Tag Archives : Build House

Democratic AGs call on appellate court to uphold injunction on Alabama law banning gender-affirming care

A coalition of Democratic attorneys general are calling on an Alabama court to strike down the state’s felony ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors, arguing the law infringes on the constitutional rights of transgender youth and puts their wellbeing and lives at risk.

Attorneys general of 21 states on Wednesday submitted an amicus brief to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals urging it to uphold a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court judge in May.

The injunction currently prohibits Alabama officials from enforcing a new state law that makes it a felony – punishable by up to a decade in prison and a fine of up to $15,000 – for doctors or others to assist transgender youth younger than 19 in accessing gender-affirming medical care, including puberty blockers or hormone therapy.

Attorneys for Alabama in June appealed the court’s decision, arguing that the state has authority over parents when it comes to regulating the medical care of minors. Last week, a group of parents with transgender children in Alabama said courts for more than a century have recognized medical decision-making as a parental right.

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

Attorneys general on Wednesday called the Alabama law an “extreme” measure that harms rather than protects transgender youth, ignores broad medical consensus and interferes with medical decisions traditionally reached by providers, their patients and their patients’ families.

“Medical decisions should be between doctors and their patients, not doctors, their patients, and the State of Alabama,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D), who is leading the coalition of attorneys general, said in a statement. “Whether it’s access to abortion or hormone therapy, Alabama’s overreach puts people’s lives and well-being at risk.”

The brief also argues that the Alabama law may impose “spillover harms” on other states with transgender residents who travel to Alabama for work or school, and “directly violates” the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by prohibiting only transgender youth from taking certain medications available to other young patients when they are not used to treat gender dysphoria.

“Let’s be clear: Gender-affirming care doesn’t happen overnight, it’s a rigorous and evidence-based medical process,” Bonta said. “Criminalizing trans youth, their families, and doctors over access to medical care doesn’t solve anything, it only serves to marginalize and endanger people for who they are.”

Bonta is joined by the Democratic attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Each state has laws or policies in place that guarantee access to gender-affirming health care for transgender young people.

“Robust data confirm that such policies result in better health and economic outcomes,” state attorneys general wrote Wednesday in the brief, adding that some of them have enacted additional policies barring health insurers from categorically excluding coverage for gender-affirming care.

“Taken together, these laws and policies reflect our core commitment to protecting the equality of all people, regardless of their gender identity, and ensuring that people with gender dysphoria are not denied necessary healthcare.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Latino super PAC joins New York House primary free-for-all

A top Hispanic super PAC on Thursday announced a major investment supporting New York City Councilmember Carlina Rivera in the Democratic House primary for the 12th congressional district, diving headfirst into a chaotic contest for a prized seat.

Nuestro PAC, an organization spearheaded by Chuck Rocha, the political consultant who headed Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders’ successful Latino outreach in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, will spend $500,000 on TV and bilingual digital ads for Rivera.

“Carlina Rivera is exactly the kind of representation the Latino community has been looking for. She is a committed leader in our community and will fight every day while in Congress to ensure we have a voice promoting priorities that are important to the entire district, notably the Latino community that she is from,” Rocha said. 

Nuestro PAC’s ads focus on Rivera’s origins growing up in the Lower East Side, and her political history representing local communities.

The wide-open primary contest, which will be held on Aug. 23, has 12 Democrats competing for one of the country’s safest blue seats covering a diverse range of neighborhoods in Brooklyn and downtown Manhattan.

About a half-dozen candidates have received serious media attention, and the race has turned into an endorsement slugfest among political, civil society and labor groups.

Rivera’s campaign is gaining momentum among Latino groups and officials, with endorsements from New York Democratic Reps. Nydia Velázquez and Adriano Espaillat, as well as the Latino Victory Fund under her belt.

Still, the race is unpredictable with so many candidates in the mix, including Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), former Rep. Liz Holtzman (D-N.Y.), prosecutor Daniel Goldman and state Assemblymembers Yuh-Line Niou and Jo Anne Simon.

Former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio dropped out of the race in July amid sagging poll numbers.

Asked whether a high-profile bet on an unpredictable primary was a risk for the relatively new Nuestro PAC, Rocha said, “No. This PAC was set up to help elect Latinos and the Congress needs more Latinos representing. Especially Latina representatives.”

“This kind of race is why we started this PAC – to give Latinos a voice, and Carlina deserves for her voice to be heard in this primary,” said Rocha.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump impeachment attorney: Better for information from search warrant affidavit to come out now

Attorney David Schoen, who represented former President Trump during his second impeachment trial, called on Thursday for the release the affidavit justifying the search warrant executed last week at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. 

Following the Aug. 8 search at Trump’s Florida home, the Justice Department has released the accompanying search warrant, but not the affidavit itself, which is set to the be the subject of a Thursday afternoon hearing.

“Speaking to the American people, to the extent I can as an American citizen, I wanna know what’s in there,” Schoen said on CNN’s “New Day.” 

“The risks would be that information — negative information — comes in, but that’s going to have to come in one way or another one day. I think you’re better off testing it now.” 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has cautioned that releasing the affidavit could compromise the integrity of the ongoing investigation, while Trump has called for its release. 

The former president wrote on his TruthSocial account Monday that the document should be shared “in the interest of TRANSPARENCY.”

Following the search and questions about its basis, the DOJ asked a judge to unseal the search warrant. Related documents revealed that the FBI recovered 11 sets of classified documents that were allegedly stored improperly at the Palm Beach, Fla., resort past the end of Trump’s presidential term.

Schoen on Thursday sidestepped further questions about the release of surveillance footage from the Mar-a-Lago search and footage subpoenaed by the FBI that reportedly alarmed investigators, saying he’s “in favor of full disclosure of everything.” 

“There are always issues regarding privilege and other factors. I’m certainly not aware of enough to be able to say to you today, this should be released or that should be released. I can only tell you my general view is: information is important.”

Schoen defended Trump during his post-Jan. 6, 2021, impeachment trial and is now representing former Trump adviser Stephen Bannon in his contempt of Congress case. 

He said Thursday that he’d been approached about being “a liaison with the Justice Department” a couple months ago, but that he “wasn’t particularly interested in that.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Why America should not adopt Europe’s model for tech regulation

The European Union is barreling toward the final stages of enacting sweeping new rules in antitrust and speech that are gerrymandered to target only America’s most successful technology companies. But the painful reality is that by damaging America’s ability to innovate, these policies would be a self-inflicted wound that threatens the national security of the United States and its extensive network of European allies. Policymakers in the U.S. (and the United Kingdom) should treat the EU’s approach as a cautionary tale, not as a model to emulate.

On July 5, the European Parliament held its final vote on the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA), two pieces of regulation that apply only to the largest American technology companies. European leaders insist these bills will boost competition in digital markets, but that claim ignores the numerous headlines, corporate earnings reports, and shifts in market share that are testament to the fierce multinational competition that exists in the digital space.

Given Europe’s poor track record of building its own Silicon Valley and venture capital industry, it makes little sense for the United States to take a page from its playbook when it comes to regulating an industry as vitally important to our national security and economic prosperity as technology. Yet alarmingly, bills that follow Europe’s regulatory lead are making their way through Congress.

Of greatest concern are a package of anti-innovation bills that closely resemble the DMA: They discriminate against specific U.S. tech companies to the benefit of our adversaries, crack down on so-called “self-preferencing” practices without imposing the same restrictions on European and Chinese companies, and threaten our national security by slowing the development of critical strategic technologies — artificial intelligence, quantum and others — that are essential for protecting our homeland and combatting our foreign adversaries.

Numerous U.S. senators have expressed concerns about the bills’ impacts on national security, privacy, and our ability to compete. Yet proponents of these bills have done little to resolve those concerns. With the U.S. engaged in a high-stakes battle with our adversaries — namely, China — for global tech leadership, we must tread carefully on passing a DMA-like bill that would kneecap the American companies that are best positioned to help America win the innovation race.

National security officials in the Biden administration have made this connection. In fact, a leaked memo revealed that the White House’s National Security Council (NSC) expressed concerns about the national security implications of the EU-like proposals, since they might require U.S. tech companies to provide competitors with sensitive company information. The NSC concluded that “there is a concern that the DMA may override existing protections for intellectual property rights, including protection for trade secrets.” Just a few weeks ago, FBI Director Christopher Wray delivered a speech calling for U.S. companies to aggressively protect their intellectual property now against the wide-scale espionage efforts of foreign adversaries or risk “[losing] your competitive advantage” to countries such as China.

Additionally, while the bills would restrict American tech companies in many critical areas, including search results they can show, foreign adversaries would not be held to the same standards. The rampant propaganda campaign by Russia and China in Ukraine shows the troubling national security implications of forcing U.S. companies to downrank certain search results while those of our geopolitical rivals are left unregulated.

In approving the DMA, the EU ignored the multiple warnings of security experts, including those within the U.S. government. If Congress does the same, it could force U.S. tech companies to expose American data and intellectual property to foreign rivals.

The bottom line: If America follows in Europe’s footsteps, we’ll jeopardize our security — and theirs — at a time when we depend on strong American companies to safeguard our collective cybersecurity, data, and intellectual property protection. The winners will be China and Russia, who will not hesitate to exploit the loopholes created by the legislation at a moment of acute competition between our economies. 

It matters greatly which country builds the future. Congress needs to ensure the U.S. doesn’t inadvertently surrender our technology and innovation edge.

Frances F. Townsend was the third U.S. Homeland Security Advisor, from 2004 to 2008, and serves as a national security advisory board member for the American Edge Project.

Source: TEST FEED1

CDC investigating 'fast-moving' E. coli outbreak that has sickened dozens

Federal authorities are investigating a “fast-moving” E. coli breakout that was identified in Ohio and Michigan, with nearly 30 people infected by the bacteria from an unknown source.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has so far identified 29 people who have become ill due to E. coli infections. Nine of those have been hospitalized due to their illnesses, while no deaths have been reported. The first infection occurred late in July.

The ages of those infected range from 6 to 91.

The CDC said it is utilizing the PulseNet system in its investigation. PulseNet compares the “DNA fingerprints” of bacteria from affected patients to identify clusters of disease. Whole genome sequencing that has been performed indicates that the bacteria collected so far from affected patients are closely related.

The true number of people who are affected is likely higher, the CDC acknowledged, and there may be more cases in other states.

“Michigan and Ohio have both reported large increases in the number of E. coli infections in their states. Some of these illnesses have not yet been reported to the PulseNet system, but investigators are working quickly to add them to PulseNet to determine if they may be part of this outbreak,” the CDC said.

Symptoms of E. coli infections include diarrhea, a fever higher than 102 degrees Fahrenheit, vomiting to the point of being unable to keep down liquids and signs of dehydration. The CDC has asked that people who are experiencing symptoms keep a record of what they ate in the week before they became sick in order to help identify the possible source of the infection.

Symptoms usually occur within three to four days after someone has swallowed the E. coli bacteria, and most people will recover from their infections in about a week.

Some steps that can help prevent infections include washing your hands, utensils and cooking surfaces; separating raw meat, poultry and seafood from other foods that won’t be cooked with them; using a thermometer to ensure that a high enough temperature is reached to kill pathogens; and refrigerating perishable foods.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) said this week that it has received reports of at least 98 cases of E. coli infections this month, nearly 80 more than what was reported in August last year. While the laboratory investigation is still in its early phases, the department said some cases have been linked to each other.

“While reports of E. coli illness typically increase during the warmer summer months, this significant jump in cases is alarming,” MDHHS chief medical executive Natasha Bagdasarian said in a statement.

Source: TEST FEED1

I evolved on cannabis — Congress should, too

When I entered the halls of Congress for the first time in 1979, the idea of legislating cannabis was not only off the table; it was nowhere near it. Like most Americans at the time, my understanding of cannabis was informed by the perspective that fighting drug use was best done through stringent legal penalties and educational programs designed to advance sobriety and abstinence. Additionally, little information was known in those days regarding the long-term impacts or uses of the substance. It wasn’t until the mid-1990s that the movement to legalize cannabis at the state level gained any traction — and, even still, virtually no one was embracing cannabis at the federal level. But that was then.  

Today, more than 100 million Americans live in a state with legal or medical access to cannabis and cannabis products. As of 2020, the cannabis industry was worth $61 billion, which is expected to grow. The cannabis industry is creating an average of 280 new jobs per day, and states like Arizona and Illinois are seeing their annual tax revenues from cannabis top $1 billion. Recent polling by the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education, and Regulation (CPEAR) shows overwhelming bipartisan support for ending the federal prohibition on cannabis, with 70 percent of voters in favor of ending federal prohibition.

I’m not going to deny that it took time for me to understand the rapidly changing views surrounding cannabis and the growing support for its legalization. I’ve had to ask serious questions of industry experts: What are the long-term effects on the brain? How do we prevent youth access? What about driving while high? The more I reviewed the data and talked to scientists, policy experts, activists, and business owners; it became clear to me that the cannabis movement is here, and policymakers must get cannabis regulation right. 

This does not mean legalizing cannabis in all 50 states through federal legislation. Cannabis legalization is happening at the state level, as it should. The same CPEAR poll I referenced above found that 67 percent of voters nationwide support allowing individual states to decide whether cannabis will be legal in their state. However, as more and more states decide to give their citizens access to medical and adult-use cannabis, a research-based, equitable, and comprehensive national framework for cannabis reform is needed to standardize approaches to key issues.

From a public health perspective — a regulatory framework is crucial. First and foremost, a federal regulatory system must protect our children. Local communities should be at the core of any effort to reduce youth use of cannabis. These efforts include strict federal, state, and local oversight to ensure that licensed cannabis companies only sell to those 21 and older. The federal government should also use cannabis tax resources to deliver after-school programs comprised of measurable targets on a timely basis. If we do this right, and I believe we can, federal regulation should decrease youth use. 

We also owe it to America’s greatest generation. Veterans have long advocated for cannabis to alleviate pain and address PTSD. To date, the federal government has either ignored these pleas, or pointed to a lack of research as a reason to deny access for veterans. The latter of these arguments is even more frustrating since the federal government has made the research so difficult. The federal government owes the veteran community both access to cannabis and rigorous research into its potential benefits and harms for medicinal use.

I am not alone in recognizing the benefits of a federal regulatory framework for cannabis. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), along with Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), have introduced a cannabis reform bill, the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA), which is a solution to many of our existing cannabis problems. Additionally, Congress is currently debating the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE), which addresses the federal government’s appropriate role to ensure the cannabis marketplace is governed and led by an evidence-based regulatory framework that safeguards public health, consumer safety and youth access prevention. There are many competing priorities to juggle this year, but we need to establish a safe and equitable American cannabis industry. Comprehensive solutions are required. 

As a Democrat from a rural and conservative state like South Dakota, I understand the hesitation of some elected officials to engage on this issue, and I’ve walked in their shoes. However, the evidence exists — and more data reveals itself to us daily. We are at a crossroads, and it’s up to Congress to get cannabis reform right.

Former U.S. Senator Thomas Daschle served as the Senate Majority Leader from 2001 to 2003, while representing the state of South Dakota. Today, he serves as co-chair for the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education, and Regulation.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden’s anti-business White House will push us into recession

America’s CEOs are in the dumps. According to a new Conference Board survey, CEO sentiment has plunged to 34, down from 42 in the second quarter and 57 in the first three months of the year.

Early in Joe Biden’s presidency, when businesses were still celebrating the exit of the unpredictable Donald Trump, COVID-19 seemed to be waning and before Democrats’ spending spree unleashed widespread inflation, the index hit an all-time high of 82. 

The recent reading is approaching the extreme pessimism that characterized the Great Recession in 2008-2009, when Barack Obama was in the White House.

Who can blame our business leaders? The economy is weakening, the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates and ideologues in the Biden White House are pummeling our nation’s industries, changing the rules and picking winners and losers. Oh — and also raising taxes.

As our country hovers on the brink of recession, the last thing we need is a White House undermining business confidence, but that’s what we have.

The White House is not only punishing ventures that stand in the way of its green new world, like oil and gas companies. The Biden administration is also in thrall to Big Labor; the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is pushing unionization across the nation, even if it means bending the rules.

In addition, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is aggressively blocking mergers and acquisitions, key to some firms’ futures, while the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is muscling investment capital to favored sectors, supercharging workplace diversity mandates and demanding public disclosures from private corporations.

When Biden issued executive orders mandating an “all of government approach” to solving climate change or racial inequity, few imagined the degree to which federal agencies would be enlisted to pursue those ambitions.

Biden’s advisers, mainly academics and activists without much real-world experience, think they know better how to manage the country’s investments and businesses than the people who created them. The laughably titled Inflation Reduction Act included a 1 percent tax on stock buybacks because Democrats needed revenues to fund their climate fantasies, but also because progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) dislike that particular use of excess capital, even if it rewards shareholders.

The White House is abusing friends and foes alike.

When Starbucks, a famously liberal firm, accuses the NLRB of illegally interfering in union votes, something is very wrong. Starbucks’s management and employees have been generous donors to Democratic causes and candidates. But here they are, reporting that NLRB agents manipulated the voting process to help Workers United win elections and then collaborated to hide the misdeeds.

Starbucks is not the only left-leaning firm complaining about Biden’s kowtowing to Big Labor. Following a successful union drive at a Staten Island facility, Jeff Bezos’s Amazon accused the NLRB of “inappropriate and undue influence” in the voting process. That followed President Biden personally encouraging a unionization effort at an Amazon facility in Alabama; that drive failed, so the NLRB ordered a second vote.

It isn’t just the NLRB that appears out of control. The FTC is prohibiting business combinations, and not just by Big Tech. Just recently, the FTC stunned industry observers by suing to prohibit Meta’s acquisition of a small virtual reality company. Venture capitalists registered concern that the FTC would, through such actions, undermine a key growth strategy for Big Tech firms such as Meta.

This follows the FTC blocking chipmaker Nvidia from buying Arm, which licenses chip technology used in most smartphones, and Lockheed Martin’s attempt to purchase rocket manufacturer Aerodyne.

Elsewhere, the SEC is mounting a rearguard action to direct investment funds away from fossil fuels and towards green energy.

These super-charged agencies are delivering on Biden’s priorities — combatting climate change, boosting organized labor and reining in what the president describes as the monopoly power of concentrated industries, which he disingenuously blames for inflation. It is the small number of firms in the shipping and meatpacking industries, Biden claims, that is driving prices higher, not his party’s reckless spending.

Of course, Democrats are also raising taxes on big corporations, which do not, according to Biden, pay their “fair share.” In reality, America’s businesses pay the taxes designed by Congress and take advantage of deductions created to spur investment and to promote other priorities. No wonder the C-suite is feeling dismal.

Why should you care? Because the hiring and investment decisions made by company leaders will determine whether we fall into recession and how severe the downturn is. Right now, the prospects are getting gloomier. 

Some 93 percent of CEOs in the Conference Board’s survey think we will be in either a shallow recession (81 percent) in the next 12-18 months or a deep downturn (12 percent). 

In response, only half the CEOs expect to hire more workers over the next year, down from 63 percent last quarter. In addition, a hefty 82 percent of CEOs expect their capital budgets to increase or remain the same over the twelve months, but that was down from 93 percent just three months ago.

All of this reminds us of the Obama presidency, which clobbered businesses big and small with reams of new regulations, only to see CEO confidence wane and economic growth slow. It’s not rocket science. Investment and hiring boosts growth; when you create roadblocks to prosperity, the people responsible for taking risks and making those decisions will hesitate, and the economy will stumble.

America’s rebound from the Great Recession was the slowest on record. Many of us at the time blamed the interfering Obama White House for impeding our snap-back. Joe Biden looks to be following the same path.

No wonder our CEOs are in the dumps.

Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company. Follow her on Twitter @lizpeek.

Source: TEST FEED1

New York City uses 1907 law to deny all Hurricane Ida property claims

New York City is using a rule from more than a 100 years ago to deny property damage claims from victims of Hurricane Ida.  

A total of 4,703 claims related to the deadly storm have been filed and every one of which has been denied by the city’s comptroller Brad Lander, The City first reported.

Comptroller Lander’s office confirmed to The Hill that all 4,703 claims were denied.  

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

The category 4 hurricane struck New Orleans in early September and the remnants of the storm broke rainfall records for the Big Apple.  

The storm dumped over three inches of water within an hour in Central Park, quickly overwhelming the city’s century-old sewer system which was designed to only handle rainfall of up to two inches an hour. 

The rapid influx of water caused flash flooding across the tri-state area, killing at least 13 people in New York City, most of whom lived in basement apartments in Queens.  

Most of the claims argue that it was the city’s negligence of its sewer system that led to the destructive flooding, and while the comptroller’s office pledged to investigate each claim to determine if it was indeed negligence that resulting in flooding, decisions were based on a 1907 legal decision that does not hold municipal governments responsible for damage due to “extraordinary or excessive” rainfall, according to the letter from Lander.  

“For over a century, courts have held that municipalities across the state of New York, including the City of New York, are not liable for damage from ‘extraordinary and excessive rainfalls,’ Where damage is caused by negligent action or omission on the part of the City of New York, the City may be liable; however, that was not the case here,” the letter states.  

“As a result, the City of New York is not responsible for losses arising from Hurricane Ida, and your claim must be denied.” 

New York City residents that wish to file a claim have until Nov. 30 to do so, Lander adds in the letter before writing that the city should do more to help them navigate the complex network of relief programs and insurance paperwork needed after a natural disaster.  

New York elected officials, including Congressmember Grace Meng, called for the city’s aging infrastructure to be updated and admonished the use of the old precedent.  

“NYC/NYS should use the billions of infrastructure $ we in Congress secured to fix our sewer infrastructure. New Yorkers experience flooded homes even without “excessive rain”,” Meng tweeted. “My constituents, including the families of those who died don’t have time for this blame game.” 

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA

WHY ELON MUSK IS MOVING TESLA FROM CALIFORNIA TO TEXAS

BIDEN TO INVEST $100B ON INTERNET FOR ALL AMERICANS

NEW AMTRAK MAP SHOWS US RAIL NETWORK IT CAN BUILD WITH BIDEN’S INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

WHAT EXACTLY IS IN BIDEN’S BOLD NEW INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSAL?

Source: TEST FEED1

Putin’s on the brink

In Vietnam, Afghanistan and many other conflicts, the stronger power lost because it could not win, and the weaker power triumphed simply because it did not lose. So shall it be in Ukraine, where the same process is playing out rapidly.

In less than six months, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war of choice has had catastrophic consequences — for Russia itself. It has resulted in at least 60,000 Russian casualties, more than the total number of fatalities suffered during the 10-year Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It has led to a long-term Russian loss of political influence and energy leverage in the West. It has helped resuscitate the NATO alliance, which just a few years ago seemed to be on its last legs. And it has inflicted severe, long-term damage on the Russian economy, effectively erasing all of the gains made since the Soviet Union’s collapse.

And what has Russia gotten for this? Only a few more slivers of land in Ukraine — land that the Kremlin may not be able to hold for very long.

Russia’s elites already know this. As the body bags, wounded and discharged soldiers return to Russia, the Russian people are beginning to comprehend it as well. All of which increases Putin’s domestic political vulnerability — and puts him under growing pressure to find some way to declare victory.

As a result, Russia’s president has continued to double down on his campaign of aggression. Following its failure to take Kyiv, Kharkiv and other Ukrainian territories, the Kremlin retooled its strategic objectives, narrowing them to the more limited aim of fully conquering the Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, both of which had been partially occupied since 2014. At great human cost, some gains have been made toward that goal. Overall, however, Russia’s revamped offensive can be classified as a strategic failure, as more and more Russians die to temporarily hold non-strategic territory.

This failure, in turn, has caused other problems. The troops used for cannon fodder in the Kremlin’s campaign have been disproportionally not ethnically Russian — something that has caused a souring of troop morale and stoked tensions between ethnically Russian troops and those from places like Buryatia (traditionally Buddhist) and Dagestan (mostly Muslim). Some soldiers are now refusing to fight, and discontent among their families presents a growing problem for Russia’s government.

But what is perhaps Putin’s most dangerous “bad bet” is now unfolding. With the destruction of the bridges necessary to resupply and/or reinforce them, the estimated 20,000 Russian troops on the west bank of the Dnipro River are trapped, effectively surrounded by Ukrainian forces without the capability to break out or to fight for any extended period of time. Putin did not reposition these troops when he had the chance to do so, effectively leaving them stranded. As a result, some senior commanders have deserted across the river, damaging Russian troop morale in Kherson and elsewhere.

All this makes Putin’s internal situation worse, as more and more members of Russia’s power ministries focus on his ongoing — and disastrous — mistakes. Eventually, a critical mass of Russia’s decision-making elites (those with guns or money) will conclude that the country needs to cut its losses by withdrawing its forces from Ukraine, because doing so would be a precondition for the removal of Western sanctions and allowing Russia to rebuild its army and economy.

This, however, cannot be done with Putin still in power.

Although removing Russia’s president from power won’t be easy, eventually the balance will inexorably shift from the dwindling number of stalwarts who still support his war aims to those who want to cut their losses.

That point could well come if the stalemate in the Donbas continues, and Ukraine starts to recapture territory now occupied by Russia. Today, both of those outcomes are distinctly possible. As a result, so too is a possible end to the current war.

Herman Pirchner, Jr. is president of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C.

Source: TEST FEED1

Fewer voters identifying as liberal: poll

Fewer voters are identifying as liberal and more voters are identifying as moderate or uncertain, according to a new poll released Thursday.

A Morning Consult poll found that the percentage of voters self-identifying their ideological affiliation as “somewhat liberal,” “liberal” or “very liberal” has dropped 7 points over the last five years the survey was conducted.

Liberals have made up a little over or a little under a third of U.S. voters over the last five years, while conservatives have maintained the majority at just under 40 percent.  

From 2017 to 2022, the share of voters identifying as liberal dipped from 34 percent to 27 percent, while those identifying as conservative rose from 38 percent to 39 percent. 

However, voters identifying as moderates or uncertain about their ideological affiliation have increased.

Those who identified as moderate increased 4 percentage points, from 24 percent in 2017 to 28 percent in 2022. Those who identified as uncertain also increased in that same time period, from 3 percent to 7 percent, according to the survey.

The poll noted that the percentage of Democrats identifying with a liberal ideology has also declined since 2017, while more Republicans are identifying as conservative. 

In general, young voters ages 18 to 34 left liberal identification behind at higher rates than older age groups. The age group’s liberal identification decreased from 47 percent in 2017 to 34 percent in 2022.

Liberal identification also shrunk among voters without a college degree more so than among those with higher education. 

The percentage of Black voters identifying as liberal went down from 49 to 34 percent over the last five years. Black voters identifying as moderate and those identifying as uncertain each went up 7 points, and conservative identification went up 2 points. 

Among Hispanic voters, liberal identification dipped from 50 percent to 34 percent, while moderate identification increased by 5 percentage points and uncertain identification rose 7 percentage points. Conservative identification went up by 4 percentage points. 

The poll, conducted on an annual basis from 2017 to 2022, surveyed representative samples of 750,158 registered voters each. 

Source: TEST FEED1