

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Bart Melton, National Parks Conservation Association, 202.494.7880
Amy Kleiner-Roberts, Outdoor Industry Association, 303.888.3827
Adam Cramer, Outdoor Alliance, 202.409.4155
Seventy-five outdoor businesses, the Outdoor Industry
Association, Outdoor Alliance and the National Parks Conservation
Association have signed on to a letter calling on Congress to protect
public lands from climate change impacts. The letter, which will be
delivered to Congressional offices this week, is below. Healthy lands
and waters help generate $730 billion in economic activity in the
United States, which generates $88 billion in state and federal tax
revenue.
Seventy-five outdoor businesses, the Outdoor Industry
Association, Outdoor Alliance and the National Parks Conservation
Association have signed on to a letter calling on Congress to protect
public lands from climate change impacts. The letter, which will be
delivered to Congressional offices this week, is below. Healthy lands
and waters help generate $730 billion in economic activity in the
United States, which generates $88 billion in state and federal tax
revenue.
Statement by Amy Kleiner-Roberts, Vice-president of Governmental Affairs, Outdoor Industry Association:
"The active outdoor recreation industry is among the first to
experience the impacts of climate change on our public lands. From
declining snowpacks to droughts that cause forests to die, climate
change can degrade and limit opportunities for outdoor recreation.
"We are asking Congress to pass climate legislation that includes
funding for the restoration and adaptation of public lands. We ask that
they be protected for their own sake, and for the people who hope to
continue to enjoy clean air, scenic landscapes and outdoor recreation."
Statement by Mark Wenzler, Director Clean Air and Climate Programs, National Parks Conservation Association:
"Restoration work on federal lands helps sustain local economies and
American jobs, in addition to maintaining healthy ecosystems. Taking
action now to invest in work that helps our lands and wildlife adapt to
the earth's changing climate will ensure that public lands, including
our national parks, will continue to support 6.5 million jobs and
preserve our country's best scenery and wildlife for our children and
grandchildren to enjoy."
###
Members of the outdoor recreation industry, along with the National
Parks Conservation Association and the Outdoor Alliance, are seriously
concerned about the immediate and profound threats climate change poses
to America's natural areas and the significant outdoor pursuits and
economic activities supported by these places.
The people and businesses of the outdoor community are some of the
first to experience the impacts of climate change on our public lands.
Declining snowpack shortens ski and snowshoe seasons, makes alpine
climbing more dangerous and can eliminate ice climbing. Less snowpack
means less water in our creeks, rivers and lakes for paddling. Higher
temperatures and prolonged droughts impact the forests, mountains,
deserts, and rivers where we recreate. Climate change can degrade,
limit, and in some cases eliminate opportunities for outdoor
experiences.
As climate legislation moves forward, we ask you prioritize
protecting our national and state parks, forests, wild and scenic
rivers, national conservation areas, wildlife refuges, wilderness
areas, and national recreation areas. Healthy lands and waters as well
as the wildlife and habitat that they support are the foundation of the
$730 billion in economic activity generated by active outdoor
recreation, which supports 6.5 million jobs -- 1 in 20 across the U.S.
-- and $88 billion in state and federal tax revenue.
Though our lands, waters, plant and animals certainly deserve
protection for their own sake, they should also be protected for the
wealth of ecosystem services they provide for society at large: Clean
air and water, biodiversity, carbon storage, wildlife habitat, historic
landscapes and, particularly, outdoor recreation.
Our national parks are the envy of the world and are part of the
lifeblood of the people and businesses that make up the outdoor
community. Climate-related changes will increasingly degrade our
national parks and harm the communities and businesses that depend on
healthy natural resources for their continued economic prosperity.
Investments that help restore America's wildlife and natural resources,
making them more resilient to climate change, will improve the
ecological health of our national parks and other public lands while
enhancing the active recreation economy and the national economy at
large.
For the sake of our national parks, forests, rivers, other natural
areas and wild places, as well as the thriving economic activity that
these places support, please make sure that protecting and enhancing
America's natural areas is a priority in climate legislation. Thank you
for your consideration.
Best Regards,
Bill Cochrane Active Outdoors Group
Bridget Muscat All-Ett Poway, CA
Melanie Maltby Big Agnes Steamboat Springs, CO
Duane Raleigh, Publisher/Editor in Chief Big Stone Publishing Carbondale, CO
Peter Metcalf, President and CEO Black Diamond Equipment Salt Lake City, UT
Scott McVay Bobster Poway, CA
Bronwen Lodato Bronwen Jewelry San Francisco, CA
Jesse Mattner CAMP Broomfield, CO
Ken Meidell Cascade Designs, Inc. Seattle, WA
Sierra Norton Chico Bag Chico, CA
Elysa Hammond, CEO Clif Bar & Company Berkeley, CA
Andy Tepper Clik Elite St. George, UT
Steve Sullivan, CEO Cloudveil Mountain Works Jackson, WY
Lanette Fidrych, President Cycle Dog Portland, OR
Kara Weld Immersion Research Confluence, PA
Jeff Ivarson Ivar San Rafael, CA
Steve Rendle JanSport VF Outdoor San Leandro, CA
Scott Reffsin John Deere New York, NY
Linda Tom Keen Portland, OR
Michael Duffy Kokatat Arcata, CA
Sam Krieg Krieg Climbing Pocatello, ID
Laura Fryer La Sportiva Boulder, CO
Jordan Phillips Mission Playground Petaluma, CA
W. Beatty Jackson Mooseworks Knoxville, TN
Noah Robertson, CEO Mountain Khakis Jackson, WY
Jeff "Beaver" Theodosakis, CEO prAna Living, LLC Vista, CA
Tammy Tramble Precidio Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Mark Reed, CEO Prism Designs Inc Seattle, WA
Brian Day Pyranha Kayak Asheville, NC
Steve Flagg, Owner and President Quality Bicycle Products Bloomington, MN
Michael Collins REI Kent, WA
Greg Freyberg Ruff Wear Bend, OR
Shayla Swanson Sauce Headwear Bozeman, MT
Gary Ryan Scarpa North America Boulder, CO
Mike Sinyard, President Specialized Bicycles Morgan Hill, CA
Stan Day, President and CEO SRAM Corp Chicago, IL
Michele Flamer Stewart-Stand Brooklyn, NY
Lisa Branner Venture Snowboards Silverton, CO
Ashley Korenblat, President Western Spirit Cycling Moab, UT | Andrew Mattox Alpacka Raft LLC Mancos, CO Tom Duguid Arc'teryx Equipment North Vancouver, BC, Canada
Richard Dash Dash Hemp Santa Cruz, CA
David Clifford David Clifford Photography Carbondale, CO
Peter Worley, President, Teva/Simple Deckers Outdoor Goleta, CA
Joe Osborne Deuter USA, Inc Niwot, CO
Dave Ritchie D-fa-Dog Wanaka, New Zealand
Steve Rendle Eagle Creek VF Outdoor Carlsbad, CA
Will Manzer, CEO Eastern Mountain Sports Peterborough, NH
Buck Branson evolv Climbing Buena Park, CA
Stacey Edgar Global Girlfriend Littleton, CO
Dana Donley Morton GoLite Boulder, CO
Rain Lipson Green Label Organic Floyd, VA
Hal Arenson Horny Toad/Nau Portland, OR
Stacy Manosh Johnson Woolen Mills Johnson, VT
Jeff Cunningham K2 Sports Seattle, WA
Teresa Delfin, Proprietor Mountain Mama Ontario, CA
Thomas C. Kiernan, President National Parks Conservation Association Washington, DC
April Femrite Naturally Bamboo Mankato, MN
Tom Barney, CEO Osprey Cortez, CO
Adam Cramer Outdoor Alliance Washington, DC
Frank Hugelmeyer, President Outdoor Industry Association Boulder, CO
Christian Folk Outdoor Research Seattle, WA
Jonathan Farnsworth Parle Your Style Pocatello, ID
Yvon Chouinard, CEO Patagonia Ventura, CA
Brad Werntz Pemba Serves Madison, WI
John Evans Petzl Clearfield, UT
Karen Burke Picnic at Ascot Hawthorne, CA
Doug Jackson, President Storm Creek Hastings, MN
Dan Theade Street Strider Carson City, NV
Mike Herlinger Sun Valley Natural Products Sun Valley, ID
Sky George Tarma Designs Macon, GA
Steve Rendle, President The North Face VF Outdoor San Leandro, CA
John Burke, President and CEO Trek Bicycles Waterloo, WI
Lisa Branner Venture Snowboards Silverton, CO
Erez Toker, President Vessel Drinkware Seattle, WA
Dave Pegg, Founder Wolverine Publishing Silt, CO
Ashley Cameron Zipfy Oakville, ON, Canada
|
NPCA is a non-profit, private organization dedicated to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the U.S. National Park System.
While Missouri's 1% would get major tax breaks, one tax policy expert said, "working families and seniors would be asked to make up the difference."
Tax policy experts warned Tuesday that passing Amendment 5 in Missouri next month could lead to middle-income residents paying hundreds of dollars more each year as wealthy households enjoy a tax cut worth tens of thousands.
If approved by voters on August 4, the legislatively referred constitutional amendment would: reduce Missouri's individual income tax, based on revenue growth, until it is eliminated; prohibit future state individual income taxes; decrease personal property and other local taxes when local revenues increase, but bar funding cuts to public schools; and limit expansions of sales and use taxes, unless they are used to lower income tax.
As The Kansas City Star detailed last week, Amendment 5 is a "top priority for Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe," and Missouri Promise PAC, the main campaign supporting it, received "$9.6 million from six organizations or groups that do not have to disclose their donors," also known as dark money.
While some of the campaign backers remain unknown to voters, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) in Washington, DC aimed to shed light on the specifics of the amendment's anticipated impact with its new policy brief.
"Amendment 5 asks Missouri voters to approve a tax shift without telling them which purchases will be taxed or how high sales taxes will rise," said ITEP analyst and brief author Eli Byerly-Duke. "What is clear is who would benefit: the wealthiest Missourians. Working families and seniors would be asked to make up the difference."
Missouri's individual income tax "makes up about 64% of the state's general fund and is the major funding source for state investments in infrastructure, schools, healthcare, public safety, and other services," the brief explains. "Low- and middle-income Missourians already pay a disproportionate share of the taxes to fund public services," and swapping income taxes for higher sales taxes "would shift even more of this responsibility from the state's highest-income individuals to teachers, farmers, truck drivers, and other middle-income Missourians."
Specifically, Byerly-Duke found that "middle-class Missourians with incomes of about $50,000 to $80,000 will pay $535 more in taxes if the personal income tax is eliminated and the sales tax expanded," all while Missouri's top 1%—or those with incomes of $689,300 and above—see an average tax break of $39,978.

The brief also highlights that "neither the Missouri Legislature nor governor has explained exactly how they will expand sales taxes if it passes. They might increase the sales tax rate, or they might expand the sales tax to include purchases of services that are not currently taxed, such as home repair and insurance, car repair and financing, personal care services such as hair or nail care, or medical services. Taxing these items will cost middle-income households a larger share of their incomes than higher-income households, but middle-income families will not get a commensurate benefit from the income tax elimination."
"For senior citizens, active-duty military families, and military retirees, the impact would be even worse," the report continues. "That's because Social Security benefits, active-duty military pay, and military pensions are already exempt from Missouri income tax, so households for whom those are the sole source of income would get no benefit from Amendment 5. For a middle-class Missourian earning between $49,100 and $79,700, this would mean an increase of $1,600 in taxes every year. Overall, seniors alone would see a net tax increase of about $335 million and each pay $365 more, on average, each year."
The brief bolsters the case for voters to say "No on 5," as Protect MO Taxpayers encourages. The "no" campaign's website warns that the amendment "hits seniors, retirees, veterans, and disabled persons hardest. Those on tight fixed incomes may not pay income tax on their limited income, but they will certainly be hurt by higher sales taxes on goods they buy every day, such as groceries, medicine, and gas, and services they use every day, from haircuts to car repairs to healthcare and housing."
"Amendment 5 hits working families hardest of all, with higher sales and use taxes estimated by the nonpartisan Missouri Budget Project to cost the average Missouri family about $500 more in taxes per year overall," Protect MO Taxpayers' site says, also pointing to concerns that it will "increase the tough economic times in rural Missouri" and "make the economic struggle even harder for small businesses."
The proposal "is a severe hit for renters who are already struggling to make ends meet," and "crushes the dreams of Missourians who want to buy or sell a home," the site adds. "Amendment 5 hits active-duty military, who do not pay state income tax but will face higher prices off the base with sales taxes that could roughly triple. This will mean less retail business and economic harm in our neighboring military host communities."
"What a complete clown show," said one critic of Hegseth's new initiative.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday elicited instant ridicule after he unveiled a new plan to offer military personnel testosterone injections.
In a video announcement, Hegseth said he was authorizing a screening program to ensure US soldiers "have the right testosterone levels" to perform at their "absolute best."
"It's well established science that, as we age, testosterone levels often drop," the US defense secretary explained. "Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters aged 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment."
The High-T Department of War. pic.twitter.com/hlAUq3j2cD
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) July 15, 2026
Personnel who are found lacking in testosterone, Hegseth continued, would get recommendations for hormone injections, though he emphasized that this would be entirely optional.
"This initiative, it's not about artificial enhancement," Hegseth emphasized. "It's about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities."
Critics on social media responded to Hegseth's new testosterone injection plan with mockery.
Journalist Amanda Katz joked that Hegseth's plan was "literally gender-affirming care" of the kind that Hegseth halted for transgender service members last year.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) similarly asked Hegseth if the new program means that "now y’all support gender-affirming care?"
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that the Hegseth initiative "is gender affirming care and it completely debunks all of Republicans’ attacks on trans people."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Missouri and a veteran of the US Army, called Hegseth's initiative "the absolute dumbest thing imaginable for the secretary of defense to be focused on."
"We are literally at war and this idiot is in his office doing two camera make up videos on testosterone," Wellman added. "What a complete clown show. I’m so sorry for our poor service members who have to deal with this ridiculous man."
Attorney Bradley Moss likened the Hegseth plan to the plot of Soldier, a 1998 movie starring Kurt Russell that bombed with both critics and audiences.
Moss added, however, that Hegseth's idea appeared even "stupider" than the movie.
Attorney Will Stancil wondered if Hegseth's testosterone program might finally push some military personnel over the edge.
"Without a hint of sarcasm I think he might get himself fragged eventually," Stancil wrote.
The lone Democrat on the FCC said Brendan Carr's plan would "destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families."
Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr announced Wednesday that his agency will soon vote to repeal a decades-old rule aimed at limiting consolidation among television broadcasters, a move that press freedom organizations say would be disastrous for journalism and American democracy.
Carr, a loyalist of President Donald Trump, outlined his proposal in an op-ed for the far-right online publication Breitbart, claiming his plan would "restore balance to the broadcast airwaves." But Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic FCC commissioner, warned in a fiery statement that "this unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families who depend on local stations for news and emergency alerts."
Carr said the FCC will vote on August 6 on his proposal to eliminate a rule barring any single TV broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of US households—a limit designed to constrain television conglomerates. The FCC, which has a two-to-one Republican majority, is likely to approve the plan.
But Gomez argued in her statement on Wednesday that Carr's proposal is illegal, noting that "Congress wrote that specific [39%] number into federal law in 2004, and it did so on purpose."
"This is not the first time the FCC has tried to move on this issue," said Gomez. "In 2003, the commission raised the cap to 45% under its own authority. Congress stepped in within months, rewrote the law to set the cap at 39%, and made clear the FCC did not have the authority to change it. An FCC vote to raise the cap now would be unlawful, as it would mean doing the exact thing Congress has already said the commission cannot do."
Politico noted that Carr's proposal "marks a likely victory for the National Association of Broadcasters and its members such as Nexstar and Sinclair, which would be freer to pursue mergers that would breach the cap."
Earlier this year, the FCC approved Nexstar's $6.2 billion acquisition of rival TV company Tegna. A federal judge blocked the merger deal in April pending resolution of a legal challenge. If the merger is finalized, the new media conglomerate would reach roughly 80% of US households, blowing past the statutory 39% limit that Carr is now working to remove.
"Just as the FCC had no power to waive a congressional statute to grease the skids for Nexstar’s merger with Tegna, it has no power now to completely obliterate the limit Congress set," Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at Free Press, said in a statement on Wednesday. "The national cap remains good policy. It promotes competition, localism, and diversity in broadcasting, incentivizing stations to preserve local newsrooms and local-journalism jobs instead of duplicating stories nationwide and passing that off as local news."
"But whatever the law’s merits may be," Wood added, "the key point is that Brendan Carr cannot undo the limit that Congress set just because he feels like it.”