Categories Uncategorized

Democrats’ union fixation harms workers

There are as many versions of the American Dream as there are Americans willing to dream them. As such, our labor laws should empower the nation’s workers to chart their own course to prosperity, not bind them into restrictive, one-size-fits-all arrangements which reduce their options and limit their potential.

Unfortunately, Washington Democrats are fixated on dragging us back to an outdated model which would strip workers of their freedoms and force every American worker to either join a union or pay dues to a union in order to keep their jobs.

If this sounds like an exaggeration, it’s not. This provision is central to the Democrats’ Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which seeks to eliminate the Right-to-Work laws currently on the books in 27 states — including my home state of Georgia.

Given the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (and the subsequent growth of the gig economy), it is clear that workers want more flexibility in their work arrangements, not less.

That’s why I’ve teamed up with Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) to introduce the Employee Rights Act. Our legislation defends workers from union intimidation, protects small businesses from harmful regulations, and it preserves the unique arrangements of gig workers, independent contractors, entrepreneurs, and anyone else seeking the flexibility to make their dreams a reality on their own terms.

While the PRO Actonly serves the narrow interests of union bosses and their allies in Congress, the Employee Rights Actprovides a roadmap for an economy that puts workers first.

You may wonder why Washington Democrats are pushing so hard for this proposal at a time when union membership is dwindling. Truthfully, it has more to do with politics than policy.

Whenever a union employee receives their paycheck, a certain amount is deducted as part of their membership dues. Current labor laws allow union bosses to donate this money to support political candidates and advocacy groups, all without the worker’s approval or knowledge.

In the last 10 years, unions have donated more than $1 billion of workers’ dues to political campaigns. On average, 88 percent of these funds went to support Democrat candidates, even though roughly 43 percent of union households vote for Republicans.

To the politicians pushing the PRO Act, the calculus is simple: more union members equal more money to pad their campaign coffers — never mind the egregious privacy concerns this raises.

Imagine for a moment that your workplace started collecting money for a company picnic. Those who didn’t want to come to the picnic had no obligation to contribute, but those attending were asked to donate money to help cover the cost. Then imagine you discover the person in charge of that money was using it for their own benefit. Would you still contribute?

Now imagine the company forced you to contribute whether you were going to the picnic or not. If you refused, you could be fired or have your personal information shared with people who would harass and intimidate you until you gave in.

That is the reality that Washington Democrats want to impose on every working American in their PRO Act.

By contrast, under the Employee Rights Act, unions would be required to obtain members’ opt-in permission before using their membership dues for anything other than collective bargaining. This simple change would better protect employees and curb intimidation by union organizers.

The Biden administration has also pursued a radical regulatory agenda which seeks to strip independent contractors of their status, redefining them as traditional employees — a provision pulled straight from the PRO Act. In reality, independent contractors choose that status for a reason. Often, it has to do with the increased flexibility that such an arrangement provides.

While the PRO Act would codify this harmful rule, the Employee Rights Act takes a commonsense approach that lets independent contractors retain their status while also allowing companies to offer benefits and incentives to independent contractors. 

Let me be clear: I support Americans who want to join a union. But that’s a decision to be made bythem, not for them. Moreover, as this is a personal decision, the Employee Rights Act would protect workers’ privacy by allowing employees the right to decide whether they want their personal information shared with a union during an organizing campaign.

Our workforce is constantly evolving and modernizing to meet the needs of tomorrow. It’s time our labor laws do the same, rather than doubling down on an outdated model which the vast majority of workers have long since abandoned.

The forward-looking provisions contained in the Employee Rights Act will pave the way for our economic recovery by empowering the American worker to choose a career that best suits them. 

Rick Allen is a member of Congress representing Georgia’s 12^th District in the United States House of Representatives.

Source: TEST FEED1

Zelensky pitches investors on Ukraine while virtually ringing NYSE bell

Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky virtually rang the opening bell of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on Tuesday as he asked investors to support Ukraine in national projects and in its defense against the ongoing Russian invasion.

Zelensky officially signaled the market was open for the day as he pitched to investors on the world’s largest stock exchange, requesting they support his promotional campaign looking to attract investors on the nation’s projects.

“We have united the whole world around our struggle for freedom, we are liberating Ukrainian territory from the Russian army,” Zelensky said. “We are giving you and your companies the opportunity to work with us.

“Invest in Ukraine — this will be your victory,” the Ukrainian president added.

The program, Advantage Ukraine, includes a wide array of projects seeking financial investors, including for national defense, infrastructure, natural resources and in the pharmaceutical industry. It’s part of Ukraine’s push to rebuild, establish a stronger corporate network and attract foreign investors.

Advantage Ukraine has already won over key investors, including Microsoft and Google parent company Alphabet.

Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Alphabet, expressed support Tuesday for “the launch of Advantage Ukraine and the positive vision it lays out for Ukraine’s economic future.”

“As we continue to help support Ukraine through our platforms and tools — and counter dangerous misinformation online — it’s important that we also support Ukrainian businesses working to sustain and grow their economy,” Pichai said in a statement.

Zelensky’s pitch comes as Ukraine launches a large counterattack against Russian forces that invaded his country in late February.

Ukrainian defenders plan to strike deep in territory seized by Russia in their first major offensive, planning to take out arms depots, cut off supply lines and destroy command and control posts.

The offensive is being launched with the support of U.S. aid and equipment, including High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS).

Ukraine has already pushed back Russian troops from the west and the capitol region of Kyiv, with much of the fighting now concentrated in the eastern region.

Zelensky, primarily speaking to American investors, said Tuesday that Ukraine is “fighting for everything you have.”

“We stand so that every Ukrainian will enjoy all the manifestations of freedom available for a free person in a democratic society,” Zelensky said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Tilda Swinton debuts yellow hair in honor of Ukraine at Venice Film Festival

Tilda Swinton is showing her support for Ukraine with a vivid new hair color inspired by the war-torn country.

The “Eternal Daughter” star debuted a bright yellow hairstyle while appearing at the Venice Film Festival this week.

“It’s my honor to wear half of the Ukrainian flag,” the 61-year-old British actor said of her look at a news conference, Variety reported Tuesday. 

The blue and yellow colors of Ukraine’s flag “represent the country’s role as Europe’s breadbasket,” according to the U.K.’s Flag Institute.

It’s not the first time a performer has made a sartorial political statement on the red carpet since Russia’s deadly invasion of Ukraine in February.

At the 94th annual Academy Awards in March, several high-profile figures, including actor Jamie Lee Curtis, director Tyler Perry and songwriter Diane Warren, sported blue ribbons that read “#WithRefugees” in a show of solidarity with Ukrainians. 

“The arts can be transformative agents of change in conflict,” Curtis said at the time.

Source: TEST FEED1

Who benefits from America’s enormously complex broadband infrastructure plans?

Even the most dedicated analyst can be forgiven for not understanding the scope of government efforts to promote U.S. broadband (sometimes called “high speed”) internet. Although President Biden frequently reiterates his commitment to every American being connected to high speed internet, even basic definitions of high speed internet vary considerably, much less such key concepts as who is/is not, already connected or which technologies are/are not sufficient for broadband internet? This is important because the Federal government has already spent around $44 billion to enable universal broadband and is projected to spend over $100 billion more (to say nothing of separate State, industry, local and charitable spending.)

Some of this funding has resulted from closings during the pandemic, when schools, colleges, libraries, clinics, theaters and offices were closed and videoconferencing/streaming replaced nearly everything; however, some of the push for universal broadband goes back decades to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which for the first time expanded the Universal Service Fund to include the “Information Superhighway.”

While assessments vary considerably, the GAO reported in May that 133 separate programs managed by 15 Federal agencies provide funding to support broadband connectivity, not including independent State programs. These programs provide funds for everything from a basic home broadband connection to subsidies for tribal/rural libraries. Four agencies, with distinct mandates, support the bulk of these programs: The FCC and the Departments of Commerce/NTIA, Agriculture/RUS and Treasury/CCPF, with lesser roles played by HHS, DOT, HUD and others.  

Estimates and definitions of how many Americans currently have broadband also vary considerably, but the Pew Research Center asserts that in 2021 around 77 percent of Americans already used broadband in their homes. According to this same report, another 15 percent of Americans say they don’t have broadband at home, but use a smartphone instead. While smartphone-based internet is not the same thing as a fiber optic cable to one’s home, in some applications they are interchangeable. This will increase as urban smartphone users migrate to new, high-speed 5G cellular services at home and drop wired broadband.

The areas least served by broadband are rural — and especially tribal — for the primary reason that it’s expensive to run cables or build cellphone towers when homes, work, hospitals and schools are located far apart or mountains separate them. Historically, these areas have had limited wired (or smartphone-based) broadband, although geostationary (GEO) satellite-based broadband internet connections have technically been available in rural areas for decades. Since GEOs require users to have large, outdoor dish-antennas pointed toward the southern horizon and the satellites’ high altitudes result in a quarter-second signal delay, GEOs have been used mainly for point-to-point telecommunications, broadcast-type television or ships/aircraft at sea, not rural broadband. 

A new generation of low Earth orbiting (LEO) satellites designed mainly for broadband has emerged over the past decade. LEOs rely on an enormous number of small satellites constantly passing overhead at lower altitudes. LEO users deploy smaller, flat antennas pointed upwards and experience comparatively modest signal delays. But the larger the number of LEO broadband users on the ground, the larger the number of small satellites needed to accommodate all those transmissions, so many operators plan constellations of many thousands of satellites, potentially creating international conflicts and congestion in the skies. 

The Congressional Research Service identifies four principal U.S. LEO broadband service providers, of which Space X’s Starlink reportedly already has 500,000 broadband users linked to 2,200 small LEOs. While the Trump FCC approved a grant of $885 million to Starlink for mostly rural U.S. broadband, the Commission under the Biden administration reversed that grant, explaining that “Starlink’s technology has real promise … But the question before us was whether to publicly subsidize its still developing technology for consumer broadband.”

As if jurisdiction, goals, required features, necessary funding levels and appropriate technologies were not complex enough, for many in the broadband policy debates, the core issue is not the universal availability of broadband, but its affordability or its availability and affordability for targeted populations in greatest need. Targeted subsidies and outreach are important tools for these goals, although, paradoxically, Pew estimates that 7 percent of Americans who have broadband don’t use it.     

The U.S. broadband effort is massive and complex. Much of this confusing intricacy is unavoidable given the Federal structure, size and complexity of the United States and the fact that, today, almost everything in education, health care, farming, transportation, defense, employment, shopping, entertainment, civic affairs, the arts, regulation, banking and much more may involve broadband.  

Adding to this multi-layered complexity of goals, jurisdictions, technologies, terrains and commercial competition are rapidly changing technologies, independent State programs and, of course, politics. The potential for duplication, abuse and waste is sizeable. Setting clear priorities and goals and determining whether America is spending the right amount of the public’s money for the right broadband investments and subsidies is as important for those in need of broadband service as it is for taxpayers.

In 2020, the Congress enacted the Broadband Interagency Coordination Act requiring Commerce/NTIA, Agriculture/RUS and the FCC to better coordinate their separate broadband funding activities, and in June of 2021 these three agencies entered into an agreement to do so. In 2022, they entered into a further coordination agreement with Treasury (which provides broadband grants under Coronavirus Relief and State and Local Recovery programs.) And various, larger multiagency groups have been created to further interagency coordination. These are important steps to give some direction to a $100 billion sprawling, multiagency, Federal-State effort; but results will be measured when agencies cut back on something they would prefer to do in order to avoid duplication or waste.

In the end, the greatest beneficiaries of our $100+ billion universal broadband commitment are not just the eventual recipients of broadband service but the providers of internet-based services, including internet platforms, merchants, banks, streaming services, messaging services and many more. Entirely new markets will be opened for those who use the “Information Superhighway” for their business; their direct contributions to expanding universal affordable broadband remains less clear.

Roger Cochetti provides consulting and advisory services in Washington, D.C.  He was a senior executive with Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT) from 1981 through 1994. He also directed internet public policy for IBM from 1994 through 2000 and later served as Senior Vice-President & Chief Policy Officer for VeriSign and Group Policy Director for CompTIA. He served on the State Department’s Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy during the Bush and Obama administrations, has testified on internet policy issues numerous times and served on advisory committees to the FTC and various UN agencies. He is the author of the Mobile Satellite Communications Handbook.

Source: TEST FEED1

Tech consultants who backed 2020 fraud claims repeatedly visited Georgia elections office, video shows

Two technology consultants visited a Georgia county’s elections office on multiple occasions in the aftermath of a security breach of voting equipment there, surveillance video shows. 

Multiple media outlets reported on Tuesday that Doug Logan and Jeffrey Lenberg visited the Coffee County election office twice in January 2021 after data forensics experts met with Cathy Latham, the then-chairwoman of the county GOP, on Jan. 7 of that year. 

Lenberg visited additional times by himself. 

The visits from Logan and Lenberg have previously been unreported. 

Attorney Sidney Powell, who worked on former President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, reportedly recruited the firm that employs the data forensics experts, SullivanStrickler, to copy software and data from Dominion Voting Systems machines that the county used. 

The Washington Post reported that the security footage only shows the exterior of the election office. What Logan and Lenberg did inside is uncertain. 

The two consultants have been involved in pursuing voting machines in multiple states, and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) has requested a special prosecutor decide whether to back charging them for allegedly trying to illegally access election equipment in three counties in the state last year.

Logan and Lenberg could not be reached by The Hill for comment. 

The surveillance footage was publicized as a result of a subpoena issued to Georgia elections officials in a lawsuit filed over the state’s election security. A spokesperson for the Coalition for Good Governance, one of the plaintiffs in the case, did not immediately return a request from The Hill for comment. 

Logan is the former CEO of Cyber Ninjas, a security firm that conducted an audit of election ballots in Arizona after being hired by Republican state lawmakers. The review confirmed President Biden’s victory in the state. 

Logan announced earlier this year that he had shut the company down.

Source: TEST FEED1

Against critical race theory being taught in schools? Read this.

Spurred by the imaginary dangers of critical race theory (CRT), many Republican-led state legislatures have enacted laws restricting the way history can be taught in public schools. Nominally directed at “divisive” concepts, most of the bills effectively prohibit or penalize factual discussion of structural or pervasive racism in American history. 

September marks the anniversary of one of the most dramatic challenges to white supremacy in the years before the Civil War — an event that could not be accurately taught under many of the anti-CRT statutes pending or already in force.

In late summer 1858, John Price was living quietly in Oberlin, Ohio. A refugee from enslavement in Kentucky, Price felt safe in Oberlin, then the most racially progressive community in the U.S. The eponymous college, founded in 1833, was among the first in the nation to welcome Black students, and the community had grown more staunchly abolitionist over the years. The town clerk was John Mercer Langston, the first Black municipal official in the U.S.

Oberlin naturally attracted fugitives such as Price, but that also made the town a magnet for slave hunters, who ranged across Ohio seeking vulnerable African Americans, with little regard to whether they were legally free or runaways.

Price was recognized – rightly or pretextually – by a slave hunter named Anderson Jennings, who anticipated a $500 reward for returning him to Kentucky. Early on Sept. 13, armed with a warrant under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Jennings and three henchmen lured Price out of town, overpowered him and hustled him into a buggy nearby headed to Wellington, where they planned to catch a train to Columbus for a perfunctory hearing, and then southward to Kentucky.

The abduction was conducted under the full authority of the U.S. government. The Fugitive Slave Act had been part of the Compromise of 1850, passed at the behest of the southern slavocrats who virtually controlled Congress, the presidency and the courts. The statute’s sham hearing procedure was designed to make it nearly impossible for a suspected fugitive to resist rendition to the South. There was no right to a jury or appeal, and the alleged fugitives were not permitted to testify in their own defense. The presiding commissioners were paid $10 for granting a “certificate of removal” but only $5 for releasing an alleged runaway. Interfering with the capture of a fugitive was a federal felony. Lacking any semblance of due process, the Fugitive Slave Act was a model of structural racism if ever there was one.

Reaching Wellington in early afternoon, the kidnappers waited for the 5:00 p.m. train at a nearby hotel. Unknown to the slave catchers, however, an Oberlin abolitionist had seen them seizing Price, and he raised an alarm in the village square.

More than 100 Oberliners, both Black and white, rushed to Wellington, where they surrounded the hotel. The posse retreated to the attic, hoping to wait out the siege, while waving their warrant as protection under law.

To the Oberliners, the warrant was worthless paper. Two groups of young men – again, Black and white together – climbed to the attic and overwhelmed the slave hunters. They carried Price to a waiting wagon that sped him to Oberlin, where celebratory speeches were delivered at a bonfire rally.

After a few days in hiding, Price was escorted to Canada by John Anthony Copeland, a young Black man and former Oberlin student who (as I detail in my book “The ‘Colored Hero’ of Harpers Ferry: John Anthony Copeland and the War against Slavery“) would soon fight and die with John Brown in Virginia.

President James Buchanan, a pro-slavery “doughface,” was outraged by the bold resistance to federal law. He personally ordered a sweeping prosecution, at one point considering the death penalty for treason. Ultimately, 37 rescuers – including 12 African Americans – were indicted for violating the Fugitive Slave Act, and held for trial before the U.S. District Court in Cleveland.

The trial was a landmark in American legal history. The rescuers acknowledged violating the Fugitive Slave Act but argued for acquittal under a “higher law.” Civil disobedience in the face of slave hunting had long been preached in pulpits and the streets, but never before had it been raised in court. The jury should refuse to convict, asserted one defense lawyer, and should instead rejoice “over the escape of a brother man from bondage.”

The most significant defendant was the prominent Black abolitionist Charles Langston, an Oberlin graduate, John Mercer’s older brother and later the grandfather of the poet Langston Hughes. Following his inevitable conviction, Langston stunned the public with his defiant speech at sentencing, in which he declared his intention to continue rescuing fugitives from enslavement, without deference to the verdict of a racist court.

“I know that the courts of this country are so constituted as to oppress and outrage colored men,” Langston began. “I cannot, then, expect, judging from the past history of the country, any mercy from the laws [or] from the Constitution.”

He vowed to assist those who had gained freedom, “by escaping from the plantations of their masters, eluding the blood-thirsty patrols and sentinels so thickly scattered all along their path, outrunning bloodhounds and horses, swimming rivers and fording swamps, and reaching at last, through incredible difficulties, what they, in their delusion, supposed to be free soil.”

There is much more to the story of the Oberlin rescue, but it cannot be told without honestly acknowledging the Slave Power’s domination of the U.S. government from the founding of the Republic until the eve of the Civil War. That would evidently violate typical anti-CRT guidelines, which prohibit describing  “American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.”

But the Fugitive Slave Act was not mistakenly enacted despite the nation’s principles. It was, as Charles Langston understood, the intentional institutionalization of white supremacy, under which a Black man had no rights.

Langston’s prosecutor declared that “slaves were not fit for freedom” and castigated the rescuers for “outraging the law of the land.” In words disturbingly similar to today’s anti-CRT hysteria, he railed that “the students who attend that Oberlin College are taught sedition and treason.”

That was an overwrought exaggeration. The students at Oberlin were simply taught the truth about racism in a curriculum that we still need today.

Steven Lubet is Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and the author of “The ‘Colored Hero’ of Harpers Ferry: John Anthony Copeland and the War against Slavery” and “Fugitive Justice: Runaways, Rescuers, and Slavery on Trial.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Murphy, Cruz share outrage over 'Golden Girls' age math

Nothing says congressional unity like a harsh, age-related reality check involving “The Golden Girls.”

Senators on both sides of the aisle are coming together after a writer noted a potentially mortifying factoid about the classic 1980s series.

“All of the actors from ‘Friends’ are now older than the youngest ‘Golden Girl’ was in that show’s first season,” Eli McCann, an attorney and host of a podcast called “Strangerville,” wrote in a tweet over the weekend.

“Have a nice day,” McCann wrote to his more than 28,000 Twitter followers.

The sobering statistic about the cast of the 1990s hit, “Friends,” reaching the age of a member of the senior foursome of “The Golden Girls,” — which included actors Betty White, Bea Arthur, Rue McClanahan and Estelle Getty — ignited a similarly fiery response from a pair of lawmakers on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) replied that the news “ruined” his day.

“Thanks for nothing,” the 49-year-old said, later tweeting that he was “embarrassed” that he “spent so much of my morning doing poor Golden Girls age math.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) appeared to share in his Senate colleague’s outrage.

“This is the most horrible thing I’ve read in years,” Cruz, 51, wrote on Twitter.

While her age wasn’t explicitly stated in the show, McClannahan, who played the youngest “Golden Girl,” Blanche Devereaux, on the series, was 51 when the sitcom premiered in 1985. The “Friends” actors include Matthew Perry, 53, Jennifer Aniston, 53, Matt LeBlanc and David Schwimmer, 55, Courteney Cox, 58, and Lisa Kudrow, 59.

McCann credited himself with uniting a fractured Congress.

“Look. I unified the Senate,” McCann quipped. “Now I’m president.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Former Defense secretaries, retired generals warn of threats of political polarization

Thirteen former defense leaders on Tuesday warned that political polarization is straining the relationship between civilians and the military.

The open letter, signed by eight former Defense secretaries and five former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warns of an “an exceptionally challenging civil-military environment” exacerbated by geopolitical, social and political issues. 

The former secretaries, retired generals and retired admiral don’t mention a particular political party, but indirectly call out former President Trump’s resistance to the 2020 presidential election results and the transfer of power to now-President Biden.

“Politically, military professionals confront an extremely adverse environment characterized by the divisiveness of affective polarization that culminated in the first election in over a century when the peaceful transfer of political power was disrupted and in doubt,” reads the letter, published on the national security website War on the Rocks.

The writers also note the social burdens of the pandemic and economic issues — as well as the geopolitical strains of the wind down of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside “the ramping up of great power conflict.” 

“Looking ahead, all of these factors could well get worse before they get better.”

The letter goes on to underscore the constitutional allocation of power between civilians and the military, emphasizing the importance of civilian control of the military.

“Civilian control of the military is part of the bedrock foundation of American democracy. The democratic project is not threatened by the existence of a powerful standing military so long as civilian and military leaders — and the rank-and-file they lead — embrace and implement effective civilian control.”

The signatories, which include Trump’s former Defense Secretaries James Mattis and Mark Esper, note that “military officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an oath of fealty to an individual or to an office” and that civilian control is shared by all three government branches.

“There are significant limits on the public role of military personnel in partisan politics. … Members of the military accept limits on the public expression of their private views — limits that would be unconstitutional if imposed on other citizens. Military and civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping the military separate from partisan political activity.”

The letter also affirms that elected civilians “have the right to be wrong … even if other voices warn in advance that the proposed action is a mistake” and that military officials must carry out legal orders even if they doubt the action. 

In closing, the letter highlights the military’s duty during presidential elections to serve the current commander in chief and prepare for the next one, as chosen by voters.

Along with Mattis and Esper, the letter is signed by former Defense Secretaries Ashton Carter, Robert Gates, Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel, William Perry and William Cohen.

Retired Gens. Martin Dempsey, Joseph Dunford Jr., Peter Pace and Richard Myers signed as former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with retired Adm. Mike Mullen.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden administration unveils plan for bolstering semiconductor production

The Biden administration on Monday unveiled its plan for bolstering domestic chip production in the U.S. by using the $50 billion in funding from the CHIPS Act passed this summer. 

The administration will use the majority of the funding, around $28 billion, to establish domestic production of leading edge logic and memory chips through grants, subsidized loans or loan guarantees, the Department of Commerce said in an announcement. 

The administration will use around $10 billion to increase production of current-generation semiconductors and chips. 

An additional $11 billion will be invested in research and development in an effort aimed at creating a “dynamic new network of innovation” for the semiconductor industry in the country, the department said. 

The administration’s strategy also provides recommendations for applicants to receive funding, calling for them to aim to increase scale and track private capital, leverage collaborations to build the semiconductor ecosystem, support regional and local industry clusters, establish a secure semiconductor supply chain, and expand the workforce pipeline to match the domestic capacity needs. 

Funding documents that will provide specific application guidance for the program will be released in early February, the department said. Loans and awards will be made on a rolling basis as soon as applications can be processed. 

President Biden signed the CHIPS Act in August, after it passed in the House and Senate in July. 

Proponents of the bill said it will help the U.S. compete with China.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo urged states to compete for the funding during an event last week.

“This is a race,” she said, according to Bloomberg. “It’ll be competitive. It’ll be transparent, and I hope every state competes.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Senate Democrats target Laxalt on abortion rights stance in new ad

Senate Democrats’ campaign arm on Tuesday released its first general election television ad targeting Adam Laxalt in Nevada, slamming the Republican Senate nominee for his abortion stance.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) said the ad, titled “Historic,” is part of its $8.4 million ad reservation in Nevada this fall.

“Adam Laxalt praised the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade,” the ad begins, also noting that Laxalt called Roe v. Wade a “joke” in June and described the Supreme Court’s overturning of abortion rights later that month as “a historic victory.”

Abortion is protected in Nevada through 24 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions after that point for cases where the mother’s health or life is in danger. The law cannot be repealed without a ballot measure being posed directly to voters.

“Laxalt supported overturning Nevada’s abortion protections,” the ad continues. “He’d let states outlaw it, even for victims of rape and incest. Adam Laxalt’s not for us.”

The Hill has reached out to Laxalt’s campaign for comment.

Laxalt’s challenge to incumbent Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D) is shaping up to be one of the most closely watched races of this year’s Senate elections, with Republicans hoping to flip the seat.

Nonpartisan election analysts like the Cook Political Report and Sabato’s Crystal Ball rate the race as a toss up. 

Polls have mostly given Cortez Masto a slight lead, and FiveThirtyEight indicates she has a 62 percent chance of retaining her seat.

The ad is part of the DSCC’s $33 million in total ad reservations this fall nationwide. 

Democrats had faced a dismal political environment heading into November, largely due to inflation recently hitting a 40-year high. But the party is hoping the abortion ruling, a recent string of legislative victories and controversies around former President Trump can avoid a shellacking for Democratic candidates this fall.

Republicans remain favorites to take control of the House, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other Republicans have tempered expectations for the party’s fate in Senate contests.

McConnell has made references to “candidate quality” as reason for the disparity, seen as a veiled reference to GOP Senate nominees who are backed by Trump and have struggled to pull ahead of their Democratic opponents in polls.

Laxalt, a Trump-backed candidate who served as the co-chairman of the former president’s reelection campaign in Nevada, has echoed his unfounded claims of mass election fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

Source: TEST FEED1