google-site-verification: google6508e39c6ec03602.html The news

google-site-verification: google6508e39c6ec03602.html

Sunday 30 July 2023

DeSantis clarifies comment that he would ‘sic’ RFK Jr. on FDA or CDC


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis clarified his comment that if elected president he would "sic" Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on a medical agency, saying instead he would put the Democrat on a bipartisan task force that would hold medical agencies accountable for supposed government overreach.

“It wouldn’t be he would be the head of CDC,” DeSantis told Megyn Kelly in an interview on Friday. “That would be a doctor or a PhD.”

“I’m going to have probably a task force to go in there, hold people accountable for Covid, hold people accountable for what [has] happened,” DeSantis continued. “It would be more in that role that I’d want to get a bipartisan group of people together who understand the problem, understand the federal government's Covid response was a disaster.”

On Tuesday, DeSantis suggested to Clay Travis on OutKick that he saw a role for Kennedy on a medical-related federal agency, noting that they align on many conservative viewpoints about vaccines and the government’s response to Covid. Several Republicans, including former vice president Mike Pence, were quick to criticize him in response.

“If you’re president, sic him on the FDA if he’d be willing to serve,” DeSantis said on Tuesday — a role that he clarified on Saturday would be “outside” any particular agency.

In the Friday interview, DeSantis said he would look to nominate to medical agencies people like Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor who was a notable early opponent of lockdowns during the Covid-19 pandemic and opponent of mask mandates and vaccine passports. He also touted a pandemic policy approach of returning to normal life while protecting low-risk groups. In April 2021, Bhattacharya served on a roundtable for DeSantis around alleged censorship from technology companies during the pandemic.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/ip7wxQd
via IFTTT

Saturday 29 July 2023

ER visits spike as extreme heat scorches New York City


NEW YORK — More New Yorkers are heading to the emergency room for heat-related illnesses as the city bakes under a dayslong heat wave.

Hospitals across the city reported 25 heat-related emergency room visits Thursday, up from just six visits the day before and the most reported in any one day so far this summer, according to public data. Temperatures Thursday felt hotter than 100 degrees in parts of the city.

The National Weather Service had placed the entire city under an excessive heat warning, meaning temperatures could feel as hot as 105 degrees or higher. That was downgraded Friday to a heat advisory.

Heat is the leading weather-related killer and is expected to become only more deadly as climate change warms the planet. In New York City, heat-related deaths have risen over the past decade.

“This is not our first heat wave and, with climate change accelerating, it won’t be our last,” Mayor Eric Adams said at a news briefing Thursday.

Zach Iscol, commissioner of the Office of Emergency Management, said it was the first time the National Weather Service issued an excessive heat warning for the city since Aug. 13, 2021.

Each summer an estimated 350 New Yorkers die prematurely because of hot weather, according to the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. While some deaths are caused directly by heat exhaustion and hyperthermia, most heat-related deaths are the result of hot weather worsening existing chronic health conditions such as heart disease.

The fatal consequences don’t manifest equally. Low-income neighborhoods and communities of color experience higher rates of chronic conditions and are less likely to own or use an air conditioning unit. City health data shows Black New Yorkers are twice as likely to die of heat-related causes as their white counterparts.

“We are seeing a serious uptick not just in calls and concerns over heat illnesses, but in conditions themselves especially among seniors and essential workers, including delivery, hourly and shift workers who are biking in brutal heat,” Dr. Ramon Tallaj, founder of the physician network SOMOS Community Care, said in a statement.

“Remember, any extreme weather — be it wildfire smoke or intense heat — will always hit lower income communities of color harder,” he said.

Symptoms of heat illness include hot and dry skin, trouble breathing, rapid heartbeat, confusion or disorientation, dizziness and nausea and vomiting.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/Xp658QR
via IFTTT

Biden's DOT pushes tighter fuel efficiency rules for SUVs


The Transportation Department on Friday floated a fuel economy rule that would require automakers to more aggressively increase the efficiency of SUVs and pickup trucks compared to passenger vehicles through 2032.

Sedans have already improved at a rapid clip, but SUVs and pickup trucks — which have become increasingly popular with American drivers — have “more room to improve,” the proposal said. Doing so could bring the fleetwide average in 2032 to around 46 miles per gallon in real-world terms.

“Better vehicle fuel efficiency means more money in Americans’ pockets and stronger energy security for the entire nation,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement.

Republicans swiftly blasted the proposal.

It is another salvo in the "war on affordable gas-powered cars and trucks," said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). "This de facto EV mandate will dramatically raise car prices, weaken energy security, and is likely contrary to the law."

The fuel economy proposal aligns with EPA’s April tailpipe emissions proposal, Reg. 2060-AV49, that by 2032 would effectively require 67 percent of new vehicles to be zero-emissions. That’s an order of magnitude more than current electric vehicle sales levels, though many automakers plan to significantly expand their electric vehicle offerings.

But unlike EPA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is barred by law from taking electric vehicles into account when setting its standards — though automakers are free to comply by selling more of them.

NHTSA’s proposal, Reg. 2127-AM55, would require automakers improve their fuel efficiency by 2 percent annually starting with model year 2027 for passenger cars and 4 percent for light trucks, a category that includes many sport utility vehicles.

“The agency believes that there is more room to improve the fuel economy of light trucks, in a cost-effective way, and that the benefits of requiring more improvement from light trucks will be significant given their high usage and the fact that they make up an ever-larger percentage of the overall fleet,” the proposal said.

It continued: “Passenger cars, on the other hand, have been improving at a rapid rate for many years in succession, and the available improvements for that fleet are fewer, particularly given the statutory constraints that prevent NHTSA from considering the fuel economy of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in determining maximum feasible [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards.”

With those requirements ramping up annually, the fleetwide average fuel economy could reach 58 miles per gallon in 2032, though that figure could shift depending on sales ratios of more efficient passenger cars versus gas-guzzling SUVs. That figure is based on compliance testing; the “real-world” average tends to be around 20 percent lower, in this case around 46 mpg.

Because NHTSA by law can only set fuel economy standards for five model years at a time, the 2032 standards will not be binding until a future rulemaking confirms or alters them. But the agency said issuing it now gives automakers more predictability.

The rule also would require 10 percent annual improvements between model years 2030 and 2035 for commercial pickup trucks and work vans.

NHTSA’s proposal also includes one less stringent alternative option and two that are more stringent. But NHTSA said its analysis found those more stringent options may be unachievable for automakers and that they likely would increase costs on consumers without bringing offsetting fuel savings.

The proposed standards would reduce gasoline demand by an estimated 88 billion gallons through 2050 for light-duty vehicles and 2.6 billion gallons over that period for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans. Overall, that would save 907 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, NHTSA estimated — the equivalent annual climate emissions of 202 million cars or 243 coal-fired power plants, according to EPA’s greenhouse gas calculator.

The rule would mean higher cost for new vehicles upfront — $932 over the baseline — but lifetime fuel savings for light-duty vehicles are projected to total around $1,043, roughly a $100 net benefit, according to the rule.

EPA calculated total net benefits of $19 billion at a 3 percent discount rate.

Alliance for Automotive Innovation President and CEO John Bozzella said in a statement that his group, which represents the major automakers, is reviewing the proposal. He noted the rule aligns with EPA’s own recent tailpipe emissions proposal — which the industry has argued is too aggressive and ignores alternatives to battery electric vehicles, such as plug-in hybrids.

Bozzella also called for EPA and NHTSA to maintain aligned rules, or even better, to return to a harmonized rulemaking process.

“The best policy would be a return to a single national standard to reduce carbon in transportation — one vehicle fleet and one national standard,” he said.

Many major environmental and public health groups applauded the proposal, but others said it needs work.

"Given the pace of technological change and urgent need to conserve energy, it’s clear that these standards could be even more ambitious than NHTSA’s proposal," Dave Cooke, senior vehicles analyst for the Clean Transportation Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement.

Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, said the law calls for NHTSA to set the maximum feasible standards and that the agency could do better than its proposal.

“The standards don’t knock our socks off, but they do begin to address the growing problem of the ‘truckification’ of the fleet, where everything becomes an SUV or a pickup truck,” Becker said.

Sedans and wagons made up around half of light-duty sales in 2005, according to EPA data. Since then, significant increases in sales of SUVs mean only around one-quarter of new car sales today are smaller passenger vehicles.

NHTSA will take comment on the rule for 60 days upon publication in the Federal Register.

The comment period for EPA’s own post-2026 rule closed earlier this month.

Issuing stronger fuel economy and vehicle emissions rules are one of the administration’s major strategies to meet President Joe Biden’s plan for half of new sales to be zero-emission by 2030. Transportation is the biggest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S., with light-duty vehicles leading the way.

Those efforts have met increasing, though not yet complete, acceptance from the auto industry. But Republicans have pushed back in Congress and in the courts, arguing that the rules are infeasible overreach.

In a separate but related rulemaking this spring, Reg. 1904-AF47, the Energy Department proposed significantly decreasing how “miles per gallon equivalent” is calculated for electric vehicles.

The old formula was out of date, DOE said, and its new calculation would require automakers to sell more electric vehicles or significantly increase the fuel efficiency of their internal combustion vehicles to compensate and still meet NHTSA’s requirements.

Litigation over prior EPA and NHTSA rules covering through model years 2026 are due for oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in September.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/6V2cKQt
via IFTTT

Feds home in on Ticketmaster antitrust case


The Justice Department could file an antitrust lawsuit against concert promoter Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster by the end of the year, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

The DOJ is aiming to file a lawsuit as soon as this fall that claims the entertainment giant is abusing its power over the live music industry, the people said. A case would add to the embattled company’s myriad policy and legal battles, and if successful, could potentially lead to a breakup of the company, POLITICO previously reported.

The timing of any lawsuit is fluid, and no final decision has been made, meaning the department could ultimately decide not to bring a case, cautioned the people who were granted anonymity to discuss a confidential matter. But a potential case against Ticketmaster has been part of recent discussions about upcoming litigation plans in the department’s antitrust division, two of the people said.

The decision on whether to sue Ticketmaster could hinge in part on resource constraints. Antitrust prosecutors already have a busy fall, with trials scheduled to start in September against Google’s search business and in October to block the merger between JetBlue and Spirit Airlines.

The DOJ is also in the midst of late-stage investigations of companies including Apple and Visa, and mergers including Adobe’s takeover of design software company Figma.


Ticketmaster is a perennial target for lawmakers, regulators and music fans, and the latest wave of criticism centered last fall on the botched sale of concert tickets for Taylor Swift. But the Swift debacle is unrelated to the DOJ's investigation, which began in earnest last summer, according to the people. In Senate testimony earlier this year Live Nation President and finance chief Joe Berchtold pinned the Taylor Swift situation on a cyberattack, but critics have said it's evidence of a company with no real competition and, therefore, little motivation to offer a quality service.

Live Nation executives were told early on that the investigation is largely focused on the Ticketmaster side of the business, and the DOJ has asked questions on topics including prohibitions on reselling tickets and exclusive deals with venues to only use Ticketmaster, according to a separate person with knowledge of the matter. The DOJ has also asked questions about contracts for artist tours, that person said.

Ticketmaster is the largest ticketing company in the U.S. However, it maintains its market share has fallen in recent years and is now significantly less than the 80% alleged by the DOJ in its 2010 case against the initial deal that merged Ticketmaster and Live Nation. It says companies including SeatGeek, AEG and Paciolan are chipping away at its dominance, and the company estimates it controls just half of the market if sporting events are factored in, that separate person said.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.

The company maintains it’s still early on in the process. “We're in regular contact with the DOJ and they haven't told us they think we're doing anything illegal or asked us to address any concerns,” Dan Wall, Live Nation’s executive vice president for corporate and regulatory affairs, said in a statement. “It would be highly irregular for the DOJ to file without that notice and a lot of dialogue afterwards. However, if they do file we are prepared to defend ourselves.”

While the investigation has gained steam in recent months, Live Nation has been under federal oversight since 2010 after it merged with Ticketmaster. As part of a settlement with the government that allowed the deal to close, the companies agreed to sell off some ticketing assets, license its ticketing software and not force venues to use Ticketmaster. That settlement expired in 2020.

Live Nation settled with the DOJ again in late 2019 over violations of the earlier agreement. The DOJ accused the company of using its dominant position in the live music industry to force artists and venues to use both its ticketing and concert promotion services. As part of the new agreement, the company agreed to extend court oversight via an independent compliance monitor through 2025.


A lawsuit is not expected to focus on violations of the past settlement, two of the people with knowledge said.

For its part, no Live Nation executives have been deposed by the DOJ, and the company is still in the early stages of its cooperation with the government, including ongoing negotiations over what documents and other information to turn over, according to two of the people with knowledge of the matter.

The DOJ is moving quickly, however, and its litigation team is involved, two people said. Jonathan Kanter, the DOJ’s antitrust head, has said one of his goals is to speed up the investigative process and bring cases to trial more quickly. Merger challenges are typically investigated and litigated on tight timelines, while so-called conduct probes like the Ticketmaster matter can take years before a case is filed.

Because of the federal scrutiny dating back more than a decade and the voluminous information the government is getting from third parties, it might not be necessary to have all of the information that the DOJ is seeking from the company in advance of filing a lawsuit, the three people with knowledge of the case said. Instead the DOJ could seek that information during the discovery process.

Kanter has said repeatedly that he prefers to litigate rather than settle enforcement actions and has indicated a preference for so-called structural remedies, such as separating lines of business, rather than behavioral fixes, which include promises not to engage in certain types of conduct.

And the DOJ is not alone. A bipartisan group of state attorneys general including California, Florida, Nebraska and Massachusetts were involved in the DOJ’s earlier cases, and a group of states could potentially join a case.

The company has also drawn Congress’ ire. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who leads the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, along with other Senate Democrats urged the DOJ to seek a breakup if its probe finds anticompetitive conduct. And at the Senate hearing in January, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) questioned the wisdom of allowing the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger to happen.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/vWqP1Eb
via IFTTT

‘We simply are nowhere’: EU slams lack of progress at G20 climate meeting

Countries were unable to agree on clear language on renewables and fossil fuels.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/XH3Ih16
via IFTTT

Friday 28 July 2023

Putin rules out rejoining Black Sea grain deal, despite famine fears

Poorer nations will be dependent on Moscow’s good graces for shipments of food and fertilizer.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/HYQcMRS
via IFTTT

Powell voices skepticism at Fed's own bank rule proposal


The Federal Reserve's top bank cop, Michael Barr, is facing fierce pushback from big lenders and their GOP allies over a sweeping plan to make the industry raise more funds to guard against potential losses.

Now, skepticism is also coming from inside his own agency — including from Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

The Fed board, which places a premium on reaching consensus, voted on Thursday to propose the new capital rule in a 4-2 vote, a level of dissension unheard of on central bank regulations. The document would raise capital requirements by as much as 19 percent on the biggest banks to provide a cushion against setbacks and reduce their reliance on debt and deposits.

Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller, both appointees of former President Donald Trump, voted no on the proposal, which has gained heightened interest since the collapse of multiple lenders earlier this year.

But even Powell, who voted in favor of the proposal and supported every effort to toughen bank rules during the Obama administration, signaled he has reservations. The proposed rules have the potential to reduce access to credit, push more lending activities into less-regulated firms outside of the banking system, and decrease the flow of trading that big banks help facilitate, he warned.

“U.S. and global regulators raised large bank capital requirements significantly in the wake of the global financial crisis,” Powell said in a statement. “While there could be benefits of still higher capital, as always we must also consider the potential costs.”

The objections underscore how deeply divided the Fed is on regulations, even as it has maintained striking unanimity in its far more visible interest rate-hiking campaign. That suggests how difficult it will be for Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, to wrap up unfinished business from the 2008 financial crisis and fortify regional banks after the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and others this year.

Banks were ramping up their arguments against higher capital before the release of the proposal, which was based on an agreement among international regulators finalized in December, 2017. They say additional capital isn’t necessary and could hurt markets and the broader economy. They also argue that standards intended for the biggest, internationally active banks shouldn’t be applied to more domestic institutions.

They’ve gained allies among some housing groups, who fear it could make mortgages more scarce for lower-income communities.

Those arguments have found purchase not just among Republican lawmakers like House Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) but also within the regulators themselves.

The two Republicans who sit on the board of the FDIC also dissented against the proposal, voicing skepticism that the international standards underlying the proposal are well-designed.

But the split at the Fed, where board membership doesn’t have a required partisan breakdown like the FDIC and other independent regulators, is particularly unusual. In some ways, it’s a progression of the path taken by former Fed governor Lael Brainard, now President Joe Biden’s chief economic policy adviser. As the central bank’s lone Democrat, Brainard dissented against dozens of moves taken to roll back some of the post-2008 restrictions placed on big banks.

The fissures also reflect fundamental ideological differences about tradeoffs between the optimal level of capital that will help banks continue lending to creditworthy borrowers, while also guarding against serious blowups of lenders that could wound the economy more grievously.

Governor Lisa Cook asked staff during the board meeting about the effect on mortgages, while Philip Jefferson, another Fed official who has been nominated as vice chair, said he wants to ensure it doesn’t hurt access to credit for households and businesses.

The proposal deviates from international standards by imposing tougher capital surcharges on residential mortgages and consumer loans, an aspect that’s already generating worry in the housing industry. The agencies said it was intended to prevent big banks from facing lower capital requirements on those assets compared to small banks.

“If these standards are adopted, they will have a devastating impact on our efforts to increase Black homeownership and disadvantage all first-time, and, in particular, first-generation homebuyers who do not have the benefit of multi-generational wealth or higher than average incomes,” five groups, including the NAACP and National Urban League wrote to regulators this week, based on reports about the proposal.

Capital requirements will go up most significantly on megabanks deemed important to the global financial system, particularly those with extensive trading operations.

Barr defended the proposal in a statement.

“Capital is the cushion that allows a bank to absorb losses—no matter their source—and ensures that banks can continue to play their critical role serving households and businesses,” he wrote. “The goal of our actions today is simple: to increase the strength and resilience of the banking system by better aligning capital requirements with risk.”

“I look forward to comments on how specific activities may or may not be affected by the proposed changes,” Barr said in the statement. “We want to ensure that the proposal does not unduly affect mortgage lending, including mortgages to under-served borrowers.”

The public will have 120 days to provide feedback on the proposal once it’s formally published, and the pushback will likely be extensive.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/6bIseQT
via IFTTT