September, 16 2021, 02:45pm EDT
WASHINGTON
Reports today indicate that Senate Democrats are considering including a carbon tax, or some type of carbon pricing plan, as part of their $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. In response, Food & Water Watch Policy Director Mitch Jones issued the following statement:
"Carbon taxes and pricing plans are foolish schemes that do little more than distract attention from the real climate solutions we desperately need. Carbon taxes are supported by the fossil fuel industry because these plans support the status quo: continued oil and gas extraction and burning, with new costs simply passed on to consumers. When it comes to quitting fossil fuels, there's only one legitimate approach: halting drilling and fracking, and keeping fossil fuels in the ground."
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
Vatican Rejects 'Doctrine of Discovery', Used to Justify Colonial Conquest and Land Theft
One Native American group hopes the historic move "is more than mere words, but rather is the beginning of a full acknowledgment of the history of oppression and a full accounting of the legacies of colonialism."
Mar 31, 2023
In a historic shift long sought by Indigenous-led activists, the Holy See on Thursday formally repudiated the doctrine of discovery, a dubious legal theory born from a series of 15th-century papal decrees used by colonizers including the United States to legally justify the genocidal conquest of non-Christian peoples and their land.
In a joint statement, the Vatican's departments of culture and education declared that "the church acknowledges that these papal bulls did not adequately reflectthe equal dignity and rights of Indigenous peoples" and "therefore repudiates those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of Indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political 'doctrine of discovery.'"
"The church is also aware that the contents of these documents were manipulated for political purposes by competing colonial powers in order to justify immoral acts against Indigenous peoples that were carried out, at times, without opposition from ecclesiastical authorities," the statement added. "It is only just to recognize these errors, acknowledge the terrible effects of the assimilation policies and the pain experienced by Indigenous peoples, and ask for pardon."
\u201cDo you know how huge this is???!!!! The Doctrine of Discovery legalized the Catholic Church and European colonists to loot, kill Indians and claim conquest to Native lands!!! Now that this has happened!!!!! It\u2019s freakin huge!!! \nFreedom, recompense, https://t.co/4K7DySAo9n\u2026\u201d— Brandi Morin (@Brandi Morin) 1680192993
Indigenous leaders—who for decades demanded the Vatican rescind the discovery doctrine—welcomed the move, while expressing hope that it brings real change.
"On the surface it sounds good, it looks good... but there has to be a fundamental change in attitudes, behavior, laws, and policies from that statement," Ernie Daniels, the former chief of Long Plain First Nation in Manitoba, Canada, toldCBC Thursday.
"There's still a mentality out there—they want to assimilate, decimate, terminate, eradicate Indigenous people," added Daniels, who was part of a delegation that met with Pope Francis last year in Rome and Canada.
\u201cToday, the Vatican announced the repudiation of its centuries-old Doctrine of Discovery, which was used to justify colonization and land theft across the globe. NCAI responded to the announcement. Read full statement: https://t.co/CxI1Vrsgpx\u201d— National Congress of American Indians (@National Congress of American Indians) 1680217681
The pontiff—who is currently hospitalized with a respiratory infection—apologized last July in Alberta for the church's human rights crimes against First Nations and asked for forgiveness "for the wrong done by so many Christians to the Indigenous peoples."
Ghislain Picard, an Innu leader and the regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations for Quebec and Labrador, told CBC that the Vatican's move is mostly symbolic.
"The Vatican seems to be washing its hands of its role in the whole colonization of our lands, and to me it would be so simple to just accept the fact that they played a role," he said. "Reconciliation is a buzzword. But how it impacts current policy is really what's at stake here."
\u201c"The Doctrine of Discovery was a papal statement and not a justification to allow Canada to unilaterally claim sovereignty over our peoples and our lands and commit genocide. And today, the Vatican finally said what our peoples have always known,\u201d said FSIN Chief Bobby Cameron.\u201d— FSIN (@FSIN) 1680189634
Discovery doctrine is rooted in a trio of papal decrees issued in the second half of the 15th century authorizing the Portuguese and Spanish monarchies to conquer land and enslave people in Africa and the Americas if they were non-Christians and dividing the Americas between the two burgeoning empires.
Nullified by the Vatican in the 16th century, the papal decrees nevertheless underpinned centuries of colonial conquest by Europeans and Euro-Americans.
In 1823, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Johnson v. M'Intosh that Indigenous people could not sell land to whites because Indians' "power to dispose of the soil at their own will to whomsoever they pleased was denied by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it."
The precedent set by Johnson was cited as recently as 2005, when then-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg notoriously cited doctrine of discovery in Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, an opinion decried by many Native Americans.
In a Thursday interview on Indian Country Today's newscast, Arizona State University law professor Robert Miller, who is Eastern Shawnee, said that "what the church did is an important worldwide educational moment, but it doesn't change the law in any country. It doesn't change titles to land anywhere."
\u201cWATCH: ASU Law Professor Robert Miller calls the repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery an important worldwide moment, saying "but it doesn't change the law in any country."\u201d— ICT (@ICT) 1680221937
"It's gonna take far more than just the pope repudiating these 600-year-old papal bulls to make real changes for Indigenous peoples," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DA's Office Tells House GOP to Cease 'Inflammatory Accusations' About Trump Case
"It appears you are acting more like criminal defense counsel trying to gather evidence for a client than a legislative body."
Mar 31, 2023
On the heels of former President Donald Trump's historic indictment, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office on Friday told three top Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House that their "attempted interference with an ongoing state criminal investigation—and now prosecution—is an unprecedented and illegitimate incursion on New York's sovereign interests."
U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), James Comer (R-Ky.), and Bryan Steil (R-Wis.)—who chair the House Judiciary, Oversight, and Administration committees, respectively—initially wrote to Bragg last week demanding documents and testimony. In response, the general counsel for Bragg's office, Leslie Dubeck, called their requests an "unlawful incursion" into state sovereignty.
A second letter from Jordan, Comer, and Steil—public allies of Trump—prompted the six-page response from Bragg's office on Friday, less than 24 hours after the New York grand jury convened by Bragg over a hush money payment to a porn star voted to indict the former president and 2024 GOP candidate, who is expected to be arraigned Tuesday.
"You and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump's efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations."
"Your first letter made an unprecedented request to the district attorney for confidential information about the status of the state grand jury investigation—now indictment—of Mr. Trump," Dubeck wrote to the lawmakers. "Your second letter asserts that, by failing to provide it, the district attorney somehow failed to dispute your baseless and inflammatory allegations that our investigation is politically motivated. That conclusion is misleading and meritless."
"We did not engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of your letter because our office is legally constrained in how it publicly discusses pending criminal proceedings, as prosecutorial offices are across the country and as you well know," the general counsel continued. "That secrecy is critical to protecting the privacy of the target of any criminal investigation as well as the integrity of the independent grand jury's proceedings."
The letter lays out why the congressmen's committees "lack jurisdiction to oversee a state criminal prosecution," and declares that "based on your reportedly close collaboration with Mr. Trump in attacking this office and the grand jury process, it appears you are acting more like criminal defense counsel trying to gather evidence for a client than a legislative body seeking to achieve a legitimate legislative objective."
Dubeck also took aim at their "vague and shifting legislative purpose." Only noting it in the second letter suggests "your proposal to 'insulate current and former presidents' from state criminal investigations is a baseless pretext to interfere with our office's work," she wrote. "Even if you were seriously considering such legislation and had the constitutional authority to enact it (which you do not), your request for information from the district attorney and his former attorneys concerning an ongoing criminal probe is unnecessary and unjustified."
\u201cManhattan DA\u2019s to House GOP: \u201cWhat neither Mr. Trump nor Congress may do is interfere with the ordinary course of proceedings in New York State.\u201d\u201d— Jacqueline Alemany (@Jacqueline Alemany) 1680266611
After highlighting that the lawmakers' initial rationale for the inquiry related to the use of federal funding, the letter notes that over the past 15 years, the DA's office has helped the federal government secure over $1 billion from asset forfeiture and the office itself "receives only a small fraction of those forfeited funds."
Dubeck disclosed that from October 2019 to August 2021, approximately $5,000 of the federal forfeiture money was spent investigating the former president or the Trump Organization; most of those costs were related to a case that led to the conviction of Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and two Trump business entities, and "no expenses incurred relating to this matter have been paid from funds that the office receives through federal grant programs."
The letter explains the DA office's current participation in federal grant programs, then forcefully calls out the congressmen:
Finally, as you are no doubt aware, former President Trump has directed harsh invective against District Attorney Bragg and threatened on social media that his arrest or indictment in New York may unleash "death and destruction." As committee chairmen, you could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury. Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump's efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations that the office's investigation, conducted via an independent grand jury of average citizens serving New York state, is politically motivated. We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference.
Dubeck asked that if the lawmakers won't withdraw their request, they agree to a meeting and provide a list of questions for Bragg as well as a description of documents they believe could be turned over to Congress "without violating New York grand jury secrecy rules or interfering with the criminal case now before a court."
"We trust you will make a good-faith effort to reach a negotiated resolution," she concluded, "before taking the unprecedented and unconstitutional step of serving a subpoena on a district attorney for information related to an ongoing state criminal prosecution."
The latest letter from the DA's office "is really a work of art," independent journalist Marcy Wheeler said in a series of tweets on Friday. "It was a joy to read. Bragg is not fucking around and... well, Jimmy Jordan is."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trustees Report Shows Social Security Expansion a 'Question of Values, Not Affordability'
"The trust funds are strong because most Americans contribute to them with every paycheck," said one advocate. "They could be even stronger if the wealthiest Americans paid their fair share."
Mar 31, 2023
The board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security released a report Friday showing the programs' trust funds will be able to cover all benefits and expenses until 2031 and 2034 respectively, findings welcomed by advocates as further confirmation that the key lifelines are strong and can be expanded.
Nancy Altman, president of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, argued in a statement that "the takeaway from this report is that whether to expand or cut Social Security's modest but vital benefits is a question of values, not affordability."
The board of trustees, which consists of top government officials including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, estimated that even if Congress doesn't act, Medicare's trust fund would be able to pay 89% of total scheduled benefits after 2031.
The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, meanwhile, would be able to pay 77% of scheduled benefits after 2033 in the absence of congressional action. The OASI Trust Fund had roughly $2.7 trillion in reserves at the end of 2022, according to the trustees report, while the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund had $118 billion in asset reserves.
If the OASI and DI trust funds are combined, the report notes, the resulting fund would be able to pay 100% of total scheduled Social Security benefits until 2034.
“Contrary to conservative claims, Social Security is not 'going bankrupt'; the program will always be able to pay benefits because of ongoing contributions from workers and employers," said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "This is yet another trustees report showing that Social Security remains strong in the face of turmoil in the rest of the economy. Its projected insolvency date has stayed roughly the same even after a global pandemic and recent economic upheavals."
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, echoed that message, saying the trustees report proves the Social Security trust fund is "strong and solvent, with enough money to cover full benefits and expenses until 2033, one year earlier than reported last year."
"Further, the Medicare Part A Trust Fund for hospital care has sufficient funds to cover its obligations until 2031, three years later than reported last year," Fiesta added. "The trust funds are strong because most Americans contribute to them with every paycheck. They could be even stronger if the wealthiest Americans paid their fair share."
\u201cThe 2023 Social Security trustees report is out.\n\nThe biggest takeaway?\n\nIncreasing vs. cutting Social Security's modest benefits is a question of values \u2014 not affordability.\u201d— Social Security Works (@Social Security Works) 1680278405
Richtman, Fiesta, and other advocates urged Congress to expand Social Security benefits by lifting the cap on income subject to payroll taxes.
The cap, which is $160,200 this year, allowed millionaires to stop paying into Social Security in late February, not even two full months into the year.
Skyrocketing inequality over the past several decades has meant that a larger share of earnings at the very top has been exempt from the payroll tax, costing the Social Security trust fund an estimated $1.4 trillion since 1983.
Last month, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced legislation that would subject all income above $250,000 a year to the 6.2% payroll tax, a move the lawmakers said could fund a $200-per-month benefit expansion for all Social Security recipients.
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said Friday that he will soon reintroduce separate Social Security expansion legislation.
"Now is the time to not merely protect but to also expand benefits that have not been addressed in over 50 years," Larson said in a statement.
Despite pressure from Sanders and other progressives, Biden did not include a Social Security expansion plan in his latest budget request, which did contain a proposal to shore up Medicare's trust fund by raising taxes on the rich.
Congressional Republicans, for their part, have floated unpopular proposals to slash Social Security benefits across the board by raising the retirement age and partially privatizing the program.
"Unfortunately, Republican politicians are not listening to their voters," Altman said Friday. "The most recent budget of the Republican Study Committee, which consists of about three-quarters of the House Republicans, includes deep cuts to both Social Security and Medicare. Other Republicans are trying to create fast-track commissions that operate behind closed doors, aimed at forcing cuts that would not be supported in the sunshine."
"To see the results of cutting earned retirement benefits through an undemocratic process, one only needs to look across the Atlantic Ocean, where the French people are rising up in anger," said Altman. "Congress should take action to expand Social Security and close the system's modest shortfall. Democrats have put their ideas on the table. Now, Republicans should do the same, so that Congress can debate Social Security's future in the light of day."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.