text
stringlengths 0
1.26M
|
|---|
Pfizer says its COVID-19 vaccine is shown to be extremely effective in young teenagers. Esteban Felix/AP hide caption toggle caption Esteban Felix/AP Pfizer says its COVID-19 vaccine is shown to be extremely effective in young teenagers. Esteban Felix/AP New clinical trials showed that Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine elicits "100% efficacy and robust antibody responses" in adolescents from 12 to 15 years old, the drug company announced Wednesday. The trial included 2,260 participants; the results are even better than earlier responses from participants ages 16 to 25. Pfizer and its vaccine partner BioNTech said they will submit the results "as soon as possible" to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, asking regulators to expand their authorizations for the vaccine's use in young people. Pfizer will submit the data "in the coming weeks," Pfizer CEO and Chairman Albert Bourla said in a news release about the trial. Calling the results encouraging, he added that the company is acting "with the hope of starting to vaccinate this age group before the start of the next school year." During the clinical trial, 18 people who were in the placebo group developed COVID-19, while none of the people in the vaccinated group did. Blood tests showed a strong immune system response one month after participants received the second vaccine dose, according to a summary of test data released by Pfizer. As for potential side effects, Pfizer said the vaccine was tolerated well in the late-stage trial. Currently, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is authorized for use only in people who are at least 16. The companies, which developed the vaccine together, are working to test it in children as young as 6 months. In the first part of that study, a group of kids from 5 to 11 years old got their first shots last week. A second group, ages 2 to 5, are slated to receive their first doses next week. Moderna, whose COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for people 18 and older in the U.S., is also testing its vaccine in adolescents; it announced a trial of around 3,000 participants from 12 to 18 years old in December. Moderna also said earlier this month it had administered the first doses of its vaccine to young children in a separate study that involves kids from 6 months to less than 12 years old. Johnson & Johnson, whose vaccine got U.S. authorization one month ago, has also been moving to include children in clinical trials. The company will test the vaccine in only a small number of adolescents initially, with plans to expand the study if it is shown to be safe, according to a spokesperson at Janssen, the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that developed the vaccine. |
WASHINGTON (AP) — The next few weeks are critical to tamping down a disturbing coronavirus surge, Dr. Anthony Fauci told Congress on Tuesday — issuing a plea for people to avoid crowds and wear masks just hours before mask-shunning President Donald Trump was set to address a crowd of his young supporters in one hot spot.Fauci and other top health officials also said they have not been asked to slow down virus testing, in contrast to Trump’s claim last weekend that he had ordered fewer tests be performed because they were uncovering too many infections. Trump said earlier Tuesday that he wasn’t kidding when he made that remark.“We will be doing more testing,” Fauci, infectious disease chief at the National Institutes of Health, pledged to a House committee conducting oversight of the Trump administration’s response to the pandemic.The leading public health officials spent more than five hours testifying before the committee at a fraught moment, with coronavirus cases rising in about half the states and political polarization competing for attention with public health recommendations. Fauci told lawmakers he understands the pent-up desire to get back to normal as the U.S. begins emerging from months of stay-at-home orders and business shutdowns. But that has “to be a gradual step-by-step process and not throwing caution to the wind,” he said.“Plan A, don’t go in a crowd. Plan B, if you do, make sure you wear a mask,” Fauci said.Troubling surges worsened Tuesday in several states, with Arizona, California, Mississippi, Nevada and Texas setting single-day records for new coronavirus cases, and some governors saying they’ll consider reinstating restrictions or delaying plans to ease up in order to help slow the spread of the virus.Arizona, where Trump was headed for a speech at a Phoenix megachurch, reported a new daily record of nearly 3,600 additional coronavirus infections Tuesday. Arizona emerged as a COVID-19 hot spot after Republican Gov. Doug Ducey lifted his stay-home orders in mid-May. Last week he allowed cities and counties to require masks in public places and many have done so.Texas surpassed 5,000 new cases for a single day for the first time — just days after it eclipsed 4,000 new cases for the first time — as America’s largest pediatric hospital began taking adult patients to free up bed space in Houston. The infection rate in Texas has doubled since late May. And Nevada surpassed a record one-day increase for the fourth time in the past eight days. Other states also were experiencing worrisome surges, including Louisiana, Utah and South Carolina. Another worrisome trend: an increase in infections among young adults. Fauci said while COVID-19 tends to be less severe in younger people, some of them do get very sick and even die. And younger people also may be more likely to show no symptoms yet still spread the virus.If people say, “’I’m young, I’m healthy, who cares’ — you should care, not only for yourself but for the impact you might have” on sickening someone more vulnerable, Fauci said. About 2.3 million Americans have been infected and some 120,000 have died, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.Republican Rep. David McKinley of West Virginia asked if Fauci regretted that the American public wasn’t urged sooner to wear face masks, and then interrupted before the visibly annoyed scientist finished answering.Fauci said he didn’t regret the change in recommendations. Early in the pandemic there was a “paucity of equipment” for health workers “who put themselves daily in harm’s way” and “we did not want to divert” those scarce supplies, he said.Scientists eventually recommended the general public use cloth masks, after they better understood that people with no symptoms could be spreading the virus —Trump, meanwhile, doubled down on testing claims that have public health experts appalled, tweeting Tuesday: “Cases are going up in the U.S. because we are testing far more than any other country, and ever expanding. With smaller testing we would show fewer cases! “Full Coverage: Virus OutbreakLess testing in fact means more infections going undetected. The U.S. was slow in ramping up and currently is testing about 500,000 people a day. Many experts say to control the spread of the virus, it should be testing 900,000 or more.Brett Giroir, a Health and Human Services assistant secretary, told lawmakers Tuesday the next step is testing patient samples in large batches to stretch limited supplies, which would expand U.S. screening between fivefold and tenfold. Instead of testing each person individually, health workers would pool samples from 50, 100 or more people from the same office or school, for example. A negative result would clear everyone, while a positive would require each person to be individually re-tested.And Dr. Robert Redfield, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, added that it’s now recommended for workers in nursing homes — hard-hit by the virus — to be tested weekly. As for the anxiously awaited vaccine, Fauci said he believes “it will be when and not if” it arrives, and he’s “cautiously optimistic” that some vaccine could be available at the end of the year.More than a dozen vaccine candidates are in various stages of testing around the globe, and the U.S. next month is poised to begin the largest study — in 30,000 people — to get the needed proof that one really works. Meanwhile, countries, including the U.S. under a program called “Operation Warp Speed,” are beginning to stockpile millions of doses of different shots, in hopes at least some will prove usable.Health officials assured lawmakers Tuesday that there won’t be shortcuts on safety.“We absolutely must maintain regulatory independence and make the right decision for the American people based on the science and the data,” said Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn.Democrats blasted Trump for confusing the public with erroneous statements — from testing to masks to unproven treatments — and ignoring the public health experts’ advice. “It costs lives,” Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida said of Trump’s false claims. She urged the public health specialists to do more to counter the president: “We really expect you to be more outspoken.”Pushed on whether schools should reopen in August and September, Redfield insisted that will vary not just by state but by school district, depending on how many infections are in a particular area. “Many jurisdictions will be reopening schools,” and CDC will soon issue some guidelines to help, he said. Fauci noted that schools should tailor their decisions to local conditions, saying some might need few restrictions and others more. He offered the same advice to colleges, saying they should assume some students will get infected and that there must be ways to keep them and their classmates safe. |
Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocratic Senate debates merits of passion vs. pragmatism Former prisoner becomes first sworn in for seat in New York state legislature On The Money — Inflation hits highest rate since February 1982 MORE (D-N.Y.) signaled on Tuesday that Democrats are prepared to block a GOP police reform bill.Schumer, speaking from the Senate floor, sent his strongest warning yet that the Republican bill — spearheaded by Sen. Tim ScottTimothy (Tim) Eugene ScottBass would move hundreds of LAPD officers from desk jobs into patrols if elected mayor Juan Williams: GOP playing with racial fire over Supreme Court pick Graham lobbies White House on Childs for Supreme Court seat MORE (S.C.), the only Black GOP senator — will not advance and urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellRepublicans take cheap shots at Fed nominees Republicans do not have a right to remain silent White House uses GOP's own rhetoric to rebut Supreme Court criticisms MORE (R-Ky.) to back down."We Democrats are certain that the McConnell plan will not, indeed cannot, result in any legislation passing. It's clear that the Republican bill, as is, will not get 60 votes. There's overwhelming opposition to the bill in our caucus," Schumer said."Because the bill needs such large-scale and fundamental change, there is no conceivable way that a series of amendments strong enough to cure the defects in the bill garner 60 votes either. So no bill will pass as a result of this ploy by Sen. McConnell," he added.The Republican bill will get a key test vote on Wednesday, when it will need 60 votes, including at least seven Democrats, to overcome an initial procedural hurdle. Sen. Doug Jones (Ala.) is the only Democrat who has indicated that he could vote to proceed to the GOP bill, leaving Republicans short of the support needed.A growing number of Democrats, including Senate Democratic Whip Dick DurbinDick DurbinLawmakers rolling out Violence Against Women Act without 'controversial' provision Biden to meet with Senate Judiciary Democrats on Supreme Court vacancy Will Republicans apply the 'Barrett rule' to Biden's nominee? MORE (Ill.) and Sens. Kamala HarrisKamala HarrisThe allure of 'strong and wrong' Parties split on Trump, Biden bids in 2024: poll Democratic Senate debates merits of passion vs. pragmatism MORE (Calif.) and Cory BookerCory BookerCory Booker and Rosario Dawson have reportedly split Schumer asks for input as Democrats finalize cannabis bill Bass would move hundreds of LAPD officers from desk jobs into patrols if elected mayor MORE (N.J.), the only two Black Democratic senators, will vote against proceeding to the bill on Wednesday. Durbin, however, said that the caucus as a whole had not taken a position on blocking the GOP bill if it comes up for a vote now."The problem with the bill that Leader McConnell wants to put on the floor, it's not bold. It's not courageous. There is no great imagination about what we can be. It doesn't challenge us to come together. What it does is it guarantees that the cycle of violence in our country, the cycle of the abuse of civil rights, the cycle of death that has so moved so many Americans will continue," Booker said from the Senate floor. Harris added that while she would vote against proceeding to the GOP bill, she would be willing to vote to take up "real reform.""Let's proceed with action, not gestures, with action," she added. But McConnell showed no signs of backing down on Tuesday, accusing Democrats of potentially blocking the bill to make a political point."The American people expect us to do our jobs, discuss debate and legislate on this subject that has captured the nation's attention. Discussion, debate, votes on amendments. Tomorrow we'll find out whether even these modest steps are a bridge too far for our colleagues on the Democratic side," McConnell said.Sen. John CornynJohn CornynPhotos of the Week: Marking COVID-19 deaths, Mt. Etna and Olympic snowboarders Questions loom over how to form congressional staff union Lobbying world MORE (R-Texas), an advisor to McConnell, also appeared uninterested in trying to negotiate a deal ahead of the Wednesday vote, comparing Democrats to "hostage takers." "Don't they understand how the Senate operates?" he asked. "I'm not really all that interested in negotiating with hostage takers. That's what this is." Democrats say the bill falls short of calls for law enforcement reforms in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd. And after weeks of protests calling for the end of police brutality and systemic racism, they believe they have public support on their side.Schumer, Booker and Harris sent a letter to McConnell on Tuesday urging him to cancel the Wednesday vote on the bill and start negotiating with Democrats, something he previously said would not happen until the Senate had agreed to start debate on the GOP bill. “We will not meet this moment by holding a floor vote on the JUSTICE Act, nor can we simply amend this bill, which is so threadbare and lacking in substance that it does not even provide a proper baseline for negotiations. This bill is not salvageable and we need bipartisan talks to get to a constructive starting point,” they wrote.“Bringing the JUSTICE Act to the floor of the Senate is a woefully inadequate response, and we urge you to bring meaningful legislation to the floor for a vote,” they added. The GOP bill would use federal grants to try to incentivize state and local law enforcement to ban chokeholds. It also includes new reporting on the use of force by police and the use of no-knock warrants, has new penalties for not using body cameras, has new requirements on law enforcement records retention and would include a separate bill that makes lynching a federal hate crime.But Democrats say it falls woefully short, particularly by not curbing the use of no-knock warrants, and not addressing qualified immunity, which shields police officers from civil lawsuits.The House is expected to vote on the Democratic plan on Thursday, where it is expected to pass along party lines. —Updated at 12:05 p.m. |
NASCAR went to Talladega Superspeedway on heightened alert after Bubba Wallace, its only Black driver, took on an active role in a push for racial equality.Wallace had successfully called for the ban of the Confederate flag and received threats. Fans paraded past the main entrance of the Alabama track displaying the flag, and a plane circled above the speedway pulling a Confederate flag banner that read “Defund NASCAR.” So NASCAR moved quickly when one of Wallace’s crew members discovered a rope shaped like a noose in their garage stall. The sanctioning body called in federal authorities, who ruled Tuesday the rope had been hanging there since at least last October and was not a hate crime. U.S. Attorney Jay Town and FBI Special Agent in Charge Johnnie Sharp Jr. said the investigation determined “nobody could have known Mr. Wallace would be assigned” to that same stall. NASCAR said it was the lone garage stall with a pull down rope that resembled a noose.NASCAR has defended its reaction and insisted it would call the FBI again. A defiant Wallace said there is no confusion and the rope had been fashioned into a noose. “I wanted to make sure this wasn’t just a knot,” Wallace said on CNN. “It was a noose. Whether it was tied in 2019 ... it is a noose.”Wallace never saw the rope. He said NASCAR President Steve Phelps came to see him Sunday night at the track with “tears running down his face.”“The evidence he brought to me was that a hate crime has been committed,” said Wallace, who instantly began to fear for the safety of his family. Even after the FBI concluded that it was not a hate crime, Wallace remained angry at what he perceives as constant tests of his character. He holds no ill-will toward NASCAR. “I stand behind Steve and I stand behind NASCAR,” he said. “NASCAR was worried about Talladega. We had that one circled on the radar with everything going on.”NASCAR opened the Talladega gates to 5,000 fans, its highest number so far during the coronavirus pandemic. Since finding his voice over the last month, the 26-year-old Mobile, Alabama native has embraced an international role in NASCAR’s attempt to push past its rocky racial history. Wallace has worn an “I Can’t Breathe” shirt, raced with a Black Lives Matter paint scheme in Virginia and successfully lobbied for the Confederate flag ban. NASCAR assigned security to Wallace at the track. The first word of the incident came in a sharply worded statement in which NASCAR said it was “angry and outraged” over the “heinous act” that the series directly linked to racism. The FBI sent 15 agents to Talladega for Monday’s rescheduled race at the same time the industry rallied around Wallace. In an unprecedented show of solidarity, every team member on pit road lined up behind him during the national anthem. Phelps has taken exactly nine questions about the finding in Wallace’s garage and none provided any details of the incident. Because of health protocol restrictions, a limited number of personnel have access to the garage. Only a handful of Wallace’s crew members and NASCAR saw the rope. Roughly 48 hours after the discovery, federal authorities said video confirmed the rope “was in that garage as early as October 2019” hanging from a garage door. The rope was referred to as a noose, but can be used as a handle when closing the door. Phelps continued to call it a noose after authorities said no charges would be filed, and held firm in that NASCAR is investigating why the rope was tied that way. He was pleased it wasn’t a hate crime directed at Wallace, but insisted NASCAR would have conducted its investigation the same way even now knowing it was just a coincidence. “We would have done the same investigation. It was important for us to do,” he said. “The evidence was very clear that the noose that was in the garage was in there previously. The last race we had in October, that noose was present. The evidence we had, it was clear we needed to look into this.”He took no questions on the FBI’s findings. Meanwhile, Wood Brothers Racing team said it cooperated with the investigation and an employee recalled “seeing a tied handle in the garage pull down rope from last fall,” when the team had the stall. NASCAR saying it had found a noose stunned the stock car series as it takes an active position in a push for inclusion. The series first tried to ban the Confederate flag five years ago but did nothing to enforce the order. NASCAR has yet to detail how it will answer Wallace’s call to stop the display of the flag. |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday directed a federal judge to drop a criminal case against President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI, handing the Justice Department a victory in the politically charged case.Wednesday’s ruling by a three-judge panel is likely to anger Democrats, who have accused Attorney General William Barr of improperly meddling in criminal cases to help benefit the Republican Trump’s friends and political allies.A source familiar with the matter told Reuters that Wednesday’s ruling will likely be appealed to a larger panel of the federal appeals court.Trump, who has signaled a possible pardon for Flynn, welcomed the ruling. “I’m very happy about General Flynn. He was treated horribly,” Trump told reporters at the White House.In the 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Flynn and the Trump administration in preventing U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan from exercising his discretion on whether to grant the department’s motion to clear Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty.The ruling prevents Judge Sullivan from hearing arguments at a July 16 hearing from retired judge John Gleeson, whom he appointed as a “friend of the court” to argue against dropping the case.“In this case, the district court’s actions will result in specific harms to the exercise of the executive branch’s exclusive prosecutorial power,” wrote Judge Neomi Rao, who was appointed by Trump.“The contemplated proceedings would likely require the Executive to reveal the internal deliberative process behind its exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, was one of several former Trump aides charged under former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that detailed Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.Flynn twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with Russia’s then-ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.He then switched lawyers to pursue a new scorched-earth tactic that accused the FBI of entrapping him, and asked the judge to dismiss the charge.WILKINS DISSENTSJudge Robert Wilkins, an Obama administration appointee, dissented.He said the Justice Department’s flip-flop on the case raised questions that merited further scrutiny by the District Court.“In 2017, the then-Acting Attorney General told the Vice President that Flynn’s false statements ‘posed a potential compromise situation for Flynn’ with the Russians,” Wilkins wrote. “Now, in a complete reversal, the government says none of this is true.”“This is no mere about-face; it is more akin to turning around an aircraft carrier.”After the Justice Department took the highly unusual step of seeking to abandon the case against Flynn, Sullivan appointed Gleeson to argue against the Justice Department’s request.FILE PHOTO: Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn departs U.S. District Court In Washington, U.S., December 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua RobertsHe also asked Gleeson to weigh in on whether Sullivan should hold Flynn in contempt for lying when pleading guilty.Sullivan has said he cannot serve as a “rubber stamp” and must carefully review the facts in this “unprecedented” request.In the majority opinion on Wednesday, the appeals court called Sullivan’s appointment of Gleeson “troubling,” and said it was granting Flynn’s petition to get the case dismissed to “prevent the judicial usurpation of executive power.”Gleeson had urged Sullivan to proceed with sentencing Flynn and accused the department of “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” in to “provide special treatment to a favored friend and political ally of the President of the United States.”Beth Wilkinson, a veteran Washington trial lawyer who argued the case on Judge Sullivan’s behalf before the appeals court, declined to comment.Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; additional reporting by Steve Holland and Mark Hosenball; Editing by Alistair Bell and Howard Gollerfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up |
Janet Yellen, if confirmed to lead the Federal Reserve, faces the difficult task of defining when the central bank will step back from the expansive monetary programs employed over the past six years to salve the crisis-racked economy.President Barack Obama introduced Ms. Yellen, beaming at his side, as his choice to become chairwoman of the central bank when Ben Bernanke's term ends in January. Her nomination is subject to Senate confirmation. After being formally nominated by President Obama, Janet Yellen spoke about taking on the role of chairwoman of the Federal Reserve. Photo: AP "A lot of people aren't necessarily sure what the Federal Reserve does," Mr. Obama said. But thanks to the Fed under Mr. Bernanke, he added, "more families are able to afford their own home, more small businesses are able to get loans to expand and hire workers, more folks can pay their mortgages and their car loans." Related Articles Wealth of Policy Experience Personal: Born Aug. 13, 1946, in Brooklyn, N.Y.; married to George Akerlof, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics; one son, Robert Akerlof, an economist at the University of Warwick in the U.K. Education: Graduated summa cum laude from Brown University with a degree in economics in 1967 and earned a Ph.D. in economics from Yale University in 1971 Current affiliations: Vice chairwoman, Federal Reserve Board of Governors; professor emeritus at University of California, Berkeley Milestones: 1971-76 Served as assistant professor in Harvard University's economics department 1977-78 Served as economist for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, division of international finance 1978-80 Served as lecturer at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1980 Joined the faculty at UC Berkeley 1994-97 Served as Federal Reserve governor 1997-99 Served as chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers 1997-99 Served as chairwoman of the Economic Policy Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2004-10 Served as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Oct. 4, 2010-present Fed vice chairwoman under Chairman Ben Bernanke The selection of the 67-year-old Ms. Yellen was historic on many levels. In one stroke, Ms. Yellen has a chance to become the first woman to run the Fed since its founding in 1913, the most powerful economic policy maker on the globe and one of the most influential women in U.S. history. It also puts her in a position to place her stamp on one of the most inscrutable but influential institutions in the U.S. government. The Fed was established after a financial crisis in the early 20th century to provide emergency lending to banks during economic panics. Its role and powers have grown since, to regulating banks, stabilizing inflation and softening the blows of a volatile economy on the nation's workforce. According to a law passed in 1977, the Fed is assigned to achieve what is known as a "dual mandate" of maximum employment and stable prices. Tested by the 2008 financial crisis, Mr. Bernanke pushed the Fed's boundaries in his efforts to stabilize an ailing economy. But the wisdom and effectiveness of his signature programs remain subjects of intense debate inside the Fed, on Wall Street trading floors, in the boardrooms of foreign central banks and in the halls of Congress. Most hotly debated is a bond-buying program often called quantitative easing, or QE, which has vastly expanded the Fed's holdings of securities. President Obama explains why he has nominated Janet Yellen to be the next head of the Federal Reserve. Photo: AP Ms. Yellen now gets to put her own postscript on programs she helped to write. Her big decisions in the next four years will involve deciding when to pull back from these efforts. In brief comments after Mr. Obama introduced her, she suggested that she is in no hurry to pull back now. "More needs to be done to strengthen the recovery," she said in a statement. "Too many Americans still can't find a job and worry how they'll pay their bills and provide for their family." Whether the Fed can do much to help them is a central point of contention that she will need to manage with 18 other policy makers who take part in the Fed's decisions. The Fed has a simple but extraordinarily powerful tool that it uses to guide the economy: It can print money and use that money to accumulate securities. Dollar bills have the Fed's name emblazoned across their top, and in the modern digital age the Fed can deposit billions in the blink of an eye into the accounts of banks, which then filter into the economy. In normal times the Fed uses this power to manage the money supply to guide very short-term interest rates—rates that banks charge each other on overnight loans—and then lets the private sector do the rest of the work in driving credit to or away from businesses and households. Lowering the rate tends to encourage borrowing, which spurs near-term spending and investment; raising the rate tends to do the opposite. If it prints too much money, it can cheapen a dollar's value and cause inflation. During the financial crisis, the Fed pushed short-term rates to near zero in an effort to encourage economic activity even as businesses, banks and households pulled back. With Ms. Yellen's strong support, the Fed has promised to keep rates low until the unemployment rate, now 7.3%, gets below 6.5%. The Fed went a step further, using its money-printing ability to buy trillions of dollars' worth of long-term Treasury and mortgage securities in an effort to push longer-term rates even lower. Since 2006, the Fed's securities holdings have expanded from $750 billion to $3.5 trillion. Much of that increase has happened since the financial crisis ended in 2009, but some question whether it was worth the risk given the mixed results in the economy. The economy has been stuck at a meager growth rate around 2% through four years of recovery, though unemployment has fallen notably from 10% at its worst. Inflation, meantime, is running below the Fed's 2% goal, which Ms. Yellen had a role in establishing. Though the Fed has printed a great deal of money, risk-averse banks aren't lending much of it and debt-constrained consumers aren't borrowing much. |
Photos: Milestones for Women in Government The first challenge on Ms. Yellen's agenda, if confirmed, will be steering debate within the Fed about whether to start pulling back the $85 billion-a-month bond-buying program that many officials want to wind down as the unemployment rate falls. Fed officials decided at their September meeting against trimming the bond purchases. For many of the officials, that was a "relatively close call," according to minutes of the meeting released Wednesday. Later, she will need to lead discussions about when to begin raising short-term interest rates. Ms. Yellen suggested Wednesday that she brings to the job an expansive view of the Fed's responsibilities. "We can help ensure that everyone has the opportunity to work hard and build a better life," she said Wednesday at the White House. "We can ensure that inflation remains in check and doesn't undermine the benefits of a growing economy. We can and must safeguard the financial system." But some officials and private economists think the Fed needs to take a narrower view of what it can achieve with easy-money policies. Janet Yellen, shown in 2011, would put her postscript on Fed policy. Bloomberg In a statement about their goals that Ms. Yellen helped to craft in 2012, Fed officials agreed that in the long run their policies dictate the level of inflation. Most agree they can shape growth and unemployment in the short run by nudging people's borrowing plans, but the Fed said in this statement that other factors determine the economy's long-run growth rate and job gains. These factors include influences such as productivity, population growth or regulatory policies. "The limits of monetary policy are pretty clear," said Marvin Goodfriend, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business. "Monetary policy essentially over the medium- to longer-term only affects inflation." The Fed's own research suggests the bond-buying program has had modest benefits. But Ms. Yellen has argued the costs of running these programs are small. Inflation hasn't taken off, as many critics of the programs predicted would happen. The dollar has been steady compared with other currencies even as the Fed has printed trillions more, despite warnings its value would collapse. However, some officials became worried earlier this year that the Fed might be stirring new financial bubbles. "There is just a limit to what the Fed can do," said Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University professor who has known Ms. Yellen since they were co-teachers in a class on macroeconomics at Harvard in the early 1970s. He said the Fed needs to start pulling back its bond-buying programs. Mr. Feldstein argued that a better formula for reviving the economy would be a combination of long-run deficit cuts through overhauled government benefits programs combined with short-run fiscal stimulus. Those are policies the Fed doesn't control. "I do not expect bold policy initiatives from a Yellen Fed in the near term," said Christina Romer, a friend of Ms. Yellen's and former head of Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. "She has been a key architect of the current policies and so I would expect a great deal of continuity." However Ms. Romer says the critics of the Fed's easy-money policies have it wrong. The Fed should have pushed the boundaries of easy money even more aggressively to get the economy back onto its precrisis footing quicker, she said. A more aggressive Fed might have jolted the expectations of households and businesses toward better times ahead and encouraged more growth in the near term. "It would take more than an incremental change in Fed policy to really change expectations and do a lot to boost growth," she said. Write to Jon Hilsenrath at jon.hilsenrath@wsj.com Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8 |
Kentucky and New York had primaries Tuesday, but the winners of the closest races probably won’t be known until next week. What’s going on?Get used to it. Slow vote counts and delayed results are a feature of elections during the pandemic and are likely to continue into the general election in November, when many election officials say that, absent a landslide, it won’t be clear who won the presidential election for several days.“Americans need to learn a little patience,” said Josh Douglas, a law professor at the University of Kentucky who studies voter rights. “The fact of not knowing who won right away is the process actually working.”WHAT’S THE HOLDUP?In short, more Americans are voting by mail — heeding health officials’ warnings that close contact at polling places could spread the coronavirus — and mail ballots take longer to count.Officials have to process the ballots before they can count them. Election workers must open them, make sure the voter is registered and filled out the correct ballot, and perform any required security checks such as verifying signatures -- all the things that poll workers do when voters show up at neighborhood polling places.Some states have laws that limit when election officials can even start this process. In New York, election officials don’t start processing mailed ballots until after Election Day. Both New York and Kentucky plan to release the results of mail ballots on June 30, though don’t be surprised if there are further delays.Another factor is the postmark rules. In both Kentucky and New York, ballots are counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. That means ballots in Kentucky can arrive as late as Saturday while ballots in New York can arrive as late as a week after Election Day.Finally, if the signatures on the mailed-in envelopes and ballots don’t match the ones on file, voters have the opportunity to “cure” them — prove in person that they were the ones who actually sent them in. That also takes time.WHY DO WE KNOW SOME WINNERS AND NOT OTHERS?The Associated Press has long declared winners based on partial election results. But with so many outstanding votes in Kentucky and New York, the AP was only able to declare winners in the most lopsided races. Those races included Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s victory in the Republican primary in Kentucky, and New York Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s win over a challenger in the Democratic primary there.But most of the high-profile races in each state were more competitive. That’s why the AP did not call a winner on election night in the Kentucky Democratic Senate primary between Amy McGrath and Charles Booker, or in the Democratic primary in New York’s 16th Congressional District between the incumbent, Rep. Elliot Engel, and Jamaal Bowman.DOES IT HAVE TO TAKE THIS LONG TO COUNT BALLOTS?No. Some states have specifically tried to speed up the vote count. Some allow workers to process mail ballots well before Election Day, and that often means they can post the results quickly — even faster than it takes to count in-person votes cast at neighborhood polling places. But adjusting the timing of the count isn’t the only issue. Sometimes the holdup is about money. Many states are scrambling to revamp their voting systems to prepare for a flood of mail-in ballots. But spending on new equipment, additional staff, and masks and other protective equipment is hard to come by for states with budgets ravaged by the pandemic. Congress is debating whether to send money to states to help, but it’s been tied up and might not arrive soon. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR NOVEMBER?All the factors delaying the count in Kentucky and New York are present in presidential battleground states this November. Many are expected to go from a relatively low rate of mail voting to the majority of ballots being cast that way. The key swing states of Michigan and Pennsylvania have laws preventing mail votes from being processed early. And Democrats are pushing courts to require states to count ballots that arrive after Election Day, ensuring that a large number of votes wouldn’t be in election officials’ hands when polls close.That might not matter in a blowout. But the winner in a close presidential race could take days to resolve.Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has continued to cast doubt on the propriety of elections held by mail — citing no evidence, but still laying the groundwork to claim voter fraud should he be defeated at the polls.“This will be, in my opinion, the most corrupt election in the history of our country,” Trump said on Tuesday. “And we can not let this happen.”That sort of rhetoric from the president, combined with a drawn-out vote count, could sow distrust among voters. |
The U.S. on Wednesday reported a record 36,880 new coronavirus cases more than two months after its previous record for daily infections, a signal that the country is struggling to contain the pandemic.Wednesday's total is 2,000 more than on Tuesday, when 34,700 new cases of COVID-19 were reported nationally, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.New daily cases in the U.S. had hit a peak at 36,739 cases on April 24 and had consistently been on a downward trajectory for weeks until recent spikes in a slate of states, particularly in those that had enacted aggressive reopening plans.The new surge in cases is focused largely in the South and West, with Arizona, Florida and Texas reporting their largest single-day totals on Tuesday. Cases have risen in nearly two dozen states in total, including California and Washington state, which both received praise after effectively tackling some of the country’s earliest outbreaks.The surge marks a juxtaposition to other states that initially had severe outbreaks such as New York, which has since managed to flatten the curve after implementing stringent social distancing and other health measures. Governors across the country are taking an array of actions to try to blunt the spread of the highly infectious virus, with Gov. Jay InsleeJay Robert InsleeClimate will define Biden's legacy Washington state trooper dies after quitting job over vaccination requirement The Hill's Morning Report - Biden, NATO eye 'all scenarios' with Russia MORE (D) of Washington state urging residents to wear masks, wash hands and take other precautions and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) announcing Wednesday that he would pause his state’s reopening plan. However, other governors are eager to continue their reopening despite the surge, seemingly wary of the economic toll of shuttering businesses for a second time.“We are NOT overwhelmed. We are NOT currently experiencing a second wave. We have NO intentions of closing Missouri back down at this point in time,” tweeted Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R). “We continue to monitor our state-specific data on a daily basis, and we remain confident that we are on the road to recovery!”We are NOT overwhelmed.We are NOT currently experiencing a second wave.We have NO intentions of closing Missouri back down at this point in time.We continue to monitor our state-specific data on a daily basis, and we remain confident that we are on the road to recovery!— Governor Mike Parson (@GovParsonMO) June 23, 2020President TrumpDonald TrumpBlack voters are fleeing Biden in droves. Here's why Biden's Super Bowl prediction: 'Loves' Bengals' quarterback, but Rams 'hard to beat' GOP Senate candidate to run 'Let's go Brandon' ad during Super Bowl MORE has sought to downplay the spike in daily cases, saying the rise could be attributed to the increased number of tests being performed.“When you have all those tests, you have more cases,” Trump said at a rally in Phoenix on Tuesday. “We want to do testing. We want to do everything, but they use it to make us look bad.”The surge cannot be explained by increased testing alone, however, as the percentage of people testing positive for the virus has also surged. |
WASHINGTON—The Trump administration abruptly suspended plans to impose new tariffs on about $156 billion in goods from China, saying the move was driven by concerns about the impact an escalating trade fight would have on businesses and consumers ahead of the holiday shopping season.The shift fueled a rally on Wall Street, sending the Dow Jones Industrial Average up 1.44% to 26279.91. But it wasn’t immediately clear if the retreat marked a significant step toward resolving the more than yearlong trade conflict between the U.S. and China. Under the reprieve, the U.S. agreed to postpone until Dec. 15 tariffs of 10% on smartphones, laptops, toys, videogames and other products that were set to take effect on Sept. 1. The value of those goods imported in 2018 was about $156 billion, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. Tariffs on other items, including tools, apparel items and some footwear, will still go into effect on Sept. 1. Those goods had a value of about $111 billion last year, according to the analysis. The U.S. said tariffs on some products, such as bibles and shipping containers, would be removed from the tariff lists entirely. “We’re doing this for Christmas season, just in case some of the tariffs would have an impact on U.S. customers,” Mr. Trump said on Tuesday. But there were other influential factors, according to officials familiar with the decision, including the recent volatility in the stock market as trade tensions escalated this month. Before Tuesday, the Dow industrials had fallen by more than 1000 points since the disappointing trade talks in Shanghai in late July. One official involved in the current talks said U.S. importers complained they had already locked in purchases for seasonal goods from China and would have to swallow the cost of tariffs or pass them on to customers. Another senior administration official made the same point, and said the reprieve shouldn’t be seen as an olive branch toward Beijing. The U.S. is preparing to host China for face-to-face talks in Washington next month, that official said. But “these discussions aren’t going to go anywhere” if China continues to resist structural changes to ensure fair competition for U.S. businesses, the official said. The decision to suspend the tariffs came after a conference call between U.S. and Chinese negotiators, including Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. According to a statement from China’s Commerce Ministry, the call was initiated by the U.S. and the two sides agreed to meet by phone again in two weeks. The Commerce Ministry statement made no mention of plans for face-to-face talks. Trade talks have been on a roller coaster since late May, when negotiations broke down. The U.S. said China backed down on a pledge to make structural changes, such as legal measures to protect intellectual property, while Beijing said it wanted the U.S. to remove existing tariffs before committing to an accord. |
Share Your ThoughtsDo you view the delay of some tariffs as a reprieve? Why or why not? Join the conversation below. In recent weeks, negotiators have been working on a more limited deal that would have China agreeing to buy more U.S. farm products and the U.S. agreeing to ease off restrictions on China’s Huawei Telecommunications Co. In Shanghai last month, however, negotiators failed to conclude even a partial deal. That prompted Mr. Trump on Aug. 1 to threaten a new round of tariffs, followed by Beijing’s decision to let its currency depreciate in value, which makes its exports less expensive, and to suspend purchases of U.S. farm products. Mr. Trump’s senior advisers, with the exception of trade adviser Peter Navarro, had all counseled the Republican president against escalating the tariffs. Many business groups and lawmakers remain critical of Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the whiplash resulting from U.S.-China trade relations lurching between reprieves and escalations. Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) called Mr. Trump’s tariff policy incoherent and said it was “hitting American pocketbooks without changing China’s behavior.” |
Related Some Chinese manufacturers are dodging U.S. tariffs by rerouting goods to Vietnam and other countries. Here’s a look at why transshipment is on the rise, and how U.S. customs officials are struggling to stamp out the practice. Video and Photo composite: Crystal Tai Gary Shapiro, the chief executive of the Consumer Technology Association, said his group appreciated the administration’s decision to delay some tariffs. “But the uncertainty and volatility of policy based on tariffs is bad for American businesses and is bad for workers, families and the U.S. economy,” Mr. Shapiro said. Myron Brilliant, the head of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has fought Mr. Trump’s administration on tariffs, said the U.S. pullback increases chances that a limited deal could be reached on U.S. farm products and Huawei. “It gives both sides more breathing room,” Mr. Brilliant said, “as they look to get back on track.” Hopes that China could resume buying U.S. crops boosted shares of ethanol makers such as Green Plains Inc., which had banked heavily on Chinese demand for the corn-based fuel additive. Its shares were up nearly 5%. Apple Inc. also saw shares rise more than 4%, since the decision means its iPhones made in China will be spared tariffs until at least December. Apple was among the companies that registered official complaints against the tariffs. The U.S. currently imposes tariffs of 25% on about $250 billion of Chinese imports, largely on items used by businesses. Mr. Trump has characterized those tariffs as a penalty on China, but they are paid by importers in the U.S. The prospective tariffs would hit the majority of consumer goods imported from China that were spared in earlier rounds, partially to minimize the impact on U.S. retailers. Many of those goods are primarily produced in China, making it harder for U.S. businesses to avoid the tariffs. Nearly everything the U.S. imports from China will be covered by tariffs if the September and December tariffs take effect. The new tariffs, which are now being scaled back, have been described by Mr. Trump’s administration as affecting about $300 billion in goods. But actual trade in 2018 in the items affected by the tariffs was somewhat lower—closer to $267 billion—according to Wall Street Journal calculations. Not all consumer items will avoid the tariffs until December. In many categories of goods, some items will avoid higher duties while others won’t. For example, tariffs on about $13.7 billion of fabrics and apparel were postponed until the end of the year, but tariffs will still move forward on about $39 billion of such items. Tariffs will be postponed for about $22 billion of toys, games and sports equipment until December, but still hit about $5 billion of such items in September. —Anthony DeBarros contributed to this article. Write to Josh Zumbrun at Josh.Zumbrun@wsj.com, Vivian Salama at vivian.salama@wsj.com and Alex Leary at alex.leary@wsj.com Corrections & Amplifications The 2018 import value of Chinese goods subject to U.S. tariffs set to take effect on Sept. 1 is about $111 billion, and the total 2018 value of those items plus those with tariffs deferred to Dec. 15 is about $267 billion. An earlier version of this article incorrectly reported the values as $107 billion and $262 billion, respectively. (August 14, 2019) Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8 |
Getty |
More than 1 million deceased Americans received stimulus payments totaling over $1 billion, according to a government watchdog agency in a report released to Congress on Thursday. The payments were granted under the $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act to help tide Americans over as the pandemic ripped through the country and forced the economy to a halt. The payments totaled as much as $1,200 to individual taxpayers and $2,400 for married couples filing jointly. The government granted an additional $500 per qualifying child under the age of 17. The numbers are an alarming demonstration of a rushed—and flawed—payment scheme to get stimulus payments out to millions of Americans during the coronavirus crisis. Here’s what you need to know. Government Didn’t Use Death Records When Cutting Checks |
There have been previous reports of the government sending stimulus checks to the deceased, but the scale was previously unknown. The new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reveals the government disbursed a shocking amount of money to Americans who are no longer living. According to the report, 1.1 million deceased Americans received stimulus checks, totaling nearly $1.4 billion, as of April 30. |
The report found that the IRS did not use third-party data, such as death records maintained by the Social Security Administration, to check if recipients were still living for the first three batches of payments sent out. The IRS didn’t use the death records to stop payments to deceased Americans due to “the legal interpretation under which the IRS was operating,” according to the report. Though an internal working group raised questions about administering payments to deceased individuals in late March, agency lawyers determined the IRS did not have legal authority to deny payments to individuals who filed tax returns in 2018 or 2019, even if they were no longer living. Language in the CARES Act also pushed the Treasury to go forward with distributing payments to deceased relatives, according to the GAO report. The law mandated stimulus checks be paid as “rapidly as possible.” As a result, the Treasury and IRS used the policies and procedures developed to deliver stimulus payments in 2008, which did not include checking death records. |
GAO Earlier Warned of Potential Problems In 2013, the GAO brought up risks associated with not checking death records before making payments and recommended corrective actions that the IRS implemented to prevent improper payments. However, the IRS did not use those updated processes while making the 2020 stimulus payments, according to the report. “Bypassing this control for the economic impact payments, which has been in place for the past seven years, substantially increased the risk of potentially making improper payments to decedents,” the report’s authors wrote. The GAO report also raises flags about the absence of a plan to notify ineligible recipients on how to return payments. According to the GAO, the government should have enacted an outreach plan, including sending letters, since not everyone has access to the IRS website. The GAO says the IRS has the capability of sending letters, citing the example of the letters it sent to individuals about where their stimulus payments were distributed to. What to Do if You Received a Check for a Deceased Relative or Spouse Receiving a stimulus check for a deceased relative can be an unsettling situation. But it doesn’t mean that money is now yours just because the recipient is no longer alive. Individuals who don’t return checks of deceased spouses or relatives could incur a penalty and face up to 10 years in prison. If you received a stimulus payment for a deceased relative, you need to return it to the IRS immediately, according to guidance from the IRS. If you received a physical check, you should write “Void” in the endorsement section on the back of the check and mail it back to the IRS. If the payment was made via direct deposit, or by a paper check that has already been cashed, you should write out a personal check or money order and send it back to the IRS. The check will need to include specific information, like the Social Security number or Taxpayer Identification Number of who the stimulus payment was made out to, and a brief explanation of why it’s being returned. |
You can find the IRS mailing addresses under question 64: “What should I do to return an Economic Impact Payment (EIP) that was received as a direct deposit or paper check?” on the Economic Impact Payment Information Center website. The entire payment for a deceased individual will need to be returned unless the payment was made to joint filers and one of the spouses is still living. In that case, only the portion of the payment for the deceased individual will need to be returned, according to the IRS. That amount would be equal to $1,200 unless the adjusted gross income of the couple exceeded $150,000. If an individual cannot deposit a stimulus check because it’s issued to both spouses and one is deceased, they can return the check and have it reissued by including a note explaining the situation. Bottom Line A government watchdog report finds the IRS sent $1.4 billion in stimulus checks to over 1 million deceased Americans. The report states the IRS does not currently have a process in place to notify ineligible recipients or families that they do not qualify for the checks. If you received a check for a deceased relative or spouse, the payment should be returned to the IRS immediately or else there could be legal consequences. |
WASHINGTON—The Senate's top Democrat and Republican opened negotiations on Saturday aimed at avoiding a U.S. debt crisis and reopening the government, marking a new chapter and new urgency in efforts to resolve the political stalemate in Congress.The talks between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) were their first face-to-face negotiations since the government shutdown began on Oct. 1, and showed a changed dynamic in the Capitol. House Republicans, a dominant force in budget battles, have been sidelined after withdrawing many of their policy demands, only to see President Barack Obama reject their proposal for ending the impasse. House Speaker John Boehner, shown with Rep. David Schweikert (R., Ariz.), met with fellow Republicans Saturday in a closed-door meeting. Associated Press |
Budget Battle Instead, the focus has turned to the Senate, where members of both parties had started talks in recent days on a compromise proposal, before discussions were elevated to Messrs. Reid and McConnell on Saturday. "The real conversation that matters now is the one that's taking place between McConnell and Reid," said Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.). The two Senate leaders met around 9 a.m. on Saturday for about 45 minutes, along with Sens. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.). Mr. Reid said Mr. Alexander called him on Friday night to initiate the talks at Mr. McConnell's request. "This should be seen as something very positive, even though we don't have anything done yet and a long ways to go before anything like that will happen," Mr. Reid said Saturday afternoon. Senate Democratic leaders met for about an hour and a half with the president and his top aides to discuss strategy for the negotiations. Also attending the meeting were White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, deputy staff chief Rob Nabors, and Sylvia Mathews Burwell, director of the Office of Management and Budget. The talks came against a backdrop of rising public frustration with the partial government shutdown, now in its 12th day, and market anxiety about the prospect of a U.S. debt default. The Treasury says that by Thursday it will have exhausted emergency measures and be left with only about $30 billion to pay the nation's bills, which could run out in a week or two. Senate leaders gave no firm deadline to reach a deal, but said they hoped to resolve the situation over the next two days. They made clear they were aware that the uncertainty shrouding the debt ceiling could worry investors when the market reopens Monday. "We don't know when the market will react to this," Mr. Schumer said. Senate leaders were still working Saturday to reach an agreement on the biggest questions underpinning any deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling, aides said. Lawmakers must decide how long to reopen the government and at what spending level, as well as how long to extend the country's borrowing limit. Democrats don't want to agree to a plan that keeps the government running for an extended period that locks in a set of across-the-board cuts known as the sequester, Mr. Schumer said. Any deal that the Senate settles on is sure to present a quandary to conservative House Republicans: It is likely to fall short of the policy demands they have been seeking, but will likely arrive shortly before Oct. 17, leaving little time for further negotiations. In the Senate, Democratic leaders rejected a proposal from one of the chamber's least-conservative Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, that had appeared to be gaining momentum, drawing interest from some Democratic senators. The Collins plan called for extending the nation's borrowing authority through January and opening the government through March. But the measure would have done nothing to undo the sequester, a top Democratic priority. It also would have repealed a tax on medical devices imposed under the 2010 federal health law, a proposition Republicans favor but many Democrats don't. After Democrats on Saturday rejected the Collins plan, attention shifted to the bipartisan negotiations between the top party leaders. "What I hope is that Sen. McConnell and Sen. Reid will work together to come up with a way for us to open the government and pay our bills and reduce our debt," said Mr. Alexander. "If they can do that over the next few hours, the country will be better off." Many House lawmakers have left Washington for the weekend, a further indication that the Senate was building the likeliest avenue toward a resolution. They return for votes on Monday evening. Conservative lawmakers were already bracing Saturday for a Senate proposal they would find disappointing, if not unacceptable. To many, the Collins plan was insufficiently conservative, and the talks between Messrs. Reid and McConnell seemed likely to move it further toward Democratic policy goals. When House Republicans heard details of the Collins proposal in Saturday's meeting, there were "a lot of nods of agreement and understanding that this is a bad idea," said Rep. John Fleming (R., La.). "It's a nonstarter with us. We'd never go along with that." Also Saturday, a bill to extend the country's borrowing limit through the end of 2014 failed in the Senate on a procedural vote that fell along partisan lines. Republicans were unlikely to back the measure while their top party leaders were in negotiations on the debt ceiling, and no GOP senators voted for it. The measure to raise the debt ceiling, which included no other policy proposals, fell short of securing the 60 votes required to open debate on it, failing to advance on a 53-45 vote. Mr. Reid voted against the measure for procedural reasons, which leaves the option of bringing the measure to the Senate floor in the future. House Republicans learned on Saturday that Mr. Obama had rejected their proposal for ending the stalemate. They painted a far more negative picture of the state of their talks with the White House than had emerged on Friday, when the White House had said Mr. Obama "had some concerns'' about the plan but that the two sides would keep talking. On Saturday, GOP lawmakers and aides said Mr. Obama had essentially rejected everything offered by House Republicans in their proposal. "I am disappointed the president has rejected the offer that we put on the table," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.). He added: "He's trying to see which Republican senator he can pick off in the Senate. I hope that the Senate Republicans stand strong so we can speak with one voice." House Republicans had told Mr. Obama on Thursday that they were willing to extend the nation's borrowing authority for six weeks and begin talks to reopen the government in exchange for the start of negotiations on broader fiscal issues in which the GOP would press for a range of deficit-reduction steps and changes to the health-care law, according to a House GOP aide. That proposal marked a major concession from House Republicans, who only weeks ago had been aiming to use the political stalemate as leverage to undermine Mr. Obama's signature legislative achievement, the 2010 health-care law. They also appeared to step back from a demand that any increase in the debt ceiling be paired with deficit-cutting measures. On Saturday, some House Republicans said they still wanted any agreement to include changes to the 2010 health law, a top priority that had given way among Republicans in recent days in favor of attempts to win deficit-reduction measures. They were disappointed that Senate Republicans were considering funding the government through March, rather than for a shorter period. "It's a huge cave," said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R., N.C.). Reopening the government for six months would remove "the forced element of negotiations, and allows most of the Obamacare provisions to go into effect without us having any ability to negotiate," he said. Federal agencies were forced to suspend many activities and place hundreds of thousands of workers on furlough on Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, after Congress failed to pass a bill to fund the government. Public frustration with the stalemate has been high, opinion polls show, and markets are wary. The Treasury says lawmakers must lift the debt ceiling this month, or it will be unable to pay all the nation's bills. A landmark comes on Thursday, the date by which the Treasury says it will have exhausted emergency measures and be left with only about $30 billion to pay bills, which could run out in a week or two. Write to Patrick O'Connor at patrick.oconnor@wsj.com and Kristina Peterson at kristina.peterson@dowjones.com Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8 |
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas and Florida reversed course and clamped down on bars again Friday in the nation’s biggest retreat yet as the daily number of confirmed coronavirus infections in the U.S. surged to an all-time high of 40,000.Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ordered all bars closed, while Florida banned alcohol at such establishments. The two states joined the small but growing list of those that are either backtracking or putting any further reopenings of their economies on hold because of a comeback by the virus, mostly in the South and West.Health experts have said a disturbingly large number of cases are being seen among young people who are going out again, often without wearing masks or observing other social-distancing rules.“It is clear that the rise in cases is largely driven by certain types of activities, including Texans congregating in bars,” Abbott said.Abbott had pursued up to now one of the most aggressive reopening schedules of any governor. The Republican not only resisted calls to order masks be worn but also refused until last week to let local governments take such measures.“The doctors told us at the time, and told anyone who would listen, this will be a disaster. And it has been,” said Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins, a Democrat who is the county’s top official. “Once again, the governor is slow to act. He is now being forced to do the things that we’ve been demanding that he do for the last month and a half.” |
Stocks fell sharply on Wall Street again over the surging case numbers. The Dow Jones Industrial Average shed 730 points, or nearly 3%.Texas reported more than 17,000 new cases in the past three days, with a record high of nearly 6,000 on Thursday. The second-largest state also sets records daily for hospitalizations, surpassing 5,000 coronavirus patients for the first time Friday.In Florida, under GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis, the agency that regulates bars acted after the daily number of new confirmed cases neared 9,000, almost doubling the record set just two days earlier.Colleen Corbett, a 30-year-old bartender at two places in Tampa, said that she was disappointed and worried about being unemployed again but that the restrictions are the right move. Most customers were not wearing masks, she said.“It was like they forgot there was a pandemic or just stopped caring,” Corbett said.A number of the hardest-hit states, including Arizona and Arkansas, have Republican governors who have resisted mask-wearing requirements and have largely echoed President Donald Trump’s desire to reopen the economy quickly amid warnings the virus could come storming back.The White House coronavirus task force, led by Vice President Mike Pence, held its first briefing in nearly two months, and Pence gave assurances that the U.S. is “in a much better place” than it was two months ago. He said the country has more medical supplies on hand, a smaller share of patients are being hospitalized, and deaths are much lower than they were in the spring.The count of new confirmed infections, provided by Johns Hopkins University, eclipsed the previous high of 36,400, set on April 24, during one of the deadliest stretches. Newly reported cases per day have risen on average about 60 percent over the past two weeks, according to an Associated Press analysis.While the rise partly reflects expanded testing, experts say there is ample evidence the scourge is making a comeback, including rising deaths and hospitalizations in parts of the country and higher percentages of tests coming back positive for the virus.At the task force briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-disease expert, urged people to mind their responsibility to others: “A risk for you is not just isolated to you.” Deaths from the coronavirus in the U.S. are running at about 600 per day, down from a peak of around 2,200 in mid-April. Some experts have expressed doubt that deaths will return to that level, because of advances in treatment and prevention and because younger adults are more likely than older ones to survive.The virus is blamed for about 125,000 deaths and nearly 2.5 million confirmed infections nationwide, by Johns Hopkins’ count. But health officials believe the true number of infections is about 10 times higher. Worldwide, the virus has claimed close to a half-million lives.Louisiana reported its second one-day spike of more than 1,300 cases his week. The increasing numbers led Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards this week to suspend further easing of restrictions. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey did the same in Arizona, where cases are topping 3,000 a day and 85% of hospital beds are occupied.For the second time in a week, Tennessee reported its biggest one-day jump in confirmed infections, with more than 1,400, but Republican Gov. Bill Lee has been reluctant to reinstate restrictions or call for a mask mandate.In Texas, Abbott also scaled back restaurant capacity, shut down rafting operations and said any outdoor gatherings of more than 100 people will need approval from local officials.DeSantis has been lifting restrictions more slowly than a task force recommended but has allowed theme parks to reopen, encouraged professional sports to come to Florida and pushed for the GOP convention to be held in the Sunshine State.In a reversal of fortune, New York said it is offering equipment and other help to Arizona, Texas and Florida, noting that other states came to its aid when it was in the throes of the deadliest outbreak in the nation this spring.“We will never forget that graciousness, and we will repay it any way we can,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo said.Globally, another record daily increase in India pushed the caseload in the world’s second most populous nation toward half a million. And other countries with big populations like Indonesia, Pakistan and Mexico grappled with large numbers of infections and strained health care systems.___Smith reported from Providence, Rhode Island. Associated Press journalists around the world contributed to this report.Full Coverage: Virus Outbreak |
This post was last updated at 7:19 p.m. ET. House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio arrives on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Susan Walsh/AP hide caption toggle caption Susan Walsh/AP House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio arrives on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Susan Walsh/AP After an hour-long meeting with President Obama, Republicans said they have agreed to keep talking, in hopes of bridging a gulf that has already led to a government shutdown and is threatening the first default in U.S. history. House Speaker John Boehner and 19 other Republicans came to the White House meeting with an offer to pass a temporary extension of the $16.7 trillion debt ceiling in exchange for substantive negotiations with Democrats on other fiscal matters. But their proposal did not reopen the government, which the Democrats have insisted on. Speaking in the House after his meeting with Obama, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Republican from Virginia, said the meeting was "very productive" and that negotiations would continue through the night. NPR's Tamara Keith summed it up this way on Twitter: "White House and House GOP appear to have agreed to negotiate about negotiating. Teams meeting tonight." Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said: "We had a long, frank conversation about it and we agreed to continue talking and continue negotiating. So [Obama] didn't say no; he didn't say yes." Earlier today, after his own meeting with Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, seemed to throw some cold water on the offer, saying Democrats will not sit down to negotiate with the GOP, until they extend the debt ceiling — even if for a short period — and agree to re-open the government. When asked if Obama wanted the government open before he would agree to anything, Rep. Hal Rogers, a Republican from Kentucky who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, said Obama had not put it "quite that hard." "We had a good, frank discussion, clarifying issues on both sides. We agreed to try to find the conditions for a [continuing resolution] in order to end the shutdown," Rogers added. Tamara tells us that in the Capitol, tonight, there is "a sense of urgency that we've not seen before." The GOP plan calls for a six-week extension of the debt ceiling that, if implemented, would remove the immediate threat to financial markets. But the deal has nothing to do with a temporary spending measure, known as a continuing resolution, that would restart the federal government, which has been partially shut down since last week. Tamara says the proposal for a short-term deal on the debt ceiling is only because "House Republicans want to continue to have urgency in the discussions." "They don't want this to drag on for six weeks and then have to have another extension," she says. "They really want, they say, to get to some sort of a deal — some sort of a grand bargain, not-so-grand bargain, something that deals with more than just the budget." The proposal followed a morning gathering of the House Republican caucus and came just ahead of a meeting between key House GOP lawmakers and President Obama at the White House. The White House and Democrats had wanted a "clean" resolution to restore funding to government operations and raise the debt ceiling, but a substantial bloc of conservative Republicans in the House have insisted that such a temporary spending measure be tied to defunding and/or delaying the Affordable Care Act. The deal outlined by Republicans is similar to one detailed on Wednesday by Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, in an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal. In it, Ryan calls for talks with the president and congressional Democrats on Social Security and Medicare reform, and simplifying the tax code. Asked what it would take for Republicans to end the government shutdown, Boehner said, "That's why we're going to talk to the president." He added: "I don't want to put anything on the table or take anything off the table." Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California told CNN shortly before the announcement that "a short-term deal may just land us right back to where we are two months from now." "If push comes to shove and it's either default or a short-term deal, it's very difficult to choose default," Schiff said. In testimony earlier Thursday before the Senate Finance Committee, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew warned of catastrophic consequences if the debt ceiling isn't raised before Oct. 17 and the U.S. is unable to pay its bills on time. Update at 6:59 p.m. ET. Didn't Say No, Didn't Say Yes: Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, said that they put a proposal in front of Obama but it sounded like they came out of the meeting and landed in essentially the same spot. "We had a long, frank conversation about it and we agreed to continue talking and continue negotiating. So [Obama] didn't say no; he didn't say yes." Update at 6:54 p.m. ET. Negotiate About Negotiating: So just what came out of a meeting between Obama and Republican leaders? NPR's Tamara Keith summed it up this way on Twitter: "White House and House GOP appear to have agreed to negotiate about negotiating. Teams meeting tonight." Update at 6:18 p.m. ET. Republican Lawmakers Leave White House: Without making any statement, Republican lawmakers, including Speaker Boehner, filed out of the White House, according to Reuters, the AP and CNN. What that means is unclear. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, of Virginia, told the AP that the meeting with Obama was useful and "we expect further conversations tonight." It's also unclear whether those conversations involve the White House or just his caucus. Update at 3:51 p.m. ET. 'Not Gonna Happen': While today's proposal was said to be "encouraging" by the White House, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid emerged from his meeting with Obama, the mood seemed starkly different. He was asked by a reporter if Democrats would sit down with Republicans, while the government was still shut down. "Not gonna happen," Reid said, bluntly. In other words, Democrats are sticking to their bottom line: that they will not negotiate with Republicans until Republicans agree to raise the debt ceiling — even if for a short time — and agree to pass a clean continuing resolution that opens up the government without any language on the Affordable Care Act. Update At 1:05 p.m. ET. White House Calls Proposal 'An Encouraging Sign' White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday that the president was "happy" that Republicans had offered something but "we don't know" what Boehner can get passed. "Cooler heads seem to be prevailing," he said. "It would be far better if we stop playing this periodic brinksmanship," Carney said. "It's an encouraging sign ... that they're not listening to the default deniers," he said. "We'll see what they are able to pass," Carney said. He said trying to tie government funding and raising the debt ceiling to the repeal of Obamacare was "a fool's errand, and the people who are paying are hard-working Americans." Asked whether the president would reject any agreement that did not reopen the government, Carney was evasive. "You're asking me hypotheticals," he said. |
WASHINGTON—Senate leaders attempting to avoid a U.S. debt default remained at loggerheads Sunday and escalated the standoff by reopening the contentious issue of automatic spending cuts, damping hopes that some of Congress's most canny negotiators would break the impasse.As the search for a way to end the partial federal shutdown and avoid a debt crisis shifted to the Senate, Democrats made plain that one of their top priorities was to diminish the next round of across-the-board spending cuts, known as the sequester, due to take effect early next year. Many Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), oppose retreating from those cuts. That set up a clash that seemed almost as intense as the one that caused budget talks between House Republicans and President Barack Obama to collapse Friday. "Total federal spending has now gone down for two years in a row—the first time that's happened since the Korean War,'' Mr. McConnell said Sunday. With the additional sequestration cuts on tap for 2014, the budget limits have produced "the most significant spending reduction in modern history and Senate Republicans will not accept anything that undoes these cuts." The talks took place amid high public frustration and increasing market wariness. The Treasury says that on Thursday it will be left with $30 billion in cash to pay the government's bills, an amount that could run out in a week or two. Lawmakers are trying to reach agreement to raise the nation's statutory borrowing limit—the debt ceiling—and end the partial shutdown that began Oct. 1. The talks also showed Senate Democrats moving aggressively to press their top priorities in a pact that would be presented to the Republican-controlled House at a moment when voting it down could put the nation closer to potential default. Senate Democrats have been strengthened by the sidelining, at least for now, of House conservatives, who dropped nearly all their major policy demands only to see Mr. Obama reject their proposal for ending the stalemate. With Senate leaders now negotiating, the fiscal battle focused for the first time in weeks on the budget itself, not on side issues that had dominated, such as the Republican demand that the 2010 health-care law be delayed or altered. Republicans who had opposed the GOP's "defund Obamacare'' strategy welcomed the return of interest to basic spending issues. "I think we have finally gotten to a really good place,'' said Sen. Bob Corker (R. Tenn.). "Now's the time for all of us to focus on the right page, the right paragraph to get this done.'' But the focus on spending brought the parties back to the impasse that has divided them for months: Whether or not they can agree to a broad deficit-reduction deal to replace the scheduled across-the-board spending cuts. Mr. McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) conferred by phone Sunday, people familiar with the talks said, after meeting Saturday for their first face-to-face negotiations since the government shutdown began. Federal workers protested the shutdown on Sunday near the Capitol. Reuters Mr. Reid struck an upbeat note on Sunday, but gave no indication that either side had budged from its core demands. "Our discussions were substantive,'' he said. "I'm optimistic about the prospects for a positive conclusion.'' Lawmakers said they would watch Monday's opening of financial markets to see whether investors, already jittery, show greater concern. That, in turn, could affect the climate for further negotiations. Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said that investors may have been assuming Congress would devise an 11th-hour compromise, rescuing the economy like a damsel being plucked from the tracks before an oncoming train. "As we start hearing the train whistle, I think that there may be a different view,'' Mr. Durbin said. Many senators had thought the outlines of a deal were coming together in a bill drafted by Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), which would have funded the government until mid-March and raised the debt limit through January. The plan also included changes to the health-care law, delaying a tax on medical devices designed to help fund the law and tightening enforcement of income-eligibility rules for people receiving government subsidies for insurance. Those changes were far more modest than Republicans demanded earlier. Mr. Reid rejected the plan, in part because he didn't want the fiscal measures to include concessions on the health law. But Democrats say their biggest objection was that it would make it more difficult to reach their long-held goal: to replace some of the across-the-board sequester cuts with a broader budget deal that would include tax-revenue increases and cuts in entitlement programs. Mr. McConnell on Sunday upbraided Mr. Reid for rejecting the Collins proposal, saying, "It's time for Democrat leaders to take 'yes' for an answer.'' After Mr. McConnell suggested the Collins plan had drawn significant Democratic support, the six Democrats who has been working with Ms. Collins on her proposal issued a statement declaring that they hadn't yet signed on. "We do not support the proposal in its current form,'' the six senators said. "There are negotiations, but there is no agreement." In another sign of Democrats' efforts to forge party unity at a delicate stage of negotiations, White House officials said Mr. Obama on Sunday called House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) to review budget strategy, as he did in an Oval Office meeting with Senate Democratic leaders Saturday. Mr. Corker warned that Democrats may be overreaching by trying to revise the sequester cuts set by the Budget Control Act of 2011, and he urged the party to stick to the most urgent fiscal issues. "There's no question that House Republicans overreached in trying to use this negotiation to repeal a [health care] bill that was very central to the president's agenda,'' said Mr. Corker. "The same thing is happening on the Democratic side among Senate leadership as pushed by the White House. They're trying to now undo a law put in place in 2011, the Budget Control Act.'' Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) suggested that lawmakers could pass a short-term funding bill with a path for resolving the parties' differences over the sequester cuts. Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), left, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid address reporters at a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday. Reuters "So, how do you overcome that dilemma? We're not going to overcome it in the next day or two," Mr. Schumer said on CBS. "But if we were to open up the government for a period of time that concluded before the [next] sequester took place, which is Jan. 15, we could have a whole bunch of discussions, and I am more optimistic than most." That pointed to a possible compromise that sources familiar with Senate budget talks said that Mr. Reid floated to Mr. McConnell on Sunday: Continue spending at current levels until mid-December, set up a mechanism for negotiating over the across-the-board cuts and other budget matters for the rest of the year, and extend the debt limit for about six months. It wasn't immediately clear what Mr. McConnell's response was. Mr. Reid disputed the suggestion that Democrats were proposing to breach established spending caps, noting they had passed a bill that would extend current funding levels through Nov. 15. Beyond that, Democrats are hoping to find deficit-reduction savings in other areas to replace future sequester cuts. —Kristina Peterson contributed to this article. Write to Janet Hook at janet.hook@wsj.com Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8 |
U.S. troops wait for their helicopter flight at an Afghan National Army (ANA) base in Logar province, Afghanistan August 7, 2018. REUTERS/Omar Sobhani/FilesWASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence has concluded that the Russian military offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants in Afghanistan to kill American troops and other coalition forces, the New York Times reported on Friday, citing officials briefed on the matter.A Russian military intelligence unit linked to assassination attempts in Europe had offered rewards for successful attacks last year, according to the newspaper. It said Islamist militants, or armed criminal elements closely associated with them, are believed to have collected some bounty money.“This primitive informational dump clearly demonstrates low intellectual abilities of the propagandists at the American intelligence service,” Russia’s foreign ministry said in a statement cited by the RIA news agency.The White House, the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined requests from Reuters for comment on the newspaper report.President Donald Trump has been briefed on the intelligence finding, the Times said. The White House has yet to authorize any steps against Russia in response to the bounties, it added.Of the 20 Americans killed in combat in 2019, the Times said, it was not clear which deaths were under suspicion.After nearly 20 years of fighting the Taliban, the U.S. is looking for a way to extricate itself from Afghanistan and to achieve peace between the U.S.-backed government and the militant group, which controls swathes of the country.On Feb. 29, the U.S. and the Taliban struck a deal that called for a phased withdrawal of American troops.U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan is down to nearly 8,600, well ahead of a schedule agreed with the Taliban, in part because of concerns about the spread of coronavirus, U.S. and NATO officials said in late May.Reporting by Eric Beech; Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed, Mark Hosenball, Jeff Mason and Vladimir Soldatkin; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Mike Harrisonfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans are growing increasingly aware of racial inequality in the United States, but a large majority still oppose the use of one-time payments, known as reparations, to tackle the persistent wealth gap between Black and white citizens.Marcie Hampton and Rod West show their children Major, 5, and Maya, 7, the place where the first Africans arrived in Virginia in 1619, on Juneteenth, which commemorates the end of slavery in Texas, two years after the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves elsewhere in the United States, amid nationwide protests against racial inequality in Hampton, Virginia, U.S. June 19, 2020. REUTERS/Julia RendlemanAccording to Reuters/Ipsos polls this month, only one in five respondents agreed the United States should use “taxpayer money to pay damages to descendants of enslaved people in the United States.”Calls are growing from some politicians, academics and economists for such payments to be made to an estimated 40 million African Americans, amid an expanding discussion about race in America. Any federal reparations program could cost trillions of dollars, they estimate.Supporters say such payments would act as acknowledgement of the value of the forced, unpaid labor that supported the economy of Southern U.S. states until the Civil War ended slavery in 1865, the broken promise of land grants after the war and the burden of the century and a half of legal and de facto segregation that followed.A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday showed clear divisions along partisan and racial lines, with only one in 10 white respondents supporting the idea and half of Black respondents endorsing it.Republicans were heavily opposed, at nearly 80%, while about one in three Democrats supported it. The poll did not ask respondents why they answered the way they did. Other critics have said too much time has passed since slavery was outlawed, and expressed confusion about how it would work.“I’m not racist and think it’s an insult for someone to pay me or anyone else strictly based on the color of their skin,”Burgess Owens, a retired National Football League player and a Republican candidate for Congress from Utah, told Reuters on Wednesday.‘WHAT DO THEY MEAN?’“Those who say they care about slavery should be leading the charge to save the 30 million men, women and children enslaved today around the world” by sex trafficking and other evils, said Owens, an African American.Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized the idea last year, saying that “none of us currently living are responsible” for slavery, which he calls America’s “original sin.”Asked about reparations during a 2019 Democratic presidential debate, progressive Senator Bernie Sanders asked: “What does that mean? ... I don’t think anyone’s been very clear.”On Wednesday, St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard said: “To promote racial economic equity, we as a nation must consider structural or institutional responses.”Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has said he would support a commission studying the feasibility of the idea. Some local governments and academic institutions are starting here programs of their own, and Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee said another hearing on the issue would occur in Congress this year.“Doubters may not have had slaves yesterday, or a decade ago or 100 years ago, but any wealth they hold or expect to gain only exists because of the institution of slavery,” Jackson Lee told Reuters.Reparations have been used in other circumstances to offset large moral and economic debts - paid to Japanese Americans interned during World War Two, to families of Holocaust survivors in Germany and to Blacks in post-apartheid South Africa.Formal proposals in the United States have been more narrowly cast, such as using existing social programs, for example, but increasing the amount of support for those who live in areas of persistent poverty.U.S. SHIFTS ON RACEThe mood surrounding racial issues may be shifting, Reuters polls showed, with more Americans agreeing with the idea that Black people are still treated unfairly, and supporting the specific complaints about police behavior raised by groups like Black Lives Matter.Seventy-two percent of Reuters/Ipsos poll respondents in a survey last week said they understood “why Black Americans do not trust the police,” up 17 points from a similar poll in May 2015. Fifty-nine percent of Americans said police were too violent when handling people suspected of crimes, up 15 points from a similar poll in July 2016.The polls were conducted after the May 25 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody ignited national and international protests against police brutality and racial injustice.The economic crash caused by the coronavirus pandemic has also focused attention on gaps in economic outcomes between Black and white Americans, despite decades of efforts to prevent discrimination in hiring, housing and education.Black adults have been hit harder by job losses in recent months, reversing recent progress in closing the roughly 2-1 gap in unemployment rates with white Americans - a racial wedge that has existed for as long as joblessness has been calculated.Median income for Black families is about 57% that of white ones, a gap that compounds over time into dramatic differences in wealth as well.The failure of efforts to offset inequality, beginning with broken promises of farmland for freed slaves after the Civil War, “laid the foundation for the enormous contemporary gap in wealth between Black and White people in the U.S.,” Duke University economist William Darity and writer A. Kirsten Mullen argued in their April book “From Here to Equality.”The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 1,115 adults about their feelings on slavery reparations and asked 4,426 adults about racial issues in a separate poll that ran June 10 to 16. The polls had a credibility interval, a measure of precision of between 2 and 3 percentage points.Reporting by Katanga Johnson; Additional reporting by Howard Schneider and Chris Kahn; Editing by Heather Timmons and Peter Cooneyfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up |
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenCory Booker and Rosario Dawson have reportedly split US ups estimate of Russian forces on Ukraine border to 130,000 Harris heads to Munich at pivotal moment MORE's campaign has more people of color among its senior staff than President TrumpDonald TrumpBlack voters are fleeing Biden in droves. Here's why Biden's Super Bowl prediction: 'Loves' Bengals' quarterback, but Rams 'hard to beat' GOP Senate candidate to run 'Let's go Brandon' ad during Super Bowl MORE's reelection effort, according to data regarding the diversity of their staffs. Thirty-five percent of Biden’s full-time staff are people of color, the campaign told The Hill Sunday. Among senior staff, 36 percent are people of color, according to the campaign. By comparison, 25 percent of President Trump’s campaign’s senior staff are people of color, the campaign told The Hill. The Trump campaign did not release information regarding the percentage of people of color on its full-time staff. Both campaigns also said a small majority of their full-time and senior staff are women. The Biden campaign said that 53 percent of full-time staff and 58 percent of senior staff identify as female. According to the Trump campaign, 52 percent of full-time staff are women and 56 percent of senior staff are women. Senior staff includes department heads, senior advisors, deputy campaign managers, and senior consultants who spend the majority of their time on the campaign, according to the Biden campaign. Biden’s campaign said it is still continuing the hiring process and expects to add key leaders across the campaign. Biden’s campaign released the data after he was pressed about the information during a town hall focusing on issues affecting Asian American and Pacific Islander communities, according to CNN. "We'll release the diversity data today when we get off this call. We'll call you, and the fact of the matter is we have a very diverse staff. And we have a diverse staff that goes across the board, in high level and senior positions," Biden reportedly said during the town hall. |
President TrumpDonald TrumpBlack voters are fleeing Biden in droves. Here's why Biden's Super Bowl prediction: 'Loves' Bengals' quarterback, but Rams 'hard to beat' GOP Senate candidate to run 'Let's go Brandon' ad during Super Bowl MORE claimed in a late-night tweet that he was not briefed on intelligence about a Russian unit offering bounties on American service members in Afghanistan because the U.S. intelligence community deemed the information not credible.Trump also suggested that details of the intelligence, first reported by The New York Times on Friday, may have been fabricated by the media in order to “make Republicans look bad.”“Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP,” Trump tweeted late Sunday night. “Possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News @nytimesbooks, wanting to make Republicans look bad!!!”Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP. Possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News @nytimesbooks, wanting to make Republicans look bad!!! https://t.co/cowOmP7T1S— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2020Neither the White House nor the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) have directly addressed the credibility of the intelligence as described but have disputed the Times’s account that Trump was briefed on the information. Representatives for the ODNI and CIA did not immediately return requests for comment Monday about the president’s claim that intelligence officials informed him the information was deemed not credible.White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said on “Fox & Friends” Monday that Congress would be briefed on the matter, without offering further details on who specifically would participate in the briefing. McEnany did not comment on the details of the intelligence but suggested that it had not been deemed "verifiable and credible" in denying that Trump had been briefed on the information.“Intelligence, we don’t comment on it routinely but just so you know how it works, it is vetted for its veracity and it only goes to the president and the high-level officials when it is deemed as verifiable and credible,” McEnany said.Trump’s tweet Sunday came shortly after The Washington Post reported that intelligence assessments concluded that the Russian payments offered to Taliban-linked militants led to the deaths of U.S. service members in Afghanistan.The Times reported Friday that the intelligence community concluded months ago that the Russian intelligence unit known as the GRU secretly offered payments to Taliban-linked militants for successful attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan last year. The newspaper reported that Trump had been briefed on the intelligence and that officials had deliberated potential response options but that the White House hadn’t authorized any further action.The revelations quickly prompted criticism of Trump, who has been consistently scrutinized for his friendliness toward Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinPope leads crowd in silent prayer for Ukraine US officials warn diplomatic efforts are 'shrinking' amid Russia-Ukraine tensions If Russia invades Ukraine, what's next? MORE and resistance to taking firm action against Moscow over its interference in the 2016 presidential election.“His entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale,” presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenCory Booker and Rosario Dawson have reportedly split US ups estimate of Russian forces on Ukraine border to 130,000 Harris heads to Munich at pivotal moment MORE said during a virtual town hall on Saturday. “It’s betrayal of the most sacred duty we bear as a nation to protect and equip our troops when we send them into harm’s way. It’s a betrayal of every single American family with a loved one serving in Afghanistan or anywhere overseas.”The White House on Saturday denied that Trump or Vice President Pence was briefed on the intelligence but did not refute the accuracy of the intelligence as described by the Times and other news outlets.“The United States receives thousands of intelligence reports a day and they are subject to strict scrutiny. While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the CIA Director, National Security Advisor, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence,” McEnany said in a statement.“This does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence but to the inaccuracy of the New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter,” McEnany continued.Thereafter, Director of National Intelligence John RatcliffeJohn Lee RatcliffeSunday shows preview: US deploys troops, briefs lawmakers amid Russia-Ukraine tensions Sunday shows preview: Justice Breyer announces retirement from Supreme Court We need scientific analysis of satellite data on UAP MORE, who was just recently installed in the top intelligence post by Trump, issued a statement backing the White House but did not comment on the substance of the intelligence reported by the Times.Updated at 10:20 a.m. |
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comMay 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is preparing to authorize Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and German partner BioNTech SE's (22UAy.DE) COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents aged between 12 and 15 years by early next week, the New York Times reported on Monday, citing federal officials familiar with the agency's plans.An approval is highly anticipated after the drugmakers said in March that the vaccine was found to be safe, effective and produced robust antibody responses in 12- to 15-year-olds in a clinical trial.Responding to a Reuters request for comment, the FDA said its review of expanding the vaccine's emergency use authorization is ongoing, but did not provide further details.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comThe vaccine has already been cleared in the United States for people aged 16 and above. (https://reut.rs/3nLH8Fj)Pfizer declined to comment on the NYT report.Vials of Pfizer's coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine are seen at a pop-up community vaccination center at the Gateway World Christian Center in Valley Stream, New York, U.S., February 23, 2021. REUTERS/Brendan McDermidThe U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky said earlier in April that the vaccine could be approved by mid-May.If an approval for the 12-15 year olds is granted, the CDC's vaccine advisory panel will likely meet the following day to review the clinical trial data and make recommendations for the vaccine's use in adolescents, the report added. (https://nyti.ms/3eclRld)A potential approval of the vaccine would boost the country's immunization drive and help allay fears of parents anxious to protect their children from COVID-19.Moderna Inc (MRNA.O) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) are also testing their vaccines in 12- to 18-year olds, with data from Moderna's trial expected to come soon.Pfizer and Moderna have also launched trials in even younger children, aged six months to 11 years old. Both companies have said they hope to be able to vaccinate children under 11 as soon as early 2022.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Trisha Roy in Bengaluru; Editing by Devika SyamnathOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. |
JERUSALEM (AP) — With a push from President Donald Trump, Israel on Thursday barred two Muslim-American congresswomen from entering the country for a visit, an extraordinary step bringing the longtime U.S. ally into Trump’s domestic fight against political rivals at home.The U.S. president is essentially relying on Israel to retaliate against two freshman lawmakers, Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who are both outspoken critics of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. They are also part of the “squad” of liberal newcomers -- all women of color -- whom Trump has labeled the face of the Democratic Party as he runs for reelection.It’s a glaring departure from the tradition of American politicians leaving domestic disputes at the water’s edge.For Israel, the willingness to side so pointedly with Trump marks a deeper foray into America’s bitterly polarized politics and risks its relationship with Congress. Blocking the visits of two lawmakers appears to be unprecedented.Israel announced the ban shortly after Trump tweeted that “it would show great weakness” if the two were allowed to visit. Asked later if he had spoken to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he said, “I did talk to people over there,” but he declined to say to whom.In Israel, Netanyahu said his country remains “open to critics and criticism,” except for those who advocate boycotts against it. The congresswomen support a Palestinian-led boycott and divestment movement.Netanyahu said Tlaib and Omar were leaders in promoting boycott legislation and their itinerary “revealed that they planned a visit whose sole objective is to strengthen the boycott against us and deny Israel’s legitimacy.”Democrats in Congress denounced his move as a reversal of previous assurances by the Israeli ambassador to the United States that, “out of respect for the U.S. Congress,” no lawmakers would be denied entry.Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the snub “beneath the dignity of the great State of Israel.” The California Democrat, long a supporter of Israel, called the decision “deeply disappointing.”Shortly before the decision was announced, Trump said the congresswomen “hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds.” He called them “a disgrace,” an insult he has used repeatedly for them.Top ranking Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York said Israel’s action was a sign of weakness instead of strength — the reverse of Trump’s judgment — and “will only hurt the U.S.-Israeli relationship and support for Israel in America.”Trump’s GOP allies in Congress were more muted, with few raising objections. Republicans have joined the president in trying to stamp Omar, Tlaib and other members of the “squad” of four new, liberal lawmakers as the heart of the Democratic Party.The influential pro-Israel American lobby group, AIPAC, suggested the action Thursday was a step too far.“We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib’s support for the anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS movement, along with Rep. Tlaib’s calls for a one-state solution,” AIPAC said on Twitter. “We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel firsthand.”The two lawmakers had planned to visit Jerusalem and the West Bank on a tour organized by a Palestinian organization aimed at highlighting the plight of the Palestinians. It was not immediately clear if they had planned to meet with Israeli officials, and spokespeople.Omar denounced the decision as “an affront” and “an insult to democratic values.”“This is not a surprise given the public positions of Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has consistently resisted peace efforts, restricted the freedom of movement of Palestinians, limited public knowledge of the brutal realities of the occupation and aligned himself with Islamophobes like Donald Trump,” she said in a statement.Tlaib, whose family immigrated to the United States from the West Bank, where she still has close relatives, tweeted a photo of her grandmother and said she has the right to live “in peace & with human dignity.”Israel said it would consider any request from Tlaib to visit relatives on humanitarian grounds.The U.S. ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, endorsed the decision after it was made, saying Israel “has every right to protect its borders” against promoters of boycotts.Blocking them is the latest escalation of Israel’s campaign against the BDS movement, which advocates boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israeli businesses, universities and cultural institutions.Supporters of the boycott movement say it is a non-violent way to protest Israeli policies and call for Palestinian rights. Critics say the effort aims to delegitimize Israel and ultimately erase it from the map, replacing it with a binational state.The controversy could further sharpen divisions among Democrats over Israel ahead of the 2020 elections. Republicans have amplified the views of left-wing Democrats like Tlaib and Omar to present the party as deeply divided and at odds with Israel. Democratic leaders have pushed back. The Democratic-led House voted overwhelmingly in July in favor of a resolution against the BDS movement.Israel often hosts delegations of U.S. representatives and senators, who usually meet with senior Israeli officials as well as Palestinian officials in the occupied West Bank. Israel controls entry and exit points to the West Bank. The Palestinians seek these territories for a future state.MIFTAH, the Palestinian organization that was to host Tlaib and Omar in the West Bank, issued a statement saying that Israel’s decision was “an affront to the American people and their representatives” and “an assault on the Palestinian people’s right to reach out to decision-makers and other actors from around the world.”Tlaib and Omar have been the target of repeated verbal attacks by Trump, including a series of tweets in which he said they should “go back” to the “broken” countries they came from. Both are U.S. citizens and Tlaib was born in the U.S.___Lisa Mascaro reported from Washington. Follow Ilan Ben Zion on Twitter at www.twitter.com/IlanBenZion |
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether to give wealthy Americans even more clout in Congress by lifting the legal limit on how much they can give to candidates and their parties, with the outcome seeming likely to depend on Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Through most of the arguments in case, the justices sounded as though they were closely split along the usual ideological lines. Conservatives spoke of political free speech while liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg worried that only the voice of the "super-affluent" will be heard in Washington. Roberts said he was wary of giving donors the freedom to write checks for millions of dollars to party officials. However, he also said he did not see why individuals cannot give significant contributions to dozens of candidates, which current limits would not allow. Three years ago, a majority of the justices, led by Roberts, said in the Citizens United case that "independent" spending on elections was a form of free speech protected by the Constitution. That ruling struck down long-standing bans on election such spending by corporations and unions. But though that case opened the door to more widespread spending, it stopped short of striking down the Watergate-era limits on how much donors can give directly to candidates or party committees. That has left the law in an odd posture. Wealthy people who want to influence campaign races can give millions of dollars to "super PACs" and other groups that pay for "independent" election ads, but they are barred by law from giving more than a total of $48,600 total to all members of Congress or more than $74,600 to various party committees. Lawyers for the Republican National Committee and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the court should now take the next step and lift those "aggregate" contribution limits. "This is severe restriction on speech," said attorney Bobby Burchfield, representing McConnell, the Senate's Republican leader. If the court were to lift the total limit on contributions, a single donor could give $3.6 million to be spread among hundreds of candidates for Congress and several party committees. Justice Antonin Scalia said he did not see a problem with putting more money into the political system. Considering the billions of dollars that are spent during election years, "I don't think $3.5 million is a lot of money," he said. Justice Elena Kagan disagreed, saying the money would buy undue influence. "If you give $3.5 million, you get a very special place at the table," she said. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., representing the Obama administration, urged the court to uphold the limits and prevent "massive contributions" to candidates and parties. Otherwise, he said, there is a "very real risk" of having "a government by and for the 500 people" who will write the $3-million checks to party officials. As the case moved to the high court, defenders of the election laws have been sounding the alarm. "It would be terrible for our democracy ... if one politician could directly solicit $3.6 million from a single donor," said Lawrence Norden, an election-law expert with the Brennan Center, a liberal legal advocacy group in New York. "That is 70 times the median income for an American family. It would mean a tiny, tiny group of donors would wield unprecedented power and influence." Already, the money that funds election races for Congress and the presidency comes from a small sliver of the very rich, what the Sunlight Foundation called the "elite class that serves as gatekeepers of public office in the United States." The nonpartisan group has tracked how a growing share of election money comes from the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans. The existing limits stand on shaky ground with the justices. In recent opinions, Roberts has said the government may not try to "level the playing field" between candidates or prevent well-funded candidates from using their financial advantage to dominate the airwaves. The only justification for limiting contributions, the court has said, is to prevent "corruption or the appearance of corruption." That theme of corruption is the one that defenders of the current limits have stressed. Fred Wertheimer, a longtime champion of the campaign funding laws, remains optimistic that the limits will survive -- and because of Roberts. Roberts "is likely to be the key vote in deciding this case," Wertheimer said, and he "has a different record on campaign finance issues than his conservative colleagues." However, Wertheimer added, "if the Supreme Court reverses its past position and strikes down the long-standing aggregate contribution limits, it will open the door wide to corruption of our federal officeholders and government decisions." The challengers deny that, arguing that there is no threat of corruption if one wealthy person gives the maximum $5,200 to each of more than 460 candidates who run for the House and Senate next year. "This is a limit on how many candidates you support, not on how much you give them," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney for the Republican National Committee. He cites the case of McCutcheon, an Alabama man who gave a total of $33,000 to various Republican candidates for Congress last year and wanted to give $21,000 more. He was stopped by the legal limit on total contributions to candidates, which now stands at $48,600. McCutcheon "holds firm convictions on the proper role of government" and "opposes numerous and ill-conceived and overreaching laws," he told the court, and he wants more "federal officeholders who share his beliefs." Elections U.S. Congress U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts U.S. Senate Antonin Scalia Ruth Bader Ginsburg |
Insurers say the federal health-care marketplace is generating flawed data that is straining their ability to handle even the trickle of enrollees who have gotten through so far, in a sign that technological problems extend further than the website traffic and software issues already identified.Emerging errors include duplicate enrollments, spouses reported as children, missing data fields and suspect eligibility determinations, say executives at more than a dozen health plans. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Nebraska said it had to hire temporary workers to contact new customers directly to resolve inaccuracies in submissions. Medical Mutual of Ohio said one customer had successfully signed up for three of its plans. The flaws could do lasting damage to the law if customers are deterred from signing up or mistakenly believe they have obtained coverage. "The longer this takes to resolve…the harder it will be to get people to [come back and] sign up," said Aetna Inc. Chief Executive Mark Bertolini. "It's not off to a great start," he said, though he believes the marketplaces are "here to stay." Find Your State's Health-Insurance Exchange See Who Explored the Exchanges The new troubles for the Affordable Care Act arrive as Washington's attention is expected to sharply shift toward scrutiny of the site's rocky rollout, whose problems had been overshadowed by a two-week brawl over the government shutdown and debt ceiling. Pressure is rising on the Obama administration to fix the problems. A number of Republicans have urged Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, to resign. Prominent Democrats, including House Ways and Means ranking member Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.), have called for fixes to be accelerated. The White House has said it has full confidence in Ms. Sebelius. HHS, which is running all or part of the marketplaces in 36 states, has repeatedly declined to answer specific questions about its handling of the rollout, including specific glitches, enrollment figures, or its plans to fix the problems. "We know that people are enrolling in coverage and the system works. As individual problems are raised by insurers, we work aggressively to address them," HHS spokeswoman Joanne Peters said Thursday. Health-department officials have pressured insurers to refrain from commenting publicly about the problems, according to executives at four health plans, who asked not to be named. The HHS declined to comment. In prolonging the battles over the budget and debt ceiling, "all Republicans did was give [President Obama] great cover for the complete screw-up on the opening of the exchanges," said Gail Wilensky, a Medicare director in the administration of George H.W. Bush and UnitedHealth Group Inc. board member. But the persistence of the technological problems could force a steeper political price for the Obama administration as Republican lawmakers redirect their focus. The GOP-led House Energy and Commerce Committee announced Thursday night it would hold a hearing next week on the rollout of the law and called on HHS to "voluntarily" make officials available after the secretary's staff said she couldn't come. Ms Peters, the HHS spokeswoman, said the department intended to be "responsive" to the request. Under the law, most Americans would have to buy coverage starting next year, or pay a fine. Insurers say the federal health-care marketplace is generating flawed data that is straining their ability to handle enrollees, in a sign that technological issues go further than traffic and software issues. Christopher Weaver reports. Photo: Getty Images. Supporters of the law said they were frustrated by the lack of answers from the administration. "I wish they would explain what the technical problems are and how they intend to fix them," said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and a longtime defender of the overhaul. The latest round of problems has emerged after a technical bottleneck that blocked many potential customers from accessing the marketplace began to clear this week. People familiar with the development of the exchange said some technical problems improved this week. Of 209,000 users who began to register on healthcare.gov on Monday or Tuesday of this week, just over one-quarter finished the process, according to an estimate made by the analytics firm comScore for The Wall Street Journal. In the first week, only 10% did so. The estimates are based on a sampling of Internet users tracked by the company. As more of those users attempted to sign up for plans this week, insurers began noticing problems with enrollment data. For now, they say they are largely able to manually correct the errors. But as enrollment increases—up to 7 million consumers are expected to sign up in the next 5½ months—that may not be possible, they worry. Scott & White Health Plan in Temple, Texas, has received 25 enrollees from the federally run exchange so far. "There are some missing data elements that are requiring a lot of research on our part," said Allan Einboden, the health plan's chief executive. "If we'd received 5,000 and they all had to be worked, that's a lot of extra administrative costs," said Mr. Einboden, who said he expects the problems to be fixed. After realizing that some applications listed up to three spouses in a single family, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Nebraska, which has about 50 health-law enrollees, had to "stop those enrollments from going through the automated process," said Matt Leonard, the insurer's sales manager. "It takes an automated process and turns it into a manual process," he said. At Priority Health in Michigan, health-plan staff are calling new customers to confirm each of their "couple of dozen" enrollees accurately picked the plan, said Joan Budden, chief marketing officer, after realizing some had enrolled in multiple health plans, likely owing to user error linked to slow healthcare.gov response times. "Sometimes they pushed the [submit] button three times," Ms. Budden said. Sioux Falls, S.D.,-based Avera Health Plans has called each of its 21 incoming customers to make sure the data are correct. As consumers struggle to navigate healthcare.gov, some health-plan executives worry that only the sickest—those who most expect to need insurance—will persist in seeking coverage. If younger consumers who are on the fence about buying coverage find the process too onerous, insurers may end up with too few healthier members to offset the costs of less-healthy enrollees. Tara Seidenberg, a 48-year-old paralegal from suburban Houston with multiple sclerosis, says she is likely to put up with all kinds of hurdles to buy coverage. After days of failed attempts to sign up on healthcare.gov, she is taking a break to wait for the glitches to resolve. She takes medications that cost $4,600 a month and her current coverage won't be available next year. "I'm pretty much guaranteed to try it again," Ms. Seidenberg said. —Timothy W. Martin and Joel Schectman contributed to this article. Write to Christopher Weaver at christopher.weaver@wsj.com and Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@wsj.com Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8 |
NEW YORK (Reuters) - When U.S. schools begin the next academic year with the country still fighting the coronavirus pandemic, students should spend half their time in classrooms and half doing online activities that pinpoint their individual learning style such as videos or reading.That advice comes from Nimish Mathur, 17, and his team from DuPont Manual High School in Louisville, Kentucky.The “I’m So Confused Gang” team submitted its idea for re-opening school in the age of COVID-19 to a competition sponsored by Discover Your Genius (DYG), a nonprofit company that challenges young people to solve real-world business problems.First place and $1,500 in prize money went to Team Finn from Northwood High School in Irvine, California, DYG announced on Monday. Team Finn members included Miya Liu, Matthew Kim, Helena Zhou, all 16, and Henry Chen, 17. The rest of the winners from the competition, which involved team members age 13 to 24 from 23 states vying for a piece of the $5,000 prize, will be announced on Tuesday.Mathur’s team would use any winnings to buy a URL to activate their website, Virtual Aristotle. It was named after the Greek philosopher and a teacher of Alexander the Great, who became ruler of the ancient kingdom of Macedonia.“We were looking at how Aristotle personally tutored Alexander the Great. That inspired us,” Mathur told Reuters.“We were like, ‘Wow. How can we put that in a website so that everyone can have their own personal tutoring experience?’” said Mathur.The coronavirus pandemic that locked down U.S. businesses and schools starting in March gave a challenging assignment to the nation’s roughly 57 million K-12 students and 20 million college students, and the educators tasked with teaching them. They had to find ways to learn everything generally taught in a classroom but remotely, typically using digital links to teachers and instructional material.As the 2019-20 school year drew to a close, critics pronounced remote learning a failure for younger pupils. Students lost as much as one-third of their expected progress in reading and as much as half in math, according to a working paper from the non-profit NWEA, Brown University and the University of Virginia.The declines were particularly steep for less affluent communities or far-flung communities with less access to home digital technology, researchers said.Looking ahead, some districts like Denver public schools expect to offer both remote and in-person classes in the fall, in part to accommodate parents who do not feel comfortable sending their children into classrooms during a pandemic.About four in 10 parents and teachers oppose returning to school until a vaccine is available, according to a USA Today/Ipsos poll released in May.With the start of the 2020-21 school year just two months away, many school leaders and education boards are scrambling to make opening plans amid countless unknowns about how the virus spreads.Some experts said the best ideas may come from students themselves, like those in the DYG competition. They noted that schoolchildren have risen to safety challenges before, particularly in response to mass shootings.“Student input is critical,” said Sandra Chafouleas, a psychology professor at University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education. “We can’t just assume that we know best because we are the adults.”The Louisville team’s Virtual Aristotle website is designed to be used by grades K-12. Half of each class would learn remotely for half the week before switching schedules with the rest of the class, keeping classrooms sparsely filled so students can self-distance to thwart virus spread.It would also help students prepare for another round of 100% remote learning if a second wave of the virus hits, Mathur added.Writing by Barbara Goldberg; Editing by David Gregoriofor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up |
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio (right), and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., enter a Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday. Jacquelyn Martin/AP hide caption toggle caption Jacquelyn Martin/AP House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio (right), and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., enter a Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday. Jacquelyn Martin/AP By letting the House take up the Senate's fiscal cliff-dodging legislation that raises income tax rates on the wealthiest earners, Speaker John Boehner answered affirmatively a question that had been on many minds: Would he allow an up-or-down floor vote on a bill opposed by most fellow House Republicans? Until the New Year's Day vote, Boehner had generally operated the House under what was known as the Hastert Rule. Named for former Speaker Dennis Hastert, it required a "majority of the majority" to support legislation before the speaker approved a floor vote. But in the case of the fiscal cliff legislation passed by the House in a 257-167 vote, the majority of the majority opposed the bill, in large part because it lacked the significant spending cuts they desired. Its 151 House GOP opponents even included members of Boehner's leadership team — Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of California. That Boehner, from Ohio, allowed the House to vote on the Senate bill arguably sets a precedent for his speakership, and perhaps gives a preview of what could be the shape of things to come. Or maybe it just sets a precedent for the most contentious legislation, whose passage is deemed crucial to keep the economic recovery alive and otherwise keep at bay a parade of horribles. Sarah Binder, a George Washington University political scientist, wrote on The Monkey Cage blog that there appears to be a new House rule book. "On one of the most important House votes of the year, the minority ruled. The Hastert Rule (go forward only with the support of a majority of the majority party) has been displaced (at least for now) by the Boehner Rule (sometimes a majority of the majority has to be rolled for the sake of the party's reputation)." Of course, this assumes that Boehner gets to retain his speakership in the new 113th Congress, which is sworn in Thursday. There is plenty of conservative outrage — including accusations that Boehner doesn't represent them — and renewed calls for his ouster as speaker. But you can find plenty of people, including Republican House members, who think Boehner will keep the speaker's gavel in the new Congress. Speaking on C-SPAN Wednesday morning, Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, said: "I don't think you'll see a change in the speakership. The real question is: Are the next two years under the Boehner speakership ... will the next two years of leadership be like the previous two years of leadership? The conservatives in the party really feel like we're losing the spending battle. "We have not cut spending. In fact, the one place we were supposed to cut spending was on the sequester [or spending cuts that were supposed to start with the new year's arrival]. But that got delayed [because of the deal]. So our question as conservatives is, when are we going to start this battle over spending? We've waited two years now. We're not going to wait much longer." While conservatives like Mulvaney are clearly restive, it appears there isn't a large-scale mutiny brewing within the House Republican conference to oust Boehner in the way Newt Gingrich was forced out in January 1999. But Boehner's power could be tested soon if he needs to again rely on House Democrats to deliver votes needed to pass other controversial legislation in coming weeks — like the postponed spending cuts of the fiscal cliff sequester, or raising the nation's debt ceiling. It's not universally accepted that the divisions within the House Republican conference will again require Boehner to get Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's help in getting crucial fiscal legislation across the finish line. Speaking Wednesday with All Things Considered co-host Robert Siegel, Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said he didn't see what happened with the New Year's Day vote as foreshadowing what's likely to happen in coming weeks and months. "I would expect the deals going forward to be majority Republican and minority Democrat as opposed to the other way around," Cole said. The lawmaker explained that legislation with tax hikes for the rich and a lack of spending cuts was terrain favoring Democrats, as he saw it. By contrast, bills that push spending cuts and entitlement reforms will be more Republican-friendly battleground, Cole said. Cole said he expects Boehner will be re-elected speaker, in part because of the lack of a plausible alternative. It's worth noting that Boehner never vowed that he would only bring legislation to a floor vote if he had a majority of a majority. Weeks before he assumed the speakership in 2011, a reporter asked him at a news conference if he would abide by the Hastert Rule. Boehner said: "I'm — I'm going to run the House my way, work with members on both sides of the aisle to decide what should come to the floor and what shouldn't come to the floor. I don't think we need to just set up hard rules and hard walls that just get in the way of doing the will of the American people. If we're open with — to each other and we're willing to listen to the American people, we'll have — we'll have good debate every day, and we'll have a healthy outcome." And even Hastert or his successor, Pelosi, diverged from that rule at times. As the Associated Press' Charles Babington wrote: "Pelosi, as House speaker in 2006, violated the 'majority of the majority' rule by letting Republicans provide most of the votes for an Iraq war funding measure she disliked. "Hastert, the Republican speaker from 1999 to 2007, overrode the rule at least twice. In one case, he let Democratic votes carry the load on a stem cell research bill everyone knew President George W. Bush would veto. Hastert also yielded to pressure to let the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill pass even though most House Republicans opposed it." |
A placard saying, Abortion is a Human Right, is seen during the "Stop The Bans Day of Action for Abortion Rights" rally in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC.Michael Brochstein | SOPA Images | LightRocket via Getty ImagesThe Supreme Court on Monday voted 5-4 to strike down a restrictive Louisiana abortion measure in a major win for reproductive rights activists, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court's four liberals. Justice Stephen Breyer, who authored an opinion joined by his fellow Democratic appointees, wrote that the law placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions. Roberts wrote separately to say his thinking was based on the court's 2016 decision to strike down a similar law in Texas.The case involved a Louisiana abortion law requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. Challengers of the law alleged the restriction would limit the state to just one abortion provider at a single clinic.Breyer wrote that the law posed a "substantial obstacle" on women and provided "no significant health-related benefits," and therefore was unconstitutional.The dispute was the first over abortion to be argued before President Donald Trump's two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenged the Louisiana abortion law at the top court, said in a statement that "we're relieved that the Louisiana law has been blocked today but we're concerned about tomorrow.""With this win, the clinics in Louisiana can stay open to serve the one million women of reproductive age in the state. But the Court's decision could embolden states to pass even more restrictive laws when clarity is needed if abortion rights are to be protected," Northup said. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican said in a statement that the top court had "continued its heartbreaking line of decisions that places 'access' to abortion above the health and safety of women and girls.""It is deeply disappointing that the Chief Justice continues a pattern of inconsistent and groundless decisions," Landry said. "In his misguided effort to convince the public that the Supreme Court is not political, Justice Roberts shows how political it actually is."Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat who voted in favor of the abortion law while in the Louisiana House of Representatives, said in a statement that he was "disappointed" with the Supreme Court's ruling but that he respected the decision "and trust that Louisiana and our nation will continue to move forward."Anti-abortion groups immediately criticized the decision.Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, called the ruling a "bitter disappointment.""It demonstrates once again the failure of the Supreme Court to allow the American people to protect the well-being of women from the tentacles of a brutal and profit-seeking abortion industry," Dannenfelser said. Dannenfelser said the Supreme Court decision "reinforces just how important Supreme Court judges are to advancing the pro-life cause" and called it "imperative that we re-elect President Trump and our pro-life majority in the U.S. Senate so we can further restore the judiciary, most especially the Supreme Court." The case is the third in a string of major victories for liberals at the high court that have come in the midst of an election battle between Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Earlier this month, Roberts joined the court's four Democratic appointees rebuffing the Trump administration's effort to terminate the Obama-era immigration program known as DACA.Also in June, Roberts and Gorsuch sided with the four liberals in a decision that held that gay and transgender workers can't be fired on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Trump campaigned on nominating justices who would "automatically" overturn the landmark abortion decision Roe v. Wade, and the Department of Justice supported Louisiana in the case.White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany called the ruling "unfortunate.""States have legitimate interests in regulating any medical procedure — including abortions — to protect patient safety," McEnany said in a statement. "Instead of valuing fundamental democratic principles, unelected Justices have intruded on the sovereign prerogatives of State governments by imposing their own policy preference in favor of abortion to override legitimate abortion safety regulations"A federal judge declared the Louisiana law unconstitutional in 2017, but that decision was reversed by a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court put the appeals court ruling on hold last year while it considered the case. Roberts cites 2016 abortion case from TexasRoberts said his vote with the liberals on Monday was based on the top court's precedent in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a case the court decided in 2016. In that case, the court struck down a nearly identical Texas law by a 5-3 vote. Roberts voted at the time to uphold the law. But in his opinion on Monday, Roberts said that the legal doctrine known as stare decisis, or the principle of adhering to precedent, "requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.""The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons," Roberts wrote. "Therefore Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents."Justice Samuel Alito, joined by fellow conservatives Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that it was true that the Louisiana case and the Texas case "have something in common.""In both, the abortion right recognized in this Court's decisions is used like a bulldozer to flatten legal rules that stand in the way," he wrote. Thomas, in his own dissent, wrote that the Louisiana law was "perfectly legitimate" and criticized his colleagues for perpetuating "its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence.""Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled," Thomas wrote. The case is June Medical Services v. Russo, No. 18-1323. |
"There's no sugarcoating it: The website has been too slow," President Obama said at the White House on Monday. Obama said the health care system's online problems are being addressed. Evan Vucci/AP hide caption toggle caption Evan Vucci/AP "There's no sugarcoating it: The website has been too slow," President Obama said at the White House on Monday. Obama said the health care system's online problems are being addressed. Evan Vucci/AP The website that's meant to allow Americans to shop and sign up for new medical plans under the Affordable Care Act isn't working as well as it should, President Obama says. But he promised that the problems will be fixed — and he said the Affordable Care Act is bringing many benefits that aren't tied to those problems. "Nobody is madder than me that the website isn't working as it should — which means that it's going to get fixed," Obama told a crowd at an outdoor address at the White House. Since it went into effect at the start of October, the new system's HealthCare.gov website has been the subject of numerous complaints, as many users reported problems creating an account or logging in. Others say they got confusing error messages. Acknowledging the problems Monday, the president said, "There's no sugarcoating it: The website has been too slow" and people have had trouble navigating it. The problems were "aggravated" by the high level of traffic to the website, Obama said. Update at 2:50 p.m. ET: Sebelius Will Testify On Hill After initially resisting Republicans' requests to testify about the Affordable Care Act in Congress this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will appear before a House panel discuss the problems with the website. NPR's Julie Rovner reports for our Newscast unit: "HHS officials said Sebelius had a scheduling conflict and could not appear at a hearing called this Thursday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But with pressure building over problems with the website the federal government built to enroll people in 36 states, HHS now says the secretary will work with the committee to find a day for her or other department officials to appear as early as next week." As The Hill reports, House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans have been pressing Sebelius to testify. "Americans are looking for accountability," Boehner said after the president's remarks today. Our original post continues: The HealthCare.gov website has attracted more than 19 million unique visits, the Department of Health and Human Services reported Sunday. But the agency acknowledged that the online experience has been "frustrating." An early attempt to address the online system's problems backfired, when "a virtual 'waiting room' " caused more confusion, HHS said. The president spoke in the Rose Garden at the White House in an address that began around 11:30 a.m. ET. He was introduced by small-business owner Janice Baker, the first person to enroll in the new health program in the state of Delaware. Baker said she is saving money on the new plan. Reading letters aloud with similar stories, the president said the problems aren't with the Affordable Care Act but with the website — and that those issues are being addressed. And he said the health care overhaul has already begun helping Americans, such as senior citizens who Obama says are now saving money on their prescriptions. "You may not have noticed them, but you've got them," the president said of such benefits. And, he said, "they're not connected to a website." The president also stressed that the signup process has just begun for the coverage plans, which are set to take effect in January. And he said his administration has added more staff to call centers to help people who have questions or problems using the system. "We've got people working overtime, 24-7," he said. Obama recited the phone number — twice — for those call centers: 1-800-318-2596. "You can talk to someone directly, and they can walk you through the application process," he said. A prominent link to that and other phone numbers was added to HealthCare.gov over the weekend. The Department of Health and Human Services says it is "defining new test processes to prevent new issues from cropping up as we improve the overall service and deploying fixes to the site during off-peak hours on a regular basis." If you're curious about the plans, you could also use NPR's Obamacare cost calculator, which we published last month. |
President TrumpDonald TrumpBlack voters are fleeing Biden in droves. Here's why Biden's Super Bowl prediction: 'Loves' Bengals' quarterback, but Rams 'hard to beat' GOP Senate candidate to run 'Let's go Brandon' ad during Super Bowl MORE on Wednesday signed an executive order intended to improve the child welfare system, seeking to strengthen foster care and adoption programs amid the coronavirus pandemic.The order, which Trump signed in the Oval Office without media present, aims to improve transparency and oversight and increase collaboration between public, private and faith-based groups that focus on child welfare."Among other changes, the Order seeks to increase partnerships between public, private, faith-based, and community organizations to help keep families together and, when that is not possible, to find children forever families," the White House said in a news release announcing the order.The measure directs Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar to assist care-givers by increasing the availability of trauma-informed training, expanding educational options and addressing barriers to accessing federal funding.The order also attempts to improve federal oversight of child welfare requirements by putting HHS in charge of advising states on the use of federal funds to support legal representation for parents and kids.First lady Melania TrumpMelania TrumpHillicon Valley — FCC nominee faces divided Senate panel Former Trump press aide Sarah Matthews appears before Jan. 6 panel Parler announces social media 'special arrangement' with Melania Trump MORE praised the order in a tweet, noting that the child welfare system "is responsible for creating safe & stable homes for more than 400,000 children."It comes as foster care and adoption agencies across the U.S. struggle with effects related to the coronavirus pandemic. The Associated Press reported that family court proceedings have been interrupted by the outbreak, routine visits for biological parents have been disrupted, and some agencies have reported having difficulty recruiting potential foster parents.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took issue with parts of the order that urge collaboration with faith-based agencies, noting the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the fall over whether Philadelphia is allowed to exclude Catholic services that refused to allow same-sex couples to become foster parents from the city's foster care system."While the Trump administration talks about the need for more foster parents, it is making arguments at the Supreme Court and authorizing discrimination in federally funded foster care programs that could result in many prospective parents being turned away by agencies for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to care for a child," Leslie Cooper, deputy director of the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, said in a statement. |
Two big problems hit the Obama White House on Oct. 1: the government shutdown, which saw hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed, national parks closed, and other disruptions. And the launch of the Affordable Care Act, which was always going to be tricky.The first problem was solved – temporarily, at least – when Republicans and Democrats worked out a stopgap spending deal, also heading off (for now) a government default on its debts. By most accounts, the White House came out the winner, although President Obama was careful not to beat his chest too much about it.The second problem – the president’s signature achievement so far, known as “Obamacare” – has only gotten worse.The White House reported this weekend that about 19 million people have visited HealthCare.gov and 476,000 individuals have applied online for health insurance.But officials have yet to say how many people have actually bought a policy. In any case, it's a long way from the 7 million people the administration wants to see enrolled for health insurance through online exchanges during the six-month sign-up period.Computer “glitches” seem massive. USA Today reports that "the federal health care exchange was built using 10-year-old technology that may require constant fixes and updates for the next six months and the eventual overhaul of the entire system."Mr. Obama, presumably, has been asking sharp questions of his staff."I think that there's no one more frustrated than the president at the difficulty in the website," Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said on NBC's “Meet the Press” Sunday.The coming week should see significant political activity surrounding Obamacare.Obama is scheduled to speak about it at a health-care event Monday.House Republicans, who had predicted for months that Obamacare implementation would be a “train wreck,” have scheduled the first hearings into the severe flaws in the computer system for this coming week, Politico.com reports. So far Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has declined to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.“As the news continues to get worse, it’s time for Secretary Sebelius to provide answers to Congress,” the committee said in a statement Friday. Republican lawmakers are particularly miffed that Secretary Sebelius went on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” but so far has declined to appear before Congress.“Ultimately, Secretary Sebelius will testify,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D) of Illinois told “Fox News Sunday,” although he did not say if “ultimately” might include this Thursday’s scheduled hearing in the House.Democrats like Senator Durbin and other party leaders in Congress are in an embarrassing spot – having to publicly support a program that not all favored.“What has happened is unacceptable,” House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." “There is much that needs to be done to correct the situation.""This has to be fixed but what doesn't have to be fixed is the fact that tens of millions more people will have access to affordable quality health care," she added.The answer, Sen. John McCain said on CNN Sunday, is to “send Air Force One out to Silicon Valley, load it up with some smart people, bring them back to Washington, and fix this problem.”Apparently, that’s sort of what the administration has in mind.In a blog post Sunday, the Department of Health and Human Services said this:“Our team is bringing in some of the best and brightest from both inside and outside government to scrub in with the team and help improve HealthCare.gov.“We’re also putting in place tools and processes to aggressively monitor and identify parts of HealthCare.gov where individuals are encountering errors or having difficulty using the site, so we can prioritize and fix them.“We are also defining new test processes to prevent new issues from cropping up as we improve the overall service and deploying fixes to the site during off-peak hours on a regular basis.”“The initial consumer experience of HealthCare.gov has not lived up to the expectations of the American people,” HHS said – an acknowledgment with which there is universal agreement. |
Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence. The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump’s written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues at the time that he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March 2019. The White House didn’t respond to questions about Trump or other officials’ awareness of Russia’s provocations in 2019. The White House has said Trump wasn’t — and still hasn’t been — briefed on the intelligence assessments because they haven’t been fully verified. However, it’s rare for intelligence to be confirmed without a shadow of a doubt before it is presented to top officials. Bolton declined to comment Monday when asked by the AP if he’d briefed Trump about the matter in 2019. On Sunday, he suggested to NBC that Trump was claiming ignorance of Russia’s provocations to justify his administration’s lack of response. “He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it,” Bolton said.The revelations cast new doubt on the White House’s efforts to distance Trump from the Russian intelligence assessments. The AP reported Sunday that concerns about Russian bounties also were in a second written presidential daily briefing this year and that current national security adviser Robert O’Brien had discussed the matter with Trump. O’Brien denies doing that. On Monday, O’Brien said that while the intelligence assessments regarding Russian bounties “have not been verified,” the administration has “been preparing should the situation warrant action.”The administration’s earlier awareness of the Russian efforts raises additional questions about why Trump didn’t take punitive action against Moscow for efforts that put the lives of American service members at risk. Trump has sought throughout his time in office to improve relations with Russia and President Vladimir Putin, moving this year to try to reinstate Russia as part of a group of world leaders it had been kicked out of. Officials said they didn’t consider the intelligence assessments in 2019 to be particularly urgent, given Russian meddling in Afghanistan isn’t a new occurrence. The officials with knowledge of Bolton’s apparent briefing for Trump said it contained no “actionable intelligence,” meaning the intelligence community didn’t have enough information to form a strategic plan or response. However, the classified assessment of Russian bounties was the sole purpose of the meeting. The officials insisted on anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose the highly sensitive information. The intelligence that surfaced in early 2019 indicated Russian operatives had become more aggressive in their desire to contract with the Taliban and members of the Haqqani Network, a militant group aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan and designated a foreign terrorist organization in 2012 during the Obama administration. The National Security Council and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence held meetings regarding the intelligence. The NSC didn’t respond to questions about the meetings. Late Monday, the Pentagon issued a statement saying it was evaluating the intelligence but so far had “no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations.” “Regardless, we always take the safety and security of our forces in Afghanistan — and around the world — most seriously and therefore continuously adopt measures to prevent harm from potential threats,” said Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman.Concerns about Russian bounties flared anew this year after members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000 in U.S. currency. The funds bolstered the suspicions of the American intelligence community that Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and linked associations. The White House contends the president was unaware of this development, too. The officials told the AP that career government officials developed potential options for the White House to respond to the Russian aggression in Afghanistan, which was first reported by The New York Times. However, the Trump administration has yet to authorize any action. The intelligence in 2019 and 2020 surrounding Russian bounties was derived in part from debriefings of captured Taliban militants. Officials with knowledge of the matter told the AP that Taliban operatives from opposite ends of the country and from separate tribes offered similar accounts. Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied Russian intelligence officers had offered payments to the Taliban in exchange for targeting U.S. and coalition forces. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the Taliban’s chief negotiator, a spokesman for the insurgents said Tuesday, but it was unknown whether there was any mention during their conversation of allegations about Russian bounties. Pompeo pressed the insurgents to reduce violence in Afghanistan and discussed ways of advancing a U.S.-Taliban peace deal signed in February, the Taliban spokesman tweeted. The U.S. is investigating whether Americans died because of the Russian bounties. Officials are focused on an April 2019 attack on an American convoy. Three U.S. Marines were killed after a car rigged with explosives detonated near their armored vehicles as they returned to Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. military installation in Afghanistan. The Defense Department identified them as Marine Staff Sgt. Christopher Slutman, 43, of Newark, Delaware; Sgt. Benjamin Hines, 31, of York, Pennsylvania; and Cpl. Robert Hendriks, 25, of Locust Valley, New York. They were infantrymen assigned to 2nd Battalion, 25th Marines, a reserve infantry unit headquartered out of Garden City, New York. Hendriks’ father told the AP that even a rumor of Russian bounties should have been immediately addressed. “If this was kind of swept under the carpet as to not make it a bigger issue with Russia, and one ounce of blood was spilled when they knew this, I lost all respect for this administration and everything,” Erik Hendriks said. Three other service members and an Afghan contractor were wounded in the attack. As of April 2019, the attack was under a separate investigation, unrelated to the Russian bounties. The officials who spoke to the AP also said they were looking closely at insider attacks from 2019 to determine if they were linked to Russian bounties. ___Associated Press writers Zeke Miller and Deb Riechmann in Washington, Deepti Hajela in New York and Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this report. |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New U.S. COVID-19 cases rose by more than 47,000 on Tuesday according to a Reuters tally, the biggest one-day spike since the start of the pandemic, as the government’s top infectious disease expert warned that number could soon double.California, Texas and Arizona have emerged as new U.S. epicenters of the pandemic, reporting record increases in COVID-19 cases.“Clearly we are not in total control right now,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told a U.S. Senate committee. “I am very concerned because it could get very bad.”Fauci said the daily increase in new cases could reach 100,000 unless a nationwide push was made to tamp down the resurgent virus.“We can’t just focus on those areas that are having the surge. It puts the entire country at risk,” he said.Fauci said there was no guarantee of a vaccine, although early data had been promising: “Hopefully there will be doses available by the beginning of next year,” he said.COVID-19 cases more than doubled in June in at least 10 states, including Texas and Florida, a Reuters tally showed. In parts of Texas and Arizona, hospital intensive care beds for COVID-19 patients are in short supply.More than 126,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 and millions have lost their jobs as states and major cities ordered residents to stay home and businesses closed. The economy contracted sharply in the first quarter and is expected to crater in the second.‘TRUMP FAILED US’The European Union has excluded Americans from its “safe list” of countries from which the bloc will allow non-essential travel beginning on Wednesday.The fresh rise in cases and hospitalizations has dimmed hopes that the worst of the human and economic pain had passed, prompting renewed criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump as he seeks re-election on Nov. 3.His rival, Democrat Joe Biden, on Tuesday said that Trump’s “historic mismanagement” of the pandemic cost lives and inflicted more damage than necessary to the U.S. economy.“It didn’t have to be this way. Donald Trump failed us,” the 77-year-old former vice president said in a speech in Delaware, where he unveiled an updated plan to tackle the pandemic calling for more testing and the hiring of 100,000 contract tracers.FILE PHOTO: A medical worker opens a makeshift door to the United Memorial Medical Center's coronavirus disease (COVID-19) intensive care unit in Houston, Texas, U.S., June 29, 2020. REUTERS/Callaghan O'Hare/File PhotoIn the past week California, Texas and Florida have moved to close recently reopened bars, which public health officials believe are likely one of the larger contributors to the recent spikes.On Tuesday, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut added travelers from California and seven other states to those who must self-quarantine for 14 days upon arrival. Texas and Florida were named last week.South Carolina also has also emerged as a hot spot, reporting a record single-day increase of 1,755 cases on Tuesday.In Texas, where the number of new cases jumped to a one-day record of 6,975 on Tuesday, Houston hospitals said beds were quickly filling up with COVID-19 patients.Dr. Marc Boom, chief executive of Houston Methodist Hospital, told CNN on Tuesday that his hospital beds have seen a “very significant” increase in COVID-19 patients, although the death rate has lowered.Boom said he was worried about Independence Day celebrations this weekend, when Americans traditionally flock to beaches and campgrounds to watch fireworks displays.“Frankly it scares me,” he said.(GRAPHIC: Tracking the novel coronavirus in the U.S. - here)(GRAPHIC: The lifeline pipeline, COVID-19 treatments, vaccines in development - here)Reporting by Carl O’Donnell, Trevor Hunnicutt, Simon Lewis, Saumya Joseph, Brad Brooks, Susan Heavey, Maria Caspani and Paul Simao; Writing by Nathan Layne and Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Bill Berkrot and Richard Pullinfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up |
Christopher L. Eisgruber is president of Princeton University.The Princeton University Board of Trustees voted on Friday to remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from the university’s School of Public and International Affairs. It acted because Wilson’s racist opinions and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school whose scholars, students and alumni must stand firmly against racism and for equality and justice.For my university, the decision was momentous. Wilson was an undergraduate alumnus of Princeton, a distinguished professor on its faculty and eventually its 13th president. He transformed the place from a sleepy college to a world-class research university.During his eight-year term, he increased the size of the faculty by half and introduced curricular reforms that persist to this day. When Wilson tried to reform the university’s social clubs, the trustees fired him because his ideas were too progressive.Wilson went on to become governor of New Jersey, president of the United States and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. For decades, the university has celebrated Wilson’s record of public service and his achievements.Wilson was also a racist. He discouraged black applicants from applying to Princeton. While president of the United States, Wilson segregated the previously integrated federal civil service, thereby moving the United States backward in its quest for racial justice and contributing to the systemic racism that continues to damage black lives and our country today.On the Princeton campus, Wilson’s name was everywhere: on the prestigious School of Public and International Affairs, a residential college and the university’s highest award for undergraduate alumni. The first part of the university’s informal motto, “Princeton in the nation’s service,” was drawn from a Wilson speech.Filmmaker Ken Burns reflects on James Baldwin's understanding of liberty, and how our most venerated monuments can remind us of where America falls short. (The Washington Post)In November 2015, student activists occupied my office, demanding, among other things, that Wilson’s name be removed from the school. At my request, the Board of Trustees formed a committee to consider the issue. After careful deliberation, consultation with leading scholars and engagement with the broad university community, the committee eventually recommended reforms to make Princeton more inclusive and to recount its history, including Wilson’s racism, more honestly.The committee and the board, however, left Wilson’s name on the public policy school and the residential college. Until this month, I strongly agreed with that decision.Wilson’s genuine achievements, I thought, gave Princeton sound reasons to honor him. He is a far different figure than John C. Calhoun or Robert E. Lee, people whose pro-slavery commitments defined their careers and who were sometimes honored for the purpose of supporting segregation or racism. Princeton honored Wilson without regard to, and perhaps even in ignorance of, his racism.And that, I now believe, is precisely the problem. Princeton is part of an America that has too often disregarded, ignored and turned a blind eye to racism, allowing the persistence of systems that discriminate against black people. When Derek Chauvin knelt for nearly nine minutes on George Floyd’s neck while bystanders recorded his cruelty, he might have assumed that the system would disregard, ignore or excuse his conduct, as it had done in response to past complaints against him.This searing moment in our national history should make clear to all of us our urgent responsibility to stand firmly against racism and for the integrity and value of black lives. That is why the Board of Trustees, on my recommendation, removed Wilson’s name from what will now be known as the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.When a university names its public policy school for a political leader, it inevitably offers the honoree as a role model for its students. However grand some of Wilson’s achievements may have been, his racism disqualifies him from that role.To some, this decision will seem obvious and overdue. To others, it will seem an excess of political correctness, an unjust judgment upon a man from another era.For me, the decision was wrenching but right. Wilson helped to create the university that I love. I do not pretend to know how to evaluate his life or his staggering combination of achievement and failure. I do know, however, that we cannot disregard or ignore racism when deciding whom we hold up to our students as heroes or role models. This is not the only step our university will be taking to confront the realities and legacies of racism, but it is an important one. Our commitment to eliminate racism must be unequivocal, and that is why we removed the name of Princeton’s modern-day founder from its School of Public and International Affairs.Read more: |
Arkansas lawmakers voted Wednesday to bar most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, overriding a veto by the state's governor to set the most-stringent abortion restrictions in the nation. The Arkansas House of Representatives voted 56 to 33 to enact the legislation, a day after the Senate voted 20 to 14 in favor of overruling Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans, although six Democratic representatives were among the House members who voted to uphold the measure. Related Video According to a recent Gallup poll, the U.S. has shown almost no improvement in well-being in the past five years. MarketWatch's Rex Crum discusses the most unhappy states. (Photo: AP) "If I say that I'm pro-life, at some point I have to do something about what I believe," said state Rep. Ann Clemmer, a Republican sponsor of the legislation, ahead of the Wednesday vote. The move will face stiff legal challenges. Mr. Beebe, who supports abortion rights but has backed some restrictions, said a series of Supreme Court decisions had established that states couldn't ban abortions carried out before a fetus becomes viable, or able to survive outside the womb. He said the proposed bill "would blatantly violate the United States Constitution." The court rulings have found that physicians should determine viability, which is generally considered to occur after 22 weeks of pregnancy. The Arkansas legislation makes it illegal to perform abortions after a heartbeat can be detected and the pregnancy has lasted for more than 12 weeks, with exceptions in cases of rape, incest and medical emergencies. The ban is set to go into effect 90 days after the Legislature ends its current session, in the summer. The American Civil Liberties Union, which supports abortion rights, said that its lawyers planned to try to block the law before it could take effect. "We will fight this law in court to ensure that politicians cannot deny women the ability to make their own decisions about their own health," said Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas. The move from Arkansas comes amid a wave of antiabortion efforts in state legislatures across the country. Many opponents of abortion, however, have been lukewarm in their support for legislation seeking early limits on the procedure, preferring to focus on securing tighter regulation of clinics and chemically induced abortions. Most states have laws barring abortion in later stages of pregnancy, such as at 24 weeks or after viability. Eight states have laws prohibiting most abortions after 20 weeks, including Arkansas, where legislators just last week voted to overrule Mr. Beebe and pass such a law. Arizona and Georgia also have 20-week bans, but those have been blocked by courts. No other state restricts abortion as early as 12 weeks. Before the vote, some Arkansas lawmakers said they were supporting the veto override to stand by their convictions. "I encourage you to stick to your vote if you voted for life before," said state Rep. Bruce Westerman, the House Republican leader.No member of the Arkansas Legislature spoke against the veto override. Write to Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@wsj.com Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8 |
WASHINGTON—President Trump made his name on the world’s most famous island. Now he wants to buy the world’s biggest.The idea of the U.S. purchasing Greenland has captured the former real-estate developer’s imagination, according to people familiar with the discussion, who said Mr. Trump has, with varying degrees of seriousness, repeatedly expressed interest in buying the ice-covered autonomous Danish territory between the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans. In meetings, at dinners and in passing conversations, Mr. Trump has asked advisers whether the U.S. can acquire Greenland, listened with interest when they discuss its abundant resources and geopolitical importance and, according to two of the people, has asked his White House counsel to look into the idea. |
More Some of his advisers have supported the concept, saying it would be a good economic play, two of the people said, while others dismissed it as a fleeting fascination that will never come to fruition. It is also unclear how the U.S. would go about acquiring Greenland even if the effort were serious. With a population of about 56,000, Greenland is a self-ruling part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and while its government decides on most domestic matters, foreign and security policy is handled by Copenhagen. Mr. Trump is scheduled to make his first visit to Denmark early next month, although the visit is unrelated, these people said. The White House and State Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. Officials with Denmark’s Royal House and the Danish embassy in Washington didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. Massive icebergs loom behind houses at the mouth of the Ilulissat Icefjord in early August near Ilulissat, Greenland. Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images Greenland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Friday morning that the island wasn’t on the market. “We’re open for business, not for sale,” the ministry said on Twitter while emphasizing Greenland’s natural resources and tourism potential. U.S. officials view Greenland as important to American national-security interests. A decades-old defense treaty between Denmark and the U.S. gives the U.S. military virtually unlimited rights in Greenland at America’s northernmost base, Thule Air Base. Located 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, it includes a radar station that is part of a U.S. ballistic missile early-warning system. The base is also used by the U.S. Air Force Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The U.S. has sought to derail Chinese efforts to gain an economic foothold in Greenland. The Pentagon worked successfully in 2018 to block China from financing three airports on the island. People outside the White House have described purchasing Greenland as an Alaska-type acquisition for Mr. Trump’s legacy, advisers said. The few current and former White House officials who had heard of the notion, described it with a mix of anticipation and apprehension because it remains unknown how far the president might push the idea. It generated a cascade of questions among his advisers, such as whether the U.S. could use Greenland to establish a stronger military presence in the Arctic, and what kind of research opportunities it might present. Though it has vast natural resources across its 811,000 square miles, Greenland relies on $591 million of subsidies from Denmark annually, which make up about 60% of its annual budget, according to U.S. and Danish government statistics. Icebergs in eastern Greenland on Monday. Though Greenland is technically part of North America, it is culturally and politically linked to Europe. Photo: Mstyslav Chernov/Associated Press Though Greenland is technically part of North America, it is culturally and politically linked to Europe. Following World War II, the U.S. under President Harry Truman developed a geopolitical interest in Greenland and in 1946 offered to buy it from Denmark for $100 million. Denmark refused to sell. And that was the second failed attempt—the State Department had also launched an inquiry into buying Greenland and Iceland in 1867. At a dinner with associates last spring, Mr. Trump said someone had told him at a roundtable that Denmark was having financial trouble over its assistance to Greenland, and suggested that he should consider buying the island, according to one of the people. “What do you guys think about that?” he asked the room, the person said. “Do you think it would work?” The person described the question less as a serious inquiry than as a joke meant to indicate “I’m so powerful I could buy a country,” noting that since Mr. Trump hadn’t floated the idea at a campaign rally yet, he probably wasn’t seriously considering it. An iceberg floats in a fiord near the town of Tasiilaq. Greenland has vast natural resources across its 811,000 square miles. Photo: lucas jackson/Reuters The person believed the president was interested in the idea because of the island’s natural resources and because it would give him a legacy akin to President Dwight Eisenhower’s admission of Alaska into the U.S. as a state. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was scheduled to visit Greenland in May with the aim of discussing long-term peace and sustainable economic developments, particularly since “we’re concerned about activities of other nations, including China, that do not share these same commitments,” a senior State Department official said at the time. Mr. Pompeo was also scheduled to visit the New York Air National Guard in Kangerlussuaq, which supports U.S. scientists conducting research on Greenland’s ice cap. His trip was called off at the last minute because of escalating tensions with Iran. Kenneth Mortensen, a real-estate agent in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, said that the running joke in Greenland currently is that Mr. Trump is traveling to Denmark with the sole intention of buying their island. But he said Mr. Trump might run into some trouble. “You can never own land here,” Mr. Mortensen said, as all land is owned by the government. “In Greenland, you get a right to use the land where you want to build a house, but you can’t buy.” “Of course, buying Greenland is a different issue altogether,” he added. “I’m not sure about that.” Write to Vivian Salama at vivian.salama@wsj.com, Rebecca Ballhaus at Rebecca.Ballhaus@wsj.com, Andrew Restuccia at Andrew.Restuccia@wsj.com and Michael C. Bender at Mike.Bender@wsj.com Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8 |
SEATTLE (Reuters) - Seattle authorities moved on Wednesday to dismantle a protest zone that the city’s police chief derided as “lawless and brutal” and which had prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to call for action against demonstrators.Officers, clad in helmets and extra protective gear, entered the “autonomous zone” early and by midmorning had arrested 31 people for failure to disperse, assault and other alleged crimes, according to the police department’s Twitter feed.Police moved to retake the zone after Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan declared the gathering around the police department’s East Precinct and Cal Anderson Park an “unlawful assembly,” the police chief, Carmen Best, said in a statement that highlighted a recent spate of shootings and the deaths of two teenagers.U.S. Attorney General William Barr commended Best in a statement for distinguishing between the right to protest and violent crime in “restoring the rule of law.” Barr did not mention Durkan, a Democrat who has been a target of the Republican president’s ire.Harry “Rick” Hearns, a protester who said he volunteered to provide armed security at CHOP for 24 straight days, told Reuters he supported the police crackdown “1,000 percent.” He blamed the violence on outsiders who he said had marred an otherwise successful monthlong occupation.“We don’t represent violence. People brought that to us,” said Hearns, 59.Police were walking in and out of the East Precinct on Wednesday, re-establishing control. Weeks earlier, they abandoned the building following clashes with protesters in the wake of the May 25 killing in Minneapolis of George Floyd, a Black man, at the hands of that city’s police.Floyd’s death triggered a nationwide wave of largely peaceful demonstrations against racial injustice and police brutality, giving rise in Seattle to the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP) zone east of downtown.“The CHOP has become lawless and brutal. Four shootings -- two fatal -- robberies, assaults, violence and countless property crimes have occurred in this several-block area,” Best said.Trump has been demanding that local authorities eject the protesters, whom he labeled “domestic terrorists.” Conservative pundits have pointed to the zone in Seattle to support an argument that protests across the country were less peaceful than they were being portrayed.Black armored vehicles and baton-wielding officers patrolled the perimeter of the area that was barricaded with spray-painted plywood, some marked with phrases like “All Lives Don’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter” and “RIP E Precinct.”Bicycle police employed three dozen bikes to create a barricade at East Pike and 12th Avenue, allowing city crews to take down protesters’ tents. Some officers sipped Starbucks’ coffee, evidence the operation had met no serious resistance.The zone had become less crowded and active over the past several days. Crowds that came by the thousands to listen to speeches about police brutality and marvel at street art commemorating Black lives had disappeared, as had medic stations and multiple free food tents.Businesses in the area, a trendy neighborhood of hipster bars and boutiques, have been pushing for a tougher stance by authorities. Attorneys have filed two class action lawsuits against the City of Seattle, including one aimed at preventing the establishment of “lawless autonomous zones” in the future.Lencho Williams, who was roused by police from the CHOP encampment on Wednesday, said protesters would regroup. He said the movement had become disorganized when three original demands -- defund the police, fund the Black community and amnesty for demonstrators -- morphed into 12.“We’re going to be back. If not tomorrow, the next day. You can’t stop a revolution. Black lives matter now and forever,” said Williams, 32.Reporting by Lindsey Wasson in Seattle, Barbara Goldberg in Maplewood, New Jersey and Nathan Layne in Wilton, Connecticut; Editing by Steve Orlofsky, Bernadette Baum, David Gregorio and Jonathan Oatisfor-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up |
WASHINGTON—The White House is pressing Congress to hold back on new sanctions against Iran, pitting the administration's hopes for a re-energized diplomatic engagement against the growing concern of some lawmakers and foreign allies. The Obama administration is arguing that diplomatic efforts need more time to contain Tehran's nuclear program. But a number of Republican and Democratic lawmakers want to bring a new sanctions bill targeting Iran's oil exports and finances to a Senate vote by the end of next week. A similar bill cleared the House of Representatives in July and is waiting to be reconciled with the Senate's. Iran President Hasan Rouhani, shown last month. Conservative Iranian religious and military leaders have been attacking Mr. Rouhani's outreach to the U.S. European Pressphoto Agency "Iran needs to immediately end its systematic noncompliance with the repeated demands of the U.N.," said Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.), the House majority leader. "We all want negotiations to succeed, but time is clearly running out." Senators have delayed action once already, after Wendy Sherman, the undersecretary of state, asked for a chance to meet the Iranians in Geneva Oct. 15 and 16 to restart negotiations. The White House, which regarded the Geneva meeting as a success, intensified its outreach to Congress this week, and said that American negotiators needed more "flexibility" to pursue the diplomacy in the coming weeks, said congressional staffers briefed on the Obama administration's strategy. The National Security Council's point man on Iran, Philip Gordon, hosted Senate staffers at the White House on Thursday, and argued that clamping new sanctions on Iran at this stage could prove counterproductive, according to these staffers. A new round of negotiations between global powers and the Iranian government of President Hasan Rouhani is scheduled for Nov. 7-8 in Geneva. "The White House is asking that nothing be done to undercut their efforts," said a Republican Senate staffer briefed on the White House meeting. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on Thursday's deliberations, but said the administration hoped to continue working with U.S. lawmakers to maintain pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program. "Congress has been an important partner in our efforts thus far," said Caitlin Hayden, an NSC spokeswoman. "We will continue our close consultation, as we have in the past, so that any congressional action is aligned with our negotiating strategy." Separately, Ms. Sherman recommended Friday that Congress pause action on new sanctions in an interview with the Voice of America news service. A spokesman for the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Democrat Tim Johnson of South Dakota, said no date has been set for completing the Iran bill in the Senate. Many of Washington's closest Middle East allies, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, have argued that international sanctions on Iran should be increased, not diminished, for diplomacy ultimately to succeed in restraining Tehran. Iranian oil exports have been cut in half over the past year due to American and European sanctions. This is the primary reason Mr. Rouhani's government has so aggressively embraced diplomacy since taking office in August, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly argued in recent weeks. The U.S.-based Institute for Science and International Security, an independent group that has tracked Iran's nuclear capabilities, released a report this week saying Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one atomic bomb in as quickly as one month. The think tank says this could be achieved if Iran used its entire stockpile of enriched uranium and all its first-generation centrifuge machines. Iran has denied Western charges that it is trying to build nuclear weapons, saying its program is intended for power production. The report on Iran's capabilities, coupled with the next stages of talks, brought anxious reactions from pro-Israeli lawmakers. The Israeli leader's allies on Capitol Hill have been pressing for immediate new sanctions "Despite President Rouhani's 'charm offensive,' Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability continues unabated," said the Republican Jewish Coalition's director Matt Brooks. "By moving aggressively to ratchet up economic pressure on Tehran, Congress enhances the prospect that the regime will alter its dangerous course." "Our resolve to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability remains unchanged and we will not hesitate from proceeding with further sanctions and other options to protect U.S. interests and ensure regional security," The Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, said after meeting Mr. Netanyahu late last month. Obama administration officials feel they already have significant economic leverage over Tehran and worry additional sanctions at this stage could undermine Mr. Rouhani's ability to negotiate. Conservative Iranian religious and military leaders have been attacking Mr. Rouhani's outreach to the U.S., particularly his September phone call with President Barack Obama. It was the first conversation between an American and Iranian president in more than three decades. New sanctions in Iran, Obama administration officials believe, could only embolden the hard-liners to attack Mr. Rouhani. "We can always impose new sanctions later if the Iranians pull back from the talks," said a senior U.S. official. Negotiations between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, are focused on a two-stage approach toward limiting Tehran's nuclear work, according to diplomats taking part in the talks. The Geneva meetings are seeking a short-term formula that will prevent Iran from having the capacity to quickly break out and develop nuclear weapons. Once these confidence-building steps are taken, Iran and the global powers, known as the P5+1, would seek to reach a final agreement on ending Iran's nuclear threat, according to these diplomats. Mr. Rouhani's government is demanding, in return, a significant and rapid rollback of the sanctions that have decimated Tehran's finances. The U.S. and its European allies are struggling to find ways to respond to Iranian concessions without weakening the overall international sanctions regime. Among the steps being considered, according to U.S. and European officials, are measures to help Tehran reclaim billions of dollars of its oil earnings that have been frozen in overseas accounts. The Obama administration and European Union are also considering ways to ease restrictions on Tehran's access to the international banking system. The Obama administration has fought Congress on Iran sanctions for much of its time in office. The White House deeply opposed a bipartisan congressional effort in 2011 to impose U.S. sanctions on Iran's central bank, the primary conduit for Tehran's oil exports. Obama administration officials worried implementation of the legislation could fuel a spike in global energy prices—undermining the U.S.'s economic recovery—as global supply would shrink. U.S. officials today acknowledge that the sanctioning of Iran's central bank, and the European Union's oil embargo on Tehran, have probably been the most punishing measures on Iran to date. Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com Corrections & Amplifications Wendy Sherman is undersecretary of state. An earlier version of this article incorrectly described her title as deputy secretary of state. Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8 |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
YAML Metadata
Warning:
The task_categories "classification" is not in the official list: text-classification, token-classification, table-question-answering, question-answering, zero-shot-classification, translation, summarization, feature-extraction, text-generation, text2text-generation, fill-mask, sentence-similarity, text-to-speech, text-to-audio, automatic-speech-recognition, audio-to-audio, audio-classification, voice-activity-detection, depth-estimation, image-classification, object-detection, image-segmentation, text-to-image, image-to-text, image-to-image, image-to-video, unconditional-image-generation, video-classification, reinforcement-learning, robotics, tabular-classification, tabular-regression, tabular-to-text, table-to-text, multiple-choice, text-retrieval, time-series-forecasting, text-to-video, image-text-to-text, visual-question-answering, document-question-answering, zero-shot-image-classification, graph-ml, mask-generation, zero-shot-object-detection, text-to-3d, image-to-3d, image-feature-extraction, other
YAML Metadata
Warning:
The task_ids "classification" is not in the official list: acceptability-classification, entity-linking-classification, fact-checking, intent-classification, language-identification, multi-class-classification, multi-label-classification, multi-input-text-classification, natural-language-inference, semantic-similarity-classification, sentiment-classification, topic-classification, semantic-similarity-scoring, sentiment-scoring, sentiment-analysis, hate-speech-detection, text-scoring, named-entity-recognition, part-of-speech, parsing, lemmatization, word-sense-disambiguation, coreference-resolution, extractive-qa, open-domain-qa, closed-domain-qa, news-articles-summarization, news-articles-headline-generation, dialogue-modeling, dialogue-generation, conversational, language-modeling, text-simplification, explanation-generation, abstractive-qa, open-domain-abstractive-qa, closed-domain-qa, open-book-qa, closed-book-qa, slot-filling, masked-language-modeling, keyword-spotting, speaker-identification, audio-intent-classification, audio-emotion-recognition, audio-language-identification, multi-label-image-classification, multi-class-image-classification, face-detection, vehicle-detection, instance-segmentation, semantic-segmentation, panoptic-segmentation, image-captioning, image-inpainting, image-colorization, super-resolution, grasping, task-planning, tabular-multi-class-classification, tabular-multi-label-classification, tabular-single-column-regression, rdf-to-text, multiple-choice-qa, multiple-choice-coreference-resolution, document-retrieval, utterance-retrieval, entity-linking-retrieval, fact-checking-retrieval, univariate-time-series-forecasting, multivariate-time-series-forecasting, visual-question-answering, document-question-answering
Dataset Card for news-12factor
Dataset Description
~20k articles labeled left, right, or center by the editors of allsides.com.
Languages
The text in the dataset is in English
Dataset Structure
3 folders, with many text files in each. Each text file represent the body text of one article.
Source Data
URL data was scraped using https://github.com/mozilla/readability
Annotations
Articles were manually annotated by news editors who were attempting to select representative articles from the left, right and center of each article topic. In other words, the dataset should generally be balanced - the left/right/center articles cover the same set of topics, and have roughly the same amount of articles in each.
- Downloads last month
- 43