radiofree.asia

Author: Jessica Corbett

  • Internet Archive to appeal ‘chilling’ federal ruling against digital books

    Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on March 25, 2023. It is shared here with permission.

    Internet Archive vowed to appeal after a U.S. district court judge on Friday sided with four major publishers who sued the nonprofit for copyright infringement.

    Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, Internet Archives operated a controlled digital lending system, allowing users to digitally check out scanned copies of purchased or donated books on a one-to-one basis. As the public health crises forced school and library closures, the nonprofit launched the National Emergency Library, making 1.4 million digital books available without waitlists.

    Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House sued Internet Archive over its lending policies in June 2020. Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York on Friday found in Hachette v. Internet Archive that the nonprofit “creates derivative e-books that, when lent to the public, compete with those authorized by the publishers.”

    A future in which libraries are just a shell for Big Tech’s licensing software and Big Media’s most popular titles would be awful—but that’s where we’re headed if this decision stands.

    Lia Holland, fight for the future

    Internet Archive “argues that its digital lending makes it easier for patrons who live far from physical libraries to access books and that it supports research, scholarship, and cultural participation by making books widely accessible on the Internet,” the judge wrote. “But these alleged benefits cannot outweigh the market harm to the publishers.”

    In a statement responding to the ruling, Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle pledged to keep fighting against the publishers.

    “Libraries are more than the customer service departments for corporate database products. For democracy to thrive at global scale, libraries must be able to sustain their historic role in society—owning, preserving, and lending books,” Kahle said. “This ruling is a blow for libraries, readers, and authors and we plan to appeal it.”

    Internet Archive’s supporters have shared similar warnings throughout the ongoing court battle, including after the ruling Friday.

    “In a chilling ruling, a lower court judge in New York has completely disregarded the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books in favor of maximizing the profits of Big Media conglomerates,” declared Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director at the digital rights group Fight for the Future.

    “We applaud the Internet Archive’s appeal announcement, as well as their steadfast commitment to preserving the rights of all libraries and their patrons in the digital age,” they said. “And our admiration is shared—over 14,000 people having signed our pledge to defend libraries’ digital rights at BattleForLibraries.com this week alone.”

    Holland continued:

    From a basic human rights perspective, it is patently absurd to equate an e-book license issued through a surveillance-ridden Big Tech company with a digital book file that is owned and preserved by a privacy-defending nonprofit library. Currently, publishers offer no option for libraries to own and preserve digital books—leaving digital books vulnerable to unauthorized edits, censorship, or downright erasure, and leaving library patrons vulnerable to surveillance and punishment for what they read.

    In a world where libraries cannot own, preserve, or control the digital books in their collections, only the most popular, bestselling authors stand to benefit—at the expense of the vast majority of authors, whose books are preserved and purchased by libraries well after publishers have stopped promoting them. Further, today a disproportionate number of traditionally marginalized and local voices are being published in digital-only format, redoubling the need for a robust regime of library preservation to ensure that these stories survive for generations to come.

    A future in which libraries are just a shell for Big Tech’s licensing software and Big Media’s most popular titles would be awful—but that’s where we’re headed if this decision stands. No book-lover who wants an equitable and trustworthy written world could find such a future desirable. Accordingly, we plan to organize an in-person action to demand robust ownership and preservation standards for digital books and libraries. For updates on when and where, check BattleForLibraries.com.

    More than 300 authors last September signed an open letter led by Fight for the Future calling out publishers and trade associations for their actions against digital libraries, including the lawsuit targeting Internet Archive.

    “Libraries saved my life as a young reader, and I’ve seen them do as much and more for so many others,” said signatory Jeff Sharlet. “At a time when libraries are at the frontlines of fascism’s assault on democracy, it is of greater importance than ever for writers to stand in solidarity with librarians in defense of the right to share stories. Democracy won’t survive without it.”

    Fellow signatory Erin Taylor asserted that “the Internet Archive is a public good. Libraries are a public good. Only the most intellectually deprived soul would value profit over mass access to literature and knowledge.”

    Koeltl’s ruling came just two days after the American Library Association released a report revealing that in 2022, a record-breaking 2,571 titles were challenged by pro-censorship groups pushing book bans, a 38% increase from the previous year.

    Meanwhile, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday passed the so-called Parents Bill of Rights Act, which education advocates and progressive lawmakers argue is intended to ban books and further ostracize marginalized communities.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Amid Fears Over Russia-Belarus Nuke Deal, UN Official Calls for Talks to Ease Tensions

    The United Nations disarmament chief on Friday called for de-escalatory talks to curb the risk of nuclear war amid global concerns about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plan to station so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons in Belarus.

    Roughly 13 months into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin announced what critics
    called the “extremely dangerous escalation” last weekend, as United Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu noted at the beginning of her briefing to the U.N. Security Council—which Russia, a permanent member, is set to lead for a month starting on Saturday.

    Nakamitsu’s remarks came as Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, in a speech to his country’s Parliament,
    claimed without evidence that the United States and other Western nations plan to take over both Belarus and neighboring Poland, and vowed that “we will protect our sovereignty and independence by any means necessary.”

    “States must avoid taking any actions that could lead to escalation, mistake, or miscalculation.”

    Nakamitsu said that “the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is currently higher than at any time since the depths of the Cold War. The war in Ukraine represents the most acute example of that risk. The absence of dialogue and the erosion of the disarmament and arms control architecture, combined with dangerous rhetoric and veiled threats, are key drivers of this potentially existential risk.”

    “States must avoid taking any actions that could lead to escalation, mistake, or miscalculation,” she continued. “They should return to dialogue to de-escalate tensions urgently and find ways to develop and implement transparency and confidence-building measures.”

    Putin justified the deployment plan in part by insisting that the weapons will remain under Russian control and pointing to the U.S. nukes that have been
    stationed in allied European countries for decades. The United States—which has the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal after Russia—is believed to have about 100 such bombs spread across Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.

    Both Russia and the United States are parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Nakamitsu stressed Friday that all parties to the treaty, whether or not they have nukes, “must strictly adhere to the commitments and obligations they have assumed under the treaty.”

    The issue of a state without its own weapons hosting some from one of the world’s nine nuclear-armed nations “has existed for decades, across various regions and under different arrangements. These arrangements pre-date the NPT, with the exception of the recent announcement,” Nakamitsu acknowledged. “The issue of so-called ‘nuclear sharing’ was debated intensely during the negotiation of the NPT” and “has been the subject of subsequent discussions.”

    After echoing U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’
    call for Russia and the United States “to return to full implementation of the New START Treaty and commence negotiations on its successor,” Nakamitsu said that “the accelerated implementation of commitments under the NPT can also contribute to undergirding international stability. I therefore appeal to all states parties of the NPT to fully adhere to their obligations to the treaty, and to immediately engage in serious efforts to reduce nuclear risk and de-escalate tensions.”

    Meanwhile, the U.S. and Russian ambassadors took aim at each other’s countries during the U.N. Security Council meeting.

    “We are pursuing cooperation with Belarus without violating obligations,” argued Vassily Nebenzia, the Russian ambassador, highlighting the U.S. warheads across Europe. “We are not transferring nuclear weapons.”

    According to U.N. News:

    Russia must take “all requisite measures” in response to “provocative steps,” [Nebenzia] said, given the fraying global security architecture, dictated exclusively by Washington, along with London’s recent decision to deploy armor-piercing ammunition to Ukraine.

    “A nuclear war cannot be won,” he said.

    Russia’s suggestion that this intended deployment is justified because of the use of armor-piercing ammunition supplied by Western forces, containing depleted uranium, is “ludicrous,” U.S. Ambassador Robert Wood said.

    “Armour-piercing ammunition is in no way analogous to tactical nuclear weapons,” he said, adding that the Kremlin is attempting to limit and deter Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself, and manipulate matters to win the war.

    “Any use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would have severe consequences and would fundamentally change the nature of this war,” Wood added, urging Russia to reconsider its decision to deploy nukes in Belarus.

  • DA’s Office Tells House GOP to Cease ‘Inflammatory Accusations’ About Trump Case



    On the heels of former President Donald Trump’s historic indictment, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office on Friday told three top Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House that their “attempted interference with an ongoing state criminal investigation—and now prosecution—is an unprecedented and illegitimate incursion on New York’s sovereign interests.”

    U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), James Comer (R-Ky.), and Bryan Steil (R-Wis.)—who chair the House Judiciary, Oversight, and Administration committees, respectively—initially wrote to Bragg last week demanding documents and testimony. In response, the general counsel for Bragg’s office, Leslie Dubeck, called their requests an “unlawful incursion” into state sovereignty.

    A second letter from Jordan, Comer, and Steil—public allies of Trump—prompted the six-page response from Bragg’s office on Friday, less than 24 hours after the New York grand jury convened by Bragg over a hush money payment to a porn star voted to indict the former president and 2024 GOP candidate, who is expected to be arraigned Tuesday.

    “You and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump’s efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations.”

    “Your first letter made an unprecedented request to the district attorney for confidential information about the status of the state grand jury investigation—now indictment—of Mr. Trump,” Dubeck wrote to the lawmakers. “Your second letter asserts that, by failing to provide it, the district attorney somehow failed to dispute your baseless and inflammatory allegations that our investigation is politically motivated. That conclusion is misleading and meritless.”

    “We did not engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of your letter because our office is legally constrained in how it publicly discusses pending criminal proceedings, as prosecutorial offices are across the country and as you well know,” the general counsel continued. “That secrecy is critical to protecting the privacy of the target of any criminal investigation as well as the integrity of the independent grand jury’s proceedings.”

    The letter lays out why the congressmen’s committees “lack jurisdiction to oversee a state criminal prosecution,” and declares that “based on your reportedly close collaboration with Mr. Trump in attacking this office and the grand jury process, it appears you are acting more like criminal defense counsel trying to gather evidence for a client than a legislative body seeking to achieve a legitimate legislative objective.”

    Dubeck also took aim at their “vague and shifting legislative purpose.” Only noting it in the second letter suggests “your proposal to ‘insulate current and former presidents’ from state criminal investigations is a baseless pretext to interfere with our office’s work,” she wrote. “Even if you were seriously considering such legislation and had the constitutional authority to enact it (which you do not), your request for information from the district attorney and his former attorneys concerning an ongoing criminal probe is unnecessary and unjustified.”

    After highlighting that the lawmakers’ initial rationale for the inquiry related to the use of federal funding, the letter notes that over the past 15 years, the DA’s office has helped the federal government secure over $1 billion from asset forfeiture and the office itself “receives only a small fraction of those forfeited funds.”

    Dubeck disclosed that from October 2019 to August 2021, approximately $5,000 of the federal forfeiture money was spent investigating the former president or the Trump Organization; most of those costs were related to a case that led to the conviction of Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and two Trump business entities, and “no expenses incurred relating to this matter have been paid from funds that the office receives through federal grant programs.”

    The letter explains the DA office’s current participation in federal grant programs, then forcefully calls out the congressmen:

    Finally, as you are no doubt aware, former President Trump has directed harsh invective against District Attorney Bragg and threatened on social media that his arrest or indictment in New York may unleash “death and destruction.” As committee chairmen, you could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury. Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump’s efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations that the office’s investigation, conducted via an independent grand jury of average citizens serving New York state, is politically motivated. We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference.

    Dubeck asked that if the lawmakers won’t withdraw their request, they agree to a meeting and provide a list of questions for Bragg as well as a description of documents they believe could be turned over to Congress “without violating New York grand jury secrecy rules or interfering with the criminal case now before a court.”

    “We trust you will make a good-faith effort to reach a negotiated resolution,” she concluded, “before taking the unprecedented and unconstitutional step of serving a subpoena on a district attorney for information related to an ongoing state criminal prosecution.”

    The latest letter from the DA’s office “is really a work of art,” independent journalist Marcy Wheeler said in a series of tweets on Friday. “It was a joy to read. Bragg is not fucking around and… well, Jimmy Jordan is.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘A Huge Deal for Accountability’: New York Grand Jury Votes to Indict Donald Trump



    This is a developing story… Please check back for possible updates…

    A Manhattan grand jury voted to indict former U.S. President Donald Trump for his role in a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, The New York Times reported Thursday, citing five people with knowledge of the matter.

    The grand jury’s move makes Trump the first ex-president to face criminal charges—and comes as the 76-year-old is seeking the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. An indictment or even conviction in the case would not prevent him from running.

    After other outlets also confirmed the historic vote, a spokesperson for District Attorney Alvin Bragg said that “this evening we contacted Mr. Trump’s attorney to coordinate his surrender to the Manhattan DA’s office for his arraignment on a [New York] Supreme Court indictment, which remains under seal. Guidance will be provided when the arraignment date is selected.”

    “Donald Trump has spent his entire political career dodging accountability for his wanton disregard for the law. It is finally catching up to him.”

    In a phone call with ABC News producer John Santucci, Trump said this is an “attack on our country” and “political persecution,” adding that “they are trying to impact an election.” The twice-impeached former president made similar remarks in a lengthy statement.

    Asked by Santucci asked if he will turn himself in, Trump responded, “You take care, John,” and hung up. Trump attorney Joe Tacopina told NBC News that his client is expected to surrender to the DA’s office early next week.

    Trump supporters expressed outrage over the development—as did Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to also run for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination but said Thursday that his state “will not assist in an extradition request.”

    Despite warnings that this case “is the first to result in an indictment, though arguably the toughest to win,” as Mark Joseph Stern wrote for Slate, critics of Trump still welcomed the news as a long-awaited step toward accountability.

    “We know of literally dozens of credible allegations of crimes committed by Donald Trump as president or running for it, with no charges filed. Until now,” tweeted Noah Bookbinder, president of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). “We can’t yet evaluate these charges, but make no mistake, this is a huge deal for accountability.”

    “Donald Trump has spent his entire political career dodging accountability for his wanton disregard for the law. It is finally catching up to him,” Bookbinder added. “The charges in New York are the first ever brought against him, but they will not be the last.”

    Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) similarly said “this is just one of many criminal acts for which Donald Trump is being investigated. Make no mistake: the fact that one of the most powerful people in the world was investigated impartially and indicted is testament to the fact that we still live in a nation of laws. And no one is above the law.”

    Daniels has alleged that she had an extramarital sexual affair with Trump, which he denies. Daniels’ attorney, Clark Brewster, said that “the indictment of Donald Trump is no cause for joy. The hard work and conscientiousness of the grand jurors must be respected. Now let truth and justice prevail. No one is above the law.”

    Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen, who made a $130,000 payment to Daniels, said Thursday that “accountability matters and I stand by my testimony and the evidence I have provided” to the district attorney.

    Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, pointed to Cohen’s prison time on Thursday.

    “No American is above the law, including former presidents, and Donald Trump will get his day in court,” said Scherb. “Donald Trump and his co-conspirators clearly appeared to have broken the law and his attorney at the time has already served time in federal prison for charges related to the $130,000 hush money payout. The Manhattan district attorney’s office is right to hold the former president to the same standard as every other American.”

    John Bonifaz, president of Free Speech for People, said that “Donald Trump must face the rule of law for all of the crimes he has committed, and this indictment by the Manhattan grand jury is an important first step.”

    Free Speech for People has argued that Trump and congressional Republicans who provoked and supported the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol should be ineligible to serve, citing the section of the 14th Amendment that bars from federal office anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.”

    Urging secretaries of state and chief election officials across the country to “do their job,” Bonifaz said that “the insurrectionist disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment makes clear that Trump is disqualified from holding any future public office based on his role in inciting and mobilizing the January 6th insurrection.”

    “No prior indictment or conviction is required in order to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against Trump,” he added. “To protect our republic, we must uphold this critical constitutional provision at this moment in history.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Trump Rally in Waco Called Not a Dog Whistle, But a ‘Blaring Air Horn’ to Far-Right

    Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on March 24, 2023. It is shared here with permission.

    While former U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign insists it is purely coincidental that his planned Saturday rally in Waco, Texas falls during the 30th anniversary of a deadly 51-day siege targeting a religious cult, some Texans and extremism experts aren’t buying it.

    Since law enforcement—including Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents—carried out the botched operation at a Branch Davidian compound near Waco from February 28 to April 19 in 1993, the event has been a source of anti-government sentiment for the likes of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and U.S. militia movement members.

    “When Donald Trump flies into Waco on Saturday evening for the first major campaign event of his 2024 reelection quest, dog ears won’t be the only ones twitching,” the Houston Chronicle editorial board argued Thursday. “Trump doesn’t do subtle; dog-whistle messages are not his style. The more apt metaphor is the blaring air horn of a Mack 18-wheeler barreling down I-10.”

    “‘Waco’ has become an Alamo of sorts, a shrine for the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, the Oath Keepers, and other anti-government extremists and conspiracists.”

    Houston Chronicle editorial board

    “The GOP-friendly city of Waco—Trump won McLennan County by more than 20 percentage points in 2020—has every right, of course, to host a former president, the leading contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, but ‘Waco,’ the symbol… means something else entirely,” the board stressed. “‘Waco’ has become an Alamo of sorts, a shrine for the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, the Oath Keepers, and other anti-government extremists and conspiracists.”

    The twice-impeached former president faces potential legal trouble in multiple states and at the federal level for everything from a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels to trying to overturn his 2020 electoral loss and inciting the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    Trump, a documented serial liar, took to his Truth Social platform last weekend to say that he would be arrested Tuesday—as part of a New York grand jury investigation into the hush money—and call for protests. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said Thursday that Trump “created a false expectation that he would be arrested.”

    In a Truth Social post on Friday, Trump warned of “death and destruction” if he is indicted—which led the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to charge that “he’s not being subtle, he’s threatening prosecutors with violence.”

    The Chronicle board tied Trump’s legal problems to his Waco trip:

    Thirty years later, the anti-government paramilitary groups feeding off lies about the “deep state” and a stolen election periodically visit the modest, little chapel on the site of the sprawling, ramshackle building that burned to the ground. Although the Branch Davidians had nothing to do with anti-government conspiracists, chapel construction was funded by loud-mouthed conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

    Militia members and conspiracists know exactly what Trump’s Waco visit symbolizes. They have heard him castigate the FBI and the “deep state,” particularly after agents searched for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. How they’ll respond to his remarks, particularly if he shows up as the first former president in American history to face criminal charges, has law enforcement in Waco and beyond taking every precaution. What he says will likely set the tone for the presidential campaign to come. Every American should be concerned.

    Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung wrote Friday in an email to The New York Times that Waco was chosen “because it is centrally located and close to all four of Texas’ biggest metropolitan areas—Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio—while providing the necessary infrastructure to hold a rally of this magnitude.”

    The Chronicle board noted other local options, writing that “the Waco Regional Airport and an expected crowd of 10,000 or so fit the bill. Of course, Temple or Belton or Killeen (home to Fort Hood) would have fit the bill, as well—without the weight of symbolism.”

    The Texas newspaper was far from alone in sounding the alarm about Trump’s upcoming trip to Waco.

    “Waco is hugely symbolic on the far right,” Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, told USA TODAY. “There’s not really another place in the U.S. that you could pick that would tap into these deep veins of anti-government hatred—Christian nationalist skepticism of the government—and I find it hard to believe that Trump doesn’t know that Waco represents all of these things.”

    “Waco has a sense of grievance among people that I know he’s got to be trying to tap into,” Beirich added. “He’s being unjustly accused, like the Branch Davidians were unjustly accused—and the deep state is out to get them all.”

    The newspaper pointed out that “though Trump has held more than 100 campaign rallies and similar events, and mounted a near-daily schedule of them during his campaigns, this week’s appears to be the first one ever held in Waco.”

    Megan Squire, deputy director for data analytics at the Southern Poverty Law Center, also rejected the Trump campaign’s suggestion that the trip isn’t connected to the 1993 standoff and what means to many members of the far-right.

    “Give me a break! There’s no reason to go to Waco, Texas, other than one thing,” Squire told USA TODAY. “I can’t even fathom what that’s about other than just a complete dog whistle—actually forget dog whistle, that is just a train whistle to the folks who still remember that event and are still mad about it.”

    Even some right-wing figures are openly making the connection, as TIME reported: “Posting on the messaging app Telegram, far-right activist and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer called the rally in Waco ‘very symbolic!’ A few MAGA influencers on social media noted the choice of location, with one calling it ‘a meaningful shot across the brow of the deep state.’”

    Nicole Hemmer, a Vanderbilt University associate professor of history and author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics and Partisans: The Conservative Revolutionaries Who Remade American Politics in the 1990s, wrote in a Friday opinion piece for CNNthat Trump’s trip is “a provocation of historic significance.”

    “When Trump became president in 2016, rather than becoming synonymous with the federal government as previous chief executives had done, he styled himself as both its victim and its adversary, promoting conspiracies about the deep state and encouraging supporters to keep him in power by any means necessary,” Hemmer highlighted. “In choosing Waco as the kickoff site for his campaign rallies, he has signaled that his courtship of extremist groups will continue, and that he sees his role as a pivotal figure in the far-right mythos as central to his efforts to retake the presidency.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • After Bank Collapses, US Regulators Urged to Impose Rules on Climate-Related Financial Risk



    In the wake of recent bank collapses and protests across the United States demanding financial institutions end fossil fuel financing, 50 climate, environmental justice, and Indigenous rights groups on Tuesday advocated for new regulations.

    “We the undersigned strongly urge financial regulators and Congress to learn from the collapse and bailout of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and rapidly implement new regulations to mitigate against climate-related financial risk,” the coalition wrote.

    “Climate-related risks are moving us toward a financial crisis. But regulators have not taken adequate steps to actually mitigate those risks.”

    The groups’ letter was sent to key leaders at the U.S. Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Economic Council, and relevant U.S. House and Senate committees.

    After explaining how the SVB collapse is partly the result of poor management enabled by regulatory rollbacks under the Trump administration, the letter states that “this is only the latest example of a bank being wholly unprepared for a large and obvious financial risk.”

    The letter continues:

    It is a stark reminder of the chaos that can unfold when a financial institution has high exposure to a risky industry, and of the fact that the leaders of major financial institutions are frequently far more concerned with their short-term gains than with robust risk management measures that ensure their safety and the safety and soundness of the financial system. As a reminder of the latter, senior managers at SVB paid themselves millions in bonuses hours before their bank failed and the federal government financially backstopped it. Here again, stronger rules—including the Dodd-Frank executive compensation rules that remain unfinished—could have incentivized greater bank attention to risks.

    To prevent any potential for a cascade of bank runs after SVB’s collapse, federal regulators have now effectively set a precedent of guaranteeing all bank deposits in all banking institutions nationwide, to be backstopped by the Federal Deposit Insurance Fund and then taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the Federal Reserve has begun lending at extraordinarily generous terms to any other banks with assets whose real value has been curbed by interest rate hikes—in effect, the Fed is offering a first-of-its-kind, get-out-of-bank-failure-free card to any firms that made the same foreseeable mistake as SVB. Regulators justified this extraordinary shift in the structures of American finance by relying on emergency rules in place to prevent systemic risk to the financial system. In effect, regulators argued that SVB’s inability to mitigate one of the most obvious forms of financial risk—the potential for rising interest rates amid high inflation—constituted a grave risk to the whole financial system, and, thereby, the whole economy.

    “If management at a wide swath of banks failed to properly address a well-understood risk, they cannot be trusted to independently address other complex emerging risks,” the groups argued. “Regulators must intervene to protect the financial system from risks associated with climate change and the ongoing transition to a green economy.”

    The letter notes recent remarks from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen about the economic and financial impact of the climate emergency as well as how, as it worsens, “banks of all sizes holding mortgage-backed bonds will see their assets drop in value” while “banks invested in the fossil fuel industry will eventually be saddled with stranded assets.”

    “Climate-related risks are moving us toward a financial crisis. But regulators have not taken adequate steps to actually mitigate those risks,” the coalition warned, calling on U.S. policymakers to:

    • Move with urgency and speed to implement proposed guidance for banks and financial institutions related to preparation for climate-related financial risks and to follow up with more detailed guidance;
    • Rapidly move forward on rigorous exams for banking institutions, including for medium-sized banks, regardless of industry pressure for light-touch supervision of climate-related risks; and
    • Please also see previous coalition letters recommending action on the Federal Reserve’s and the Treasury Department’s climate guidance.

    “Banks cannot be trusted to independently evaluate and protect against the systemic risks of the climate crisis in real-time. They also cannot be trusted to avoid creating risks for other institutions and the financial system through their support for fossil assets and greenhouse gas emissions,” the letter says. “This process requires regulators to set clear rules and ensure banks and financial institutions do not engage in unsafe behavior and do not create undue risks and costs for the financial system and the economy.”

    Signatories include Greenpeace USA, Lakota People’s Law Project, Sierra Club, and Third Act—who came together earlier this month for a “Stop Dirty Banks” national day of action, the first elderly-led mass climate demonstration in U.S. history.

    “Today is a major drive to take the cash out of carbon,” declared Third Act’s Bill McKibben. “We want JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America to hear the voices of the older generation which has the money and structural power to face down their empty, weasel words on climate. We will not go to our graves quietly knowing that the financial institutions in our own communities continue to fund the climate crisis.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • While silent on apartheid, Israelis protest Netanyahu firing minister who urged halt to judicial coup

    Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on March 26, 2023. It is shared here with permission.

    Decades into the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, massive crowds flooded Israel’s streets on Sunday for another round of demonstrations to “save a democracy that never existed,” as one journalist recently put it.

    Sunday’s protests were sparked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu firing Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who a day earlier advocated for a one-month pause to an ongoing judicial overhaul “for the sake of Israel’s security,” given military reservists’ concerns. Saturday also saw hundreds of thousands of Israelis join nationwide rallies, the 12th straight week of mass action against the looming changes.

    “The state of Israel’s security has always been and will forever be my life’s mission,” Gallant, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party and former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commander, declared in response to his dismissal.

    A White House National Security Council spokesperson said, “We are deeply concerned by the ongoing developments in Israel, including the potential impact on military readiness raised by Minister Gallant, which further underscores the urgent need for compromise.”

    The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, which is also fighting against the judicial overhaul, argued Gallant’s ouster “proves once again” that Netanyahu “is not institutionally, ethically, or morally qualified” to serve as prime minister and vowed to consider legal action to stop the “scandalous and disgraceful” dismissal.

    Israeli analyst Meron Rapoport told Middle East Eye that Gallant’s firing was “a desperate, extreme move by Netanyahu,” whose decision was blasted by political opponents and other key Israeli figures while praised by far-right leaders.

    “Netanyahu’s descent into authoritarian madness,” as one U.S. reporter described it, leaves Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich—the Religious Zionism leader who recently said that “there’s no such thing as Palestinians” and Israel should “wipe out” the Palestinian village of Hawara—as the only minister in Israel’s Ministry of Defense.

    Israeli Defense Ministry Director General Eyal Zamir on Sunday decided to cut short his trip to the United States. In Israel, demonstrators filled Tel Aviv’s main highway. Police used water cannons on protesters who broke through barricades at Netanyahu’s residence in Jerusalem. Universities announced an indefinite strike. On Monday, dozens of doctors intend to call in “sick” while 26 heads of local authorities plan to launch a hunger strike at the prime minister’s office.

    In what one reporter said “could be a game-changer,” the head of Histadrut, the Israeli trade union federation that has so far resisted pressure to join protests against the judicial coup, scheduled a press conference for late Monday morning.

    After 18 “fulfilling and rewarding” months as the Israeli consul general in New York, Asaf Zamir resigned Sunday, saying that “following today’s developments, it is now time for me to join the fight for Israel’s future to ensure it remains a beacon of democracy and freedom in the world.”

    Meanwhile, Israeli journalist Haggai Matar, executive director of +972 Magazine and Local Call, said in a series of tweets that Gallant, who should be tried at the International Criminal Court “for his war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza,” was fired “for the wrong reasons.”

    “Netanyahu fired him for trying to slow down Israel’s transition into a fully authoritarian state toward Jews,” Matar wrote. “Of course, it has been a dictatorship toward Palestinians for decades, and now that logic is expanding into Israel and Jews, while paving the way for even worse attacks on Palestinians.”

    Of the latest protests, he added: “This is all so inspiring—and at the same time, so dreadful to know that all these forces have been silent for so long on apartheid. Silent, or actively participating and profiting from it. And yet now they are on an all-out battle under the slogan of democracy.”

    American-Israeli reporter Mairav Zonszein wrote for The Daily Beast on Wednesday that “Israelis who have bent the rule of law to suit their ideology for decades are now themselves becoming the target of a far-right that is using its newly won power to bend it even further.”

    “Each party in the Israeli government has specific and explicit goals that the various laws in this judicial overhaul package would serve,” Zonszein explained. Ultra-Orthodox parties want to ensure “their constituency does not have to serve in the military” and the Shas Party aims to enable leader Aryeh Deri “to serve as a minister despite several recent convictions of tax fraud.”

    “For the religious, nationalist, racist, far-right parties—Jewish Power and Religious Zionism, both headed by settlers who are now senior ministers in government—it’s about extending Israeli sovereignty over all occupied territory,” she continued. The Likud party wants to keep expanding “Israel’s settlement enterprise, consolidate power over media, culture, and public institutions—and for Netanyahu, it is about assuming enough control over the courts, through appointing judges, to evade conviction.”

    Netanyahu, who did not campaign on judicial reforms, returned to power last year—and established the most far-right government in Israel’s history—despite facing various charges of corruption, which he denies.

    “The act of creating new laws in order to serve its interests on the ground is precisely what Israel has been doing for 56 years as an occupying power,” Zonszein stressed, adding:

    While protesters—many of them among the most privileged in Israeli society—walk in the streets demanding the “rule of law” and “democracy,” Israeli forces are demolishing Palestinian homes; standing alongside settlers who are terrorizing Palestinians; denying freedom of movement and assembly; holding people in prolonged detention without trial; killing unarmed protesters; carrying out torture; and deporting Palestinian activists. And within Israel, Palestinian citizens face structural discrimination and inequality under an explicit policy that prioritizes Jewish rights.

    […]

    There is also a small but dedicated anti-occupation bloc that carries signs at the protests with messages like: “There is no democracy with occupation” and “Democracy for all from the river to the sea.” At one of the recent protests, a gray-haired woman held up a sign that may sum it up best: “We were silent about occupation, we got a dictatorship.”

    U.S.-Palestinian journalist and Palestine Chronicle editor Ramzy Baroud contended in an opinion piece for Common Dreams earlier this month that “a proper engagement with the ongoing protests is to further expose how Tel Aviv utilizes the judicial system to maintain the illusion that Israel is a country of law and order, and that all the actions and violence in Palestine, however bloody and destructive, are fully justifiable according to the country’s legal framework.”

    “Yes, Israel should be sanctioned, not because of Netanyahu’s attempt at co-opting the judiciary, but because the system of apartheid and regime of military occupation constitute complete disregard and utter violation of international law,” Baroud concluded. “Whether Israelis like it or not, international law is the only law that matters to an occupied and oppressed nation.”

    Yonah Lieberman, co-founder of the U.S. group IfNotNow, noted that earlier in the weekend, Israeli soldiers forced Palestinian worshippers out of the Al-Aqsa Mosque during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

    Responding to footage from Israeli protests Sunday night, Lieberman said: “Furious young people fighting an authoritarian for their rights. Reminds you of popular uprisings that have happened over and over again across the world. But if these were young Palestinians they would have been shot—the Jewish privilege inherent in Israel’s apartheid system.”

    “A popular uprising to overthrow Netanyahu and his extremist government will not lead to democracy and equality for all in Israel,” he added. “Only overthrowing the entire apartheid system will lead to democracy and equality for all.”

    This post has been updated with comment from Yonah Lieberman.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • While silent on apartheid, Israelis protest Netanyahu firing minister who urged halt to judicial coup

    Decades into the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, massive crowds flooded Israel’s streets on Sunday, March 26 for another round of demonstrations against the far-right Benjamin Netanyahu government, reports Jessica Corbett.

  • While Silent on Apartheid, Israelis Protest Netanyahu Firing Minister Who Urged Halt to Judicial Coup



    Decades into the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, massive crowds flooded Israel’s streets on Sunday for another round of demonstrations to “save a democracy that never existed,” as one journalist recently put it.

    Sunday’s protests were sparked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu firing Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who a day earlier advocated for a one-month pause to an ongoing judicial overhaul “for the sake of Israel’s security,” given military reservists’ concerns. Saturday also saw hundreds of thousands of Israelis join nationwide rallies, the 12th straight week of mass action against the looming changes.

    “The state of Israel’s security has always been and will forever be my life’s mission,” Gallant, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party and former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commander, declared in response to his dismissal.

    A White House National Security Council spokesperson said, “We are deeply concerned by the ongoing developments in Israel, including the potential impact on military readiness raised by Minister Gallant, which further underscores the urgent need for compromise.”

    The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, which is also fighting against the judicial overhaul, argued Gallant’s ouster “proves once again” that Netanyahu “is not institutionally, ethically, or morally qualified” to serve as prime minister and vowed to consider legal action to stop the “scandalous and disgraceful” dismissal.

    Israeli analyst Meron Rapoport told Middle East Eye that Gallant’s firing was “a desperate, extreme move by Netanyahu,” whose decision was blasted by political opponents and other key Israeli figures while praised by far-right leaders.

    “Netanyahu’s descent into authoritarian madness,” as one U.S. reporter described it, leaves Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich—the Religious Zionism leader who recently said that “there’s no such thing as Palestinians” and Israel should “wipe out” the Palestinian village of Hawara—as the only minister in Israel’s Ministry of Defense.

    Israeli Defense Ministry Director General Eyal Zamir on Sunday decided to cut short his trip to the United States. In Israel, demonstrators filled Tel Aviv’s main highway. Police used water cannons on protesters who broke through barricades at Netanyahu’s residence in Jerusalem. Universities announced an indefinite strike. On Monday, dozens of doctors intend to call in “sick” while 26 heads of local authorities plan to launch a hunger strike at the prime minister’s office.

    In what one reporter said “could be a game-changer,” the head of Histadrut, the Israeli trade union federation that has so far resisted pressure to join protests against the judicial coup, scheduled a press conference for late Monday morning.

    After 18 “fulfilling and rewarding” months as the Israeli consul general in New York, Asaf Zamir resigned Sunday, saying that “following today’s developments, it is now time for me to join the fight for Israel’s future to ensure it remains a beacon of democracy and freedom in the world.”

    Meanwhile, Israeli journalist Haggai Matar, executive director of +972 Magazine and Local Call, said in a series of tweets that Gallant, who should be tried at the International Criminal Court “for his war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza,” was fired “for the wrong reasons.”

    “Netanyahu fired him for trying to slow down Israel’s transition into a fully authoritarian state toward Jews,” Matar wrote. “Of course, it has been a dictatorship toward Palestinians for decades, and now that logic is expanding into Israel and Jews, while paving the way for even worse attacks on Palestinians.”

    Of the latest protests, he added: “This is all so inspiring—and at the same time, so dreadful to know that all these forces have been silent for so long on apartheid. Silent, or actively participating and profiting from it. And yet now they are on an all-out battle under the slogan of democracy.”

    American-Israeli reporter Mairav Zonszein wrote for The Daily Beast on Wednesday that “Israelis who have bent the rule of law to suit their ideology for decades are now themselves becoming the target of a far-right that is using its newly won power to bend it even further.”

    “Each party in the Israeli government has specific and explicit goals that the various laws in this judicial overhaul package would serve,” Zonszein explained. Ultra-Orthodox parties want to ensure “their constituency does not have to serve in the military” and the Shas Party aims to enable leader Aryeh Deri “to serve as a minister despite several recent convictions of tax fraud.”

    “For the religious, nationalist, racist, far-right parties—Jewish Power and Religious Zionism, both headed by settlers who are now senior ministers in government—it’s about extending Israeli sovereignty over all occupied territory,” she continued. The Likud party wants to keep expanding “Israel’s settlement enterprise, consolidate power over media, culture, and public institutions—and for Netanyahu, it is about assuming enough control over the courts, through appointing judges, to evade conviction.”

    Netanyahu, who did not campaign on judicial reforms, returned to power last year—and established the most far-right government in Israel’s history—despite facing various charges of corruption, which he denies.

    “The act of creating new laws in order to serve its interests on the ground is precisely what Israel has been doing for 56 years as an occupying power,” Zonszein stressed, adding:

    While protesters—many of them among the most privileged in Israeli society—walk in the streets demanding the “rule of law” and “democracy,” Israeli forces are demolishing Palestinian homes; standing alongside settlers who are terrorizing Palestinians; denying freedom of movement and assembly; holding people in prolonged detention without trial; killing unarmed protesters; carrying out torture; and deporting Palestinian activists. And within Israel, Palestinian citizens face structural discrimination and inequality under an explicit policy that prioritizes Jewish rights.

    […]

    There is also a small but dedicated anti-occupation bloc that carries signs at the protests with messages like: “There is no democracy with occupation” and “Democracy for all from the river to the sea.” At one of the recent protests, a gray-haired woman held up a sign that may sum it up best: “We were silent about occupation, we got a dictatorship.”

    U.S.-Palestinian journalist and Palestine Chronicle editor Ramzy Baroud contended in an opinion piece for Common Dreams earlier this month that “a proper engagement with the ongoing protests is to further expose how Tel Aviv utilizes the judicial system to maintain the illusion that Israel is a country of law and order, and that all the actions and violence in Palestine, however bloody and destructive, are fully justifiable according to the country’s legal framework.”

    “Yes, Israel should be sanctioned, not because of Netanyahu’s attempt at co-opting the judiciary, but because the system of apartheid and regime of military occupation constitute complete disregard and utter violation of international law,” Baroud concluded. “Whether Israelis like it or not, international law is the only law that matters to an occupied and oppressed nation.”

    Yonah Lieberman, co-founder of the U.S. group IfNotNow, noted that earlier in the weekend, Israeli soldiers forced Palestinian worshippers out of the Al-Aqsa Mosque during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

    Responding to footage from Israeli protests Sunday night, Lieberman said: “Furious young people fighting an authoritarian for their rights. Reminds you of popular uprisings that have happened over and over again across the world. But if these were young Palestinians they would have been shot—the Jewish privilege inherent in Israel’s apartheid system.”

    “A popular uprising to overthrow Netanyahu and his extremist government will not lead to democracy and equality for all in Israel,” he added. “Only overthrowing the entire apartheid system will lead to democracy and equality for all.”

    This post has been updated with comment from Yonah Lieberman.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Internet Archive to Appeal Federal Ruling Against Lending of Digital Books

    Internet Archive vowed to appeal after a U.S. district court judge on Friday sided with four major publishers who sued the nonprofit for copyright infringement. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Internet Archives operated a controlled digital lending system, allowing users to digitally check out scanned copies of purchased or donated books on a one-to-one basis. As the public health crises forced…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In First TikTok, AOC Says Solution Is Not Ban But Strong Privacy Laws



    Amid a national debate over whether Congress should ban TikTok, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Saturday posted her first video on the social media platform to make the case for shifting the focus to broad privacy protections for Americans.

    The New York Democrat’s move follows TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testifying before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as rights content creators, privacy advocates, and other progressive lawmakers rallying against a company-specific ban on Capitol Hill earlier this week.

    Supporters of banning TikTok—which experts say would benefit its Big Tech competitors, Google, Meta, and Snap—claim to be concerned that ByteDance, the company behind the video-sharing platform, could share data with the Chinese government.

    Meanwhile, digital rights advocates such as Fight for the Future director Evan Greer have argued that if really policymakers want to protect Americans from the surveillance capitalist business model also embraced by U.S. tech giants, “they should advocate for strong data privacy laws that prevent all companies (including TikTok!) from collecting so much sensitive data about us in the first place, rather than engaging in what amounts to xenophobic showboating that does exactly nothing to protect anyone.”

    Ocasio-Cortez embraced that argument, saying in her inaugural video: “Do I believe TikTok should be banned? No.”

    “I think it’s important to discuss how unprecedented of a move this would be,” Ocasio-Cortez says. “The United States has never before banned a social media company from existence, from operating in our borders, and this is an app that has over 150 million Americans on it.”

    Advocates of banning TikTok “say because of this egregious amount of data harvesting, we should ban this app,” she explains. “However, that doesn’t really address the core of the issue, which is the fact that major social media companies are allowed to collect troves of deeply personal data about you that you don’t know about without really any significant regulation whatsoever.”

    “In fact, the United States is one of the only developed nations in the world that has no significant data or privacy protection laws on the books,” the congresswoman stresses, pointing to the European Union’s legislation as an example. “So to me, the solution here is not to ban an individual company, but to actually protect Americans from this kind of egregious data harvesting that companies can do without your significant ability to say no.”

    “Usually when the United States is proposing a very major move that has something to do with significant risk to national security, one of the first things that happens is that Congress receives a classified briefing,” she notes, adding that no such event has happened. “So why would we be proposing a ban regarding such a significant issue without being clued in on this at all? It just doesn’t feel right to me.”

    The “Squad” member further argues that “we are a government by the people and for the people—and if we want to make a decision as significant as banning TikTok,” any information that could justify such a policy “should be shared with the public.”

    “Our first priority,” Ocasio-Cortez concludes, “should be in protecting your ability to exist without social media companies harvesting and commodifying every single piece of data about you without you and without your consent.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Putin to Station Russian Nukes in Belarus in “Dangerous Escalation”

    Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on state television Saturday plans to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus — an escalation anti-war campaigners had been warning about and that alarmed disarmament advocates and experts. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) “condemns this extremely dangerous escalation which makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Passing on Senate Run, Ro Khanna Endorses ‘Progressive Leader’ Barbara Lee



    Congressman Ro Khanna announced on CNN Sunday that he will not run for U.S. Senate and is endorsing fellow California Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee in the closely watched 2024 race for retiring Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat.

    “I have concluded that despite a lot of enthusiasm from Bernie folks, the best place, the most exciting place, action place, fit place, for me to serve as a progressive is in the House of Representatives,” said Khanna, who co-chaired the 2020 presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

    “And I’m honored to be co-chairing Barbara Lee’s campaign for the Senate and endorsing her today. We need a strong anti-war senator and she will play that role,” the congressman told CNN‘s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

    In a statement, Khanna stressed that “Barbara is the progressive leader Californians need right now, and her solid record as one of Congress’ most outspoken champions of justice speaks for itself.”

    “I know Barbara will not only fight for, but will deliver on our progressive priorities that are long overdue like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and ending the filibuster,” he continued. “There’s a reason she’s beloved by Gen Z. Because Barbara understands the issues facing young people today and knows it is our responsibility to protect our rights, our democracy, and the planet for the next generation.”

    “What’s more, I believe that representation matters. And for far too long, our country’s institutions have failed to reflect that reality,” added Khanna, noting that there is not currently a Black woman serving as a Democratic senator.

    So far, Lee’s opponents are two other Democrats representing California in the U.S. House of Representatives: Katie Porter and Adam Schiff. Feinstein, who is 89, confirmed her long-anticipated retirement plans last month.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Internet Archive to Appeal ‘Chilling’ Federal Ruling Against Digital Books



    Internet Archive vowed to appeal after a U.S. district court judge on Friday sided with four major publishers who sued the nonprofit for copyright infringement.

    Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, Internet Archives operated a controlled digital lending system, allowing users to digitally check out scanned copies of purchased or donated books on a one-to-one basis. As the public health crises forced school and library closures, the nonprofit launched the National Emergency Library, making 1.4 million digital books available without waitlists.

    Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House sued Internet Archive over its lending policies in June 2020. Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York on Friday found in Hachette v. Internet Archive that the nonprofit “creates derivative e-books that, when lent to the public, compete with those authorized by the publishers.”

    A future in which libraries are just a shell for Big Tech’s licensing software and Big Media’s most popular titles would be awful—but that’s where we’re headed if this decision stands.

    Internet Archive “argues that its digital lending makes it easier for patrons who live far from physical libraries to access books and that it supports research, scholarship, and cultural participation by making books widely accessible on the Internet,” the judge wrote. “But these alleged benefits cannot outweigh the market harm to the publishers.”

    In a statement responding to the ruling, Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle pledged to keep fighting against the publishers.

    “Libraries are more than the customer service departments for corporate database products. For democracy to thrive at global scale, libraries must be able to sustain their historic role in society—owning, preserving, and lending books,” Kahle said. “This ruling is a blow for libraries, readers, and authors and we plan to appeal it.”

    Internet Archive’s supporters have shared similar warnings throughout the ongoing court battle, including after the ruling Friday.

    “In a chilling ruling, a lower court judge in New York has completely disregarded the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books in favor of maximizing the profits of Big Media conglomerates,” declared Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director at the digital rights group Fight for the Future.

    “We applaud the Internet Archive’s appeal announcement, as well as their steadfast commitment to preserving the rights of all libraries and their patrons in the digital age,” they said. “And our admiration is shared—over 14,000 people having signed our pledge to defend libraries’ digital rights at BattleForLibraries.com this week alone.”

    Holland continued:

    From a basic human rights perspective, it is patently absurd to equate an e-book license issued through a surveillance-ridden Big Tech company with a digital book file that is owned and preserved by a privacy-defending nonprofit library. Currently, publishers offer no option for libraries to own and preserve digital books—leaving digital books vulnerable to unauthorized edits, censorship, or downright erasure, and leaving library patrons vulnerable to surveillance and punishment for what they read.

    In a world where libraries cannot own, preserve, or control the digital books in their collections, only the most popular, bestselling authors stand to benefit—at the expense of the vast majority of authors, whose books are preserved and purchased by libraries well after publishers have stopped promoting them. Further, today a disproportionate number of traditionally marginalized and local voices are being published in digital-only format, redoubling the need for a robust regime of library preservation to ensure that these stories survive for generations to come.

    A future in which libraries are just a shell for Big Tech’s licensing software and Big Media’s most popular titles would be awful—but that’s where we’re headed if this decision stands. No book-lover who wants an equitable and trustworthy written world could find such a future desirable. Accordingly, we plan to organize an in-person action to demand robust ownership and preservation standards for digital books and libraries. For updates on when and where, check BattleForLibraries.com.

    More than 300 authors last September signed an open letter led by Fight for the Future calling out publishers and trade associations for their actions against digital libraries, including the lawsuit targeting Internet Archive.

    “Libraries saved my life as a young reader, and I’ve seen them do as much and more for so many others,” said signatory Jeff Sharlet. “At a time when libraries are at the frontlines of fascism’s assault on democracy, it is of greater importance than ever for writers to stand in solidarity with librarians in defense of the right to share stories. Democracy won’t survive without it.”

    Fellow signatory Erin Taylor asserted that “the Internet Archive is a public good. Libraries are a public good. Only the most intellectually deprived soul would value profit over mass access to literature and knowledge.”

    Koeltl’s ruling came just two days after the American Library Association released a report revealing that in 2022, a record-breaking 2,571 titles were challenged by pro-censorship groups pushing book bans, a 38% increase from the previous year.

    Meanwhile, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday passed the so-called Parents Bill of Rights Act, which education advocates and progressive lawmakers argue is intended to ban books and further ostracize marginalized communities.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘Extremely Dangerous Escalation’: Putin to Station Russian Nukes in Belarus



    Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on state television Saturday plans to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus—an escalation anti-war campaigners had been warning about and that alarmed disarmament advocates and experts.

    The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) “condemns this extremely dangerous escalation which makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely,” the group declared in a series of tweets.

    “In the context of the war in Ukraine, the likelihood of miscalculation or misinterpretation is extremely high,” ICAN added. “Sharing nuclear weapons makes the situation much worse and risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences.”

    “Sharing nuclear weapons makes the situation much worse and risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences.”

    The deployment decision comes 13 months into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and after the United Kingdom this week revealed plans to provide the invaded nation with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium (DU).

    Putin said the U.K.’s announcement “probably served as a reason” why Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko agreed to the plan and argued that it won’t violate Russia’s international nonproliferation treaty obligations, according to a BBC translation.

    As Reuters explained, “The Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed by the Soviet Union, says that no nuclear power can transfer nuclear weapons or technology to a nonnuclear power, but it does allow for the weapons to be deployed outside its borders but under its control—as with U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe.”

    The United States, which has the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal after Russia, “long ago deployed their nuclear weapons on the territory of their allies, NATO countries, in Europe,” the Russia leader noted. “We are doing the same thing that they have been doing for decades.”

    Russia “will not hand over” nuclear arms to Belarus, Putin insisted, explaining that his country has already given its ally an Iskander missile complex that can be equipped with weapons, plans to start training crews in early April, and aims to complete construction of a special storage facility for the nukes by the beginning of July.

    The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and in the five years that followed, nuclear weapons based in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine were transferred to Russia—where they have remained since.

    “It’s a very significant move,” Nikolai Sokol, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Nonproliferation, told Reuters of the deployment decision. “Russia had always been very proud that it had no nuclear weapons outside its territory. So, now, yes, they are changing that and it’s a big change.”

    Hans Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project, told Reuters that “this is part of Putin’s game to try to intimidate NATO… because there is no military utility from doing this in Belarus as Russia has so many of these weapons and forces inside Russia.”

    Global Zero managing partner Derek Johnson said that “Putin’s nuclear provocations are dangerous and unacceptable. U.S. and NATO must resist calls to respond in kind and avoid injecting nuclear weapons deeper into this war.”

    In addition to his nuclear announcement, Putin pointed out during the Saturday interview that Russia also has depleted uranium shells. As he put it: “I must say that certainly, Russia has something to respond. Without exaggeration, we have hundreds of thousands, namely hundreds of thousands of such shells. We are not using them now.”

    A U.K. Ministry of Defense official had confirmed earlier this week that “alongside our granting of a squadron of Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine, we will be providing ammunition including armor-piercing rounds which contain depleted uranium,” which swiftly generated concerns about not only Russian nuclear threats but also public health and environmental impacts.

    “DU shells have already been implicated in thousands of unnecessary deaths from cancer and other serious illnesses,” stressed Kate Hudson, general secretary of the U.K.-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which has advocated for a moratorium on such arms. “Sending them into yet another war zone will not help the people of Ukraine.”

    This post has been updated with new comments from Derek Johnson.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • LA School Workers Win Historic Deal After 3-Day Strike

    Union negotiators for about 30,000 school support staffers in California’s Los Angeles County struck a historic deal with the second-largest district in the United States on Friday after a three-day strike. Members of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 99, including bus drivers, cafeteria workers, special education assistants, teaching aides, and other school staff — backed by…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ‘When We Fight, We Win!’: LA School Workers Secure Deal After 3-Day Strike



    Union negotiators for about 30,000 school support staffers in California’s Los Angeles County struck a historic deal with the second-largest district in the United States on Friday after a three-day strike.

    Members of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 99, including bus drivers, cafeteria workers, special education assistants, teaching aides, and other school staff—backed by about 35,000 educators of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA)—walked off the job on Tuesday and continued to strike through Thursday.

    The tentative contract agreement, which must still be voted on by SEIU Local 99 members, was reached with the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) after mediation from Democratic Mayor Karen Bass.

    The deal would increase the average annual salary from $25,000 to $33,000, raise wages by 30%, boost the district minimum wage to $22.52, provide a $1,000 Covid-19 pandemic bonus, secure healthcare benefits for part-time employees who work at least four hours a day, and guarantee seven hours of work for special education assistants.

    “The agreement addresses our key demands and sets us on a clear pathway to improving our livelihoods and securing the staffing we need to improve student services,” SEIU Local 99 said in a statement. “It was members’ dedication to winning respect from the district that made this agreement possible.”

    The Los Angeles Times reports that during a Friday news conference at City Hall with Bass and Alberto Carvalho, the LAUSD superintendent, Local 99 executive director Max Arias declared that “here in California this agreement will set new standards, not just for Los Angeles, but the entire state.”

    “I want to appreciate the 30,000 members that sacrificed three days of work, despite low income, to raise the issue to society, that we as a society need to do better for all workers, all working people, for everyone,” Arias added.

    While the strike meant about 400,000 K-12 students weren’t in classes for three days this week, “many parents stood in support of union employees,” according to KTLA, with one local parent saying that “it’s obvious all over the schools that we’re really not putting the support where it’s needed and our children are suffering because of that.”

    In a series of tweets, Local 99 thanked people from across the country for their solidarity this past week and stressed that the LA mayor, who has no formal authority over LAUSD, “was instrumental to getting the district to finally start hearing our demands.”

    Bass, in a statement, thanked Arias and Carvalho “for working together with me to put our families first” and emphasized that “we must continue working together to address our city’s high cost of living, to grow opportunity, and to support more funding for LA’s public schools, which are the most powerful determinant of our city’s future.”

    Carvalho said Friday that “when we started negotiating with SEIU, we promised to deliver on three goals. We wanted to honor and elevate the dignity of our workforce and correct well-known, decadeslong inequities impacting the lowest-wage earners. We wanted to continue supporting critical services for our students. We wanted to protect the financial viability of the district for the long haul. Promises made, promises delivered.”

    Contract talks with district teachers are ongoing. When announcing support for Local 99’s strike earlier this month, UTLA president Cecily Myart-Cruz said that “despite LAUSD having one of the largest school budgets and largest reserves in the nation—teachers and essential school workers are struggling to support their own families and live in the communities they work for.”

    The strike and pending deal in California come amid a rejuvenated labor organizing movement across the United States, with employees of major corporations including Amazon and Starbucks fighting for unions.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • The Fed Accused of ‘Playing With Fire’ After Latest Rate Hike



    Progressive economists and other experts blasted Federal Reserve leadership on Wednesday for raising interest rates yet again despite concerns about recent bank failures and how the quarter-point increase will impact the U.S. and global economies.

    “Once again, interest rate hikes are going to fall hardest on low-wage workers and the poor—the same people who have already been hurt the most by rising prices,” tweeted University of California, Berkeley professor and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. “Higher rates could also imperil more banks, and risk even more financial chaos. The Fed is playing with fire.”

    Fed Chair Jerome Powell told reporters Wednesday that although the Federal Open Market Committee “did consider” a pause on rate increases following the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank failures, officials ultimately decided to raise the federal funds rate to a range of 4.75-5%, the highest level since 2007.

    “The Fed under Chair Powell made a mistake not pausing its extreme interest rate hikes,” declared Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) a fierce critic of nine consecutive rate hikes since last March as well as the Fed’s regulatory rollbacks that proceeded the bank collapses.

    “I’ve warned for months that the Fed’s current path risks throwing millions of Americans out of work. We have many tools to fight inflation without pushing the economy off a cliff,” added Warren, who has repeatedly called for ousting Powell.

    Patriotic Millionaires chair Morris Pearl—a bank bailout expert and former managing director at BlackRock—similarly contended that “the Fed’s decision to keep pushing forward with rate hikes no matter the circumstances is a dangerous mistake.”

    Describing such hikes as “a blunt instrument,” he stressed that high interest rates “are not well suited to the economic realities the country now faces—and will inevitably end up doing more harm than good.”

    Pearl continued:

    In our modern economy, high interest rates are simply not an effective way to fight inflation. Rate hikes have disproportionately hurt just a few sectors, like housing, automobiles, and some banks and investors, while leaving many of the nation’s largest employers relatively unscathed.

    Rising interest rates do nothing to address a major cause of inflation, corporate price gouging, and actually make another long-term cause, lack of investment in new housing, worse. Instead, the Fed is betting that lowering employment and cooling wage growth is the best solution to inflation.

    Higher interest rates may be a cure for inflation, but if they end up causing another banking crisis, or pushing the economy into a recession, the cure may be worse than the disease.

    An analysis released Wednesday by Accountable.US explained that “SVB’s failure was partly due partly to a ‘plunge’ in bond value and $1.8 billion in ‘paper losses’ amid the Fed’s rate hikes. By the end of 2022, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) had warned that U.S. banks were ‘sitting on $620 billion in unrealized losses’ that may make their balance sheets appear healthier than they really are.”

    The watchdog group found that “at the end of 2022, the five biggest U.S. banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank Of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and U.S. Bank—reported a total of $233 billion in unrealized losses on held-to-maturity securities, including $54 billion in unrealized losses on Treasury securities. These same banks reported a combined $39.4 billion in unrealized losses on available-for-sale securities, including $12.7 billion in losses on available-for-sale U.S. Treasuries.”

    Liz Zelnick, director of economic security and corporate power at Accountable.US, warned Wednesday that “hiking interest rates, even if more slowly, will devastate Main Street and Wall Street alike by wiping out millions of jobs while sending Treasury securities into a downward spiral,” acknowledging that the recent bank turmoil prevented an even bigger increase than 25 basis points.

    “A recession and broken financial system are not worth the price of higher interest rates that have failed miserably to curb the corporate greed epidemic helping to drive up costs,” Zelnick added. “To date, the Federal Reserve and Chairman Jerome Powell have been more than willing to let average American families bear the brunt of their job-killing strategy—but are they also willing to let their banker friends on Wall Street go down with the ship?”

    The Hill highlighted that ahead of Wednesday’s announcement, influential figures such as economist Paul Krugman and analysts for Goldman Sachs—in a Monday letter to investors—had advocated for pausing rate hikes.

    “Bank stress calls for a pause,” wrote Goldman Sachs analysts. “Banking is not just another sector of the economy because financial intermediation is vital to every sector. As a result, addressing stress in the banking system is the most immediate concern and must take priority over other less urgent goals for the moment. We expect that policymakers and staff economists at the Fed will have the same view.”

    During his Wednesday press conference, Powell insisted that “our banking system is sound and resilient with strong capital and liquidity. We will continue to closely monitor conditions in the banking system and are prepared to use all of our tools as needed to keep it safe and sound.”

    While Powell also emphasized the Fed’s commitment to learning from the recent SVB and Signature failures to prevent repeat events, both the bank collapses and a year of rate hikes have fueled calls for his ouster.

    Asked by CNN‘s Jake Tapper on Wednesday whether she had ever directly told President Joe Biden that he should fire Powell, Warren said she wouldn’t talk about private conversations “but what I will say is I’ve made it very clear as publicly as humanly possible that I didn’t think that he should be reconfirmed as chair of the Fed. And I think he’s doing a really terrible job.”

    “And he’s doing a terrible job on both fronts,” she said, referring to the Fed’s dual mandate. In terms of oversight, Powell “has spent five years weakening regulations over these multibillion-dollar banks,” and on monetary policy, he is “risking pushing our economy into a recession.”

    “What he’s trying to do is get two million people laid off, and one of the things that we need to understand: He wants to raise the unemployment rate by more than a point within a single 12-month period. We have done that before in this country. In fact, we have done it 12 times before. And out of all 12 times, how many times has it resulted in a recession?” she said. “The answer is 12.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Court Rules Greta Thunberg, Others Can Sue Sweden for ‘Insufficient Climate Policy’



    A Swedish court on Tuesday ruled that hundreds of youth climate activists including Greta Thunberg can collectively sue Sweden for the government’s “insufficient climate policy.”

    More than 600 people under age 26, including 20-year-old Thunberg, signed the 87-page document that is the basis for the lawsuit, which was filed in Stockholm in November and coincided with a march through the city.

    “Sweden has never treated the climate crisis like a crisis,” Anton Foley of the youth-led group Aurora, which prepared and filed the class-action suit, said at the time. “Sweden is failing in its responsibility and breaking the law.”

    The Nacka District Court determined Tuesday that the case can proceed and gave the Swedish government three months to respond.

    “The district court has today issued a summons in a high-profile class-action lawsuit,” the court said. “In the case, demands have been made for the district court to determine that the state has an obligation to take certain specified measures to limit climate change.”

    “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires drastic emission reductions starting now.”

    “At present, the district court cannot give a forecast as to when the case may be finalized or when it may be necessary to hold hearings in the case,” the court continued, adding that the case could go to trial or be settled in writing.

    As Aurora’s webpage for the case explains, the young activists believe the climate emergency “is a problem we all have to solve together, but the responsibility is not evenly distributed between the countries of the world” and “Sweden, as a rich country with historically high emissions, has a particularly big responsibility to take the lead.”

    Referencing the 2015 Paris agreement’s more ambitious goal for global heating by the end of this century, the activists argue that their country’s climate action “is insufficient to be in line with Sweden’s fair share of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C” and therefore “constitutes a violation of human rights.”

    “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C requires drastic emission reductions starting now,” the youth warn, noting calculations that suggest Sweden doing its fair share would involve moves to cut emissions by 6.5-9.4 million tons annually from 2019-30.

    “The consequences of the climate crisis in Sweden are a serious threat to life and health,” Aurora’s webpage says, pointing to forest fires, floods, droughts, heatwaves, and the spread of diseases.

    The climate crisis also negatively impacts mental health, “partly as a consequence of the extreme weather and environmental changes that are happening and will happen, but also due to anxiety and stress during youth,” the site stresses. “Everyone who is involved in the class action is young and therefore runs a high risk of suffering these consequences during their lifetime.”

    The Swedish court’s decision came a day after the release of a highly anticipated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called “a survival guide for humanity” which shows the 1.5°C goal for this century is still achievable but requires “a quantum leap in climate action.”

    Thunberg, founder of the global Fridays for Future movement, tweeted Monday in response to the report, “The fact that people in power still somehow live in denial, and actively move in the wrong direction, will eventually be seen for and understood as the unprecedented betrayal it is.”

    “Today, after yesterday’s IPCC report, everything is back to normal—as always,” Thunberg added Tuesday. “We continue to ignore the climate crisis as if nothing happened. Our societies are still in denial, and those in power go on with their never ending quests to maximize profits. We cannot afford this.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Calls Mount for US to Provide Free School Meals to All Children



    Minnesota last week became just the fourth U.S. state to guarantee universal free school meals, triggering a fresh wave of demands and arguments for a similar federal policy to feed kids.

    “Universal school meals is now law in Minnesota!” Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, who represents the state, tweeted Monday. “Now, we need to pass our Universal School Meals Program Act to guarantee free school meals to every child across the country.”

    Omar’s proposal, spearheaded in the upper chamber by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), “would permanently provide free breakfast, lunch, dinner, and a snack to all school children regardless of income, eliminate school meal debt, and strengthen local economies by incentivizing local food procurement,” the lawmakers’ offices explained in 2021.

    Congressional Republicans last year blocked the continuation of a Covid-19 policy enabling public schools to provide free breakfast and lunch to all 50 million children, and now, many families face rising debt over childrens’ cafeteria charges.

    “The school bus service doesn’t charge fares. Neither should the school lunch service.”

    Matt Bruenig, founder of the People’s Policy Project, highlighted Monday that while children who attend public schools generally have not only free education but also free access to bathrooms, textbooks, computer equipment, playgrounds, gyms, and sports gear, “around the middle of each school day, the free schooling service is briefly suspended for lunch.”

    “How much each kid is charged is based on their family income except that, if a kid lives in a school or school district where 40% or more of the kids are eligible for free lunch, then they are also eligible for free lunch even if their family income would otherwise be too high,” he detailed. “Before Covid, in 2019, 68.1% of the kids were charged $0, 5.8% were charged $0.40, and 26.1% were charged the full $4.33… The total cost of the 4.9 billion meals is around $21 billion per year. In 2019, user fees covered $5.6 billion of this cost.”

    Bruenig—whose own child has access to free school meals because of the community eligibility program—continued:

    The approximately $5.6 billion of school lunch fees collected in 2019 were equal to 0.7% of the total cost of K-12 schooling. In order to collect these fees, each school district has to set up a school lunch payments system, often by contracting with third-party providers like Global Payments. They also have to set up a system for dealing with kids who are not enrolled in the free lunch program but who show up to school with no money in their school lunch account or in their pockets. In this scenario, schools will either have to make the kid go without lunch, give them a free lunch for the day (but not too many times), or give them a lunch while assigning their lunch account a debt.

    Eligibility for the $0 and $0.40 lunches is based on income, but this does not mean that everyone with an eligible income successfully signs up for the program. As with all means-tested programs, the application of the means test not only excludes people with ineligible incomes, but also people with eligible incomes who fail to successfully navigate the red tape of the welfare bureaucracy.

    The think tank leader tore into arguments against universal free meals for kids, declaring that “hiving off a tiny part of the public school bundle and charging a means-tested fee for it is extremely stupid.”

    Bruenig pointed out that socializing the cost of child benefits like school meals helps “equalize the conditions of similarly-situated families with different numbers of children” and “smooths incomes across the lifecycle by ensuring that, when people have kids, their household financial situation remains mostly the same.”

    “Indeed, this is actually the case for the welfare state as whole, not just child benefits,” the expert emphasized, explaining that like older adults and those with disabilities, children cannot and should not work, which “makes it impossible to receive personal labor income, meaning that some other non-labor income system is required.”

    Conservative opponents of free school lunches often claim that “fees serve an important pedagogical function in society to get people to understand personal responsibility” and because they “are means-tested, they serve an important income-redistributive function in society,” he noted. “Both arguments are hard to take seriously.”

    Pushing back against the first claim, Bruenig stressed that right-wingers don’t apply it to other aspects of free schooling such as bus services. He also wrote that the means-testing claim “is both untrue and at odds with their general attitudes on, not just redistribution, but on how child benefit programs specifically should be structured.”

    A tax for everyone with a certain income intended to make up the $5.6 billion in school meal fees, he argued, “would have a larger base and thus represent a smaller share of the income of each person taxed and such a tax would smooth incomes over time,” while also eliminating means-testing—which would allow schools to feed all kids and ditch costly payment systems.

    As Nora De La Cour reported Sunday for Jacobin: “The fight for school meals traces its roots all the way back to maternalist Progressive Era efforts to shield children and workers from the ravages of unregulated capitalism. In her book The Labor of Lunch: Why We Need Real Food and Real Jobs in American Public Schools, Jennifer Gaddis describes how early school lunch crusaders envisioned meal programs that would be integral to schools’ educational missions, immersing students in hands-on learning about nutrition, gardening, food preparation, and home economics. Staffed by duly compensated professionals, these programs would collectivize and elevate care work, making it possible for mothers of all economic classes to efficiently nourish their young.”

    Now, families who experienced the positive impact of the pandemic-era program want more from the federal government.

    “When schools adopt universal meals through community eligibility or another program, we see improvements in students’ academic performance, behavior, attendance, and psychosocial functioning,” wrote De La Cour, whose reporting also includes parent and cafeteria worker perspectives. “Above all, the implementation of universal meals causes meal participation to shoot up, demonstrating that the need far exceeds the number of kids who are able to get certified.”

    Crystal FitzSimons, director of school-based programs at the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), told Jacobin, “There is a feeling that we can’t go back.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • French Protests Escalate Over Attempt to Force Retirement Age Hike

    Protests in Paris and across France have ramped up since President Emmanuel Macron’s government on Thursday used a controversial constitutional measure to force through a pension reform plan without a National Assembly vote. Fears that the Senate-approved measure — which would raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 — did not have enough support to pass the lower house of Parliament led to a…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ‘Macron Resign!’ French Protests Intensify Over Attempt to Force Retirement Age Hike



    Protests in Paris and across France have ramped up since President Emmanuel Macron’s government on Thursday used a controversial constitutional measure to force through a pension reform plan without a National Assembly vote.

    Fears that the Senate-approved measure—which would raise the retirement age from 62 to 64—did not have enough support to pass the lower house of Parliament led to a Council of Ministers meeting, during which Macron reportedly said that “my political interest would have been to submit to a vote… But I consider that the financial, economic risks are too great at this stage.”

    “This reform is outrageous, punishing women and the working class, and denying the hardship of those who have the toughest jobs.”

    After the meeting, French Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne announced the decision to go with the “nuclear option,” invoking Article 49.3 of the French Constitution—a calculated risk considering the potential for a resulting motion of no-confidence.

    Members of Parliament opposed to the overhaul filed a pair of no-confidence motions on Friday, and votes are expected on Monday. Although unlikely, given the current makeup of the legislature, passing such a motion would not only reject the looming pension law but also oust Macron’s prime minister and Cabinet, and likely lead to early elections in France.

    As Deutsche Welle reported:

    “The vote on this motion will allow us to get out on top of a deep political crisis,” said the head of the so-called LIOT group Bertrand Pancher, whose motion was co-signed by members of the broad left-wing NUPES coalition.

    The far-right National Rally (RN) filed a second motion, but that was expected to get less backing. RN lawmaker Laure Lavalette however said her party would vote for “all” no-confidence motions filed. “What counts is scuppering this unfair reform bill,” she said.

    Leaders of the Les Republicains (LR) are not sponsoring any such motions. Reuters explained that individuals in the conservative party “have said they could break ranks, but the no-confidence bill would require all of the other opposition lawmakers and half of LR’s 61 lawmakers to go through, which is a tall order.”

    Still, Green MP Julien Bayou said, “it’s maybe the first time that a motion of no-confidence may overthrow the government.”

    Meanwhile, protests against the pension proposal—which have been happening throughout the year—continue in the streets, with some drawing comparisons to France’s “Yellow Vests” movement sparked by fuel prices and economic conditions in 2018.

    Not long after Borne’s Article 49.3 announcement on Thursday, “protesters began to converge on the sprawling Place de la Concorde in central Paris, a mere bridge away from the heavily guarded National Assembly,” according to France 24.

    As the news outlet detailed:

    There were the usual suspects, like leftist firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon, thundering against a reform he said had “no legitimacy—neither in Parliament, nor in the street.” Unionists were also out in strength, hailing a moral victory even as they denounced Macron‘s “violation of democracy.”

    Many more were ordinary protesters who had flocked to the Concorde after class or work. One brandished a giant fork made of cardboard as the crowd chanted “Macron démission” (Macron resign). Another spray-painted an ominous message on a metal barrier—”The shadow of the guillotine is nearing”—in the exact spot where Louis XVI was executed 230 years ago.

    Police used tear gas to disperse the Concorde crowd. Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin told RTL radio 310 people were arrested nationwide—258 of them in Paris. He said, “The opposition is legitimate, the protests are legitimate, but wreaking havoc is not.”

    Anna Neiva Cardante is a 23-year-old student whose parents, a bricklayer and a cleaner, “are among those who stand to lose most.”

    “A vote in the National Assembly was the government’s only chance of securing a measure of legitimacy for its reform,” Neiva Cardante told France 24 as police cleared the crowd Thursday. “Now it has a full-blown crisis on its hands.”

    “This reform is outrageous,” she added, “punishing women and the working class, and denying the hardship of those who have the toughest jobs.”

    Across the French capital early Friday, “traffic, garbage collection, and university campuses in the city were disrupted, as unions threatened open-ended strikes,” DW noted. “Elsewhere in the country, striking sanitation workers blocked a waste collection plant that is home to Europe’s largest incinerator to underline their determination.”

    “Article 49.3 constitutes a triple defeat for the executive: popular, political, and moral,” declared Laurent Escure, secretary general of the labor union UNSA. “It opens up a new stage for the protests.”

    The French newspaper Le Monde reported that “the leaders of France’s eight main labor unions called for ‘local union rallies’ on the weekend of March 18 and 19 and for a ‘new big day of strikes and demonstrations’ on Thursday, March 23.”

    Philippe Martinez of the CGT union asserted that “this forced passage with the use of Article 49.3 must be met with a response in line with this show of contempt toward the people.”

    Fellow CGT representative Régis Vieceli vowed that “we are not going to stop,” telling The Associated Press that flooding the streets and refusing to work is “the only way that we will get them to back down.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • 60+ Groups Push Biden to Pick Strong Public Interest Nominee for FCC



    More than five dozen advocacy organizations on Friday implored U.S. President Joe Biden to swiftly select a Federal Communications Commission candidate who will serve the public interest, not the telecommunications industry.

    The coalition’s letter stresses that a fifth commissioner is urgently needed to end the current 2-2 deadlock and enable the FCC to “increase digital equity and media diversity, bolster online privacy and safety protection, and reassert its rightful authority over broadband to ensure everyone in the United States has access to this essential service.”

    The message to Biden comes after Gigi Sohn removed herself from consideration last week, citing the “legions of cable and media industry lobbyists, their bought-and-paid-for surrogates, and dark money political groups with bottomless pockets” who distorted her “over 30-year history as a consumer advocate into an absurd caricature of blatant lies.”

    “We call on you to immediately put forth a new nominee—specifically, one who has a history of advocacy for the public interest and is free of industry conflicts of interest.”

    Sohn, the new letter states, “was eminently qualified to serve as a commissioner. But after 16 months of organized and well-funded attacks by dark-money groups—which were carried out by lobbyists, enabled by complicit elected leaders, and amplified in partisan media—Sohn made the understandable decision to withdraw from consideration.”

    Organizations behind the letter—including Common Cause, Demand Progress Education Fund, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight for the Future, Free Press Action, Our Revolution, Public Knowledge, Revolving Door Project, and RootsAction.org—were outraged over both the telecom industry smear campaign against Sohn and top Democrats’ refusal to fiercely defend the nomination. Her withdrawal has sparked fears that Biden will choose an industry-friendly candidate.

    “Now, we call on you to immediately put forth a new nominee—specifically, one who has a history of advocacy for the public interest and is free of industry conflicts of interest; demonstrates a clear commitment to championing the rights of low-income families and communities of color; and supports Title II oversight and laws that ensure the FCC the authority to prevent unjust discrimination and promote affordable access,” the coalition wrote to Biden.

    “We ask you to actively press the Democratic majority in the Senate to swiftly confirm your nominee,” the groups added. “We cannot permit senators to prevent forward progress any longer at the behest of the very corporations the FCC is meant to regulate.”

    Free Press Action president and co-CEO Craig Aaron similarly argued in a Common Dreams opinion piece last week:

    We must oppose and reject any return to business as usual that furthers industry capture of the FCC.

    Instead, we need to demand an independent candidate with public-interest bona fides and a clear commitment to racial justice and civil rights. They must show they’re willing to stand up to lies. They must be unequivocal in their support for restoring the FCC’s authority, and making sure that the internet is open, affordable, available, and reliable for everyone. They must demonstrate a commitment to engaging the public, not just meeting with lobbyists.

    Sohn’s defeat also “has implications that go far beyond the FCC,” Aaron noted. “The Republicans and their Democratic enablers are setting out markers for who’s allowed to serve in government.”

    “They made clear that public servants will be pilloried while ex-corporate lobbyists sail through,” he wrote. “Women and LGBTQIA+ folks—Sohn would have been the first lesbian to serve as an FCC commissioner—will be slandered. Tweeting about police violence can be disqualifying (in the Senate, retweets do equal endorsements). Questioning the propriety of Fox News—even as it’s being exposed for aiding and abetting election lies and insurrection—is unacceptable. A basic understanding of U.S. history and racism may be disqualifying.”

    Sohn “deserved better,” Aaron tweeted. “But I hope we—and the White House and Democratic Party, especially—can learn so it doesn’t happen again.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘Important Victory’ for Florida Higher Ed: Court Upholds Block on DeSantis Censorship Law



    The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday kept in place a preliminary injunction against Florida GOP policymakers’ school censorship law in what rights advocates celebrated as “an important victory for professors, other educators, and students.”

    The appellate court denied a request from Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration and higher education officials to block a district judge’s injunction that is currently preventing enforcement of the Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees (WOKE) Act—rebranded by its supporters as the Individual Freedom Act—in the state’s public colleges and universities.

    DeSantis’ Stop WOKE Act “limits the ways concepts related to systemic racism and sex discrimination can be discussed in teaching or conducting training in workplaces or schools,” parroting a Trump administration executive order that was ultimately rescinded by President Joe Biden, the ACLU explained last year.

    The plaintiffs in one of the relevant cases, Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors, are represented by the national and state ACLU along with the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and Ballard Spahr, who first filed the federal suit last August—the same day U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a separate injunction against the law related to employers.

    The new appeals court order upholds the injunction Walker issued in November, which began by quoting George Orwell’s novel 1984. Calling the controversial law “positively dystopian,” the judge wrote at the time that “the powers in charge of Florida’s public university system have declared the state has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of ‘freedom.’”

    “All students and educators deserve to have a free and open exchange about issues related to race in our classrooms.”

    Leah Watson, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program, said Thursday that “the court’s decision to leave in place the preliminary injunction is a recognition of the serious injury posed to educators and students by the Stop WOKE Act.”

    “All students and educators deserve to have a free and open exchange about issues related to race in our classrooms,” Watson argued, rather than censored discussions that erase “the history of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people, women and girls, and LGBTQ+ individuals.”

    LDF assistant counsel Alexsis Johnson similarly stressed that “institutions of higher education in Florida should have the ability to provide a quality education, which simply cannot happen when students and educators, including Black students and educators, feel they cannot speak freely about their lived experiences, or when they feel that they may incur a politician’s wrath for engaging in a fact-based discussion of our history.”

    The order also pertains to a challenge filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in September.

    “Professors must be able to discuss subjects like race and gender without hesitation or fear of state reprisal,” FIRE said Thursday. “Any law that limits the free exchange of ideas in university classrooms should lose in both the court of law and the court of public opinion.”

    The Stop WOKE Act is part of a nationwide effort by Republican state lawmakers and governors—especially DeSantis, a potential 2024 GOP presidential candidate—to curtail what content can be shared and discussed in classrooms and workplaces.

    “Since January 2021, 44 states have introduced bills or taken other steps that would restrict teaching critical race theory or limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism,” according to an Education Week analysis updated on Monday. “Eighteen states have imposed these bans and restrictions either through legislation or other avenues.”

    ACLU of Florida staff attorney Jerry Edwards warned Thursday that “lawmakers continue to threaten our democracy by attempting to curtail important discussions about our collective history and treatment of Black and Brown communities.”

    “This is an important step in preserving the truth, civil liberties, and a better future,” Edwards said of the 11th Circuit’s decision.

    Though legal groups welcomed the order, the battle over the law is ongoing. The court will eventually rule on the merits of the case—which DeSantis’ press secretary Bryan Griffin highlighted Thursday, adding, “We remain confident that the law is constitutional.”

    Opponents of the law are also undeterred, as Ballard Spahr litigation department chair Jason Leckerman made clear.

    “The movement to restrict academic freedom and curtail the rights of marginalized communities is as pervasive as it is pernicious,” he said. “We are proud of the work we have done so far with our partners, the ACLU and Legal Defense Fund, but the fight is far from over. Today, we’ll take a moment to savor this result—and then we’ll keep working.”

    This post has been updated with comment from FIRE and Gov. Ron DeSantis’ press secretary.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Biden Shows Support as Senate Advances Repeal of Iraq War Authorizations



    As the U.S. Senate on Thursday teed up a vote to end the congressional authorizations for the Gulf and Iraq wars, President Joe Biden formally backed the bipartisan bill.

    The progress on finally repealing the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) comes just ahead of the 20th anniversary of the George W. Bush administration’s costly and devastating invasion of Iraq.

    The bill ( S. 316/H.R. 932) was reintroduced in February by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and has GOP co-sponsors in both chambers. On Thursday, 19 Republican senators joined with all Democrats present to advance the measure.

    The legislation has not yet been approved by the House of Representatives, which is narrowly controlled by the GOP. However, if it reaches the president’s desk, he supports it, according to the statement of administration policy released Thursday.

    While former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump used the 2002 authorization to justify strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, respectively, the new Biden administration document notes that “the United States conducts no ongoing military activities that rely primarily on the 2002 AUMF, and no ongoing military activities that rely on the 1991 AUMF, as a domestic legal basis.”

    “Repeal of these authorizations would have no impact on current U.S. military operations and would support this administration’s commitment to a strong and comprehensive relationship with our Iraqi partners,” that policy statement adds. “President Biden remains committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans from modern terrorist threats.”

    Demand Progress Education Fund policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said in a statement that “we are glad President Biden is supportive of getting these outdated AUMFs off the books, and that he is committed to work with Congress on presumably replacing the 2001 AUMF with a narrower framework.”

    “However, any serious attempt by President Biden to work with Congress on war powers reforms requires the administration to halt unauthorized participation of U.S. armed forces in hostilities that contravene the War Powers Act,” Kharrazian stressed. “This includes ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition’s war on Yemen, ceasing the use of U.S. forces to protect Syrian oil fields and battling Iranian-backed militias, and putting an end to legally dubious military operations in the Horn of Africa.”

    The campaigner continued:

    Moreover, the administration must commit to full legal transparency regarding the use of military force. Both this administration and previous administrations have failed to provide Congress with timely reporting on the 2001 AUMF, as required by 50 U.S. Code § 1550. Additionally, President Biden has failed to respond to lawmakers’ inquiries about the administration’s legal justifications for the expansive use of the 2001 AUMF and Article 2 authorities. Without such transparency, Congress is unable to fully exercise its oversight and legislative duties over war and peace.

    It’s encouraging to see an administration committed to addressing outdated AUMFs. However, a genuine commitment will involve respecting congressional authority over war by proactively ending unauthorized military activities and implementing comprehensive transparency measures.

    In a series of tweets, the Quaker advocacy group Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) welcomed the administration’s position and highlighted fresh comments from Kaine and Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a co-sponsor, who gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday with members of the American Legion.

    “There’s no reason—none—to have a war authorization against a strategic partner, and so that’s the first reason why we need to do this,” Kaine said of Iraq, adding that the repeal must also occur to honor U.S. service members.

    Kaine called out previous failures by Congress to end the AUMFs, and noted that leaving them in place enables abuse. While confirming he has not spoken with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) about the bill, the senator expressed optimism that it will pass—saying of the lower chamber, “there’s a wonderful bipartisan coalition there as well.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Enraging Workers, Macron Bypasses Parliament With ‘Nuclear Option’ on Retirement Age Hike



    Amid protests against French President Emmanuel Macron’s unpopular plan to overhaul the country’s pension system, his government on Thursday chose the “nuclear option,” opting to use a constitutional procedure to force through reforms, including raising the retirement age from 62 to 64, without a vote in the lower house of Parliament.

    While the proposal passed the Senate, the upper chamber of Parliament, 193-114 Thursday morning, “reports indicated that the ruling party, which lost its overall majority in elections last year, was a handful of votes short” in the National Assembly, which led to an emergency Council of Ministers meeting about triggering the Article 49.3, Le Monde explained.

    After announcing the government was invoking executive privilege, French Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne “faced scenes of anger and unrest in the National Assembly,” reported Politico. “Far-left lawmakers belonging to the France Unbowed party booed and chanted the national hymn the Marseillaise as far-right National Rally MPs shouted ‘Resign! Resign!’”

    Using the controversial procedure to push through the plan is risky for Macron—founder of the Renaissance party—because it allows members of Parliament “to submit motions of no-confidence within 24 hours,” Politico added. “While the government has survived motions of no-confidence in recent months, the stakes are much higher this time around. If a majority of MPs vote in favor of a motion, Borne’s government would be forced to resign.”

    While multiple opposition groups in Parliament may respond with no-confidence motions, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party has already pledged to do so.

    “It’s a total failure for the government,” Le Pen told reporters of the Article 49.3 decision, calling for Borne’s resignation. “From the beginning, the government fooled itself into thinking it had a majority.”

    Socialist Party chief Olivier Faure also criticized the approach, saying that “when a president has no majority in the country, no majority in the National Assembly, he must withdraw his bill.”

    Fabien Roussel, head of the French Communist Party, declared that “this government is not worthy of our Fifth Republic, of French democracy. Until the very end, Parliament has been ridiculed, humiliated.”

    MP Rachel Keke of the leftist party La France Insoumise stressed that “what the government is doing makes people sick of politics. It should improve people’s lives, not destroy them.”

    Former French presidential candidate and MP Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who launched La France Insoumise, tweeted: “It is a spectacular failure and a collapse of the presidential minority. United unions call for continued action. This is what we are going to focus on.”

    French trade unions have led national demonstrations and strikes against the overhaul since January. While protesters were oscillating “between rage and resignation” earlier this week, they filled the streets of Paris on Thursday, and “the leader of the CFDT labor union, Laurent Berger, announced there would be new protest dates,” according to Le Monde.

    The General Confederation of Labor (CGT) said in a statement that “this reform is unfair, unjustified, and unjustifiable, this is what millions of people have been asserting forcefully for weeks in the demonstrations, with the strike, and in all the initiatives. These massive mobilizations are supported by a very large majority of the population and almost all workers.”

    “The only response from the government and employers is repression: requisitions, police interventions on workplace occupations, arrests, intimidation, questioning of the right to strike,” the confederation added. “We won’t let it happen! What the CGT denounced as unfair yesterday is even more so today! This can only encourage us to step up mobilizations and strikes, the fight continues!”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Dem Governors, US Senators Call On Top Pharmacies to Clarify Medication Abortion Plans

    With Walgreens under fire for its new abortion pill policy, 14 Democratic U.S. governors on Tuesday asked the corporate leaders of seven other major pharmacies to clarify their plans to lawfully distribute abortion medication like mifepristone.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January announced a regulatory change to allow retail pharmacies to dispense mifepristone, one of two medications commonly taken in tandem to induce abortion. The move came after the U.S. Supreme Court last summer reversed Roe v. Wade with its 6-3 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

    In the wake of the high court decision, patients have had to contend with trigger laws, new efforts to enact abortion bans, and other attempts by right-wing political leaders to cut off access to healthcare, including 20 GOP state attorneys general who last month threatened legal action against Walgreens and CVS if they dispense abortion medication by mail.

    While shortly after the FDA announcement both pharmacy giants confirmed they planned to seek certification to distribute mifepristone, Walgreens later clarified it won’t offer the drug in states where Republican AGs have threatened legal action—prompting California Gov. Gavin Newsom last week to not renew his state’s $54 million contract with Walgreens.

    Newsom is spearheading the Reproductive Freedom Alliance and on Tuesday joined the Democratic governors of Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin in sending letters to the leaders of Costco, CVS, Health Mart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, and Walmart.

    As the governors wrote:

    We are deeply committed to protecting and expanding reproductive freedom and the health and well-being of all of our residents. As governors of 14 states, we not only represent over 141 million residents with a combined economy of over $11 trillion, but we are also direct customers who have partnered with many of your companies for years on a variety of issues and initiatives. We understand you are carefully reviewing the new mifepristone certification process. We look forward to receiving your plans for dispensing mifepristone in states where such care is legal, as well as any other actions you plan to take to safeguard access to reproductive healthcare.

    “As companies that dispense critical, lifesaving medications, we urge that your decisions continue to be guided by well-established science and medical evidence and a commitment to the health and well-being of patients—not politics or litigation threats,” the governors added.

    Meanwhile, Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash. ) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) revealed a series of letters—backed by several Senate Democrats—sent to various pharmacy leaders in recent days. They wrote to Walgreens‘ chief executive officer “with grave concerns about the misunderstanding and confusion your company has created with regard to patients’ access to mifepristone from retail pharmacies.”

    Walgreens’ response to Republican attorney generals’ pressure “was unacceptable and appeared to yield to these threats—ignoring the critical need to ensure patients can get this essential healthcare wherever possible,” the senators continued. “As you work through the FDA certification process, we urge you to fully assess the laws in each state and ensure your policies provide the strongest possible legal access to this critical patient care.”

    Stabenow told NBC News, which first reported on the senators’ letters Tuesday, that “in no way, shape, or form should businesses deny legal healthcare to women who have the right to access this vital medication. All businesses should follow the FDA certification process and fully comply with applicable state and federal law.”

    The Senate Democrats wrote to the CEOs of Albertsons, Costco, Kroger, and Walmart “with great frustration” that none of them has publicly indicated whether they plan to allow customers to access mifepristone through their pharmacies across the country.

    After expressing concern that GOP intimidation tactics could “lead companies like yours to continue to sit on the sidelines and undermine critical care for your customers,” the senators urged those four chains “to pursue policies that provide the strongest possible access to the full range of essential healthcare they need, including mifepristone, and to communicate clearly to your customers about how they can access this care.”

    “We look forward to hearing back from you by March 21, 2023 about your intentions to ensure access to this critical FDA-approved product,” the lawmakers added.

    In letters to CVS and Rite Aid leadership, the Senate Democrats expressed appreciation for both chains’ ongoing efforts to become distributors of mifepristone while also stressing that “at a time of great confusion about abortion access, it is imperative that no company adds to it.”

    The senators asked both companies’ leaders to respond to three questions by March 21:

    • If certified, how do you plan to notify current customers about access to mifepristone in any given state, where restrictions do and do not exist?
    • If a new state law to restrict access to medication abortion is proposed, at what stage will you clarify to your customers whether they still have access to mifepristone?
    • Will your company conduct any community outreach to ensure customers are aware of the full range of legal health services available to them?

    “Medication abortion is how most women across our country get abortion care,” Murray told NBC, “and it’s absolutely critical patients can access this safe, FDA-approved drug without being forced to jump through medically unnecessary hoops or drain their bank accounts to travel hundreds of miles.”

    The questions and concerns about accessing mifepristone at retail pharmacies come as patients and providers nationwide prepare for a secretive Wednesday hearing before right-wing U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk regarding an anti-choice group’s effort to limit abortion access by arguing that the FDA never should have approved the drug over two decades ago.

  • Biden’s Budget Includes Tax Hikes Targeting Corporations and the Rich

    While far-right Republicans continue threatening to blow up the global economy unless Congress makes cuts to popular social programs, progressive taxation experts are celebrating U.S. President Joe Biden’s latest push to invest in “widespread prosperity” by raising taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. As part of his fiscal year 2024 budget blueprint unveiled Thursday, Biden calls for a…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progressives Praise Biden Budget for Investments in ‘Widespread Prosperity and Economic Growth’



    While blasting the White House’s proposed $886 billion in military spending as “madness,” progressives on Thursday also praised portions of U.S. President Joe Biden’s fiscal year 2024 budget for sizable social investments that could lead to “broader opportunity, greater economic and health security, lower levels of hardship, and a nation where everyone can thrive.”

    “No one in the White House seriously believes that Congress will adopt it in its current form,” Politico noted of Biden’s blueprint. “It’s a messaging exercise. And as such, the White House sees no downside whatsoever to throwing out things that will never pass the Republican-controlled House. The fight is the point.”

    Still, the scope of the budget—which includes significant funding for the climate, childcare, democracy, education, healthcare, housing, violence prevention, and more, made possible in part through tax hikes for wealthy individuals and corporations—was celebrated by the likes of Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

    “President Biden’s budget is driven by what we know works: investments in the people who keep our economy running.”

    “President Biden’s 2024 budget invests in people and communities and creates a 21st century tax system that supports these investments to build toward an economy that works for everyone,” Parrott said. “It lays out an agenda that would move us closer to a nation where everyone—regardless of their background, identities, or where they live—has the resources they need to thrive and share in the nation’s prosperity.”

    Erica Payne, the founder and pesident of the Patriotic Millionaires, declared that “President Biden’s proposed budget is the most ambitious tax plan we’ve seen from a president in decades—and a clear emphasis of the values that he and the Democrats stand for: investing in our country, fighting off corporate profiteering, protecting the social safety net, and doing so all while reducing our nation’s budget deficit.”

    “The wealthiest Americans and corporations can easily afford to pay more—and hundreds of patriotic millionaires and billionaires are ready and eager to do their part to make sure all Americans can thrive,” Payne added. “Let’s be clear: As President Biden’s budget lays out—we can invest in America, expand the social safety net, fight income inequality, and do it all while lowering taxes for working people—if we simply require the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.”

    The president’s proposals to help American families include expanding the child tax credit from $2,000 per kid to $3,000 for those ages six and above, and to $3,600 for children under six; enabling states to increase childcare options for millions of kids; and funding a federal-state partnership that provides high-quality, universal, free preschool.

    The budget also calls for boosting prevention services to reduce the number of children entering foster care as well as changes to the adoption tax credit to better serve families with lower incomes and those who choose legal guardianship.

    Biden advocates for $59 billion in funding and tax incentives to increase the affordable housing supply; $10 billion to remove barriers to affordable housing developments; and $10 billion to address racial and ethnic homeownership and wealth gaps. The president proposes providing $4.1 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program—and allowing states to use some of that money to provide water bill assistance to poor households, since a related program expires at the end of 2023.

    Along with fighting for billions of dollars to ease hunger, the administration aims to pour money into high-poverty school districts as well as improve the affordability of higher education by increasing the discretionary maximum Pell Grant by $500, expanding free community college, and subsidizing tuition for students from families earning less than $125,000 enrolled historically Black, tribally controlled, or minority-serving institutions.

    “Time and again, President Joe Biden delivers on his promise to fight for American families, his commitment to fairness for all Americans, and his belief that everyone should have the freedom and opportunity to build a better life. This budget reflects those priorities and values by helping people continue to rebuild,” said American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, who highlighted various proposed investments in education and major federal programs.

    In terms of healthcare, Biden pushes for putting billions of dollars into tackling cancer, increasing funds for veterans exposed to environmental hazards, and providing $471 million for reducing maternal mortality and morbidity rates, especially among Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native women. He also wants to expand coverage of mental health benefits and make historic investments in the behavioral health workforce.

    The president advocates for making healthcare premium cuts permanent and providing Medicaid-like coverage to individuals in states that have not expanded their programs under the Affordable Care Act. There are also provisions to cut prescription drug costs, improve Medicaid home and community-based services, and expand the National Health Service Corps as well as programs that train and support nurses.

    Biden would also extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by at least 25 years. In addition to investing in Social Security Administration staff, a White House fact sheet says that the Biden administration “looks forward to working with the Congress to responsibly strengthen Social Security by ensuring that high-income individuals pay their fair share.”

    Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said that “while the conservatives’ approach is to ‘cut, cut, cut!’ earned benefits for future generations of retirees, President Biden’s budget would fortify Medicare for the future by asking the wealthy to pay their fair share.”

    “Instead of ‘kicking the can down the road’ as some previous administrations and Congresses have done, the president’s budget confronts the trust fund shortfall head-on—without burdening beneficiaries,” Richtman continued. “In a society with massive wealth inequality, the wealthy can afford to pay a little more. Future seniors cannot afford benefit cuts.”

    While welcoming Biden’s efforts to protect Medicare, Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen, also suggested that “looking ahead, the administration should crack down on Medicare Advantage plans that profit by cherry-picking healthy seniors and restricting care for enrollees; expand dental, vision, and hearing benefits for Medicare enrollees; work with Congress to cap out-of-pocket expenses for seniors; and take a bolder stand against Big Pharma greed by expanding drug price negotiation to bring down the prices of more drugs sooner and cover all Americans, not just people on Medicare.”

    On the climate front, the budget proposes spending $4.5 billion on clean energy, $16.5 billion on climate science and clean energy innovation, and over $24 billion on conservation and to help build communities’ resilience to devastating storms, drought, extreme heat, floods, and wildfires. The administration also pushes for investing nearly $2 billion in environmental justice efforts.

    A coalition of over a dozen green groups stressed in a joint statement Thursday that “as our country deals with inflation, high energy prices, public health crises, biodiversity loss, and climate change, it is now more important than ever that Congress fully funds the agencies responsible for addressing these critical issues.”

    Varshini Prakash, executive director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement, said that “President Biden’s proposed budget—especially its investments in clean energy, jobs, and an end to oil and gas subsidies—is the kind of thing young people in this country want to see ahead of 2024.”

    “But President Biden has the power to act on climate and issues important to our generation without having to go through a Republican House,” she noted. “He can reject the Willow Project, which goes against his own agenda to stop the climate crisis, and can do everything in his executive authority, like declaring a climate emergency and invoking the Defense Production Act, to jump-start our transition to clean energy.”

    Given the current conditions in Congress—with Republicans controlling the House and a Senate where the president’s agenda is often thwarted by not only the GOP but also right-wing Democrats and a new Independent—Biden is certainly in for a battle.

    That’s especially the case considering that, as CBPP’s Parrott noted, “the president’s budget priorities stand in stark contrast with the emerging House Republican agenda—an agenda that pushes more tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable corporations, and holds the economy hostage by demanding deep spending cuts in areas like K-12 schools, healthcare, medical research, college tuition help, and help buying groceries as the price for raising the debt limit.”

    “Taken together, this emerging agenda would increase hardship and narrow access to opportunity; widen already large differences in outcomes by race, ethnicity, and geography; and hurt the country as a whole,” Parrott warned of GOP lawmakers’ priorities.

    ProsperUs coalition spokesperson Claire Guzdar argued that “President Biden’s budget is driven by what we know works: investments in the people who keep our economy running. Lowering costs for families, strengthening Medicare and Social Security, and delivering investments in healthcare, housing, and climate are key to widespread prosperity and economic growth.”

    “President Biden must now fight to enact this budget and continue to reject dangerous calls for austerity and cuts to programs that strengthen our communities and our economy,” Guzdar added.

    A U.S. Senate Budget Committee hearing for the president’s proposal is scheduled for the morning of March 15.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Health Pros Demand US Regulators Stop Fracked Gas Pipeline Expansion



    As of Monday, more than 500 physicians and other medical professionals had signed on to a letter urging federal regulators to prevent the expansion of a fracked gas pipeline in the Pacific Northwest.

    The sign-on campaign comes as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is expected to weigh in on TC Energy’s Gas Transmission Northwest (GTN) Xpress project as soon as this month.

    The Canadian company’s proposed expansion would boost the capacity of a pipeline that runs through British Columbia, Canada and the U.S. states of Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and California.

    “FERC should deny the permit for this pipeline expansion proposal, which is both unnecessary to meet our energy needs and harmful to people in our communities.”

    “We are in a climate crisis, where we are already experiencing the devastating effects of rising temperatures, the direct result of burning fossil fuels, including so-called ‘natural gas,’ i.e., methane,” the health professionals wrote, noting that methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over its first 20 years.

    Dr. Ann Turner of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) said that “as medical practitioners, we see the impact the climate crisis has on people each and every day. And we have a responsibility to sound the alarm. We urge FERC to prioritize the health of our most vulnerable communities over profit.”

    As the letter explains:

    TC Energy proposes to increase the amount of gas in its existing pipelines by expanding compressor stations which provide the force which propels gas through pipelines. These compressor stations emit significant amounts of air pollution, both from the operation of the engine which powers the pump as well as from venting. Compressor stations and meter stations vent methane, volatile organic compounds like formaldehyde, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. All of these air pollutants have serious health impacts, including increased risks of stroke, cancer, asthma and low birth weight, and premature babies. Compressor stations also produce significant noise pollution. The air and noise pollution from these compressor stations disproportionately harms the rural, low-income, and minority communities that already experience significant health disparities, especially those that are living in proximity to the pipeline expansion project.

    “In addition to the health consequences from the pipeline expansion project itself, gas in the GTN pipeline is extracted by fracking in Canada,” the letter highlights. “Fracking degrades the environment including contamination of soil, water, and air by toxic chemicals. Communities exposed to these toxins experience elevated rates of birth defects, cancer, and asthma.”

    “The negative health impacts of methane gas, and its contribution to warming the climate and polluting the air, are unacceptable impacts that disproportionately affect Black, Indigenous, and people of color and low-income communities,” the letter adds, arguing that the project is inconsistent with both global and regional goals to reduce planet-heating emissions.

    Organizations supporting the letter include Wild Idaho Rising Tide as well as the San Francisco, Oregon, and Washington arms of PSR—which have previously joined other local groups in speaking out against the project alongside regional political figures including U.S. Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, both of Oregon.

    “Idahoans dread FERC approval of the GTN Xpress expansion project, which would force greater fracked gas volumes and hazardous emissions through the aging GTN pipeline,” according to Helen Yost of Wild Idaho Rising Tide.

    “This expansion project would further threaten and harm the health and safety of rural communities, environments, and recreation economies for decades,” she warned. “This proposed expansion does not support the best interests of concerned Northwesterners living and working near compressor stations and the pipeline route.”

    Dr. Mark Vossler, a board member at Washington PSR, pointed out that “states in the Northwest have made great strides in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and creating healthier communities.”

    “I urge FERC to consider the human health impact of the proposed pipeline expansion and respect the leadership of local, state, and tribal governments in addressing the climate crisis,” he said. “FERC should deny the permit for this pipeline expansion proposal, which is both unnecessary to meet our energy needs and harmful to people in our communities.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.