Tag Archives : Build House

Manchin-Schumer bill could bring down the deficit. Inflation — that’s debatable

Senate Democrats are plowing forward with a sprawling tax reform and revenue plan that advances key pieces of President Biden’s legislative agenda, including tax provisions long sought by the party to help front investments in health care and climate.  

Democrats say the new bill, dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act, aims to live up to its name and fight inflation, in part, by reducing the deficit.  

And some experts agree that the measure could be a significant tool to begin getting a handle on the country’s finances. 

“This is really breaking the mold that we’ve been stuck in recently of free lunch economics, where people are constantly trying to justify why they shouldn’t pay for their policies,” Maya MacGuineas, executive director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said. 

Many experts agree that the bill, which is projected to bring in more than $300 billion in revenue, will cut the deficit. But questions remain about the potential impact it could have on rising prices. 

Among the proposals packed into the 700-plus-page bill announced Wednesday is a provision to impose a 15 percent minimum tax on corporations with profits exceeding $1 billion. The bill also contains funding for the IRS to beef up hiring and enforcement of tax laws, among other measures. 

Democrats say both components would contribute to more than $400 billion in revenue, along with another tax provision seeking to close the so-called carried interest loophole. The policy item is projected to bring in $14 billion in revenue and is aimed at preventing asset managers, experts say, from abusing the tax code by paying less on their earnings from managing others’ money. 

Overall, Democrats say the bill would raise $739 billion in revenue, citing estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That’s compared to the estimated $433 billion in proposed spending for party-backed priorities for energy security, climate and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

The forecasted figures are far less than the $2 trillion price tag attached to an earlier plan to advance Biden’s agenda, which has been viewed as welcome news by MacGuineas and other budget watchers. That bill, also known as Build Back Better, passed the House before it fell apart amid negotiations last year. 

“I literally cannot think of the last time that we started with a huge bill that was unpaid for massively so and shifted through the negotiation process to something that’s incredibly responsible,” MacGuineas said. 

A recent brief from the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) estimated that the bill, in its current form, would cut non-interest cumulative deficits in the roughly 10 years following its potential enactment, though its estimate was about $248 billion, less than Democrats’ forecast.  

The report also found that number would see a dip to $89 billion if proposed ACA subsidies are extended. 

In a report released by the CBO in May, the agency projected the federal budget deficit would reach $1 trillion in 2022, after hitting $2.8 trillion the prior year. The latter marked the second-largest deficit in history, though it was down $360 billion from the record set in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic first took hold in the U.S. 

The surge in deficits came as the nation saw higher spending in the form of massive relief bills enacted under the current and previous administrations during the pandemic.  

As coronavirus spending continues to dwindle, the CBO said earlier this year that the deficit will continue to fall, though it also forecasts increases in the years ahead in its 10-year outlook report. 

Data from the Department of Treasury shows that the national debt has climbed more than $30 trillion so far, putting pressure on Congress for action as the nation also grapples with four-decade-high inflation. 

Zach Moller, a former Senate Democratic budget aide and director of the economic program at the centrist think tank Third Way, said the new bill “would be the most significant deficit reduction package” since Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011. 

But despite the name of the new bill, not all experts think the legislation will have a sizable impact on rising inflation, a top issue on voters’ minds months ahead of midterm elections in November.  

Josh Bivens, research director at the Economic Policy Institute, said he thinks the bill will have a “small sort of deflationary nudge” by way of reducing the deficit, but he added that he thinks “there are questions about how quickly that takes hold.” 

The PWBM found the new reconciliation plan would “very slightly increase inflation until 2024 and decrease inflation thereafter.” However, it added that the “point estimates are statistically indistinguishable from zero,” which it said indicates “low confidence that the legislation will have any impact on inflation.” 

Democrats hope to quickly pass the bill in the Senate through a process known as budget reconciliation, which allows them to pass the bill without GOP support.  

But it’s unclear if all 50 Democrats will be able to unify on the issue, particularly amid concerns among members over where Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), a key centrist, stands on tax proposals. 

There are also questions about how Republicans, who have come out in strong opposition to the plan, will respond in the months ahead. Some have voiced issues with their Democratic colleagues after the deal brokered by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) was announced.  

Republicans voted with Democrats to pass a scaled-down bill on semiconductors after previously opposing bipartisan efforts to craft an expanded version in response to their colleagues reviving their reconciliation push for Biden’s agenda. 

A major piece of Democrats’ current deficit reduction plan involves boosting funding to the IRS, a bid they say is targeted at making wealthier individuals and corporations pay their fair share in taxes.  

However, Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said that goal could be diminished depending on how appropriators allocate funding for the agency in ongoing government spending talks for fiscal 2023. 

Republicans opposed to the effort say it would lead to increased audits, which could be a bigger factor in funding negotiations later this year, especially if the GOP takes back Congress in the midterm elections. 

“There’s no guarantee in there that the appropriators might not cut back where they otherwise would have given knowing that the IRS has this big pool of money,” Holtzblatt said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden reinitiating ‘strict isolation procedures’ after positive COVID test, doctor says

President Biden will “reinitiate strict isolation procedures” after he tested positive for COVID-19 following several days of returning negative tests, his physician, Kevin O’Connor, said in a letter on Saturday.

“As described last week, acknowledging the potential for so-called ‘rebound’ COVID positivity observed in a small percentage of patients treated with PAXLOVID, the President increased his testing cadence, both to protect people around him and to assure early detection of any return of viral replication,” O’Connor wrote to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

Biden tested positive again late Saturday morning after testing negative multiple times beginning Tuesday evening, O’Connor said, adding that “this in fact represents the ‘rebound’ positivity.”

The physician said he did not see a need to restart treatment for Biden, saying that the president continued to feel “quite well” and that COVID-19 symptoms had not reemerged.

Biden, who is 79, tested positive for COVID-19 last week and completed a 5-day course of the antiviral treatment Paxlovid. He isolated for five days, stopping on Wednesday after twice testing negative.

Several senators have also tested positive for COVID-19 in recent days, complicating the timeline for when the upper chamber could pass a reconciliation package on climate, health and taxes. 

Source: TEST FEED1

These Republicans who impeached Trump face tough primaries on Tuesday

Three of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach former President Trump last year face tough primaries on Tuesday, competing against Trump-endorsed challengers in crowded fields.

So far, four of the 10 have opted to retire, two have overcome primary challenges to get to November and one did not. Since leaving office Trump has wielded his power against the Republicans he thinks crossed him.

Tuesday’s races feature two lawmakers from Washington and one from Michigan and are expected to be closely watched as yet another test of Trump’s influence with GOP voters.

Rep. Peter Meijer (Michigan)

Meijer, who is facing off against Trump-endorsed John Gibbs in Michigan’s 3^rd Congressional District, was the only freshman Republican congressperson to vote to impeach the former president, setting off a wave of opposition from fellow Michigan Republicans, including county-level GOP groups which have censured him.

Gibbs is one of the election deniers that Democrats have taken the controversial step of backing in hopes of propping up a candidate they think will be easier to defeat in November. 

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) released a TV ad earlier this year characterizing Gibbs as a Trump ally who is too conservative for the district, in a wink to Republican voters upset with Meijer for his lack of loyalty to the former president.

The tactic has drawn pushback from within both parties.

“The DCCC boosting John Gibbs is clear evidence of who Nancy Pelosi prefers in this race,” Meijer spokeswoman Emily Taylor told NPR. “Democrats don’t want to face Peter Meijer in the November election because Peter is the best candidate to represent West Michigan in Congress, and he’s the only candidate who will put the interests of the Third District ahead of partisan priorities.”

Polls earlier this year, though before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol began public hearings show Meijer’s impeachment vote is likely a liability.

Progressive polling agency Impact Research found in a February survey published by Politico that 60 percent of voters said that they would support an opponent of Meijer, while only 26 percent said that they support Meijer.

When told about Meijer’s vote to impeach Trump, Meijer’s support dropped to 21 percent and Gibbs garnered 52 percent.

Still, Meijer has an incumbency and financial advantage in Michigan, where his family owns a supermarket chain.

As of June 30, Meijer had raised about $2.9 million compared to $444,000 for Gibbs.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has supported Meijer through his Majority Committee PAC, along with colleagues Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill), Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and former GOP Rep. Denver Riggleman (Va.).

Meijer hasn’t backed down in the 18 months since his impeachment vote. Asked by CNN earlier this month if he regretted voting for Trump’s impeachment, Meijer said: “Not for a second.”

Gibbs told CNN that the impeachment vote “catastrophically” damaged Meijer’s ability to be reelected, saying, “I think it was the biggest career-ending move in history, possibly, for him to do that.”

“Meyer has been a terrible representative of the Republican Party and beyond,” Trump said in his endorsement of Gibbs in November, misspelling Meijer’s last name.

Michigan’s redrawn 3^rd Congressional District now leans more blue and the nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates it as a “toss-up.”

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (Washington)

Herrera Beutler faces four Republicans and three Democrats in what’s known as a jungle primary, in which the top-two vote getters of any party advance to the general election.

But her top competition in Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District is thought to be Trump endorsee Joe Kent.

Trump held a telephone rally for Kent on Monday, during which he called the candidate a “tough cookie with a big, fat, beautiful heart,” according to Washington newspaper The Reflector.

Trump said Herrera Beutler, on the other hand, is in line with “fake Republicans” including Republican members of the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.).

The Washington State Republican Party condemned Beutler last year for her support for Trump’s impeachment.

“She fights for the Washington swamp, not for the Washington state,” Trump said of Beutler.

A poll in May conducted by the Trafalgar Group found Kent at 27.6 percent support, Beutler at 21.9 and a remaining 19.6 percent of respondents saying that they are undecided.

A super political action committee, Conservatives for a Stronger America, has newly cropped up in support of a third major GOP candidate Heidi St. John, boosting her publicity as the primary approaches and attacking Kent for his positions, according to The Associated Press.

Kent has been criticized for concerning ties reported by King 5 Washington news, including to a campaign consultant who was a member of the Proud Boys.

The third district is considered fairly moderate, voting for Trump in 2020 by four percentage points, so far-right candidate and army veteran Kent’s fate is yet to be determined.

Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is considered the top Democratic contenders for Herrera Beutler’s seat.

Rep. Dan Newhouse (Washington)

Newhouse will face off in Washington’s 4^th Congressional District against former police chief Loren Culp, endorsed by Trump for his support of gun rights and denial of President Biden’s election victory in 2020.

Culp refused to enforce gun laws in 2018 during his tenure as police chief, the Seattle Times reported at the time.

Four-term congressman Newhouse has raised significantly more money than Culp, who ran for governor of Washington in 2020, although Culp’s internal polling shows him leading the field.

An April poll by Spry Strategies, a Knoxville, Tenn.-based polling firm, found Culp ahead with 28.1 percent and Newhouse the runner up with 19.7 percent, a full 22.6 percent saying that they were undecided.

Head-to-head, Culp led by 1 percentage point at 38.3, with Newhouse at 37.3 and 24.4 percent remaining undecided.

The two face five other Republicans and Democrat Doug White.

The jungle primary could allow two Republicans to advance to the general election if the Democratic candidate lags behind.

Former NASCAR driver Jerrod Sessler is another top Republican candidate in the primary, pledging to maintain a focus on decentralization in Congress.

The Sessler campaign released polling numbers in June showing Democrat Doug White leading the field with 23.9 percent of voter support, according to Washington newspaper The Spokane.

Sessler followed with 23.1 percent, ahead of Newhouse with 19.8 percent and Culp with 13.7.

Sessler has been endorsed by Trump-linked figures including lobbyist Roger Stone and former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

Newhouse, who has been in office since 2014, has faced resistance from fellow party members since his vote to impeach Trump, after which Washington Republicans called on the representative to resign.

Source: TEST FEED1

Veterans deserve better than Congress’s collective shrug on burn pits

Once again, lawmakers have failed to pass legislation that would provide health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits overseas.

I’ve been collecting samples from veterans’ lungs via biopsies since 2010. These particles come from burn pits, which are exactly what you think they are: holes in the ground used to burn stuff. It does matter what that “stuff” is.

Throughout Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, government contractors burned one million pounds per day of, “batteries, medical waste, amputated body parts, plastics, ammunition, human waste, animal carcasses, rubber chemicals, [and] more.” Those components were improperly burned with jet fuel, as opposed to being disposed of properly in incinerators and at extremely high temperatures.

We call these “dust samples,” but that may be a misnomer because they contain metals like titanium, iron and copper. Experience has shown me that these sharp, black particles are more typically found in the lungs of firefighters, not young, healthy soldiers with uncomplicated medical histories — and they’ve had a disastrous impact on the health of too many of our veterans. It has caused more than 12,500 veterans to suffer from a range of conditions between 2007 and 2020.

Luckier veterans reported rhinitis and sinusitis. Others experienced chronic pain, post-traumatic stress, injuries to their gastrointestinal and cardiovascular systems, pulmonary diseases, neurological disorders or rare respiratory cancers (including nine that the Department of Veterans Affairs recently added to its list of military service disabilities).

There had been overwhelming bipartisan support for an expansion of the benefits that veterans can claim because of their burn pit exposure, but political wrangling continues as veterans’ health declines. There is little medical mystery here, but denials of the cause of their conditions, denials of benefits and the continued use of burn pits prolong their pain.

One suffering veteran is Army Captain Le Roy Torres, who spent 23 years in the United States Army, including two years in Balad, Iraq, where American forces operated more than 250 burn pits, burning about 140 tons of waste daily. When he returned home to Texas as a state trooper, Torres suffered from complications from illnesses caused by toxic burn pit fumes. He faced constrictive bronchiolitis and toxic brain injury, which cost him both his health and his livelihood.

Torres’ wife, Rosie, worked with the Department of Veteran Affairs; that didn’t speed his care. His medical attention was delayed and ineffective and his health benefits were denied. So, the Torres family went their own way, founding Burn Pits 360, an advocacy group that ensures other veterans wouldn’t have to navigate that labyrinth of suffering and denial. I serve as a member of Burn Pits 360’s scientific advisory board.

It seemed as if the Military Personnel War Zone Toxic Exposure Prevention Act might have offered families hope to the Torres family, and others, in 2009. The bill called on the secretary of defense, “to establish a medical surveillance system to identify members of the Armed Forces exposed to chemical hazards resulting from the disposal of waste in Iraq and Afghanistan, to prohibit the disposal of waste by the Armed Forces in a manner that would produce dangerous levels of toxins, and for other purposes.” 

It didn’t pass.

Burn Pits 360 didn’t wait for the government. In 2010, it created its own registry to record the names of those who served and passed away from toxic injury illnesses. Three times since 2009, my colleagues and I have testified before government committees about the danger and effects of burn pits, while still more veterans became disabled from these toxic exposures.

Twelve years later, it seemed we were approaching full government support. President Joseph Biden has pledged to sign the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act of 2022 (PACT Act), which the White House describes as, “the largest single bill in American history to address our service members’ exposure to burn pits and other toxic substances.” 

The bill would ensure “access to health care and disability benefits for veterans harmed by certain toxic exposures, whether in the jungles of Vietnam or the mountains of Afghanistan.” It would also “let the Department of Veterans Affairs move more quickly and comprehensively in the future to determine if illnesses are related to military service” and “offer critical support to survivors who were harmed by exposures.”

It doesn’t feel as if “more quickly” will come soon. The timeline to help our veterans has been dangerously plodding. Just ask veterans from the Vietnam Conflict cited in the White House statement, who were exposed to Agent Orange during their service.

Between June 2014 and December 2020, more than 220,000 veterans and active duty service members volunteered to complete the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry (AHOBPR) survey. Of those, 32.5 percent saw a health care provider during their deployment for respiratory symptoms due to air quality. 

They need and deserve our urgent support. We should be ready, now, to serve them, just as they selflessly served us.  

Anthony Szema, MD is director of the Northwell Health International Center of Excellence in Deployment Health and Medical Geosciences and an investigator at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Beshear says he's worried officials will find bodies 'for weeks to come' after floods

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) expressed concern on Saturday that officials would be finding bodies lost in the severe flooding “for weeks to come” and confirmed that at least 25 people had died so far.

During a press conference held in the early afternoon, the governor revised a previous death toll which had found that six of 25 confirmed dead were children. He said they now believe there are four children dead in addition to 21 adults. 

He cautioned, however, that those figures were expected to increase. Beshear said that the officials were still figuring out an accurate way to count the number of individuals who were missing from the flooding, given that some affected areas still did not have working cell service. 

Beshear also said that the state was still in search-and-rescue mode, adding that it could take days, if not weeks, before they transition into the rebuilding phase.

“​​Make sure you are in a safe place. I don’t want to lose one more person. We care about you. It’s not fair it’s gon’ rain again. But it is, we’re pretty sure of it,” Beshear said. “And while it’s not going to be …or it’s not anticipated to be anything like what we’ve already been through, there’s a lot of saturation, and there’s a lot of water out there.”

“Be careful. You’re still with us. We want you to stay with us,” he added.

Beshear’s grim assessment came after Kentucky was hit with heavy rains Wednesday, flooding roads, raising water levels in rivers and drowning houses.

The National Guard has conducted rescue missions pulling over 100 people out of the water via aircraft. The Kentucky Air National Guard Special Tactics Squadron, in coordination with Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, has rescued dozens more.  

President Biden on Friday approved a disaster declaration for the state that allows federal assistance to be channeled to Kentucky, which was also impacted by tornados and storms that killed tens of people in the state less than a year ago. 

“Kentucky’s Congressional Delegation sent a letter to the President on Thursday in support of the governor’s request. I appreciate the swift action by the Biden administration and the unity from our in delegation in helping those affected,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted Friday. 

“My heart breaks for the Kentucky families mourning the loss of loved ones as flooding continues. Thank you to all first responders working to prevent further tragedy. I’m monitoring this situation and working with federal, state, and local officials to assist in any way possible,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tweeted on Friday. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Maryland county reopens pandemic rent assistance program

Maryland’s Montgomery County reopened its pandemic rent assistance program on Wednesday for a fourth phase after a rise in community levels of COVID-19.

“I am pleased to announce the reopening of the rental relief program. We have additional funds to distribute, and we know that the need for this assistance has not gone away,” Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich said in a statement announcing the new phase.

The county’s COVID-19 Rent Relief Program, first launched in May 2020, allocates rent assistance to those who have fallen behind on rent payments due to “financial hardship” resulting from the pandemic.

The program provides up to $12,000 for up to a year and a half for those deemed eligible for assistance.

“For households below 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI), additional financial help may be available beyond the $12,000, including up to $2,000 for utility assistance,” the program specifies.

The new phase of the rent relief program is open to new submissions from renters in Montgomery County as well as continued submissions from those who were unable to complete a submitted application by the previous deadline of June 30.

For a household to be eligible, in addition to having experienced financial hardship due to the pandemic, its members must have incomes at or below 50% of AMI, have lived in the county since at least August 2021, have an informal or formal agreement to pay rent and be behind on rental payments by at least two months as of June 30.

“The impact of this pandemic will be with us for quite some time, so I urge eligible residents who are in need to not delay and apply today,” Elrich said in his statement.

Montgomery County COVID-19 Surveillance recently reported a high severity of cases in the area after seeing a rise from 6.1 hospitalizations per 100,000 residents on July 5 to 13.2 on July 28.

At the time of the launch of the fourth phase, the COVID-19 Rent Relief Program had distributed $79.1 million.

The fourth phase is using funding provided by U.S. Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance to Montgomery County and the state of Maryland.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Fed needs a single mandate

Inflation continues its relentless march, eating away at workers’ wages. Consumer prices rose 9.1 percent year-over-year in June, the fastest since 1981. The median American household is now losing more than $2,700 per year in purchasing power. As always, regular Americans are stuck with the tab for reckless monetary and fiscal policy.

The Federal Reserve is primarily responsible for inflation. Even with aggressive interest rate hikes, the central bank is behind the curve. The money supply has risen more than 40 percent in two years, far outpacing the market’s demand for liquidity. Inflation is the predictable effect. Congress is partly to blame, too. Politicians have run up nearly $6 trillion in deficits since the coronavirus pandemic. The Fed scooped up Treasury securities totaling more than half of that deficit spending. Money mischief and fiscal folly reinforce each other.

To beat inflation, one reform stands out in importance. It’s time for legislators to give the Fed a single mandate focusing on price stability. With inflation this high, we can’t afford any more distractions for the central bank. The Fed needs focus. Stabilizing the dollar’s purchasing power must come first.

The Fed is chasing too many goals. Its monetary mandate, which comes from a 1977 act of Congress, requires monetary policymakers to pursue maximum employment and stable prices. But this is redundant: The only way the Fed can secure the former is through the latter. By expanding the money supply when total spending in the economy stalls, the Fed stabilizes the exchange rate of money against goods in general — the “price” of a dollar.

Labor markets have nothing to fear from an inflation-focused Fed. Contrary to what some politicians and economists assert, there is no tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. While that idea was fashionable as recently as the 1970s, advancements in scientific economics have long since put it to rest. 

The number of jobs is determined by the availability of capital and natural resources, the productivity of our technology and the commercial friendliness of our laws. None of these depend on how fast the Fed prints money. The best thing the central bank can do is make a credible commitment to stabilize the dollar’s value, setting a strong foundation for job-creating economic activity.

A stable, predictable price level keeps the economy as productive as possible, including labor markets. Thus, the employment plank of the Fed’s mandate is superfluous at best and dangerous at worst. It gives central bankers an excuse to pick winners and losers while neglecting the one thing within their sphere of competence: the dollar’s purchasing power.

A dual mandate inhibits price stability by giving the Fed a plausible excuse for its mistakes. Targeting employment increases partisanship pressure on the Fed and has led to calls from Congress and the Biden administration to incorporate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) into Fed policy. Recent Fed chairs, including Jerome Powell, rightly denied that monetary policy was capable of achieving these goals. The Fed’s move to a more “inclusive” employment target has contributed to our current predicament. 

Opponents of a rule-bound Fed worry that a price stability mandate can cause the Fed to inadvertently tighten in response to supply problems. As the past year has shown us, however, the Fed cannot be trusted to return to low inflation once a supply shock occurs, even going so far as to refine its own targets for inflation and employment to cover up its blunders. For example, the Fed insists it wants to “achieve inflation that averages 2 percent over time.” But since the Fed refuses to specify a concrete path for the dollar’s purchasing power, this is cheap talk. Any policy can be reconciled after the fact with an objective this vague.

They say a man with one watch always knows what time it is, but a man with two watches is never quite sure. It’s time for Congress to give the Fed one, and only one, new watch. A purchasing target would direct the Fed towards an achievable goal that would improve American households’ material wellbeing. Legislators from both parties should make a single Fed mandate a key part of their agendas.

Thomas Hogan is senior research faculty at the American Institute for Economic Research. Alexander William Salter is an associate professor of economics in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University, a research fellow with TTU’s Free Market Institute and a senior fellow with AIER’s Sound Money Project.

Source: TEST FEED1

In case of political emergency, break glass and save yourself

I recently attended a lecture and afterward, was able to sit down with the speaker to talk for about an hour. During his presentation to an assuredly bipartisan audience who were not in attendance to hear about politics, the speaker still managed to sneak in a shot against Donald Trump.

Later, as we talked over coffee, he went out of his way to state that he “hated Trump with a passion,” as well as most Republicans. When he expressed his hatred for the former president, his face literally contorted into one you’d associate with rage.

This, from an otherwise gentle, well educated, former high-level civil servant in the U.S. government, now in his twilight years.

I was honestly taken aback by the deep-seated anger within him.

Now, to be sure, there are a massive number of older Republicans and conservatives running around the country who have or continue to profess their hatred for Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden.

My question to them would be the same as the one I posed to the Trump-hating guest speaker: “How does all of that hate, anger and negative energy translate into making the United States of America a better country for the vast majority of her people?”

The liberal guest lecturer with whom I sat down — just like most of the angry conservatives I encounter — was either part of the wealthiest few percent in our nation, the entrenched elite of the political class, or both. That demographic makes up most of the mainstream media, academia and entertainment industry.

Collectively, tens of thousands of well-off, entitled, pampered elites are hating on each other while the problems they create or never solve pummel over 90 percent of the American people — most especially the middle class, the working class and the outright poor.

To those Americans and voters who do represent “ordinary” American people, I have a message that I was repeating on a loop while on a recent book tour: “No one is coming to save you. Republican, Democrat or independent, if you are struggling to survive in a nation made continually worse by the elites who live in their protected bubbles of wealth and security, there will be no cavalry riding over the horizon to rescue you. Your government is irreparably broken and many or most of your leaders are looking out for themselves first, and their useless political parties second.

“So, in case of a survival emergency, break the glass and save yourself.”

While they no longer teach much American history in school — or, perhaps only a pre-approved, woke version of the story of our Founding Fathers and the beginning of our nation — the fact is that “We, the People” are still in charge.

As many from the political class sell out to Big Tech, Big Corporations, and Big Special Interests, the working class and poor should remember that these entrenched elite politicians actually are supposed to answer to the people. 

As the elites chase power, money, tenure, pensions and favors, remember that it is not too late to change the dynamic back in your favor. How? First, by actually starting to talk about the elite-created problems that are crushing your hopes, dreams and your children’s future well-being.

Begin conversations about these emergencies with your neighbors, work colleagues, at church, at the supermarket, at the bowling alley, anywhere and everywhere.

Don’t like your school board or town council, the local mayor or your state representative? Then either run for office or find someone who thinks like you who will.

Again, if you are part of the middle class, the working class or the poor, no one is coming to save you. But you have the power and ability to save yourself. Use it before it is too late. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change.” Or, as we’ve long attributed the quote to him, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” 

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.

Source: TEST FEED1

Standardization vs innovation in tech: The curious case of USB-C

After a decade of consultation and debate, on June 7, the European Union approved a directive requiring virtually all electronic devices sold in the EU be equipped by 2024 with a USB-C charging port; thereby legally imposing a single electronics charging standard onto Europe’s vast market. This requirement will be on everything from laptops and speakers to smartphones. The move set off a global debate over whether the time had come for governments to set mandatory standards on electronics charging ports, ending over 30 years of innovation and proliferation in ports and devices.

In the U.S., three Senators wrote Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo calling for the U.S. to begin the process of a mandatory standard for electronic charging. Not surprisingly, some commenters opposed government intervention on the grounds that governments should not stifle innovation by picking winners and losers — while others applauded it on the grounds that mandatory standards for electronics charging avoid the waste of consumers constantly throwing away their old charging cables/devices and buying new ones. Commenting on the issue, Apple said “We remain concerned that strict regulation mandating just one type of connector stifles innovation rather than encouraging it.”

USB-C, the latest version in the USB family of electronic ports, was approved in 2014 as a voluntary industry standard, and it has been gradually implemented by most laptop, smartphone and other manufacturers, sometimes with other ports alongside. More importantly, nothing — until now — has prevented any manufacturer from introducing a new charging port/device or dropping an old one. This historic flexibility in changing charging ports is arguably most relevant to Apple, which has periodically introduced new ports and currently relies on its “lightning” port for iPhones. Anyone who’s owned a cellphone/laptop over the past 30 years has gone through multiple generations of charging ports.

Full disclosure: Between the early 1990s and the 2010s, I kept all of my old charging devices on the absurd assumption that they might someday be re-usable. Eventually, I threw away shoeboxes full of outdated charging devices. My experience illustrates the enormous and perhaps unique role that environmental impact has played in this debate over power port/device standardization vs. innovation. Unlike most basically economic debates over mandatory standards vs. unrestricted innovation, the EU debate on USB-C turned very substantially on the environmental impact of consumers throwing away old charging devices and the impact of this electronic waste on the global climate. Waste-avoidance has never been a key aspect of the debates over standardization vs. innovation — but it is now.

Debates over standardization vs. innovation are as old as civilization: When we standardize things, economies of scale kick in, bringing costs down and increasing predictability; whereas, unfettered innovation opens the door to unrestrained new ideas and imaginative (frequently failing) innovations. The ultimate standardization, of course, is standardization by law. During the 1800s, for example, investors in certain types of railroad designs successfully argued for the importance of a single legal railroad standard track width (and thereby axle widths), suggesting that a hodgepodge of non-standard rail gauge widths would cripple growth/drive costs, as engines and cars on a line of one gauge could not operate on another. 

In contrast, since the 1950s, the computer industries have grown up in an entirely different environment. Through the 1990s, these industries were unregulated and substantially dominated by large-enterprise buyers (including governments in general and military organizations in particular.) This led to de-facto standardization by a small number of vendors and large private and government customers who could privately agree on non-binding standards without the burden (some would say benefit) of government regulators. While in such an unregulated industry, non-binding standards were often proprietary, as time went on, open standards that encouraged add-ons/applications have played an increasingly important role. 

For electronics charging and much more, this environment permitted both standardization and fundamental innovation to co-exist in the computer industries. Technical debates and market forces, not laws, tended to drive standards, while innovators willing to take a risk could still innovate and introduce new products/service/features outside of the agreed standards. Nonetheless, because large institutional customers/buyers formed a relatively small group that normally preferred the benefits of standards, this hybrid environment has been criticized for contributing to vendor oligopolies. Moreover, through a combination of proprietary features, customer loyalty, and distribution chains, large vendors could add non-standard, proprietary features at any time. These proprietary innovations could be controversial, described by some as ‘adding great value’ and others as ‘forcing existing customers to purchase useless features’ — which naturally leads us back to electronics charging mandates.

Perhaps the most recognizable example of the benefits/drawbacks of standardization vs. innovation for most Americans would be the lowly electric power plugs that we all see on our walls. Although electricity began to spread throughout the U.S. from the 1880s, and power plugs began to emerge by the 1890s, it was not until 1912 that Harvey Hubbell introduced the two-flat-parallel-pronged plug and socket that we all know today. By the 1920s, Hubbell’s design of plugs/sockets was adopted as a standard and was soon required by law. Once required by law, with some improvements, the basic design has remained for over a century. Some argue that this mandatory standardization of electric plugs stifled innovation, while others argue that it reduced costs, promoted safety and encouraged adoption. Importantly, mandatory standardization of the basic design of the electric plug seems to have channeled innovation into a wide range of innovations outside of the basic shape of the plug.   

And this lies at the heart of the emerging debate over whether the U.S. should follow the EU’s lead and mandate USB-C for electronic devices. Since the machinery of government moves slowly, once an electronic charging standard is locked in by law, and vendors and customers build expectations around it, it will take years or decades to change. This clearly does not mean the end of innovation in electronics charging, any more than it did for electric plugs. But it means that the precise definitions in any electronic charging law will define whatever innovation will be channeled outside of it.

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

Source: TEST FEED1

Bipartisan debate is alive in Washington – outside of the Capitol

You may not know it, but senators of both parties are still engaging in vigorous and open debate with one another on how to address such top-line issues as inflation and the economy, gun control, recent landmark Supreme Court decisions and the southern border.

They’re doing so, however, not within the Senate but in forums and discussions outside of the Capitol that collectively strive to promote constructive debates while also looking for solutions. The question is whether these forums will encourage the Senate and House to return to the days of vigorous debate that nourished compromise and policy achievement — rather than continue down the path of growing political polarization that only produces more gridlock. 

The quality, if not survival, of our democracy may turn on the answer. 

As senators of different parties from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, and as party leaders for part of that time, we’re worried that today’s Senate offers far less opportunity for the kind of serious debate in which we participated and were proud to schedule for the Senate floor. America’s founders created the Senate to serve as an institution of serious engagement. With terms that would last six years, senators could take a more deliberative approach to legislation than House members, who faced reelection every two years. The Senate would, as George Washington supposedly told Thomas Jefferson, “cool” House legislation like a saucer cools hot tea. 

The Senate has housed historic debates on slavery in the early 19th century, Andrew Johnson’s impeachment after the Civil War, civil rights in the 1960s, the Persian Gulf War of 1991, and other hot-button issues. 

The Senate is far different today — not just polarized but, oftentimes, mean. Many senators often stake out strident positions on cable TV and Twitter, playing to their bases that, in turn, come to view compromise as capitulation. The more that senators deliver talking points, the less they engage directly with one another and the less flexibility they afford themselves to find common ground with one another. 

Senate and House members also spend less time in Washington. Many choose not to move their families to the area, so they rush home every week once the legislative work is done. With fewer opportunities to get to know one another at family barbeques and other social activities, lawmakers become not colleagues but strangers — and thus easier to oppose, if not demonize. 

All is not lost, however. As the discussions cited above show, at least some senators share a deep-seated desire for the vigorous debate and serious engagement that lays the groundwork for policy achievement. We believe the Senate and House can take their own steps to incentivize debate. 

First, the Senate should return to old norms for considering legislation. Filibusters, which date back to America’s earliest days, grew more common in the 19th and 20th centuries, prompting the Senate to adopt rules to end debate by “invoking cloture,” which now requires 60 votes. While cloture votes were rare for most of our history, the assumption in the Senate now is that virtually all legislation will require a cloture vote, giving Senate minorities enormous power to block action. 

Second, the Senate and House should restore “regular order” for developing legislation. We would welcome reinvigorating the process of developing legislation through subcommittee and committee hearings and “markup” (drafting) sessions, followed by floor debates. It is historically how bipartisan legislation has successfully been created. 

Third, we need to recreate more venues for constructive communication between parties. Joint caucus meetings, bipartisan discussions with congressional leadership in the White House, and more social events involving senators, House members and their spouses have all been shown to be catalytic to better relations. How nice it would be to see more of them now. 

We’re not naïve about the hurdles to reducing polarization and increasing bipartisan engagement. We also recognize that the parties have real policy differences, and each party has a legitimate desire to gain majority control. 

Still, lawmakers should understand that growing polarization is weakening the foundation of our democracy — and that democracy’s vitality is far more important than the talking points of any particular day. 

Tom Daschle is cofounder of the Bipartisan Policy Center.  He was a Democratic senator from South Dakota from 1987 to 2005 and served as the majority leader. Trent Lott, senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center, is also a former Senate majority leader, was a Republican senator from Mississippi from 1989 to 2007.

Source: TEST FEED1