US Congress

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Capitol attack groups want to ‘blow up Capitol’ during Biden speech, police warn

      by

      Militia groups involved in the 6 January insurrection want to stage another attack around Joe Biden’s upcoming address to Congress, aiming to “blow up” the complex and kill lawmakers, the acting chief of the US Capitol police has warned.In alarming testimony to a House subcommittee, Yogananda Pittman said that threats were circulating that directly targeted the president’s first formal speech to a joint session of Congress. A date for the event has not yet been announced.“We know that members of the militia groups that were present on Jan 6 have stated their desires that they want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible,” Pittman said.The police chief’s warning was made in the context of her trying to justify to Congress why exceptional security measures put in place in the wake of the 6 January assault needed to remain until alternatives could be devised. A large area around the Capitol is still surrounded by a 7ft non-scalable fence, and thousands of National Guard members continue to be deployed.“Based on that information, we think that it’s prudent that Capitol Police maintain its enhanced and robust security posture until we address those vulnerabilities going forward,” she said.Her words are also likely to be taken seriously as a clear indication of the ongoing threat posed by the armed militia members who took part in the storming of the Capitol in which five people died and almost 140 police officers were injured. Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter and military veteran, was shot and killed by a Capitol police officer.Several of the most prominent armed militia and extremist groups in the US were at the forefront of the Capitol riot. The assault followed an incendiary rally by Donald Trump to promote his “big lie” that the November election was stolen from him by Biden.A number of militia members have been arrested and charged as part of the giant federal investigation into the events of 6 January. In an indictment handed down last week against six alleged members of the Oath Keepers militia, the justice department charged that the group had planned for several months to prevent Congress from certifying the electoral college results of the presidential election.Several members of the far-right Proud Boys have also been charged with criminal conspiracy.This week’s congressional hearings are the start of what is expected to be a slew of official investigations into the drastic security failures that gave rise to the breach of the Capitol complex. In her testimony Pittman confirmed that some 800 rioters had entered the building and that the total number who were present amounted to as many as 10,000.Pittman has stepped up to lead the Capitol police force after the chief at the time of the storming, Steven Sund, resigned days after the catastrophe. In his evidence to Congress earlier this week, Sund said: “These criminals came prepared for war”.The FBI and other law enforcement agencies are tracking closely far-right online chatter for early warnings on any possible repeat attacks in Washington or other cities. In addition to Biden’s upcoming congressional address, law enforcement will also be on alert on the days leading up to 4 March – the date set by the extreme conspiracy theory QAnon for Trump to return to Washington to start a second term as president.Followers of the crank movement have been growing increasingly agitated by the fantasy around Trump’s comeback on 4 March, the date on which US presidents were originally inaugurated. More

    • 175 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      'We shouldn't still be fighting for equal rights': LGBTQ+ bill faces tough battle ahead

      by

      Sign up for the Guardian’s First Thing newsletterThe US House of Representatives voted to pass a landmark bill that would establish federal anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people, setting up a tough battle in the Senate to turn the proposal into law. “We shouldn’t still be having to fight for equal rights,” said Nic Talbott, a 27-year-old Ohio resident, who was forced to abandon his plans of joining the military due to Donald Trump’s ban on trans service members. “We should be able to go to work, find housing and just live our lives without having to worry about whether or not we’re going to be excluded just for being transgender or gay.”The Equality Act passed the Democratic-led House in a 224-206 vote, with three Republicans joining the Democrats. The bill amends existing civil rights laws to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation and provides clear legal protections for transgender and queer people in employment, housing, education, public accommodations, federally funded programs and other sectors.But the proposal’s future is uncertain. Joe Biden has said signing the bill into law is one of his top priorities, but it first has to clear the Senate, where GOP lawmakers could block the legislation with a filibuster. The Equality Act builds on the landmark US supreme court ruling last year prohibiting employment discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers. Biden has already issued executive orders to defend trans rights, undoing some of Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies and directing federal departments to follow the guidance of the supreme court decision. But advocates say the Equality Act is vital because it would enshrine protections into law beyond employment, and prevent future administrations from rolling back anti-discrimination rules.The act would be particularly significant for LGBTQ+ residents in the 27 states that do not have anti-discrimination laws on the books for trans and queer people, where it is legal to deny them housing based on their identities.“Legislation like this is crucial for shifting the tides for trans folks, especially in red states,” said Aria Sa’id, the executive director of the Compton’s Transgender Cultural District, a community group in San Francisco. Trans people flee to California from other states where they have fewer rights or access to services, she said: “We’re coming from other places in the US where we are not safe. We come to San Francisco for refuge … We should be protected in the law no matter where we live.”The Equality Act fight comes amid unprecedented attacks on trans rights in the US and overseas. Republican lawmakers in at least 20 states are currently pushing local bills targeting trans people, backed by rightwing groups. Many of the bills seek to block trans-affirming healthcare or ban trans youth and adults from certain spaces, including by prohibiting them from using the correct bathroom or participating in sports teams that match their gender.Some extremist GOP members of Congress have supported those efforts and have been promoting misinformation and transphobic hate speech this week as the House debated the Equality Act.David B Cruz, a constitutional law professor at University of California, Los Angeles, said federal protections would, in effect, make it illegal for states to enforce discriminatory rules meant to exclude trans people. The Equality Act would also make it harder for the supreme court, which has become more conservative since last year’s ruling, to carve out trans rights in the next LGBTQ+ discrimination case it reviews, he said.Legislation like this is crucial for shifting the tides for trans folks, especially in red states“It would be a monumental achievement,” said Cruz. “It’s not always simple or easy for people to enforce their statutory rights, but even having a federal law that expressly protects those rights on the books, by itself will deter discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.” It would help disrupt “cycles of poverty, due to anti LGBTQ+ prejudice”, he added.Some Republican legislators are vocally opposing the act by citing concerns about religious freedoms. But Cruz noted that a super-majority of Americans in every state support anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ+ people, including a majority of Republican voters.Khloe Rios-Wyatt, the president at Alianza Translatinx, a Latinx trans rights group in Orange county, California, said she faced discrimination for being trans when she was terminated from her first job out of college: “It can be traumatizing. You lose your income and then you’re facing potential homelessness.”She said she regularly talks to trans people who were denied housing even though they qualified: “You show up in person and they tell you it’s no longer available. It breaks my heart and it has to change.”Bamby Salcedo, the president of the TransLatin@ Coalition in Los Angeles, noted that 2020 was the deadliest year on record for violence against trans and gender non-conforming people, the majority people of color. While the Equality Act could make a difference for the broader LGBTQ+ community, it would not end discrimination for trans people, she said.“The reality is that even in California and places that are super progressive, trans people continue to experience discrimination while trying to obtain employment, housing, healthcare and the basic things we need to exist … There is still a lot of work that needs to be done.”There are at least nine LGBTQ+ members in the House and two in the Senate, and supporters in Congress spoke of their trans and queer family members while championing the bill. Polling released earlier this week confirmed that more Americans than ever before now identify as LGBTQ+. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Bernie Sanders: US sick of subsidizing 'starvation wages' at Walmart and McDonald's

      by

      US taxpayers should not be “forced to subsidize some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America”, Bernie Sanders told a Senate hearing on Thursday.As Congress debates the first rise in the minimum wage in over a decade, the Vermont senator said he had “talked to too many workers in this country who, with tears in their eyes, tell me the struggles they have to provide for their kids on starvation wages” even as the chief executives of companies including McDonald’s, Walmart and others take home multi-million dollar pay packages.Executives from Walmart and McDonald’s were invited to the hearing, titled Should Taxpayers Subsidize Poverty Wages at Large Profitable Corporations?They declined to appear.The senators heard from low-wage workers from McDonald’s and Walmart. Terence Wise, a McDonald’s employee from Kansas City, Missouri, said his low pay had led to his family becoming homeless.“My family has been homeless despite two incomes. We’ve endured freezing temperatures in our purple minivan. I’d see my daughter’s eyes wide open, tossing and turning, in the back seat. Try waking up in the morning and getting ready for work and school in a parking lot with your family of five,” said Wise.“That’s something a parent can never forget and a memory you can never take away from your children. You should never have multiple jobs in the United States and nowhere to sleep.”Sanders cited a government accountability office (GAO) report that found nearly half of workers who make less than $15 an hour rely on public assistance programs that cost taxpayers $107bn each year.Walmart spent $8.3bn on stock buybacks in 2017, the Walton family, the chain’s founders, are worth over $200bn and have increased their wealth by $50bn since the start of the pandemic, said Sanders. And yet the company “cannot afford to pay its workers at least $15 an hour”.“If Walmart thinks they’re going to avoid answering that question because they’re not here today, they’re deeply mistaken. The American people are sick and tired of subsidizing the wealthiest family in America,” said Sanders.The hearing comes at a tense moment for minimum wage advocates. Joe Biden campaigned on a pledge to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour from its current level of $7.25. The proposal is part of his $1.9tn Covid stimulus package.But that package faces stiff opposition from in the Senate with the Republican minority set to vote against it and some Democrats opposing the wage rise.A recent Congressional Budget Office concluded 27 million Americans would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage to $15, and that 900,000 would be lifted out of poverty. But the CBO also said the increase would lead to 1.4m job losses and increase the federal budget deficit by $54bn over the next 10 years. The Economic Policy Institute, and others, have called the report “wrong, and inappropriately inflated”.Republican Senator Mike Bruin told the hearing that an increase would be unfair on states with a lower cost of living and would hurt small businesses.“We need to slow it down,” he said. “The main result is you are going to hurt Main Street,” he said. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      The US Senate Is a Global Problem

      by

      Watching the Senate conduct the second impeachment trial of former US President Donald Trump brought back a flood of memories from high school. I distinctly remember an earlier incarnation of those Trump-friendly Republican senators taking up their positions at the back of class to snicker, yawn ostentatiously and otherwise disrupt the serious, well-researched presentations of their fellow students. Then, when it was their turn to present, the back-row rowdies were so embarrassingly unprepared that it was hard not to laugh in return.

      The slavish devotion of the Senate miscreants to their imperiled leader and their casual dismissal of the January 6 violence, meanwhile, was like a modern-day replay of that grade-school classic “The Lord of the Flies.” In the Senate version, Trump played the part of the pig’s head, Josh Hawley was the pathological Jack, and Mitt Romney was the hopelessly conflicted Ralph who escaped the violence of the mob only thanks to the timely intervention of Officer Eugene Goodman, who stepped in at the last moment just like the British naval officer at the novel’s conclusion.

      The Texas Crisis: Tilting at Windmills

      READ MORE

      Finally, the acquittal of the former president was like the slap on the hand administered to one of my school’s handsome star athletes for one of his many transgressions. Boys will be boys, Trump will be Trump and, alas, Mitch McConnell will be perpetually “a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack.”

      The display of juvenile behavior during the Senate trial was nauseating, and the verdict was an embarrassment. But the Senate poses a much more serious problem than even this impeachment circus suggests.

      When it comes to global issues, the Senate has been an enormous impediment to achieving peace, justice and environmental sustainability. More so even than the US president, the Senate has been the chief engine of American exceptionalism. It’s grimly fitting, then, that it has struck out twice in its duty to convict the supreme avatar of exceptionalism in modern American politics, a president who believed himself above democracy, above morality and above the law.

      Senate Power

      Senators love to call their chamber the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” It’s where the most seasoned politicians, partially protected from the insane election cycle that their House counterparts must face, can mull over the most important issues of the days.

      It’s also a glaring example of the inequities of US democracy, with the two senators from Wyoming (population: 578,000) wielding the same power as the two senators from California (population: 39 million). Senate elections have tilted US politics in favor of rural, predominantly white and increasingly conservative voters by a factor of two or three over urban voters. Like the Electoral College, the Senate makes a mockery of the “one-person, one-vote” principle by effectively giving some voters much greater power than others.

      Embed from Getty Images

      But the Senate is a far bigger problem because of its oversized role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Presidents have considerable leeway in conducting foreign policy, as the rollout of executive orders over the last years has made plain. Presidents can pull the country in and out of international bodies and multilateral agreements. They can slap tariffs on countries and sanctions on foreign individuals. Despite the limitations of the War Powers Act, they can still wage war for a full two months without any congressional interference.

      But the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds majority, any treaties that the United States might be considering. As with the filibuster, however, this treaty power has as much influence in its threatened use as in its actual deployment.

      Consider the example of the 2015 Paris climate accord. The reason why all the national commitments to reduce carbon emissions are voluntary rather than mandatory is the US Senate. Secretary of State John Kerry, the US negotiator in Paris at the time, insisted on voluntary commitments because he knew that any mandatory requirements would need Senate approval. And the climate deniers in the Senate were sure to nix any such agreement.

      The Iran nuclear deal is, similarly, an agreement, not a treaty. This distinction allowed the Obama administration to secure congressional support short of the two-thirds majority required for a treaty. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — also known as the Iran deal — relies on various verification protocols to ensure compliance, not the signatures of the participating parties.

      These workarounds are more the rule than the exception. According to one academic study, US presidents negotiated nearly 4,000 executive agreements between 1977 and 1996 but only 300 treaties. Whether you consider these maneuvers to be an unacceptable short-circuiting of checks and balances or a reasonable method of overcoming the American exceptionalism of the Senate has largely depended on which side of the aisle you sit.

      The Graveyard of International Cooperation

      The Senate is where international treaties go to die. Currently awaiting the “advice and consent” of the body are 37 treaties, beginning with an International Labor Organization convention protecting the right to organize trade unions, which has been hanging out in the Senate for more than 70 years.

      Or consider the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), which has been ratified by 162 countries. The United States participated in the international conferences in the 1970s that produced this critical document that covers all aspects of maritime borders, navigation and commerce. US negotiators under three successive administrations — Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter — were instrumental in crafting the language of the working text. After Ronald Reagan’s administration balked at some of the provisions, negotiators even amended the final version to reflect some of the US concerns. But the Reagan administration still wouldn’t sign the agreement.

      It would take the collapse of the Soviet Union, certain changes on the ground (actually, on the seabed) and a new administration (Bill Clinton) to bring UNCLOS to the Senate. The late and decidedly not great Jessie Helms said no for he held fast to his position that no foreign entity should impinge on US sovereignty. Lest you think this was a partisan issue, the George W. Bush administration subsequently pushed hard for the Senate to ratify the convention with the support of all living former legal advisers of the State Department. This time, despite the efforts of then-Senator Joe Biden, a different minority of hard-line Republicans, including Jeff Sessions, thwarted the bipartisan campaign.

      The United States generally abides by this important convention, so what’s the big deal? As a non-signatory, however, the US cannot participate in key commissions, such as the one on the limits of the continental shelf, where it could otherwise advance its interests or push a conservation agenda. If that irritates you, don’t send your letters of complaint to the United Nations. Send them to the Senate.

      The Senate has been a crowded graveyard for arms control initiatives. There you can find gravestones for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), various nuclear-weapon-free zones and the Arms Trade Treaty (which Trump dramatically unsigned in 2019). The CTBT has been signed by 185 countries, but it won’t go into effect until eight specific nations ratify it (including the United States). The Arms Trade Treaty has entered into force, so it is only dead to the US, which is problematic since America is the leading arms exporter in the world by a large margin. The resurrection of these treaties is, of course, possible, but only if the composition of the Senate were to change dramatically.

      The Senate also stands in the way of the United States participating in the strengthening of international law and the prosecuting of war criminals — by blocking ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Senate stands in the way of preserving what remains of the world’s precious biodiversity — by blocking ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Senate stands in the way of upholding the human rights of large swathes of the global population — by blocking treaties on disability rights, on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and on a variety of labor rights.

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      The Senate is also not above exercising its power on seemingly trivial matters. It has refused, for instance, to support a treaty that protects albatrosses and petrels. Jeez, hasn’t anyone in the Senate read “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”?

      Of course, the Senate has displayed its remarkable intransigence in ways that go well beyond its advice-and-consent function on treaties. During the previous administration, among the 250 bills that the House passed and that McConnell blocked in the Senate were several immigration bills (the Dream Act, a measure to protect Venezuelans from deportation), several environmental bills (blocking drilling in the Arctic National Refuge, banning offshore drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico), and a measure to provide visas to Kurds who supported US forces in Syria.

      Reform the Senate?

      Those who hope to reform the Senate have focused on changes to the rules. With the exception of certain bills, the threat of filibuster has made the Senate even less reflective of popular will by turning a simple majority into a 60-vote wall into which the Democrats are likely to crash into repeatedly over the next two to four years.

      “Dear centrist Democrats, you couldn’t even get 10 GOP votes to convict the guy who sent a mob to kill you all. You think you can get them to vote on issues like immigration/climate? Come on,” immigrant rights activist Erika Andiola has tweeted. “You have to end the filibuster and use every tool at your disposal to get things done.”

      It’s a good point, but why not think big? What about eliminating the Senate altogether? Roughly half of the world’s sovereign nations have only one legislative body. Plenty of these unicameral systems are democratic, including Costa Rica, Denmark, Greece, South Korea, New Zealand and Norway.

      Yes, I know, the smaller US states would put up even more resistance to the elimination of the Senate than they have to the proposed elimination of the Electoral College. Such an upending of the finely balanced compromises of the Founding Fathers would generate yowls of protest from constitutional literalists. Who could ever contemplate such a radical amendment?

      Victor Berger, that’s who. In 1911, the Wisconsin congressman introduced a resolution in the House to abolish the Senate. Berger was also the first socialist elected to Congress, so he was accustomed to taking contrarian positions. His proposed amendment to the Constitution began thus:

      “Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth; a body, many of the Members of which are representatives neither of a State nor of its people, but solely of certain predatory combinations, and a body which, by reason of the corruption often attending the election of its Members, has furnished the gravest public scandals in the history of the nation…”

      Those public scandals have continued all the way up to last weekend’s acquittal of a rogue president. Oh, Victor Berger, who will take up your mantle today?

      *[This article was originally published by FPIF.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 213 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas Republican hypocrisy over federal aid is nothing new – ask Flyin' Ted Cruz | Lloyd Green

      by

      Texas has been hit by a disaster of its own making and its Republican office holders expect the rest of the US to pay to clean up the mess. To quote Dana Bash of CNN questioning Michael McCaul, a veteran GOP congressman, on Sunday: “That’s kind of rich, don’t you think?”
      For all of their bravado and anti-government rhetoric, in the aftermath of calamities like last week’s deep freeze Lone Star Republicans make a habit of passing the plate. Their suffering is ours too.
      But when the shoe is on the other foot, they begrudge kindness to others. Said differently, Ted Cruz is merely a grotesque illustration, not an exception.
      Take a walk down memory lane. In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy hammered New York and New Jersey. As the north-east reeled, Texas Republicans stood back, treating the region as if it were another country. As if the civil war had not ended.
      After the turn of the year, Cruz, his fellow senator John Cornyn and 23 of two-dozen Texas Republicans in the House gave a thumbs down to Sandy aid. Less reflexively hostile heads prevailed. The relief bill cleared Congress. But the GOP’s Texans had left their mark.
      Peter King, then a Republican representative from Long Island, understood malice and stupidity when he saw it. He called for a halt to donations to Republicans who opposed rescuing sister states.
      “These Republicans have no problem finding New York when they’re out raising millions of dollars,” King said. “What they did last night was put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans. It was an absolute disgrace.”
      But Cruz in particular is nothing if not performative, ever Janus-faced. After Hurricane Harvey slammed Houston in 2017, he offered this explanation for his vote four years earlier: Sandy relief had become “a $50bn bill that was filled with unrelated pork”.
      Cruz also intoned: “What I said then and still believe now is that it’s not right for politicians to exploit a disaster when people are hurting to pay for their own political wish list.”
      Other than possibly Cruz’s long-suffering wife, it is unclear whether anyone believed Flyin’ Ted even then.
      Cruz may have flown home alone, leaving his family in Cancun, but he is not alone among Texas Republicans in hating Blue America. He is just the most notorious. Unlike congressman Louie Gohmert, Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard. He should and likely does know better.
      In 2019, as part of Donald Trump’s overhaul of the tax laws, Kevin Brady, a Texan then chair of the House ways and means committee, virtually eliminated the deductibility of state and local taxes from federal tax returns, in order to pay for an upper-bracket and corporate giveaway. New York and New Jersey are still feeling the bite.
      Under Trump, the economy failed to pass 3% growth annually and a much-touted manufacturing renaissance failed to appear. Covid made a bad situation worse.
      And now, lo and behold, Texas is forced, cap in hand, to pucker up to a Democratic House, Senate and White House. Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader and a native of Brooklyn, must be suppressing a smile.
      To be sure, the federal government and Congress must help Texas. No ifs, ands or buts. Joe Biden is treating the state a whole better than Trump did Puerto Rico. That’s a good thing.
      Innocent lives have been lost and upended in the name of retrograde ideology masked as policy. Real people, families and business have been destroyed. Climate change denial comes with a high human cost. Standing apart from the national electric grid isn’t independence. It is a death wish by another name.
      Confederacy 2.0.
      Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the breakaway states, summed up this attitude in 1861: “If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah River has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden.”
      Sounds familiar?
      Other than when it came to repelling Abraham Lincoln, the Confederacy was not a mutual assistance pact. Before this latest man-made debacle, Republicans were dreaming of drowning government in a bathtub. Hopefully, in Texas that may change. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Merrick Garland vows to target white supremacists as attorney general

      by

      At his Senate hearing on Monday, attorney general nominee Merrick Garland will pledge to prosecute “white supremacists and others” who attacked the US Capitol on 6 January, in support of Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his election defeat.The pledge was contained in Garland’s opening testimony for the session before the Senate judiciary committee, released on Saturday night.“If confirmed,” Garland said, ‘I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on 6 January – a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.”Five people including a police officer died as a direct result of the attack on the Capitol, before which Trump told supporters to “fight like hell” against the result of the presidential election. Trump lost to Joe Biden by 306-232 in the electoral college and by more than 7m ballots in the popular vote. More than 250 participants in the Capitol riot have been charged. As NPR reported, “the defendants are predominantly white and male, though there were exceptions. “Federal prosecutors say a former member of the Latin Kings gang joined the mob, as did two Virginia police officers. A man in a ‘Camp Auschwitz’ sweatshirt took part, as did a Messianic Rabbi. Far-right militia members decked out in tactical gear rioted next to a county commissioner, a New York City sanitation worker, and a two-time Olympic gold medalist.”In his testimony, Garland made reference to his role from 1995 to 1997 in supervising the prosecution of the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City Bombing, a white supremacist atrocity in which 168 people including 19 children were killed.Trump was impeached for a second time on a charge of inciting an insurrection but was acquitted after only seven Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate in voting to convict, 10 short of the majority needed.“It is a fitting time,” Garland said, “to reaffirm that the role of the attorney general is to serve the rule of law and to ensure equal justice under the law.”The 68-year-old federal appeals judge was famously denied even a hearing in 2016 when Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell blocked him as Barack Obama’s third pick for the supreme court.Biden’s selection of Garland for attorney general is seen as a conciliatory move in a capital controlled by Democrats but only by slim margins, the Senate split 50-50 with Vice-President Kamala Harris the tie-breaking vote.In his testimony, Garland said he would be independent from Biden, being sure to “strictly regulate communication with the White House” and working as “the lawyer … for the people of the United States”.Trump pressured his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to do his bidding, then saw his second, William Barr, largely do so, running interference on the investigation of Russian election interference and ties between Trump and Moscow. If confirmed, Garland will face sensitive decisions over matters including Trump, now exposed to criminal and civil investigation, and Hunter Biden, the new president’s son whose tax affairs are in question as he remains a target for much of the right.Some on the left have expressed concern that Garland might be too politically moderate. Black Lives Matter founder LaTosha Brown, for example, told the Guardian: “My concern is that he does not have a strong civil rights history … even when Obama nominated him, one of the critiques was that he was making a compromise with what he thought was a ‘clean’ candidate to get through.”In his testimony, Garland said justice department civil rights work must be improved.“Communities of colour and other minorities still face discrimination in housing, education, employment, and the criminal justice system,” he said, “and bear the brunt of the harm caused by pandemic, pollution, and climate change.”Garland is expected to be confirmed. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Ten Year War review: Obamacare, Trump and Biden's battles yet to come

      by

      Once upon a time, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was unpopular, viewed by many as welfare redux. Barack Obama’s promise that “If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan”, didn’t exactly work out. By the middle of the 2010s, so-called Obamacare had cost the Democrats both houses of Congress.
      Yet one great recession and one raging pandemic later, the ACA is liked, if not necessarily loved, by a majority of Americans.
      The political process “doesn’t stop just because a bill becomes a law”, according to Jonathan Cohn.
      As if to prove Cohn’s point, the US awaits a ruling by the supreme court on another challenge to Obamacare, this one brought by the Trump administration and Republican state attorneys general. If they prevail, more than 20 million Americans may lose health coverage. Nearly a half-million have died from Covid. Markets don’t always deliver what is needed.
      The Ten Year War is a look back at the “crusade” for universal healthcare coverage, and a sequel to Cohen’s earlier book, Sick: The Untold Story of America’s Healthcare Crisis. Cohn is a senior correspondent at the Huffington Post. His take remains informed and nuanced, not breathless. The Ten Year War also captures acrid and tectonic shifts in US politics.
      Cohn persuasively argues that the combatants in the healthcare fight operated with less than perfect knowledge, and that preconceived convictions too often clouded their judgment. Cohn aims at both policy wonks and political junkies. Laced with interviews and quotes from both sides of the aisle, his book is definitely newsworthy.
      Obama and Tom Price, Donald Trump’s short-tenured health secretary, speak on the record. David Axelrod, Obama’s counselor, and Michael Carvin, a veteran conservative litigator who unsuccessfully argued against Obamacare’s constitutionality, also talk to the author. Years earlier, in the 2000 election, Carvin was on brief in George W Bush’s winning supreme court gambit.
      Obama admits his surprise over Republicans not moving on after the ACA passed, unlike Medicare in 1965 under Lyndon Johnson. “We got no take-up on any of that stuff,” he says. Left unsaid is that blue and red are more than just colors – they are tribes.
      By the same measure, Obama acknowledges “that there were those … who suggested that we shouldn’t do anything other than the economy”. That is an understatement.
      One of those “outsiders” was Chuck Schumer, now the Senate majority leader. Even then, Cohn writes, the New Yorker grasped the political consequences of going all-in on healthcare amid a meltdown in the jobs and housing markets.
      Indeed, after the Democrats lost the Senate in 2014, New York’s senior senator unloaded on Obama before the National Press Club: “After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle-class-oriented programs.” Said differently, the ACA highlighted the inherent instability of the Democrats’ upstairs-downstairs coalition.
      Instead, in Schumer’s telling, “we took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – healthcare reform.” Apparently, there are few things more gratifying in politics than telling a sitting president: “I told you so.”
      Of course, political myopia is not the sole province of any one party. Price admits that Republicans too operated in their own universe.
      “I think there was a lack of appreciation on the part of all of us in the administration about how difficult” repealing Obamacare would be, he says. Price is a physician as well as a former Georgia congressman.
      Price criticizes Trump for fashioning policy to comport with the last voice to whisper into his ear, and for a fundamental lack of understanding of healthcare and insurance.
      “We would make concrete decisions about what we were going to do,” he says, “get presidential sign-off, and then within 24 hours the decision would change.”
      For Price’s boss, pulling the rug out from under others was standard operating procedure. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      GameStop hearing live: Robinhood CEO and others in trading saga testify before Congress

      by

      Key events

      Show

      3.59pm EST15:59
      Tenev admits Robinhood did not have the collateral to back the huge increase in trade

      3.31pm EST15:31
      Are Robinhood users better off than the average investor?

      2.44pm EST14:44
      Tenev addresses the suicide of a former customer

      1.42pm EST13:42
      ​Tenev defends decision to freeze buying of GameStop

      1.04pm EST13:04
      Reddit CEO and Reddit user involved in r/WallStreetBets forum testify

      12.12pm EST12:12
      House committee hears testimony from those involved in trading controversy

      Live feed

      Show

      4.19pm EST16:19

      Representative questions whether it is reckless to gamify investment
      Cindy Axne of Iowa targeted Tenev with questions about the Robinhood app’s design and the consequences of gamifying trade. She asked who truly stands to benefit from the rise of Robinhood, which Tenev has repeatedly asserted aims to “democratize” investment.
      “Your clients are not your customer – the users are the product, your customer is sitting next to you – it’s companies like Citadel securities that stand to make a fortune on retail order flow,” Axne said.
      Axne noted that Robinhood incentivizes inviting friends to the app and gamification of trading, “adding gaming elements that look like gambling.”

      Updated
      at 4.45pm EST

      4.08pm EST16:08

      Robinhood took from its customers to boost its own business model, lawmaker alleges
      Michael San Nicolas of Guam, a Democrat, congratulated the small investors who orchestrated the short squeeze: “Robinhood made that possible,” he said.
      But he also questioned Tenev about the $3bn shortage, and where the money borrowed to cover it came from. Tenev said he got $3bn from venture capitalists, which San Nicolas argued means Robinhood materially benefited from the shareholders.
      San Nicolas said Robinhood’s Silicon Valley ethos of “move fast and break things” led it to value scale over anything else.
      “That’s where I have a serious concern,” he said. “Your business model causes you to take extraordinary risks, and you took from customers to protect your position. That is very, very troubling.”

      Updated
      at 4.20pm EST

      3.59pm EST15:59

      Tenev admits Robinhood did not have the collateral to back the huge increase in trade

      Vlad Tenev admitted during questioning on Thursday that Robinhood halted buying on the platform because it did not have the funds to back the huge influx of trading in the Reddit frenzy.
      Robinhood is required to place a deposit using its own funds at a clearinghouse to cover risks until trades are settled between a buyer and seller. On 28 January, the company was informed by its clearing house, NSCC, that it had a deposit deficit of approximately $3bn – up from $124m just days before.
      Anthony Gonzalez, a Republican from Ohio, asked if Robinhood indeed had that $3bn of collateral at the time.
      “At that moment, we would not have been able to post the $3bn of collateral,” Tenev said.
      Gonzalez said that proves Robinhood was “unprepared to protect his constituents and customers from non-consensual liquidation” and “barely avoided disaster”.
      “In a sense, I love your company,” Gonzalez said. “At the same time, I believe a vulnerability was clearly exposed.”

      Updated
      at 4.23pm EST

      3.36pm EST15:36

      Reddit CEO is asked if financial advice on the forum can be trusted
      Steve Huffman, CEO of Reddit, conceded in questioning on Thursday that users on the forum responsible for the GameStop buy-up are an “eccentric” bunch but that they did not breach any of the platform’s terms of service.
      He said financial advice on Reddit, in fact, is better than what is seen on TV because each post has been vetted by its voting process, which requires endorsement by hundreds and even thousands of users before it is widely visible. Huffman:

      On Reddit you’re seeing retail investors who are giving authentic advice based on their knowledge, and you would not call into question positions they may hold before they talk about it on television.

      3.31pm EST15:31

      Are Robinhood users better off than the average investor?

      One issue that has come up repeatedly in today’s hearing is what Robinhood has to offer consumers, besides ease of entry into the investment space.
      Lawmakers’ questioning has offered a rare look into the profit model of Robinhood and just how much customers have made and lost on the app.
      Jim Himes, a Democratic representative of Connecticut, asked Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev whether customers would make more if they had bought a low-cost S&P 500 index fund rather than individual stocks on Robinhood’s app.
      Tenev said that Robinhood customers have made $35bn in profits, but is unwilling to say what rate of return that represents. Himes said that number means little without more context.

      Updated
      at 3.46pm EST

      2.53pm EST14:53

      Did Reddit’s coordinated buying represent market manipulation? Expert says no
      The meteoric rise of GameStop stocks was fueled largely by a frenzy on Reddit community r/WallStreetBets. Arkansas Republican Representative French Hill asked Thursday whether that constituted “market manipulation” – artificially impacting the price of a security or otherwise influencing the market for personal gain.
      Keith Gill, who is also speaking on Thursday’s panel, has been sued in a class action lawsuit accusing him of exaggerated claims and misrepresented posts as part of his role on Reddit in kicking off the GameStop market frenzy, which personally netted him more than $30m.
      “I think there’s little evidence at this time that there’s any false or deceptive conduct taking place,” said Jennifer Schulp, director of financial regulations studies at the Cato Institute speaking on the forum.
      She did say due to the anonymous nature of Reddit it is possible there is some “deceptive behavior” that could not readily be determined. Other have argued that Robinhood’s freezing of GameStop stocks in response to the buy-up itself represented market manipulation.

      Updated
      at 3.32pm EST

      2.44pm EST14:44

      Tenev addresses the suicide of a former customer

      Robinhood chief executive officer Vlad Tenev addressed in the hearing on Thursday the suicide of a 20-year-old man that was tied to the trading platform.
      The family of Alex Kearns is currently suing Robinhood in a California court after the newbie trader took his own life believing he owed $730,000 due to a glitch on the app, a year before the Reddit investing frenzy that caused many to gain or lose huge sums of money in a very short time.
      His death led to former SEC chair Jay Clayton and current lawmakers calling for better legislation to prevent such losses from happening in the future.
      In Thursday’s hearing, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri asked Tenev to explain how someone with no experience could invest such a potentially devastating amount of money in such a short time. Tenev again cited Robinhood’s mission of “democratizing finance for all”. His full response below:

      The passing of Mr. Kearns was deeply troubling to me, and to the entire company. We have taken a series of very aggressive steps to make our products safer for our customers, including adding additional education, as well as strengthening and tightening the requirements for getting options and bettering our customer support line. It was a tragedy and we went into immediate action to make sure that we are not just the most accessible option for trading for our customers but the safest as well.

      Updated
      at 3.33pm EST

      1.57pm EST13:57

      Everyone is shouting
      Representative Brad Sherman, Democrat from California, had some pointed questioning for Citadel owner Ken Griffin regarding how the average trader on Robinhood is treated compared to more wealthy Wall Street traders and larger firms.
      He asked about payment for order flow – a controversial practice in which stock brokers get a kickback for essentially selling the ability to execute trades. This allows some larger customers to avoid paying higher transaction fees. Sherman said it is a means for hiding the true costs of trading.
      Griffin kept attempting to skirt the question: “Congressman, I believe that’s an excellent question – the execution quality that we can provide as measured by terms of price improvement is heavily related or correlated to the size of the order we receive.”
      “Everybody I’ve talked to in this industry says when you’re a broker being paid for order flow, you get a worse execution,” Sherman replied, referencing the dealing in which Robinhood is paid for its customers’ trades by market-makers like Citadel.
      Finra fined Robinhood $1.25 million in December 2019 for this practice, saying it sent customer trading orders to broker-dealers without guaranteeing the best price.
      Griffin defended the payment for order flow practice, saying “it has allowed the American retail investor to have the lowest execution cost they’ve ever had in the history of US financial markets”.
      Sherman also repeatedly asked if the average Robinhood customer gets the same deals and prices as larger firms like Fidelity.
      “Is the Robinhood customer getting the same price as the Fidelity customer?” Sherman asked Griffin.
      Griffin wouldn’t say, talking around the answer and explaining that it can’t be determined “because the Robinhood community tends to be smaller in quantity” before getting cut off again.
      “You’re evading questions by making up other questions,” Sherman shouted. “You are doing a great job of wasting my time. If you want to filibuster you should run for the Senate.”

      Updated
      at 2.28pm EST

      1.42pm EST13:42

      ​Tenev defends decision to freeze buying of GameStop

      Tenev, Robinhood’s CEO, said customers would have been very angry if it had prevented them from selling off GameStop shares.
      During the Reddit-fueled meltdown, Robinhood banned the purchase of GameStop buying, but not selling. Many have speculated this was done at the behest of hedge funds who stood to lose millions from the buy-up, which Tenev disputed.
      “Preventing customers from selling is a very difficult and painful experience where customers are unable to access their money,” Tenev said. “We don’t want to impose that type of experience on our customers unless we have no other choice.”

      Updated
      at 3.24pm EST

      1.34pm EST13:34

      Lawmakers roast Robinhood CEO
      In addition to comments from Waters, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev faced intense criticism from other lawmakers.
      Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, accused Tenev of recklessly handling customers’ money.
      “You reserve the right to make up the rules as you go along,” she said.
      “I’m sorry for what happened,” Tenev replied. “I’m not going to say that Robinhood did everything perfect.”

      Updated
      at 1.47pm EST

      1.10pm EST13:10

      Chairwoman Maxine Waters is reclaiming her time
      Maxine Waters, the chairwoman of the House committee on financial services, took a stern tone with executives involved in the hearing on Thursday.

      manny
      (@mannyfidel)
      Maxine Waters: yes or noRobinhood CEO: pic.twitter.com/3oDUwsdD7P

      February 18, 2021

      She frequently interrupted Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, demanding he actually answer the questions she was posing as he meandered around the point. Waters stated “yes or no, answer the question” a minimum of ten times in the first hour of the hearing.

      Emily Stewart
      (@EmilyStewartM)
      Maxine Waters to the Robinhood CEO: “I don’t have time, I just need a yes or no answer.” Tattoo it on my arm.

      February 18, 2021

      Updated
      at 1.16pm EST

      1.04pm EST13:04

      Reddit CEO and Reddit user involved in r/WallStreetBets forum testify

      Reddit CEO Steve Huffman explained in his opening statement how Reddit moderation works, what the r/WallStreetsBets community is, and how Reddit dealt with the January stock buy-up.
      He said WallStreetBets is a “real community” with real users.
      He added that Reddit’s content policy prohibits “hate, harassment, bullying and illegal activity” and that threats or harassment of Plotkin and others were removed.
      “A few weeks ago, we saw the power of community in general and of this community in particular when the traders of WallStreetBets banded together at first to seize an investment opportunity not usually accessible to retail investors, but later more broadly to defend all retail investors against the criticism of the financial establishment,” Huffman said.
      Later, a member of that community testified. Reddit user “Roaring Kitty”, real name Keith Gill, started his opening statement by telling lawmakers “I am not a cat”.
      He stressed that he is simply an individual talking about this investment choices, not making suggestions for investments in any official or professional capacity. The goal of his posts, and of the Reddit community, was to make trading more understandable and accessible to the average person.
      “It’s alarming how little we know about the inner workings of the market,” Gill said.

      Updated
      at 3.25pm EST

      12.48pm EST12:48

      Melvin Capital CEO Gabriel Plotkin claims the company was not looking for a bailout
      Gabriel Plotkin, CEO of one of the hedge funds hit by the coordinated Reddit trades, claims Melvin did not coordinate or ask for Robinhood’s ban on trading.
      The GameStop frenzy targeted hedge funds like Melvin with huge short positions in GameStop, which had bet the share price would fall and stood to cash in when it did so. After the Reddit-fueled surge, the fund lost 53% in January. It reportedly received a $2bn+ capital infusion from Citadel as its losses grew.
      “To be sure, Melvin was managing through a difficult time, but we always had margin excess and we were not seeking a cash infusion,” Plotkin said.
      He says he was the subject of antisemitic and threatening posts on Reddit surrounding the markets incident.
      “I want to make clear at the outset that Melvin Capital played absolutely no role in those trading platforms’ decisions,” said Plotkin. “In fact, Melvin closed out all of its positions in GameStop days before platforms put those limitations in place.”

      Updated
      at 1.16pm EST

      12.38pm EST12:38

      Citadel owner Ken Griffin: we had ‘no role’ in Robinhood’s decision to restrict certain stocks
      Ken Griffin is the billionaire owner of hedge fund Citadel and high-speed trading firm Citadel Securities, which works with Robinhood.
      He said in testimony on Thursday that the firm provided securities to meet investors’ needs during the unprecedented surge of trading of GameStop stocks, but had “no role” in the decision made by Robinhood to restrict trading of those stocks.
      The incident “reflects the competence of our firm’s ability to deliver in all market conditions”, he said.

      12.33pm EST12:33

      Opening statements: Robinhood, Citadel, and Melvin Capital CEOs
      We are off running with some opening statements from the biggest players in the Reddit-fueled stock market meltdown.
      First, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev spoke about how he came to found Robinhood, talking of his childhood in Bulgaria, where the financial system was “on the verge of collapse”. Tenev said he wanted to give more people access to financial systems.
      “We created Robin Hood to economically empower all Americans by opening mutual markets to them,” he said.
      He referenced just how much money has been created by Robinhood investments, saying “the total value of our customers’ assets on Robinhood exceeds the net amount of money they have deposited with us, over $35bn”.
      Next, Citadel CEO Kenneth Griffin and Melvin Capital CEO Gabriel Plotkin will speak.

      Updated
      at 1.13pm EST

      12.12pm EST12:12

      House committee hears testimony from those involved in trading controversy

      Executives from the investing site Robinhood, the social media site Reddit, and other tech companies are testifying on Thursday in the first public hearing in an investigation into a recent public trading meltdown orchestrated on social media.
      The House financial services committee will hear testimony from parties involved in the recent trading in GameStop, AMC cinemas and other companies whose share values soared to astronomical levels as small investors piled into the stocks.
      We’ll follow the hearing live throughout the day – stay tuned.

      Updated
      at 12.19pm EST More