August, 27 2009, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Ben Bowman, (202) 683-2443, bbowman@fwwatch.org
Erica Schuetz, (202) 683-4903, eschuetz@fwwatch.org
Obama Administration Approves Harmful Privatization Plan for Managing Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Statement of Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter
WASHINGTON
"Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration approved an unfair and potentially destructive plan for managing the tilefish fishery of the mid-Atlantic region, known as 'Individual Fishing Quotas' or 'catch shares.' Tilefish is a common finfish of the region, and the fishery is predicted to be a $10 million industry when rebuilt. Under this plan, only fishermen who are awarded "shares" by the management council--in this case, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council--are allowed to fish, while large numbers of fishermen are pushed out of their jobs. The plan determines how much quota share a fisherman receives based on the quantities he has caught in the past, thus inherently favoring bigger players and squeezing out many smaller-scale and historic fishermen. This plan also essentially privatizes the resource, ensuring that all the profit gained from its use benefits only a few, despite that oceans and fish resources are to be held in public trust for the benefit of all.
"The plan also includes a 49 percent accumulation cap, meaning that one fisherman or fishing company may have exclusive access to as much as 49 percent of all the fish under this plan--and as few as three companies could control the entire fishery. This could amount to a near-monopoly. In 2007, then U.S. House Representative Jim Saxton (R-N.J. 3) raised concerns over this control issue with the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division.
"Further, while this plan is billed as necessary for conservation, it is entirely about economics. Catch share plans do not eliminate environmental problems such as overfishing, and may even exacerbate them. The plan places the resources in the hands of a small number of people--and in the process, eliminates large numbers of jobs. Food & Water Watch opposes this plan and the privatization of publicly held resources, and supports community-based fishery management solutions that work to balance economic, environmental and social concerns by keeping the public in control of public resources."
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Watchdogs Demand Ethics Probe of Kevin McCarthy's Jan. 6 Footage Gift to Tucker Carlson
"The speaker's release of security footage exclusively to Tucker Carlson is pure and simple using congressional resources for partisan gamesmanship."
Mar 07, 2023
A group of watchdogs on Tuesday urged the Office of Congressional Ethics to launch an investigation into House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's decision to exclusively hand more than 40,000 hours of security video from the January 6 Capitol attack to far-right Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who is already selectively using the trove of footage to spin the insurrection as a largely peaceful event.
In their request for an investigation, Public Citizen's Craig Holman and Lisa Gilbert and former White House ethics officials Norm Eisen and Richard Painter wrote that "the exclusive release of the Jan. 6 video footage appears to have been the result of a political agreement between McCarthy, Tucker Carlson, and others in McCarthy's bid to become speaker."
While McCarthy has defended the arrangement with Carlson as similar to the common practice of giving select members of the media "exclusives on certain things," the watchdogs contended that "this is not like granting an exclusive interview; this is providing a valuable government resource exclusively to one news outlet and discriminating against others, which flies in the face of First Amendment values."
The ethics experts went on to argue that "the speaker's release of security footage exclusively to Tucker Carlson is pure and simple using congressional resources for partisan gamesmanship—the very type of polarizing gamesmanship that has caused such damage to the public's perception of the integrity of Congress."
The investigation request was submitted to the Office of Congressional Ethics—an independent body that House Republicans have worked to gut—just hours after Fox News aired Carlson's first segment featuring the exclusively obtained footage.
Consistent with his past descriptions of the January 6 assault, Carlson used the Monday night segment to selectively present footage aimed at downplaying the attack and portraying the Trump supporters involved as individuals who "revered the Capitol"—a narrative that runs counter to publicly available evidence of violence and significant damage to the Capitol building.
Carlson signaled that segments in the coming days will feature additional security footage obtained through the deal with McCarthy.
Matt Gertz of Media Matters for America noted Monday that "there was never any plausible chance that Carlson's team would look at the footage and decide to tell their audience that it proved they had been wrong all along."
"He's not an impartial finder of fact—he's a propagandist who is in the business of telling his viewers what they want to hear," Gertz wrote. "In this case, they want to believe that they and their political fellow travelers were the victims, so that's what they are going to hear."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Countering GOP Attacks, Biden Proposes Tax Hike on the Rich to Strengthen Medicare
"MAGA Republicans on the Hill say the only way to be serious about preserving Medicare is to cut it," the president said. "Well, I think they're wrong."
Mar 07, 2023
President Joe Biden on Tuesday unveiled a plan to extend Medicare's solvency into the 2050s by raising taxes on high-income Americans and cutting prescription drug costs, a proposal that Biden presented as an alternative to GOP attacks on the healthcare program used by tens of millions of seniors.
"If the MAGA Republicans get their way, seniors will pay higher out-of-pocket costs on prescription drugs and insulin, the deficit will be bigger, and Medicare will be weaker," the president wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times. "The only winner under their plan will be Big Pharma. That's not how we extend Medicare's life for another generation or grow the economy."
According to an outline released by the White House on Tuesday morning, Biden's proposal would "extend the solvency of Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund by at least 25 years" by raising the Medicare tax rate from 3.8% to 5% on both earned and unearned income above $400,000.
"When Medicare was passed, the wealthiest 1% of Americans didn't have more than five times the wealth of the bottom 50% combined," Biden wrote Tuesday, "and it only makes sense that some adjustments be made to reflect that reality today."
The plan also proposes empowering "Medicare to negotiate prices for more drugs and bringing drugs into negotiation sooner after they launch," building on provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden signed into law last year. The White House plan would then credit the savings from the drug price reforms—an estimated $200 billion over 10 years—to the HI Trust Fund.
"Let's ask the wealthiest to pay just a little bit more of their fair share, to strengthen Medicare for everyone over the long term."
The Medicare plan is part of the president's sweeping fiscal year 2024 budget blueprint, scheduled for release later this week. The budget will likely include a range of administration proposals that don't stand a chance of clearing the Republican-controlled House.
In its 2022 report, the Board of Trustees for Social Security and Medicare projected that the HI Trust Fund—Medicare Part A—"will be able to pay scheduled benefits until 2028, two years later than reported" in 2021.
"At that time," the trustees report noted, "the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing total program income will be sufficient to pay 90% of total scheduled benefits."
In his Times op-ed, Biden declared that "we should do better than that and extend Medicare's solvency beyond 2050."
"Let's ask the wealthiest to pay just a little bit more of their fair share, to strengthen Medicare for everyone over the long term," the president wrote. "This modest increase in Medicare contributions from those with the highest incomes will help keep the Medicare program strong for decades to come. My budget will make sure the money goes directly into the Medicare trust fund, protecting taxpayers’ investment and the future of the program."
Biden put forth his plan as he continues to face progressive criticism for operating a pilot program called ACO REACH, which physicians warn could result in the privatization of traditional Medicare.
The president's plan also comes amid a debt ceiling standoff that Republicans are attempting to exploit to secure long-sought cuts to federal programs. House Republicans have also floated changes to Medicare, including an increase in the program's eligibility age.
"MAGA Republicans on the Hill say the only way to be serious about preserving Medicare is to cut it," Biden wrote in a Twitter post on Tuesday. "Well, I think they’re wrong. I'm releasing my budget this week. In it, I'll propose a plan to extend the life of Medicare for a generation, without cutting benefits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolutely Shameful': Biden Reportedly Weighing Revival of Migrant Family Detentions
"I've got one word for them: unacceptable," responded one immigration attorney.
Mar 07, 2023
Multiple news outlets reported late Monday that the Biden administration is considering restarting migrant family detentions that were used extensively by previous administrations in an attempt to crack down on border crossings.
While "no final decision has been made," according toThe New York Times, "the move would be a stark reversal for President Biden, who came into office promising to adopt a more compassionate approach to the border after the harsh policies of his predecessor, former President Donald J. Trump."
Immigrant rights advocates were quick to warn Biden against following through with any plan to revive migrant family detentions, which the administration had largely shut down.
"I've got one word for them: unacceptable," wrote Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council.
"The thing about family detention is not only that it's cruel and inhumane," Reichlin-Melnick added, "but also that it was a money pit and absolutely useless as a 'deterrent.'"
Bob Libal, an immigration justice advocate and consultant with Human Rights Watch, said it is "absolutely shameful that this is even being considered again."
Both the Obama and Trump administrations made expansive use of family detention, with the latter attempting to rescind limits on how long children can be held in migrant detention facilities—an effort that was ultimately blocked in federal court.
On the campaign trail, Biden condemned the practice of family detention—as well as the separation of migrant families—as morally bankrupt, writing in a Twitter post: "Children should be released from ICE detention with their parents immediately. This is pretty simple, and I can't believe I have to say it: Families belong together."
But with the 2024 election looming, the Biden administration has moved to reinstate immigration policies that it previously denounced as cruel—including a Trump-era asylum ban—as it prepares for the May expiration of Title 42, another Trump administration policy that Biden has used to rapidly deport migrants.
\u201cNO NO NO NO NO NO. \n\n\u201cThe administration will continue to prioritize safe, orderly and humane processing of migrants,\u201d Luis Miranda, a department spokesman, said in a statement.\u201d\n\nFAMILY DETENTION IS INHERENTLY INHUMANE. BABY JAILS ARE INHUMANE. https://t.co/FajlFvBGKj\u201d— Valeria Gomez (@Valeria Gomez) 1678151345
Reutersreported Monday that in addition to restarting family detentions, the Biden administration is "weighing reviving immigration arrests of migrant families within the United States who have been ordered deported."
"It's all on the table," an unnamed official told the outlet.
In the place of family detentions, the Biden administration has used ankle bracelets and other methods—decried as "digital prisons" by rights groups—to track migrant families as they move through the court system.
But as the Detention Watch Network has observed, the Biden administration did not end its contracts with facilities that were previously used to hold migrant families.
"Instead, following cues from the Obama administration, it converted the contract with Berks County to detain adult women and shifted its usage of the Dilley facility to detain single adults," the organization noted.
Citing one unnamed official, CNNreported Monday that the Biden administration is "looking at multiple options for how to handle migrant families at the southern border, not all of them involving family detention."
"Another source familiar with the deliberations added that among the options discussed are some that wouldn't involve detaining families in ICE facilities," CNN added. "This source said that family detentions would be limited to a small number of days—an attempt to set the policy apart from the Trump administration's handling of family detentions."
But it's not likely that rights groups and advocates would accept such an alternative.
"I was part of a legal team that sued to get access to the first family detention center that President Obama opened (in Artesia, N.M.)," Karen Tumlin, a civil rights litigator, recounted Monday. "Talking to families and kids detained at Artesia was one of the lowest points of my legal career. I can see the cribs lining the hallway now, families and babies crammed into tiny rooms."
"A family detention policy is a policy of adding trauma to trauma," Tumlin added. "It is painful to see this as a rumored proposal from the Biden administration."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.