Tag Archives : Build House

GOP targets powerhouse Wall Street firms over investments meant to fight climate change

Republicans are fighting against a social movement in the financial sector meant to address systemic issues like climate change.  

Governmental initiatives in Florida, West Virginia and Texas are targeting powerhouse Wall Street firms that they say are engaging in environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing, which they view to be harmful to their states’ economies. 

Letters dated Aug. 10 were sent out this month by the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs to Wall Street firms Blackrock, Vanguard, Institutional Shareholder Services and State Street, asking for details about the companies’ ESG practices and how they could affect the state’s public pensions, including retirement funds for teachers and state employees. 

The letter to Blackrock requested “all documents and communications relating to the actual or potential effects of ESG integration practices on the financial outlook, risk/return profile, performance, or profitability of any of your funds, portfolio companies, or institutional accounts of ESG integration practices.” 

Texas State Affairs Committee Chairman Bryan Hughes (R) said in an interview with The Hill that numerous public pension funds, endowments and retirement accounts could all be affected by ESG investing practices. 

“The Teacher Retirement System of Texas and the Employees Retirement System of Texas, all of our university endowment funds and various other pension funds, as well as the millions of investors who are trusting these firms with their 401(k)s, and then of course all the Texas companies that are being bullied and being manipulated by these firms – for all those reasons, this is important for the Texas legislature to do something about,” he said. 

“The people of Texas are finding out that a handful of Wall Street firms are using other people’s money to push a narrow agenda and we’re pushing back,” he said. 

While ESG doesn’t have a hard and fast definition, it generally aligns with the United Nations’s sustainable development goals (SDGs), a massive international program of environmental and social equality objectives agreed to by all of the U.N.’s 193 member states, including the U.S. 

“As of December 2020, over two thirds of the world’s GDP was being generated in places with actual or intended ‘net zero by 2050’ targets, covering over half of the world’s population and emissions,” a write-up on the latest SDG status report from the U.N.’s statistics agency says, referring to the goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions, which are produced in abundance by the fossil fuel industry.  

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that “the main human activity that emits CO₂ [carbon dioxide] is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation.” 

Fossil fuels are a major industry in Texas, where oil and gas make up more than a third of the state’s economy, according to Texas Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick.  

A representative for Blackrock indicated that the company had received the letter requesting documents and “[plans] to respond” but did not provide further details. 

“Blackrock does not boycott fossil fuels – investing over $100 billion in Texas energy companies on behalf of our clients proves that,” the company said in a statement, adding that “elected and appointed public officials have a duty to act in the best interests of the people they serve. Politicizing state pension funds, restricting access to investments, and impacting the financial returns of retirees, is not consistent with that duty.” 

Fossil fuels are also a big industry in West Virginia, where coal mining has long played a leading role in the state’s economy. Similar moves by state officials there have also gone after ESG investing. 

“There is a campaign that’s being waged through ESG on multiple fronts – rating agencies, asset managers, the big banks. They’re all pushing their agenda through our capital markets,” West Virginia state Treasurer Riley Moore (R) said in an interview with The Hill.  

“It’s coercive capitalism and a distortion in the marketplace. They are pushing policies they can’t achieve in the ballot box, and they’re using the power of their capital to achieve their goals by other means.” 

“All of this is tied to the fossil fuel industry,” he added. 

In July, West Virginia blacklisted Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Blackrock, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo by adding them to the state’s list of restricted financial institutions. They wouldn’t be removed until they had “ceased all activity that boycotts energy companies,” according to a proclamation signed by the treasurer. 

“I’m the tip of the spear on this, but there’s an army behind me. Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee. Their own lists will likely come out this year or next. There are fifteen states with upcoming legislative sessions. We are proud to be leading, but we are not the only ones. We are looking also at proxy voting on our pension boards,” Riley said. 

On Tuesday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) banned ESG investing from the state’s pension funds, voting for a resolution mandating that investment decisions “must be based only on pecuniary factors [which] do not include the consideration of the furtherance of social, political, or ideological interests.” 

“We are reasserting the authority of Republican governance over corporate dominance and we are prioritizing the financial security of the people of Florida over whimsical notions of a utopian tomorrow,” the governor said in a Tuesday statement. 

While ESG may be in the crosshairs of Republicans, it’s not clear that the financial initiative from multinational corporations is making any difference when it comes to fighting the causes of climate change. 

The U.N.’s latest SDG report found that fossil fuel emissions rebounded to a record high in 2021 as the global economy bounced back from the coronavirus pandemic, wiping out pandemic-related declines. 

The report found that “With the phasing out of COVID-related restrictions, demand for coal, oil and gas increased. Consequently, energy-related emissions for 2021 rose by 6 percent, reaching their highest level ever and completely wiping out the pandemic-related reduction seen in 2020.” 

Economists aren’t certain that market dynamics and targeted investment practices are even capable of dealing with climate change. Former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern wrote in 2007 that “greenhouse gas emissions are externalities and represent the biggest market failure the world has seen.” 

“Emissions are not ordinary, localized externalities. Risk on a global scale is at the core of the issue,” he wrote in an academic paper. “These basic features of the problem must shape the economic analysis we bring to bear; failure to do this will, and has, produced approaches to policy that are profoundly misleading and indeed dangerous.” 

Still, the trend of ESG in the private sector appears set to continue. 

A March report from the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance said recent proxy voting seasons, which are the times when activist investor shareholders can make their moves to influence how companies are run, was “unpredictable” and  “unprecedented, with record support for shareholder proposals on environmental and social issues, growing opposition to director elections, and significant support for governance proposals.” 

“Major institutional investors, especially those with large passive index funds, have embraced these shifts toward a focus on ESG and a multistakeholder model, and that is coming through in their support for E&S [environmental and social] shareholder proposals,” the school’s report said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

The Memo: As Fauci bows out, public health experts lament ‘venom’ of attacks

Dr. Anthony Fauci is preparing to leave the public stage — but health experts are worried the toxic atmosphere that tailed him will hang around for years to come.

Opinions of Fauci among the general public cleave along partisan lines, but most experts think he did about as good a job as anyone could in managing a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. 

They worry that the unremitting personal attacks he faced are emblematic of a broader, sneering tone toward scientific expertise and advice.

Lawrence Gostin, a professor at Georgetown Law who specializes in public health, has known Fauci for almost half a century and considers him a friend. 

“He has got caught in the rabid politicization of American culture,” Gostin lamented, “and he has got caught right in the crosshairs of the COVID culture wars these past years.”

Gostin, who said he shared Fauci’s dismay at the “venom” of some of the attacks, also expressed concern about the general climate surrounding science, which seems unlikely to change after Fauci leaves government service in December. 

“Public health and science itself has been pilloried. There is an enormous fatigue, resignation and sheer exhaustion in the entire scientific community. People are quitting their jobs, or when they are keeping their jobs, they are keeping their heads down,” he said.

It’s striking to think of how different things seemed just a couple of years ago.

At the outset of the pandemic in early 2020, Fauci was largely seen as a reassuring national presence. The White House briefings he led became required viewing for many Americans as COVID-19 took hold.

A New Yorker magazine article in April 2020 carried a headline about how Fauci had become “America’s doctor.” The story noted that Fauci’s approval rating in one poll was close to 80 percent.

In time, however, he would be lambasted as a “disaster” by then-President Trump, the sixth of seven presidents he served; he would require a personal security detail to protect him and his family from numerous threats; and he would become one of the leading targets of conservatives in general.

On Wednesday, two days after Fauci announced he would soon end his 38-year stint as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) told an Orlando rally, “Someone needs to grab that little elf and chuck him across the Potomac.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has frequently crossed swords with Fauci over the specifics of U.S. funding for research in Wuhan, China, complained that if the scientist had been “a family doctor in Peoria,” then the allegedly baleful effects of his advice would have affected only “the people foolish enough to choose him as a doctor.”

“Once you put him in charge of the world, it all trickles down,” Paul added, according to a series of tweets from NBC News reporter Kate Santaliz.

Conservative media figures have piled on too. 

Megyn Kelly, complaining about an equivocal answer Fauci give about whether he would comply with a hypothetical subpoena from Republicans in Congress, told her podcast listeners on Wednesday , “F— you, Dr. Fauci.”

Given commentary like that, it’s no surprise that 80 percent approval ratings are a thing of the past.

An Economist-YouGov poll in June found 43 percent of Americans viewed Fauci favorably, but 41 percent viewed him unfavorably. Among Republicans, he was viewed favorably by just 18 percent and unfavorably by 70 percent.

Fauci’s defenders don’t claim that he has been omniscient or infallible. 

In the pandemic’s earliest days, he argued against the need for the general public to wear masks, later changing his tune dramatically. 

The pros and cons of other initiatives, notably the widespread shuttering of schools, will be debated for years, perhaps decades — though in that case, Fauci has noted that he himself spoke of the need to try to minimize negative impacts on children.

Even so, most people in the public health sphere note, firstly, that Fauci was faced with an almost impossible task: Trying to communicate clear messages about a new and deadly virus about which much was unknown. 

Secondly, they say instances where recommendations changed — such as on mask-wearing — demonstrate scientists doing exactly what they’re supposed to do: incorporate new information into their views.

“Changing guidance is the bedrock of sound public health policy,” said Dr. Leana Wen, a former Baltimore City Health Commissioner. “When new research comes out, the guidance would change accordingly, or when circumstances change, the guidance would also change.”

For figures such as Wen, the kind of attacks aimed at Fauci — and at her, as she became a prominent media presence during the pandemic — are far from abstractions.

On Tuesday, a Texas man was sentenced to six months in prison for threatening Wen. Prosecutors said the man, 52-year-old Scott Eli Harris, was outraged by her backing for COVID-19 vaccines and sent her a message threatening she would be shot. 

In the message, Harris allegedly claimed to be an Army veteran and a sniper, according to a CBS News report.

On Thursday, charges were unsealed in another case where a man allegedly threatened Wen.

Earlier this month, a West Virginia man received a three-year prison term for emailing a death threat to Fauci.

“It’s really hard,” Wen told this column. “We are trying to do our jobs, we are trying to advise our patients about how they can keep themselves and their families safe … [and] we are threatened with our lives and worried about our own families.”

Threats aside, the sheer intensity of the divide around Fauci disconcerts plenty of political experts too.

“It is one of the best exhibits of just how deep this polarization is, because you take someone who would not normally be viewed through a political lens, and instead that seems to be almost the only way he is viewed,” said Grant Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School.

“He is a folk hero among Democrats and a milder version of Satan among Republicans.”

Fauci, who is 81, has said that it is time to “pursue the next chapter of my career.”

But the nation won’t so easily close the book on the currents that have swirled around him during COVID.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Source: TEST FEED1

Here’s every weapon US has supplied to Ukraine with $13 billion

The Biden administration has committed nearly $13 billion worth of military assistance to Ukraine since Russia invaded six months ago.

The scope and power of those weapons has increased over time, with Ukrainian officials arguing that firepower is crucial to defend not only their country, but democracy worldwide.

“Finally it is felt that the Western artillery — the weapons we received from our partners —  started working very powerfully,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said last month.

On Wednesday, the United States greenlighted another military assistance package to Ukraine, preparing to send nearly $3 billion in arms and equipment to meet Kyiv’s medium- and long-term needs as it beats back Russia’s military.

Major weapons

• High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and ammunition
  • The U.S. has committed 16 HIMARS since late-May. It is a lighter wheeled system that can allow Ukrainians to hit Russian targets within Ukraine from further distances.
• 1,500 Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles
  • Manufactured by Raytheon, the TOW missiles are long-range precision, anti-tank and assault weapons that can hit targets up to 4,500 meters away.
• 155mm Howitzers
  • A towed field artillery piece that can hit targets up to 30 km, or 18 miles away. The U.S. has sent 126 of these howitzers, along with 806,000 155mm artillery rounds and 126 tactical vehicles to tow the howitzers.  
• 105mm Howitzers
  • The U.S. committed to sending 16 105mm howitzers and 108,000 105mm artillery rounds to go with the howitzers. The United Kingdom has already provided the L119 model, which is a light weight howitzer that can provide direct fire support at armored vehicles or buildings or indirect fire to support combat arms in ranges over 10 km, or 6 miles.
• 120mm mortar systems
  • The U.S. Army uses three versions of the 120mm mortar systems, but they are designed to provide close-range, quick-response indirect fire during tactical combat. The U.S. has sent 20 of these systems, as well as 85,000 rounds of 120mm mortar ammunition.
• National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS);
  • The National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, also known as the Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, are advanced air-defense systems that can hit targets up to 100 miles away. The U.S. has committed to sending eight NSAMS, along with munitions for the systems.
• Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems
  • The U.S. has committed approximately 700 Phoenix ‘Ghost’ drones to Ukraine between April and July. The systems, made by AEVEX Aerospace, are designed to attack targets.
• Switchblade Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems
  • The U.S. has sent over 700 Switchblade drones to Ukraine since March. There are two types of Switchblade drones and the U.S. has sent both, those its unclear how many of each type Washington has sent.
  • The Switchblade 300 weighs about five pounds and can fly roughly 6 miles, and is intended to target personnel and light vehicles. However, the Switchblade 600 can fly more than 24 miles and can stay in the air for 40 minutes.
• Puma unmanned aerial systems
  • The Pentagon awarded AeroVironment $19.7 million in April to produce the Puma AE RQ-20 system for Ukraine. Designed for reconnaissance and surveillance, it has a range of 20 km, or about 12 miles, and has over three hours of flight endurance.
• Mi-17 helicopters
  • The U.S. has provided 20 of the Soviet-era transport helicopters that can also be used as a helicopter gunship. Can carry as many as 30 passengers or 9,000 pounds of cargo
• Harpoon coastal defense systems
  • The U.S. announced in June that it would provide two vehicle-mounted Harpoon systems, which are intended for coastal defense. The U.S. said in June that it would provide the launchers, while allies and partners would provide the missiles.
• Scan Eagle Unmanned Aerial Systems
  • The U.S. sent 15 Scan Eagle systems as part of its Aug. 19 package to Ukraine for reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition. These systems are just under four feet in length, and have an altitude of 16,000 feet above ground level. The Aug. 24 weapons package included support equipment for these systems.
• VAMPIRE Counter-unmanned aerial systems
  • The U.S. first committed to providing the VAMPIRE system in its $2.98 billion weapons package announced Aug. 24. Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy official, said the VAMPIRE uses small missiles to shoot drones out of the sky.
• Stinger anti-aircraft systems
  • The U.S. has provided over 1,400 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. The Stinger has a range of 5 miles and can attack targets up to 15,000 feet.
• Javelin anti-armor systems
  • The U.S. has provided over 8,500 Javelin surface-to-air missiles. Javelin is a portable anti-tank system that can hit targets from 65 meters to 4,000 meters away in most operational circumstances.
• High Speed, Anti- Radiation Missiles
  • The Aug. 19 weapons package included an undisclosed amount of High-speed Anti-radiation (HARM) missiles. The Pentagon first disclosed in early August that it has sent these missiles, but didn’t specified which kind or how many. However, CNN reported that the U.S. has sent the AGM-88 HARM, an air-to-surface tactical missile that has a range of at least 30 miles, and is designed to find and destroy radar-equipped air defense systems.
• Over 27,000 other anti-armor systems

Other equipment and small arms

Radars

• 50 counter-artillery radars
• Four counter-mortar radars
• Four air surveillance radars
• Counter-battery radar systems

Vehicles/Boats

• Four Command Post vehicles
• Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels
• Hundreds of Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles
• 50 armored medical treatment vehicles
• 200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers
• 18 coastal and riverine patrol boats
• 40 MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles with mine rollers

Explosives, Small Arms, Ammunition, Munitions

• M18A1 Claymore anti-personnel munitions (command-detonated fixed-direction fragmentation weapon for use against personnel)
• C-4 explosives, demolition munitions, and demolition equipment
• Over 10,000 Grenade launchers and small arms
• Over 59,000, 000 Small arms ammunition

Equipment

• 75,000 sets of body armor and helmets
• 22 Tactical Vehicles to recover equipment
• Laser-guided rocket systems
• Tactical secure communications systems
• Night vision devices, thermal imagery systems, optics, and laser rangefinders
• Commercial satellite imagery services
• Explosive ordnance disposal protective gear
• Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment
• Medical supplies
• Electronic jamming equipment
• Field equipment and spare parts
• Funding for training, maintenance, and sustainment
• Mine clearing equipment and systems

Sources:

Fact Sheet on U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine – Aug. 24 (DOD)
Sources: $1 Billion in Additional Security Assistance for Ukraine – Aug. 8 (DOD)
Fact Sheet on U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine – Aug. 8 (DOD)
Pentagon confirms anti-radiation missiles sent to Ukraine – Aug. 9 (The Hill)

Source: TEST FEED1

Establishment Democrats crow after latest victories

Establishment Democrats had a good night Tuesday — results that could be interpreted as a sign their voters want to play it safe in the midterms as they battle to hold on to the House and Senate majorities.  

In New York, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) defeated a progressive challenger by more than 30 percentage points.  

“Tonight, mainstream won,” the chairman of the House Democrats campaign arm said in his victory speech. “Common sense won. Democrats want candidates who get results and bring home the win.”  

In another House primary, former Democratic impeachment counsel Dan Goldman, who came under criticism for not being liberal enough, outpaced several progressive challengers, including Rep. Mondaire Jones, whose congressional career he halted at one term.

Progressives did clinch a notable win when gun control activist Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D) beat out a slew of candidates for an open seat in Florida left vacant by Rep. Val Demings (D), who is running for governor. 

But Democratic voters sided with the establishment favorite, Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.), over state Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (D) to take on Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in November. 

Overall, Democratic voters on the season’s final major primary night did what Democratic voters have done throughout the year: They gave progressives glimmers of hope but as a whole put their faith behind the establishment.

Democratic strategist Jon Reinish said that’s because voters are weighing who has the best chance of winning a general election and the establishment candidates were able to build “broader electoral coalitions.”

“Especially given where Democrats need to win to either hold the majority, or at least keep losses, as low as possible. You know, it tends to be suburban districts, rural districts, ex-urban districts,” Reinish, a former aide to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), said. 

“And that is where a center or center left candidate who’s more unifying will do well,” he added.

Progressives have had some good wins over the spring and summer, most notably when Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) won the primary to run for a Pennsylvania Senate seat, as well as Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes’ (D) victory in Wisconsin’s Senate primary.

But there have also been a number of disappointments, and establishment voices like Maloney’s were doing some crowing in the aftermath.  

In Ohio, former Bernie Sanders campaign co-chair Nina Turner lost her second House bid to Rep. Shontel Brown, who had establishment support. In a member-on-member primary for Michigan’s redrawn 11^th District, moderate Rep. Haley Stevens ousted progressive Rep. Andy Levin.

And in Texas, progressives were furious when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) helped propel nine-term Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), considered the last anti-abortion Democrat in the House, to a narrow win over progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros in a closely watched race.

Cuellar’s supporters argued a progressive candidate couldn’t win his district and House leadership was eager to keep his seat in a lower chamber that Democrats control by only five seats and is widely expected to flip in November.

In another race, though, Pelosi endorsed Jones, a progressive incumbent.

To be sure, not all Democrats chalked Tuesday night up as an unmitigated win for centrists, or a statement about the Democratic landscape as a whole.

Angelo Greco, who was a senior campaign adviser to Turner’s congressional campaign, argued that Crist’s win in Florida was in part because progressives coalesced around his candidacy. Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau noted that Crist had already been a mainstay in Florida politics and had “a better mastery of the political Democratic machine.” 

In New York, Mollineau said Maloney had “access to funding, to establishment support, to democratic infrastructure.” And he said Goldman prevailed, at least in part, because several more progressive candidates split the vote.

Goldman, a Levi Strauss & Co. heir, had also poured millions of dollars into the race and had name recognition from his time as Democrats’ lead Trump impeachment counsel.

“Being known for something and having a financial advantage is always important in a crowded Democratic field,” Mollineau said, adding “and he had both.” 

Still, Mollineau said many Democrats’ perceptions of anti-establishment candidates do play a role.

“I feel as though, you know, those folks who have an anti-establishment, who have a ‘let’s go outside of the system, let’s tear this down’ mentality when it comes to their … ideas, their legislative ideas, so on and so forth, their worldview …  there are a growing number of people that are more … that are coming to believe that ideology, but it’s not a majority of the country, and it’s not a majority of Democrats,” he said. 

Natalia Salgado, director of federal affairs for the Working Families Party, pointed to eight candidates, among others, they endorsed — including Becca Balint for Vermont’s at-large congressional district and Jamie McLeod-Skinner, who ousted President Biden-endorsed Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Oreg.) — as key wins in competitive races.

“The victories from our champions, even when dramatically outspent, are not just notable —  they are unprecedented. Because of those wins, the next Congress will be more responsible to working people than the last,” she said.

Still, progressives’ most prominent wins have come from Fetterman and Barnes, who Reinish says “run, in terms of their messaging, as very broadly uniting figures.” 

“They’re not bomb throwers. They’re not confrontational. They’re very uniting in the way that they message policy and how they conduct themselves and promote themselves as candidates.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

T-Mobile partners with SpaceX to use Starlink satellites for mobile network access

T-Mobile will partner with Elon Musk’s SpaceX and use the company’s Starlink satellites to provide mobile networks for cellphone users in remote areas, both companies announced at an event on Thursday.

At SpaceX’s Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, Musk and T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert said the rollout would have a huge impact on enhancing cellphone service in rural, hard-to-reach areas.

Before they spoke, the company executives previewed a video featuring mobile phone users who voiced concerns about the lack of cellphone reception in rural, remote regions of the U.S. Some explained how their lives could be endangered in the event an accident occurs and they are unable to call for help.

Sievert said expanding network coverage into those remote areas is “important for safety, important for connectivity” and “important for all of us.”

“We have all — every single one of us — driven down that windy, country road through the hills and dales, beyond the reach of any cellular network,” the T-Mobile CEO said. “This partnership is about imagining a different future … where if you have a clear view of the sky, you are connected on your mobile phone.”

T-Mobile will enter a beta phase in late 2023 with Starlink strictly for messaging and texting apps, but the effort will eventually phase into more cellular services. T-Mobile also announced its intention to spread the service to rural areas across the globe.

Musk’s Starlink satellites are designed to connect high-speed internet to rural areas. The company has around 2,000 satellites currently in orbit above Earth.

Providers like T-Mobile generally use cell towers to provide network service to cellphones, so the technology of linking satellites for mobile network coverage is entirely new.

On Thursday, Musk said T-Mobile’s network coverage will be powered by a second-generation Starlink satellite with large, “extremely advanced” antennas. The satellites will only connect to cellphones when they enter a deadzone not covered by a cell tower.

T-Mobile, which recently acquired Sprint and is the second-largest carrier in the U.S., said the satellite service will be included for free in most plans provided by the company.

Musk said the goal of both companies was to save lives and ensure there are “no more deadzones” across the world.

“I hope the public understands the magnitude of the announcement,” the SpaceX CEO said. “This is a really massive game changer.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden portrays 'MAGA' Republicans as a threat to democracy

President Biden portrayed Republicans on the ballot this fall as a threat to democracy itself as he sharpened his midterm rallying cry at a campaign event in Maryland Thursday evening.  

Invoking former President Trump and his “Make America Great Again” slogan, Biden accused Republicans of seeking to take the country “backward” and warned voters that democracy is under threat from Trump and his allies.  

“Now need to vote to literally save democracy again,” Biden told a large crowd at the Democratic National Committee rally in Rockville, Md., just outside of Washington, D.C. “Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans have made their choice — to go backwards full of anger, violence, hate, and division. But we’ve chosen a different path forward, the future, unity, hope, and optimism.”  

“We choose to build a better America,” Biden said.  

The event represented Biden’s largest campaign event this year and took place just more than two months until the midterm elections. Thousands of people were packed into a gymnasium and overflow space at Richard Montgomery High School, where the rally took place.  

Biden spent part of his speech touting his administration’s accomplishments, including the distribution of COVID-19 vaccinations and the job growth the country has seen under his watch. He cheered the decline in gasoline prices over the last several weeks, a sign of surging inflation potentially easing.  

The president also discussed recent legislative victories, including a bipartisan law that will sink billions into the domestic semiconductor industry and the sweeping climate and healthcare bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act that Democrats finally got across the finish line earlier this month.  

But he spent ample time attacking Republicans, warning that a GOP majority in Congress could move to enact a nationwide abortion ban and assailing Republicans for voting against the climate and health law.  

He portrayed Social Security as under threat from Republicans, pointing to a plan offered by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) that proposed a sunset on all federal legislation after five years. Elements of the plan, which has run into criticism within the GOP, were displayed prominently on screens at the rally.  

Biden returned to the warning about democracy repeatedly, alluding to Trump’s failed attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election and the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Many Republican candidates who Trump has endorsed this election cycle deny the results of the 2020 election.    

Biden made a point to distinguish between what he called “conservative Republicans” and “MAGA Republicans,” citing Maryland’s current Gov. Larry Hogan (R), as an example of the former. 

“The MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security. They’re a threat to our very democracy,” Biden said as he wrapped up his remarks. “They refuse to accept the will of the people. They embrace, embrace political violence. They don’t believe in democracy.” 

“This is why in this moment, those of you that love this country – Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans – we must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving America than the MAGA Republicans are destroying America,” he said.  

Hours earlier at a fundraiser in Bethesda, Biden also accused Trump and his allies in the party of espousing a philosophy akin to “semi-fascism.”  

The comments represented perhaps the most forceful rebuke of Republicans to date from Biden, who ran in 2020 as a unifier and who has sought to work across the aisle during his presidency. They signal a sharper tone for Biden as he and other Democrats try to hold on to their narrow majorities in the House and Senate in November. 

Biden appeared at Thursday’s event alongside Maryland Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wes Moore and other Democratic representatives from the state. 

Biden has upcoming official trips planned to Pennsylvania and Ohio, both battleground states with critical races for Democrats, and the White House has signaled more plans for travel during the fall months.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Michigan Chipotle workers vote to unionize in first for chain

Chipotle workers in Lansing, Mich. overwhelmingly voted to become the first store in the restaurant chain to formally unionize Thursday.

Employees voted 11-3 to unionize with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters for better pay, work hours and relationships with management.

The election was administered and tallied by the National Labor Relations Board after a petition was filed last month.

Samantha Smith, 18, who has worked at the store for more than two years, said the successful unionization effort was an “amazing moment” for the 21-member team at the Michigan restaurant.

“We set out to show that our generation can make substantial change in this world and improve our working conditions by taking action collectively,” Smith said in a statement. “What this vote shows is that workers are going to keep taking the fight to big corporations like Chipotle and demand the working conditions we deserve.”

The Hill has reached out to Chipotle for comment.

A spokesperson told the Washington Post they were “disappointed that the employees at our Lansing, MI restaurant chose to have a third party speak on their behalf because we continue to believe that working directly together is best for our employees.”

The success comes a month after Chipotle closed down a location in Augusta, Maine, which had formed an independent union but did not officially unionize with the NLRB before corporate shuttered the store over low staffing concerns.

Service workers have rallied around unions or pushed for more rights in a newfound movement that took root during the pandemic.

Starbucks, Apple and Amazon have all seen their first unionization efforts during the pandemic-era shift for employee rights.

Chipotle’s Lansing store, the first of the international restaurant chain’s 3,000 stores to unionize, joins more than 2 million workers represented by the Teamsters union across the country and about 4,000 workers in Michigan.

Teamster General President Sean O’Brien said the union is “fighting for our brothers and sisters at Chipotle to get the rights and workplace protections they deserve.”

“Now is the time for working people in this country to take back what’s theirs. No matter your industry, no matter your age or how intimidating your employer may seem, you too can protect your labor with a union,” O’Brien said in a statement. “The revitalization of labor is really just beginning.”

Harper McNamara, 19, who has also worked at the Lansing store for more than two years, said the victory finally gives the workers a “true voice on the job.”

“I am so proud of all those who were involved in this effort, and showed the courage needed to take on a huge corporation,” he said in a statement.

Source: TEST FEED1

Five lingering questions on Biden's student loan forgiveness plan

President Biden’s plan to forgive up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 for other student loan holders is a controversial move cheered by many Democrats but jeered by Republicans, who say it will increase inflation.  

The effort — the largest student loan forgiveness plan in U.S. history — also leaves a lot of questions.  

Here are five of the biggest. 

Will it raise inflation? 

Biden’s plan immediately came under fire for the potential negative impact it could have on the already 40-year high inflation rate, with some economists warning it will be highly inflationary. Others have said any effect is likely to be more marginal. 

While Republicans are using inflation to hammer the White House, the criticism that the plan could raise inflation is also coming from at least some political allies to Biden.  

Jason Furman, a Harvard professor and former top economic adviser to President Obama, said Wednesday that it is “reckless” to pour “roughly half [a] trillion dollars of gasoline on the inflationary fire that is already burning.” 

The White House argued any risk on inflation will be mitigated by the fact that while it is extending the years-long payment pause on federal student loans through Dec. 31, the pause will end in January 2023. Officials argued that the combination of restarting loan payments while providing some relief will basically zero out any inflationary effect. 

The pause has long been seen as a program that could be adding to inflation, though other stimulus programs and the fact that consumers saved money during the pandemic are likely bigger factors. 

“It’s pretty clear that the pause in student loan repayment has probably been a little bit inflationary, that’s money that would have been drawn down from the economy and has stayed in peoples’ pockets,” said Kevin Miller, Bipartisan Policy Center associate director for higher education policy.  

Will colleges raise tuition in response? 

Many observers have questioned whether colleges will raise tuition in response to the Biden move, under the rationale that more forgiveness could be on the way. 

“It creates this problem of once you have forgiven or have canceled loans, just broadly … that sets a precedent and it gives people going forward an expectation and a reasonable argument,” said Neal McCluskey, policy analyst at the CATO Institution. “If people don’t think their loans will ever have to be repaid or repaid in full, they have incentive to take out more loans.” 

Others doubt it will have an immediate or substantial impact on tuition.   

“Most schools are basically multilevel organizations,” said Dalié Jiménez, director of the student loan law initiative at the University of California Irvine. “The process of setting tuition prices, there are just so many inputs that I don’t know that it would have any kind of immediate effect on average or overall.”   

The Department of Education will be “vigilant” and “laser-focused” with bad actors, according to officials, and plans to publish an annual “watch list” of institutions with the worst debt levels as a way to hold accountable colleges that have contributed to the student debt crisis.

Will this stand up to court challenges? 

Court challenges to Biden’s effort are expected, though their precise nature is a bit of a mystery. 

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Thursday that the White House is confident in its legal authority and that the steps will hold up in court. 

The legal authority the White House has pointed to is through the 2003 HEROES Act, which gives the Secretary of Education authority to take certain actions believed to be necessary to ensure a borrower is not placed in a worse position financially due to a national emergency, like the COVID-19 pandemic. 

McCluskey said it’s far from clear those holding student debt were made worse off during the pandemic.   

“College graduates were sort of the most insulated from the negative impacts of the pandemic and the associated economic problems that went with it and lockdown because they were most able to continue working,” he said.  

“They have been made much better off regarding their loans as they have been frozen,” he added.  

McCluskey also raised the issue that Biden is “essentially appropriating money,” which is a power that belongs to Congress. But, he noted, the Democratic-controlled Congress is not likely to challenge that.

“To say loans, which is money from the government that has to returned, now doesn’t have to be returned, that turns the loan into a grant,” he said.

Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas (N.H.) said on Wednesday that the decision “sidesteps Congress and our oversight and fiscal responsibilities.” 

Who is in and out in terms of eligibility? 

The policy appears to leave out a very small number of borrowers— estimated to be about 5 percent of those who have loans. 

The program caps eligibility for the program by income level; $125,000 for a single person and $250,000 for couples.  

If everyone who is eligible claims the relief, 43 million federal student loan borrowers will benefit and nearly 90 percent of the benefits will go to borrowers earning less than $75,000, according to the White House.  

Who pays for it? 

Taxpayers will pick up the bill for the program, though it isn’t clear how much the price tag will be and the White House has skirted questions on the issue.

Reporters pressed Jean-Pierre for a cost estimate at the White House briefing on Thursday and she leaned on saying it’s unclear how many borrowers will take up the offer. 

The White House has insisted the loan forgiveness will be fully paid for because of other policies it says Biden has taken to reduce the deficit.

Republicans are going on the attack, raising political issues that aren’t going away.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said the plan is a “scheme” that “forces blue-collar workers to subsidize white-collar graduate students.” He and other Republicans have also argued the plan will help wealthy people, given the income levels are capped at $125,00 and $250,000. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the decision a “wildly unfair distribution” of wealth in favor of higher-earning Americans and a “slap in the face” to those in the workforce who made sacrifices to pay off their debt.  

How the arguments on both sides resonate with blue collar workers — a demographic Democrats worry they could lose to the GOP in the midterms — will be closely watched in November.

Biden is betting enough people will support the forgiveness, particular in minority communities, to ward off political hits from the GOP.

Source: TEST FEED1

Interior grants $560 million across 24 states to plug more than 10,000 orphaned wells

The Department of the Interior on Thursday announced a $560 million grant to 24 states to start plugging up and reclaiming abandoned oil and gas wells.

The Interior department estimates there are more than 10,000 of the so-called orphan wells across those 24 states that leak methane, significantly polluting communities and recreation spaces and contributing to climate change.

The funding to plug up the wells comes from President Biden’s historic infrastructure package passed last year. The law includes $4.7 billion specifically to address the orphan wells. Thursday’s funding is part of a phase one investment of  $1.15 billion.

Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said the infrastructure law “is enabling us to confront long-standing environmental injustices by making a historic investment to plug orphaned wells throughout the country.”

“At the Department of the Interior, we are working on multiple fronts to clean up these sites as quickly as we can by investing in efforts on federal lands and partnering with states and Tribes to leave no community behind,” Haaland said in a statement.

Interior officials say there are more than 129,000 abandoned oil and gas wells across the country, so the effort to plug them up in 24 states is just one step in the Biden administration’s larger goal of halting those methane leaks on the continental U.S.

Some of those 24 states have a large number of orphan wells. Kentucky, for example, is estimated to have up to 1,200 of them, while Kansas has more than 2,300 wells and Oklahoma has about 1,196.

As part of Thursday’s grant, six states, including California, Mississippi and West Virginia, will begin measuring methane emissions at wells they plug up and remediate.

Twelve states, including Kansas, New Mexico and Ohio, will prioritize plugging up wells in disadvantaged communities.

The Department of the Interior announced the phase one investment in January, the same month officials warned the U.S. has double the amount of abandoned oil and gas wells than previously thought.

The department also announced a $33 million package in May to plug up 277 wells on national lands.

The Biden administration has focused much of its attention on tackling climate change, including through the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act this month, which has allocated $369 billion for clean energy projects.

Methane is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere and significantly accelerates climate change once released.

Source: TEST FEED1

White House moves to make all federally funded research available to public for free by 2026

The White House put forth a policy guidance Thursday requiring all federally funded research to be made available to the public for free upon publication by 2026.

“All members of the American public should be able to take part in every part of the scientific enterprise—leading, participating in, accessing, and benefitting from taxpayer-funded scientific research,” the administration wrote in a statement.

A new memorandum from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) seeks to make “all peer-reviewed scholarly publications authored or coauthored by individuals or institutions resulting from federally funded research” available without embargo or delay.

The move would end an optional 12-month publication embargo allowing journals to put work behind a yearlong paywall, which the administration says “has limited immediate equitable access” for Americans.

Data in peer-reviewed research articles is to be made available immediately upon publication, and other research data would be made available “within a reasonable time frame.”

The changes will help “level the playing field across a highly uneven funding landscape between academic disciplines,” the White House said, and allow other to “replicate, and build on, the primary research findings.”

“Public access to federally funded research data also helps to level the playing field across a highly uneven funding landscape between academic disciplines – providing possibilities to scholars, students, and the public for secondary use of data that would otherwise be unavailable,” the White House said.

The OSTP memorandum, signed by Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director for Science and Society Alondra Nelson, asks federal agencies to update public access policies to reflect the new guidance and submit them to OSTP as soon as possible, but no later than Dec. 31, 2025.

Source: TEST FEED1