Tag Archives : Build House

Kissinger: US foreign policy 'very responsive to the emotion of the moment'

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a new interview that modern U.S. diplomacy is “very responsive to the emotion of the moment.”

“I think that the current period has a great trouble defining a direction. It’s very responsive to the emotion of the moment,” Kissinger told The Wall Street Journal.  

The 99-year-old Kissinger noted that U.S. leadership is focused on condemning ideas it disagrees with, instead of negotiating and engaging with adversaries’ thinking. 

He also cautioned against what he sees as disequilibrium in the international power balance as tensions between the U.S. and fellow world powers Russia and China escalate.

“We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s supposed to lead to,” Kissinger said, adding that the U.S. ought “not to accelerate the tensions and to create options.”

“How to marry our military capacity to our strategic purposes, and how to relate those to our moral purposes—it’s an unsolved problem,” Kissinger said.

His remarks came after China bristled when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) visited Taiwan earlier this month, despite warnings from the Biden administration and threats from Beijing that the trip could worsen U.S.-China tensions.

Beijing maintains that Taiwan is part of the mainland under its “One China” policy while the U.S. has remained strategically ambiguous about its policy toward the self-governing democratic island. 

“The policy that was carried out by both parties has produced and allowed the progress of Taiwan into an autonomous democratic entity and has preserved peace between China and the U.S. for 50 years,” Kissinger told the Journal, urging caution “in measures that seem to change the basic structure.”

Kissinger also said that he still anticipates Kyiv to cede territory as part of the solution to the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

Earlier this year, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky knocked Kissinger for suggesting that Ukraine could accomplish peace by ceding territory to the Russian invaders.

Zelensky said Kissinger’s idea “emerges from the deep past” and that his “calendar is not 2022, but 1938,” a reference to a similar deal between Czechoslovakia and Nazi Germany. U.S. officials later assured the public that it wouldn’t pressure Ukraine to do so.

Kissinger’s new book, “Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy,” analyzes the work of Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kuan-Yew and Margaret Thatcher.

Source: TEST FEED1

Republicans’ response to Mar-a-Lago search shows why we need more like Rusty Bowers

Before we learned that the FBI had probable cause to believe that it needed to retrieve documents related to nuclear weapons still held on Aug. 8 at Mar-a-Lago, Trump defenders launched dangerous attacks on law enforcement. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tweeted “Defund the FBI!” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) referred to the warrant-based search as a strategy of “Marxists.”

These assaults on those who follow legal procedures to defend our security remind us that principled Republican elected officials are becoming an endangered species.

On Aug. 2, Arizona state house speaker Rusty Bowers lost handily to a Trump-endorsed opponent in Bowers’s Republican primary election bid to win an Arizona Senate seat. He had been elected and reelected to the legislature over 17 years.

Six weeks earlier, on June 21, Bowers was a star witness before the Jan. 6 committee. He recounted how in December 2020, he refused entreaties from Trump and Rudy Giuliani to lead the Arizona legislature to replace electors for Joe Biden with those for Donald Trump. 

Bowers knew the damage he was doing to his electoral prospects and was, like Liz Cheney, a profile in courage. In fact, Caroline Kennedy recognized that fact this May in bestowing on both the award named after the book written by her father, President John F. Kennedy.

The Jan. 6 committee will resume its work this month and is scheduled to resume its public hearings in September. It has already revealed how multiple Trump administration members and allies had knowledge of his plans to overturn the election, arguably a conspiracy with criminal elements. Many Americans have asked: ‘Why did no one speak up before Jan. 6? Why are more not speaking up now like Bowers, Cassidy Hutchinson and a few others?’

In their 2018 book, “How Democracies Die,” Harvard political scientists Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky identified a central issue for democracies when autocratic leaders gain power: “Whether the aspiring dictator’s coalitional allies stay with him and exploit the fruits of power or defeat him,” according to New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait.

That question was answered revealingly by 147 Congressional Republicans mere hours after a mob attacked the Capitol. The representatives went right ahead and objected to Joe Biden’s election certification. The few who spoke up at the time, like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), lost their spine when the base reacted.

But not every Republican went silent.

On Jan. 3, 2021, Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger revealed that Trump had phoned the day before asking him to “find” 11,780 votes, one more than needed to reverse Joe Biden’s Georgia election win.

Scholars study the behavior of “bystanders,” those who observe something wrong and must decide whether to intervene, blow the whistle as Raffensperger did, or “leak” something anonymously. Understanding bystander behavior is important to experts assessing threats posed by school shooters, as well as to holding wrongdoers to account after a bad thing happens.

Among key points in the research: First, bystanders who act often make a difference. Second, the better the system for protecting bystanders who act, the more come forward. Third, there is no substitute for individuals who care about doing the right thing, particularly because acting often involves risk.

In July, the select committee played taped testimony from a Twitter employee who sought unsuccessfully to alert company executives weeks before Jan. 6 about the violence that the platform was helping militants plan. That the employee had his voice masked to prevent identification demonstrates what most human beings need in order to “say something” when they “see something”: Safety. Whether he feared his employer’s retaliation or violence from Trump supporters, it was apparent that revealing his identity felt unsafe.

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the director of European affairs for the Trump administration National Security Council, was on Trump’s (not) “perfect” July 25, 2019 call seeking to extort Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating Hunter Biden. Shortly after Vindman testified in Trump’s first impeachment hearing, Trump fired him. Trump also replaced CIA inspector general Michael Atkinson, who shared with Congress the anonymous complaint blowing the whistle on Trump’s call.

So — the risks are often real.

That is why, ultimately, individual integrity and commitment to moral values matter so much.

Vindman’s patriotism sustained him. When he testified, he addressed his father who had brought him to America in search of a better life: “Don’t worry, Dad, I’ll be fine.”

Firm religious belief fortified Rusty Bowers. “It is a tenet of my faith,” he told the committee, “that the Constitution is divinely inspired, that this is my most basic foundational belief.” And after his election loss on Aug. 2, he told the Associated Press, “I would do it again in a heartbeat. I’d do it 50 times in a row.”

That’s uncompromising conviction for you.

Virtuous bystanders abound in many religions. The Bible’s good Samaritan saved a robbery victim. Others had asked: ‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ As Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., observed, the Samaritan reversed the question: “If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”

Our country could use more Republicans like Rusty Bowers, who witnessed Trump’s misdeeds and asked: “If I do not stop to help this constitution, what will happen to it?”

Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor, of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats are on a dangerous path with drug pricing

The passage of Democrats’ sweeping economic package — which is designed to combat climate change, address health care costs and reduce the deficit by raising taxes on corporations — is a major win for President Biden’s agenda.

Further, Democrats’ push to pass a $35 insulin cap for non-Medicare patients was the right move both practically and politically — even though it was ultimately unsuccessful — as they forced Republicans to either side with them or to go on record voting against a policy that would cut costs for millions of Americans with diabetes.

Democrats’ final legislation makes a historic investment in clean energy, which will help the U.S. cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030. It also extends expanded subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and realizes the party’s long-sought goal of allowing Medicare to “negotiate” prescription drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Proponents claim that enabling Medicare to negotiate prices will lower the cost of prescription drugs for the nearly 64 million Americans who are currently on Medicare, and more specifically for the 1.4 million beneficiaries who spend more than $2,000 per year on their medications.

Regrettably, this is a misguided assessment that fails to consider how this policy will actually decrease both the affordability and accessibility of prescription drugs in the long run.

Democrats’ drug pricing policy won’t improve the problem that it is designed to address — making prescription drugs more affordable for Medicare beneficiaries — and it will end up limiting Medicare patients’ access to certain medications. Moreover, it will discourage pharmaceutical innovation, and worst of all will drive costs up for the 220 million Americans with private insurance.

Indeed, this policy will raise drug costs and health care premiums for the 220 million Americans with private health insurance. If drugmakers are forced to give Medicare significant discounts on certain drugs, these companies will make up for this lost revenue by raising prices in the commercial market, as “The Wall Street Journal’s” Editorial Board argued in their column earlier this week.

If hundreds of millions of Americans with private insurance are paying more for their medications — as well as for their hospital and physician services — Democrats’ “Inflation Reduction Act” will do nothing of the sort and could end up exacerbating the problem.

While Democrats did attempt to include a broad-based rebate if drug prices increase at a faster rate than inflation, the Senate parliamentarian struck this provision down, and Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) went forward with the bill anyway.

In addition to driving costs up for the majority of Americans, the policy won’t provide relief for most Medicare recipients. The bill’s $2,000 out-of-pocket cap for Medicare Part D patients will help just a small fraction of beneficiaries and doesn’t even take effect until 2026. Even then, the policy will begin by addressing only ten of the most expensive drugs on the market.

The policy’s focus on big drug manufacturers, who make brand-name medications, will also inject uncertainty into the market and engender perpetual monopolies. It will make it harder for lower-cost generic drugs — which make up almost 90 percent of all filled prescriptions in the United States — to gain entry and compete in the market, driving up prescription drug prices for all Americans over time.

Furthermore, this policy will ultimately limit Medicare patients’ access to life-saving treatments. It gives drug manufacturers impossible requirements to meet — namely, if a manufacturer does not agree to sell at the government’s mandated price, they will be forced to either pay a 95 percent tax on the sales or pull their medication off the market.

In the long run, this reform will also stifle medical and pharmaceutical innovation, curtailing all Americans’ access to life-saving drugs, especially seniors.

Continuing research following a medicine’s approval — or rejection — allows researchers to understand if a medication works at a different stage of an illness or for a different condition. This is especially important when it comes to treating cancer — as nearly 60 percent of oncology medications approved a decade ago received additional approvals for different types of cancer in the years to follow.

The Senate’s bill takes away the incentives that are necessary to encourage the continual investment in new cures by setting the price of medication before these advancements can be made. This will hurt seniors the most, as it disincentivizes drug makers from constantly investing in researching drugs that fall under Medicare coverage.

In order to more effectively minimize costs and maximize access, Democrats should be focused on promoting drug pricing reforms that eliminate inefficiencies and foster competitiveness in the marketplace.

This would involve cracking down on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which are third-party administrators of prescription drug programs, who reap the benefits of rebates instead of American patients. Oftentimes, PBMs receive more money from insurers than was paid for the medicine.

By cutting out these middlemen — PBMs — Americans would be able to purchase prescriptions straight from the supplier, eliminating markups or unnecessary price hikes. This approach has been successfully undertaken in the private sector, as billionaire Mark Cuban’s venture — Cost Plus Drugs — offers more than 100 generic drugs at affordable prices by removing pharmacy benefit managers from the equation.

While there are many helpful reforms in the Democrats’ economic package, their drug pricing policy, unfortunately, misses the mark. All Americans will bear the brunt of increased prices and decreased access, ironically, seniors will be hit the hardest.

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to former President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the author of “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Park the snowplow: Parents need to let first-year college students grow

Over the years, each of us has seen numerous communications from parents and guardians, especially of first-year students. But recently, the volume and specificity of inquiries have grown exponentially, driven in part by the establishment of parent Facebook groups.

Many of the questions are important and appropriate. Who should be contacted in an emergency? What health and counseling services are available? Who receives student grades?  Who gets informed — and when — if a student faces disciplinary action? Answers to these questions are usually available on college and university websites or in the emails and other communications sent to new students and parents.

But some parent Facebook posts underscore a growing concern among college and university faculty and staff. Many of you, it seems, are seeking to “solve” problems your students can — and should — sort out for themselves, as they learn to become more independent and self-sufficient.

We understand that you want your students to get off to a good start and that social media and email provide an unprecedented opportunity to get answers quickly and connect with other parents; nonetheless, in a twist on the iconic advice of Ronald Reagan, we urge you to trust (your children) and, unless it is urgently necessary, refrain from verifying.

Typical questions on parent Facebook groups include: clothing (everything from the best winter boots to party attire), the number and location of washing machines and dryers in each residence hall, whether machines are top or front loading, the best dryer settings, whether high-efficiency detergent should be used; room dimensions and set up (including floor plans, diagrams, and photos), bed height, sheet size, mattress toppers, dresser capacity, the utility of bed risers and stackable bins, bike storage, rug size, window size, lighting, cleaning supplies, acceptable wall hangings, the advisability of air purifiers, refrigerators, televisions, microwaves, printers, and fans, and, by the parent of a tall student, the height of shower heads in the bathroom.

Other common questions address banking information; course registration; faculty advisers and first meetings; medical services; orientation trips; where to eat; and where to get a car repaired.

Some of these questions are important for planning, others less so, but students can and — in the vast majority of cases will — find the answers themselves, even though they might not do so as expeditiously or as well as you could. If students use the wrong dryer setting, they will learn that clothes may shrink, but also something much more important: how to overcome obstacles and learn from mistakes.

Social science research suggests that Generation Z is less independent and more psychologically vulnerable than previous generations. According to social psychologist Jean Twenge, today’s teens are less likely to “leave the house without their parents,” date, engage in sexual activity, hold a driver’s license, drink alcohol, socialize with peers in person, or engage “in the responsibilities and pleasures of adulthood” than teens were a few decades ago. Eighteen-year-olds, Twenge observes, “now act more like 15-year-olds used to.”

Too often, it seems, the helicopter parents of the past, constantly hovering nearby to ensure their children’s safety, have given way to the snowplow parents of today, intent on clearing every obstacle from their children’s path. But as the former dean of freshmen at Stanford University has observed, snowplow parents have it backward: “The point is to prepare the kid for the road, instead of preparing the road for the kid.”

Many of you are in constant touch with your students through texting, FaceTime, and email. That’s a good thing — up to a point, especially if you spend much of the time listening and encouraging. But if you take over tasks your students should handle — whether it’s setting up their room, contacting a professor about a grade, or managing a roommate conflict — you may undermine their ability to function as independent adults.

Of course, it’s appropriate for you to serve as a sounding board, and, if you suspect or know that a serious problem has arisen, you should not hesitate to reach out to the student services staff on campus. Well-trained professionals will investigate, with discretion, when that is called for, and they will intercede, if appropriate, and get back to you.

College is an opportunity for students to grow emotionally as well as academically. If you allow your children to make their own choices and live with the consequences, even if it results in a stumble or a fall, you may become the best educators of all. And in doing so, you will be far more likely to forge better, stronger, and healthier relationships with the young adults you love so much.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Isaac Kramnick) of Cornell: A History, 1940-2015.

David Wippman is the President of Hamilton College.

Source: TEST FEED1

1 dead, 17 injured after after car strikes crowd at community fundraiser

One person was killed and 17 others injured when a man drove a vehicle through a crowd on Saturday, according to police in Pennsylvania.

The suspect, 24-year-old Adrian Oswaldo Sura Reyes, left the scene and assaulted and killed a woman in a neighboring county before he was apprehended, Pennsylvania State Police said.

Reyes was charged with two counts of criminal homicide, denied bail and remanded to a correctional facility in Columbia County, where the first attack occurred, officials added.

No information was shared about the victims, though the injured are being treated in local hospitals. 

Local media reported that the crowd had gathered in the Berwick borough of Columbia County, Pennsylvania, to raise funds for people killed in a recent house fire in the area.

The second attack occurred in the Nescopeck borough of neighboring Luzerne County, according to authorities.

Source: TEST FEED1

Alex Wagner kicks off 'dream job' taking over for Rachel Maddow on MSNBC

Alex Wagner says she’s ready for her shot in prime-time. 

The former daytime MSNBC host, who left the network in 2015, returns to its airwaves next week, taking over for four nights a week the 9 p.m. time slot previously held by Rachel Maddow. 

Maddow, who will continue to host the 9 o’clock hour on Mondays, is the network’s top-rated host but is stepping back from her daily show to focus on other projects at the outlet. 

Ahead of the debut of her new show, Wagner spoke with The Hill about her career, the state of the cable news industry and what viewers can expect from her “dream job,” which launches Tuesday. 

Questions and answers have been edited for grammar, clarity and length. 

Question: Why did you decide to come back to MSNBC, and what drew you back to cable news specifically after spending time in the streaming space and other projects?

Wagner: Who would not take this job? It’s an incredible platform. Rachel has done something incredible in the hour. There was no question I would come back when they offered it. I think my response was “yes, a thousand times yes.”

Q: As you mentioned, Rachel Maddow built a loyal following in her time slot at MSNBC. Is the consensus that her viewers will keep watching in the same hour but just with a different host? Or is this the beginning of a new audience segment in prime time at MSNBC? 

Wagner: Anybody would be misguided if they tried to replicate what Rachel does. This is going to be a different hour of television. It’s going to be an evolution. I’m not sure that we’re going to have the same long write-through to start the hour. I think you’re going to see more interview-focused segments, and I think you’ll see field segments as well. We’re going to bring in some new stuff that’s reflective of my career and strengths as a journalist. The best thing you can do is make a show that is reflective and true and authentic to you as a host.  

Q: In your view, what does a successful prime-time show on cable news in 2022 look like, and what’s the job of its host? Is it to inform, to entertain, or some combination of both? 

Wagner: I don’t think it’s to entertain. I think of myself as a journalist first and foremost. My goal is to focus on issues that are urgent or important to the American public, and to present those stories in a truthful and accurate way. Woe be to anybody who thinks the job of a host is to entertain in these times. We are living in an extraordinary moment for American democracy. The stakes are extraordinarily high, and I take that responsibility very seriously. 

Q: There’s been a lot of talk in the industry about the big cable news companies attempting to find the so-called center lane or tone down the partisan rhetoric. What do you make of that, and is it sustainable from a business perspective? 

Wagner: I’m not known as a flamethrower, but I’m also unafraid of showcasing injustice or bad actors or lies where they are. That shouldn’t be considered flame-throwing. At the same time, I’m also not going to offer a one-sided perspective on every issue. I don’t go into anything thinking “I’ve got to make this palatable to the left” or “I’ve got to really sock it to the right.” I go in there thinking, “How do we do this in a way that is accurate and fair and additive?”

Q: What do you say to critics of networks such as MSNBC or CNN who say those channels have drifted too far to the political left, especially in prime time? And generally, how much has the cable news landscape changed since you were last a part of it? 

Wagner: One needs to look at the root cause of the change, which is this dramatic political change we’ve undergone as a country and the dramatic change inside the Republican Party. I think cable news is reflective of a party that is becoming increasingly extreme. Insurrection in the U.S. Capitol … that wasn’t happening when I was hosting an MSNBC show in 2012. Everything has changed. And everybody from the audience to the news industry is grappling with how we chronicle these times. Have there been overcorrections? Maybe. Probably. But I do not believe that we should make our newscasts any less urgent. Because the times are desperate in many ways. We have to reflect the times in which we live. 

Q: There are obviously a number of highly impactful issues on the minds of voters ahead of the midterms. What are some that intrigue you the most or we can expect to see your show exploring at some length? 

Wagner: I am particularly touched by the struggle for reproductive rights. I am interested in the way in which right-wing advocates and funders have manipulated the issue of inclusivity and race to make it a political cudgel. I’m also a person living in a stage one water crisis in my part of New York, and we have to figure out a way to chronicle what’s happening in terms of climate change. We’re going to generally be responsive to the politics of the day. 

Q: What have you made of the Jan. 6 hearings so far? From a media and television perspective, do you think the presentation has met the moment and effectively portrayed the story the panel is trying to tell?

Wagner: Yes. What they’ve done is really impressive. It’s a lot of information, a fair share of which people sort of vaguely knew about. More than anything, they’re doing a service to the country. It’s really important that we not shortchange what happened, the way our democratic processes were manipulated, and we have to do something to make sure that doesn’t happen again. 

Q: What have you made of the Biden administration so far and news coverage of it? Much has been made of issues regarding the economy, inflation and the rising cost of living. Do you see these as a major political liability for Biden heading into 2024? 

Wagner: The script isn’t written yet. The Biden administration is very happy we’re having this discussion in 2022 and not 2023. A lot changes in politics very quickly. There are external factors that will in many ways determine his fate. And then there is the Democratic Party itself, which is a very big tent party. And so, predicting what they’re going to do, and whether Democrats are going to fall in line is also contingent not just on the characters in the tent but what is happening externally. So, there are just so many variables.

Source: TEST FEED1

Talk about corporate welfare: Federal giveaways to wind, solar sectors are about to explode

The hype around the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, also known as the Manchin-Schumer bill, has been extraordinary. On Aug. 8, New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman published a piece headlined “Did Democrats Just Save Civilization?” in which he declared that “experts on energy and the environment are giddy over what has been accomplished” and the “world is a more hopeful place than it was just a few weeks ago.”

Five former Treasury secretaries declared that the measure will “help increase American competitiveness, address our climate crisis, lower costs for families, and fight inflation.” Meanwhile, Leah Stokes, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, claims the bill will “create manufacturing all across this country.”

Amid all the hosannas, precious little media attention has focused on exactly how the $370 billion in energy-related spending will be divvied up. But a look at the numbers published on Aug. 5 by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that this bill is not the vaunted “silver buckshot” that activists say will save us from catastrophic climate change. Instead, Manchin-Schumer is a 20 carat-gold blunderbuss that rewards, well, everybody. Electric vehicles (EVs), “climate justice,” hydrogen, carbon capture — a total of 68 energy- or climate-related line items are listed in the CBO report — and, yes, I counted them.

The handouts in the bill show, once again, the power of the NGO-industrial-corporate-Congress-media complex. But the CBO report also makes it abundantly clear that the cost to taxpayers of the federal handouts to the wind and solar sectors are about to absolutely explode.

According to the CBO, Big Wind and Big Solar could collect as much as $126.9 billion in new federal tax credits between now and 2031. If that occurs, the total cost of federal giveaways for wind and solar will more than double — and could total nearly $240 billion by 2031.

Before diving into the particulars in the CBO report, let’s back up to recall what the latest Treasury Department data on tax expenditures (published last December) reveal about existing energy-related tax breaks. The Treasury numbers show that between 2022 and 2031, the tax credits for solar and wind will cost the federal treasury $112.9 billion. The investment tax credit (ITC), used by the solar industry, will cost federal taxpayers about $60 billion. The production tax credit (PTC), which expired at the beginning of this year and is used by the wind industry, will cost nearly $52.9 billion. For comparison, the oil and gas sector will get about $29 billion in tax credits and the nuclear sector will get a paltry $3.4 billion.

The 35-page CBO report on Manchin-Schumer contains dozens of line items. It includes estimated outlays on numerous programs, including subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and Medicare. But the big costs in the bill are spelled out in the sections pertaining to energy.

Let’s look at the PTC-related provisions first. For those of you scoring at home, they are listed in the CBO report as Sections 13101 and 13701, which will cost roughly $51 billion and $11.2 billion, respectively. Thus, the cost of the new wind energy-related tax credits in Manchin-Schumer will total about $62.2 billion between now and 2031.

Now, the ITC-related provisions. They are listed as Sections 13102 and 13702 and will cost $13.9 billion, and $50.8 billion, respectively. Thus, the new solar-related tax credits in Manchin-Schumer will cost federal taxpayers about $64.7 billion between now and 2031. A bit of addition shows that the total cost of the new wind and solar tax credits will be about $126.9 billion.

That $126.9 billion in tax credits for wind and solar spelled out in the CBO report will be added on top of the $112.9 billion that was enumerated by the Treasury Department in its December tax expenditure report. Thus, under Manchin-Schumer, the subsidies for wind and solar will total a staggering $239.8 billion between now and 2031. That amounts to some $26.6 billion per year. Put another way, when this measure becomes law, solar and wind will get nearly as much in tax credits every year as the oil and gas industry will get over a decade.

Why should you care? First and foremost, you should care because these tax credits are just another form of corporate welfare. For years, advocates for renewable energy sectors have claimed that wind and solar are cheaper than traditional forms of electricity generation. To cite just one example, John Kerry, the Biden administration’s climate envoy, recently claimed that “Solar and wind are less expensive than coal or oil or gas. They just are less expensive.” If that were true, the wind and solar sectors wouldn’t need tax credits.

Furthermore, these tax credits are fueling land-use conflicts across America as rural communities fight back against the landscape-blighting sprawl of wind and solar projects. The Renewable Rejection Database shows that since 2013, more than 340 communities across the country have rejected or restricted wind projects. Communities are also rejecting solar projects. In March, NBC News reported that “at least 40” towns and counties have enacted moratoriums on solar projects since last year. Although NBC did not publish a list, the Renewable Rejection Database shows that 41 solar projects have been rejected in the U.S. since 2019. The latest example: Greensville County, Va., where the Board of Supervisors rejected a 123-megawatt solar project on Aug. 8 because it was not in “alignment with the county’s Comprehensive Plan.”

The punchline here is clear: Climate change is a concern, but it is not our only concern. Congress must be fiscally responsible. The CBO report shows that Manchin-Schumer contains unconscionable giveaways to the wind and solar sectors. If wind and solar are cheaper than conventional energy production, it’s time for them to prove it — without another $127 billion in taxpayer dollars.

Robert Bryce is the host of the “Power Hungry Podcast,” executive producer of the documentary, “Juice: How Electricity Explains the World,” and the author of six books, including most recently, “A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations.” Follow him on Twitter @pwrhungry.

Source: TEST FEED1

Zelensky accuses Russia of nuclear blackmail at power plant

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is accusing Russia of “blackmail” after recent shelling near Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.

“The occupiers are trying to intimidate people in an extremely cynical way, using the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant,” Zelensky said in an address to Ukrainians on Saturday, saying Russia hides behind the plant to attack nearby cities. 

“They arrange constant provocations with shelling of the territory of the nuclear power plant and try to bring their additional forces in this direction to blackmail our state and the entire free world even more.”

Russia captured the area where the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is located early in the war, and the two countries have blamed each other for recent strikes. 

Zelensky has called the shelling “Russian nuclear terror” and pushed the international community to place sanctions on Russia’s nuclear industry and fuel exports. 

The Ukrainian president’s message comes as Ukraine attempts to counter Russia’s continued attacks on the country. Russia reportedly struck Ukraine’s eastern headquarters in Kramatorsk overnight as Ukraine pushed back on Russian occupation in the south.

The recent attacks near Zaporizhzhia have heightened international concern over the risk of a nuclear accident. The United Nations secretary-general last week called the violence “suicidal.”

Russia’s occupation and attack, Zelensky said Saturday, “increases the radiation threat to Europe so much that even at the peak moments of the confrontation during the Cold War, this did not happen.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Crypto community split on Treasury's Tornado Cash sanctions

Recent U.S. sanctions against cryptocurrency mixer Tornado Cash have sparked a debate within the crypto community on whether the ban compromises users’ ability to operate anonymously. 

Earlier this week, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions against Tornado Cash for helping hackers launder over $7 billion worth of virtual currency. The agency said the mixer service allowed cyber criminal groups, including North Korean-backed hackers, to use its platform to launder the proceeds of cyber crimes. 

The Treasury’s decision has the crypto community split — proponents of the service argue that the sanctions violate their right to privacy, while critics say the ban is a way to discourage criminals from using the platform to hide and launder illicit funds. 

“In an effort to punish hackers and cybercriminals, Treasury just made a clumsy attempt to sanction Tornado Cash, an open source protocol,” wrote Lia Holland, the campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future, a digital rights advocacy group. 

Cryptocurrency mixers like Tornado Cash have become popular in recent years as crypto investors turned to the service to make their transactions anonymous and harder to trace by mixing their funds with others on the blockchain. 

Holland explained that regular transactions recorded on the blockchain are permanent, public and easily traceable, which made investors turn to mixers for better privacy. 

“Anonymity is not a crime, and there are many legitimate reasons to seek anonymity in financial transactions,” Holland said. 

For instance, she said using mixers could protect the identity of activists in authoritarian countries where exposing their financial information could get them imprisoned or executed.  

Holland added that the Treasury should focus on pursuing cyber criminals instead of sanctioning the tool they use to launder illicit proceeds. 

“This is a rough equivalent to sanctioning the email protocol in the early days of the internet, with the justification that email is often used to facilitate phishing attacks,” she said.  

Jake Chervinsky, head of policy at the Blockchain Association, recently said on Twitter that the sanctions may have opened a Pandora’s box, alluding to the potential for similar bans in the future.  

“There’s good reason why sanctions have always applied to entities, not technology,” Chervinsky said. “Treating Tornado Cash as an ‘entity’ makes little sense.” 

Meanwhile, critics of crypto mixers say they simply shouldn’t exist because they harbor criminal activity that often goes undetected and is harder to trace. 

“I look at [the sanctions] as a way to prevent some of those incentives for people to commit these types of crimes against enterprises,” said Bryan Daugherty, a certified cryptocurrency investigator and the public policy director at the Bitcoin Association.  

Daugherty added that crypto mixers are often used by criminal groups to obfuscate illicit funds and doesn’t see why non-criminal users would want to run the risk of using the same platform other than being anonymous.  

By using mixers, “you will run the risk of contaminating your legally-gained coins with somebody else’s illegally-gained coins,” Daugherty said.  

He added that it’s important to distinguish between privacy and anonymity in this context.  

He argued that investors should be able to operate with privacy on the blockchain where the public cannot identify, trace or access any users’ financial information, except for law enforcement if it has probable cause to do so. 

In the case of anonymity, the identity is completely hidden, which makes it harder even for the government to trace the transaction, Daugherty said. 

“You’re just incentivizing crime by being able to create anonymity,” he added. 

However, he did acknowledge that developers should improve privacy on the blockchain but not to the extent of allowing users to be anonymous like they have been on Tornado Cash and other crypto mixers. 

In Monday’s announcement, the Treasury Department said that the Lazarus Group, a state-sponsored hacking group tied to North Korea, used Tornado Cash to steal more than $455 million in cryptocurrency, the largest known virtual currency theft to date. The U.S. sanctioned the group in 2019. 

The agency also disclosed that Tornado Cash was used to launder more than $96 million of illicit cyber funds originating from the Harmony bridge heist, and at least $7.8 million from the Nomad crypto theft. 

“Despite public assurances otherwise, Tornado Cash has repeatedly failed to impose effective controls designed to stop it from laundering funds for malicious cyber actors on a regular basis and without basic measures to address its risks,” said Brian Nelson, Treasury’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, earlier this week. 

A senior administration official said during a background call to reporters that the sanctions against Tornado Cash are the latest action the U.S. has taken to crack down on North Korea’s ongoing illicit use of cryptocurrency.  

Treasury sanctioned another crypto mixer, Blender.io, in May, alleging that it was used to launder money from hackers backed by North Korea’s government. 

A recent report from Chainalysis, a blockchain data firm, found that the use of crypto mixers reached an all-time high in 2022, with state-sponsored actors and cybercriminals making up a large portion of users.  

In 2022, illicit addresses account for 23 percent of funds sent to mixers, up from 12 percent in 2021, the report found.  

“Overall, if we label cybercriminal organizations with known nation state affiliations, we can see that these groups make up a significant and growing share of all illicit cryptocurrency sent to mixers,” the report said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

He deserves a Purple Heart — the Supreme Court should ensure he gets it

On Nov. 5, 2009, Nidal Hasan entered the Soldier Readiness Center at the sprawling U.S. Army base at Fort Hood, Texas and opened fire. Hasan killed 13 people and injured more than 30. Staff Sgt. Joshua Berry was in an adjacent building and helped to prevent Hasan’s entry. Hasan fired his weapon at Berry, causing him to dive for cover and seriously injure himself in the process.

For his courage under fire, the Army resolved to award Berry the Purple Heart. Tragically, after the Foot Hood massacre, Berry was never the same. He took his own life on Feb. 13, 2013.

Later, and inexplicably, the Deputy Secretary of the Army denied a Purple Heart to Berry, an American hero. His family members have been forced to fight for years in court for the honor that he deserves. Their last hope lies with the U.S. Supreme Court.

As veterans who have dedicated our professional lives to serving current and former service members, rarely have we encountered a case more disturbing — or a cause more just — than the quest by Berry’s family for his Purple Heart. That is why the America First Policy Institute and First Liberty jointly filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to correct this miscarriage of justice.

President Obama famously declared Hasan’s murderous rampage an act of “workplace violence.” But two years after Berry’s death, Congress rectified Obama’s grievous category error by designating Hasan’s actions an “international terrorist attack.” This important change allowed those injured and killed in the attack to be awarded the Purple Heart.

Berry’s family members began the painful process of applying for him to receive the award posthumously, so they could present it to his daughter to commemorate her father’s honorable service and sacrifice. The Army initially recommended that Berry receive the Purple Heart posthumously. But, stunningly, the Deputy Secretary of the Army reversed that decision. The Berry family sued in federal court.

At each stage of litigation, the court ruled against the family. Earlier this summer, the family appealed the case to the Supreme Court, presenting the justices with one final opportunity to deliver justice and bring closure to this sad chapter.

This case is significant not only because of its underlying tragedy, but because of its legal implications. In ruling against the family, the lower courts stated the Army is entitled to “unusual deference” on its procedural decisions because, according to those courts, “judges are not given to the task of running the Army.”

While it is certainly true that America’s judges are ill-equipped to run its Army, the same cannot be said of their ability to apply and uphold the law. Judges have a constitutional duty to ensure that all government officials — including military officials — follow the law, including congressional statutes.

Under the Constitution, the military takes orders not only from the president, as commander in chief, but also from Congress. When the president and Congress are at odds, courts step in. That is a structural feature of our constitutional order. Courts should not reflexively approve the internal decisions of unelected military officials when service members’ constitutional and statutory rights are at stake. As Chief Justice John Roberts observed during his 2005 confirmation hearing, judges are to “call balls and strikes,” not pick winners and losers.

In this case, Congress clearly directed the military to view the Fort Hood attack as an “international terrorist attack,” making those injured and killed in the attack eligible for the Purple Heart. Had Congress remained silent on the matter, then perhaps the Deputy Secretary of the Army would be entitled to an enhanced degree of deference in his determination of Staff Sgt. Berry’s eligibility. But Congress was crystal clear: Berry and the dozens of other Fort Hood victims are entitled to the Purple Heart.

When Congress has spoken, the courts must uphold the law as written. In Berry’s case, however, courts have abdicated their Article III responsibility by granting the military “unusual deference,” even though a statutory right is at stake and the issue in question is procedural, and not one requiring military expertise. 

The problems caused by courts’ “unusual deference” to the military on procedural questions are not limited to the distribution of awards. Far too often, judges have failed to protect the religious liberty and due process rights of service members because of blind deference to military officials. Unsurprisingly, this constitutional injury results in a demoralized force, reduced recruitment, and diminished national security.

The “unusual deference” standard must be fixed. This case gives the Supreme Court a perfect opportunity to do so as they honor the sacrifice of a hero.

We will never know how many lives Staff Sgt. Joshua Berry saved that tragic day in 2009. Ultimately, the Berry family simply wants to ensure that Berry’s daughter may have her late father’s Purple Heart — a medal that represents great pain and loss. The award also would be a great solace for those who remain and those whom he saved.

The Army’s denial of this honor is as wrong as it is heartless. It is not too much to ask that courts fulfill their duty to apply the law as written and ensure that Berry’s sacrifice is honored. We hope the Supreme Court will do just that and let a military hero finally rest in peace. 

Robert Wilkie served as Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. He is a Distinguished Fellow at America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security.

Mike Berry served as a Marine Corps Judge Advocate General (JAG) for seven years and is vice president of external affairs and director of military affairs for First Liberty Institute. He is not related to Staff Sgt. Joshua Berry.

Source: TEST FEED1