, "lawmakers rightfully concerned about low-wage workers should instead consider expanding the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit (and especially making the latter stronger for workers without children in the home)."

Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign, emphasized in an interview with The Guardian this week that Trump can't be trusted to pursue a genuinely pro-worker agenda.

"[Trump] can say it all he wants. He had four years to do it and he didn't do it," Barber said of eliminating federal taxes on tips. "But what he did do was give greedy people a $2 trillion tip through tax cuts."

Despite critiques of the proposal, Culinary Union Local 226—which represents tens of thousands of hotel workers in Las Vegas—has backed the push to exempt tips from federal taxation while acknowledging that wage increases are also necessary.

"It's like two sides to the same coin," Ted Pappageorge, the union's secretary-treasurer, told Fortune earlier this week. "You're not hearing Trump or any Republicans talk about [raising the minimum wage], and they probably won't, but it's a big piece of the picture."

Days after Trump endorsed exempting tips from federal taxes, a trio of Senate Republicans led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced the No Tax on Tips Act, legislation that would allow "taxpayers to claim a 100% deduction at filing for tipped wages."

The bill was backed by the National Restaurant Association, an organization that was exposed last year for using workers' money to finance lobbying campaigns against wage increases.

Brendan Duke, senior director of economic policy at the Center for American Progress, observed last month that the No Tax on Tips Act "contains few, if any, guardrails to prevent employees or business owners from recharacterizing income they receive as wages or business profits as tips."

"If hedge fund managers, lawyers, and other highly paid professionals can find ways to restructure compensation as tipped income given the lack of guardrails in Sen. Cruz’s bill," Duke wrote, "they could enjoy a serious tax windfall."

COMMON DREAMS

 

MASSACHUSETTS SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN IS FACING WELL FUNDED  

REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION THAT MISREPRESENTS HER RECORD - SOME POLITICAL 

ADS ARE OUTRIGHT LIES.....SENATOR WARREN HAS TAKEN ACTION TO PROTECT 

ALL AMERICANS SUCH AS THE ACTION BELOW. 

REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION INCLUDES CRYPTO SCAMMER CARPETBAGGER 

JOHN DEATON WHO VOTED 3 TIMES IN 20 YEARS, IS WOEFULLY UNINFORMED, 

AND HAS LIED REPEATEDLY. 

AMERICANS NEEDS ELECTED LEADERS WHO FIGHT FOR WHAT'S RIGHT & 

REFUSE TO GENUFLECT TO $$$$!  

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks during a hearing on March 14, 2024 in Washington, D.C. 

(Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Sanders Says 'Congress Must Investigate' War Profiteering by US Military Contractors

"The greed of these companies is fleecing the American taxpayer and killing Ukrainians," said the senator.

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday said "there's a name for" the billions of dollars in stock buybacks and dividends that major U.S. defense contractors have doled out to their shareholders while taking taxpayer money, and it's this: "war profiteering."

Sanders, the independent from Vermont who chairs the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in the Senate, took aim at Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and RTX—formerly known as Raytheon—for taking in $255 billion in public funds since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, only to reward shareholders and executives with $52 billion via the benefits of stock buybacks and dividends.

"The greed of these companies is fleecing the American taxpayer and killing Ukrainians," said Sanders. "Congress must investigate."

Sanders reiterated his strong support for backing Ukraine as it continues to defend against Russia's incursion, but said he does not support military contractors "making huge profits on the weapons systems they produce."

With the companies increasing prices for weapons systems and equipment while showering their shareholders with payouts, he said "our taxpayers pay more than they should, and Ukraine receives less weaponry than it needs."

Following the consolidation of dozens of defense contractors into just five companies in the 1990s, the cost of weapons and supplies have risen dramatically. As CBS News reported last year, a stinger missile costs more than $400,000 at Raytheon, now the weapon's sole supplier—a seven-fold increase over its cost in 1991, even accounting for inflation.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) noted when introducing the Stop Price Gouging the Military Act in 2022 that defense contractors "regularly charge the military excessive prices, including $71 for a pin that should have cost less than a nickel and $80 for a drain pipe segment that should have cost $1."

Sanders said the companies are price gouging "all while saying they need emergency supplemental funding to ramp up production for the war effort."

"I strongly support getting the Ukrainians what they need to defend their country," said Sanders. "What I do NOT support is the war profiteering of major defense contractors."

COMMON DREAMS

An Update on Lowering Drug Prices

 

I wanted to share some good news about my efforts to help lower prescription drug prices and help Rhode Islanders live longer, healthier lives.  Thanks to a law I helped pass, for the first time in history, Medicare has used its purchasing power to negotiate lower prices for 10 leading medications that are among the costliest and most used in its prescription drug program, Part D.  Going forward, the federal program can use its new power to negotiate lower prices for more prescription drugs each year - saving taxpayers an estimated $6 billion in the first year and lowering costs for consumers for years to come.  You can learn more about the negotiated drug prices HERE.  This is an important step in the effort to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for all seniors.  In Rhode Island, approximately 68,000 seniors will save an annual average of $340 on prescription drugs by 2025, according to the Congressional Joint Economic Committee.    By February 1, 2025, 15 new drugs will be selected for the next round of negotiations.  This comes on top of the other cost-saving provisions in the IRA that are already in effect, including a $35 per month cap on insulin copays and a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket costs under Medicare Part D.  To learn more about how you can take advantage of other cost saving measures included in the IRA, please visit my website at www.reed.senate.gov/IRA.

Jack Reed United States Senator

CONTACT WEBSITE