May, 17 2023, 02:50pm EDT
No Bad Deals: As Default Threat Gets Closer Risks of Cuts to Essential Public Services Loom
As House Republicans continue to face off with the White House over raising the debt ceiling, Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen issued the following statement:
“The United States must not default on our debt. We also must not strike a deal that hurts regular people to avoid doing so. The stakes are simply too high to fail in either direction.
“The consequences of failing to pay our bills would be catastrophic for the American economy, erasing millions of jobs, triggering recession, devastating retirement accounts and more.
“We also must not strike a bad deal. The consequences of a Cap to federal spending that goes longer than the debt ceiling is raised are disastrous. Caps are cuts. They slash funding dramatically, weakening our ability to provide essential public services, make needed investments in our communities, and prepare for and react to emergencies -pandemics, climate change induced disasters, etc. – as a nation. Any Cap included in the deal must not extend for longer than the debt limit extension.
“The deal must also protect the Inflation Reduction Act, ensure that no poison pill policy is attached to the subsequent appropriations package, exclude any new work requirements or other poverty increasing changes, and exclude any permitting deal that would speed climate-destroying oil and gas projects.
“In this challenging moment, no one should accept a bad deal.”
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Nancy Pelosi 'Making Calls' to Undermine AOC's Bid for Top Oversight Role
"It is so infantilizing to the House leadership to have a B team of octagenarians scheming behind their backs and aiming directly at their most promising young talent," said one progressive journalist.
Dec 13, 2024
Progressives on Thursday were frustrated by reports that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is using her considerable influence on Capitol Hill to undermine Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's bid to become the top Democrat on the powerful committee that could launch investigations into the Trump White House in the coming years.
As Common Dreamsreported last week, Pelosi (D-Calif.) has publicly indicated that she is supporting Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) to succeed Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) as ranking member on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability when the 119th Congress begins in January.
But Punchbowl Newsreported that Pelosi—well-known for her relentless and often successful efforts to whip votes within the Democratic caucus—is also "making calls" to other Democratic lawmakers on behalf of Connolly.
The outlet reported that the former House speaker is "actively working to tank" the candidacy of Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), with whom she has had a rocky relationship at times as the progressive Democrat has pushed the party to embrace far-reaching reforms on climate, immigration, and other issues.
Both Connolly and Ocasio-Cortez believe they have the votes to win the ranking member position. Ocasio-Cortez is a close ally of Raskin, who named her vice ranking member in the current Congress, but the Maryland lawmaker, who is expected to succeed Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) as ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has not publicly endorsed either candidate.
The Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, which has close ties to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), is expected to make a recommendation for the ranking member role, after which the entire Democratic caucus will vote.
The centrist New Democrat Coalition endorsed Connolly on Friday, while a House Democrat told Axios that Ocasio-Cortez "has pretty much the entire [Oversight] Committee with her."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus announced its endorsement of Ocasio-Cortez on Friday, with Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Chair-elect Greg Casar (D-Texas) arguing the congresswoman's "fearless advocacy leading the Oversight Committee will help ensure Democrats retake the House in 2026."
"Throughout her tenure on Oversight, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has been a powerful voice for working people," said Jayapal and Casar. "She has wielded her seat on this committee to hold CEOs, Wall Street, and mega-corporations accountable to the American people. Her investigations that pressured Big Pharma to bring down the price of PrEP and other critical medications are just one example of her influential leadership and commitment to everyday people."
As Axios reported, several older longtime members are facing challenges for leadership roles from the party's younger generation. Ocasio-Cortez, 35, was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress when she won her election in 2018, and is an outspoken member of the progressive "Squad" which advocates for policies such as Medicare for All and has reportedly angered Pelosi in the past with its embrace of calls to "abolish" Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"Many members are concerned about [the] precedent these races are setting," a senior House Democrat told Axios regarding the progressive contests with members like Connolly, who is 74.
Ryan Grim of Drop Site News said Pelosi's lobbying against Ocasio-Cortez "reeks of pettiness."
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, said the new reporting shows Pelosi attempting to act as a "puppet master."
"It is so infantilizing to the House leadership to have a B team of octagenarians scheming behind their backs and aiming directly at their most promising young talent," said Dayen.
Ocasio-Cortez wrote to colleagues last week to announce her bid for the ranking member position, highlighting her involvement in derailing Republican efforts to "weaponize the committee's investigatory power for partisan purposes" and pledging to balance the Oversight Committee's focus on President-elect Donald Trump's actions with fighting to better the lives of working Americans.
If Democrats win back control of the House in 2026, the committee would be empowered to launch investigations into the incoming Trump administration and would have subpoena power.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warning of 'Unprecedented Risks,' Scientists Say Mirror Bacteria 'Should Not Be Created'
"Our analysis suggests that mirror bacteria could broadly evade many immune defenses of humans, animals, and plants," according to a group of 38 scientists, including multiple Nobel Prize winners.
Dec 13, 2024
Dozens of scientists are calling in no uncertain terms for a halt on research to create "mirror life," particularly "mirror bacteria" that could "pose ecological risks" and possibly cause "pervasive lethal infections in a substantial fraction of the plant and animal species, including humans."
The group of 38 scientists, who include Nobel laureates and other experts, addressed research into "mirror life"—mirror-image biological molecules—in a piece of commentary published in the journal Science published Friday, which accompanied a technical report that was released earlier in December.
One of the scientists, synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota, was working on creating a mirror cell but "changed track last year" after studying the risks, according to the Guardian.
"We should not be making mirror life," she told the outlet. "We have time for the conversation. And that's what we were trying to do with this paper, to start a global conversation."
To that end, the authors of the commentary plan to convene discussions on the risks of mirror life and related topics in 2025, with the hope that "society at large will take a responsible approach to managing a technology that might pose unprecedented risks."
The ability to create mirror life is likely over a decade away and would require sizable investment and technical progress, meaning the world has the opportunity to "preempt risks before they are realized," according to the scientists.
When broken down into simple terms, mirror life sounds like something out of science fiction. All the biomolecules that constitute life have a "handedness" to them—"right-handed" nucleotides make up DNA and RNA, and proteins are formed from "left-handed" amino acids.
"So when we're talking about mirror-image life, it's kind of like a 'what if' experiment: What if we constructed life with right-handed proteins instead of left-handed proteins? Something that would be very, very similar to natural life, but doesn't exist in nature. We call this mirror-image life or mirror life," explained to Michael Kay, a professor of biochemistry at University of Utah's medical school.
Some scientists like Kay are interested in the medical possibilities of mirror-image therapeutics—which Kay says holds potential for treating chronic illness in a more cost-effective way—but both he and the authors of the recently published commentary are concerned about the potential threats posed by mirror bacteria.
"Our analysis suggests that mirror bacteria could broadly evade many immune defenses of humans, animals, and plants. Chiral interactions, which are central to immune recognition and activation in multicellular organisms, would be impaired with mirror bacteria," according to the scientists.
Essentially, as Kay puts it, it’s unlikely that mirror bacteria would be subject to the same constraints as regular bacteria, such as the human immune system or antibiotics.
The scientists warn that further developing this research could open a Pandora's box: "Unless compelling evidence emerges that mirror life would not pose extraordinary dangers, we believe that mirror bacteria and other mirror organisms, even those with engineered biocontainment measures, should not be created."
The authors argue that scientific research with the goal of creating mirror bacteria should not be allowed, and that potential funders should not support work related to mirror bacteria.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Wake of Killing, UnitedHealth CEO Admits 'No One Would Design a System Like the One We Have'
One critic said UnitedHealth Group chief executive Andrew Witty should "resign and then dedicate every dollar he has to dismantling the current system brick by brick and building one based on public health in its stead."
Dec 13, 2024
UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty wrote in a New York Times op-ed Friday that the for-profit U.S. healthcare system "does not work as well as it should" and that "no one would design a system like the one we have," admissions that came as his industry faced a torrent of public anger following the murder of UnitedHealthcare's chief executive.
Witty declared that his firm, the parent company of UnitedHealthcare and the nation's largest private insurer, is "willing to partner with anyone, as we always have—healthcare providers, employers, patients, pharmaceutical companies, governments, and others—to find ways to deliver high-quality care and lower costs."
But critics didn't buy Witty's expressed commitment to reforming an industry that his company has helped shape and profited from massively. Witty was the highest-paid healthcare executive in the U.S. last year, and 40% of the private insurance industry's total profit since the passage of the Affordable Care Act has flowed to UnitedHealth Group.
"It is (barely) true that UnitedHealth didn't design the U.S. system of corporate insurance, which kills tens of thousands of people a year through denial of care," Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams. "But they certainly have perfected it and turned it into a medical murder apparatus at industrial scale. They not only block all attempts to change the system in the direction of public health, they bribe and bully with their billions in blood money to make it even crueler."
"Andrew Witty is the high priest of the temple to Moloch and Mammon, murder and money," Lawson added. "And there is no way for him to wash his hands of it, except perhaps to resign and then dedicate every dollar he has to dismantling the current system brick by brick and building one based on public health in its stead."
"Medicare for All is the only proposal on the table capable of delivering universal, continuous coverage for everyone, while also securing the efficiency and savings only possible through the elimination of private insurance."
While publicly pledging to cooperate with reform efforts, Witty has defended his company's care denials in private and urged his employees not to engage with media outlets in the aftermath of Thompson's murder.
Contrary to Witty's depiction of his company in his Times op-ed, UnitedHealth has historically been an aggressive opponent of reform efforts aimed at mitigating the harms of for-profit insurance and building public alternatives. The Leverreported in 2021 that UnitedHealth Group "held a webinar to pressure its rank-and-file employees to mobilize against efforts in Connecticut to create a state-level public health insurance option."
At the national level, UnitedHealth has spent over $5.8 million this year lobbying the federal government, according to OpenSecrets.
Witty, who was born in a country with a public healthcare system, did not detail the kinds of reforms he would support in his op-ed Friday, but it's clear he would oppose a transition to a single-payer system such as Medicare for All, which would effectively abolish private health insurance and provide coverage to all Americans for free at the point of service—and at a lower total cost than the status quo.
In a column for The Nation on Friday, writer Natalie Shure argued that "the appalling amount of resources and energy we put into maintaining the existence of health insurance is wasted on an industry with no social value whatsoever."
"You could eliminate every one of these corporations tomorrow and build a system without them that works better, for less money, and with less hassle," Shure wrote. "Other countries already have systems like this. Medicare for All is the only proposal on the table capable of delivering universal, continuous coverage for everyone, while also securing the efficiency and savings only possible through the elimination of private insurance."
"None of that means that murder is justified or useful," Shure added. "But anger can be. Some politicians, from Bernie Sanders, to Elizabeth Warren, to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have begun to make public statements ascribing the reaction to Brian Thompson's murder to widespread fury over the health insurance industry. The next step is to harness it, and to build something new."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular