THE SQUISHY MIDDLE GIVES GRIEF

The Squad Gets Love From the Left—and Anger From Voters

Sam Brodey, Ursula Perano, Jackie Kucinich
Fri, November 19, 2021, 

Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/Photos Getty Images

The passage of President Joe Biden’s $1.75-trillion social welfare spending bill in the House was a much-needed win for Democrats. But for six progressive lawmakers who were willing to block the other half of Biden’s agenda in order to secure the rest of it, the victory was especially sweet.

After the Build Back Better Act passed Friday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said the vote to approve the historic package of investments fighting climate change and expanding the social safety net was “why we even run and serve in Congress, to pass legislation like this that impacts people’s everyday lives, to transform our material reality.”

It was the fear of missing that opportunity that drove Ocasio-Cortez and the members of the so-called Squad to vote against a $1.2-trillion Biden-backed infrastructure bill two weeks earlier, even at the risk of denying Democrats and the president a key policy win—and inspiring the ire of voters in liberal districts that could badly use money for infrastructure.

Still, Ocasio-Cortez went so far as to say Thursday night that their stand had “contributed to the pressure and urgency of this vote tonight.”

That may have been more spin than reality, but regardless, the progressive star and the rest of the Squad can now claim real progress toward fulfilling the kinds of lofty promises they campaigned on.

And even though the Build Back Better legislation is far from finished—Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) may prevent it from ever becoming law—progressives can reasonably claim they did everything in their power to make that bill a reality.

In that effort, however, some progressives denied themselves the opportunity to claim credit for another key plank of Biden’s agenda.

The six members of the Squad—Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Cori Bush (D-MO), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)—all voted against the massive infrastructure bill earlier this month.

While those six lawmakers have been hailed as heroes by progressives for helping to push the Build Back Better bill over the finish line in the House, the blowback for voting against a popular and much-need infrastructure bill has been a lesson in how all politics is local.

Back home, many constituents weren’t clapping their hands for Squad members; they were scratching their heads.

Dwayne Murray, a high school basketball coach in Bowman’s district, likes and supports his congressman after initially opposing him when he successfully unseated the area’s longtime congressman, Eliot Engel, in 2020.

But Murray told The Daily Beast that his initial reaction to the infrastructure vote was “disbelief.” His hometown of Mount Vernon—just outside New York City’s borders—has made national news for its dangerously decrepit wastewater infrastructure. The infrastructure bill, among other things, proposed $55 billion to fund water and sewer improvements.

“I was just completely flabbergasted that knowing what circumstances are with us, that he’d actually vote that way,” said Murray. “It said to me, and apparently a lot of other people, that idealism is more important than deliverables.”

Members of the Squad worked quickly to try to explain that they did not oppose the infrastructure bill, just the strategy behind it.

Bowman, for one, swiftly held a town hall meeting with constituents in his district—proof, Murray said, that he recognized “the four-alarm fire his vote caused.”

Democrats Finally Unite—to Mock Kevin McCarthy All Night as He Breaks Stupid Record

The New York congressman told The Daily Beast there was initially some confusion about the vote. “People felt that I voted against lowering prescription drugs. They felt that I voted against childcare. So, you know, the way it was reported and communicated, it was like we voted against the whole thing, like both bills together,” he said.

That led Bowman’s team to launch an “information and engagement campaign” across local media in an attempt to explain his rationale on voting down the bipartisan deal. The congressman says he found the “majority of people were OK with it” after hearing his side of the story.

Rhiannon Navin, a constituent of Bowman’s, told The Daily Beast as much. She supported his ‘no’ vote on the infrastructure bill to preserve the climate change provisions in the broader bill, and said that after town halls, some who were skeptical of the vote said, “I get it.”

Pressley also held a virtual town hall on Nov. 9. And it took one question before she was asked how she could vote against a bill that created jobs in her district.

After a lengthy explanation of all the dynamics that played into her vote, Pressley said it was ultimately about keeping her promises. “I just reject the false choice, I honored my promise that I made to my constituents to hold the line to delay the bipartisan infrastructure bill to keep our leverage in order to pass the Build Back Better Act and I'll continue fighting for every worker and family in my district,” she said.

To the Squad’s supporters, it was painful to watch the lawmakers taking heat for a stand predicated on passing the entirety of Biden’s agenda, and it continues to rankle them that Democratic leadership chose to put pressure on the left, not moderates, who had angled for months to pass the infrastructure bill and leave the Build Back Better Act for later.

“No one likes to be put in the position of voting down something they’d otherwise support,” said one progressive aide. “At the end of the day, who’s willing to vote their conscience? These six members.”

But that vote of conscience has, clearly, come with some real cost for these progressives.

In Ocasio-Cortez’s district, the New York Times found that even supporters didn’t approve of her vote, even if they understood her reasons for taking it. “Right mindset, but wrong execution,” one 27-year old constituent told the paper of his representative’s vote.

Three days after the vote, Tlaib saw a state senator, Shri Thanedar, announce he was considering a primary challenge. Thanedar told The Daily Beast that he would have voted for the infrastructure bill and claimed “people are really shocked and surprised by the ‘no’ vote.”

During his visit to a General Motors plant on Wednesday to promote the infrastructure law, Biden gave a shout out to Tlaib, who represents the part of Detroit where the factory is located. But unlike several members of the Michigan delegation, she didn’t get a ride there on Air Force One. Only ‘yes’ votes were invited to fly with Biden, according to a White House official.

Progressive aides and operatives close to the Squad admit their votes against the infrastructure bill will not help them.

“It has been really hard for them,” a top progressive aide on Capitol Hill said of the Squad. “They’re going to be in a tough spot when the Department of Transportation announces a project in their district anytime in the next 10 years… They did a very brave thing knowing that they will have to live with the political consequences of taking this vote.”

Max Berger, a strategist who formerly worked to elect Squad members at the outside group Justice Democrats, told The Daily Beast, “It’s a tough vote, it does not look great.”

Democrats Hand Joe Biden His Long-Awaited Infrastructure Win

But progressives like Berger see that tough vote as a vindication of why the Squad was sent to Congress in the first place: to do difficult things in service of achieving real progressive wins that they campaigned on.

They failed, at least in the short term, but if there were more progressives willing to vote ‘no’ that night, things might have gone differently. “I don’t think this is a cause for recalibration of the overall strategy,” said Berger. “It shows we need more people like this in Congress.”

Fulfilling that goal continues to be an active project for groups like Justice Democrats, which is targeting four incumbent Democrats in 2022 with challenges from the left. But there’s a tension in casting the infrastructure vote as exhibit A for electing more Squad members.

And progressives acknowledge that.

Their stand might have been praised as a fierce fight for the left’s values. But politically, those who took it will be lucky if many of their constituents forget about it. And there’s a real risk many could remember it as a reason to think twice about supporting them.

Either way, progressive advocates seem satisfied that the worst case will be avoided. “If we’re ever going to get to a politics that’s more than taking a poll of what’s popular and reflecting it back to people, we have to have politicians willing to take hard votes and communicate why,” said Leah Greenberg, co-founder of the progressive group Indivisible.

It’s also the case that along with the blowback Squad members received, there was also understanding and even appreciation for their votes.

The Democratic Mayor of St. Louis, Tishaura Jones, attended the infrastructure bill signing at the White House, with the legislation slated to deliver $9 billion to Missouri in repairs for roads and bridges, public transit fixes, water quality improvements and expanded broadband access.

But even then, Jones’ office said the mayor understood the decision of local congresswoman Cori Bush to vote down the bill.

“St. Louis still needs federal action on issues that matter to families,” Jones’ personal information officer, Nick Dunne, told The Daily Beast.

In Massachusetts, state Rep. Steve Owens (D) said he completely respects and understands congresswoman Pressley’s decision to vote against the infrastructure deal for the sake of Build Back Better. “The constituents that I talk to feel similarly, and she has our support in the district,” he said.

The vote clearly showcased the Squad’s commitment to one another. Bowman said, leading up to the infrastructure vote, the group decided to travel together to the House floor to cast their votes in order to “come in together in both political and physical solidarity.”

That plan was, in part, a reaction to a high-profile vote in May to approve more funding for the U.S. Capitol Police. Members of the group “felt like we were being pushed around… So this time, we just wanted to be together,” Bowman said. On that vote, Bush, Omar and Pressley voted against the bill, while Bowman, Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib voted present.

“There are times where even the six of us don’t vote the same way, right. But when we are, especially with something that’s high-profile, you know, we want to get each other’s backs,” Bowman added.

This year has been a big turning point in the cohesion of the Squad as a group, said an aide familiar with their dynamic. Part of the reason why is the closeness of staffers, who regularly communicate with each other both online and outside the House floor during votes.

“There’s a lot of community in this,” said the aide, who observed that the Squad is increasingly “taking similar positions less popular” within the broader Democratic caucus.

These members surely recognize that Democrats are facing a stark reality in the 2022 midterms—and they are banking on the confidence that their constituents elected them for votes like this.

“Every single vote that we take comes with a positive and a negative reaction from our constituents, and this vote is similar,” Omar told The Daily Beast.

“I feel pretty confident that my district understands the reasoning behind it and believes that I am here to make sure that my promises to them are kept,” she added.

If Kevin McCarthy can’t see the truth about ugly and violent video, Fresno doesn’t need him




The Fresno Bee Editorial Board
Fri, November 19, 2021, 6:00 AM·3 min read

In the week leading up to Veterans Day, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield highlighted a different member of the armed services each day in his social media posts.

It was a nice gesture from the Republican leader in the House to honor the military. It was a genuinely American thing to do.

But earlier that week, another Republican member of the House, Paul Gosar of Arizona, posted an animated video on Twitter that portrayed him stabbing Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York in the neck. Blood spurts out of her wound. Gosar then flies to a large image of President Biden to battle him.

It was all make-believe. Still, the anime video generated 3 million views before being removed, and understandably ignited the outrage of Democrats. They united on Wednesday to formally censure Gosar and strip him of all committee assignments. Gosar became only the 24th House member to be censured, which is one step from expulsion.

How did McCarthy react to Gosar’s stunt? Not by condemning the demeaning video, but by complaining how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco was “breaking another precedent” with the censure process.

That was a genuinely un-American thing to do.

McCarthy joined 206 other Republicans to vote against censure. Only two GOP members voted for it.

A few days before the censure vote, McCarthy told CNN that he chatted with Gosar about the video. “I called him when I heard about the video, and he made a statement that he doesn’t support violence, and he took the video down.”

That was the extent of emotion from McCarthy over a Republican colleague’s fantasy video showing him attacking the Democratic congresswoman. As for leadership, McCarthy raised the threat to remove Democrats from committee posts should the GOP recapture the House majority in next year’s election and he becomes the speaker.

McCarthy’s hypocrisy is this: Pay homage to the U.S. military in one breath, stand by silent when a fellow Republican creates a nasty video about a duly elected member from the other party, herself an American.
Valley needs honesty, truthfulness

So why should this matter to people living in the central San Joaquin Valley? Because if the nonpartisan commission redrawing political boundaries has its maps adopted, McCarthy’s 23rd District could extend all the way to Clovis and Fresno starting next year.

And if Democrats lose the majority in the House, McCarthy would become the next speaker, making him one of the most powerful politicians in the land, and the third in line to lead the executive branch if the president and vice president are unable to do so for whatever reason.

So the question arises: Is McCarthy capable of seeing things as they really are — i.e., Gosar totally earned censure with his beyond-the-pale video — or will he be a power-at-all-costs politician, empty of ethics and values?

By failing to forcefully speak against Gosar, McCarthy effectively gives quarter to those who would like to destroy American government — like many of those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Hypocrisy also emerges if one flips the script. What if a Democratic representative had created a video showing an attack on then-President Trump? Would McCarthy have remained similarly dismissive?

Residents of the San Joaquin Valley need representatives who are truthful, honest and courageous. They are not well served by politicians bent on nothing more than securing power. The problems are too pressing — better health care access in a region way too short of doctors; a fully diversified economy that provides more head-of-household wages; and consistent water deliveries to support agriculture, the backbone of the Valley.

If McCarthy’s district does extend to Fresno, he should be prepared to do the work while handing out discipline to extremists like Gosar when necessary. If he cannot commit to that, Bakersfield can keep him.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mocks the

'stunning diversity' of the GOP: 

'Look at all of those different-colored ties'

Eliza Relman

Fri, November 19, 2021, 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) walks to the U.S. Capitol Building on November 18, 2021 in Washington, DC.Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mocked the "stunning diversity" of House Republicans on Thursday night.

• Ocasio-Cortez joked that the predominantly white, male caucus exhibited a diversity of ties and haircuts.

• The congresswoman dissed House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy as he spoke for more than 8 hours on the floor.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mocked the "stunning diversity" of the GOP as House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy condemned the Democrats' social and climate policy bill from the House floor on Thursday night.

The 31-year-old congresswoman pointed to McCarthy and his mostly white, male colleagues on a television screen in the House cloakroom and joked that their colorful ties and variety of haircuts exhibited diversity.

"Kevin McCarthy speaking against unions, speaking against universal pre-K, childcare, et cetera, along with all these Agent Smiths in the background, exhibiting the stunning diversity of the Republican party," she said. "Look at all of those different-colored ties and haircuts."

The House Republican caucus, which numbers 213 in total, includes just 31 women, five of whom are women of color, and 14 men of color. On the Democratic side, the caucus is about 40% female and about 40% are people of color.

Congressional Democrats didn't mince words when criticizing McCarthy's record-breaking eight hour and 32-minute long speech, which delayed the House vote on President Joe Biden's $2 trillion bill until Friday morning. The bill passed 220-213.

In the same video, Ocasio-Cortez said McCarthy "managed to speak for over an hour with one of the lowest vocabularies I have ever seen coming from a member of House leadership of any party."

She added, "It is stunning to me how long a person can talk, knowing, and exhibiting, and communicating so little."

Trump's Estate Tax Giveaway To Rich Triggered 50% Drop In The IRS Revenue: Report


Mary Papenfuss
Sun, November 21, 2021, 3:18 AM·1 min read

As Republicans bellyache about Democrats not balancing the budget, a new report reveals that a massive Trump administration estate tax giveaway that particularly served the ultra-rich sparked a 50% plunge in IRS revenue from the taxes.

Estate tax payments dropped from $20 billion to just over $9 billion last year, Bloomberg reported, based on its analysis of IRS data.

American billionaires, meanwhile, have doubled their collective net worth to more than $5 trillion in just over five years.

The “dramatic decline” in estate tax revenue is largely the result of the Republicans’ 2017 tax overhaul, which doubled the amount the wealthy can pass to heirs without paying any estate tax, Bloomberg noted.

Married couples can now transfer $23.4 million over their lifetimes tax-free.

But the ultra-wealthy can also afford to hire high-end attorneys and other advisers to squeeze even more out of the system.

In just one example, Nike founder Phil Knight used various strategies to transfer billions of dollars to his family tax-free, Bloomberg revealed last month in an investigation.

Democrats had discussed trimming back some of the massive Trump tax giveaways to the wealthy in President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better package. But those didn’t make the cut in the final bill passed by the House on Friday.

Bloomberg said the $10 billion estate tax collected now by the federal government is an “imperceptible” portion of the total $4 trillion revenue collected by the federal government.

The estate tax is viewed as one of the most efficient and direct ways to shave off government revenue from billionaire dynasties.

BEHIND PAYWALL
Check out the full story in Bloomberg here.

  

Who pays America's taxes?

The Week Staff
Sat, November 20, 2021

Taxes. KAREN BLEIER/AFP via Getty Images

During the debate over spending bills, Democrats proposed raising taxes on the wealthy. Do the rich pay a fair share? Here's everything you need to know:

What do the wealthy pay?

Generally, a much lower percentage of their incomes than the middle class. A White House study released in September found that America's 400 wealthiest families paid an average federal income tax rate of just 8.2 percent from 2010 to 2018. The rich do pay other taxes not included in the White House analysis, such as estate taxes, but in recent decades, most kinds of taxes on the wealthy have been substantially cut. The marginal tax rate for the top tax bracket held at above 63 percent between 1932 and 1982, spiking as high as 92 percent in the 1950s. Now, after decades of cuts that started during the Reagan administration, the top marginal rate stands at 37 percent. In addition, payroll taxes to finance Social Security and Medicare are levied on laborers and CEOs at the same rate, and only up to $142,800 in income. If you include all taxes, such as sales and state taxes, the country's top 1 percent earn about 21 percent of total income and pay about 24 percent of total taxes, making our tax system progressive — but mildly so.


Why isn't it more progressive?

In writing and amending the tax code over the decades, Congress has been heavily influenced by the political contributions of wealthy Americans and large corporations, and the armies of lobbyists they send to Washington. Investment income is taxed at a much lower rate than salaries, on the theory that this encourages business growth and stimulates the economy. The tax code is also filled with loopholes and deductions only the wealthy can take. An analysis by ProPublica earlier this year, based on a trove of leaked IRS data, showed that mega-billionaires Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Warren Buffett have paid no federal income taxes at all in some years, and a very low percentage on their massive gains in wealth. Bezos, one of the world's richest men, paid $973 million in personal federal taxes on $4.2 billion in reported income between 2014 and 2018. His wealth, mostly in the form of Amazon stock, increased by $99 billion during that same time period, giving him a "true tax rate" of 0.98 percent, ProPublica said. Corporations pull similar tricks: Between 2018 and 2020, 39 S&P or Fortune 500 companies managed to pay no income tax while recording a combined $122 billion in profits.

How do they do it?

Corporations and the super-affluent can employ accountants and lawyers who know how to manipulate their capital gains, interest, and dividends. Executives paid in stock, for instance, can sell their losing investments at the end of the year to zero out their taxable growth. The wealthy also engage in asset-based lending — borrowing money against their portfolio rather than selling appreciated investments that may incur capital gains taxes. Rich Americans can keep wealth in the family by passing assets to heirs and exploiting a loophole called "step-up in basis." This means the value of an inherited asset generally adjusts to what it's worth on the date of its original owner's death — meaning years or decades of gains before that date instantly become tax-free. "As long as you're adhering to the law," says Sharif Muhammad, founder and CEO of Unlimited Financial Services, "everything's fair game."

Can wealth itself be taxed?

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden and some other Democrats recently pushed for a "billionaire tax" that would tax the richest Americans on unrealized capital gains. But such a tax would face constitutional challenges, and billionaires quickly accused progressives of waging class warfare. "Eventually, they run out of other people's money and then they come for you," tweeted Musk, the Tesla CEO, who's worth roughly $280 billion. From a practical standpoint, taxing unrealized gains would require a major revamping of the tax system, giving an already overwhelmed IRS the tricky task of valuing assets such as private businesses.

Who does the tax code favor?

It has a strong bias for investment income over wages, and thus worsens income inequality. The top 10 percent now own 70 percent of the wealth, up from 60 percent in 1990, and any attempt to alter the status quo runs into powerful, well-financed opposition. The Biden administration's plans to raise taxes for spending bills, for example, have met a torrent of organized corporate opposition on Capitol Hill. "We're doing it in every way you can imagine," said Aric Newhouse, the senior vice president for policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. So far, those lobbying efforts have been successful; though a 15 percent corporate minimum tax and a surtax on incomes over $10 million remain on the table, proposals to increase tax rates on the wealthy and corporations have been dropped.

How the IRS was gutted

The IRS has never been America's most popular government agency, and conservatives have harbored suspicions about its usefulness since the 1990s. Their hostility escalated dramatically in 2013, with reports that "Tea Party" groups seeking tax-exempt status were receiving extra scrutiny. The IRS also targeted groups with "progressive" and "green" and other partisan labels in their names, but enraged Republicans accused the agency of bias and political persecution. They escalated their efforts to cut the IRS budget, reducing the number of auditors by one-third. In 2017, the IRS conducted 675,000 fewer audits than it did in 2010, a drop of 42 percent, and auditors are stretched so thin that they are reluctant to take on complex returns filed by the wealthiest citizens. As a result, the IRS now audits Americans who receive the earned-income tax credit — whose incomes are about $20,000 — at about the same rate as people earning $500,000 to $1 million. For this to change, Pam Reicks, a former IRS manager, told ProPublica, the IRS needs a bigger budget and more employees. "You can see all this abuse and fraud and people not paying their taxes," she said, "but can't use your hands to get it."

This article was first published in the latest issue of The Week magazine. 

This member of Congress wants everyone to know about the 'dark money scheme' that's 'captured' the Supreme Court
Oma Seddiq
Sat, November 20, 2021

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) speaks as Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the third day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing on October 14, 2020.Susan Walsh-Pool/Getty Images


Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is fighting to end the "dark money" that he says is plaguing the Supreme Court.

The Rhode Island Democrat is referring to private groups using anonymous donations to advance their interests at the highest court.

Whitehouse spoke with Insider in a recent interview to discuss his views.

For the ninth time this year, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse gave a speech this week blasting right-wing anonymous donors whom he believes have "captured" the Supreme Court and "built" its current 6-3 conservative majority.

"Our Supreme Court is awash in dark money influence," the Rhode Island Democrat said on the Senate floor on Tuesday. "The American people may not be able to see all of the rot, but they can see enough to know that something is rotten over there across First Street at that court."

Unlike some members of his party, Whitehouse has steered clear of reform ideas such as adding more seats to the bench or setting term limits for justices. Instead, the three-term senator has been vehemently pushing for financial transparency in the third branch of government to expose how it's been influenced by a far-right conservative agenda.

Whitehouse, who chairs a key panel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, calls it a three-fold "scheme" — private groups use anonymous donations to groom Supreme Court candidates, promote and defend these nominees with political ad campaigns and later try to influence these justices in legal briefs filed without any financial disclosures.

"If it's the same people who paid for all of it, particularly if they're the same people who are funding politicians, then it becomes not just a problem, but potentially toxic," Whitehouse, 66, said in a recent interview with Insider.

According to the senator's findings, the effect of this operation is being played out during Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure, which has handed down at least 80 partisan decisions that advanced conservative interests.

"It's a terrible record," Whitehouse said.
'The scheme'

When Whitehouse began investigating the matter years ago, he "had a general sense that things had gone off the rails" at the Supreme Court and wanted to do research to show "how big, special interests hiding behind dark money had been able to exert their power," he told Insider.

In a report published last year by the Harvard Journal on Legislation, Whitehouse laid out his evidence of the dark money trail by pointing to major Supreme Court decisions that delivered wins to conservatives. Those rulings included allowing unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns, reversing the rights of labor unions, and weakening voting rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court on September 25, 2021.Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images

The trend is only continuing, according to Whitehouse. What he finds most troubling is an increase in the number of legal briefs, known as amicus briefs, that are filed without any financial disclosure to convince the justices to rule a certain way.

"The rule of the court purports to say that you can't hide behind a front group. There's almost no other situation in court where somebody is allowed to come in and not identify themselves, and yet there is conspicuous non-enforcement of that rule, and it deprives the public of seeing the coordination among the phony front groups," Whitehouse said, adding that he doesn't "understand why the court doesn't clean that up itself."

In the current term, hundreds of briefs tied to a slew of contentious cases have been filed to the Supreme Court. One highly-watched case, concerning a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, has attracted dozens of briefs that express support for or opposition to the law.

"We're seeing in real time this vector of anonymous influence deploying in enormous numbers on these political cases and that's just a rotten site for a court to present to the country," Whitehouse said.
Democrats have glossed over the Supreme Court

How conservatives have come to have greater control over the Supreme Court, and the federal judiciary as a whole, comes years in the making, experts say.

For decades, Republicans have eyed the courts as a method to uphold their political power, building a network of conservative lawyers and judges and empowering conservative groups like the Federalist Society. Using this backbone, former President Donald Trump filled more than 200 court seats with conservatives.

"They focused on the least democratic branch, the one that doesn't respond to voters, the one that could impose its will from behind ropes, as the vehicle for getting their ideology imposed on the American people," according to Whitehouse.

Still, Whitehouse acknowledges that at the same time Republicans cultivated this strategy, Democrats just weren't paying enough attention.

"Democrats have been overlooking the Supreme Court for a long time and are now getting a wake-up call," he said.

Though the senator claims the court is presently fueled by conservative dark money groups, anonymous political donations indeed go both ways. Democrats actually drew in more funding from dark money than Republicans in the 2020 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.

And now Democrats, who are in the majority, have control over the judicial confirmation process. So far in his tenure, President Joe Biden has appointed 28 federal judges.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett was President Donald Trump's third appointment to the Supreme Court.Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Whitehouse weighed in on the partisan reality and told Insider that ultimately, "whatever rule we should impose to clean up this mess should apply completely irrespective of party or point of view."

Americans have caught sight of the politics that surround the Supreme Court and have formed negative impressions of the institution. A new Quinnipiac University poll released Friday found that more than 6 in 10 Americans say the Supreme Court is motivated primarily by politics. That comes on the heels of all-time low public approval ratings of the Supreme Court with some justices speaking publicly in recent months to try and restore the public's faith.

"It's one of the things that really tears at me because on the one hand, the best thing for this country would be a United States Supreme Court that everybody had confidence in and was proud of, and that was seen to be staying in its proper lanes," Whitehouse said. "But on the other hand, once it becomes evident, as it is to me, that the emperor has no clothes here, it's just as important to call it out because a court that is masquerading as a regular court, but is actually a captured vehicle for big, special interests, is the most dangerous."
'They're just trying to shut me up'

Whitehouse has been pursuing multiple avenues to overhaul the system. He's attempted to advance legislation that would enhance financial transparency in the government and the courts, yet little progress has been made. A bill he wrote to tackle the issue was included in the Democrats' voting and elections legislation, but Republicans blocked it last month.

Besides Congress, Whitehouse has also called on the White House to examine the role of dark money at the Supreme Court. This week, he and three Democratic lawmakers wrote a letter to Biden's Supreme Court commission to do just that, after the group released a draft report last month that failed to touch on the topic.

"It just doesn't make any sense," Whitehouse said. "The fact that they couldn't even grapple with that issue was hard to accept."

There are also some areas that the Supreme Court can easily address itself, including establishing ethics codes for the justices, providing financial disclosures of amicus briefs, and reporting about gifts and hospitality the justices receive, according to Whitehouse.

Critics have slammed Whitehouse's views of the nation's highest court as disrespectful and mistaken, with some condemning them as conspiracy theories or myths. Others have said that Whitehouse just wants to rewrite the rules because the court is not making decisions to his liking.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote in March that Whitehouse's quest has been "undermining judicial independence and restricting the First Amendment rights of private citizens to influence their government."

During testimony at a committee hearing chaired by Whitehouse that same month, a legal expert reiterated those points, and argued that the recent trend of Supreme Court decisions aren't a consequence of right-wing influence, but a consequence of the justices' judicial philosophies.

"Rather than address the substance of their decisions on the merits or, where applicable, seek reform of the relevant laws at issue in contested court decisions, the Supreme Court's critics prefer to demonize the justices and imply nefarious motivations," Jonathan Adler, law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said.

Often the lone member of Congress regularly vocalizing the "scheme," Whitehouse stands firm in his beliefs and vows to continue to promote and fight for them.

"The issue that I have with a lot of the counterattack is that it's just name-calling that fails to address the problems that I've identified," Whitehouse said. "When I see that, that really only confirms my view that they can't defend what they've done. They're just trying to shut me up."

"Why would they want to do that if they weren't trying to protect a court that they'd captured?" he added.

Read the original article on Business Insid

IRS seized $3.5B in crypto-related fraud 

money this year as illicit activity multiplies

David Hollerith

·Senior Reporter

Fri, November 19, 2021, 

The Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations Unit (IRS-CI) seized $3.5 billion from cryptocurrency-related fraud cases over the fiscal year of 2021, according to an annual report published by the agency, underscoring how the booming sector has also sparked a rise in the illicit use of crypto.

According to the IRS-CI, 93% of the total money they seized this year came from crypto-related cases, the latest sign that fraudsters and scammers have found a way to leverage the soaring popularity of digital coins to their advantage.

While 2021 isn't officially over, the amount of funds stolen through hacks and fraud within the cryptocurrency sector this year is likely to eclipse previous years. The most obvious reason being that the asset class has more than quadrupled, according to data from Trading View.

Blockchain forensics firm Chainalysis estimates that illicit funds in cryptocurrency amount to a slim 1% of all cryptocurrency transactions, suggesting crypto is used far less for illegal activity than some critics have argued. But with the asset class's total market capitalization nearly $3 trillion dollars, that 1% sum translates into at least $20 billion worth of illicit cryptocurrency transactions.

The tax agency's CI unit remains one of the largest and oldest law enforcement units working investigations within this space. Major early cases for the unit included the billion dollar seizure of assets from the online drug marketplace, Silk Road as well as the 2013 hack of Mt.GOX, at the time the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchange.

“It was all money-laundering cases and that’s still part of our portfolio of crimes,” Jarod Koopman, the IRS-CI's acting executive director of cyber forensics, told Yahoo Finance earlier this month. “Crypto is inherently money. No matter what the crime, if money is the underlying factor, we’re involved.”

Decentralized finance (DeFi) has suffered a particularly large amount of crime. A new research report from blockchain analytics firm Elliptic shows that DeFi fraud and theft losses in 2021 amount to $10.5 billion. Unlike traditional finance or centralized cryptocurrency projects, DeFi protocols have many more entry points for hackers.

“All they need is to exploit a single smart contract vulnerability,” Koopman said. He added that DeFi was a segment of the crypto sector that the IRS-CI has shown significant interest in recently.

Two notable DeFi hacks include the $600 million theft from the platform Poly Network, as well as the PAID Network's $180 million loss from an exploit.

Chainalysis and other Blockchain forensics companies like CipherTrace and Elliptic supply the software component that augments crypto investigations by law enforcement and other government agencies. 

These tools help piece together transactions flows across cryptocurrency payment networks. The assumptions aren’t always perfect, but Koopman noted the software has become essential to enforcement efforts.

The IRS-CI is “scaling up” their cryptocurrency focus according to Koopman. The unit's success rate of seizure alone shows why their focus on the asset class is an increasing priority. 

'Several open investigations' into dark crypto money

New York Attorney General Letitia James (L) and Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz take a look at some guns after a gun buyback event organized by the New York City Police Department (NYPD), in the Queens borough of New York City, U.S., June 12, 2021. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

Meanwhile, the IRS isn't the only law enforcement agency looking to invest more time and resources into the asset class. Local officials are also diving into the rabbit hole of illicit crypto flows.

Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz told Yahoo Finance that “increased global awareness of cryptocurrency has not only attracted investors” but also fraudsters who “are quick to adapt and are always looking to exploit new technologies.”

Katz's office has invested in “technologies and partnerships” that allow them to pursue cryptocurrency-related crimes. While she declined to comment on specifics, Katz admitted that the District Attorney’s office has “several open investigations into cryptocurrency related crimes.”

The type of cryptocurrency-related crime they investigate involves fraudulent investment schemes, where victims hand over their money with the expectation that it will be invested in digital coins — only to find the fraudsters have fled with the money. This style of fraud is known in digital money circles as an “exit scam” or “rug pull.”

The crypto provisions within the recently signed Infrastructure Bill also provide more ground by which the IRS-CI and other agencies can surveil cryptocurrency owners. 

For instance, the $1 trillion bill carries specific tax reporting requirements for market entities which fall under the term "broker," as well as applying tax code for cash transactions to cryptocurrencies.

The latter requires receivers in an exchange of $10,000 worth or more to verify and report the identification and social security number of the sender. Under this new law set to begin in 2024, failing to do so when transacting cryptocurrencies will result in a felony charge. But critics have argued this reporting requirement could discourage the use of digital assets altogether as part of their nature entails transacting pseudonymously.

“We want every agent to have a good baseline knowledge for working crypto cases,” Koopman added. “Its a space that we’re all passionate about and enjoy working in.”

David Hollerith covers cryptocurrency for Yahoo Finance. Follow him @dshollers.

Omarova lays out ‘scary scenario’ in crypto, gets pushback from senators in hearing

Jennifer Schonberger

·Senior Reporter

Fri, November 19, 2021, 

Saule Omarova, President Joe Biden’s embattled nominee for a top banking regulator position, sketched out the possibility of “scary” scenarios emerging in cryptocurrency, but faced a mix of skepticism and agreement from senators on her views.

During her appearance before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, Omarova — who is being vetted to be the next Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates the majority of the nation’s banks — voiced concerns that large tech companies could control the payment infrastructure in the U.S. if private digital currencies are allowed to thrive, potentially displacing the value of the U.S dollar.

“I’m struggling with your view about digital assets,” Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) told Omarova at the hearing.

When asked by the senator whether she only believes in fiat currency, Omarova replied, “No ... My concern is … we may end up in a situation where a large company like a big tech company might control all of the infrastructure through which the money that every American and every American business uses in their daily moves.”

Omarova agreed with Rhode Island Democrat Jack Reid, who posed a scenario in which Facebook designs a digital currency that overtakes the U.S. dollar making the dollar something that can’t be used to regulate our economy.

“National banks would not need a charter, they would just need to get a franchise from Facebook, is that right?” Reid asked.

“That’s correct,” the nominee replied. “This is the scary scenario everyone should take seriously these days.”

Omarova said she worried that embracing private cryptocurrencies could make it harder for the U.S. dollar to remain dominant — a concern even former President Donald Trump recently voiced to Yahoo Finance.

“My concern is that in the system where a lot of private actors like Facebook can issue their own version of currency, that can potentially outpace and even displace the U.S. dollar,” Omarova told senators.

That could have “implications far beyond what we typically consider in the banking sphere, but might also undermine our sovereignty and the value of the dollar,” she added.

Keep the dollar dominant

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 18: Chairman Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) listens during Dr. Saule Omarova's nomination hearing to be the Comptroller of the Currency with the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee on Capitol Hill on November 18, 2021 in Washington, DC. Senators questioned Omarova about her views and past comments on bank oversight. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Omarova stated the new technologies offer a lot of potential benefits for better efficiency of payment and transactions as well as financial inclusion. Still, “it does raise a lot of issues with regard to the ability of our nation to maintain the dominant status of the U.S. dollar in the global economy.”

She argued the reason the dollar has retained its dominant status is because the Federal Reserve has been able to maintain the value of the dollar and maintain the money supply in the economy.

When asked by Lummis whether she thought Bitcoin (BTC-USD) threatens national security, Omarova said she’s not an expert in bitcoin, but worried that if all U.S. financial transactions were part of a blockchain system. Various actors might be acting in the interest of the U.S. could take control of the system, she suggested.

Omarova added that she worried private companies are pursuing profits, which may cut into the public interest by not allowing equal access to money for everyone.

“I do believe we have government issued money now in this country and it’s working great and I worry about allowing private innovation to undermine a lot of important public policies we need to pursue,” said Omarova.

While she worries about private currencies, Omarova says she favors a central bank digital currency (CBDC) over privately issued stablecoins because it’s issued by the government and will ensure access for everyone.

“The one potential advantage of CBDC over privately issued stablecoins is that it will be issued subject to statutory mandate legal decisions made by democratically elected lawmakers,” Omarova told the committee.

“So that will allow the central bank under the oversight of congress to ensure everyone has fair access to new forms of money,” she added.

Biden's top bank regulator nomination at risk after tense hearing



Courtenay Brown
Fri, November 19, 2021,

A high-stakes battle over the next bank cop just got shoved into the spotlight.

Driving the news: A crucial hearing yesterday — that was ugly and tense at times — made one thing clear: Saule Omarova's shot at leading one of the nation's most powerful financial regulators may be at risk, with growing opposition from both sides of the aisle.

Why it matters: The law professor — a vocal critic, who's put forth proposals that would "end banking as we know it” — is gunning to oversee lenders whose assets make up two-thirds of the banking system's total.

If confirmed as head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Omarova could leave a mark on hugely important issues, including how banks interact with cryptocurrency or lend to controversial industries — and who gets to be a national bank.

The latest: Omarova's critics are getting louder.

Republicans claim her academic research suggests support for nationalizing the bank sector. Moderate Democrats don't like that she opposed a law that eased some regional bank regulations — or that she said earlier this year that small oil-and-gas companies should go bankrupt to help “tackle climate change.”

During yesterday's hearing before a key Senate panel, Omarova pushed back: She said the fossil fuel industry was “a very important part of the economy” and that her research isn't an endorsement of any one idea.

Catch up quick: The OCC has had temporary leaders — though, acting heads might not feel totally entitled to pursue an aggressive agenda.

By the numbers: The office has been without a permanent head for nearly 18 months straight — including the 10 months Biden has been in office, according to data from the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.

What we're watching: Other Democrats on the committee, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), support Biden's pick.

Warren said Republicans who oppose Omarova "are doing the bidding of giant banks that want to keep gobbling up smaller competitors, want to keep ripping off their customers, and want to keep getting away with it.”

If there’s no Republican support, just one Democratic opposition could sink the nomination. That may extend the regulatory limbo.

One thing looming: A half-century-old anti-redlining law that the next leader could revamp.

What's next: There's no date yet, but the banking committee will vote on whether to advance Omarova — who would be the first nonwhite and first female to permanently get the job — to a full Senate vote.

Go deeper: More Democrats cool on Biden currency comptroller pick

Biden Nominee, Who Was Born in Soviet Kazakhstan, Defends Herself at Senate Hearing: 'I'm Not a Communist'

Aaron Parsley
Fri, November 19, 2021

Saule Omarova
Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/Shutterstock

President Joe Biden's pick to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — an independent bureau within the Treasury that oversees the national banking system — defended herself to members of the Senate Banking Committee who questioned whether she's more aligned with communism than free-market capitalism.

"I'm not a communist," Saule Omarova, a Cornell University law professor who was born in Soviet Kazakhstan and studied in Moscow, said during Thursday's confirmation hearing. "I do not subscribe to that ideology. I could not choose where I was born."

Omarova, who became a U.S. citizen in 2005 and served in President George W. Bush's administration, was asked by Republican Sen. John Kennedy whether she'd been a member of a young communist organization in her youth.

"I don't know whether to call you professor or comrade," he said.

Omarova explained that membership in the Leninist Communist Young Union of the Russian Federation had been compulsory for young people when she was growing up in the former Soviet republic.

US Senator John Kennedy
JIM WATSON/AFP 

She also said she had very little academic freedom when asked about writing a thesis on Karl Marx's economic analysis as an undergrad at Moscow State University more than 40 years ago. The thesis, she said, was written in Russian on a typewriter and she didn't bring it with her when she emigrated to the U.S. in 1991.

Her more recent academic papers were also brought up during the questioning with Republicans suggesting that her opinions show a willingness to recreate the country's consumer banking system, allow fossil fuel companies to go bankrupt and to dictate private investment decisions.

RELATED: Joe Biden Picks First-Ever Black Nominee for Defense Secretary

"She wants to nationalize the banking system, put in place price controls, create a command-and-control economy where the government allocates resources explicitly, instead of free men and women making their own decisions about the goods and services they want to buy and sell in an open market," Sen. Pat Toomey, the top Republican on the panel, said, according to The Hill. "These are exactly the kind of socialist ideas that have failed everywhere in the world they've been tried."

Omarova defended her writings as merely "academic debate" over the evolution of the country's financial systems and that said she doesn't necessarily endorse every topic she's written about.

In her opening statement, Omarova spoke about growing up in Kazakhstan as an ethnic minority "in an all-women household, under a totalitarian regime presiding over a failing economy."

Saule Omarova
Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/Shutterstock

"I was raised by my grandmother, a soft-spoken woman who was orphaned and barely escaped death when, in the 1920s, Stalin sent her entire family to Siberia," Omarova said. "The crime for which my grandmother's family was killed was that they were educated Kazakhs who did not join the Party."

She added that her pursuit of an education was "an act of defying political oppression and injustice."

"I studied hard, got into the best university I could, and was ultimately able to fulfill my dream of coming to America – the land of opportunity and freedom," she said.

If confirmed, Omarova would be the first woman to hold the position, NPR reports.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren defended the nominee while also criticizing Republicans for conducting a "vicious smear campaign" on behalf of the banking industry which has "declared war" on Omarova for her "willingness to enforce the law to keep our system safe and that you may cut into big bank profit."

"Are you a capitalist who believes in free markets?" Warren asked.

"Yes I am," Omarova responded.

‘Morning Joe’ Rails Against GOP Sen John Kennedy for ‘Sick’ Questioning of Biden Nominee



Lindsey Ellefson
Fri, November 19, 2021,

The “Morning Joe” hosts and panelists were outwardly disgusted Friday over the “cynical and hateful” questioning by Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) of Saule Omarova, Joe Biden’s appointee to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

During a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Thursday, Kennedy called Omarova “comrade” and suggested she might be a Communist because she was born in Kazakhstan.

“You might look at that and think that Sen. Kennedy is stupid,” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said. “No, he’s not. He knew exactly what he was doing. He went to Oxford. This is going around in the Republican Party: People with Ivy League degrees — people that went to Oxford — try to play as dumb as possible for the cameras. They’re not fooling anybody. That was just as cynical and hateful of a spectacle, attacking somebody because they were born in a — under a — totalitarian regime.”

Co-host Mika Brzezinski fumed: “Look what she’s done and what incredible accomplishments in her life and now wanting to serve. This was sick. This was really hard to watch. It made me want to cry.”

Omarova, a Cornell University law professor, previously served as an adviser to the Treasury Department under former president George W. Bush, a Republican.

“Senator, I’m not a communist,” Omarova said at one point during the hearing. “I do not subscribe to that ideology. I could not choose where I was born.”

Omarova, like all children in the Soviet Union, was expected to participate in a Communist youth organization. Kennedy asked her if she ever resigned and pushed her even after she explained that children age out of the program with no formal resignation requirement. She pivoted to explain that her family suffered under communism, which ultimately propelled her to the United States and fueled her dream to live here and serve her adopted homeland.

Electric vehicle transition puts 60,000 Italian jobs at risk, union says


FILE PHOTO: An electric car is plugged in at a charging point for electric vehicles in Rome

Fri, November 19, 2021, 7:59 AM·2 min read

MILAN (Reuters) - The transition to electric cars could jeopardise 60,000 jobs in Italy, one of the country's main metal workers' unions said on Friday and called on the government to support a sector that is "overwhelmed by changes".

Industry analysts say the auto sector in Italy could be hit harder than elsewhere because of the small average size of firms in the country and the scale of investment needed to comply with the European Union's "Fit-For-55" climate plan to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 55% from 1990 levels by 2030.

Unions and Italy's business lobby Confindustria alike have said many small and medium-sized countries may be forced to close unless the government provides tax breaks and incentives for the sector.

"In spite of the complaints and requests from trade unions and companies, in the budget law the government has not included any intervention to support a sector overwhelmed by changes caused by the energy and green transition," Ferdinando Uliano, Head of FIM CISL union, and Stefano Boschini, FIM CISL Chief for the automotive sector, said in a statement.

A group of industry associations for the automotive sector also issued a statement on Friday to complain about the lack of support in the budget law and in Italy's plan for the post-pandemic recovery.

FIM CISL's top officials urged the government to create a fund to shield workers and small and medium enterprises, adding that incentives were needed to encourage the purchase of electric and hybrid cars and the renewal of public administrations' car fleets.

FIM CISL also asked the industry ministry to define conditions and advantages to attract investments from multinational groups including Vitesco Technologies, Bosch and Denso.

The automotive supply chain in Italy employs 278,000 direct and indirect workers and accounts for 6.2% of the gross domestic product, the country's automotive association ANFIA says.

The union did not say how it had calculated the number of those jobs that are at risk.

(Reporting by Francesca Landini, editing by Barbara Lewis)