radiofree.asia

Author: Jake Johnson

  • Trump-Era Deregulation Deemed a Key Culprit in the Failure of Silicon Valley Bank

    In 2018, ignoring the vocal warnings of experts and advocacy groups, the then-Republican-controlled Congress passed legislation that weakened post-financial crisis regulations for banks with between $50 billion and $250 billion in assets, sparking fears of systemically risky failures and more taxpayer bailouts.

    Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), the California-based firm that collapsed on Friday, controlled an
    estimated $212 billion, leading analysts and lawmakers to argue that the 2018 law made the institution’s market-rattling failure and resulting federal takeover more likely.

    Sen.
    Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who was an outspoken opponent of the deregulatory measure, said in a statement Friday that “President Trump and congressional Republicans’ decision to roll back Dodd-Frank’s ‘too big to fail’ rules for banks like SVB—reducing both oversight and capital requirements—contributed to a costly collapse.”

    But the GOP wasn’t alone in its support for Sen. Mike Crapo’s (R-Idaho) Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which critics dubbed the Bank Lobbyist Act.

    As Warren
    noted as the bill was flying through Congress, a number of Democrats—including Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Jon Tester (D-Mont.)—were integral to the legislation’s passage, which led almost immediately to more bank consolidation.

    Prior to the enactment of the Crapo bill, which then-President Donald Trump signed into law on May 24, 2018, banks with more than $50 billion in assets were
    subject to enhanced liquidity mandates and more frequent stress tests aimed at ensuring they could weather economic turmoil.

    The 2018 law raised the threshold for the more stringent regulations to $250 billion or higher, a gift to banks like SVB that had been working for years to gut post-crisis regulations implemented under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. The diminished oversight, some argued, is at least partly to blame for SVB’s crisis.

    “The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank was totally avoidable,” Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) wrote on Twitter. “In 2018, Wall Street pushed a deregulation bill that allowed banks like SVB to take reckless risks. It passed, even as I and many others warned of the risks. I am writing legislation to reverse that law.”

    As
    The Lever reported Friday, SVB specifically pushed Congress in 2015 to hike the regulatory threshold to $250 billion, with the bank’s president touting its “strong risk management practices.”

    “Three years later—after the bank spent more than half a million dollars on federal lobbying—lawmakers obliged,” the outlet noted.

    The collapse of SVB, a major lender to tech startups, was the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history and the biggest since the 2008 crisis. SVB’s failure came days after it announced it sold $21 billion worth of bonds at a
    substantial loss, triggering fears about the firm’s health and a run on the bank that was intensified by venture capitalists’ calls for startups to pull their money.

    The bank’s last-ditch efforts to raise capital and find a buyer failed, prompting regulators to
    seize its assets and begin efforts to make depositors whole. (SVB reportedly paid out bonuses to U.S. employees just hours before federal regulators took over.)

    The American Prospect‘s David Dayen noted that “because the depositors holding the bag at SVB are Very Important People, there’s going to be intense pressure for a bailout.”

    “Hedge fund titan Bill Ackman is already
    calling for one,” Dayen observed. “Larry Summers told Bloomberg that the financial system should be fine, as long as depositors get every penny of their money back, which would be a $150 billion bailout.”

    In an appearance on “Face the Nation” Sunday morning, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen pledged that “we are not going to do that again,” referring to the bank bailouts of 2008.

    “But we are concerned about depositors,” Yellen added, “and we’re focused on trying to meet their needs.”

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is currently seeking a buyer for SVB, with final bids due by Sunday afternoon, according to Bloomberg.

    “This predictable disaster should give serious pause to the current MAGA House majority who are pursuing further rollbacks of consumer financial protections after taking money hand over fist from Wall Street banks.”

    In a statement on Saturday, Liz Zelnick of the watchdog group Accountable.US said that “this mess was left behind by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration, who were too deep in the big banks’ pocket to care about the consequences of gutting financial industry oversight.”

    “The chickens came home to roost this week in the Republican war against Wall Street reform and consumer financial protections,” Zelnick continued. “This predictable disaster should give serious pause to the current MAGA House majority who are pursuing further rollbacks of consumer financial protections after taking money hand over fist from Wall Street banks—but don’t count on it.”

    Some expert observers were quick to voice concern that SVB’s collapse is just the start of broader chaos in the financial industry and the overall economy.

    Dennis Kelleher, the president of Better Markets,
    warned that the fall of SVB “is going to cause contagion and almost certainly more bank failures,” noting that the Federal Reserve’s rapid and large interest rate increases left many financial institutions without “time to reposition their balance sheets and portfolios.”

    “That’s why SVB is just the beginning,” Kelleher argued. “Contagion, likely more bank failures, and various bailouts are almost certainly coming. While the immediate financial stability threats will materialize or be addressed, the underlying fundamental problems caused in large part by the Fed will remain and likely get worse.”

    “The Fed’s actions to fight increasing inflation will need to be materially adjusted, which it should be anyway because inflation is driven by many factors that are beyond the Fed’s control,” he said. “Causing financial instability and a recession (of any depth and length) while missing the mark on inflation should cause a fundamental rethinking of the Fed’s powers, authorities, and role.”

    This story has been updated to include comments from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

  • Silicon Valley Bank Collapses in Largest Failure Since 2008 Crisis

    Santa Clara-based Silicon Valley Bank, a major lender to technology startups, collapsed on Friday after its emergency attempts to raise money and find a potential buyer failed, forcing regulators to step in and take over the institution. The speed of SVB’s collapse, the largest since the fall of Washington Mutual in 2008, stunned observers and rattled Wall Street, with bank stocks selling off…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progressives Slam Biden’s Request for $30 Billion Increase to Military Budget

    Progressive lawmakers on Thursday voiced dismay that President Joe Biden is requesting a nearly $30 billion increase in U.S. military spending just months after the Pentagon failed its fifth consecutive audit, admitting it could not properly account for more than half of its trillions of dollars in assets. Biden’s budget framework for fiscal year 2024 calls for $886 billion in overall military…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • “One Day Our Luck Will Run Out”: Ukraine Nuclear Plant Loses Power Again

    The largest nuclear energy plant in Europe, located in southern Ukraine, lost all off-site power for the sixth time in a year as Russian forces carried out a massive missile attack on Thursday, once again raising fears of a nuclear catastrophe with continent-wide implications. Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, expressed dismay over the repeated near-misses…

    Source

  • Sanders, Bush Unveil Bill to Prohibit Pharma Companies From Charging More Than $20 for Insulin



    Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Cori Bush on Thursday introduced legislation that would prohibit pharmaceutical companies from charging more than $20 for a vial of insulin, a move that comes a week after Eli Lilly pledged to cap out-of-pocket payments for its insulin products at $35 per month.

    “As a nurse, I’ve seen too many people in our communities struggle to afford their lifesaving insulin medication,” Bush (D-Mo.) said in a statement. “People are left choosing between insulin or groceries; insulin or rent; insulin or child care. This is unacceptable.”

    More than 7 million people across the U.S. use insulin to manage their diabetes, and some have been forced to pay upwards of $1,000 per month for the medicine as pharmaceutical giants have jacked up prices with abandon in recent decades.

    According to one study published in October, more than a million people in the U.S. have had to ration insulin due to the high cost.

    Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and a longtime advocate of insulin price reform, said Thursday that “there is no reason why Americans should pay the highest prices in the world for insulin—in some cases, ten times as much as people in other countries.”

    “In 1923, the inventors of insulin sold their patents for $1 to save lives, not to turn pharmaceutical executives into billionaires,” said Sanders. “Now, 100 years later, unacceptable corporate greed has caused the price of this lifesaving medication to skyrocket by over 1,000% since 1996. We can no longer tolerate a rigged healthcare system that forced 1.3 million people with diabetes to ration insulin while the three major insulin manufacturers made $21 billion dollars in profits.”

    “Now is the time for Congress to take on the greed and power of the pharmaceutical industry and substantially lower the price of insulin,” the senator added. “In the richest country in the history of the world, no one should die because they cannot afford the medication they need.”

    If passed, the Insulin for All Act of 2023 would cap the list price of insulin nationwide at “$20 per 1000 units… which may be contained in one or more vials, pens, cartridges, or other forms of delivery.”

    Original co-sponsors of the legislation include Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Reps. Jamaal Bowman and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

    “Big Pharma continues to rake in record profits by gouging patients on insulin prices,” Merkley said in a statement. “Unaffordable high prices are forcing patients to ration their insulin, leading to dire health consequences—heart attacks, stroke, blindness, kidney failure, foot disease and amputations, even death. It’s tragic, it’s unacceptable, and it’s time to end this rip-off.”

    The new bill is also backed by more than 70 advocacy organizations, including T1International, Public Citizen, and Social Security Works.

    “This bill being called the Insulin for All Act of 2023 shows the power of grassroots activism,” said Elizabeth Pfiester, a patient with Type 1 diabetes and the founder and executive director of T1International, the group behind the #insulin4all campaign.

    “We know that Eli Lilly isn’t lowering the list price of one of their insulins out of the goodness of their hearts,” Pfiester added. “That’s why policy change to ensure patients with diabetes can’t be exploited anymore is essential.”

    Eli Lilly’s decision earlier this month to slash the prices of its most-prescribed insulin products by 70% was cautiously welcomed by advocates who have been organizing against insulin price gouging for years.

    But campaigners stressed that given the serious limitations of Eli Lilly’s pledge—and the company’s ability to raise prices again whenever it chooses—federal action is still necessary to ensure lower costs for everyone, including those who use products made by the other two giant insulin manufacturers, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk.

    The three companies produce more than 90% of the global insulin supply, market dominance that has allowed them to drive up costs massively—drawing legal action from several U.S. states, including California.

    Last April, Human Rights Watch released a report showing that Eli Lilly has raised the list price of Humalog by an inflation-adjusted 680% since it first began selling the product in the late 1990s. The company vowed earlier this month to slash the list price of Humalog by 70% starting in the fourth quarter of this year.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Watchdogs Demand Ethics Probe of Kevin McCarthy’s Jan. 6 Footage Gift to Tucker Carlson



    A group of watchdogs on Tuesday urged the Office of Congressional Ethics to launch an investigation into House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s decision to exclusively hand more than 40,000 hours of security video from the January 6 Capitol attack to far-right Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who is already selectively using the trove of footage to spin the insurrection as a largely peaceful event.

    In their request for an investigation, Public Citizen’s Craig Holman and Lisa Gilbert and former White House ethics officials Norm Eisen and Richard Painter wrote that “the exclusive release of the Jan. 6 video footage appears to have been the result of a political agreement between McCarthy, Tucker Carlson, and others in McCarthy’s bid to become speaker.”

    While McCarthy has defended the arrangement with Carlson as similar to the common practice of giving select members of the media “exclusives on certain things,” the watchdogs contended that “this is not like granting an exclusive interview; this is providing a valuable government resource exclusively to one news outlet and discriminating against others, which flies in the face of First Amendment values.”

    The ethics experts went on to argue that “the speaker’s release of security footage exclusively to Tucker Carlson is pure and simple using congressional resources for partisan gamesmanship—the very type of polarizing gamesmanship that has caused such damage to the public’s perception of the integrity of Congress.”

    The investigation request was submitted to the Office of Congressional Ethics—an independent body that House Republicans have worked to gut—just hours after Fox News aired Carlson’s first segment featuring the exclusively obtained footage.

    Consistent with his past descriptions of the January 6 assault, Carlson used the Monday night segment to selectively present footage aimed at downplaying the attack and portraying the Trump supporters involved as individuals who “revered the Capitol”—a narrative that runs counter to publicly available evidence of violence and significant damage to the Capitol building.

    Carlson signaled that segments in the coming days will feature additional security footage obtained through the deal with McCarthy.

    Matt Gertz of Media Matters for America noted Monday that “there was never any plausible chance that Carlson’s team would look at the footage and decide to tell their audience that it proved they had been wrong all along.”

    “He’s not an impartial finder of fact—he’s a propagandist who is in the business of telling his viewers what they want to hear,” Gertz wrote. “In this case, they want to believe that they and their political fellow travelers were the victims, so that’s what they are going to hear.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Countering GOP Attacks, Biden Proposes Tax Hike on the Rich to Strengthen Medicare



    President Joe Biden on Tuesday unveiled a plan to extend Medicare’s solvency into the 2050s by raising taxes on high-income Americans and cutting prescription drug costs, a proposal that Biden presented as an alternative to GOP attacks on the healthcare program used by tens of millions of seniors.

    “If the MAGA Republicans get their way, seniors will pay higher out-of-pocket costs on prescription drugs and insulin, the deficit will be bigger, and Medicare will be weaker,” the president wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times. “The only winner under their plan will be Big Pharma. That’s not how we extend Medicare’s life for another generation or grow the economy.”

    According to an outline released by the White House on Tuesday morning, Biden’s proposal would “extend the solvency of Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund by at least 25 years” by raising the Medicare tax rate from 3.8% to 5% on both earned and unearned income above $400,000.

    “When Medicare was passed, the wealthiest 1% of Americans didn’t have more than five times the wealth of the bottom 50% combined,” Biden wrote Tuesday, “and it only makes sense that some adjustments be made to reflect that reality today.”

    The plan also proposes empowering “Medicare to negotiate prices for more drugs and bringing drugs into negotiation sooner after they launch,” building on provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden signed into law last year. The White House plan would then credit the savings from the drug price reforms—an estimated $200 billion over 10 years—to the HI Trust Fund.

    “Let’s ask the wealthiest to pay just a little bit more of their fair share, to strengthen Medicare for everyone over the long term.”

    The Medicare plan is part of the president’s sweeping fiscal year 2024 budget blueprint, scheduled for release later this week. The budget will likely include a range of administration proposals that don’t stand a chance of clearing the Republican-controlled House.

    In its 2022 report, the Board of Trustees for Social Security and Medicare projected that the HI Trust Fund—Medicare Part A—”will be able to pay scheduled benefits until 2028, two years later than reported” in 2021.

    “At that time,” the trustees report noted, “the fund’s reserves will become depleted and continuing total program income will be sufficient to pay 90% of total scheduled benefits.”

    In his Times op-ed, Biden declared that “we should do better than that and extend Medicare’s solvency beyond 2050.”

    “Let’s ask the wealthiest to pay just a little bit more of their fair share, to strengthen Medicare for everyone over the long term,” the president wrote. “This modest increase in Medicare contributions from those with the highest incomes will help keep the Medicare program strong for decades to come. My budget will make sure the money goes directly into the Medicare trust fund, protecting taxpayers’ investment and the future of the program.”

    Biden put forth his plan as he continues to face progressive criticism for operating a pilot program called ACO REACH, which physicians warn could result in the privatization of traditional Medicare.

    The president’s plan also comes amid a debt ceiling standoff that Republicans are attempting to exploit to secure long-sought cuts to federal programs. House Republicans have also floated changes to Medicare, including an increase in the program’s eligibility age.

    “MAGA Republicans on the Hill say the only way to be serious about preserving Medicare is to cut it,” Biden wrote in a Twitter post on Tuesday. “Well, I think they’re wrong. I’m releasing my budget this week. In it, I’ll propose a plan to extend the life of Medicare for a generation, without cutting benefits.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Countering GOP Attacks, Biden Proposes Tax Hike on the Rich to Strengthen Medicare



    President Joe Biden on Tuesday unveiled a plan to extend Medicare’s solvency into the 2050s by raising taxes on high-income Americans and cutting prescription drug costs, a proposal that Biden presented as an alternative to GOP attacks on the healthcare program used by tens of millions of seniors.

    “If the MAGA Republicans get their way, seniors will pay higher out-of-pocket costs on prescription drugs and insulin, the deficit will be bigger, and Medicare will be weaker,” the president wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times. “The only winner under their plan will be Big Pharma. That’s not how we extend Medicare’s life for another generation or grow the economy.”

    According to an outline released by the White House on Tuesday morning, Biden’s proposal would “extend the solvency of Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund by at least 25 years” by raising the Medicare tax rate from 3.8% to 5% on both earned and unearned income above $400,000.

    “When Medicare was passed, the wealthiest 1% of Americans didn’t have more than five times the wealth of the bottom 50% combined,” Biden wrote Tuesday, “and it only makes sense that some adjustments be made to reflect that reality today.”

    The plan also proposes empowering “Medicare to negotiate prices for more drugs and bringing drugs into negotiation sooner after they launch,” building on provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden signed into law last year. The White House plan would then credit the savings from the drug price reforms—an estimated $200 billion over 10 years—to the HI Trust Fund.

    “Let’s ask the wealthiest to pay just a little bit more of their fair share, to strengthen Medicare for everyone over the long term.”

    The Medicare plan is part of the president’s sweeping fiscal year 2024 budget blueprint, scheduled for release later this week. The budget will likely include a range of administration proposals that don’t stand a chance of clearing the Republican-controlled House.

    In its 2022 report, the Board of Trustees for Social Security and Medicare projected that the HI Trust Fund—Medicare Part A—”will be able to pay scheduled benefits until 2028, two years later than reported” in 2021.

    “At that time,” the trustees report noted, “the fund’s reserves will become depleted and continuing total program income will be sufficient to pay 90% of total scheduled benefits.”

    In his Times op-ed, Biden declared that “we should do better than that and extend Medicare’s solvency beyond 2050.”

    “Let’s ask the wealthiest to pay just a little bit more of their fair share, to strengthen Medicare for everyone over the long term,” the president wrote. “This modest increase in Medicare contributions from those with the highest incomes will help keep the Medicare program strong for decades to come. My budget will make sure the money goes directly into the Medicare trust fund, protecting taxpayers’ investment and the future of the program.”

    Biden put forth his plan as he continues to face progressive criticism for operating a pilot program called ACO REACH, which physicians warn could result in the privatization of traditional Medicare.

    The president’s plan also comes amid a debt ceiling standoff that Republicans are attempting to exploit to secure long-sought cuts to federal programs. House Republicans have also floated changes to Medicare, including an increase in the program’s eligibility age.

    “MAGA Republicans on the Hill say the only way to be serious about preserving Medicare is to cut it,” Biden wrote in a Twitter post on Tuesday. “Well, I think they’re wrong. I’m releasing my budget this week. In it, I’ll propose a plan to extend the life of Medicare for a generation, without cutting benefits.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘Absolutely Shameful’: Biden Reportedly Weighing Revival of Migrant Family Detentions



    Multiple news outlets reported late Monday that the Biden administration is considering restarting migrant family detentions that were used extensively by previous administrations in an attempt to crack down on border crossings.

    While “no final decision has been made,” according to The New York Times, “the move would be a stark reversal for President Biden, who came into office promising to adopt a more compassionate approach to the border after the harsh policies of his predecessor, former President Donald J. Trump.”

    Immigrant rights advocates were quick to warn Biden against following through with any plan to revive migrant family detentions, which the administration had largely shut down.

    “I’ve got one word for them: unacceptable,” wrote Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council.

    “The thing about family detention is not only that it’s cruel and inhumane,” Reichlin-Melnick added, “but also that it was a money pit and absolutely useless as a ‘deterrent.’”

    Bob Libal, an immigration justice advocate and consultant with Human Rights Watch, said it is “absolutely shameful that this is even being considered again.”

    Both the Obama and Trump administrations made expansive use of family detention, with the latter attempting to rescind limits on how long children can be held in migrant detention facilities—an effort that was ultimately blocked in federal court.

    On the campaign trail, Biden condemned the practice of family detention—as well as the separation of migrant families—as morally bankrupt, writing in a Twitter post: “Children should be released from ICE detention with their parents immediately. This is pretty simple, and I can’t believe I have to say it: Families belong together.”

    But with the 2024 election looming, the Biden administration has moved to reinstate immigration policies that it previously denounced as cruel—including a Trump-era asylum ban—as it prepares for the May expiration of Title 42, another Trump administration policy that Biden has used to rapidly deport migrants.

    Reuters reported Monday that in addition to restarting family detentions, the Biden administration is “weighing reviving immigration arrests of migrant families within the United States who have been ordered deported.”

    “It’s all on the table,” an unnamed official told the outlet.

    In the place of family detentions, the Biden administration has used ankle bracelets and other methods—decried as “digital prisons” by rights groups—to track migrant families as they move through the court system.

    But as the Detention Watch Network has observed, the Biden administration did not end its contracts with facilities that were previously used to hold migrant families.

    “Instead, following cues from the Obama administration, it converted the contract with Berks County to detain adult women and shifted its usage of the Dilley facility to detain single adults,” the organization noted.

    Citing one unnamed official, CNN reported Monday that the Biden administration is “looking at multiple options for how to handle migrant families at the southern border, not all of them involving family detention.”

    “Another source familiar with the deliberations added that among the options discussed are some that wouldn’t involve detaining families in ICE facilities,” CNN added. “This source said that family detentions would be limited to a small number of days—an attempt to set the policy apart from the Trump administration’s handling of family detentions.”

    But it’s not likely that rights groups and advocates would accept such an alternative.

    “I was part of a legal team that sued to get access to the first family detention center that President Obama opened (in Artesia, N.M.),” Karen Tumlin, a civil rights litigator, recounted Monday. “Talking to families and kids detained at Artesia was one of the lowest points of my legal career. I can see the cribs lining the hallway now, families and babies crammed into tiny rooms.”

    “A family detention policy is a policy of adding trauma to trauma,” Tumlin added. “It is painful to see this as a rumored proposal from the Biden administration.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘Absolutely Shameful’: Biden Reportedly Weighing Revival of Migrant Family Detentions



    Multiple news outlets reported late Monday that the Biden administration is considering restarting migrant family detentions that were used extensively by previous administrations in an attempt to crack down on border crossings.

    While “no final decision has been made,” according to The New York Times, “the move would be a stark reversal for President Biden, who came into office promising to adopt a more compassionate approach to the border after the harsh policies of his predecessor, former President Donald J. Trump.”

    Immigrant rights advocates were quick to warn Biden against following through with any plan to revive migrant family detentions, which the administration had largely shut down.

    “I’ve got one word for them: unacceptable,” wrote Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council.

    “The thing about family detention is not only that it’s cruel and inhumane,” Reichlin-Melnick added, “but also that it was a money pit and absolutely useless as a ‘deterrent.’”

    Bob Libal, an immigration justice advocate and consultant with Human Rights Watch, said it is “absolutely shameful that this is even being considered again.”

    Both the Obama and Trump administrations made expansive use of family detention, with the latter attempting to rescind limits on how long children can be held in migrant detention facilities—an effort that was ultimately blocked in federal court.

    On the campaign trail, Biden condemned the practice of family detention—as well as the separation of migrant families—as morally bankrupt, writing in a Twitter post: “Children should be released from ICE detention with their parents immediately. This is pretty simple, and I can’t believe I have to say it: Families belong together.”

    But with the 2024 election looming, the Biden administration has moved to reinstate immigration policies that it previously denounced as cruel—including a Trump-era asylum ban—as it prepares for the May expiration of Title 42, another Trump administration policy that Biden has used to rapidly deport migrants.

    Reuters reported Monday that in addition to restarting family detentions, the Biden administration is “weighing reviving immigration arrests of migrant families within the United States who have been ordered deported.”

    “It’s all on the table,” an unnamed official told the outlet.

    In the place of family detentions, the Biden administration has used ankle bracelets and other methods—decried as “digital prisons” by rights groups—to track migrant families as they move through the court system.

    But as the Detention Watch Network has observed, the Biden administration did not end its contracts with facilities that were previously used to hold migrant families.

    “Instead, following cues from the Obama administration, it converted the contract with Berks County to detain adult women and shifted its usage of the Dilley facility to detain single adults,” the organization noted.

    Citing one unnamed official, CNN reported Monday that the Biden administration is “looking at multiple options for how to handle migrant families at the southern border, not all of them involving family detention.”

    “Another source familiar with the deliberations added that among the options discussed are some that wouldn’t involve detaining families in ICE facilities,” CNN added. “This source said that family detentions would be limited to a small number of days—an attempt to set the policy apart from the Trump administration’s handling of family detentions.”

    But it’s not likely that rights groups and advocates would accept such an alternative.

    “I was part of a legal team that sued to get access to the first family detention center that President Obama opened (in Artesia, N.M.),” Karen Tumlin, a civil rights litigator, recounted Monday. “Talking to families and kids detained at Artesia was one of the lowest points of my legal career. I can see the cribs lining the hallway now, families and babies crammed into tiny rooms.”

    “A family detention policy is a policy of adding trauma to trauma,” Tumlin added. “It is painful to see this as a rumored proposal from the Biden administration.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Commodity Speculators Reap Record-Shattering Profits Amid Global Hunger Crisis

    As much of the world reeled from high energy and food prices that left millions struggling to heat their homes and feed their families, commodity trading firms that benefit from extreme market volatility brought in record-breaking profits in 2022, capitalizing on chaos spurred by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Citing new research from the consulting firm Oliver Wyman, the Financial Times reported…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Jewish New Yorkers Rally at Schumer’s Home to End US Military Funding to Israel

    Hundreds of Jewish New Yorkers rallied and marched on the home of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday to protest his embrace of far-right Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu amid growing violence against Palestinians — violence that demonstrators said is enabled by the U.S. government’s unwavering military and diplomatic support. “As Jews who support freedom and dignity for all…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ‘Time to End the Greed’: Sanders Vows Bill to Cap Price of Insulin at $20 Per Vial



    Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday announced plans to introduce legislation that would cap U.S. insulin prices at $20 per vial after Eli Lilly pledged to cut the list prices of its most commonly used insulin products by 70%.

    Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in a statement that “this is what fighting back accomplishes” and urged two other major insulin manufacturers to replicate Eli Lilly’s move, which also includes capping monthly out-of-pocket insulin payments at $35 for many people with diabetes.

    “At a time when Eli Lilly made over $7 billion in profits last year, public pressure forced them to reduce the price of insulin by 70%,” said the Vermont senator. “Now is the time for Sanofi and Novo Nordisk to do the same. Now is the time to end the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and substantially lower the outrageous cost of prescription drugs in America.”

    In letters to the CEOs of Sanofi and Novo Nordisk—which together with Eli Lilly produce more than 90% of the global insulin supply—Sanders wrote that “people with diabetes should not be forced to pay $98 for a vial of insulin that costs just $8 to manufacture and can be purchased in Canada for just $12.”

    “I urge you to join Eli Lilly in substantially lowering the price your company charges for insulin and make certain that all Americans can purchase this lifesaving drug,” added the senator, who has been scrutinizing the trio’s business practices—including price collusion—for years.

    “Let’s be clear: Insulin is not a new drug,” Sanders continued. “It was discovered 100 years ago by Canadian scientists who sold the patent rights of insulin for just $1 because they wanted to save lives, not make pharmaceutical executives extremely wealthy. And yet, as a result of unacceptable corporate greed, the price of insulin has gone up by over 1,000% since 1996, causing 1.3 million people with diabetes to ration insulin last year while your companies made billions of dollars in profits. That is absolutely unacceptable.”

    Eli Lilly’s announcement was welcomed as a victory for people with diabetes who have been campaigning tirelessly for years to bring down insulin prices in the U.S., where some patients have been forced to pay more than $1,000 a month for the lifesaving medicine.

    But the company’s move also drew skepticism as advocates remain wary of the limitations of Wednesday’s pledge and of Eli Lilly’s commitment to keeping prices low, particularly given the pharmaceutical giant’s history of lobbying against efforts to rein in prescription drug costs.

    In a footnote at the bottom of its Wednesday press release, Eli Lilly states that “government restrictions exclude people enrolled in federal government insurance programs from Lilly’s $35 solutions.”

    People on Medicare are covered by the Inflation Reduction Act’s $35-per-month cap on insulin copayments, but low-income people on Medicaid don’t appear to be eligible for Eli Lilly’s price-cap program.

    Additionally, Eli Lilly’s 70% price cut for Humalog—the company’s most commonly prescribed insulin product—won’t take effect until the fourth quarter of this year, “giving Lilly seven more months of high prices even as they are lauded for their corporate responsibility,” noted The American Prospect‘s Robert Kuttner.

    “And since Lilly caps out-of-pocket costs to patients but not necessarily prices charged to insurance companies,” Kuttner added, “the result could be cost-shifting and higher insurance premiums.”

    Such caveats led campaigners to emphasize the necessity of federal action to guarantee that insulin is available and affordable for all who need it.

    “Insulin manufacturers have shown time and time again that they will put their CEOs’ profits over patients’ lives,” said Kristen Whitney Daniels, the co-leader of T1International’s federal working group and a person living with Type 1 diabetes. “That’s why the government also needs to regulate insulin manufacturers to hold them accountable to ensuring the human right to insulin.“

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Growing Medicare Privatization Is Boosting Big Insurance Profits, Report Shows

    A new analysis released Monday shows that insurance giants are benefiting hugely from the accelerating privatization of Medicare and Medicaid, which for-profit companies have infiltrated via government programs such as Medicare Advantage. According to the report from Wendell Potter, a former insurance executive who now advocates for systemic healthcare reform, government programs are now the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Khanna, Deluzio Unveil ‘Derail Act’ to Prevent Another Disaster Like East Palestine



    Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania introduced legislation Tuesday that would require the U.S. Transportation Department to impose more strict regulations on trains carrying hazardous materials, an effort to prevent disasters like the toxic derailment in East Palestine, Ohio from happening in the future.

    “The people in East Palestine and western Pennsylvania are the working-class folks who feel invisible and abandoned by our nation,” Khanna said in a statement. “This is a moment where we need political leaders from all parties and from across the country to speak out loudly for better safety regulations and to acknowledge what so many Americans are going through.”

    If passed, the Decreasing Emergency Railroad Accident Instances Locally (DERAIL) Act would direct the head of the Department of Transportation to “modify the definition of ‘high-hazard flammable train’ to mean a single train transporting one or more loaded tank cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid or a Class 2 flammable gas and other materials the secretary determines necessary for safety.”

    Thanks in part to aggressive industry lobbying, the Transportation Department currently defines a high-hazard flammable train as one carrying hazardous materials in at least 20 consecutive cars or 35 total, limiting the number of trains subject to more stringent safety rules.

    Deluzio, who represents constituents located just miles from the East Palestine derailment, said in a statement that many people are “worried about their health and livelihoods and whether their air, water, and soil will be safe” after the East Palestine wreck.

    “Following this derailment, many of them are worried about their health and livelihoods and whether their air, water, and soil will be safe after this disaster,” Deluzio added. “They want answers, accountability, and assurance that something like this will never happen again. For too long, railroads have prioritized profit ahead of public safety and their workers, and it is time to regulate the railroads. This legislation is an important step forward to finally strengthen our rail regulations and improve rail safety in communities like Western Pennsylvania and across America.”

    As The Lever has reported, the Norfolk Southern train that derailed in eastern Ohio and spilled toxic chemicals—including the flammable carcinogen vinyl chloride—was not being regulated as a “high-hazard flammable train” (HHFT) due to a narrow definition of the category adopted by the Obama administration.

    “The Obama administration in 2014 proposed improving safety regulations for trains carrying petroleum and other hazardous materials,” The Lever noted earlier this month. “However, after industry pressure, the final measure ended up narrowly focused on the transport of crude oil and exempting trains carrying many other combustible materials.”

    “Then came 2017,” The Lever continued. “After rail industry donors delivered more than $6 million to GOP campaigns, the Trump administration—backed by rail lobbyists and Senate Republicans—rescinded part of that rule aimed at making better braking systems widespread on the nation’s rails.”

    In addition to requiring tougher regulation of trains carrying hazardous substances, Khanna and Deluzio’s bill would require rail carriers involved in any potentially toxic derailment to provide the National Response Center, state and local officials, and tribal governments with a list of dangerous materials present on the train no later than 24 hours after the crash.

    The House Democrats’ legislation comes as Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is facing growing pressure to strengthen lax regulations that are allowing railroad giants like Norfolk Southern to cut corners in pursuit of greater profits—often with dangerous consequences.

    More than 1,000 trains derail in the United States each year, according to one estimate. A recent USA Today analysis found that hazardous material violations by rail companies “appear to be climbing,” with federal inspectors flagging 36% more infractions over the last five years than they did in the preceding half-decade.

    The Norfolk Southern train that crashed in eastern Ohio had a reputation among workers as a serious safety hazard. The train, formally known as 32N but nicknamed “32 Nasty,” included around 20 cars carrying hazardous chemicals.

    Greg Hynes, the national legislative director of SMART Transportation Division—the union that represents the workers who staffed the derailed Norfolk Southern train—said Tuesday that Khanna and Deluzio’s proposal represents “positive action to improve rail safety for Pennsylvania and America.”

    PennEnvironment executive director David Masur agreed, saying the measure would “take commonsense and important steps to improve reporting and the public’s right to know about volatile and hazardous materials rumbling through U.S. communities every day.”

    “As the derailment and explosion in East Palestine, Ohio showed us,” Masur said, “federal laws excluding freight companies from reporting the dangerous and explosive materials that they are carrying have loopholes large enough to drive a train through.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Report Shows Big Insurance Profiting Massively From Medicare Privatization



    A new analysis released Monday shows that insurance giants are benefiting hugely from the accelerating privatization of Medicare and Medicaid, which for-profit companies have infiltrated via government programs such as Medicare Advantage.

    According to the report from Wendell Potter, a former insurance executive who now advocates for systemic healthcare reform, government programs are now the source of roughly 90% of the health plan revenues of Humana, Centene, and Molina.

    Over the past decade, Potter found, the seven top for-profit insurance companies in the U.S.—the three mentioned above plus UnitedHealth, Cigna, CVS/Aetna, and Elevance—have seen their combined revenues from taxpayer-backed programs soar by 500%, reaching $577 billion in 2022 compared to $116.3 billion in 2012.

    “The big insurers now manage most states’ Medicaid programs—and make billions of dollars for shareholders doing so—but most of the insurers have found that selling their privately operated Medicare replacement plans is even more financially rewarding for their shareholders,” Potter wrote. “In addition to their focus on Medicare and Medicaid, the companies also profit from the generous subsidies the government pays insurers to reduce the premiums they charge individuals and families who do not qualify for either Medicare or Medicaid or who work for an employer that does not offer subsidized coverage.”

    Potter noted that the top insurance giants, a group he dubbed the Big Seven, now control more than 70% of the Medicare Advantage market, which has grown rapidly in recent years. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 28 million people were enrolled in a privately run Medicare Advantage plan last year—nearly half of the Medicare-eligible population.

    An ardent critic of Medicare Advantage, Potter said in an interview with The American Prospect on Monday that the program “is a big contributor to the excessive spending” in Medicare.

    “It needs to be ended,” Potter, executive director of the Center for Health and Democracy, said of Medicare Advantage, whose major players frequently overbill the federal government and deny patients necessary care. The program is run by private insurers with government money.

    “The premiums and taxes paid by Americans enabled the Big Seven to make those profits.”

    In his analysis, Potter observed that Medicare Advantage enrollment among the Big Seven increased 252% between 2012 and 2022.

    Having deeply entrenched themselves in the Medicare program via Medicare Advantage, insurance giants are now looking to gain a foothold in traditional Medicare through a Biden administration pilot program known as ACO REACH, which has drawn mounting criticism from physicians and progressive lawmakers.

    “We must fight the privatization of Medicare with every tool we have,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in a statement last month.

    When counting both their commercial businesses and participation in government programs, the Big Seven brought in $1.25 trillion in revenue last year and their profits rose to $69.3 billion, according to Potter, who emphasized that a growing share of insurance giants’ revenues now comes from “the relatively new and little-known middleman between patients and pharmaceutical drug manufacturers” known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).

    “Cigna now gets far more revenue from its PBM than from its health plans,” Potter noted. “CVS gets more revenue from its PBM than from either Aetna’s health plans or its nearly 10,000 retail stores.”

    Potter lamented that “policymakers, regulators, employers, and the media have so far shown scant interest” in closely examining the taxpayer-reliant business practices of large insurance companies, which wield substantial lobbying power that they deploy against any effort to transform the United States’ fragmented healthcare system.

    “They’ve essentially been bailed out by taxpayers,” Potter said of for-profit insurance giants. “And members of Congress, and various administrations, have been just standing on the sidelines, not paying attention to what’s been going on.”

    Meanwhile, tens of millions of people in the United States are either uninsured or inadequately insured, and more than 100 million are saddled with healthcare-related debt.

    A recent study by The Commonwealth Fund found that the United States spent close to twice as much as the average OECD nation on healthcare while achieving worse outcomes in critical areas such as life expectancy at birth and death rates for treatable conditions.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Analysis Spotlights the Lasting Pain Inflicted by Reagan’s Social Security Cuts



    In 1983, just before signing legislation that cut Social Security benefits, then-President Ronald Reagan declared that “we’re entering an age when average Americans will live longer and live more productive lives.”

    But Reagan’s assumption of ever-rising life expectancy in the U.S. turned out to be false, according to a new analysis, a fact with painful consequences for those who saw their Social Security benefits pared back thanks to the 1983 law’s gradual increase of the full retirement age—the age at which one is eligible for unreduced Social Security payments.

    As Conor Smyth wrote Monday for the People’s Policy Project, a left-wing think tank, the Social Security Amendments of 1983 hiked the full retirement age “from 65 in 2000 to 67 at the end of 2022.”

    “What this actually meant was not that the age at which people could retire and start drawing Social Security benefits changed—that remained at 62,” Smyth explained. “Instead, by raising what’s called the full retirement age (FRA) by two years, the law effectively cut benefit levels across the board, regardless of the age that any particular individual began claiming Social Security benefits. The result is that those retiring at 62 today face a 50% greater penalty for retiring before the change than they would have before 2000.”

    The 1983 law was an outgrowth of a special presidential commission headed by Alan Greenspan, a right-wing economist who would go on to serve as chair of the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades.

    Smyth noted that before final passage of the measure—which cleared the House and Senate with bipartisan support, including from then-Sen. Joe Biden—”a popular argument for raising the retirement age was that life expectancy had increased, so people should work for longer.”

    “The presumption was that the increase in life expectancy since Social Security’s implementation would continue as the retirement age rose. But, in reality, something peculiar happened,” Smyth wrote. “Over the same period during which the 1983 law forced the retirement age up from 65 to 67, life expectancy in the U.S. actually declined. In 2000, U.S. life expectancy was 76.8 years. According to data released last December, life expectancy in 2021 was 76.4 years. This was the second consecutive year of significant life expectancy decline.”

    “That’s a drop of 0.4 years over a time span when the FRA rose by nearly two years,” Smyth observed. “So not only have Americans seen their benefits cut by an increase in the FRA, they now also face a particularly morbid version of a benefit cut in the form of shorter lives.”

    (Image: People’s Policy Project)

    The new analysis comes as some congressional Republicans are openly advocating further increases in the retirement age, with one GOP lawmaker recently declaring that people “actually want to work longer.”

    In a policy agenda released last year, the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) echoed Reagan-era arguments in favor of raising the full retirement age to 70—a change that would cut Social Security benefits across the board at a time when many retirees are struggling to afford basic necessities.

    The RSC agenda states that Republican legislation known as the Social Security Reform Act would “continue the gradual increase of the normal retirement age that current law has set in motion at a rate of three months per year until it is increased by three years for those reaching age 62 in 2040, 18 years from now.”

    “This adjustment,” the document claims, “would begin to realign the Social Security full retirement age to account for increases in life expectancy since the program’s creation.”

    President Biden and congressional Democrats have pledged to reject any proposed cuts to Social Security, which Republicans have threatened to pursue in exchange for a deal to raise the debt ceiling.

    In addition to urging Biden and Democratic lawmakers to stand firm against Social Security cuts, advocates are calling on the president to embrace a Social Security expansion plan such as the one recently proposed by Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, which would fund benefit increases by raising the payroll tax cap so that wealthier Americans contribute a more equal share to the program.

    “President Biden campaigned on a promise to expand Social Security’s modest benefits, while dedicating more revenue to it. Most Democratic senators and members of the House support that as well. Yet the mainstream media fails to take those proposals seriously,” Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, wrote in an op-ed for Common Dreams last week.

    “If the Biden administration championed an expansion plan, unveiled at a White House event with major stakeholders in attendance,” Altman added, “that could not be ignored.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Human Rights Groups Condemn Settler Pogrom Against Palestinians in West Bank

    Israeli settlers tore through the occupied West Bank on Sunday, violently attacking Palestinians and setting fire to their cars, houses, and businesses in what one rights group called a “pogrom” sanctioned by the far-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The settlers, who killed at least one Palestinian and injured hundreds more, launched their assault after a suspected…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Global Coalition Urges OECD to End ‘Reprehensible’ Oil and Gas Export Financing



    More than 175 civil society groups spanning 45 countries urged the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development—an alliance of mostly rich nations—to end export financing for oil and gas, warning in a joint statement Monday that failure to do so would compromise global efforts to keep “a livable future within reach.”

    With OECD members set to convene next week in Paris to discuss climate finance and emissions targets, the civil society coalition implored negotiators to take concrete steps toward cutting off public oil and gas financing that flows through Export Credit Agencies (ECAs), institutions that the OECD oversees.

    “Continued government support for long-term fossil energy development is as reprehensible as short-term fossil energy company windfall profits on the back of energy poverty,” Sandrine Dixson-Declève, co-president of the Club of Rome, said Monday. “In both cases, it is the world’s vulnerable communities that will continue to suffer the most.”

    According to the climate coalition—which also includes Oil Change International, 350 Africa, and Global Witness—ECAs “play a catalytic role in shaping our global energy systems” by helping “domestic companies limit the risk of selling goods and services in overseas markets, by providing loans, loan guarantees, and insurance.”

    “This finance is government-backed, and often concessional, helping prop up fossil fuel projects and infrastructure which would otherwise be too risky for the private sector to finance alone,” the groups said, noting between 2019 and 2021, ECAs in wealthy G20 countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada backed “at least $34 billion per year worth of transactions for fossil fuels, over 90% of which were for oil and gas, while providing only $4.7 billion for clean energy.”

    In a joint proposal released Monday, the groups detail several specific steps OECD members can take to help bring export financing into alignment with the Paris climate accord’s imperiled 1.5°C warming target. The steps include imposing restrictions that:

    • Target upstream (exploration, drilling, and extraction), midstream (storage, processing, and transportation) and downstream (oil or gas-fired power) oil and gas finance, ensuring no new fossil fuel infrastructure support using official export credits;
    • Prohibit export credit financing for all associated oil and gas infrastructure; and
    • In case of any reference to “unabated” fossil fuels, clearly define the term to avoid misuse or continued support for the entire oil and gas supply chain and power generation.

    The term “unabated” has been deployed repeatedly in international climate agreements in what advocacy groups have called an attempt to evade demands for a total phase-out of fossil fuel extraction and an end to all new oil and gas projects—which scientists say is necessary to keep critical emission-reduction goals alive.

    In late 2021, more than 30 countries including the U.S., the U.K., and other OECD members pledged to “end new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector within one year of signing this statement”—but the lack of follow-up action from signatories has raised concerns among progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups.

    To the dismay of climate campaigners, the Biden administration has continued bolstering oil and gas exports by helping fossil fuel companies secure long-term contracts with overseas clients, potentially locking in more planet-warming emissions for decades to come.

    According to a recent report from Friends of the Earth and Oil Change International, the U.S Export-Import Bank—a major ECA—provided $51.6 billion in funding for oil and gas projects between 2010 and 2021, and there’s little indication that the Biden administration is moving to halt such financing in line with the Glasgow commitment.

    “The world is waiting for the U.S. to fulfill its pledges as a leader on climate, particularly through the U.S. Export-Import Bank,” Kate DeAngelis of Friends of the Earth U.S. said in a statement Monday. “Biden cannot promote a renewable energy transition at home while bankrolling fossil fuels abroad. It’s time to take our global responsibility seriously and fund an equitable, renewable energy future.”

    Brighton Aryampa of Youth for Green Communities Uganda added that “governments all over the world should and must stop funding fossil fuels at home and abroad.”

    “They have power to stop banks that are financing these dirty projects, such as the dangerous [East African Crude Oil Pipeline Project] in Uganda and Tanzania,” said Aryampa. “The banks together with oil companies should look at supporting Uganda, Tanzania, and Africa at large to be leaders of the 21st-century transition to clean renewable energy while promoting green economic activities if they want to invest in Africa.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Israeli Rights Group Condemns Settler ‘Pogrom’ Against Palestinians in West Bank

    Israeli settlers tore through the occupied West Bank on Sunday, violently attacking Palestinians and setting fire to their cars, houses, and businesses in what one rights group called a “pogrom” sanctioned by the far-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    The settlers, who killed at least one Palestinian and injured hundreds more, launched their assault after a suspected Palestinian gunman fatally shot two Israeli settlers while they were driving in the West Bank.

    Residents of the West Bank town of Huwara described the panic they felt Sunday as settlers attacked their vehicles and shops and hurled burning tires through the windows of their homes—all while Israeli soldiers looked on, doing nothing to stop the violence.

    “I never thought about the house or all our stuff, I was only thinking about my children and how to save them from this nightmare,” one resident told Middle East Eye. “We got out of the house and off to safety with the help of the ambulance crews who were also attacked while trying to evacuate us. Our lives are in danger and all this is happening while the Israeli soldiers stand around waiting only to protect the settlers.”

    The act of collective punishment by Israeli settlers, whose government-backed presence on occupied Palestinian land represents a violation of international law, drew outrage from human rights organizations, including the prominent Israeli group B’Tselem.

    “The Jewish Supremacist regime carried out a pogrom in the villages around Nablus yesterday,” the group wrote on Twitter early Monday. “This isn’t ‘loss of control.’ This is exactly what Israeli control looks like. The settlers carry out the attack, the military secures it, the politicians back it. It’s a synergy.”

    “The Huwara Pogrom was an extreme manifestation of a longstanding Israeli policy,” B’Tselem added. “It was carried out by the state of Israel.”

    Smoke and flames rise from the West Bank town of Huwara.
    Smoke and flames rise from the West Bank town of Huwara. (Photo: Hisham K. K. Abu Shaqra/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

    The settler attack came days after Israeli forces killed at least ten Palestinians in a raid on the West Bank city of Nablus, just north of Huwara.

    Israeli forces have killed dozens of Palestinians since the start of the new year.

    Just two days before the deadly Nablus raid, the U.S. backed a watered-down United Nations Security Council statement voicing opposition to “Israeli construction and expansion of settlements, confiscation of Palestinians’ land, and the ‘legalization’ of settlement outposts, demolition of Palestinians’ homes, and displacement of Palestinian civilians.”

    The statement marked the first time in six years that the U.S.—which has veto power in the body—allowed the U.N. Security Council to issue a statement critical of Israeli settlements. But observers warned the statement would do little to deter the far-right Israeli government, which appears bent on settlement expansion.

    In a social media post on Sunday, U.S. State Department spokesperson Ned Price condemned the “violence” that took place in the West Bank, citing the “terrorist attack that killed two Israelis and settler violence, which resulted in the killing of one Palestinian, injuries to over 100 others, and the destruction of extensive property.”

    Responding to Price, Francesca Albanese—the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories—wrote, “I condemn Israel’s 55-year-old settler-colonial occupation of Palestinian territory (and recent Israeli politicians’ incitement to commit crimes) that is causing continuous violence/despicable loss of life.”

    “I also condemn the continuous misrepresentation of this violence and its root causes,” Albanese added.

    A Palestinian man stands amid torched cars near a house in Huwara.
    A Palestinian man stands amid torched cars near a house in Huwara. (Photo: Jaafar Ashtiyeh/AFP via Getty Images)

    Netanyahu, meanwhile, merely asked settlers not to “take the law into your hands” and to let Israeli forces “carry out their work.”

    One Israeli lawmaker, Labor Party leader Merav Michaeli, echoed B’Tselem’s condemnation of the Sunday assault as a “pogrom” and said the settlers “get their legitimacy from senior members of this government.”

    “This cancerous growth that threatens the country,” Michaeli added, “must be excised as soon as possible before it leads us to utter ruin.”

    The Palestinian presidency similarly blamed far-right Israeli lawmakers—as well as members of the international community that continue to support the government—for enabling Sunday’s assault.

    “This terrorism and whoever stands behind it aims to destroy and thwart the international efforts exerted to try to get out of the current crisis,” the statement reads. “We stand at a crossroads, either for the international community to assume its responsibilities, led by the United States of America, by obliging the Israeli government to stop its aggressions and stop the crimes of settlers immediately, or else the situation will enter into a circle of action and reaction.”

  • Norfolk Southern Agrees to Paid Sick Leave for 3,000 Workers Amid Ohio Crisis

    Facing intense scrutiny and backlash over the toxic derailment of one of its trains in eastern Ohio, Norfolk Southern on Wednesday reached a deal with a leading rail union to provide up to a week of paid sick leave per year to around 3,000 track maintenance workers. Under the agreement, Norfolk Southern will immediately give four workdays of paid sick leave annually to maintenance employees who…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Under Massive Pressure Amid Ohio Crisis, Norfolk Southern Agrees to Paid Sick Leave Deal

    Facing intense scrutiny and backlash over the toxic derailment of one of its trains in eastern Ohio, Norfolk Southern on Wednesday reached a deal with a leading rail union to provide up to a week of paid sick leave per year to around 3,000 track maintenance workers.

    Under the agreement, Norfolk Southern will immediately give four workdays of paid sick leave annually to maintenance employees who previously had none, an industry-wide outrage that nearly led to a national rail strike late last year.

    The deal will also allow employees to “utilize up to a maximum of three paid personal leave days per year as paid sick leave.”

    Tony Cardwell, president of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED), said in a statement that “after 45 years of fighting for this issue, the carrier and union have accomplished what is needed for those who contribute the most to railroad profits, the workers on the ballast line.”

    Speaking to Freight Waves, BMWED media representative Clark Ballew stressed that while the paid sick leave agreement is “a good development in an industry that is in dire need of positive momentum,” it is “not the end” of workers’ fight for basic quality-of-life benefits.

    “Our members are tasked with rebuilding the track of the [East] Palestine derailment and it is imperative that they have resources available that keep them safe and healthy at a site that many would be apprehensive to work,” Ballew said. “Paid sick time is one of those resources, but there are several others, and we expect NS to start doing right by their employees and the public and afford all resources necessary to not exacerbate an already bad situation.”

    Norfolk Southern, which has around 19,000 employees total, is the third Class 1 railroad in the past month to agree to provide paid sick leave to some of its workers after aggressively fighting unions’ demands for years, including during recent White House-brokered negotiations that produced a contract with zero paid sick days.

    Congress voted in December to impose the contract on workers after unions representing a majority of U.S. rail employees rejected it and threatened to strike.

    The sick leave deal comes as Norfolk Southern is under mounting pressure after one of its trains crashed and spewed hazardous chemicals earlier this month in the small town of East Palestine, Ohio.

    “Norfolk Southern must be in the midst of some bad publicity for it to sign an agreement with around 3,000 unionized maintenance-of-way workers for seven paid sick days,” responded The American Prospect‘s David Dayen.

    The East Palestine wreck, its toxic aftermath, and Norfolk Southern’s handling of the clean-up process spurred a close examination of the company’s efforts in recent years to kill safety rules that could have prevented or mitigated the impacts of the derailment. The company, along with other rail giants, has persistently lobbied both Republicans and Democrats, successfully beating back attempts to upgrade train braking systems and more strictly regulate freight cars carrying hazardous materials.

    “Amid the lobbying blitz against stronger transportation safety regulations, Norfolk Southern paid executives millions and spent billions on stock buybacks—all while the company shed thousands of employees despite warnings that understaffing is intensifying safety risks,” The Lever reported earlier this month. “Norfolk Southern officials also fought off a shareholder initiative that could have required company executives to ‘assess, review, and mitigate risks of hazardous material transportation.’”

  • Free Speech Advocates Say Florida Bill Would Silence Elected Officials’ Critics

    A Florida House Republican introduced legislation Monday that would make it easier for state officials — such as censorship-happy Gov. Ron DeSantis — to sue for defamation, a measure that critics decried as a blatant attack on the freedom of the press and free expression with potentially sweeping implications. Filed by Florida state Rep. Alex Andrade (R-2), H.B. 951 laments that the U.S.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ‘Dangerous and Reckless’: Putin Halts Russia’s Participation in Nuclear Treaty With US

    Russian President Vladimir Putin announced during a national address Tuesday that he is suspending his country’s participation in the New START Treaty, Moscow’s lone nuclear arms control agreement with the United States.

    Non-proliferation advocates responded to the move with alarm and condemnation as fears of a broader—and possibly nuclear—conflict in Europe remain elevated, with Russia’s assault on Ukraine raging on with no end in sight.

    “Suspending implementation of New START represents a dangerous and reckless decision from President Putin,” said the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). “Russia must immediately return to full compliance with the agreement and continue to adhere to warhead limits.”

    Derek Johnson, a managing partner at Global Zero, wrote that while nuclear weapons inspections permitted under the treaty have “been on ice for a while” amid the coronavirus pandemic and the war in Ukraine, Putin’s move could push the world “one step closer to nuclear anarchy” if it means Russia will no longer inform the U.S. of nuclear weapons movements and exercises.

    Together, the U.S. and Russia control 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. The New START Treaty, which is formally set to expire in 2026 after both sides agreed to an extension in 2021, bars the two countries from deploying more than 1,550 nuclear warheads each, with inspections allowed to ensure compliance.

    The U.S. has accused Russia of violating the treaty’s terms by refusing to allow inspections of its nuclear sites, a charge Moscow has denied. As the Financial Times reported earlier this month, “Russia and the U.S. suspended inspections during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, and originally planned to renew them last year.”

    “But Russia abruptly pulled out of talks in Cairo on renewing them last November, then failed to meet a deadline to reschedule them last week, which the U.S. State Department said constituted two violations but not a material breach of the treaty,” the newspaper added.

    “Without a new agreement to replace New START, each side could double the number of their deployed strategic nuclear warheads within 2-3 years. It would be a senseless arms race to nowhere but increasing nuclear danger.”

    During his speech to Russia’s Federal Assembly, Putin said he is pausing participation in the treaty because the U.S. and other NATO countries—through their military support for Ukraine—are attempting to “inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on us and try to get to our nuclear facilities at the same time.”

    Putin responded specifically to NATO’s statement earlier this month urging Moscow to comply with the terms of New START by allowing “inspections on Russian territory.”

    “Before we return to discussing the treaty, we need to understand what are the aspirations of NATO members Britain and France and how we take into account their strategic arsenals that are part of the alliance’s combined strike potential,” the Russian president said.

    Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, warned that Putin’s decision to halt Russia’s participation in the bilateral treaty “makes it more likely that after New START expires, there will be no limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals for the first time since 1972.”

    “Without a new agreement to replace New START, each side could double the number of their deployed strategic nuclear warheads within 2-3 years,” Kimball wrote. “It would be a senseless arms race to nowhere but increasing nuclear danger. It would be a race that neither side can hope to win.”

  • ‘Gift to the Ruling Class’: Florida Bill Would Make It Easier for Officials Like DeSantis to Sue Critics



    A Florida House Republican introduced legislation Monday that would make it easier for state officials—such as censorship-happy Gov. Ron DeSantis—to sue for defamation, a measure that critics decried as a blatant attack on the freedom of the press and free expression with potentially sweeping implications.

    Filed by Florida state Rep. Alex Andrade (R-2), H.B. 951 laments that the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan has “foreclosed many meritorious defamation claims to the detriment of citizens of all walks of life” by placing such claims under the purview of the federal government and establishing a high standard of proof.

    As the Oyez Project summarizes, the high court held in the 1964 decision that “to sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.”

    Following the introduction of Andrade’s bill, Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer, told the outlet Law & Crime that “it’s black-letter law that a state cannot constitutionally provide less protection in libel litigation than the First Amendment requires.”

    “This text does just that, obviously intentionally,” said Abrams. “If Governor DeSantis, a Harvard Law graduate, thinks the statute is constitutional, he’s forgotten what he was taught. If he’s looking for a way to offer the Supreme Court a case in which it might reconsider settled law, who knows. But what’s clear is that it is today and tomorrow facially at odds with the First Amendment.”

    The new bill was filed two weeks after DeSantis, a possible 2024 presidential candidate, held a roundtable purportedly aimed at spotlighting the “defamation practices” of legacy media outlets. While DeSantis has framed his campaign against defamation as an attempt to empower “everyday citizens” against false attacks, free speech advocates warned that, in reality, the governor and his right-wing allies in the Legislature are looking to silence criticism of elected officials like themselves.

    “DeSantis continues to make clear his disdain for freedom of speech and the press and to prioritize censoring dissent over governing,” said Seth Stern, director of Advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and a First Amendment lawyer.

    Andrade’s bill, Stern argued, “would do nothing for ordinary Floridians but would allow government officials and celebrities to harass and even bankrupt their critics with expensive litigation.”

    “It would stifle investigative reporting by presuming any statements attributed to anonymous sources to be false despite that (or, given DeSantis’ ambitions, maybe because) confidential sources have literally brought down presidents in this country,” Stern added. “The Florida legislature should reject this political stunt and Floridians should not tolerate their governor’s experiments in authoritarianism in their name and at their expense. The U.S. Congress should safeguard the First Amendment by codifying Sullivan and ensuring that the press and public are protected from politically-motivated defamation lawsuits.”

    “Unsurprisingly, it’s peddled as a bill to protect the little guy. Nothing is further from the truth. It’s a gift to the ruling class.”

    The Florida House measure, just the latest broadside against free expression by the state GOP, specifically urges the U.S. Supreme Court to “reassess” Sullivan, an effort that media lawyer Matthew Schafer described as “part of the right’s world war on individual rights, equality, and democracy.” (The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the 1964 ruling last year.)

    “Unsurprisingly, it’s peddled as a bill to protect the little guy,” Schafer noted. “Nothing is further from the truth. It’s a gift to the ruling class.”

    Andrade’s bill, which resembles a proposal drafted by DeSantis’ administration last year, outlines specific restrictions on who can and cannot be considered a “public figure” entitled to pursue defamation claims under the legislation.

    The measure states that a person does not qualify as a public figure if their “fame or notoriety arises solely from” defending themselves against an accusation; “granting an interview on a specific topic”; “public employment, other than elected office or appointment by an elected official”; or “a video, an image, or a statement uploaded on the Internet that has reached a broad audience.”

    In a column last week, The Washington Post‘s Erik Wemple cautioned that DeSantis’ attempts to target Sullivan could pose “a far greater threat to U.S. media” than former President Donald Trump’s ultimately empty pledge to “open up” libel laws.

    During his roundtable event earlier this month, “DeSantis, an ace practitioner of GOP media-bashing rhetoric, showed why some critics view him as a more dangerous embodiment of Trump’s two-bit authoritarianism,” Wemple wrote.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Trump’s Former Budget Director Is Advising GOP to Cut Medicaid by $2 Trillion

    The right-wing official who served as budget director for the Trump administration is reportedly playing a significant advisory role for House Republicans as they seek to leverage a fast-approaching debt ceiling crisis to enact spending cuts that would disproportionately impact low-income households. According to The Washington Post, former Office of Management and Budget chief Russ Vought “has…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In Surprise Visit to Kyiv, Biden Approves $500 Million in Aid as War Nears One-Year Mark



    U.S. President Joe Biden made a brief surprise trip to the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv on Monday to pledge his “unwavering and unflagging commitment” ahead of the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion, which has left tens of thousands dead, sparked a massive humanitarian crisis, and raised fears of a broader war between nuclear powers.

    During Biden’s visit to Kyiv, his first since Russia’s invasion on February 24 of last year, he announced a fresh $500 million in military assistance to Ukraine, adding to the more than $100 billion in total aid the U.S. has delivered to Ukraine since the start of the devastating war.

    After a meeting with Biden, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he and the U.S. president “discussed the future provision of longer-range missiles that Ukraine had not yet received,” the Financial Times reported.

    The aid package announced Monday includes funding for air surveillance radars, anti-tank missiles, and artillery ammunition.

    “Later this week, we will announce additional sanctions against elites and companies that are trying to evade or backfill Russia’s war machine,” Biden said in a statement. “Over the last year, the United States has built a coalition of nations from the Atlantic to the Pacific to help defend Ukraine with unprecedented military, economic, and humanitarian support—and that support will endure.”

    Biden’s trip came a day before Russian President Vladimir Putin’s expected state of the nation address on Tuesday, his first such speech since April 2021. Estimates of Russia’s death toll from the war vary widely, ranging from fewer than 10,000 troops killed to upwards of 200,000.

    The one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion will come as the prospects of a diplomatic resolution appear as remote as ever. As the Associated Press reported Monday, “Biden is trying to keep allies unified in their support for Ukraine as the war is expected to intensify with spring offensives.”

    “Zelenskyy is pressing allies to speed up delivery of promised weapon systems and calling on the West to provide fighter jets—something that Biden has declined to do,” the outlet noted. “The U.S. president got a taste of the terror that Ukrainians have lived with for close to a year when air raids sirens howled just as he and Zelenskyy wrapped up a visit to the gold-domed St. Michael’s Cathedral.”

    On Thursday, a day before the anniversary, the 193-member United Nations General Assembly is expected to vote on a nonbinding resolution calling for “a cessation of hostilities” in Ukraine and “a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace” deal “as soon as possible.”

    A final draft of the resolution, circulated by the European Union, also urges U.N. member states “redouble support for diplomatic efforts” to end the war.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • GOP Taking Budget Advice From Trump Official Who Wants to Cut $2 Trillion From Medicaid



    The right-wing official who served as budget director for the Trump administration is reportedly playing a significant advisory role for House Republicans as they seek to leverage a fast-approaching debt ceiling crisis to enact spending cuts that would disproportionately impact low-income households.

    According to The Washington Post, former Office of Management and Budget chief Russ Vought “has emerged as one of the central voices shaping the looming showdown over federal spending and the national debt.”

    “As Republicans struggle to craft a strategy for confronting the Biden administration over the debt ceiling, which limits how much the government can borrow to pay for spending Congress has already approved, Vought has supplied them with a seemingly inexhaustible stream of advice: suggestions for negotiating with the White House, briefings about dealing with the media, a 104-page memo that proposes specific spending levels for every federal agency,” the Post reported Sunday.

    More specifically, Vought has suggested that the GOP sideline efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare and instead focus on a “push to obliterate almost all other major forms of federal spending, especially programs that benefit lower-income Americans, and dare Biden to stand in the way.”

    Vought’s agenda, the Post noted, proposes $9 trillion in federal spending cuts over the next 10 years, targeting thousands of domestic programs including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

    If adopted, Vought’s proposal would inflict $2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, potentially compromising coverage for millions across the United States—and compounding the impact of lapsing pandemic protections.

    Vought’s proposed cuts to SNAP—a food aid program long attacked by Republicans—would amount to $400 billion. A recent survey found that 64% of respondents said affording food is one of the biggest challenges they’re facing amid elevated inflation.

    Tens of millions across the U.S. are currently facing what advocates have dubbed a “hunger cliff” as pandemic-related emergency boosts to SNAP funding expire.

    SNAP accounts for a tiny fraction of the federal government’s overall spending.

    “At a moment when food distribution centers are seeing increases in demand as American families struggle to feed their children, Republican lawmakers are putting families in their political crossfire by threatening to dramatically decrease spending on essential programs like SNAP. The timing of this could not be worse,” said Ailen Arreaza, executive director of ParentsTogether. “Further cuts to essential policies helping families to keep food on the table would be unconscionable—and those politicians responsible will pay a political price.”

    “The only thing more odious than pushing for $3 trillion of unpaid-for tax cuts is pushing for $3 trillion of tax cuts and $3 trillion in cuts to healthcare and nutrition for low- and middle-income families.”

    Vought, who is also urging Republicans to cut Labor Department funding in half and slash the Affordable Care Act, presents such austerity as needed to rein in an out-of-control federal bureaucracy. But as the Post notes, Vought “oversaw enormous increases in the national debt as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget,” making clear to critics that his priority is gutting programs that low-income people rely on to meet basic needs.

    “The Republican playbook is always to drive more people deeper into poverty, while giving kickbacks and tax breaks to their super-rich friends,” said progressive organizer and former congressional candidate Melanie D’Arrigo.

    Last week, more than 70 House Republicans introduced legislation that would make 2017 Trump tax cuts for individuals permanent, a major giveaway to the rich that would cost the federal government around $2.2 trillion in revenue through 2032.

    The Biden White House and congressional Democrats have indicated that they would oppose federal spending cuts as part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a catastrophic default, which could come as soon as this summer if lawmakers don’t act.

    “The only thing more odious than pushing for $3 trillion of unpaid-for tax cuts is pushing for $3 trillion of tax cuts and $3 trillion in cuts to healthcare and nutrition for low- and middle-income families,” tweeted Brendan Duke, a senior adviser to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Amid Ohio Nightmare, Rail Worker Alliance Urges All of Labor to Back Railroad Nationalization



    An alliance representing rail workers across the United States published an open letter late Thursday urging all of organized labor to support the nationalization of the country’s railroad system, arguing that the private and inadequately regulated industry has “shown itself incapable of doing the job.”

    “In face of the degeneration of the rail system in the last decade, and after more than a decade of discussion and debate on the question, Railroad Workers United (RWU) has taken a position in support of public ownership of the rail system in the United States,” reads the letter, which was published as the small town of East Palestine, Ohio is attempting to recover from the toxic derailment of a Norfolk Southern train two weeks ago.

    “We ask you to consider doing the same, and announce your organization’s support for rail public ownership,” continues the letter, which was addressed to unions as well as environmental, transportation justice, and workers’ rights organizations. “While the rail industry has been incapable of expansion in the last generation and has become more and more fixated on the operating ratio to the detriment of all other metrics of success, precision scheduled railroading (PSR) has escalated this irresponsible trajectory to the detriment of shippers, passengers, commuters, trackside communities, and workers.”

    PSR is a Wall Street-backed model that has taken hold across the U.S. rail industry, gutting workforces and undermining safety in pursuit of more “efficiency” and larger profits for rail carriers and rich investors. Meanwhile, more than 1,000 of the nation’s trains derail every year.

    In its open letter, RWU—whose ranks include workers from a number of different unions and rail professions—noted that “on-time performance is suffering” and “shipper complaints are at all-time highs” as rail carriers prioritize their profit margins over all else.

    Norfolk Southern, which also owns the train that derailed outside of Detroit on Thursday, brought in record revenue and profits in 2022.

    “Passenger trains are chronically late, commuter services are threatened, and the rail industry is hostile to practically any passenger train expansion,” RWU’s letter states. The workforce has been decimated, as jobs have been eliminated, consolidated, and contracted out, ushering in a new previously unheard-of era where workers can neither be recruited nor retained. Locomotive, rail car, and infrastructure maintenance have been cut back. Health and safety have been put at risk. Morale is at an all-time low.”

    The alliance also pointed to the White House-brokered contract that Congress forced rail workers to accept last year as evidence of broader industry dysfunction. At the center of the contract negotiations—which nearly resulted in a nationwide strike—was the issue of paid sick leave, which is denied to most rail workers due to PSR.

    The solution, RWU contended, is to nationalize the rail industry, a step that would open the door to “a new fresh beginning for a vibrant and expanding, innovative, and creative national rail industry to properly handle the nation’s freight and passengers.” The organization is calling on allies to back its resolution supporting public ownership.

    “During WWI, the railroads in the U.S. were in fact temporarily placed under public ownership and control,” the open letter notes. “All rail workers of all crafts and unions supported (unsuccessfully) keeping them in public hands once the war ended, and voted overwhelmingly to keep them in public hands. Perhaps it is time once again to put an end to the profiteering, pillaging, and irresponsibility of the Class 1 carriers.”

    The derailment and chemical spill in East Palestine have catalyzed discussions on how to prevent similar disasters from occurring in the future. Some, including environmental groups and progressive lawmakers, have implored the U.S. Transportation Department to take urgent measures to improve rail safety, including modernizing critical braking systems.

    But others have sided with RWU in arguing that while narrow reforms may be necessary as near-term solutions, they ultimately won’t be enough to solve the rail industry’s deep flaws, which stem from the prioritization of ever-greater returns.

    “We demand that Congress immediately begin a process of bringing our nation’s railroads under public ownership,” the general executive board of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE) declared in a statement late last month, just days before the fiery crash in eastern Ohio.

    “Railroads are, like utilities, ‘natural monopolies,’” UE said. “The consolidation of the Class 1 railroads in the U.S. into five massive companies over the past several decades has made it clear that there is no ‘free market’ in rail transportation.”

    “Our nation can no longer afford private ownership of the railroads; the general welfare demands that they be brought under public ownership,” the union added.

    Read RWU’s full open letter:

    Dear Friends and Fellow Workers:

    In face of the degeneration of the rail system in the last decade, and after more than a decade of discussion and debate on the question, Railroad Workers United (RWU) has taken a position in support of public ownership of the rail system in the United
    States. (see Resolution attached). We ask you to consider doing the same, and announce your organization’s support for rail public ownership.

    While the rail industry has been incapable of expansion in the last generation and has become more and more fixated on the Operating Ratio to the detriment of all other metrics of success, Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) has escalated this
    irresponsible trajectory to the detriment of shippers, passengers, commuters, trackside communities, and workers. On-time performance is suffering, and shipper complaints are at all-time highs. Passenger trains are chronically late, commuter services are threatened, and the rail industry is hostile to practically any passenger train expansion. The workforce has been decimated, as jobs have been eliminated, consolidated, and contracted out, ushering in a new previously unheard-of era where workers can neither be recruited nor retained. Locomotive, rail car, and infrastructure maintenance have been cut back. Health and safety have been put at risk. Morale is at an all-time low. The debacle in national contract bargaining last Fall saw the carriers ±after decades of record profits and record low Operating Ratios—refusing to make even the slightest concessions to the workers who have made them their riches.

    Since the North American private rail industry has shown itself incapable of doing the job, it is time for this invaluable transportation infrastructure—like the other transport modes—to be brought under public ownership. During WWI, the railroads in the U.S. were in fact temporarily placed under public ownership and control. All rail workers of all crafts and unions supported (unsuccessfully) keeping them in public hands once the war ended, and voted overwhelmingly to keep them in public hands. Perhaps it is time once again to put an end to the profiteering, pillaging, and irresponsibility of the Class 1 carriers. Railroad workers are in a historic position to take the lead and push for a new fresh beginning for a vibrant and expanding, innovative, and creative national rail industry to properly handle the nation’s freight and passengers.

    Please join us in this historic endeavor. See the adjoining RWU Resolution in Support of Public Ownership of the Railroads, along with a sample Statement from the United Electrical (UE). If your organization would like to take a stand for public ownership of the nation’s rail system, please fill out the attached form and email it in to RWU. We will add your organization to the list. Finally, please forward this letter to others who may be interested in doing the same. Thank you!

    In solidarity,

    The RWU Committee on Public Ownership

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Warren and Porter Demand Answers From Big Egg Over ‘Massive Spike’ in Prices



    Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Katie Porter on Thursday demanded answers from the five largest egg producers in the United States over recent price surges that companies have blamed on an avian flu outbreak—a narrative that advocates view as an effort to distract attention from rampant profiteering in the industry.

    Warren (D-Mass.) and Porter (D-Calif.) invoked that criticism in letters to Rose Acre Farms, Cal-Maine Foods, Hillandale Farms, Versova Management, and Daybreak Foods, writing that they are concerned by the “massive spike” in prices and “the extent to which egg producers may be using fears about avian flu and supply shocks as a cover to pad their own profits at the expense of American families.”

    “American families working to put food on the table deserve to know whether the increased prices they are paying for eggs represent a legitimate response to reduced supply or out-of-control corporate greed,” the lawmakers wrote. “Although wholesale prices have decreased, consumers are still waiting for relief at the grocery checkout, which could take several more weeks.”

    Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that the average price for a carton of a dozen large Grade A eggs was $4.80 in January, up from $1.93 a year earlier. Consumers in some states have been paying more than $7 per carton in recent weeks.

    To explain the price surge—which has been eyebrow-raising even amid elevated inflation throughout the U.S. economy—egg-producing companies have pointed to a large avian flu outbreak that has impacted an estimated 58 million birds, including around 43 million egg-laying chickens.

    But the advocacy group Farm Action has argued that the industry’s explanations “don’t stand up to the facts.”

    “Cal-Maine’s net average selling price for a dozen conventional eggs increased by 150.5% from a year ago,” the group observed last month. “The average size of egg-laying flocks never dropped more than six to eight percent lower than it was a year prior. Moreover, the effect of the loss of egg-laying hens on production was itself blunted by ‘record-high’ lay rates throughout the year.”

    “And there’s one other critical piece missing from this industry narrative—Cal-Maine, which controls 20% of the egg market, hasn’t reported a single case of avian flu at any of its facilities,” Farm Action added.

    In a recent letter to Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, Farm Action demanded an investigation into the highly concentrated industry, noting that top companies such as Cal-Maine “have a history of engaging in ‘cartelistic conspiracies’ to limit production, split markets, and increase prices for consumers.”

    Warren and Porter spotlighted Farm Action’s work in their letter Thursday, decrying industry practices as “a pattern we’ve seen too often since the Covid-19 pandemic: companies jacking up their prices to pad their own profits, putting an additional burden on American families and the economy as a whole.”

    “Cal-Maine Foods, which controls approximately 20% of the retail egg market, was reporting record profit margins and no positive avian flu cases on any of its farms,” the lawmakers wrote. “In December, Cal-Maine Foods reported a gross profits increase of more than 600% over the same quarter in 2021, which the company claimed was ‘driven by record average conventional egg selling price.”

    The two progressive Democrats asked the egg giants to promptly answer a series of specific questions, including, “To what extent has your company met or exceeded quarterly profit margin goals during the 2022 avian flu outbreak?”

    The lawmakers also asked whether the companies’ “executives, officials, or any other affiliated individuals” had “any direct or indirect communication with other egg producers about production or prices for eggs?”

    “Given corporations’ rampant profiteering during the Covid-19 pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis, and the egg industry’s history of anticompetitive practices,” Warren and Porter wrote, “[we] ask that you provide transparency about the rationale for the
    increase in egg prices and the financial impact on your company.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.