Tag: Biden

  • Biden welcomes ICC’s war crimes charges against Putin

    Biden welcomes ICC’s war crimes charges against Putin

    [ad_1]

    Washington: U.S. President Joe Biden has welcomed the International Criminal Court’s issuing of an arrest warrant against his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin.

    The ICC accused President Putin of committing war crimes in Ukraine – something President Biden said the Russian leader had “clearly” done, BBC reported.

    The claims focus on the unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia since Moscow’s invasion in 2022.

    Moscow has denied the allegations and denounced the warrants as “outrageous”.

    It is highly unlikely that much will come of the move, as the ICC has no powers to arrest suspects without the co-operation of a country’s government, BBC reported.

    Russia is not an ICC member country, meaning the court has no authority there.

    However, it could affect Putin in other ways, such as being unable to travel internationally. He could now be arrested if he sets foot in any of the court’s 123 member states.

    Putin is the third president to be issued with an ICC arrest warrant.

    President Biden said that while the court also held no sway in the U.S., the issuing of the warrant “makes a very strong point.”

    His administration had already “formally determined” that Russia had committed war crimes during the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, with Vice-President Kamala Harris saying in February that those involved would “be held to account.”

    [ad_2]
    #Biden #welcomes #ICCs #war #crimes #charges #Putin

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • St. Patrick’s Day puts debt rancor aside for Biden and McCarthy

    St. Patrick’s Day puts debt rancor aside for Biden and McCarthy

    [ad_1]

    image

    “From one Irish American to another, I want to strive every day to live up to the example of President Reagan and Tip O’Neill,” McCarthy said, addressing the president.

    Biden said he agreed with McCarthy that there’s no reason why “we can’t find common ground,” and he hopes that “we can turn this breakfast into more of an everyday relationship.”

    “There’s no reason why we can’t hope to change this direction of extremism of both our parties,” Biden said, adding that it’s about the “power of friendship.”

    Biden and McCarthy’s relationship this year has been marked by finding a path forward on raising the debt ceiling. In Biden’s State of the Union speech last month, he scolded Republicans about their past interest in cutting the nation’s biggest entitlement programs. Biden later met with McCarthy in search of a path to lifting the nation’s debt ceiling.

    [ad_2]
    #Patricks #Day #puts #debt #rancor #Biden #McCarthy
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Hunter Biden files response against computer repair shop owner

    Hunter Biden files response against computer repair shop owner

    [ad_1]

    biden 14936

    Mac Isaac claims the laptop and external hard drive became his property in 2019 when Biden didn’t retrieve the items within 90 days after leaving them at the shop, which attorneys for Biden are challenging. The repair shop owner claims Biden defamed him by saying he had illegally accessed the data.

    Attorneys for Biden claimed that Mac Isaac did not act responsibly with the data found on the laptop and hard drive.

    ”Reputable computer companies and repair people routinely delete personal data contained on devices that are exchanged, left behind or abandoned,” the filing reads. ”They do not open, copy, and then provide that data to others, as Mac Isaac did here.”

    Mac Isaac turned the laptop and external hard drive over to the FBI in 2019 and attempted to share the information from the devices with former President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

    Biden’s lawyers are also seeking depositions from Steve Bannon and Giuliani in the suit.

    Biden doesn’t confirm in the filing that the laptop is his. “Mr. Biden is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations,” the filing states.

    The data from the laptop became a point of interest after stories were published by the New York Post before the 2020 election.

    POLITICO has not authenticated the Biden hard drive files that underpinned an October 2020 New York Post story, but POLITICO reporter Ben Schreckinger confirmed the authenticity of some emails on the drive in a 2021 book.

    Last year, Mac Isaac sued POLITICO, CNN, Hunter Biden, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the Biden presidential campaign committee for defamation and civil conspiracy in state court in Delaware. Earlier this month, the federal government stepped in for Schiff and removed the case to federal court in Wilmington, arguing that the suit pertains to acts he took in his official capacity as a member of Congress.

    Friday’s filing comes as Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the House Oversight Committee, prepares an investigation into Biden. The suit is also part of a broader campaign of legal pushback from Biden’s attorneys, warning those involved in publicizing assertions about his laptop computer that they could face unspecified litigation over their claims.

    The Justice Department is reported to be in the final stages of deciding whether to bring criminal charges against Hunter Biden in connection with alleged tax offenses and his alleged failure to disclose his status as a drug user when applying to buy a handgun in 2018.

    [ad_2]
    #Hunter #Biden #files #response #computer #repair #shop #owner
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Biden inches closer to the center to win over Republicans he’ll need in 2024

    Biden inches closer to the center to win over Republicans he’ll need in 2024

    [ad_1]

    pictures of the week north america photo gallery 65174

    So far, they’ve been right. But some lawmakers are still growing agitated.

    “I think the devil is in the details and we will see what happens,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in an interview. “But has he made decisions that progressives disagree with? Absolutely. We will see what comes up in the next year.”

    The emerging gulf between the president and his progressive base provides a window into how Biden world views the looming presidential campaign. As Democrats adjust to divided government, the president — who has watched Democratic predecessors, including one for whom he served as vice president, make similar machinations before — seems comfortable defying some of the wishes of his own party.

    The most significant intra-party flashpoints have come over crime, which looms as a defining issue ahead of next year’s election.

    Initially, the White House announced it would oppose a GOP-led crime resolution for the District of Columbia on the grounds that it was an infringement on the city’s autonomy. A majority of House Democrats voted against the measure. Then Biden did a sudden about-face earlier this month, saying he would sign the bill if it reached his desk. The president said he continued to back D.C. statehood and home rule, but could not support the city council’s sweeping reforms, which included lowering statutory maximum penalties for robbery, carjacking and other offenses.

    The uproar from progressives was sudden and fierce, with many saying they felt blindsided by Biden’s decision after the House had already held its vote.

    “If the President supports DC statehood, he should govern like it,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) tweeted. “Plenty of places pass laws the President may disagree with. He should respect the people’s gov of DC just as he does elsewhere.”

    But Biden’s change echoed a growing worry among Democrats who feared being labeled as soft on crime. Last November, several House races in New York that centered on crime concerns went to Republicans. And just days before the president signaled his opposition to the D.C. bill, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot lost her reelection bid, largely due to the perception she had not done enough to fight crime in the nation’s third-largest city.

    Biden’s team has long been wary of charges of being soft on the issue. He has long denounced any liberal call to “defund the police” and has always made sure to twin calls for police reform with support for law enforcement. The D.C. bill, White House aides believed, was too extreme and not reflective of the public’s current mood.

    Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat facing his own reelection for his Virginia seat in 2024, defended Biden’s recent decision on signing legislation that would reverse the reform on the D.C. criminal code. He noted even the city’s mayor vetoed the measure when it passed the council.

    “I don’t view it as a big political strategy or an election strategy [for Biden]. I just view it on the merits,” Kaine said. “I can understand why he’s doing those things.”

    The White House downplayed the disagreement, saying Democrats remain aligned on significant issues like protecting Social Security and Medicare and noting how progressives rallied around the budget Biden unveiled last week. Louisa Terrell, White House director of the office of legislative affairs, made clear the president “is consistent, he’s the same guy from the campaign to the White House.”

    “We’re in constant communication with the Hill,” Terrell said. “We’re trying to be respectful, we’re all in the family. Sometimes we hear ‘this could have been done differently’ and we get that. And then we move on and work together.”

    But some Democrats fear the president has also begun to shift to the right on the thorny issue of immigration, which also looms as a political vulnerability. The Biden administration last year struggled to contain a record surge of migration at the border. Although illegal border crossings for the past two months have plummeted under new rules, administration officials fear that the lifting of a key pandemic-era immigration restriction in May could fuel another rush of migrants.

    Some Democrats already are alarmed by stricter rules the Biden administration plans to implement for asylum-seeking migrants. Now they’re upset he’s considering restarting family detention at the border, a policy the administration had largely ended at the beginning of Biden’s term.

    Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), and Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) — respectively the chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — issued a joint statement calling on the Biden administration to dismiss “this wrongheaded approach.”

    “We should not return to the failed policies of the past,” the lawmakers said. “There is no safe or humane way to detain families and children, and such detention does not serve as a deterrent to migration.”

    The White House quickly pointed out that no final decision has been made on family detention. They added that Biden has not changed his position on immigration but is instead responding to changing migration patterns and court orders stemming from GOP lawsuits.

    Other Democrats were enraged that earlier this week Biden went back on a campaign pledge to halt drilling on federal land by approving a massive $8 billion plan to extract 600 million barrels of oil from federal land in Alaska.

    The Alaska site, known as the Willow Project, would be one of the few drilling agreements Biden has approved freely, without a court order or a congressional mandate. But, officials note, ConocoPhillips has held leases to the prospective site for more than two decades, and administration attorneys argued that refusing a permit would trigger a lawsuit that could cost the government as much as $5 billion.

    That did little to assuage anger on the left.

    Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), the first Gen Z member of Congress, said he was “very disappointed” Biden broke his promise to both environmentalists and young voters.

    “Youth voter turnout was at its highest in 2020 & young folks supported him because of commitments such as ‘no more drilling on federal land,’” Frost, 26, tweeted this week. “That commitment has been broken.”

    Some progressives have voiced concern that one of their top links to Biden, former chief of staff Ron Klain, has left the White House. But others believe that their relationship with the White House would remain strong, with some on the left praising Biden’s move to aid Silicon Valley Bank.

    “What I see the president doing is maintaining a steady hand in the middle of a financial crisis,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), when asked by POLITICO about Biden’s decisions on crime and drilling.

    The art of the compromise comes naturally to Biden, a longtime senator who prioritized bipartisanship even when Democrats controlled both congressional branches during his first two years in office. Ignoring some howls of protest from within his own party, Biden often reached across the aisle and was rewarded with some bipartisan victories, including a $1 trillion infrastructure bill and a modest gun reform package.

    The ability to pass much legislation going forward was sharply curtailed by the November midterms, in which Republicans secured a narrow victory in the House. And Biden’s budget was perceived as largely aspirational, while another liberal priority — student loan relief — seems destined to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

    The percolating progressive resentment comes as Democrats continue to wait for Biden to make his intentions about 2024 official. The president has both declared publicly and privately told confidants he plans to run for reelection. But the timeline for his final decision appears to continually slip as aides note Biden does not face a serious primary challenger from the left while the Republican field has been slow to form.

    Advisers had initially looked at an announcement around February’s State of the Union, or perhaps next month, timed to campaign finance reporting deadlines. But while April is still in play, members of the president’s inner circle have begun to discuss May or June for a decision.

    [ad_2]
    #Biden #inches #closer #center #win #Republicans #hell
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Opinion | Republicans Are Delusional If They Think Biden Will Be Easy to Beat

    Opinion | Republicans Are Delusional If They Think Biden Will Be Easy to Beat

    [ad_1]

    biden 97222

    Biden is not a dead man walking; he’s an old man getting around stiffly. Biden is vulnerable, but certainly electable; diminished, but still capable of delivering a message; uninspiring, but unthreatening.

    No one is going to mistake him for a world-beater. In the RealClearPolitics polling average, he leads Donald Trump by a whopping 0.8 percent. If his job approval has been ticking up, it’s still only at 44 percent. He walks as if he is only one step away from a bad fall, and an NBC poll earlier in the year found that just 28 percent of people think he has the mental and physical health necessary to be president.

    That said, he’s in the office, and no one else is. Incumbency bestows important advantages. The sitting president is highly visible, is the only civilian in the country who gets saluted by Marines walking out his door every day, has established a certain threshold ability to do the job, and can wield awesome powers to help his cause and that of his party.

    Since 1992, Trump is the only incumbent to have lost, failing to join Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama as re-elected incumbents.

    Biden was never going to be the next LBJ or FDR as a cadre of historians had seemingly convinced him early in his presidency. But he punched above his weight legislatively during his first two years, getting more out of a tied Senate and slender House majority than looked realistically possible. He’s set up to have the advantage in this year’s momentous debt-limit fight, since it’s hard to see how congressional Democrats aren’t united and congressional Republicans divided.

    Biden’s age is a liability for him, but comes with a significant benefit — he does not look or sound like a radical any more than the average elderly parent or grandparent. This has enabled him to govern from the left — he would have spent even more the first two years if he could have — without appearing threatening or wild-eyed. He hasn’t restored normality to Washington so much as familiarity as the old hand who has been there since 1973 and made his first attempt at national office in 1988.

    Since the midterms and likely in anticipation of a reelection campaign, Biden, who usually does whatever his party wants him to do, has shown a small independent streak. It’s hardly Bill Clinton-level triangulation, but the president is apparently mindful of the need to make a few feints to the center and of how progressive squawking can help him look more moderate.

    He said he wouldn’t veto congressional action blocking a D.C. crime bill, earning a rebuke from AOC among others. He’s considering bringing back family detention at the border, and pro-immigration groups are outraged. His approval of the Willow oil drilling project on Alaska’s North Slope “greenlights a carbon bomb,” according to the group Earthjustice.

    Importantly, in 2024, nothing Biden does will be considered in isolation, but instead compared to his Republican opponent. As of now, Trump has the best odds of being, once again, that adversary. Trump would have some significant chance of beating Biden, simply by virtue of being the Republican nominee, and there’s always a chance that events could be Biden’s undoing.

    But Trump would probably be weaker going into a rematch than the first time around. He lost to Biden in 2020 — before he denied the results of a national election, before a fevered band of his supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, before he indulged every 2020 conspiracy theory that came across his desk, before he said the Constitution should be suspended and before he made his primary campaign partly about rebuking traditional Republicans that the GOP suburbanites he’d need in a general election probably still feel warmly about.

    There’s also a strong possibility that Trump gets indicted once, or even twice, in coming months. Such charges would be perceived as unfair by Republicans — perhaps rightly so — but they would add to the haze of chaos around Trump.

    Ron DeSantis or another Republican contender presumably matches up better against Biden, based on the generational contrast and the absence of Trump’s baggage alone. Yet, if a non-Trump candidate wins the nomination, he or she will have Trump in the background, probably determined to gain revenge against him or her. Imagine, if after Biden defeated the rest of the Democratic field in 2020, they didn’t leave the race and collectively endorse him, but sulked and found ways to undermine him.

    Then, there’s the state of the GOP generally. It has an impressive crop of governors. Otherwise, it hasn’t seemed to take on board the lessons of the last couple of years. First, there’s a real chance that it will re-nominate Trump, after everything. Second, various state parties are irresistibly drawn to politically toxic, proven losers. In Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano, who got wiped out in the gubernatorial race last year, is thinking about running for Senate next year and handily leads in early polling. Kari Lake, who threw away a winnable gubernatorial race that she still maintains she won, is looking to enter the GOP primary for Senate, and would be a prohibitive favorite.

    There’s no fortune quite like being lucky in your enemies, and Biden could well get a big break in this respect yet again. However much Republicans may wish he were a pushover, he’s not, and they should be acting accordingly.

    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Republicans #Delusional #Biden #Easy #Beat
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Biden mourns with families of California shooting victims and moves to close gun loophole

    Biden mourns with families of California shooting victims and moves to close gun loophole

    [ad_1]

    biden guns 46756

    His remarks framed what the White House portrayed as a significant advance in gun safety, an executive order intended to move the U.S. as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation.

    The executive action directs Attorney General Merrick Garland to close a gray area in existing gun sales laws that have allowed some vendors to operate without conducting background checks. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which Biden signed into law last summer, requires anyone who sells firearms for profit to run background checks. Garland will be tasked with defining who qualifies as a gun dealer.

    “It’s just common sense to check whether someone is a felon, a domestic abuser before they buy a gun,” Biden said.

    Among other directives, the executive order asked Biden’s Cabinet to focus on public awareness campaigns around red flag laws and safe gun storage and encouraged the Federal Trade Commission to publish a report on how manufacturers market firearms to adults and minors. The action also calls for his administration to speed up the implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

    The president’s move comes as state leaders renewed calls for federal action amid a violent start to 2023, which has already witnessed 164 victims in 110 mass shootings — incidents where at least four people are shot.

    “I know what it’s like to get that call,” Biden told the crowd on Tuesday. “… I know what it’s like to lose a loved one so suddenly. It’s like losing a piece of your soul.”

    While the White House has made historic strides on gun policy, the flurry of mass shootings this year has spurred a renewed pressure campaign from gun safety advocates. Now with a split Congress, gun safety groups have said Biden has a responsibility to roll out further reform. Advocates have pushed administration officials on Tuesday’s executive order for months.

    Biden used his speech to re-up his calls for lawmakers to take further action on gun violence.

    “Let’s be clear: None of this absolves Congress from the responsibility of acting,” he said. “Pass universal background checks. Eliminate gun manufacturer immunity and liability. And I’m determined, once again, to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.”

    Two of the three deadliest mass shootings this year have taken place in California, according to the Gun Violence Archive, despite the state having some of the country’s strictest firearm policies and a gun death rate 37 percent below the national average. Just days after the Monterey Park shooting, a disgruntled worker killed seven people at a mushroom farm in rural Half Moon Bay.

    In the case of the Monterey Park shooting, Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna has said the semi-automatic handgun used by the 72-year-old gunman was most likely acquired illegally.

    State leaders nationally have also said more needs to be done at the federal level in light of a Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down New York’s concealed carry law. That has given rise to subsequent challenges to state gun laws, including California’s longstanding ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and a provision barring 18-to-20-year-olds from buying semi automatic weapons.

    After Tuesday’s speech, Biden was scheduled to meet with first responders and victims’ families as he has done so many times before in the wake of a mass tragedy. He’ll once again be surrounded by immense grief, just as he was in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y., less than a year ago.

    But he ended Tuesday’s remarks with a line of hope. It’s a piece of advice he’s shared with other survivors and family members along the way — something he draws from his own experiences with grief.

    “It takes time, but I promise you,” Biden said. “I promise you, the day will come when the memory of your loved one will bring a smile to your lips before it brings a tear to your eye.”

    [ad_2]
    #Biden #mourns #families #California #shooting #victims #moves #close #gun #loophole
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Greens sue Biden over Willow oil project approval

    Greens sue Biden over Willow oil project approval

    [ad_1]

    alaska oil project climate 74810

    BLM failed to follow requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act to consider alternatives that would lessen the project’s impact on the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, or NPR-A, or to take a required “hard look” at the project’s cumulative impacts, including on climate change, the suit alleges.

    The groups also charge BLM with failing to consider the project’s impacts on lands used for subsistence by Alaska Natives. And the suit argues the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to properly consider Willow’s potential impacts on endangered species such as polar bears.

    “Interior attempted to put a shiny gloss over a structurally unsound decision that will, without question, result in a massive fossil fuel project that will reduce access to food and cultural practices for local communities,” Bridget Psarianos, lead attorney for Trustees for Alaska, which represents the environmental groups, said in a statement. “This new decision allows ConocoPhillips to pump out massive amounts of greenhouse gases that drive continued climate devastation in the Arctic and world. The laws broken on the way to these permits demonstrate the government’s disregard for those who would be most directly harmed by industrial pollution and ignores Alaska’s and the world’s climate reality.”

    Willow is estimated to produce about 600 million barrels of oil, with production projected to be over 180,000 barrels of oil per day at its peak.

    The project is also expected to generate around 280 million tons a year of greenhouse gases over its expected 30-year lifetime — the equivalent of two coal-burning power plants every year, according to government estimates.

    The Alaskan court in 2021 overturned a Trump-era approval of the project after determining its underlying environmental analysis was flawed.

    The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska by the Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, Alaska Wilderness League, Environment America, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society.

    The groups said a second suit spearheaded by Earthjustice, which had previously said it was reviewing the administration’s analysis of the project’s environmental impact as a basis for a possible lawsuit, will be filed soon as well.

    The Interior Department declined to comment. The White House could not be immediately reached for comment.

    [ad_2]
    #Greens #sue #Biden #Willow #oil #project #approval
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Biden EPA launches landmark push to curb ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water

    Biden EPA launches landmark push to curb ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water

    [ad_1]

    20230223 epa francis 1

    But, the agency acknowledges that the $772 million annual cost would, at least initially, be borne by American households through higher water charges.

    “It’s time,” Radhika Fox, EPA’s top water official, said in an interview. “The American people want this. They want their drinking water to be safe.”

    The regulatory proposal unveiled by EPA Tuesday would require utilities to cleanse their drinking water supplies of any detectable levels of the two most notorious chemicals in the class, known as PFOS and PFOA, which were used for decades in water repellent Scotchguard and Teflon, as well as firefighting foam, before being phased out of production in 2002 and 2015, respectively.

    EPA’s new proposal also includes a surprise provision aimed at limiting the chemicals that the industry shifted to using after the PFOA and PFOS phase-out, which chemical companies argued were safer, but that federal scientists have concluded pose severe dangers of their own.

    EPA had previously only singled out PFOA and PFOS as warranting federal regulation. But in the three years since the Trump administration first made that determination, evidence has mounted of those other chemicals’ prevalence and harms, and several states have enacted their own limits.

    Because of structural differences in their chemistry, ridding water supplies of these newer substances can require different treatment approaches. Drinking water experts feared that if EPA didn’t address them under this proposal, water utilities could invest in upgrades that failed to deal with the whole PFAS problem. But the administration’s choice to regulate the chemicals in an accelerated and novel fashion could risk putting the regulation on legally shaky ground.

    The proposed regulation would require communities to monitor water supplies for four of these chemicals – known as GenX, PFBS, PFHxS and PFNA – and then plug those results into a “hazard index” calculation. That calculation is aimed at dealing with the fact that different types of PFAS are often present in water at the same time, and scientists have found that those mixtures can be even more dangerous than just the sum of their parts.

    Using that hazard index, utilities would see whether dangerous combined levels of the chemicals are present, which would require them to treat their water to reduce levels of those chemicals or switch to alternate sources.

    Environmental groups and public health advocates heralded the proposal as a major step towards dealing with the sprawling contamination problem Tuesday. And the move was also backed by a top Republican on Capitol Hill whose state has been burdened by PFAS pollution.

    “After years of urging three consecutive administrations of different parties to do so, I’m pleased a safe drinking water standard has finally been issued for PFOA and PFOS,” West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said in a statement.

    Chemical manufacturers, whose past and current products are targeted by the proposal, have come out in opposition. The industry group American Chemistry Council said in a statement it has “serious concerns with the underlying science” used to develop the proposal.

    None of the proposal’s requirements would come cheaply to drinking water utilities or their customers, and groups representing water managers are already raising concerns. EPA estimates that it would cost $772 million per year to upgrade water treatment plants and cover the ongoing monitoring and treatment costs to comply with the rule. That’s less than the $1.2 billion the agency estimates will be saved by removing the chemicals, primarily in the form of reduced healthcare costs and premature deaths. But it represents real pocketbook pain, particularly for customers already struggling to pay their water bills.

    The drinking water utility serving the city of Wilmington, N.C., where Regan unveiled the proposal Tuesday, spent $43 million on upgrades to its water treatment facilities to filter out PFAS that a chemical manufacturing plant had poured into the Cape Fear River. The plant’s managers estimate it will cost up to $5 million more annually to operate the system, adding an average of $5 per month to customers’ bills.

    In a statement, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies suggested EPA is low-balling its cost calculations, arguing that if just 16 drinking water utilities had to install upgrades similar to Wilmington’s, the cost would exceed the agency’s cost estimate.

    “AMWA is concerned about the overall cost drinking water utilities will incur to comply with this proposed rulemaking,” the group’s CEO, Tom Dobbins, said in a statement.

    In the near term, some new federal funds available through the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law could help offset this cost, including $5 billion for small and disadvantaged communities.

    “We recognize that’s not enough for every single water utility in the country, but it’s a shot in the arm,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said as he announced the proposal.

    Ultimately, the Biden administration is working to hold polluters accountable. EPA last summer proposed designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous under the Superfund law, and the agency is exploring doing the same for other types of PFAS. That would allow EPA and other entities to force those responsible for the pollution to pay to clean it up.

    But even if the regulations are put in place as proposed, that money likely wouldn’t flow until years — or decades — after utilities and their customers have footed the bill for upgrades.

    And whether the drinking water regulation itself will even be finalized is far from guaranteed. The Defense Department, which faces potentially massive cleanup costs for its decades of contamination at more than 700 sites across the country, has stalled and weakened previous EPA efforts on PFAS.

    The new drinking water proposal was stuck in interagency review at the White House for five months, and was only released after pressure from environmental groups, activists and a bipartisan group of lawmakers. That included a publicity blitz by actor Mark Ruffalo — who starred in the 2019 film “Dark Waters” about PFOA — as well as a private pressure campaign on the White House led by Capito and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a friend of President Joe Biden.

    Environmental groups are already defending the new regulation from anticipated attacks.

    “Today’s proposal is a necessary and long overdue step towards addressing the nation’s PFAS crisis, but what comes next is equally important,” Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, an attorney with the nonprofit group Earthjustice, said in a statement “EPA must resist efforts to weaken this proposal, move quickly to finalize health-protective limits on these six chemicals, and address the remaining PFAS that continue to poison drinking water supplies and harm communities across the country.”

    [ad_2]
    #Biden #EPA #launches #landmark #push #curb #chemicals #drinking #water
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Biden bypasses Congress as he tries to tamp down gun violence

    Biden bypasses Congress as he tries to tamp down gun violence

    [ad_1]

    Biden’s latest gun policy rollout, which he announced at the Boys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley, comes amid a deadly year. Almost four months into 2023, there have been 109 mass shootings in which four or more people were injured or killed, according to the Gun Violence Archive. As the violence continues even after the passage of the first gun legislation in 30 years, major gun safety groups have pleaded with Biden to act alone as Congress appears unlikely to reach further compromise on the issue.

    “These are not controversial solutions anywhere except for in Washington, D.C., in Congress,” a senior administration official said Monday night, briefing reporters ahead of Biden’s speech. “The majority of kitchen tables across the country — they support universal background checks. And the action the president is proposing — to move closer to universal background checks — is just common sense.”

    The president’s executive order also called for his administration to speed up the implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Within 60 days, every agency involved in the legislation’s rollout will be required to send Biden a report outlining progress and additional steps needed to push the law forward.

    The executive order also directed members of Biden’s Cabinet to focus on raising public awareness of red flag laws and safe storage of guns and to address the loss and theft of firearms, the official said. The president also took additional steps aimed at holding gun manufacturers accountable, including by encouraging the Federal Trade Commission to analyze and report how gun manufacturers market firearms to minors.

    Just as the Federal Emergency Management Agency responds during a hurricane, Biden asked members of his Cabinet to coordinate a response plan to address short and long-term needs in communities struck by mass shootings.

    “He is directing key members of his Cabinet to develop a proposal for how we can structure the government to do a better job supporting those impacted by gun violence,” the administration official told reporters.

    Biden also used Tuesday’s address to re-up his calls for Congress to take further action on guns, including his futile push for an assault weapons ban.

    [ad_2]
    #Biden #bypasses #Congress #tamp #gun #violence
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Opinion | Joe Biden, Scandinavian

    Opinion | Joe Biden, Scandinavian

    [ad_1]

    election 2020 debate 10515

    • Joe Biden is at pains to assert that “I’m a capitalist. I’m not a socialist.”
    • A lot of what Biden is proposing would look quite at home in Scandinavia and Western Europe.
    • Those nations aren’t really “socialist” at all, even if they’re celebrated by America’s best-known socialist.
    • Republicans really, really hate socialism — but will also scream bloody murder if Democrats suggest they want to so much as touch the most obviously socialistic programs of the American government.

    Making sense of these assertions does not require squaring a circle; what it does require is an understanding of just how amorphous the term “socialist” is, and why whatever you call Biden’s various policy goals, they are firmly within the American political tradition — and may indeed be very smart politics, at that.

    All through his two presidential runs, Sen. Bernie Sanders was asked what it meant that he called himself a “democratic socialist.” Invariably, the Vermont independent would point to the Scandinavian nations and their universal health care, paid family leave and free college education. (He did not call for the government to “control the means of production and distribution,” the classic definition of socialism and an omission at odds with the Democratic Socialists of America, a 92,000-member organization that asserts: “We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation.”)

    But are Denmark, Sweden and Norway really “socialist” nations? They wouldn’t cut it for the DSA. The private sector is alive and well, businesses have a lighter tax burden than in the U.S., and even their health care systems are far from totally public. In Sweden, by one estimate, some 40 percent of health clinics are private, for-profit enterprises.

    Indeed, throughout the industrialized world, the traditional goal of socialism has long since been jettisoned, even as elements of its core philosophy have been embedded in government policy. For example, Germany, whether run by center-right Christian Democrats or center-left Social Democrats, is a resolutely capitalist land, but its laws also require workers to be well represented on large corporations’ supervisory boards, where key decisions are made. In Britain, the Labour Party under Tony Blair renounced nationalization almost 30 years ago. The last Labour leader to embrace the idea, Jeremy Corbyn, presided over a historic walloping at the polls, and current leader Keir Starmer says he would not nationalize the energy industry (though a significant element of the party’s rank and file embraces the notion of “common ownership”).

    Ideas like universal health care and expansive workers’ rights have long carried the label of “social democracy”: if not full socialism, then the notion that the government should craft a strong social safety net, impose higher taxes on the wealthy and limit the private sector’s power. (Those who see the hand of Karl Marx in such ideas — as Ronald Reagan did when he assailed the idea of Medicare back in 1964 — need to contend with the fact that the father of government-financed old age and health insurance was the ardent anti-socialist Otto von Bismarck, who first proposed the idea in 1881).

    In the 2020 Democratic presidential contest, the left had its champions and Biden was most certainly not among them. But even the most committed Bernie Bro might acknowledge the president’s progress toward nudging the United States toward social democracy.

    Consider the elements of Biden’s bipartisan $40 billion investment in semiconductor manufacturing — itself an impressive display of industrial policy. The package comes with strings, the New York Times notes. Companies have to pay union wages; they have to share some of their profits with the government; they have to provide free childcare for their workers; they have to run their plants with environmentally friendly energy sources. These proposals are of a piece with some of the more ambitious Biden policies, some of which, like the expanded child-tax credit, have expired, and some of which, like capping the price of insulin for seniors, remain in place and have been embraced by the private sector. His recent State of the Union address contained a swath of proposals to limit the power of private companies, whether by capping excessive airline baggage fees or hidden credit card charges.

    The response to all of this from Republicans has been to raise the specter of “socialism.” Last month, the GOP-controlled House voted 328-86 for a resolution declaring that “socialist ideology necessitates a concentration of power that has time and time again collapsed into communist regimes, totalitarian rule, and brutal dictatorships. … Congress denounces socialism in all its forms, and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America.” If the goal was to split their opponents, Republicans succeeded: More than 100 Democrats voted for the resolution which, taken literally, would condemn the policies of some of America’s most resolute allies, and which was clearly designed to throw shade at the president.

    Of course, almost as vociferous as the GOP’s denunciation of socialism was its fury at the very idea the party might be moving to lay a finger on the two most clearly socialistic elements of U.S. policy — Social Security and Medicare.

    When Biden used his State of the Union address to note that “some” Republicans were suggesting cuts in the programs — most specifically Sen. Rick Scott of Florida — GOP lawmakers erupted in anger. Scott, for his part, quickly amended his proposal sunsetting government programs by exempting the popular social insurance systems. It calls to mind the cry of a citizen at a congressional town hall meeting years ago: “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” (Notably, Donald Trump also deserves some credit for steering the GOP away from a free-market orthodoxy intent on gutting retirement programs.)

    It’s a little unfair to ascribe cognitive dissonance solely to Republicans. The confusion about what consists of “socialism” is pervasive. Polls show Americans disapprove of “entitlements,” but overwhelmingly approve of Social Security, Medicare and veterans’ benefits — in other words, programs people are entitled to by law. Sanders’ idea of free tuition for public colleges may seem a reach, but a generation or two ago, free college was widely available. City University of New York was famously tuition free from 1847 until 1976, and many state universities once imposed only fees. In some places, community college is still free.

    A large majority of Americans see health care as a right, even as majorities of Americans say the government is too powerful and tries to do too much. This dissonance was crystalized by the election victory of Ronald Reagan, who proclaimed in his 1981 Inaugural Address that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem,” and then presided over a government that was bigger when he left it. (For that matter, Margaret Thatcher never tried to repeal Britain’s national health insurance.)

    In this populist moment, Biden has also won applause from the left and right for flexing government’s muscle when it comes to cracking down on Big Tech and the growth of monopolies, be they in the form of airlines or book publishers. Biden is showing his Rooseveltian roots, not just FDR but TR.

    A long-running debate exists over why socialism failed to take root in the United States, unlike in Europe. In the near run, the success of Biden’s “social democracy” efforts will stand or fall on whether he can — as many of his Democratic predecessors did — define his policies not as the importation of a foreign ideology, but as part of a continuing effort to make the economic playing field fairer and safer without changing the fundamental rules of the game.

    For a century or more, those efforts have met with powerful resistance, even as the political consensus gradually shifts toward a more robust American welfare state. The most recent example: Republicans have given up their efforts to repeal Obamacare after years of pushing to do just that. It turns out that, with a little more modest ambitions, “socialism” has found a home of sorts in this land of individual freedom — as long as you call it something else.

    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Joe #Biden #Scandinavian
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )