Archive by Author

Oversight committee to hold hearing on impact of Roe reversal

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform is slated to hold a hearing this month on the impact the reversal of Roe v. Wade will have in the U.S.

The hearing, scheduled for July 13, will come less than a month after the Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that made access to abortion a constitutional right, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that affirmed Roe.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, announced the hearing on Friday, writing in a statement that it will underscore the “devastating effects” the decision will have for generations.

“Make no mistake: This decision is the culmination of a years-long public campaign by Republicans to appoint a Supreme Court that would support draconian restrictions on people’s reproductive health care,” Maloney said in a statement posted on Twitter. 

“This hearing will focus on those whom these restrictions will harm the most and highlight the devastating impact that this decision will have on generations to come,” she added.

Maloney said she is “committed to protecting and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care for all.”

The Supreme Court decision overturning Roe followed weeks of speculation, after a draft majority opinion reversing the nearly 50-year precedent leaked in May.

Since the ruling was made final last Friday, trigger laws banning the medical procedure have gone into effect in a number of states. 

Source: TEST FEED1

This crypto winter is warm compared to the next one

How in the world did we let cryptocurrencies become a $10 trillion industry before examining the systemic risks being created? Crypto coins, derivative securities, exchanges and the leverage created to support them now equal nearly half the asset size of the entire U.S. banking industry.

So, we really have caught a big break by having a crypto winter now before this unregulated industry grew even larger and subsumed other financial markets. 

What should we have learned from this? As Bill Gates correctly notes, everyone is beginning to appreciate that the current version of cryptocurrencies to some extent relies on the greater fool theory. Purchasers expect the price to rise solely because they will be followed by additional purchasers with the same expectations. No such investment scheme has ever succeeded, so the chances that crypto in its current form would just run away from the field and spike the football were never realistic. Larry David’s ironic Super Bowl commercials predicting that crypto would not work out were more prophetic than the sponsors anticipated. 

Our “good” fortune has been the result of five financial developments. They include (1) an increasing skepticism in floating rate cryptocurrencies as prices have plummeted; (2) the collapse of several do-it-yourself stablecoin regimes; (3) an increasing appreciation for the risks inherent in unregulated, decentralized financial technology (Defi) where there are no safety nets; (4) concerns about the sanctity of customer assets held by crypto exchanges; and (5) the general erosion of the economy now marked by 8.6 percent inflation, supply chain disruptions and the effects of the war in Ukraine.

Those who had been mesmerized by all things crypto have thankfully now been shocked into economic rationality. It has taken 13 years to seriously evaluate the impact of the collapse of a crypto coin or exchange, but here we are. Crypto purchasers were forewarned and may have assumed the risk that the price of a floating rate cryptocurrency might collapse with no underlying intrinsic value to support it or set a floor. When small investors use chat rooms and social influencers as their primary source of financial advice, and invest money they cannot afford to lose, one need not be a prophet to predict tragic results. Remember: This is a universe of investors that bought Jesus Coin.

Stablecoins were created by a wide variety of tech personalities often unfamiliar with financial systems or regulation. They were intended to stabilize the value of cryptocurrencies by “backing” them like money market mutual funds with marketable assets such as U.S. Treasury notes. Algorithmic stablecoins claimed to be able to operationally maintain their $1 stable value without such assets in reserve. But not surprisingly, this has all proven to be an illusion analogous to a street corner shell game or three card monte. 

We only now seem to be finding out that in a largely unregulated stablecoin world, “backed” didn’t always mean that the holders had a right to get their funds in a meltdown. So even if a particular unregulated stablecoin had reserves of marketable assets to cover 100 percent of the coins issued, those assets might be available to all creditors in a bankruptcy. Moreover, most crypto exchange customers likely didn’t understand that, as Coinbase recently explained, crypto instruments are not always held as securities are at a stock brokerage and could be subject to the claims of general creditors. 

Even in the best of cases, holders would likely have to deal with endless litigation that would delay any payout as legal processes ground forward over many years.

For example, the Securities Investor Protection Act does not contemplate cryptocurrency, suggesting that determining the entitlement to crypto assets in a stock brokerage bankruptcy will include fights between and among cryptocurrency customers and all potential other creditors. What would happen if only 10 percent of the Bitcoins that were supposedly held by a brokerage for customers are actually present? Can a bankruptcy trustee reverse crypto transactions as preferences or fraudulent transfers? 

As decentralized finance grows, for better or worse, many innovators have adopted a philosophy that “’tis better to ask forgiveness than permission.” People with uncanny skills at technological innovation often fail to anticipate unintended consequences in the real world of finance. Think “Ready, fire, aim.”  

The hissing sound you hear is air leaving the crypto bubble. Banking, securities and commodities regulators must install an organized oversight structure to this emerging financial market before the bubble expands further and really bursts.  

The crypto world mesmerized legislators and regulators into a decade of inaction as it grew exponentially. But there is still time for them to come to their senses, modernize financial regulation and regulate cryptocurrencies like the money and securities they purport to be.

Perhaps then, crypto can proceed toward a more lasting future. With the economy simultaneously being buffeted by the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation and global conflict, crypto investors should for now prepare for a difficult winter. But it will not be nearly as harsh as the next one if the crypto orgy continues without smarter investors and better oversight.

Thomas P. Vartanian was the general counsel of the FSLIC and is executive director of the Financial Technology & Cybersecurity Center and author of “200 Years of American Financial Panics: Crashes, Recessions, Depressions and the Technology that Will Change it All.” Stephen P. Harbeck served as president and CEO of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation from 2003 to 2018. They handled the failure, liquidation and protection of consumers in the collapse of hundreds of banks, S&Ls and securities brokerage firms.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pentagon unveils $820 million security assistance package for Ukraine

The Department of Defense on Friday unveiled an $820 million weapons package for Ukraine, which includes advanced air defense systems.  

In a statement, acting Pentagon press secretary Todd Breasseale said $770 million of the assistance will be provided under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which allows the agency to procure the weapons from defense contractors.

The remaining $50 million in security aid will come from presidential drawdown authority, which allows the Pentagon to send Ukraine weapons from its own stockpiles. This will be the fourteenth drawdown of equipment under that authority since August 2021.

President Biden hinted at the security aid during a press conference on Thursday following a NATO summit in Madrid.

During the press conference, Biden said that the U.S. would support Ukraine “as long as it takes” to make sure that it is not defeated by Russia.

The aid also follows a separate $450 million shipment of military aid to Ukraine announced last week, which included four High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and patrol boats, among other equipment.

With Friday’s announcement, the U.S. has committed $7.6 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden administration, including $6.9 billion since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began on Feb. 24.

Under the USAI, the Pentagon will procure two National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, also known as Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS).

National security adviser Jake Sullivan hinted on Monday that the U.S. would be giving Ukraine advanced air defense systems but didn’t specify a particular system. CNN previously reported that the administration would provide the Norwegian-developed system, which can hit targets up to 100 miles away.

In addition to the NASAMS, the U.S. will also use the $770 million in USAI funds to procure up to 150,000 rounds of 155mm artillery ammunition and four counter-artillery radars.

The administration will separately use the $50 million in presidential drawdown authority to send additional ammunition for the HIMARS that the administration has already sent.

Source: TEST FEED1

15 more current, former employees sue Tesla alleging racial abuse

A group of 15 Black current and former employees of tech giant Tesla sued the company on Thursday over accusations of racial abuse.

Plaintiffs claimed that they were harassed based on their race, with colleagues and managers using the N-word and other racially charged terms including “slavery” and “plantation” in daily interactions, according to Reuters.

Tesla’s “standard operating procedures include blatant, open and unmitigated race discrimination,” the lawsuit reads, particularly at its Fremont, Calif., factory where the abuse is said to have occurred.

“It is rare for Blacks to work here. I don’t know how long you will be able to stay here,” one plaintiff recalled hearing alongside racial slurs.

The supervisor of another plaintiff said that he “‘wasn’t like most Black people,’ that he ‘didn’t act ghetto,’ and further called him a ‘zebra’ because he was ‘neither Black nor white,’” Reuters reports.

Some former and current employees accused Tesla of purposefully placing them in the most difficult posts at the factory, demoting them or choosing not to promote them.

The newest and largest racial abuse suit against Tesla follows a complaint filed against the company in February by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which “​​found evidence that Tesla’s Fremont factory is a racially segregated workplace where Black workers are subjected to racial slurs and discriminated against in job assignments, discipline, pay, and promotion creating a hostile work environment.”

Tesla responded to DFEH, saying: “Tesla has always disciplined and terminated employees who engage in misconduct, including those who use racial slurs or harass others in different ways. We recently rolled out an additional training program that reinforces Tesla’s requirement that all employees must treat each other with respect and reminds employees about the numerous ways they can report concerns, including anonymously.”

Years earlier, in 2017, a former Tesla employee sued the company alleging “severe and pervasive racial harassment.”

Another former employee sued earlier this year, saying that “virtually every restroom in Tesla’s Fremont facility contained writings or carvings of racist symbols and slurs, including swastikas and prominent displays of the n-word.”

“Tesla’s commitments to unrealistic production goals and frantic efforts to ramp up its production, often to make good on rash promises, overrode any commitment to employee safety,” wrote former construction manager Marc Cage, who in this case worked in Tesla’s Nevada battery factory.

Tesla has racked up a total of at least 10 race discrimination lawsuits, Reuters reports.

Source: TEST FEED1

More than 300 flights canceled, 3K flights delayed at start of holiday weekend

More than 300 flights have been canceled nationwide as of early Friday afternoon as the U.S. enters one of the busiest travel weekends of the year. 

An additional 3,000 flights have been delayed on Friday as airlines continue to struggle to have enough staffing to meet demand, according to the flight-tracking website FlightAware. Thousands of cancellations and delays are expected throughout the Fourth of July weekend with demand for air travel currently at its highest level since before the start of the coronavirus pandemic. 

Almost 500 flights were canceled and more than 5,000 flights were delayed on Thursday, according to FlightAware.

A pilot shortage has forced airlines to cancel and delay flights recently, and millions of seats have been made unavailable as a result. Airlines have placed blame on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for being short-staffed and lacking a staffing plan for the summer when demand for travel increases. 

The FAA has responded that the stimulus payments the airlines received as part of COVID-19 relief packages should have taken care of the staffing shortages ahead of the public returning to normal activities.

Delta Air Lines is waiving its rebooking fee for flights from Friday to Monday, allowing customers to rebook flights before or after the peak travel days.

A group of senators wrote letters to 10 domestic airlines on Wednesday to urge them to provide statistics on their delays and cancellations. 

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg met with top airline heads last month to discuss how to address the situation.

Source: TEST FEED1

The real consequences of a blank check for defense spending

June was a good month for those who want to see a higher U.S. defense budget. On June 16, the Senate Armed Services Committee tacked on a $45 billion increase to President Biden’s proposed $813 billion topline for the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), calling for $847 billion in defense spending for the coming financial year. And last Wednesday, the House Armed Services Committee voted to add $37 billion to the president’s original budget proposal.

Members of Congress and staff cited inflation and the war in Ukraine, as well as a desire to fund military priorities not included in the president’s budget, as reasons for the increase — despite the fact that the budget already accounts for inflation, the Secretary of Defense has expressed his confidence that the department can handle the effects of inflation, and the aid the U.S. has committed to Ukraine is handled separately from the defense budget. 

A historic increase like this isn’t a one-time event; it’s evidence of a complete lack of responsibility within Congress for fighting for Americans’ actual interests. And without serious efforts to increase oversight and encourage efficiency in defense spending now, there is little reason why Congress will not continue to push the defense budget topline closer to the $1 trillion mark in coming years.

It’s time to acknowledge that there are real tradeoffs when defense spending gets first priority from both parties in the face of a parade of preventable miseries — a housing crisis, inflation that is vastly more consequential for the health and wellbeing of most consumers than the financial health of the military or the defense industry, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic which, two and a half years in, has not yet received an adequate policy response.

Then there are the slower-rolling crises we’ve come to accept as simply part of American life in the 21st century: the crippling effects of student debt on a generation of adults for whom the basic building blocks of economic stability are now all but out of reach, the increasingly dramatic and destructive effects of climate change — the list goes on.

This consistent prioritization of defense spending has profound consequences throughout the country. Take Montana, for example. The state is home to part of the U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force through Malmstrom Air Force Base, located in underground silos spread out among the farm and ranchland of the west-central area of the state. The communities of the missile fields have been promised new jobs resulting from the renovation of the existing silos through the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), recently designated the LGM-35A Sentinel program. Recent Washington Post coverage cited Air Force messaging that the program would bring two workforce hubs with 3,000 jobs in Fergus County, which has a population of around 11,000.

The impact of that kind of investment on the local economy is undeniable and dramatic but what is less clear is how long those jobs would last, what kind of benefits they would come with and whether, after the project is finished, they would simply disappear without leaving behind any basis for longer-term regional prosperity. From the perspective of Congress — or anyone concerned with what the defense industry is doing with the approximately $2,000 each individual pays into defense via taxes — it’s not clear whether the 10,000 new jobs promised by Northrop Grumman to result from the nearly $300 billion project are new or pre-existing positions.

What’s more, there are few reliable methods for making sure that community members have a say in whether and how the defense industry invests in their communities. Beyond industry-led public relations campaigns, communities that are chosen to play host to new defense industry facilities often find themselves the last to know, with little input into the process.

Meanwhile, Montana is suffering from multiple crises that could benefit from increased federal investment in areas that have been shown to create more jobs, such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, and non-fossil fuel energy. With nearly one million acres up in smoke in 2021, declining trout populations set to affect the fisheries and tourism industry — both of which contribute at least as much to the state economy as defense — and unpredictable weather patterns threatening agriculture, there are plenty of opportunities for productive investment to address climate change rather than to allow its effects to cause catastrophic losses of employment and revenue. And the housing crisis gripping the country that has gone largely unaddressed by policymakers has itself stifled economic development in the state, as workers struggle to find affordable places to live.

It’s not just about moving numbers from one column to the other. It’s about what the U.S. chooses to invest in — what sort of research and development it encourages, which facilities it builds and maintains and whether it encourages investment in a livable long-term future for all Americans. The importance of maintaining good priorities in government investment, and correcting course when necessary, was indelibly highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic when the U.S. faced disastrous shortages of necessary medical supplies and few established policy levers to address them.

Runaway defense spending is much more than a number: It represents a systematic lack of investment in real security with real consequences at the local and state level. It’s not too late to correct course toward a responsible and accountable approach to defense spending.

Emma Claire Foley is a senior associate at Global Zero, the international movement to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Source: TEST FEED1

Youngkin appoints former Trump EPA head to new deregulation office

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) on Friday appointed former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Andrew Wheeler to a newly created Office of Regulatory Management, months after state lawmakers voted Wheeler down for another position. 

Wheeler will head the new office, which Youngkin said in a statement will aim to reduce state regulatory requirements by 25 percent. The Trump administration implemented a similar policy in 2017, imposing a requirement that any new regulations be accompanied by the repeal of two existing regulations. 

“Last year, I pledged to Virginians that we would remove 25% of the regulatory requirements in the Commonwealth,” Youngkin said in a statement Friday. “In the spirit of this objective, we have created the Office of Regulatory Management, led by Andrew Wheeler, which will create much needed transparency and efficiency in Virginia’s regulatory process to ensure that we have a government that works for the citizens of the Commonwealth.” 

Wheeler, who served as EPA administrator from 2019 to 2021, was initially Youngkin’s nominee as Virginia’s secretary of natural resources.

Wheeler’s nomination immediately faced pushback in the Democratic-majority state Senate, due to his history with the Trump administration and as a coal industry lobbyist. While Wheeler did not echo then-President Trump’s false claims that climate change is a hoax, he has repeatedly minimized the threat it poses. 

Initially, there was speculation that Wheeler might secure confirmation after a largely collegial hearing in which he defended his environmental record and blamed the media for the perception of his tenure. However, the Senate tabled his nomination in a 21-19 vote in March, making him the first Virginia Cabinet nominee who did not clear confirmation since 2006.

Wheeler served as acting secretary for the remainder of the General Assembly session, per the state constitution, and has served as an adviser to Youngkin since March. 

A spokesman for Youngkin’s office told The Hill that Wheeler will not require General Assembly confirmation as head of the new office. 

The announcement comes the same week that Wheeler’s predecessor as EPA chief, Scott Pruitt, lost in Oklahoma’s GOP Senate primary to replace retiring Sen. James Inhofe (R).  

Source: TEST FEED1

Illinois becomes the latest state to enact the CROWN Act, banning hair discrimination

Illinois became the latest state to ban discrimination based on a person’s hair texture or style, expanding the state’s definition of race and joining 16 other U.S. states that have also passed the “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair” — known as the CROWN Act. 

The CROWN Act was first introduced in Congress last year but was unable to secure the necessary supermajority for passage—and remains to be taken up by the Senate. 

In the meantime, dozens of states passed their own CROWN Acts to formally ban hair discrimination—including Illinois. Upon signing the bill into law on Friday, Gov. JB Pritzker (D) said on Twitter, “Hair isn’t just deeply personal—it’s inherently cultural, passing down thousands of years of history from generation to generation. Hair discrimination isn’t just a microaggression—it’s racist. And it’s past time we prohibit it.” 

Illinois became the 17^th state to enact the Crown Act, shortly after Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (R) also passed the CROWN Act in his state and in Alaska the bill awaits Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s (R) signature.  

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

The law prohibits race-based hair discrimination, like the denial of employment and education opportunities because of a person’s hair texture or style—which commonly comes in braids, locs, twists or bantu knots. 

Hair discrimination has cropped up across the country, including in Massachusetts when two 15-year-old sisters were suspended from school over their braid extensions.  

A similar situation occurred in Alabama when an insurance company refused to hire a Black woman because of her dreadlocks, which the company said was in violation of its grooming policies. The company said she would need to cut her dreadlocks as a condition of her employment.  

Beauty brand Dove conducted a study in 2019 which found Black women’s hair is more policed in the workplace than non-Black women. About 80 percent of women surveyed agreed with the statement that they had to change their hair from its natural state to fit in at the office. 

Dove also found that Black women are 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from their workplace because of their hair and 83 percent more likely to report being judged harshly on her looks than other women.  

Though the future of the CROWN Act remains uncertain in Congress, President Biden said in March that, “no person should be denied the ability to obtain a job, succeed in school or the workplace, secure housing or otherwise exercise their rights based on a hair texture or hair style.  

Biden indicated that he would work with Congress to pass the CROWN Act and sign the bill into law.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden concedes Democrats don't have votes to change filibuster

President Biden conceded Friday that Democrats currently lack the votes to alter the legislative filibuster to pass abortion rights legislation, adding that the party’s goal should be to pick up two seats in the midterm elections to do so. 

Biden’s comments came a day after he called on senators to change the filibuster — a rule which means 60 votes are needed to end debate on most legislation — to enable lawmakers to pass legislation codifying Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion ruling overturned by the Supreme Court last week.  

“Ultimately, Congress is going to have to act to codify Roe into federal law,” Biden said during a virtual meeting with Democratic governors on reproductive rights Friday afternoon. 

“The filibuster should not stand in the way of us being able to do that, but right now we don’t have the votes in the Senate to change the filibuster,” Biden said. “That means we need two more votes.” 

Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) have expressed opposition to changing the filibuster and reiterated that their positions had not changed through spokespeople following Biden’s remarks on Thursday. 

Biden on Friday also repeatedly said he thought that Republicans would try to ban abortion nationwide if they achieve majorities in the House and Senate after the midterm elections.  

“This is going to go one way or the other after November,” the president said.  

Biden’s rhetoric offered a preview of the White House’s messaging on abortion going into the midterms. 

History, polling and current economic conditions suggest Democrats are on a path to lose seats in Congress in the upcoming elections. Still, Democrats believe that the issue of abortion rights could be a game-changer come November, particularly when it comes to appealing to female voters. 

Biden heard from nine governors including New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D), and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) about the steps they are taking to protect access to abortion in their states.  

Hochul, for instance, spotlighted her plans to enshrine abortion rights into the state’s Constitution and shield providers and women from out-of-state lawsuits.  

She also argued that Biden could do more with his executive authority, such as using federal facilities like Veterans Affairs hospitals for abortion services — an idea the White House tried to pump the breaks on earlier this week.  

Lujan Grisham echoed Hochul in calling for more executive action and offered that abortion services could be offered at Indian Health Service clinics. 

Cooper, who chairs the Democratic Governors Association, also underscored the importance of electing more Democrats in gubernatorial races across the country.  

“Governors really are the last line of defense and they’re also the first chance at progress,” he said.  

Source: TEST FEED1