June, 11 2010, 04:05pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Email:,info@codepink.org,Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK co-founder:,medea@codepink.org,Jodie Evans, national media coordinator, (310) 621-5635
Victory: Peace Groups Permanently Shut Down Army Experience Center in Philadelphia
Army announcement made just days before planned protest. Several large demonstrations, non-violent civil resistance and regular vigils contributed to its demise.
WASHINGTON
Franklin Mills Mall, Philadelphia, PA - A
coalition of thirty peace groups has proven triumphant in their goal of
forever shutting down the "Army Experience Center" in a suburban
shopping mall in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported today
that the Army plans to permanently close the facility. https://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/96031939.html
After almost two years of glorifying the "Army experience" and
U.S. wars through video and war games, the Army Experience Center at
Franklin Mills Malls announced it will shut down on July 31, 2010. The
$13 million, 14,500 square foot Army Experience Center at Franklin Mills
Mall boasts dozens of video game computers and X-Box video game
consoles with various interactive, military-style shooting games. The
facility has sophisticated Apache helicopter and Humvee simulators that
allow teens to simulate the killing of Arabs and Afghans. Philadelphia
Inquirer reporter Rob Watson compared the Army Experience Center to "a
heavy dose of candy cigarettes."
Dozens of local and national peace groups joined the "Shut Down
the Army Experience Center" effort in January 2009, soon after the
heavily marketed Center got national press coverage. The mall was the
site of several protests of hundreds of people, with more than a dozen
arrests.
Six of those arrested were acquitted by a Philadelphia trial judge
on May 24, 2010, and prior to that at a trial last year, six arrested
were also acquitted.
Elaine Brower, one of those arrested
twice, whose son joined the Marines at age 17 and served three tours in
Afghanistan & Iraq, became a vocal opponent of the AEC. She said
today, "This is a victory for the entire peace and anti-war movement.
The team work and coalition building that was accomplished led to our
success. We were relentless in our struggle to shut this center down,
and we did it strategically. As they say, a people united will never be
defeated!"
When the center opened the Army announced it was designed as a
pilot program and would decide whether to launch them nationally. As
recently as August 2009, however, Jared Auchey, Company Commander at
Franklin Mills, was boasting of the center's "success" and claiming
others were being planned.
Former US Army SSgt. Jesse Hamilton, now a member of Iraq
Veterans Against the War, stated today, "By portraying war as a game,
the AEC glorified violence to our children and disrespected those
soldiers who gave their lives in combat. As a combat veteran, nothing
makes me happier than to know that the AEC will no longer have the
ability to corrupt our children's minds and disrespect our deceased war
heroes."
Bill Deckhart, Coordinator of the BuxMont Coalition for Peace
Action stated, "I am just elated. Being a peace activist we don't get a
lot of wins so we must savor this victory. There's still lots of work
to do and we need to help create a world that can be peaceful and does
not need to think about military recruiters and sending people to kill
or be killed for corporate profits."
The Army is planning an official
announcement today and a news conference tomorrow, before another large
demonstration planned for Saturday.
https://afterdowningstreet.org/node/53064
The coalition to Shut Down
the Army Experience Center involved BuxMont Coalition for Peace Action,
Veterans for Peace, Brandywine Peace Community, Iraq Veterans Against
the War, CODEPINK, Granny Peace Brigade, Peace Action Montgomery, Peace
Action National, NorthWest Greens, Woodstock Peace and Justice, Pax
Christi Long Island & Pennsylvania, Military Families Speak Out/NYC,
Delaware Valley Veterans For America and World Can't Wait.
CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.
(818) 275-7232LATEST NEWS
'Insane': McCarthy Vows No Vote for Bipartisan Senate Spending Bill as Shutdown Looms
"In the House, Republicans have tried everything but bipartisanship, and every path they've pursued to date will inevitably lead to a shutdown," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Sep 27, 2023
Republican U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Wednesday said he will not call a vote on the bipartisan stopgap funding bill hashed out in the Senate in a bid to avert a looming government shutdown—a move slammed as "insane" by the Congressional Progressive Caucus chair.
Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) told reporters at a media briefing that McCarthy (Calif.) informed members of the House GOP conference during a closed-door meeting that he won't allow a vote on the continuing resolution (CR) senators agreed to on Tuesday evening.
Good said the CR would be "dead on arrival" in the lower chamber and that "there's no way the House would pass that bill." Many Republicans—especially the party's hard-right wing—are vehemently opposed to the measure and have threatened to oust McCarthy from the speakership if he works with Democrats on a deal.
Instead, House Republicans on Tuesday voted to open debate on a package of appropriations bills for the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State, and Agriculture. These are but four of the 12 measures that lawmakers must approve in order to fully fund the federal government. Democratic critics have slammed the GOP for pursuing severe spending cuts that would impact everything from education programs to food and housing aid for low-income families to disaster relief funding.
While President Joe Biden has accused McCarthy of reneging on a deal to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for maintaining current government spending levels, the speaker is pressing for a new meeting with the president to underscore Republican demands to include increased border security in any agreement.
Criticism of McCarthy's refusal to hold a vote on the CR came from both sides of the aisle and both chambers of Congress.
"Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans agreed yesterday to move forward on a bipartisan CR that will keep the government open," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in response to McCarthy's decision. "In the House, Republicans have tried everything but bipartisanship, and every path they've pursued to date will inevitably lead to a shutdown."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote on social media: "This is insane. The Senate passed a funding bill that would avert a government shutdown and give the House more time to pass appropriations bills, but Speaker McCarthy won't even consider it."
"Let us vote, Kevin," she added.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the chamber floor that "a vote against a standard short-term funding measure is a vote against paying over $1 billion in salary for Border Patrol and [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents working to track down lethal fentanyl and tame our open borders."
If McCarthy maintains his opposition to the Senate CR, a House majority made up of both Democratic and GOP representatives could come together for a discharge petition to force a vote—though Republicans who did so would likely face accusations of betrayal from their own party.
The U.S. is just four days from its 15th government shutdown since 1980. A shutdown would suspend key federal programs, affecting millions of Americans—especially seniors, children, veterans, and working families. Federal employees would be furloughed or, in the case of workers deemed essential like air traffic controllers, forced to work without pay.
Appearing on MSNBC on Tuesday, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) told Joy Reid that "there's not one single senator" who wants a shutdown, but "on their side in the House, this is petty chaos by diminished men."
"The last time they did this kind of thing, you know, it resulted in another credit downgrade," Fetterman added. "If they want to be this stupid to do this again, they're going to pay in '24."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Marijuana Industry Banking Bill Passes Key Senate Panel
"We've got momentum on our side," said Sen. Jeff Merkley. "Let's get this done to protect our legal cannabis businesses!"
Sep 27, 2023
The U.S. Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday brought major federal marijuana banking legislation closer to becoming law than ever, approving a bipartisan bill that advocates say is essential to the safety of legal recreational and medical marijuana businesses across the United States.
The committee voted 14-9 in favor of passing the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act, which would legally protect banks and credit unions that provide services to cannabis operations and prohibit federal regulators from ordering financial institutions to close a business' account based on "reputational risk."
An earlier version of the bill passed in the U.S. House numerous times but was never advanced in the Senate under either Democratic or Republican control.
"We've got momentum on our side to finally pass the SAFER Banking Act," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.). "Let's get this done to protect our legal cannabis businesses!"
Although 39 states have passed laws legalizing the sale of marijuana for recreational or medical use, advocates say dispensaries are put at risk by a lack of federal protections for financial institutions that might otherwise work with them.
Only 12% of all U.S. banks and 5% of credit unions provide banking services to marijuana-related businesses, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury.
As Common Dreams reported, Mastercard announced in July that it would no longer offer services in the cannabis industry because marijuana is still criminalized at the federal level—even though annual national sales in the sector are projected to reach $57 billion by 2030 in states where cannabis is currently legalized.
NORML, which has advocated for marijuana decriminalization since 1970, noted on Wednesday that more than 70% of cannabis businesses report that a "lack of access to banking or investment capital" is their top challenge.
Without access to banking services, businesses are forced to make sales only in cash, which Merkley said is "an open invitation to robberies, muggings, money laundering, and organized crime."
"Forcing legal businesses to operate in all-cash is dangerous for our communities," said the senator.
NORML political director Morgan Fox called the newly advanced legislation "an improved version of the SAFE Banking Act."
"It allows state-licensed cannabis businesses to more easily access financial services, such as opening a simple bank account, and it provides entrepreneurs with greater access to lending and other services that are available to other legal businesses," said Fox.
Schumer called the passage of the bill out of the committee "a huge step," and said he is also working to include amendments to expunge people's marijuana-related criminal offenses in the final bill.
"Now is the time," said the senator.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Could Trigger Hundreds of Billions in Corporate Tax Cuts 'With the Stroke of Pen'
A new report warns that huge tax gifts for corporations and "a $340 billion hole in the federal budget" are among the potential consequences of a case SCOTUS is set to hear in December.
Sep 27, 2023
A Washington-based married couple's challenge to an obscure provision of the 2017 Republican tax law has the potential to become "the most important tax case in a century," with far-reaching implications for federal revenues, key social programs, and Congress' constitutional authority to impose levies on income.
That's according to a new report released Wednesday by the Roosevelt Institute and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).
The policy groups estimated that if the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in Moore v. United States—which the justices are set to take up in December—nearly 400 multinational corporations could collectively receive more than $270 billion in tax relief, further enriching behemoths such as Apple, Microsoft, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Google.
The Roosevelt Institute and ITEP also found that Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito own stock in 19 companies that are poised to receive a combined $30 billion in tax breaks if the judges strike down the 2017 law's mandatory repatriation tax, a one-time levy targeting earnings that multinational corporations had piled up overseas.
But the case could have impacts well beyond a repeal of the repatriation tax, which was projected to generate $340 billion in federal revenue over a decade.
Depending on the scope of the justices' decision, the new report argues, the Supreme Court could "suddenly supplant Congress as a major American tax policymaker, putting at legal jeopardy much of the architecture of laws that prevent corporations and individuals from avoiding taxes, and introducing great uncertainty about our democracy's ability to tax large corporations and the most affluent."
"At the best of times, blowing a $340 billion hole in the federal budget would be catastrophic," Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at ITEP and a co-author of the new report, said in a statement. "And if the court invalidates the transition tax in its Moore decision, that's exactly what would happen: possibly the costliest Supreme Court decision of all time. And it would be hard to identify a less deserving set of tax cut beneficiaries than the companies that would reap at least $271 billion from repealing this tax."
"The Roberts Court could decide with the stroke of a pen to simultaneously forgive big business decades of tax dues."
Charles and Kathleen Moore brought their challenge to the repatriation provision after they were hit with a roughly $15,000 tax bill stemming from their stake in an Indian farm equipment company. As the Tax Policy Center recently observed, the Indian firm is a "controlled foreign corporation (CFC), or a foreign corporation whose ownership or voting rights are more than 50% owned by U.S. persons who each own at least 10%."
The Moores' cause has been championed by billionaire-backed organizations and corporate lobbying groups, including the Manhattan Institute–which is chaired by billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer—and the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
"That such a case involving such modest sums would make it all the way to the high court indicates that there is much more at play than a single family's tax refund," ITEP's Gardner and Spandan Marasini and the Roosevelt Institute's Niko Lusiani note in the new report.
The plaintiffs' legal team argues that because the Moores' shares in the Indian firm were not "realized"—they did not sell or receive a distribution from the company—they should not have been on the hook for the repatriation tax.
"The government, on the other hand, argues that almost a century of tax law precedent has established Congress' broad authority to decide when and how to tax income, even without a specific realization event," the new report explains. "What's more, the income was clearly realized by the corporation, which is sufficient for income taxation of shareholders under various provisions of the existing tax code."
Our latest report with @rooseveltinst identifies 389 multinational corporations that would collectively be allocated $271 billion in tax relief, according to company estimates. The top five would receive a major share of the tax breaks. pic.twitter.com/wk5C5crGt2
— ITEP (@iteptweets) September 27, 2023
While it's possible that the Supreme Court will rule narrowly on the specifics of the Moores' situation, the report authors cautioned that the justices "could also issue a broad decision that taxing income—of an individual or a corporate shareholder—requires realization, and that income taxation on multiple years of accrued income is unconstitutional."
Such a sweeping ruling could preemptively ban a wealth tax—an outcome that right-wing supporters of the Moores have explicitly advocated.
"This case presents the court with an ideal opportunity to clarify that taxes on unrealized gains, such as wealth taxes, are direct taxes that are unconstitutional if not apportioned among the states," the Manhattan Institute declared in a May amicus brief.
A broad ruling by the high court could also imperil key elements of the existing tax code, according to ITEP and the Roosevelt Institute.
"One of the most established of these pillars is known as Subpart F, which was enacted in 1962 to prevent American corporations from avoiding taxation through offshore entities or controlled foreign corporations," the new report says. "Provisions related to Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI), the branch profits tax; tax treatment of corporate debt; and others could be uprooted by five justices."
"The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax—enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act to create a basic corporate tax floor—as well as international efforts to curb international tax avoidance could be made constitutionally invalid," the report adds.
The analysis stresses that the consequences of a broad ruling in the upcoming case would be profound, affecting more than just a handful of corporate tax provisions.
"In Moore," the report warns, "the Roberts Court could decide with the stroke of a pen to simultaneously forgive big business decades of tax dues, increase the federal deficit over the long run, jeopardize future public revenue and essential social programs, escalate these multinational companies' already sizeable after-tax profits, and further enrich their shareholders."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!