Protein shake maker recalls more than 4 dozen products

FRESNO, California (KXAN) — Protein shake maker Lyons Magnus is recalling 53 nutritional and beverage products because they could be contaminated.

Lyons Magnus said on July 28 the products may have bacteria from the germ Cronobacter sakazakii. According to a company press release, the germ can cause fever, vomiting and urinary tract infections.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cronobacter infection can be very serious for older people and people with HIV, organ transplants or cancer.

Lyons Magnus said its recall is voluntary, and it has no reports of anyone getting sick from the 53 products listed in the release.

Cronobacter sakazakii was at the center of a recall of baby formula in February 2022. Lyons Magnus said the list of recalled products does not include products intended for infants.

Lyons Magnus said you should throw out any of the recalled products or return them where you bought them for a refund.

If you have any questions, the company said you can call them anytime at 1 (800) 627-0557 or check its website.

Source: TEST FEED1

Want to solve the student debt crisis — restructure interest rates

More than 43 million Americans owe nearly $1.8 trillion in student loan debt, and this is only expected to increase. While the debate has raged on about what the Biden administration (and/or Congress) should do regarding student loan cancellation, little has been done to actually solve the issues that created the crisis in the first place. 

One way to simultaneously help Americans currently struggling with student loan debt and fix the financial systems responsible for the crisis is to restructure student loan interest rates. 

The COVID-19 pandemic elevated discussions of student loan cancellation to the forefront of American discourse. Proponents argue debt forgiveness would mitigate the harmful effects student debt has on the economy, such as reduced homeownership rates, and would improve income inequality for students of color. Opponents argue partial forgiveness would do little to boost economic growth and forgiveness, in general, would not address the underlying drivers of increasing student debt and would disproportionately benefit high-income households.

Regardless of where you stand, there seems to be little compromise in sight. Restructuring student loan interest rates can be that common ground.  

Interest rates are at the heart of the student loan debt crisis, as interest begins to accrue as soon as a loan is disbursed and continues during periods of deferment. This interest continues to compound, and over time leaves borrowers with huge balances and monthly payments that only cover current interest balances. Any unpaid interest capitalizes and is added to the principal of the loan, increasing the overall cost.

Sixty-three percent of borrowers who made student loan payments during the COVID-19 pandemic still owed more than they originally borrowed, despite interest rates being set at zero percent and payments being paused. If we are going to fix the student loan debt crisis, we must first deal with the reality that interest rates are only going to make the student debt problem worse without action.

Subsidized loans were designed to avoid high interest rate costs, as the government would cover the cost of interest while a student was enrolled. However, first-year undergraduates can only receive $3,500 in subsidized loans, a mere third of the average cost of public in-state tuition ($10,338).

This leaves many students, including graduate students, reliant on unsubsidized loans, which accrue interest from the time they are disbursed until paid, regardless of enrollment, deferment and grace periods.

We need to address the idea that students are paying interest on their loans before finishing their degrees/credentials. Nowhere else in our financial system does someone start paying interest on something before receiving the goods for which they took the loan. Take a mortgage — get to live in the house. Take a car note — get to drive the car. 

Students do not see a return on their investment until they are able to be gainfully employed after finishing their degree. Even those students working full- or part-time during their time in college do not benefit from their degree/credential until after completion of the program.

Why should they have to pay interest before then? 

One way to solve the interest rate issue and find a compromise: Let borrowers refinance their loans to zero percent interest or eliminate interest rates altogether. There are glimmers of bipartisan support for this idea. 

In August of 2021, Sen. Rubio (R-Fla.) reintroduced his Leveraging Opportunities for Americans Now (LOAN) Act which would eliminate interest rates and replace them with a one-time, non-compounding fee. Similarly, In June of 2022, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) introduced the Zero-Percent Student Loan Refinancing Act, which would allow Americans to refinance their federal student loans at a zero percent interest rate.

A zero percent interest rate would address many of the concerns both sides express with full student loan debt forgiveness. It would allow borrowers to better plan their finances without overheating the economy, as full forgiveness could. It would start to address a main driver of debt increase (i.e., interest rates), and it would lessen the financial burden on low-income individuals without disproportionately benefiting those with loans for graduate and professional school. This is not to mention the numerous unforeseen mental and social benefits borrowers would see by feeling a sense of relief.  

The Biden administration has not been as bold to suggest a zero percent interest rate yet, but recently they have suggested changes to keep unpaid interest from being capitalized upon the principal of the loan in certain circumstances. This narrower approach would save borrowers millions but still does not fix the ballooning debt crisis.

Regardless of what the administration and Congress decide, it is clear they need to do something — and do it soon. Multiple generations are now struggling under the weight of student loan debt and growing balances. Students who are making payments are barely covering interest costs and are seeing principal balances continue to increase. Without action, this problem will only grow.

A key part of the American dream is the idea that if you work hard, a better future is possible, but the student debt crisis is clouding that dream for millions of Americans. Many borrowers feel underwater, fearful of their financial future while others are anxiously awaiting a decision from the Biden administration as their last hope.

There is no perfect answer to the crisis, and it will take more than one policy solution to fix it. However, restructuring interest rates — or, better yet, eliminating interest altogether — would provide the light at the end of the tunnel so many Americans are seeking, and it would move us closer to making that American dream a reality.

Javaid Siddiqi, Ph.D. is president & CEO of The Hunt Institute. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Privileged nominees taking longer to confirm: report

Privileged presidential nominees, which are supposed to be noncontroversial and easily confirmed by the Senate through what was designed to be an expedited process, are taking longer to confirm than other nominees, according to a report by the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition released on Monday.

The report found that nominees serving in the roughly 280 positions eligible for the privileged nomination process, which are typically noncontroversial positions like roles on boards and commissions, have taken 75 days longer to confirm than all other nominees.

In 2011, the Senate approved the expedited process, which allows privileged nominees to bypass the committee process and be quickly placed on the Senate executive calendar, but those nominees still wait alongside all others for a vote by the full Senate.

“Despite this well-intentioned effort, nominees on the privileged calendar are worse off today than they were before the reform was adopted,” the report states.

The center found that positions on the privileged nomination calendar are taking 47 percent longer to confirm since the procedure was introduced. Privileged nominees took an average of 251 days to confirm since the system went into effect, compared to 171 days in the prior decade.

Part-time positions on the privileged calendar have taken 70 days longer to confirm on average than full-time roles, which the report attributed to the Senate’s prioritization of more controversial, full-time positions.

The report provides two recommendations to solve the backlog.

First, the center recommends Congress converts more privileged nominee positions to presidential appointments that do not require Senate confirmation, nonpolitical career roles or agency-controlled appointments.

“The Senate has already determined that many of these positions are noncontroversial and do not need the same level of scrutiny as standard Senate-confirmed appointees,” the report reads.

Second, the report suggests an expedited floor procedure in the Senate to consider privileged nominees to avoid stalling on a nominee before a final vote.

“The Partnership for Public Service encourages Congress to consider changes to the Senate confirmation process and the privileged calendar to help future administrations more quickly fill roles that are critical for a more effective government,” the report states.

Source: TEST FEED1

NASA: Nichelle Nichols a role model who 'symbolized to so many what was possible'

NASA praised “Star Trek” actress and former agency recruiter Nichelle Nichols as a “trailblazer and role model who symbolized to so many what was possible” in a statement issued shortly after she died at the age of 89 on Sunday.

Officials tweeted out a photo of Nichols along with the statement, showing a black-and-white image of the actress when she worked for the space agency.

“We celebrate the life of Nichelle Nichols, Star Trek actor, trailblazer, and role model, who symbolized to so many what was possible,” NASA wrote. “She partnered with us to recruit some of the first women and minority astronauts, and inspired generations to reach for the stars.”

Nichols died in Silver City, N.M., after a career that had touched the hearts of many in the U.S. and particularly those in the African American community.

As Nyota Uhura, Nichols played a key character on the Starship Enterprise along with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy in the original “Star Trek” show, which ran from 1966 to 1969.

Nichols was one of the first African American actresses to play a major role on television that depicted her as equal to characters of another race, with the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. praising her for championing the Black American on screen.

After “Star Trek” ended, Nichols applied to NASA and was accepted as a recruiter for the federal agency. She focused on recruiting more women and people of color and is credited with bringing in more than 8,000 applications to NASA.

“Star Trek” legends also paid respects to Nichols on Sunday.

Shatner — who shared the first on-screen kiss between a white male and Black female with Nichols as the USS Enterprise Captain James T. Kirk — tweeted that she “played an admirable character that did so much for redefining social issues both here in the US & throughout the world.”

George Takei, who played Hikaru Sulu on the original show, tweeted he “shall have more to say about the trailblazing, incomparable Nichelle Nichols” soon.

“For today, my heart is heavy, my eyes shining like the stars you now rest among, my dearest friend,” he wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump-endorsed Blake Masters leading Arizona GOP Senate primary race: poll

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Blake Masters is leading the pack in the Arizona GOP primary race by a wide margin, with roughly 40 percent of likely voters backing the Trump-endorsed contender.

Masters, a venture capitalist, is ahead by 18 points, with the next Republican candidate, businessman Jim Lamon, earning 22 percent of the vote, according to the latest poll from Emerson College.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) has 14 percent of the vote and Michael McGuire, a retired major general, has 12 percent.

Nine percent of voters are undecided, but when asked who they are leaning toward, Masters is ahead of Lamon, 42 to 24 percent, according to the poll.

The winner of the GOP primary, which will be held on Tuesday, will face U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly (D), who first took office in 2020, in November.

Former President Trump endorsed Masters in June, calling the candidate a “great modern-day thinker” and “one of the most successful businessmen and investors in the Country.”

“Arizona is a State where the 2020 Election was Rigged and Stolen, and a very thorough audit proved it,” Trump said at the time. “Blake knows that the ‘Crime of the Century’ took place, he will expose it and also, never let it happen again.”

The 2020 election, which Trump continues to claim without evidence was stolen, is still a hot issue in Arizona, a state that had audited the election results in at least one county.

About 39 percent of voters in the latest poll say they are more likely to back a candidate who maintains the 2020 election was rigged, while 28 percent say they are less likely and 33 percent say it makes no difference.

Trump’s endorsement of a candidate, meanwhile, is important for 42 percent of likely Arizona voters in the primary race, compared to 38 percent who say it makes no difference and 20 percent who say they are less likely to support a Trump-endorsed candidate.

Masters also won the support of billionaire Peter Thiel, who has provided crucial funding for his campaign.

The Emerson College poll was conducted from July 28 to July 30 among 600 likely voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba: Call Russian atrocities in Ukraine what they are: Genocide

Russia’s war on Ukraine is not just a war of aggression but a campaign of genocide aimed at destroying Ukrainians as a national group. Russian state media and officials were fomenting hatred toward Ukrainians long before the current full-scale invasion began on Feb. 24, and their incitement has gotten worse since then.

The incitement has led to genocide in the course of the ongoing Russian aggression. Mass atrocity crimes against civilians in the occupied towns in the vicinity of Kyiv and other places were not just war crimes but a deliberate and brutal murder of Ukrainians because they were Ukrainians.

A clear sign of genocide is also the forced deportation of Ukrainian children from occupied territories to Russia, with Russian authorities facilitating their adoption and further education by the Russian curriculum.

These are not isolated incidents, but a deliberate campaign. Last July, Russian President Vladimir Putin published an opus called “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” in which he argued that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people, a single whole.” He stated that Ukrainian statehood is a mistake of history that needs to be corrected and that Ukraine can exist only as part of Russia. Putin and his henchmen have repeatedly denied Ukrainians their right to exist as a nation and a sovereign state.

Putin rewarded Russian military units involved in the massacre of Bucha after facts of the horrible atrocity crimes in this suburb of Kyiv were revealed and shocked the world. It seems that in his view, they fulfilled the task well, and that all other units should have taken note.

President Biden was acute about the actions of Russians in Ukraine, unequivocally calling them genocide on April 12, days after the horrors of Bucha had been revealed. “Yes, I called it genocide,” he said. “It has become clearer and clearer that Putin is just trying to wipe out the idea of even being — being able to be Ukrainian.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky commended Biden’s statement, calling it “true words of a true leader.”

Together with international partners, lawyers and experts, Ukrainian law enforcement and the legal team of my ministry are in the process of collecting all the evidence to hold perpetrators of this crime to account. This is a truly gargantuan task, but we are committed to delivering justice for thousands of innocent victims of this terrible crime.

To achieve this goal, we need the support of the United States, in particular the U.S. Congress, where Ukraine has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support in both chambers. Some steps have already been taken. I encourage the U.S. Senate to pass the resolution recognizing Russia’s actions in Ukraine as genocide proposed by Sens. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) and  Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and joined by Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Jeane Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). I also encourage the U.S House of Representatives to pass a similar resolution proposed by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and joined by Reps. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), Marc Veasey (D-Texas), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Andy Levin (D-Mich.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.)

In this context, I also call on the U.S. Congress to examine the possibility of setting up a Commission on the Ukrainian Genocide following the historic example of the U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, which was set up in 1984. The aim would be similar: To establish and investigate facts, as well as expand the world’s knowledge of this crime and better inform the American public about it.

Accounts of the witnesses of this genocide are petrifying. Ukrainian women raped by Russian soldiers who said they would make them “never think of a Ukrainian man again.” Unarmed Ukrainian activists and human rights defenders who were rounded up by Russian forces in the occupied villages and shot down in cold blood, in their foreheads, with their hands tied behind their backs. All of this under an accompaniment of Russian state propaganda portraying Ukrainians as “Nazis” and a call to “finish off the scum,” as one of Russia’s top-propagandists put it.

When I first learned about the massacre in Bucha and saw photos of the humiliated bodies of civilians in the newly liberated areas around Kyiv, I could not sleep. This was the first time since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion that I simply could not close my eyes, because my mind kept being bombarded with the horrible images of inhumane, barbaric murders of innocent Ukrainian men and women on the sole basis that they were Ukrainians.

We in Ukraine know all too well what genocide means, because this is not the first time we have witnessed it. Genocide is part of Ukraine’s collective memory, a pain that thousands of Ukrainian families pass from one generation to another by word of mouth.

Less than a century ago, in 1932-1933, Joseph Stalin and his regime starved millions of Ukrainians to death during the Holodomor genocide, an artificial famine aimed at destroying Ukrainians as a national group. A decade later, Nazis occupied Ukraine and killed millions of Ukrainian Jews during the Holocaust.

This is why we take any accusations of genocide very seriously. When Russians tried to manipulate the word to justify their invasion, we immediately appealed to the International Court of Justice, and it took our side, stating that there had been no evidence to back Russia’s claims of a “genocide of Russian-speakers” committed by Ukraine prior to the invasion. Now we are focused on proving that Russians have been committing genocide against Ukrainians in the course of their war.

We cannot and will not forget. This is our duty not only before the victims but before all future generations. All perpetrators of this genocide must be held accountable. Only then will we all be able to utter the sacred words “never again” sincerely. I call on the Biden administration, as well as the U.S. Congress and the wider American public, to stand with the Ukrainian people in our quest for truth and justice.

Dmytro Kuleba is the foreign minister of Ukraine.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pelosi starts Asia trip in Singapore amid questions about Taiwan stop

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made her first stop in Singapore on Monday during her trip to east Asia, which has drawn a watchful eye over concerns she may visit Taiwan.

Pelosi, along with her delegation of U.S. lawmakers, met with Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, President Halimah Yacob and other members of the administration, according to The Associated Press.

The group discussed strengthening relations between Singapore and the U.S., stabilizing the U.S. relationship with China and promoting peace in the Indo-Pacific region.

Pelosi also plans stops in Malaysia, South Korea and Japan.

Her delegation includes chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and the chairman of the House Committee on Veteran’s Affairs, Mark Takano (D-Calif.). Democratic Reps. Suzan DelBene (Wash.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.) and Andy Kim (N.J.) are also traveling with her.

A possible stop in Taiwan has come under extra focus after Pelosi was repeatedly warned by China not to visit the self-governing Democratic island, which the People’s Republic of China (PRC) sees as part of the mainland under the “One China” policy.

The U.S. respects the One China policy but would support Taiwan in the case of an invasion, although not militarily or directly.

Pelosi wanted to visit Taiwan over the spring during her planned trip to east Asia then, but her tour to the region at the time was postponed after she tested positive for COVID-19.

Ahead of the trip, President Biden warned her the U.S. military thought a stop in Taiwan would “not be a good idea” after China issued several threatening messages.

Source: TEST FEED1

Will Taiwan be the next Ukraine on Biden’s watch?

President Biden has still to grasp that Taiwan is far more important than Ukraine to the future of American power in the world. Yet the likelihood is growing that, on Biden’s watch, Chinese President Xi Jinping will move on Taiwan, just as Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.

In a forewarning of that, China has recently started claiming that it owns the critical international waterway, the Taiwan Strait. Just as it did earlier in the South China Sea – the strategic corridor between the Pacific and Indian Oceans, through which one-third of global maritime trade passes – Xi’s regime is seeking to advance its expansionism by laying an expansive claim to the Taiwan Strait, which, by connecting the South and East China Seas, serves as an important passage for commercial shipping as well as foreign naval vessels. 

The new claim signals that Xi is preparing to move on Taiwan at an opportune time — an action that would involve exercising maritime domain control.

By forcibly absorbing Taiwan, China would drive the final nail in the coffin of America’s global preeminence. A takeover of Taiwan would also give China a prized strategic and economic asset.

The defense of Taiwan has assumed greater significance for international security because three successive U.S. administrations have failed to credibly push back against China’s expansionism in the South China Sea, relying instead on rhetoric or symbolic actions.

Biden, rather than working to deter and thwart a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan, is seeking to shield his tentative rapprochement with China, which has been forged through a series of virtual meetings with Xi and by offering Beijing important concessions. This explains why Biden publicly pushed back against a Taiwan visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

It is important to remember that, much before Russia invaded Ukraine, Biden had begun to ease pressure on China. He effectively let Xi’s regime off the hook for both covering up COVID-19’s origins and failing to meet its commitments under the 2020 “phase one” trade deal with Washington. Biden also dropped fraud charges against the daughter of the founder of the military-linked Chinese tech giant Huawei. U.S. sanctions over China’s Muslim gulag remain essentially symbolic.

And now Biden is planning to roll back tariffs on Chinese goods, which will further fuel China’s spiraling trade surplus with America. After swelling by more than 25 percent last year to $396.6 billion, the trade surplus with the U.S. now makes up almost three-quarters of China’s total global surplus. 

The mammoth surplus is helping to keep the Chinese economy afloat at a time when growth has slowed almost to a halt, triggering rising unemployment and mortgage and debt crises. The situation has been made worse by Xi’s lockdown-centered, zero-tolerance approach to COVID-19, which is breeding anger and resistance amid a property implosion.

Xi’s growing domestic troubles at a critical time when he is seeking a norm-breaking third term as Communist Party chairman heighten the risk of the Chinese leader resorting to nationalist brinkmanship as a distraction. After all, initiating a foreign intervention or crisis to divert attention from domestic challenges is a tried-and-true technique of leaders of major powers.

In his latest virtual meeting with Biden on July 28, Xi sharply warned against U.S. interference in the Taiwan issue, saying that those who “play with fire will perish by it.” Biden, by contrast, struck a defensive tone, reaffirming the U.S. commitment to a one-China policy and reassuring Xi that American “policy has not changed and that the United States strongly opposes anyone who will change the status quo or undermine peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

Having swallowed Hong Kong, the Chinese Communist Party seems itching to move on Taiwan, a technological powerhouse that plays a central role in the international semiconductor business. Annexing Taiwan will make China a more formidable rival to America and advance its goal of achieving global preeminence by the 100th anniversary of communist rule in 2049. 

Against this background, Biden’s conciliatory approach toward China threatens to embolden Xi’s designs against Taiwan.

Taiwan’s imperative is to expand its global footprint to help safeguard its autonomous status. Instead of aiding that effort, Biden inexplicably excluded that island democracy from his recently unveiled Indo-Pacific Economic Framework — an economic platform that seeks to promote cooperation among its member-states.

Biden’s pursuit of a rapprochement with China also explains his administration’s proposal to roll back tariffs on Chinese products, an action that would break his promise not to unilaterally lift tariffs unless Beijing’s behavior improved.

Not once, not twice, but at least three times Biden has said in recent months that he is willing to get militarily involved to defend Taiwan, only to have his senior officials walk back his comments on every occasion. The last time when he sowed international confusion afresh, Biden himself walked back his Taiwan comments, telling reporters a day later, “My policy has not changed at all.”

In seeking to placate China, Biden is sending out contradictory signals, leaving Taiwan vexed and confused.

Instead of privately advising Pelosi against visiting Taiwan, Biden gratuitously told a reporter that “the military” thinks a Pelosi visit to Taiwan is “not a good idea right now.” Pelosi then told the media, “I think what the president is saying is that maybe the military was afraid our plane would get shot down or something like that by the Chinese.”

The president’s unusual remark conveyed American weakness by implying that the U.S. military was not capable of securing the flight path of the Pelosi-carrying military aircraft to Taiwan or effectively responding to any Chinese provocation. The comment also encouraged Xi’s regime to escalate its bullying threats to stymie a Taiwan visit by the person second in line to the U.S. presidency.

More fundamentally, if Biden fears a Pelosi visit to Taipei would set back his nascent rapprochement with China and ignite new tensions, it raises serious doubts whether he will have the political will to help defeat a Chinese attack on Taiwan.

Xi is also likely encouraged by Biden’s failure to force Russian forces to retreat from Ukraine, despite Washington spearheading unprecedented Western actions against Russia, including weaponizing finance, slapping wide-ranging sanctions and arming Ukraine with a plethora of sophisticated weapons.

With Biden’s poll numbers already in the tank, the president is likely to emerge further weakened from the approaching midterm elections. By contrast, a strengthened Xi securing a precedent-defying third term is likely to be bolder and more assertive in pursuing his geopolitical ambitions.

Instead of ordering a full-scale invasion, Xi may begin to slowly throttle Taiwan so as to force it to merge with China. A strangulation strategy would likely include blockading the Taiwan Strait (which will close off Taiwan’s main port, Kaohsiung) and seeking to cut off Taiwan’s undersea cables, internet connections and energy imports.

Make no mistake: Xi perceives an advantageous window of opportunity to accomplish what he has called a “historic mission” to incorporate Taiwan. And, in the style recommended by ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, Xi’s aggression will likely begin with stealth, deception, surprise and innovative methods.

For Xi, taking Taiwan is essential to achieving larger strategic goals, including making China a world power second to none by displacing America from the regional and global order.

Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and the author of nine books, including the award-winning “Water: Asia’s New Battleground” (Georgetown University Press). Follow him on Twitter @Chellaney.

Source: TEST FEED1

We should prefer accountable government to rule by the administrative state

The Supreme Court ended its term with a highly consequential 6-3 decision in West Virginia v. EPA. The court repudiated the Environmental Protection Agency’s claim that Congress had delegated sweeping powers for the agency to pursue a regulatory agenda of its own creation that would force energy companies to adopt alternative energy sources. That should not have been a controversial decision. Since the founding of the American republic, the courts have always affirmed the foundational precept that Congress alone makes law. And Congress cannot give away its lawmaking powers to unelected bureaucrats without violating the Constitution.

Yet there is a competing vision of the Constitution, trumpeted by progressive-minded law professors and interest groups who bemoan the court’s adherence to the rule of law. Under this view, strict constitutionalism is intolerable because it may sometimes get in the way of the government crafting “optimal” regulatory regimes. For this reason, advocates of a strong administrative state see no issue with Congress delegating broad rulemaking powers to federal agencies — as long as that enables the government to carry out their preferred regulatory agenda.Yet, boiled to its core, this is nothing but a call for bureaucratic rule over the American people.

Justice Elena Kagan’s dissenting opinion in West Virginia likewise defends broad delegations. One might call it a “love letter” to the administrative state. In her view, we owe the blessings of modern America to the fact that Congress often delegates broad powers to federal agencies because it would not be practicable for Congress to decide everything. Kagan argues that the American worker is better off, that consumers are safer, and that the environment is cleaner because Congress gave “broad-ranging powers to administrative agencies, and those agencies then filled in — rule by rule by rule — Congress’s policy outlines.” 

But there is a world of difference between allowing an agency to fill in “minor details” of a regulatory scheme of Congress’s creation and allowing an agency to create a regulatory regime from the bottom up.

In this case, the EPA claimed that Congress had delegated open-ended authority for the agency to devise any system of emissions regulation that the EPA administrator might deem “best.” That would amount to a wholesale delegation of Congress’s lawmaking powers in contravention of the structure of our Constitution. For advocates of an engorged administrative state, this was no concern. They would argue that open-ended delegations are desirable because the federal bureaucracy is stocked full of “experts” in whom we trust. Never mind the fact that Congress is capable of consulting experts when crafting legislation. We apparently should place our faith in unelected officials in the executive branch to govern us wisely.

But if you cherish individual liberty, you naturally have a different view of government and the value of the rule of law. You simply cannot accept a government dominated by the regulator’s chosen experts if you want to maintain a free society. Why? Because, as Justice Neil Gorsuch put it, a republic governed by the people is always “more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable ‘ministers.’”

So, we must always insist that our government should remain accountable to the people through our representatives in Congress. This accountability is what makes us a free people. We lose that accountability when Congress delegates broad powers to the executive branch. That is why the courts should avoid interpreting statutes as giving federal agencies open-ended powers. And if Congress tries to give an agency a blank check, we should expect the judiciary to enforce the Constitution by striking it down.

The stakes are high. If we allow Congress to set aside the Constitution’s strict separation of powers and give away vast lawmaking powers in the name of administrative expedience, we will end up with a government unrestrained by the rule of law. At that point, federal regulations will amount to orders from bureaucratic rulers on high. As Gorsuch put it, in such a regime, the “law” would represent “nothing more than the will of the current President, or, worse yet, the will of unelected officials barely responsive to him.” That is not a utopia, as some would have us believe. To the contrary, it is a threat to our most basic liberties — our very right to a free society — and a dangerous step on the road to tyranny.

Luke Wake (@rescueliberty) and Daniel Ortner (@dortner1) are attorneys at Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans’ liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse.

Source: TEST FEED1

DCCC site dings Republicans celebrating projects funded by bills they voted against

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched a new website knocking House Republicans for promoting programs funded by bills that they voted against.

The site, GOPVotedNoTookTheDough.com, lists 26 House Republicans who touted projects funded by the $1 trillion infrastructure bill, the American Rescue Plan stimulus, or the Fiscal Year 2022 funding omnibus, despite voting against the bills. Scrolling over a bullet point for any of the Republicans listed replaces the member’s photo with a clown emoji.

The list includes a number of House Republicans running in districts targeted by the DCCC, such as Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) and Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), but also includes members in solidly Republican districts like House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and members running for higher office.

“If Republicans want to tout these critical victories coming to their districts, they should have voted for them,” DCCC spokesperson Tommy Garcia said in a statement. “House Democrats delivered these historic investments – if House Republicans had their way, none would have been made possible.”

Republicans have generally defended their promotion of the programs by saying that while they support certain measures, they objected to legislation as a whole, and had long advocated for funding certain projects.

A spokesperson for Hinson, who the DCCC listed for promoting a dam modernization project on the Upper Mississippi River despite voting against the infrastructure bill, told HuffPost earlier this year that she opposed the package because it was tied to trillions of other spending.

“Since the bill was signed into law, this money was going to be spent regardless. If there’s federal money on the table she is, of course, going to do everything she can to make sure it is reinvested in Iowa,” Hinson’s spokesperson said.

Gonzales, who the DCCC listed for promoting $75 million in creek revitalization funding after the infrastructure legislation, had a similar response.

“While Congressman Gonzales did not vote for the initial package due to the $1 trillion price tag associated with it, if the money is going to be spent, he is going to advocate that it goes to the district,” Gonzales’s office told the San Antonio Express-News earlier this year. The office said the funding was not specifically allocated for the creek project in the bill and that Gonzales advocated for the funds for the project after it passed.

Scalise celebrated $1 billion in funding for Louisiana flood mitigation projects that were authorized by the infrastructure bill that he voted against. A Scalise spokesman in January told NOLA.com that he voted against the bill due to effects on the budget and pointed to “years of work” on flood protection projects and securing ability for one project to get federal funding.

The DCCC has been putting out statements slamming House Republicans for the promotion of certain programs after “no” votes on the bills for months, and Democrats have long signaled that they will use the no votes in negative campaign ads. The website comes as midterm campaign season kicks into high gear, with House members ticking up campaign events in their districts over August recess.

Democrats have made enactment of the $1 trillion Infrastructure Jobs and Investment Act a cornerstone of their midterm campaign argument. The legislation passed last year with the support of 17 Republican senators and 13 House Republicans, despite House GOP leaders whipping its members to vote against the legislation.

Democrats have found a challenge, however, in communicating their accomplishment to voters. A June poll from the center-left think tank Third Way found that only 24 percent of voters thought that the legislation was law, while 37 percent said that they did not know and 30 percent saying that it is still being worked on in Congress.

At the time the infrastructure bill passed, much attention was focused on congressional Democrats also pursuing a roughly $2 trillion “Build Back Better” bill with health care, education, and climate programs through a special reconciliation process that bypassed the need for Republican support in the evenly-divided Senate.

That deal later fizzled due to objections from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who last week announced support for a slimmed-down $739 billion reconciliation deal on tax, climate, and health care provisions.

Source: TEST FEED1