Archive by Author

McConnell vows to be 'picky' with Biden nominees if GOP wins Senate 

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday warned that if Republicans win control of the Senate in November, President Biden’s nominees will have a tough time getting confirmed.  

McConnell says he’ll be “picky” in deciding which of Biden’s nominees are moderate enough to warrant getting votes on the Senate floor.  

“We’ll be way more picky over who gets to head various boards and commissions and agencies that are important to how all of you function in our society,” McConnell said at a Rotary Club luncheon in Florence, Kentucky.  

Nominees such as Steve Dettelbach, Biden’s choice to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or Arianna Freeman, Biden’s pick to sit on the 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals, both needed discharge votes just to move out of committee in the current Senate that is evenly split between the two parties. Neither likely would have been confirmed under a Senate GOP majority.  

Biden may also have a tough time getting a vote on a Supreme Court nominee such as Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom McConnell criticized as a judicial activist who “ruled like a policymaker implementing personal biases.”  

“If I’m the majority leader, we’ll be really picky on appointees. There are 1,200 executive branch appointments that come to us. They’re not all as important as the Supreme Court but many of them are quite important and [need] to be confirmed by the Senate,” McConnell said Monday. “We’re in the personnel business, the House is not.”  

McConnell also ruled out passing any other big spending bills along the lines of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, with passed with only Democratic votes last year.  

“We won’t be doing any spending bills but if we can find ways to make some progress for the country during a time of divided government, we’ll do it,” he added.  

McConnell suggested last year that he would block any Supreme Court nominee Biden submits to the Senate in 2024 if another vacancy arises in a presidential election year.  

“I think in the middle of a presidential election, if you have a Senate of the opposite party of the president, you have to go back to the 1880s to find the last time a vacancy was filled,” McConnell told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt a year ago.  

He said the prospect of a Senate GOP majority confirming a liberal nominee to the Supreme Court in a presidential election year with a Democrat in the White House would be “highly unlikely.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

We’re seeing bipartisanship in action on global religious freedom

This week, political and religious leaders from around the world will descend on the nation’s capital to attend the second annual International Religious Freedom Summit. The IRF summit is the largest civil society-led conference in the world focused on advancing international religious freedom. The summit highlights the remarkable bipartisanship that has characterized the growth of the international religious freedom movement over the last 25 years.

The IRF summit is co-chaired by the former Republican-appointed ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom and former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and former Democratic-appointed U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Chair Katrina Lantos Swett. Speakers include the current Biden-appointed ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, Rashad Hussain, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), as well as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Leaders who are often seen as political opponents frequently become allies when it comes to advancing religious freedom outside of the United States.

Bipartisan cooperation among American politicians has produced real results for the international religious freedom movement since the unanimous International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Just this past year, Congress has enacted major legislation with overwhelming agreement advancing international religious freedom, including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and the permanent reauthorization of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. And Secretary of State Antony Blinken has repeatedly reaffirmed the designation of genocide declared by Pompeo for China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, China.  

Such unity is particularly important today, with the persecution of religious minorities reaching record levels around the world. Just last year the U.S. government officially recognized religiously-based genocide not just in China but also in Myanmar against the Rohingya Muslims, who have suffered unimaginable atrocities since the Tatmadaw’s coup in February 2021. In Afghanistan, religious minorities are facing genocidal conditions since the withdrawal of the U.S. military. Violence against Muslims and Christians in India continues to rise, and Indian states continue to pass laws making it difficult to convert from one religion to another. And Sub-Saharan Africa has become the world’s new center for terrorist attacks inspired by the ideology of the Islamic State, severely endangering religious minorities in the region. 

Survivors of persecution will share their stories at the IRF Summit — people like Ren Ruiting, whose church in China, the Early Rain Covenant Church, was shut down by the Chinese Communist Party. Its pastor was arrested and is still in detention. After months of harassment from the police, Ruiting finally fled China. 

Or Mariam Ibraheem, who was sentenced to death and forced to give birth while in a prison in Sudan because she was a Christian. She now advocates for the rights of Christians facing similarly unjust accusations in Sudan. 

Or Nury Turkel, the new chair of USCIRF, who began life in a Chinese re-education camp because he and his family were Uyghur Muslims.

The harrowing circumstances these survivors faced are so appalling that they unite people from every background to stand up for freedom. While some regions, like portions of the European Union, have begun to shy away from recognizing the widespread problem of religious persecution, the U.S. continues to be a place where there’s a broad consensus that religious persecution worldwide should be confronted.

This broad unity doesn’t mean that controversies don’t arise. Blinken’s removal of Nigeria from the U.S. government list of the world’s worst violators of religious freedom last year caused an uproar in the international religious freedom community, with the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom stating it was “appalled” at the decision. Recent attacks in Nigeria, such as the brutal lynching of Christian college student Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu and the massacre of dozens of Catholics celebrating Pentecost in Owo, have reignited calls for the U.S. to recognize the religious persecution occurring in the country. The bishop of the churches attacked will be among the speakers at the IRF Summit this week.

But even as the U.S. response to persecution worldwide often falls short, what is still remarkable is the extent of bipartisan and civil society dedication to furthering the rights of individuals around the world to choose and live in accordance with their religious beliefs. Instances of collaboration across the aisle to address areas of common concern are too rare at present, but this week’s International Religious Freedom Summit will give a glimpse of what is still possible — and, on this issue, desperately needed. 

Only by efforts at every level of governance and society to combat religious persecution will we truly see freedom secured around the world.

Kelsey Zorzi is president of the United Nations’ NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief and director of advocacy for global religious freedom for ADF International. Her writings have appeared in several outlets including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Newsweek, and RealClear. Twitter: @KelseyZorzi. 

Source: TEST FEED1

California deal to provide relief over inflation would include $1,050 rebates, diesel tax suspension

A budget deal struck between California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and the state’s top lawmakers on Sunday would provide most California taxpayers with hundreds of dollars in rebates to alleviate economic hardship from inflation.

The $300 billion framework deal, which has not yet passed the legislature but was endorsed by Newsom, Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins (D) and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D), would include provisions to suspend the state’s tax on diesel and provide rebates depending on filers’ incomes and dependents.

“California’s budget addresses the state’s most pressing needs and prioritizes getting dollars back into the pockets of millions of Californians who are grappling with global inflation and rising prices of everything from gas to groceries,” the three Democrats said in a joint statement.

The announcement comes after annual inflation spiked in May to 8.6 percent, a roughly 40-year high.

California’s proposed tax refunds are provided through a three-tier system, with higher earners receiving smaller refunds.  

An estimated 17.5 million tax filers would qualify for a rebate, according to a summary of the deal. The plan does not impact roughly 500,000 of the state’s top earners.

Each tax filer would receive a baseline refund that corresponds to their income, but the refund is multiplied if the taxpayer is filing a joint return or has at least one dependent.

The first tier would provide $350 tax refunds to single filers with incomes up to $75,000. The income limit and refunds are doubled for joint filers, and those with at least one dependent would receive an additional $350.

That means qualifying joint filers with at least one dependent would receive the maximum refund under the program of $1,050.

The second tier operates using a similar setup, providing $250 refunds to single filers earning up to $125,000 and $500 refunds for joint filers earning up to $250,000. An additional $250 refund is provided for those filers with at least one dependent.

The third tier includes single filers making up to $250,000, who would receive a $200 refund, and joint filers making up to $500,000, who would receive a $400 refund. An additional $200 is provided if the filer has a dependent.

The deal would also provide $1.4 billion in assistance for people with past-due electric utility bills that were incurred during the pandemic.

Newsom and the state’s top lawmakers are also moving to suspend the state’s diesel sales tax. The state has the highest gas prices in the country, with the average gallon of gas costing $6.32 as of Monday, according to AAA.

The budget deal would reduce costs by about 23 cents per gallon, costing the state $439 million.
President Biden last week called for a suspension of the federal gas tax, also asking the nation’s governors to eliminate their state-level taxes on gas.

Source: TEST FEED1

Americans plan to spend less money this 4th of July

Americans are feeling the sting of inflation and they expect it to cut into their holiday spending, according to a new survey.  

A new survey from WalletHub found that rising prices are changing Fourth of July plans, while two-thirds of Americans plan to spend less on holiday celebrations than last year.  

Most survey participants said they don’t plan to go holiday shopping this year, reflecting a larger economic trend that led Americans to tell WalletHub they plan to spend less this summer overall.  

Participants also said rising prices have affected their own pursuit of the American dream. Income, debt and education, the survey shows, all factor into one’s chance of success. But Americans said the biggest obstacle they face is cost of living expenses.  

Yet the survey shows Americans are still feeling a sense of patriotism heading into the holiday weekend, and nearly two-thirds of survey participants said they made an effort to purchase products made in the U.S.  

The WalletHub survey was conducted online, measuring a nationally representative sample of 350 U.S. adults.  

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

A separate survey conducted by LifeWorks found inflation is taking a toll on Americans’ mental health, especially among those who are unable afford basic needs due to soaring costs 

The Life Works Mental Health Index released last week shows that people whose basic needs are going unmet because of inflation have a mental health score 16 percentage points lower than the national average.  

Only 16 percent said inflation has yet to affect them, even though they expect it will eventually. 

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA 

HERE’S THE AGE WHEN AMERICANS GET THE LEAST AMOUNT OF SLEEP 

MOST AMERICANS AGREE THAT TRANSGENDER MEN AND WOMEN ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST: POLL 

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE NEW NOVAVAX VACCINE FOR COVID-19 

ABORTIONS IN THE US INCREASED IN 2020, REVERSING A MORE THAN 30-YEAR DECLINE 

LIZZO REMOVES ‘HARMFUL WORD’ FROM SONG: ‘I NEVER WANT TO PROMOTE DEROGATORY LANGUAGE’ 

Source: TEST FEED1

Judge blocks Louisiana trigger law banning abortion

A Louisiana judge blocked enforcement on Monday of statewide abortion ban designed to automatically go into effect when Roe fell.

Two abortion rights groups filed a challenge to Louisiana’s trigger law on Monday, which went into effect following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, striking down the federal right to abortion.

The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (BSF) requested emergency relief allowing providers in the state to continue providing abortions, and patients to access the procedure.

In an email after the judge’s decision Monday, CRR said: “Abortion care will resume in the state and a hearing has been set for July 8th.”

The groups, filing on behalf of organizations such as Hope Medical Group for Women and Medical Students for Choice, asked the court to review the state’s trigger laws and determine what options exist for life-saving care that requires aborting a pregnancy.

“In a stunning state of affairs, the day Dobbs was issued, state and local officials issued conflicting statements about whether and which trigger laws were actually in effect and thus what conduct—if any—was prohibited. Due process requires more,” the groups wrote in a statement Monday.

“There is tremendous urgency around this petition and emergency motion as the Dobbs decision has precipitated a tidal wave of canceled appointments and the withdrawal of critical services in states with trigger laws throughout the nation, perhaps none more so than in Louisiana where the trigger laws are immediately effective,” the organizations said in a statement. 

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry tweeted shortly after Friday’s decision that “Louisiana’s trigger law banning #abortion is now in effect.”

With its decision in Dobbs, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision established nearly 50 years ago that protected the constitutional right to abortion.

Louisiana was among more than a dozen GOP-led states that quickly enacted trigger laws either banning or severely restricting abortion within their borders.

Democrats at the state and federal level are discussing various actions to protect abortion access, from declaring a federal health emergency to setting up clinics on tribal lands outside of state legal jurisdiction.

“We are committed to this monumental legal challenge – not to perpetuate an endless political battle, but to ensure our patients’ wellbeing and so that they may draw strength from our dedication to this fight,” Hope administrator Kathaleen Pittman said in a statement Monday.

Medical Students for Choice Executive Director Pamela Merritt said her organization wanted to ensure that every medical student in the U.S. can receive education and training on abortion and family planning.

“Our members are outraged and heartbroken by the Supreme Court’s decision,” Merritt said in a statement. “While we have been actively preparing for this moment, it’s never easy to see the government take human rights away from millions of people, including those in Louisiana.”

Updated: 1:09 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

The OECD’s global minimum tax rate will cost US companies

At a time when inflation is running rampant, supply chain issues continue to plague Americans, and the economy is flailing, American multinationals now have tax increases to worry about.  And it’s fair to ask how this is the case when there has been no significant legislation that would increase taxes on U.S. companies.

The Biden administration came to agreement in October with 137 countries led by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the G20 to establish a global minimum tax rate. Model rules for “Pillar 2” were released in December as part of a two-pillar solution pursued to address tax challenges of the digitalization of the global economy, and in response to recent unilateral digital service taxes (DSTs) imposed by a number of countries, affecting companies not physically located within their borders. 

Pursuing an international agreement to address DSTs was commendable, but the proposed solution would be more harmful to U.S. companies than the original problem.

The Pillar 2 model rules establish a global minimum effective tax rate (ETR). Using ETR means that it matters how various credits, deductions, etc. are treated for the purposes of determining what the ETR is and whether a company’s income is “low-taxed.” If it is deemed to be low-taxed, a top-up tax can be applied by the country where the business is located. 

While other countries successfully negotiated to protect their domestic tax laws, the U.S. Treasury did not. Generally, refundable tax credits are accommodated under the model rules and non-refundable tax credits — i.e., most U.S. business tax incentives — are not. Additionally, despite the United States having the world’s only global minimum tax, it is not recognized as being a qualified regime under Pillar 2. The OECD document, The Pillar Two Rules in a Nutshell, clearly states that “consideration will be given to the conditions under which the U.S. Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) regime will coexist with [these] rules.”

This means that U.S. tax credits for research and development, low-income housing, new markets, and clean energy could be nullified, thwarting congressional intent. In other words, a U.S. company with operations abroad might be able to lower its ETR below the global minimum (15 percent) through legal application of U.S. tax law and then lose that benefit to top-up taxes in a foreign jurisdiction. 

The power to lay and collect taxes lies with Congress, and any executive branch negotiations over treaties or other international agreements are required to be undertaken with the advice and consent of the Senate. Tax treaties, like other treaties, must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate before they can be ratified. The OECD agreement is not a treaty, but the practical effect of the Pillar 2 model rules is that of a multilateral tax treaty that was concluded without the advice and consent of the Senate.

International law does not trump domestic law in the United States, and Congress must act to implement any changes. However, failure of Congress to act in this context could be more detrimental. The Treasury ceded significant taxing authority over U.S. multinationals to foreign authorities in the Pillar 2 agreement. If other countries implement Pillar 2 before we do, they will be able to start collecting top-up taxes on local affiliates of U.S. companies. The United States similarly would have to implement Pillar 2 in order to levy top-up taxes on foreign companies located here and to preserve its primary right of taxation over the income of American multinationals.

If this agreement is implemented, it will harm the global competitiveness of U.S. businesses and American jobs. However, options are limited now that the agreement is in the implementation phase. 

Treasury officials recently acknowledged the concerns of Congress and the business community, and the assistant secretary for tax policy is trying to assure stakeholders that many tax incentives would be unaffected and that Treasury is working with the OECD to “clarify” how others would be handled. These issues were never part of earlier blueprints and appeared for the first time in the model rules.

The United States should not have to rely on a tortured interpretation of the commentary to protect its interests, and this should provide little comfort to stakeholders. We should learn from the foreign sales corporation debacle and not rely on amorphous or ambiguous terms. 

Meanwhile, the European Union has failed to reach the necessary unanimous agreement for implementation and other countries are running into similar roadblocks. It’s time to pause to ensure all parties and stakeholders understand with absolute clarity what is being agreed to prior to any implementation. It is essential to preserve the integrity and efficacy of tax incentives passed by Congress.

Kimberly J. Pinter, a tax policy attorney, was a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Tax and Budget at the Treasury Department under President Trump. She is a visiting fellow with the Independent Women’s Forum, and has worked on Capitol Hill for the late Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.), the House Small Business Committee, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Source: TEST FEED1

Football coach celebrates prayer case win at Supreme Court: 'I just can’t stop smiling'

The football coach who won his Supreme Court case over school prayer on Monday spoke out following the 6-3 ruling, thanking God for “answering our prayers.”

The court’s conservatives ruled in favor of Joseph Kennedy earlier on Monday in his dispute with a Seattle-area school district after it placed him on paid leave for leading postgame prayers on the 50-yard line of the school’s football field.

“I really don’t know what to say,” Kennedy said on Fox News’s “The Faulkner Focus.” 

“I just can’t stop smiling, and, you know, thank God and thank everybody that supported me, and I found out that I’m not insane,” he continued. “It’s absolutely true of all the facts of the case, and it just feels good to know that the First Amendment is alive and well.”

Kennedy for years would kneel on the field to engage in brief prayer, with players from his team and opposing schools eventually joining him. The school argued Kennedy’s influential capacity as a coach pressured players to join the prayer or risk a cut in playing time.

But the conservative justices on Monday ruled in favor of Kennedy, arguing that the school had a “mistaken view” that it had a duty to “suppress religious observances.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, called it unconstitutional “discrimination” against Kennedy’s First Amendment rights.

“Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic — whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head,” Gorsuch wrote.

In a written statement, Kennedy said all he has ever wanted was to be back on the field. 

“I thank God for answering our prayers and sustaining my family through this long battle,” he said.

First Liberty Institute, a Christian conservative legal organization that represented Kennedy, said the decision respects the constitutional rights of public school teachers and coaches.

“This is a tremendous victory for Coach Kennedy and religious liberty for all Americans,” said Kelly Shackelford, the group’s president. “Our Constitution protects the right of every American to engage in private religious expression, including praying in public, without fear of getting fired.  We are grateful that the Supreme Court recognized what the Constitution and law have always said – Americans are free to live out their faith in public.”

Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general who argued the case before the Supreme Court, said in a statement that the decision was a “great victory” for Kennedy and the First Amendment.

“After seven long years, Coach Kennedy can finally return to the place he belongs – coaching football and quietly praying by himself after the game,” Clement said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

G7 moves closer to backing price cap on Russian oil

The Group of Seven (G7) countries are moving closer to endorsing a price cap on Russian oil — an untested plan that would seek to limit the Kremlin’s profits from selling the commodity worldwide. 

The idea has been floated in recent weeks as the United States and its allies search for ways to further squeeze the Russian economy to punish Russian President Vladimir Putin for the war in Ukraine. Energy exports are the leading source of revenue for the Russian economy. 

The price cap has been a source of discussion during the G7 summit in Germany over the past two days, where President Biden is huddling with counterparts from Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan and Canada. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen first said last week that the U.S. was discussing the idea of a price cap with its allies. 

A senior Biden administration official told reporters on Monday that the G7 countries were in “final discussions” about an agreement on a global price cap for Russian oil. 

The official indicated that the G7 leaders would endorse the idea and then direct their finance ministers to develop “mechanisms” for setting a global price cap for Russian oil shipments to nations outside of the U.S., Europe and the G7.

Speaking to reporters later Monday, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan insisted that the G7 members were united behind limiting Russian profits from energy.

“There is absolute consensus across the G7 that the purpose of our energy sanctions on Russia should ultimately be to deny revenue to Russia while at the same time ensuring a stable global energy market,” Sullivan said on the sidelines of the G7 summit. 

“There is also consensus emerging — although there continue to be discussions around it, so I don’t want to get ahead of the leaders on this — that the price cap is a serious method to achieve that outcome,” he said. 

Still, specifics for how the plan would work are currently unclear. Sullivan said that while there is agreement around the broad idea, countries are trying to work through the specifics of how it would be implemented. 

“This is not something that can be pulled off the shelf as a tried-and-true method that has repeated historical precedent and therefore can simply be taken as a standing option and implemented,” he said.  

“In a way, this conversation —  starting at the expert working level, then ministers, now leaders —  has been one of the G7 countries puzzling through a difficult challenge together and arriving at a point, we believe, where there is convergence around really trying to pursue this.”

Russia is the world’s third-largest oil producer, and fuel is a major piece of the Russian economy. Countries including the U.S. have sought to hurt the Kremlin by restricting or banning imports of Russian oil amid the country’s invasion of Ukraine. 

Amid countries and companies turning away from Russian oil, as well as uncertainty in the market, oil prices have spiked in recent months, sending the price of gasoline skyrocketing. 

Late last week, global oil prices had fallen by a few dollars per barrel, but by midday Monday had risen back to about where they were previously — about $110 per barrel.

Meanwhile, the White House announced Monday that the G7 leaders would move to punish Russia by enacting more sanctions and tariffs on Russian goods. The countries are also expected to commit to sending more economic assistance to Ukraine to help the country meet budgetary shortfalls. 

Source: TEST FEED1