Archive by Author

Biden hedges inflation backlash with focus on Fed

President Biden’s relationship with the Federal Reserve has come under the spotlight as the White House touts the central bank’s leadership of the fight against inflation. 

Biden met with Fed Chair Jerome Powell at the White House on Tuesday as the administration touts its efforts to curb rising prices. The meeting came one day after the White House laid out a plan for fighting inflation focused on allowing the Fed to act without interference from the administration.

“My plan … starts with a simple proposition: respect the Fed, respect the Fed’s independence, which I have done and will continue to do,” Biden said in the Oval Office ahead of his meeting with Powell, who was sworn in last week for a second term leading the central bank.

The president added he would give Fed leaders, most of whom he appointed to the bank,”the space they need to do their job” and “not interfere with their critically important work.”

While Biden did not specifically mention the Fed’s ongoing series of interest rate hikes, the president appeared to send an unmistakable message of support for the central bank’s attempts to slow price growth.

The Fed has already raised its baseline interest rate range by 0.75 percentage points, is on track to hike rates by another 1 percentage point before the end of the summer, and could be forced to go even higher if supply chain issues and the war in Russia add new shocks to the economy.

Experts say that Biden’s emphasis on the Fed’s independence is meant to signal he is serious about fighting inflation even if it means a politically inconvenient slowdown in job gains and economic growth before the midterm elections.

“From the White House’s perspective, I think it’s an all-hands-on-deck situation,” said Derek Tang, co-founder and economist at research firm Monetary Policy Analytics, in a Tuesday interview.

“The Democrats are facing a very precarious situation with the midterms given their poor polling on inflation but also the economy,” he continued. “The general mood is very poor, despite the fact that the economy is quite strong.”

Biden’s approval ratings and consumer confidence have both plunged throughout the year despite a gain of 8.5 million jobs, rapid wage growth and sturdy consumer spending since the president took office.

Republicans have zeroed in on high inflation as they campaign to capture majorities in the House and Senate, giving Democrats little time to make a dent in rising prices.

As the Fed hikes rates and households and businesses face higher borrowing costs, firms may have to charge lower prices for goods and services. But if supply chain issues and other obstacles beyond the Fed’s control keep forcing prices higher, the bank could tip the economy into recession as it raises rates to keep pace.

Biden’s approach distinguishes him from previous presidents, including former President Trump, who pressured the central bank not to hike interest rates for their own political aims.

Former Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan all also pushed their respective Fed chairman against raising interest rates during their tenures, laying the groundwork for the inflation crisis of the late 1970s and early 80s.

But by summoning the Fed chair to prove his mettle on inflation, Biden is following in the footsteps of his predecessors with a careful political hedge: using the bully pulpit to boost pressure on the Fed while deflecting political consequences from the White House.

“It’s interdependence. The president and the White House always need someone to blame. The Fed is a natural target for blame,” said Sarah Binder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-author of “The Myth of Independence: How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve.”

“At the same time, the Fed does need strong political support — probably public support, if not behind the scenes support — to know that they’re going to be supported when they raise rates, because everybody has to believe that the Fed is going to do what it takes.”

Powell has pledged for months the Fed will keep hiking rates until inflation is on its way down toward the bank’s 2 percent annual target, a fight he said could bring “pain” to the U.S. economy.

He has also expressed deep admiration for former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, who led the bank to induce a recession in the early 1980s to bring inflation under control. Though inflation is lower now and the economy is much stronger than it was before the 1980s shock, Powell has suggested he would lead by his Volcker’s example lest inflation spiral higher.

Biden has sought to embrace the medicine for inflation without the potential side effects, but Fed experts say his attempt to put the central bank in front of the inflation fight may do little to shield him from political consequences.

“While it is intuitively true that the Fed is independent and the president cannot tell it what to do, he is the lead figure for the economy to whom most Americans look,” said Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics. She cited former President Carter losing his 1980 reelection bid to Reagan despite his appointment of Volcker, whose attempts to curb inflation did not prevent Reagan from winning another term in 1984.

Biden has also appointed four of the six members of the Fed board, including his renomination of Powell, elevation of Fed Vice Chair Lael Brainard, and additions of Fed Governors Lisa Cook and Philip Jefferson. 

“They’ll want to call it the Powell Fed, but Republicans will want to call it the Biden Fed,” Binder said.

“It’s a little harder for Biden to blame the Fed if he can be accused of handpicking Fed officials.”

Source: TEST FEED1

In shift, White House starts to talk up economy

President Biden and his administration have shifted gears toward a month-long campaign to talk up the economy to show the White House is prioritizing inflation by pushing the positives about what it has delivered – but the plan may come with some risk.

Officials made the rounds on television on Tuesday to tout the administration’s vision a day after The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by the president who laid out his plan to tackle inflation, which has hit a 40-year high. 

The effort spanning the month of June will see Biden and his aides traveling the country to promote the White House’s economic strategy and Biden will deliver remarks on the May jobs report this Friday.

But the plan is not without risks for the president, who has seen his approval ratings mired in the low-40 percent range largely because of dissatisfaction with the direction of the economy. There have also been warnings by economists that another recession is possible in the near future.

The White House, however, is keeping a stringent focus on touting its economic progress, without acknowledging it was perhaps slow to respond to early indications of inflation, which it called “temporary” nearly one year ago.  Biden also wants to contrast his plans with those of Republicans, namely Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) who laid out an economic agenda most GOP lawmakers reject.

“I think what this president has tried to do in every stage… is to effectively communicate to the American people where we are, to give it to people straight, but also to lay out clearly his plans, his priorities in terms of what he wants to see done,” National Economic Council Director Brian Deese told reporters.

In the op-ed, Biden outlined his plan for addressing inflation, though it did not contain any new proposals. He met Monday with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell in the Oval Office in a rare face-to-face that underscored the White House’s efforts to put a spotlight the economy.

In the meeting, which also included Deese and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Biden urged respect for the Fed and said his job as president was to nominate highly qualified people for the board and “give them the space they need to do their job, not interfere with their critically important work.”

Biden has repeatedly sought to contrast his push for tax credits for families, lowering the cost of child care and investments in clean energy with the plan released by Scott earlier this year that called for cutting social safety net benefits and ensuring all Americans paid taxes, regardless of income bracket.

The president in the op-ed also took a jab at former President Trump when he noted, without naming him, that his predecessor “demeaned the Fed.” 

Biden acknowledged that the Federal Reserve “has a primary responsibility to control inflation,” making goods like gas more affordable for families during what the White House is labeling a “transition period.” He also once again linked reducing the federal deficit to lowering price pressures, a relationship many economists believe has weakened in recent decades.

Another trouble spot may be Biden tying congressional Republicans to Scott’s tax plan because other GOP lawmakers have either distanced themselves from or declined to embrace it.

The historically right-leaning pro-business lobbying group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce applauded Biden’s renewed focus on inflation on Tuesday but suggested other tools to combat inflation such as cutting tariffs.

The chamber also called for a new five-year leasing plan and approval of pipelines and export facilities to reduce energy costs. It also wants to see the administration addressing the workforce shortage by increasing legal immigration, none of which Biden laid out as part of this plan. 

Biden and advisers have argued the U.S. is in a better position to combat inflation than other countries because of the strong labor market, marked by a decline in unemployment, and household balance sheets that have American families increasing their savings and decreasing their debt.

“Part of the reason why we have seen savings elevated and we have seen credit card payments and other debt service payments come down to historical levels is because of the strength of the labor market. So that positions us relatively well,” Deese told reporters on Tuesday.

But Deese also acknowledged there was “uncertainty” when it comes to how long historic inflation will remain, adding that making progress toward lowering costs will take time.

Polls have repeatedly shown Biden’s approval rating tank when it comes to his handling of the economy, despite the reported decreases in debt, increasing in savings and skyrocketing consumer spending.

An NBC News poll published earlier this month found just 33 percent of adults said they approved of Biden’s job handling the economy, while just 23 percent said they approved of his handling of the issue of cost of living specifically.

But the White House has repeatedly seized on pieces of good economic news, an approach similar to the Trump administration’s promotion of record stock market gains even as other economic indicators were not as strong.

Biden and multiple aides have in recent days highlighted a report that the U.S. economy may grow faster than China’s economy for the first time in nearly 50 years. They point to a strong labor market and higher savings among Americans as signs of a strong foundation.

But attempts to boast about aspects of the economy risk falling flat with voters ahead of the 2022 midterms, which is currently boding badly for Democrats, at a time when gas prices are at record highs with few signs of abating and supply chains continue to struggle in part because of war in Ukraine. 

“Under Biden, inflation and gas prices have only gone up and families are struggling to afford basic needs as a result,” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement. “Despite what Biden and the Democrats say, the economy is declining steadily on their watch as families can’t afford everything from gas to groceries.”

Biden in Japan last week disputed the idea that a recession is inevitable for the U.S. economy, but he acknowledged lowering prices would not happen overnight.

“This is going to be a haul. This is going to take some time,” he said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden, Democrats out of sync in pushing assault weapons ban

President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are calling for bans on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines but they’re out of step with members of their own party who don’t want to vote on those hot-button issues and instead want to focus on more modest reforms.  

Activists would like to see Biden take executive action to curb gun violence but the president said over the weekend that he can’t do much by himself, kicking the issue to congressional Democrats as he has other elements of his agenda.  

Democratic negotiators in the Senate, however, aren’t talking about a ban on assault-style rifles, like the AR-15 that a gunman used to kill 21 people in Uvalde, Texas, or a ban on high-capacity magazines, like the 30-round clips the shooter took to Robb Elementary School.  

They’re focused on what has a better chance of getting Republican support, like a proposal to expand background checks or encourage states to set up red flag laws take guns away from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others.  

“It’s really a study of incrementalism, I think that’s what [Sen.] Chris Murphy [D-Conn.] is doing,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University, referring to the lead Democratic negotiator on gun control. 

“He’s come to the realization that if he leads with an assault weapons ban, it’s not going to go anywhere. To get the 10 Republicans you need to break the filibuster, you can’t lead with a strong right hand. You’ve got to spar a little bit,” he said.  

Murphy says he wants to get something done that saves lives, even if it doesn’t directly respond to the recent mass shootings in Buffalo and Texas, where in each incident 18-year-old shooters deployed AR-15-style rifles.  

“Republicans are not willing to support everything that I support, like banning assault weapons. But I really think that we could pass something that saves lives and breaks this logjam that we’ve had for 30 years,” Murphy said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday.  

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who’s in charge of protecting the Senate Democratic majority in November, said he agrees with the strategy of focusing on proposals that can pick up bipartisan support and get passed into law. 

Alex Barrio, the director of advocacy for gun violence prevention policy at the Center for American Progress, pointed out that keeping a proposed assault weapons ban on the back burner keeps Democratic divisions out of the spotlight.  

“There are also Democrats that do not support an assault weapons ban. We know that [Sen.] Joe Manchin [D-W.Va.] is one of them. That being said, keeping off the table for now makes sense,” he said.  

Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.) voted with Manchin and every Senate Republican against Feinstein’s proposal to ban assault weapons during the Senate’s last extended gun-control debate in 2013.  

Barrio said he supports Murphy’s cautious approach to negotiating with Republicans but added that if the talks fail to produce a deal, Democrats should force a vote on an assault weapons ban.  

“We understand why they’re not pushing it,” he said of the assault-weapons ban. “Sen. Murphy is in a good-faith negotiation to see what sort of package is possible to get Republican votes.” 

“We know for a fact that no Republican is going to vote for it,” he said of the assault weapons ban.  

“If Republicans pull back from these negotiations … if the Republicans refuse to do anything and they decide at the end that they’re going to be 50 votes ‘no’ on everything,” even proposals to encourage red state laws, “then I do think the assault weapons does need to go on the floor, there does need to be a vote,” Barrio said.   

He argued that public opinion is behind Democrats who want to ban assault weapons.  

“It is true, over two-thirds of this country oppose the sale of assault weapons and yet a majority of our senators and probably a majority of our congress people do not share that value,” he said.  

Christian Heyne, vice president of policy at Brady, a group that advocates for gun control, said “I certainly think the responsible call to action right now is to call for an assault weapons-ban vote.” 

“These are weapons with tactical features designed for the battlefield to make these weapons more lethal, which is why they are the connective tissue between so many of these mass-casualty shootings,” he said.  

“When you hear about the fear that law enforcement had in having to go up against that weapon at the school, it shows what a chilling effect these weapons have,” he added.  

Police officers in Uvalde have come under criticism for waiting more than hour outside the Robb Elementary School before confronting the shooter. Eventually members from a specialized Border Patrol unit entered the classroom behind a protective shield and shot the killer.  

Thirty-seven members of the Senate Democratic caucus have co-sponsored Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) proposed Assault Weapons Ban.  

Two Democrats in tough re-election races, Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), haven’t signed onto Feinstein’s bill but two other vulnerable Democrats —  Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) — have done so.  

Biden has taken a more aggressive approach than Senate Democratic negotiators, repeatedly expressing support for banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines while visiting the families of victims in Buffalo last month, and on the South Lawn of the White House Monday.  

“I know that it makes no sense to be able to purchase something that can fire up to 300 rounds,” he said Monday, while in Buffalo last month he noted that Congress passed a 10-year assault weapons ban while he was in the Senate.  

Harris has been even more direct in calling for an assault weapons ban.  

“We are not sitting around, waiting to figure out what the solution looks like,” she said Saturday at a funeral service for one of the Buffalo victims. “We know what works on this. It includes — let’s have an assault weapons ban.”  

Baker, the political scientist, called Biden’s and Harris’s calls for an assault weapons ban “ornamental.”  

“It’s catering to the base and there is built into that an understanding that Senate Democrats aren’t going to follow in lockstep but it doesn’t damage them to have the president and vice president talking about it,” he said.  

“It’s important for the base to be satisfied with what the president is saying and that individual senators are given latitude to fashion their own policy,” he added.  

Polls show broad public support for an assault weapons ban, even though it has hardly any Republican support on Capitol Hill.  

A Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted immediately after the shooting in Uvalde found that 67 percent of registered voters strongly or somewhat support an assault-style weapons ban and 69 percent of respondents favored banning high-capacity ammunition magazines.  

Biden on Monday said he’s not involved in the negotiations, telling reporters that he deliberately did not engage in debate with Republicans before he visited Uvalde on Sunday.  

But on Tuesday the president signaled he planned to get more involved in what’s happening on Capitol Hill.  

“I will meet with the Congress on guns, I promise you,” Biden told reporters during a meeting with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern at the White House. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Handful of House GOP lawmakers open to assault rifle ban

A trickle of House GOP lawmakers have expressed support for or openness to banning assault-style rifles in recent years and in wake of the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas last week. 

As a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Senate discuss potential legislative action on gun violence in wake of the massacre, the House GOP members’ positions show a small yet notable contingent of Republicans in favor of some type of gun restrictions despite the party being largely averse to gun control measures.

Two Republicans, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) and Rep. Chris Jacobs (N.Y.), expressed openness to such restrictions in the aftermath of the Uvalde massacre, which left 19 elementary school children and two adult teachers dead.

​​“I have opposed a ban fairly recently. I think I’m open to a ban now,” Kinzinger said on CNN Sunday when he was asked why private citizens need “weapons of war.” 

“It’s going to depend on what it looks like because there’s a lot of nuances on what constitutes certain things, but I’m getting to the point where I have to wonder,” Kinzinger said. “Maybe somebody to own one, maybe you need an extra license. Maybe you need extra training.”

Jacobs said in a press conference and during a Buffalo News interview last week that he would support such a ban, but not confiscation of such weapons.

“If an assault weapons ban bill came to the floor that would ban something like an AR-15, I would vote for it,” Jacobs said.

The bipartisan Senate group that formed last week focused on two main proposals outside an assault weapons ban: expanding background checks and “red flag” legislation to bar those deemed a danger to themselves and others from possessing firearms.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 expired in 2004, and reinstating an updated version of that has been a longtime priority for Democrats. Republicans have overwhelmingly resisted such measures – with a handful of exceptions.

A few other House Republicans have previously expressed support for banning military or assault-style weapons, usually after a mass shooting with a weapon of that type hit their own states. They have not been particularly vocal about their positions in the aftermath of the Uvalde massacre.

In the aftermath of the Parkland, Fla. high school shooting in 2018 that killed 17 people and injured 17 others, Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) announced support for banning assault weapons.

“The exact definition of assault weapon will need to be determined. But we should all be able to agree that the civilian version of the very deadly weapon that the Army issued to me should certainly qualify,” Mast wrote in a February 2018 New York Times op-ed.

Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) did the same after the Dayton, Ohio shooting in 2019 in which a gunman killed nine people and wounded 17.

“I strongly support the Second Amendment, but we must prevent mentally unstable people from terrorizing our communities with military style weapons. I will support legislation that prevents the sale of military style weapons to civilians, a magazine limit, and red flag legislation,” Turner said in an August 2019 statement the day after the Dayton shooting. “The carnage these military style weapons are able to produce when available to the wrong people is intolerable.”

And Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) signaled an openness to banning such weapons in a statement soon after the Parkland shooting in 2018.

“All options must be on the table, including comprehensive background checks, a bump stock ban, prohibiting the sale of military assault weapons and full funding for gun violence research in a comprehensive manner that could have prevented tragedies like this,” Fitzpatrick said in a statement.

Polling from last year suggested that Republican voters are not expressing the same openness to an assault weapons ban. The Pew Research Center found that support on banning assault-style weapons among Republican and Republican-leaning adults fell from 54 percent in 2017 to 37 percent in 2021, as support slightly increased among all voters from 80 percent to 83 percent.

However, attitudes may have shifted in the aftermath of the Uvalde shooting. A Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted last week found 49 percent of Republican registered voters strongly or somewhat support banning assault-style weapons, with 41 percent somewhat or strongly opposing such a ban.

Gun rights advocates often argue that the terms “assault weapon” or “assault rifle” are materially meaningless and purely political terms. 

The National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm website defines “assault weapon” as “Any weapon used in an assault (see WEAPON).”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group for the firearms industry that is also involved in lobbying against gun control legislation, asserts that the term assault rifle only applies to fully-automatic machine guns, which have long been outlawed.

“If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an ‘assault weapon,’ then they’ve been duped by an agenda,” the NSSF website says. “​​The only real way to define what is an ‘assault weapon’ is politically, as in how any given law chooses to define the term — this is why the states that have banned this category of semiautomatic firearms have done so with very different definitions.”

But in various state laws, “assault” weapons are defined by features, such as detachable magazines along with a pistol grip, or by specific model of weapon such as the AR-15.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2021, which has not received a vote in the current Congress, would ban 205 weapons by name; weapons that can utilize a magazine that is not fixed ammunition and also have any “military characteristics” like a pistol grip, telescoping stock, or threaded barrel; and magazines and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 similarly banned certain models of AR-15s and semiautomatic rifles with features like a pistol grip and bayonet mount.

Source: TEST FEED1

Senate Judiciary to hold hearing on domestic terrorism following Buffalo shooting

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing next week on domestic terrorism several weeks after an 18-year-old suspect killed 10 people and wounded three others in a predominantly Black neighborhood in Buffalo, N.Y.

The hearing, which is titled, “Examining the ‘Metastasizing’ Domestic Terrorism Threat After the Buffalo Attack” and will be held next Tuesday morning, will exaine “the continued threat posed by violent white supremacists and other extremists, including those who have embraced the so-called ‘Great Replacement’ conspiracy theory, as well as the federal government’s response to this threat,” according to a committee press release.

There was no immediate information regarding witnesses slated to speak at the hearing.

The development comes as close to a dozen people were killed at a supermarket earlier this month; eleven of 13 people either wounded or killed were Black. 

The suspect reportedly espoused the racist “great replacement theory,” which claims that there is an effort underway through immigration to replace white Americans with people of color. The shooting is being probed as a racially motivated hate crime by officials. 

Following the Buffalo shooting, Attorney General Merrick Garland said his department would do more to combat hate crime in the U.S.

“Unfortunately, we are gathered today in the shadow, in the wake of another horrific attack,” Garland said earlier this month. “We commit to using every resource of the Department of Justice to prevent these kinds of acts of hate, to hold accountable those who commit them and to support the communities that are damaged and terrorized by them.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Kellyanne Conway responds to Trump's criticism, calls him a 'great girl boss'

Former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway responded to criticism from former President Trump following the publication of her book earlier this month, saying in an interview on Tuesday that he was a “great girl boss.”

Conway published a memoir earlier this month, called “Here’s the Deal,” in which she said that she “may have been the first person Trump trusted in his inner circle who told him that he had come up short this time” regarding his 2020 presidential election loss.

Trump disputed the memoir’s contents, issuing a statement on Truth Social, his new social media website, that she “never told me that she thought we lost the election.”

“If she had, I wouldn’t have dealt with her any longer — she would have been wrong — could go back to her crazy husband,” he added.

The former president has vigorously disputed that he lost the last presidential election, baselessly claiming that the fraud had been committed. 

During an interview on “CBS Mornings” on Tuesday, Conway was asked to respond to Trump’s remarks.

“So that excerpt in the book really speaks to the president coming up short before the Dec. 14 certification by the electors, and I had talked to the president several — many times between Election Day and Dec. 14 and saying, ‘You have every right to do what Al Gore did, what others have done, which is if you are going to go find evidence of malfeasance, shenanigans, theft … you have every right to do that with your legal team and present it,’” she said. 

“And we all know what happened. They tried. They presented it. The election was certified for Biden-Harris, but other people had another idea, to blow past Dec. 14 and look at Jan. 6 as another alternative way.”

Conway avoided criticizing Trump in her response, calling him “protective” and a “great girl boss.”

The former Trump official, however, was pressed again on Trump’s disputing her characterization of the events following the 2020 election. 

“I told him that they did not … with Dec. 14 coming up, it didn’t look like they had produced the evidence needed to stop the certification of the election which had happened,” she said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Inaccurate oxygen level readings delayed COVID-19 therapies for Black, Hispanic patients: study

COVID-19 patients in racial and ethnic minority groups were delayed in receiving therapies because of an inaccurate reading of oxygen saturation levels, according to a new study.

The study, published Tuesday in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that “overestimation of arterial oxygen saturation levels by pulse oximetry” in COVID-19 patients from racial and ethnic minority groups contributed to “unrecognized or delayed recognition of eligibility to receive COVID-19 therapies.”

“Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to experience unrecognized and delayed recognition of eligibility to receive COVID-19 therapy,” the study also said, adding that such disparities could be the reason for differing COVID-19 outcomes between races.

Throughout the pandemic, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has shown that Black and Hispanic Americans were disproportionately more likely to die of COVID-19. 

In October 2020, the CDC said 24 percent of COVID-19 deaths between May and August of that year were Hispanic or Latino, and 19 percent were Black.

But the U.S. population is just 18 percent Hispanic and 12.5 percent Black.

The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning for pulse oximeters, which work by shining a red light through a patient’s fingertip, last February. saying that they “may be less accurate in people with dark skin pigmentation.”

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is informing patients and health care providers that although pulse oximetry is useful for estimating blood oxygen levels, pulse oximeters have limitations and a risk of inaccuracy under certain circumstances that should be considered,” the FDA said at the time.

Source: TEST FEED1

NATO secretary general to meet with top US officials

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will meet with top U.S. officials beginning on Wednesday, close to two weeks after top leaders from Finland and Sweden met with President Biden about joining the military alliance.

Stoltenberg will meet with Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Wednesday and the two will hold a press conference, according to a press release from NATO. He will make joint remarks with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Thursday.

The NATO secretary general is also expected to meet with national security adviser Jake Sullivan, according to the NATO release.

Biden earlier this month met with Finnish President Sauli Niinistö and Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, whose countries have formally applied for NATO membership after the Russian invasion shifted the nations’ stances on joining the alliance. 

Biden voiced his support for both joining the military alliance, saying “Finland and Sweden make NATO stronger.” 

Stoltenberg also met with Finnish and Swedish officials earlier this month after the countries submitted their applications. All 30 NATO nations must agree on NATO membership for both, though Turkey has objected to their memberships.

Last Friday, Blinken said the U.S. was “confident” that both countries would be able to join the military alliance.

“…there is a very strong consensus in NATO for the admission of Finland and Sweden, and I remain confident that we will work through this process swiftly and that things will move forward with both countries,” he said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden writes US not seeking Putin ouster

President Biden said in an op-ed published Tuesday that the United States would not try to oust Russian President Vladimir Putin from his position of power because of his invasion of Ukraine.  

“We do not seek a war between NATO and Russia. As much as I disagree with Mr. Putin, and find his actions an outrage, the United States will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow,” Biden wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Tuesday evening. 

“So long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian forces,” the president wrote, standing firm in his pledge not to send U.S. troops to fight directly in the conflict.  

Biden made waves when he declared in Warsaw at the end of March that Putin “cannot remain in power.” While the White House sought to clean up the unplanned remark by saying the U.S. was not seeking regime change in Russia, Biden stood by his comments and said days later he was expressing “moral outrage.”  

The passage in the op-ed was a renewed effort by the White House to make clear it is not seeking regime change in Moscow.  

In the Times piece, Biden also announced plans to send more advanced rocket systems to Ukraine, saying that the U.S. goal was to ensure a “democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine.”  

Biden also vowed that he would not pressure Ukraine’s government “in private or public” to make territorial concessions to Moscow in order to bring about an end to the war, which will enter its 100^th day at the end of the week.  

“It would be wrong and contrary to well-settled principles to do so,” Biden wrote. He said the U.S. would support Ukraine’s hand at the negotiating table with Russia to bring an end to the conflict.  

While the U.S. has not sent forces into Ukraine to fight the Russians, it has provided substantial support to the Ukrainian military in the form of advanced weaponry. The U.S. has sent billions of dollars in security assistance to Ukraine and is readying another $700 million package.  

Congress has approved $40 billion in security, economic and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine to help sustain the country over the coming months.  

Source: TEST FEED1