April, 21 2010, 04:03pm EDT
PSR Supports Newly Introduced Safe Chemicals Act, Seeks Improvement Before Enactment
WASHINGTON
Physicians for Social Responsibility supports the "Safe Chemicals Act
of 2010," introduced last week by Senator Lautenberg and Congressmen
Waxman and Rush. The long-awaited, landmark legislation would overhaul
the way the federal government protects the public from toxic chemicals.
"For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has been
regulating chemicals with blinders on, because it doesn't have the
relevant health information," said Peter Wilk, MD,
Executive Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility. "Americans
are being exposed to chemicals that affect immune function, endocrine
function, and have other unknown health effects. At the same time, we
are seeing increased incidence of chronic diseases. We need a
health-based approach to chemical regulation, and we are optimistic that
the Safe Chemicals Act can fill this urgent need."
Representatives Waxman and Rush have announced an aggressive schedule
in the House of Representatives to complete committee action by
mid-summer.
Positive aspects of the Safe Chemicals Act include essential reforms
that would substantially improve public health protections, such as:
- Requiring chemical companies to develop and make publicly available
basic health and safety information for all chemicals. - Requiring chemicals to meet a safety standard that protects
vulnerable sub-populations, including pregnant women and children. - A new program to identify communities that are "hot spots" for toxic
chemicals and to take action to reduce exposures. - Expediting safety determinations and actions to restrict some of the
most notorious chemicals, like formaldehyde, vinyl chloride, and flame
retardants.
PSR is a member of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a
broad coalition of more than 200 public health and environmental
organizations. While supporting the legislation, the Safer Chemicals,
Healthy Families coalition calls for improvements in three critical
areas. As currently drafted, the legislation would:
- Allow hundreds of new chemicals to enter the market and be used in
products for many years without first requiring them to be shown to be
safe. - Not provide clear authority for EPA to immediately restrict
production and use of the most dangerous chemicals, even persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, which already have been
extensively studied and are restricted by governments around the world. - Would not require EPA to adopt the National Academy of Sciences'
recommendations to incorporate the best and latest science when
determining the safety of chemicals, although the Senate bill does call
on EPA to consider those recommendations.
To ensure that this bill delivers on its promise to implement a
safety system that truly protects all Americans, it must rectify these
issues before enactment.
There is already widespread evidence that average Americans carry a
heavy burden of chemicals in their bodies. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's National Biomonitoring Project has found that
synthetic chemicals linked to health problems are present in every
American. PSR released a report in October, 2009, documenting the presence
of industrial chemicals in the bodies of doctors and nurses across the
country. "We know that healthcare professionals, workers, children --
indeed, all Americans -- are routinely exposed to industrial chemicals,"
said Kristen Welker-Hood, ScD MSN RN, director of
Environment and Health Programs at PSR, and co- principal investigator
and a co-author of that report. "We need a regulatory system that can
protect all Americans from these potentially dangerous substances. We
think the Safe Chemicals Act is a step in the right direction, but
requires critical strengthening."
The Safe Chemicals Act would amend the federal Toxic Substances
Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). The current TSCA law is widely acknowledged
to be ineffective. TSCA "grandfathered in" 62,000 chemicals at the
time it passed without requiring any testing or demonstration of
safety. In the ensuing three decades under TSCA, EPA has required
testing for only a few hundred of those chemicals, and has only
partially restricted five. Meanwhile, a growing body of science has
documented widespread human exposures to toxic chemicals in everyday
products, and has linked those exposures to the rising incidence of a
number of serious chronic diseases and disorders, including reduced
fertility, learning disabilities, breast and prostate cancer, and
certain childhood cancers.
Environmental justice groups applauded the provisions in the Safe
Chemicals Act mandating EPA to develop action plans to reduce the
disproportionately high exposures to toxic chemicals in some
communities.
"There are many communities, especially communities of color, tribal
lands, and low-income communities, where people are dying at
extraordinary rates because of toxic chemical exposure. This bill, for
the first time, would give EPA authority to identify these communities
and protect them from major sources of toxic chemicals," said Mark
Mitchell, MD, President of the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental
Justice.
Related PSR web pages:
Hazardous Chemicals in Healthcare: a Snapshot of
Chemicals in Doctors and Nurses
The Need for Chemical Reform in the United States
Physicians for Social Responsibility mobilizes physicians and health professionals to advocate for climate solutions and a nuclear weapons-free world. PSR's health advocates contribute a health voice to energy, environmental health and nuclear weapons policy at the local, federal and international level.
LATEST NEWS
Why Can't We Fund Universal Public Goods? Blame the Tax-Dodging Billionaire Nepo Babies
"In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta," reads a new report.
Dec 13, 2024
The children of the richest families in the U.S. are well-known for spending their vast wealth on frivolous luxuries—constructing a replica of a medieval church on their acres of property, in the case of banking heir Timothy Mellon, or starting a brand of T-shirts described by one critic as "terrible beyond your wildest imagination," as Wyatt Koch, nephew of Republican megadonors Charles and David, did.
But a report released by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) on Thursday shows how "billionaire nepo babies" don't just waste their families' fortunes. They also benefit from "a rigged system" that allows them to "pass that wealth down over generations without being properly taxed–often without being taxed at all."
In addition, the heirs of the country's biggest fortunes spend vast sums "to elect politicians who protect their unearned wealth and manipulate the country's economy in their favor," said ATF.
Along with Mellon and Koch, the report profiles Samuel Logan of the Scripps media dynasty; Nicola Peltz-Beckham, daughter of billionaire investor Nelson Peltz; Gabrielle Rubenstein, whose family has made its fortune in private equity; and President-elect Donald Trump's son, Eric Trump.
The nepo babies are part of a small group of billionaire families in the U.S. who benefit from tax loopholes that ensure little of their immense wealth ever goes to benefit the public good.
At least 90 billionaires have passed away over the last decade, leaving their beneficiaries $455 billion in collective wealth.
But according to ATF, "$255 billion (56%) of that amount was likely entirely exempt from the capital gains tax because of a special break called 'stepped up basis.'"
"Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations."
Without loopholes included the stepped up basis tax cut, the current estate tax on billionaires and centimillionaires would yield enough revenue to fund universal childcare, preschool, and paid family leave for U.S. workers, with hundreds of billions of dollars left over, according to ATF's report.
The wealthy heirs profiled in the report and their families are some of the Republican Party's top donors—contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to candidates including Trump in the hopes of securing even more tax cuts.
Mellon, for example, is Trump's "biggest supporter, giving $140 million to a pro-Trump PAC in 2024 alone," reads the report.
A previous analysis by ATF found that as of late October, just 150 billionaire families had spent $1.9 billion on the 2024 elections.
As the Center for American Progress found earlier this year, Trump's plan to extend the tax cuts that he pushed through in 2017 would cost $4 trillion over the next decade.
"The vast wealth inherited by centuries-old billionaire families is staggering. While these heirs and their billions go undertaxed, enormous sums are squandered on lavish mansions, private jets, and vanity projects instead of funding crucial public investments," said ATF executive director David Kass. "In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta. Now, Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations—all while advocating for cuts to vital programs that working and middle-class Americans depend on."
The report calls for Congress to pass "proven, pragmatic proposals to unrig the tax system that enjoy high levels of popular support," such as the Ultra Millionaire Tax Act that was proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) this year. The bill would tax fortunes between $50 million and $1 billion at 2% and wealth above $1 billion at $1 billion.
The small tax on enormous wealth would generate "a whopping $3 trillion over 10 years," said ATF.
The estate tax could also be "restored so that it can play a meaningful role in promoting fairness and equal opportunities" through the passage of the For the 99.5% Act, which was introduced in 2023 by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.).
Under the bill, the estate tax exemption would be lowered to $7 million per couple and the current 40% flat rate would be replaced with a sliding scale that would charge higher rates as a family's wealth grows.
"None of these tax reforms would impoverish the ultra wealthy, nor even inconvenience them in any meaningful way–but they would reduce the concentration of wealth that is so corrosive to society," reads the report. "At the same time, they would raise trillions of dollars that could be used to reduce inequality and improve the lives of families that can only dream of the kind of security and opportunity enjoyed by the nation’s richest clans."
"And if rich families ever did need to tighten their belts a bit to pay their taxes," the report continues, "the economizing might begin by reducing the flow of money funding the extravagant lifestyles of America's Billionaire Nepo Babies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Next Recession Starts Here': Trump Team Weighs Abolishing Bank Regulators
The president-elect's advisers are reportedly discussing plans to shrink or eliminate key bank watchdogs, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Dec 13, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers are reportedly considering plans to weaken—or abolish altogether—top bank regulators, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
The Wall Street Journalreported Thursday that members of Trump's transition team and the new Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency have asked nominees under consideration to head the FDIC and OCC if the bank watchdogs could be eliminated and have their functions absorbed by the Treasury Department, which is set to be run by a billionaire hedge fund manager and crypto enthusiast.
"Bank executives are optimistic President-elect Donald Trump will ease a host of regulations on capital cushions and consumer protections, as well as scrutiny of consolidation in the industry," the Journal reported. "But FDIC deposit insurance is considered near sacred. Any move that threatened to undermine even the perception of deposit insurance could quickly ripple through banks and in a crisis might compound customer fears."
The Trump team's internal and fluid discussions about the fate of the key bank regulators broadly aligns with Project 2025's proposal to "merge the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Reserve's non-monetary supervisory and regulatory functions."
The FDIC, which is primarily funded by bank insurance premiums, was established during the Great Depression to restore public trust in the nation's banking system, and the agency played a central role in navigating the 2023 bank failures that threatened a systemic crisis.
Observers warned that gutting the FDIC and OCC could catalyze another economic meltdown.
"The next recession starts here," tech journalist Jacob Silverman warned in response to the Journal's reporting.
Eric Rauchway, a historian of the New Deal, wrote that "even Milton Friedman appreciated the FDIC," underscoring the extreme nature of the incoming Trump administration's deregulatory ambitions.
Musk, the world's wealthiest man, is also pushing for the elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency established in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
The Journal noted Thursday that "Rep. Andy Barr, a Republican from Kentucky and Trump ally on the House Financial Services Committee, has backed the plan to eliminate or drastically alter the CFPB and said he wants to get rid of what he calls 'one-size-fits-all' regulation for banks."
Barr has received millions of dollars in campaign donations from the financial sector and "introduced many pieces of pro-industry legislation, including significant rollbacks of protections stemming from the 2008 financial crisis," according to the watchdog group Accountable.US.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Chief Warns of Israel's Syria Invasion and Land Seizures
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stressed the "urgent need" for Israel to "de-escalate violence on all fronts."
Dec 12, 2024
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said Thursday that he is "deeply concerned" by Israel's "recent and extensive violations of Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity," including a ground invasion and airstrikes carried out by the Israel Defense Forces in the war-torn Mideastern nation.
Guterres "is particularly concerned over the hundreds of Israeli airstrikes on several locations in Syria" and has stressed the "urgent need to de-escalate violence on all fronts throughout the country," said U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric.
Israel claims its invasion and bombardment of Syria—which come as the United States and Turkey have also violated Syrian sovereignty with air and ground attacks—are meant to create a security buffer along the countries' shared border in the wake of last week's fall of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and amid the IDF's ongoing assault on Gaza, which has killed or wounded more than 162,000 Palestinians and is the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case.
While Israel argues that its invasion of Syria does not violate a 1974 armistice agreement between the two countries because the Assad dynasty no longer rules the neighboring nation, Dujarric said Guterres maintains that Israel must uphold its obligations under the deal, "including by ending all unauthorized presence in the area of separation and refraining from any action that would undermine the cease-fire and stability in Golan."
Israel conquered the western two-thirds of the Golan Heights in 1967 and has illegally occupied it ever since, annexing the seized lands in 1981.
Other countries including France, Russia, and Saudi Arabia have criticized Israel's invasion, while the United States defended the move.
"The Syrian army abandoned its positions in the area... which potentially creates a vacuum that could have been filled by terrorist organizations," U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said at a press briefing earlier this week. "Israel has said that these actions are temporary to defend its borders. These are not permanent actions... We support all sides upholding the 1974 disengagement agreement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular