July, 05 2012, 08:36am EDT
Angola: Protesters Detained, Disappeared
Pre-election Environment Marred by Crackdown
JOHANNESBURG
The Angolan government is targeting protest organizers for arbitrary arrest and detention in response to increasing demonstrations criticizing the government or its policies, Human Rights Watch said today.
Human Rights Watch called on the Angolan authorities to release or appropriately charge all detained protesters and to ensure that all detainees have prompt access to legal counsel and family members. The authorities should urgently investigate alleged abductions and possible enforced disappearances of several protest organizers. Angola is scheduled to hold parliamentary elections on August 31, 2012.
"The recent spate of serious abuses against protesters is an alarming sign that Angola's government will not tolerate peaceful dissent," said Leslie Lefkow, deputy Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "The government should stop trying to silence these protests and focus on improving the election environment."
Angola has experienced unprecedented public protests since 2011 as first youth, and now war veterans, have publicly demonstrated in the capital, Luanda, and other cities.
The youth movement has called for social reforms and the resignation of President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, now in power for 33 years. War veterans are demanding long overdue social benefits.
Over the past year, Angolan uniformed police and plainclothes agents have reacted to the youth protests with increasingly violent crackdowns, despite their small scale, and have arrested many youth leaders, journalists, and opposition leaders.
Public protests by war veterans have gained momentum since June. War veterans in Luanda and Benguela have announced more protests before the elections unless the government addresses their demands for regular pension payments. Many of the war veterans were demobilized over the last two decades from the armies of all sides, including the ruling party, in Angola's long civil war. On June 7, several thousand war veterans marched to the Defense Ministry in Luanda, where the army chief of staff, Gen. Sachipengo Nunda, promised to address their pension claims.
On June 20, thousands of war veterans gathered at the military signals regiment headquarters in Luanda, following an official announcement that the government would disburse one-time payments of US$550 and address pension claims. War veterans who participated in the protest that day told Human Rights Watch that the protest erupted spontaneously after they did not receive any official response to their broader pension claims.
The war veterans marched through the city, stopping at the Catholic Radio Ecclesia and the United States embassy, and came close to the presidential area, until they were barred by squads of Rapid Intervention Police, military police, and presidential guards, who dispersed the crowd by shooting teargas and live ammunition.
Witnesses told Human Rights Watch that protesters were unarmed, but some participants threw stones and beat an Angolan army general who was at the scene, according to Human Rights Watch research. Human Rights Watch was not able to confirm allegations that three protesters were shot to death.
The security forces arrested and jailed more than 50 war veterans during the June 20 protest. Seventeen were allegedly released without charge on June 22, but the police, military, and judiciary authorities did not respond to Human Rights Watch's repeated requests to confirm the total numbers of those arrested, released, or still in pretrial detention. On June 25, military police arrested a leader of a war veterans' complaints commission.
Human Rights Watch research determined that at least 28 war veterans remain in pretrial detention: eight at the criminal investigation police headquarters and at least 20 at the military judicial police headquarters in Luanda. Police, military police, and court officials told Human Rights Watch that the detainees were permitted to request assistance from legal counsel, but had not done so. Family members of some detainees told Human Rights Watch they were allowed to bring food, but were not allowed to speak to their relatives.
Two war veterans who were detained for two days told Human Rights Watch that they were forced to declare on television that opposition political parties were behind the protests, and were then released without charge. They said that plainclothes security agents interrogated them separately without the presence of a lawyer at Luanda's provincial criminal investigation police. They also said they were threatened with reprisals if they refused to tell the state-owned television, Televisao Publica de Angola (TPA), that opposition parties had incited the former soldiers to protest.
One of the two veterans, Francisco Candela, who was demobilized from former Uniao Nacional para a Independencia Total de Angola(National Unionfor the Total Independence of Angola, UNITA)rebel forces in 2003, said: "They told me that if I spoke out against the opposition parties they would resolve my situation. But if I didn't accept they would convict me for rioting against the security of the state. "
Candela added that the security agents drove him and another rebel war veteran in a civilian car to the military headquarters, where TPA journalists interviewed them in the presence of the security agents. The state media have since reported extensively about the alleged incitement of the protests by opposition parties. On June 16, the Angolan Armed Forces publicly accused the opposition parties UNITA, CASA-CE, and Bloco Democratico of having instigated an earlier protest by war veterans, on June 7 in Luanda.
Human Rights Watch also spoke by telephone with Jose Fernandes de Barros, a former member of the ruling party's force, FAPLA (Forcas Armadas Populares para a Libertacao de Angola), and a signatory to a manifesto of a complaints commission that represents 4,000 war veterans awaiting their formal demobilization since 1992. De Barros was arrested on June 25 by military police and has since been detained at the Luanda military judicial police headquarters. He also said that military officials interrogated him without a lawyer present. The commission had previously planned a protest in February but called it off.
Angolan and international law requires immediate access for every detainee to legal counsel, who should be allowed to be present during questioning to prevent coercive interrogations, Human Rights Watch said.
"The Angolan security forces have made doubtful arrests of war veterans even more suspect by questioning them in the absence of legal counsel," Lefkow said. "Interrogating detainees without the presence of a lawyer raises serious concerns of coercion."
Possible Enforced Disappearances of War Veteran Protest Organizers
The arrests of war veterans on June 20 and 25 were preceded by the possible enforced disappearance of two organizers from an ad hoc group called the United Patriotic Movement (MPU), which had organized a protest by war veterans and former presidential guards.
On May 27, the MPU organized a protest of former presidential guards in Luanda to call for the payment of overdue salaries. The Luanda authorities had been notified, as Angolan law requires. Although the presidential guards withdrew their participation to await further negotiations with the president's Military Office, other groups of war veterans joined the protest, which the security forces dispersed before it reached the presidential palace.
After the protest, an MPU leader, Antonio Alves Kamulingue, called a Voice of America journalist and said that he had fled to a hotel in the city center because he was being followed and feared for his life. Kamulingue's family members told Human Rights Watch that they have not heard from him since that day. They have sought information about him at many police stations and all prisons and hospitals in Luanda, but the authorities deny knowledge of his whereabouts.
On May 29, Isaias Cassule, another MPU member, was apparently abducted in Luanda's Cazenga neighborhood. Alberto Santos, a former member of the presidential guard unit who is currently in hiding, told Human Rights Watch by telephone that he and Cassule had been called by phone to that meeting point by an alleged protester who claimed to have video footage of Kamulingue's abduction. Santos said he saw six men, some wearing hats and sunglasses, drag Cassule into their car. Santos managed to escape. Cassule's family members told Human Rights Watch they have not heard from him since. They had communicated his disappearance to the police and searched for him at police stations and hospitals.Under international law, an enforced disappearance occurs when the authorities take a person into custody but refuse to acknowledge doing so or do not provide information about the person's whereabouts or fate. Among the rights an enforced disappearance may violate are those to life, liberty, and security of the person, including protection from torture and other ill-treatment.
Threats and Reprisals Against Youth Activists and Protest Organizers
The organizers of the youth protests have also been targeted and threatened for their activities, Human Rights Watch said. All youth protest leaders who recently spoke with Human Rights Watch said they felt their lives were at risk.
On June 14, Gaspar Luamba, a university student and organizer of the youth protest movement, was abducted at noon by four men in civilian clothes at a university in Luanda's Viana neighborhood. Luamba told Human Rights Watch that the assailants asked his identity and then ordered him to enter their car, warning him not to resist.
"They took me to a construction site of the Brazilian Odebrecht company and interrogated me for several hours," Luamba told Human Rights Watch. "They displayed knives and pliers and threatened to use them. They asked me whether opposition parties were funding us and how much we wanted. They threatened me and my colleagues to take drastic measures if we declined to negotiate. But they didn't hurt me." Luamba said he was released several hours later.
Another youth protest organizer, Adolfo Campos, was attacked and threatened with death by two men in civilian clothes on June 12. He told Human Rights Watch: "Two Land Cruisers forced me to stop the car at 10 p.m. on the road. I left the car, and two individuals armed with a pistol and an automatic rifle beat me in my face with the weapons. I fell on the ground and one of them pointed his gun at me. The other one said: 'Don't kill him yet. Let's go.'" He said the attackers ransacked the car, but only took his phone and left US$3,000 untouched.
A day earlier, on June 11, the well-known rapper and youth protest organizer Luaty Beirao was arrested by Portuguese authorities at Lisbon airport, after police detected a package of cocaine in a bicycle wheel, the only baggage he had taken on his flight from Luanda due to fears that the luggage might be tampered with. According to media reports, a Lisbon court quickly released Beirao from custody based on strong indications that Angolan police agents had placed the drugs in his baggage to incriminate him.
On May 23, at 10 p.m., in the second such attack in two months, 15 men in civilian clothes armed with metal bars and pistols attacked the residence of Dionisio "Carbono," another youth protest leader, who was hosting a group of youth to discuss their new call-in radio program on the privately owned Radio Despertar. Several of the youth were seriously injured and suffered broken bones, according to Human Rights Watch research.
"The increasing use of violence, threats, and other reprisals to silence protest organizers is alarming," Lefkow said. "Angola's regional and international partners should raise their voices and urge the government to stop the violence and respect basic rights."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
As Ramadan Begins, Ilhan Omar Introduces House Resolution to Condemn Islamophobia
"In order to confront the evils of religious bigotry and hatred, we must come to understand that all our destinies are linked," said Omar, a former refugee from Somalia and one of two Muslim women in Congress.
Mar 23, 2023
Joined by Democratic House colleagues and activists outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday—the first full day of Ramadan—Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar announced a new resolution condemning Islamophobia and commemorating the recent anniversary of the 2019 Christchurch, New Zealand mosque massacre.
Omar's office said the resolution—which is co-sponsored by more than 20 House Democrats—"comes after continued violence and threats made against religious minorities, particularly Muslims," while adding that the March 15, 2019 murder of 51 Muslim worshippers at the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch by an Australian white supremacist "was a stated source of inspiration for mass shootings in the United States."
These include the deadly synagogue shooting in Poway, California; the massacre of 23 people, most of them of Mexican origin, at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas; and the murder of 10 people by a white supremacist in a Buffalo, New York grocery store.
Omar said:
As we begin the holy month of Ramadan, we must reaffirm that all people of faith should have the right to worship without fear. According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, anti-Muslim hate crimes and attacks are at an all-time high. The attack in Christchurch, motivated by an extremist ideology of white supremacy, anti-Muslim hate, and the so-called replacement theory resonates deeply for Muslims in nearly every corner of the globe.
We also know that this increase in hate is not isolated to only Muslims. Church bombings, synagogue attacks, and racial hate crimes are also on the rise.
"In order to confront the evils of religious bigotry and hatred, we must come to understand that all our destinies are linked," Omar added. "That's why I'm proud to lead my colleagues in condemning the rise in Islamophobia and affirming the rights of religious minorities in the United States and around the world."
Robert McCaw, director of government relations at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, also spoke at Thursday's event, saying that "it is with a heavy heart that CAIR welcomes Omar's resolution," which "recognizes the threat posed by rising global Islamophobia to American Muslims and Muslims in other countries across the world, as well as the threat white supremacism poses to all people."
"It is incredibly important for Congress to lead the way in rejecting these hateful and dangerous ideologies, and CAIR calls on both sides of the aisle to co-sponsor and adopt this resolution," McCaw added. "As we remember the lives lost in Christchurch, we must continue to work towards a world where everyone is treated with humanity and dignity, regardless of their faith, ethnicity, or background."
In 2021, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed a resolution introduced by Omar aimed at combating Islamophobia after Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Col.) referred to her and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—the only two Muslim women in Congress—as the "jihad squad."
The House GOP, which now narrowly controls the chamber, voted last month to remove Omar from the foreign affairs panel. Just before the vote, the congresswoman said that Republicans "are not OK with having a Muslim have a voice on that committee."
Omar's new federal resolution stood in stark contrast with Texas state Rep. Tony Tinderholt's (R-94) vote against a legislative resolution celebrating Ramadan.
"As a combat veteran, I served beside many local translators who were Muslims and good people," the Iraq War veteran explained. "I can also attest that Ramadan was routinely the most violent period during every deployment."
"Texas and America were founded on Christian principles and my faith as a Christian prevents me from celebrating Ramadan," Tinderholt added.
Responding to Tinderholt's statement, CAIR tweeted: "Every elected official has the right to express their own sincerely held religious beliefs—and we welcome that. But to insult another religion is uncalled for and harmful."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cancer Patients Challenge Biden Admin's Refusal to Lower Price of Lifesaving Drug
"We request HHS to consider this appeal directly... because the NIH has repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to even acknowledge that the Bayh-Dole Act includes an obligation to make products invented with federal funds 'available to the public on reasonable terms.'"
Mar 23, 2023
Two days after President Joe Biden's administration rejected a petition asking federal regulators to use their authority to lower the astronomical price of a lifesaving prostate cancer drug developed entirely with public funds, petitioners on Thursday filed an administrative appeal.
At issue is enzalutamide, a drug the Japanese pharmaceutical giant Astellas and its U.S. counterpart Pfizer sell under the brand name Xtandi. Although Xtandi owes its existence to U.S. taxpayers, who bankrolled 100% of its development, an annual supply of the drug costs $189,900 in the United States—three to six times more than its list price in other wealthy nations.
In late 2021, prostate cancer patients Robert Sachs, Clare Love, and Eric Sawyer petitioned the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to exercise its "march-in rights" against Xtandi. Under the Bayh-Dole Act, the federal government can reclaim and redistribute patents for inventions created with public funding—enabling generic competitors to produce cheaper versions—when "action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs" or when an invention's benefits are not being made "available to the public on reasonable terms."
HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra referred the petition to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whose acting Director Lawrence Tabak argued in a Tuesday letter that "Xtandi is widely available to the public on the market," citing Astellas' estimate that "more than 200,000 patients were treated with Xtandi from 2012 to 2021."
Even with insurance, co-pays for Xtandi are sky-high. Medicare recipients, for example, are expected to pay roughly $10,000 per year for the medicine. Especially for the millions of uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S., Xtandi remains completely out of reach.
Tabak's letter went on to say that Xtandi's "practical application is evidenced by the 'manufacture, practice, and operation' of the invention and the invention's 'availability to and use by the public….'" As Knowledge Ecology International executive director James Love lamented, the NIH completely elided any mention of "reasonable terms," editing out that key phrase from Bayh-Dole.
In their appeal, the petitioners wrote: "The petition focused on a single issue: the reasonableness of charging U.S. cancer patients three to six times more than residents of other high-income countries for the drug Xtandi."
"There is no dispute about the following facts," the appeal continues. "Xtandi was invented on grants from the U.S. Army and the NIH at UCLA, a public university. The patents were licensed eventually to Astellas, a Japanese drug company, with a partnership share now held by Pfizer, following its 2016 $14 billion acquisition of Medivation, UCLA's original licensee, that occurred just after the NIH rejected an earlier march-in request on Xtandi. The prices in the United States have consistently been far higher than the prices in other high-income countries."
Prior to the 2021 petition, Clare Love and prostate cancer patient David Reed filed a petition, later joined by Sachs, with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) after the Senate Armed Services Committee instructed the Pentagon to initiate march-in proceedings when the price of a drug created with a DOD grant exceeds the median price in seven large high-income nations. The Pentagon, however, has yet to acknowledge or act on the petition submitted to it in February 2019.
"If you consider both of these requests together, a petition to exercise the government's march-in or other rights in the Xtandi patents has been pending before the federal government for more than four years," Thursday's appeal states. "The HHS petition was filed 16 months ago."
It continues:
The petitions were filed with the DOD and HHS instead of the NIH because the NIH has repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to even acknowledge that the Bayh-Dole Act includes an obligation to make products invented with federal funds 'available to the public on reasonable terms.' This is demonstrated by a track record of dismissing multiple requests to use the government's Bayh-Dole safeguard to address pricing abuses and access restrictions, including those concerning the federal government's march-in rights under 35 USC § 203, and the federal government's global royalty-free license, under 35 USC § 202(c)(4). There are also extensive email records between Mark Rohrbaugh, currently NIH special adviser for technology transfer who is a long-time agency official, and lobbyists for drug companies and university rights holders, obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, which not only express opposition to any safeguards regarding unreasonable pricing but organize public relations efforts against using a march-in request to address the pricing of products.
"HHS chose to assign to the NIH the evaluation of our petition regarding Xtandi," says the appeal. "We request HHS to consider this appeal directly, and not assign NIH to review its own decision. The latter would be tantamount to no review at all."
Since Bayh-Dole was enacted in 1980, "march-in rights have never been used... and NIH has repeatedly rejected the idea that affordability is a reasonable term," The American Prospectreported Wednesday. With Xtandi, "advocates thought they found the perfect test case for a new administration that paid lip service to lowering prescription drug costs."
As The Levernoted on Wednesday, the NIH's decision this week was consistent with Biden's track record:
Biden was vice president when the Obama administration rejected congressional Democrats' demand that the government use the same power to lower the skyrocketing prices of medicine in America.
As a senator in 2000, Biden was one of just eight Democrats who helped pharmaceutical lobbyists kill a measure spearheaded by Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) and then-Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would have reinstated the Reagan-era requirement that drug companies sell medicines developed with public money at a reasonable price.
That requirement was repealed by the Clinton administration in 1995, following pressure by drugmakers.
But Becerra's acquiescence to Big Pharma was more surprising. Prior to joining the Biden administration, the HHS secretary had expressed support for wielding the executive branch's authority to rein in soaring drug prices.
As the attorney general of California in the summer of 2020, "Becerra demanded the Trump administration use existing law to lower the price of medicines that were originally developed at taxpayer expense," The Lever reported. "As a member of Congress in 2016, Becerra signed on to a letter to the Obama Department of Health and Human Services calling on officials to broadly use 'march-in rights' to lower the cost of prescription drugs—including 'specialty drugs, like those to treat cancer, which are frequently developed with taxpayer funds.'"
Despite pressure from numerous members of Congress and medicine affordability advocacy groups, the NIH declared Tuesday that it "does not believe that use of the march-in authority would be an effective means of lowering the price of the drug."
Instead, the agency vowed to "pursue a whole-of-government approach informed by public input to ensure the use of march-in authority is consistent with the policy and objective of the Bayh-Dole Act," a move that progressive advocates denounced as a "pathetic" attempt to deflect criticism of its failure to use or threaten to use its legal power.
“This is a drug that was invented with taxpayer dollars by scientists at UCLA and can be purchased in Canada for one-fifth the U.S. price," Sanders said Tuesday. "The Japanese drugmaker Astellas, which made $1 billion in profits in 2021, has raised the price of this drug by more than 75%."
"How many prostate cancer patients will die because they cannot afford this unacceptable price?" asked Sanders, chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
During a Wednesday hearing, Sanders made the case for changing "the current culture of greed into a culture which understands that science and medical breakthroughs should work for ordinary people, and not just enrich large corporations and CEOs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Detail 'Catastrophic' Costs If GOP Hostage-Takers Force US Default
"House Republicans' approach is dangerous and destabilizing," warned Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. "Republicans are gambling with Americans' savings, benefits, and lives, all to play a political game."
Mar 23, 2023
Congressional Democrats on Thursday forcefully called out their Republican colleagues for holding the economy hostage by refusing to raise the country's $31.4 trillion debt ceiling without major spending cuts, risking the first-ever U.S. default.
Democrats declined to even try to raise the nation's arbitrary and arguably unconstitutional borrowing limit while they still controlled both chambers of Congress during last year's lame-duck session, setting up the current fight. Because the ceiling has already been hit, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is now taking "extraordinary measures" to give lawmakers more time to act, but the deadline to do so looms, with a default possible as early as June, based on the latest federal estimates.
"This report shows that a Republican default crisis means real dollars coming out of American families' wallets and savings decimated."
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) along with other key party members came together Thursday to unveil an alarming six-page Joint Economic Committee (JEC) Democratic staff report.
"This report shows that a Republican default crisis means real dollars coming out of American families' wallets and savings decimated. This is not a hypothetical exercise to the millions of Americans—including veterans and seniors—who rely on the United States government for benefits, pensions, and disability," Schumer said in a statement.
"House Republicans' approach is dangerous and destabilizing," he added. "Even the threat of a breach will raise costs on everything from car loans to mortgages. Republicans are gambling with Americans' savings, benefits, and lives, all to play a political game."
Specifically, according to the report, if the GOP forced a historic and "catastrophic" default:
- The average worker close to retirement could take a $20,000 hit to their retirement savings;
- Small business loans could go up $44 a month, costing about $2,500 more over the course of the loan;
- Debt-limit threats could weaken the dollar and push up prices for consumers;
- A typical new homeowner could see their monthly mortgage payment go up more than $150, costing them an extra $54,300 over the life of their loan;
- A family buying a new car could pay over $800 more if interest rates spike;
- Americans with private student loans could see their monthly payments rise by $23, costing them nearly $4,200 in total; and
- Families with credit card debt could see their monthly payments rise, making it harder for them to become debt-free.
"A decade ago credit rating agencies downgraded the U.S. credit rating after Republican debt limit brinkmanship, and it drove borrowing costs for the American people higher in a variety of ways," noted Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "This Joint Economic Committee report quantifies what kind of damage regular people could see if that happens again, and it is very bad."
"This would affect everyone who borrows money, including the United States government, which would have to pay more in its borrowing costs," he explained. "In other words, Republican hostage-taking on the debt limit would actually increase the deficit."
Beyer, Schumer, and Jeffries were joined at the news conference Thursday by Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) as well as Sens. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the JEC chairman-designate, who stressed that "the debt ceiling is not a bargaining chip."
While several of them slammed "MAGA Republican in the House," 71-year-old Moore chose to describe the GOP lawmakers whose actions are jeopardizing not only the U.S. but also the global economy another way.
"I have a great-granddaughter that falls out and rolls on the floor when she can't have her way. I tell her she needs to get up because she's not gonna get it," Moore said. "Republicans need to get up and stop holding our economy hostage."
"We are not going to devastate our seniors and our children, and we will not sabotage the world's standard credit rating," the congresswoman declared. "Republicans need to get up off the ground and raise the debt limit!"
Adding to concerns about the U.S. and global economies are recent bank turmoil and repeated interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve—which, along with Congress, is facing criticism for regulatory rollbacks that experts tie to the bank failures.
As Punchbowl Newsreported Wednesday:
Instead of expressing caution, senior GOP lawmakers are leaning into their plans to demand spending cuts in return for raising the nation's borrowing limit. The Republicans we spoke to doubled down, arguing the same factors that led to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank necessitate urgency in reducing government spending.
"This is the best time to do it," House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said of the debt limit fight. "That interest rate pressure that is creating some risk in the banking industry is a result of the inflation that has been induced by the massive amounts of spending."
[...]
Arrington's panel will play a central role in the Republican posture heading into negotiations with President Joe Biden. While House Republicans have yet to release their budget, GOP leaders have vowed to roll back spending to FY2022 levels. That would mean a cut of roughly $130 billion from last year's funding level. Democrats and the White House have assailed the plan as an attack on working families, seniors, and veterans, while Republicans insist the cuts are necessary to rein in inflation.
The Texas Republican said it "makes sense that when you have a debt ceiling negotiation," lawmakers would "reflect on the indebtedness of our country" and look to cut spending at the same time.
Punchbowl noted similar remarks this week from Reps. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.) and John Rose (R-Tenn.) along with GOP Conference Secretary Lisa McClain.
Biden introduced his budget blueprint for FY2024 earlier this month. Though progressives condemned the president's historically high request for military spending as "madness" they also praised his push for massive social investments as well as tax hikes targeting wealthy individuals and corporations.
Meanwhile, "House Republican leaders did not respond to multiple questions from USA TODAY about when the GOP budget would be ready," the newspaper reported Wednesday.
As USA TODAY detailed:
An initial proposal from the House Budget Committee includes cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, Biden's student debt cancellation, and funding for electric vehicles for the U.S. post office.
It also includes reinstating work requirements to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
A proposal from the House Freedom Caucus includes $131 billion in cuts for fiscal year 2024.
"Extreme MAGA House Republicans are showing us what they value: tax breaks for the rich," Biden said of the caucus' proposal. "They demand the biggest Medicare benefits cut in decades, ship jobs overseas, defund law enforcement, devastate our national and border security. It's a gut punch to the middle class."
As Liz Zelnick from the watchdog Accountable.US warned, "The MAGA extremists running the House fully intend to manufacture a disastrous default crisis by making demands they know to be nonstarters—like letting wealthy tax cheats and big polluters off the hook."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.