DEATH RACE
Horse put down following injury during Calgary Stampede chuckwagon races

ALL HORSE INJURIES ARE FATAL

CALGARY — A horse has been killed after it was injured in a chuckwagon race at the Calgary Stampede.

Organizers say in a statement that the horse on Cody Ridsdale's team was hurt during the fourth heat of Thursday night's competition.

Following a veterinary assessment, the owner decided it would be humane to euthanize the animal.

Chuckwagon races returned to the Stampede after missing the last two years due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Six horses died in 2019, which led animal rights groups to raise concerns about horses that suffer fractured legs, broken backs and heart attacks.

Related video: In 1st event after 6 horses died, Stampede chuckwagons return with new safety measures

In 1st event after 6 horses died, Stampede chuckwagons return with new safety measures
View on Watch

The Stampede has said that this year it brought in new safety measures for horses, which include reducing the number of wagons to three from four on the track for each heat.

Researchers at the University of Calgary are also looking at ways to improve the health, safety and performance of horses at the Stampede, including the surfaces chuckwagon horses run on and whether there's a way to reduce leg fractures.

"We are looking at track conditions and the effect of different footings — at varying depths and levels of hardness — on the impact of legs," Dr. Renaud Léguillette, a professor in the faculty of veterinary medicine, said in a news release earlier this week.

He said the track is one of the parameters that could be controlled to prevent leg fractures.

Chuckwagon races are a nightly spectacle during the 10-day Stampede, which ends Sunday. Crowds watch each evening as horse-drawn wagons thunder around a dirt track accompanied by outriders.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 15, 2022.

The Canadian Press

IT'S RENT INCREASES TO BLAME

The size of the millennial generation is to blame for sky-high inflation, strategist says

Natasha Turak - Yesterday 


The latest consumer price index data this week revealed a searing 9.1% increase year over year in June, prompting Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to say that inflation in the U.S. is "unacceptably high."
The causes behind the steep jumps include high energy prices, pandemic stimulus spending and geopolitical crises — but one investor is blaming millennials.

No one is talking about millennials' role in high inflation, investor says
View on Watch

Soaring inflation is putting markets on edge and triggering fears of a recession. The latest consumer price index data this week revealed a searing 9.1% increase year over year in June, prompting Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to say that inflation in the U.S. is "unacceptably high."

The causes behind the steep jumps include high commodity and energy prices triggered by supply shortages and Russia's war in Ukraine, record government spending packages on economic stimulus and low interest rates amid the Covid-19 pandemic, and continuing labor shortages and supply chain problems meeting increased demand.

But one investor is arguing that there's another major factor to blame: millennials.

"See, what everyone is not including in the conversation is what really causes inflation, which is too many people with too much money chasing too few goods," Bill Smead, chief investment officer at Smead Capital Management, told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" on Thursday.

Smead explained that in the U.S. there are an estimated 92 million millennials, primarily in the 27- to 42-year-old age bracket. "The last time we saw what we call 'wolverine inflation' — which is inflation that is hard for policymakers to stop — was when 75 million baby boomers had replaced 44 million silent generation people in the 1970s."


A realtors listings are advertised in a window in Centreville, Maryland, on July 6, 2021.

"So we have in the United States a whole lot of people, (aged) 27 to 42, who postponed homebuying, car buying, for about seven years later than most generations," he said.

"But in the past two years they've all entered the party together, and this is just the beginning of a 10-to-12-year time period where there's about 50% more people that are wanting these things than there were in the prior group."

"So the Fed can tighten credit, but it won't reduce the number of people wanting these necessities in comparison to the prior group," Smead said.

To be sure, the Federal Reserve's printing of an unprecedented amount of money since the pandemic began is a major cause of inflation, economists agree. Smead also did not mention skyrocketing energy prices due to geopolitical events and supply issues, which can't be blamed on millennials.


Burnout was cited as one of the top three reasons for younger workers who left their jobs in the past two years, according to Deloitte's survey.

Plenty of millennials would disagree with the idea that they all have a lot of money and are now purchasing assets — according to a number of surveys taken in the last two years, upward of 60% of millennials are delaying homebuying due to student debt or the simple cost of homes compared with wages. This generation is also the one with the fastest-growing debt burden.

Even many of those with ample funds are still holding back. As recently as June, the CNBC Millionaire Survey found that millennials are "three times more likely to be cutting back on big purchases compared with their baby boomer counterparts."

"Forty-four percent of millennial respondents said higher rates have caused them to delay purchasing a new home, compared with only 6% of baby boomers. Nearly half of millennial millionaires said they are delaying purchase of a car because of higher rates — more than double the rate of baby boomers," CNBC wrote.

Pressure on the housing market due to the pandemic-induced shortage of inventory and high competition is also keeping many potential buyers in the late 20s to early 40s age group away.

Largest homebuyer market by generation

Despite all this, millennials are still making up the largest chunk of the homebuyer market by generation. They're also the largest generation in the U.S. by population.

"Millennials now make up 43% of home buyers – the most of any generation – an increase from 37% last year," the National Association of Realtors found in its latest study released in March.

The NAR classifies 23- to 31-year-olds as "younger millennials" and 32- to 41-year-olds as "older millennials."

"Eighty-one percent of Younger Millennials and 48 percent of Older Millennials were first-time home buyers, more than other age groups," NAR wrote.

Housing correction is 'dead ahead,' warns economist Mark Zandi

View on Watch

Older millennials made up the "largest generational group of buyers" at 25%, and the median age was 36, the study found. The next-largest group was Gen Xers at 22% with a median age of 49.

"Some young adults have used the pandemic to their financial advantage by paying down debt and cutting the cost of rent by moving in with family. They are now jumping headfirst into homeownership," Jessica Lautz, NAR's vice president of demographics and behavioral insights, said in the report.

The figures still leave a lot of young people out of the picture. According to rental listing site Apartment List, in 2020, 18% of millennials believed they would be paying rent forever, giving up on homeownership – nearly double the rate of 10.7% two years prior.

The Fed's role

As the Fed pumped the U.S. market with liquidity (or some say, flooded it) and kept interest rates low over the last two years, its officials contended through 2021 that creeping inflation was "transitory."

In late May, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen admitted she had been wrong.

"I think I was wrong then about the path that inflation would take," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview. "There have been unanticipated and large shocks that have boosted energy and food prices, and supply bottlenecks that have affected our economy badly that I ... at the time, didn't fully understand."

The Fed has approved three interest rate hikes this year, with the latest in mid-June constituting the largest single increase in the country since 1994 at 75 basis points. After June's inflation print of 9.1%, analysts predict the central bank could deploy a massive 100 basis point rate rise to combat inflation, which in the U.S. is at its highest in 40 years.

Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic, when asked earlier this week by reporters about the likelihood of the hike, replied, "Everything is in play."

— CNBC's Robert Frank contributed to this report.

Judge in Twitter v. Musk once made rare ruling: ordering a deal to close

By Tom Hals and Hyunjoo Jin

(Reuters) -The judge overseeing Twitter Inc's $44 billion lawsuit against Elon Musk has a no-nonsense reputation as well as the distinction of being one of the few jurists who has ever ordered a reluctant buyer to close a U.S. corporate merger.

Kathaleen McCormick took over the role of chancellor or chief judge of the Court of Chancery last year, the first woman in that role. On Wednesday, she was assigned the Twitter lawsuit which seeks to force Musk to complete his deal for the social media platform, which promises to be one of the biggest legal showdowns in years.

"She already has a track record of not putting up with some of the worst behavior that we see in these areas when people want to get out of deals," said Adam Badawi, a law professor who specializes in corporate governance at the University of California Berkeley. "She is a serious, no-nonsense judge."

In contrast to Musk's brash and volatile behavior, she is known as soft-spoken, approachable and amiable -- but a person who also stands her ground. She advocates respect among litigants and integrity at legal conferences.

"We've always had each other's backs, we've always gone out for drinks after arguments and maintained this level of civility," she told a gathering at the University of Delaware this year.

After weeks of confrontational tweets suggesting Twitter was hiding the true number of fake accounts, Musk said on July 8 he was terminating the $54.20-per-Twitter share acquisition, worth $44 billion. On Tuesday, the social media platform sued.

McCormick on Friday scheduled the first hearing for July 19 in Wilmington, when she will consider Twitter's request to expedite the case and conduct a four-day trial in September.

Shares of Twitter were up about 2% to $37.11 in midday trading on Friday, but still more than 30% below the deal price.

Judges have ordered reluctant buyers to close corporate acquisitions only a handful of times, according to legal experts and court records. One of those was McCormick.

Related video: Musk mocks Twitter's legal threat after ditching deal
View on Watch

Last year, McCormick got the attention of Wall Street dealmakers by ordering an affiliate of private equity firm Kohlberg & Co LLC to close its $550 million purchase of DecoPac Holding Inc, which makes cake decorating products.

She described her ruling as "chalking up a victory for deal certainty" and rejected Kohlberg's arguments that it could walk away because of a lack of financing.

The case has many parallels to the Twitter deal. Like Musk, Kohlberg said it was walking away because DecoPac violated the merger agreement. Like Musk, Kohlberg argued in part that DecoPac failed to maintain ordinary operations.

There are also differences. Musk's deal is magnitudes bigger, involves a publicly traded target company in Twitter and might have implications for Tesla Inc, the electric vehicle maker that is the source of much of Musk's fortune.

Tesla shares were trading up slightly on Friday at $718.04, down from around $1,000 when the Twitter deal was announced.

In other cases, she has come down on the side of shareholders when they clashed with management.

Last year, she prevented energy company The Williams Cos Inc from adopting a so-called poison pill anti-takeover measure, saying it breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders.

Last month, she said shareholders of Carvana Co could sue the board for a direct offering of stock to select investors when the share price was depressed during the early pandemic.

A graduate of Notre Dame Law School, McCormick started her career with the Delaware branch of the Legal Aid Society, which helps low-income people navigate the court system.

She went into private practice "mainly for financial reasons," she told the Delaware Senate during her confirmation hearing, joining Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, one of the state's main firms for business litigation.

She joined the Court of Chancery in 2018 as a vice chancellor and became the first woman to lead the Court of Chancery last year.

Despite her mild manner, Eric Talley, who specializes in corporate law at Columbia Law School, said he doubts McCormick would be cowed by Musk.

"I would not be placing my bets on Chancellor McCormick suddenly becoming weak-kneed," he said.

(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware and Hyun Joo Jin in San Francisco; editing by Noeleen Walder and Jonathan Oatis)

EDMONTON JOURNAL

Opinion: It's time to stop looking to the U.S. for health-care solutions

Kaylynn Purdy , Melanie Bechard - 

© Ed Kaiser

An ambulance waits outside the University of Alberta Hospital emergency area on Monday, Jan. 24, 2022.

Over the past year, medical leaders have called on provincial and federal governments to take immediate action to save our health system. Emergency department wait times are breaking records, surgeries are delayed or cancelled, and 15 per cent of Canadians don’t have a family physician. Our system and country cannot continue this trajectory. Our publicly funded health system desperately requires innovation and fortification to deliver care to all.

It is said in politics that no good crisis should go to waste, and there is a lot of talk that some provinces will use this an opportunity to transition to a more investor-owned health-care delivery system.

Yet, Telus Health’s Life Plus program, owned by a corporate giant, has come under review in B.C. for potentially creating a parallel privately funded system and drawing family physicians out of the publicly funded system. The purported goals of privately funded care are to reduce costs by driving competition and improving access, but it creates a slippery slope sliding towards a system that privileges those who can afford to pay.

As Canadian doctors who have studied health policy in the U.S., we can confirm that Canada’s history of equitable access based on need, not ability to pay, will be undermined by adding private-pay to the equation. It will create a mishmash of poorly functioning health-care delivery systems.

In a Lancet publication assessing 60 countries with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index which looks at deaths that could be prevented with timely and effective health care, Canada ranked in the top 25 per cent and the U.S. ranked near the bottom half.

According to a Commonwealth Fund publication comparing 11 OECD countries, the U.S. is ranked last for affordability and it spends more on health care than any other country in the world. Fifty per cent of low-income Americans report cost-related access problems compared to 21 per cent of low-income Canadians. In Canada, this is largely driven by the inability to pay for medications, something that would change with the introduction of national pharmacare. Many European countries perform well, but they have the ability to regulate costs in many ways that Canada cannot.

The U.S. also has the highest infant mortality and lowest life expectancy of the 11 countries in the ranking. The U.S. only has four per cent of the global population but it has had 15 per cent of all deaths globally due to COVID-19. In an analysis of 26 million COVID-19 cases in the U.S., 338,000 deaths due to COVID-19 could have been avoided if all Americans had adequate health insurance.

The U.S. is not a system to copy. In fact, our medical colleagues in the U.S. are advocating tirelessly to improve their system. A privately funded system would not only likely cost Canadians more, but the health of our nation would suffer even further.

Like all nations, Canada has its flaws, but access to health care based on need, and not ability to pay, is a key Canadian value. An overwhelming number of Canadians stepped up to get vaccinated against COVID-19 to protect themselves and their communities. Over 76 per cent of Canadians were vaccinated as of December 2021 compared to 60 per cent of Americans. We care about each other. We are a collectivist society, and private-pay health care can only survive in an individualistic one.

It’s time we stop discussing privately funded health care as a solution and look to strengthen our system to work for every person living in Canada. It is time to stop looking to the U.S. for solutions and instead look to how we can maximize our existing $265 billion in health spending to strengthen our publicly funded system and shift more dollars, not less, into our universal health system.

We have room to innovate by creating a world-class health human resource plan deeply integrated into the needs of communities, funding needed health infrastructure, supporting family medicine, and having greater leadership and co-ordination between federal and provincial/territorial governments.

Let’s embrace our collective nature as Canadians and pull together and demand a better, stronger universal health system for all. It’s the most Canadian thing that we can do.

Dr. Kaylynn Purdy is a neurology resident doctor at the University of Alberta and a health policy masters student at Stanford University.

Dr. Melanie Bechard is chair, Canadian Doctors for Medicare and a paediatric emergency medicine physician.

Related video: Premiers push for health-care spending increase from Ottawa (cbc.ca)

View on Watch

B.C. upholds ban on private health-care clinics, but case expected to go to Supreme Court

Sharon Kirkey , National Post - 41m ago


Vancouver surgeon Brian Day, one of the country’s most vocal promoters of private medicine, has lost another court battle to undo the laws that prevent extra billing and user charges in Canada.


© Provided by National Post

Day has fought to make the case that Canadians should be free to pay privately for medically necessary care, and that doctors should be free to charge them for it.

In a unanimous decision released Friday involving a case that goes to the core of one of the country’s most sacrosanct social programs, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s dismissal of Day’s challenge of B.C.’s Medicare Protection Act, ruling that bans on extra billing and private insurance do not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, even though people are at risk of dying while languishing on wait lists.

It’s the latest chapter in Day’s 13-year-long constitutional challenge against the B.C. government over whether private surgery clinics can charge patients for publicly insured services normally done in hospitals.

Brian Day: Canadian health-care system's failings amount to social cruelty

It's unanimous: Canada's health care is crumbling, premiers agree

The orthopedic surgeon co-founded Vancouver’s private Cambie Surgery Centre and a specialist referral clinic. He’s fought to make the case that Canadians should be free to pay privately for medically necessary care, and that doctors should be free to charge them for it. The British ex-patriate once described medicare as “madness,” compared Canada’s health system to a one-star airline and argues that forcing people to endure lengthy waits for needed care violates their charter right to life, liberty and security of the person. He’s also seeking legalization of “dual practice” that would allow doctors to bill both the public system and private patients.

The Canada Health Act “is a law that is literally killing Canadians,” Day told the National Post’s Tom Blackwell in a 2016 interview .

Six years later, the horror stories abound. A New Brunswick man this week said he witnessed the death of an elderly man who died in his wheelchair after waiting hours for treatment in a Fredericton emergency room. An Ontario man with a shattered femur languished on a stretcher in a hospital hallway for four days before getting surgery Thursday. The Ontario Medical Association has warned people face waits not of months, but in some cases years to get cancer screenings and surgeries. The country’s premiers warned this week the system is “crumbling” and will continue to crumble unless the federal government increases its share of health-care spending.

According to the think tank SecondStreet.org, at least 11,581 people across Canada died in 2020-21 while waiting for surgery, scans like MRI’s or an appointment with a specialist.

Day launched his lawsuit in 2009. In September 2020, after a 194-day trial, B.C. Supreme Court Justice John Steeves ruled that Day and his co-plaintiffs had failed to show that patients’ rights are being infringed by B.C.’s medicare act. Steeves said its focus is on equitable access, not ability to pay, and that the richer and healthier would benefit most from a two-tier scheme.

In its judgment released Friday, the three-justice panel said Steeves erred in his analysis of the right to life and say in their ruling that the impugned provisions infringed on some patients’ section 7 right to security of the person and their right to life.

The panel said people were waiting beyond target benchmarks for tests and surgeries for life-threatening conditions, and that some faced an increased risk of death as a result of the law.

But they found that breach can be overruled by another section of the charter that says rights can be limited if shown to be justified in a democratic society.

In written reasons, Chief Justice Robert Bauman and Justice David Harris concluded the fundamental purpose of the province’s medicare protection act is to ensure access to care for all eligible, based on need, and not a person’s ability to pay.

“The conclusion we are compelled to reach is far from a satisfactory one,” Justice Mari-Ann Fenlon lamented in a concurring decision.

“The record establishes that thousands of patients every year are waiting beyond medically acceptable times for care,” Fenlon wrote.

“We reach the decision we do in this case, constrained by the record, and recognizing that the impugned provisions are upheld at the cost of real hardship and suffering to many for whom the public system is failing to provide timely necessary care.”

“This is such a lost opportunity,” lead lawyer Peter Gall said on behalf of Day and the Cambrie Surgery Centre. “The courts had to unblock the political paralysis. Look at what’s happening in our health-care system — people are dying and suffering.”

The restrictions in B.C. are similar to a raft of laws across provinces that “try to dampen down the incentives for doctors to work in the private sector and try to keep them working in the public system,” said Colleen Flood, a law professor and research chair in health law and policy at the University of Ottawa.

Day has argued that having an “escape valve” would improve wait lists by taking people who could afford it out of the public system and into a private one, she said.

“The trouble with that is you’re also taking away physicians and labour. And all other things being equal, doctors probably would prefer to get paid more, treat easier patients, and spend more time working privately than publicly. That’s the danger,” Flood said.

“That’s why most policy people are not at all keen on two-tier health-care systems, because you’re just going to divert a system that’s already strapped for numbers — where do the nurses come from to work in these private clinics?”

She doesn’t have any doubt the case will go to the Supreme Court of Canada. “He will want his moment there.”

With evidence everywhere of increasing wait times and an overstrained system, a two-tier system “does seem like an attractive option,” said Western University bioethicist Maxwell Smith. “Clearly something pretty dramatic needs to happen. Small tweaks don’t seem to be quite doing it anymore.”

“The public universal health-care system is so sacrosanct that we have an aversion to even thinking about a two-tier system,” Smith said. “I think the conclusion ought to be that we shouldn’t go down that route, but it shouldn’t preclude us looking at other jurisdictions … there are a lot of different things we might consider.”

Wait times at airports are getting a lot of attention. “I think that the wait times we are seeing in health care are more objectionable,” Smith said.

With additional reporting from The Canadian Press

First on CNN: DHS inspector general told Jan. 6 panel he went to Mayorkas about Secret Service cooperation

Zachary Cohen - 

The Department of Homeland Security inspector general on Friday briefed all nine members of the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack about the Secret Service erasing text messages from the day of the riot and the day before.

The inspector general, Joseph Cuffari, met with the committee behind closed doors two days after sending a letter to lawmakers informing them that the text messages were erased after the watchdog agency asked for records related to its electronic communications as part of its ongoing investigation around the Capitol attack.

The committee now plans to reach out to Secret Service officials to ask about the erasure of text messages from the day of the US Capitol attack and the day before, including the agency’s process for cleaning out files to see if that policy was followed, the committee Chair Bennie Thompson told CNN.

January 6 committee members expressed concern after the meeting about the different version of events between the inspector general and Secret Service and stressed they wanted to hear from the agency itself.

Cuffari told the committee that the Secret Service did not conduct its own after-action review regarding January 6 and chose to rely on the inspector general investigation, according to a source familiar with the briefing. The inspector general told the committee that the Secret Service has not been fully cooperative with his probe.

Cuffari’s description left the impression that the Secret Service had been “footdragging,” the source said. The inspector general told the committee they were not getting full access to personnel and records.

Cuffari said he brought the issue to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas more than once and was told to keep trying to get the information. Ultimately, Cuffari decided to go to Congress because he could not get anywhere within DHS with his concerns. Separately, a law enforcement official told CNN about Cuffari going to Mayorkas.

DHS did not immediately comment on the matter.

Thompson told CNN the IG said during their meeting that the Secret Service has not been fully cooperative.

“Well, they have not been fully cooperating,” the Mississippi Democrat said, adding: “We’ve had limited engagement with Secret Service. We’ll follow up with some additional engagement now that we’ve met with the IG.”

Inspector General: Secret Service deleted requested Jan. 6 texts

View on Watch

Thompson said that the committee will work “to try to ascertain if those texts can be resurrected.”

The congressman previously told CNN after the meeting that the committee needs to interview Secret Service officials to get their take on what happened with the text messages that got deleted on January 5 and 6, 2021.

“Now that we have the IG’s view of what has happened. We now need to talk to the Secret Service. And our expectation is to reach out to them directly,” Thompson said. “One of the things we have to make sure is that what Secret Service is saying and what the IG is saying, that those two issues are in fact one and the same. And so now that we have it, we’ll ask for the physical information. And we’ll make a decision ourselves.”

Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, who serves on the January 6 committee, told CNN that there seem to be some “contradictory statements” between the Homeland Security inspector general and the Secret Service about whether the text messages from the Secret Service on January 5 and 6, 2021, are actually gone.

The inspector general originally notified the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees in a letter that the text messages were erased from the system as part of a device-replacement program after the watchdog asked the agency for the records.

“First, the Department notified us that many US Secret Service text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021, were erased as part of a device-replacement program. The USSS erased those text messages after OIG requested records of electronic communications from the USSS, as part of our evaluation of events at the Capitol on January 6,” Cuffari stated in the letter.

“Second, DHS personnel have repeatedly told OIG inspectors that they were not permitted to provide records directly to OIG and that such records had to first undergo review by DHS attorneys,” Cuffari added. “This review led to weeks-long delays in OIG obtaining records and created confusion over whether all records had been produced.”

In a statement Thursday night, the Secret Service said the inspector general’s allegation regarding a lack of cooperation is “neither correct nor new.”

“To the contrary, DHS OIG has previously alleged that its employees were not granted appropriate and timely access to materials due to attorney review. DHS has repeatedly and publicly debunked this allegation, including in response to OIG’s last two semi-annual reports to Congress. It is unclear why OIG is raising this issue again,” the statement said.

After initially asking for records from more than 20 people in February, the IG then returned to request more records for additional people, according to the law enforcement official. There were no text messages for the new request because they had been lost in the system transfer, the law enforcement official said. The official also said the agency was informed about the transition and sent guidance about how to preserve phone records from the IT department.

CNN law enforcement analyst Jonathan Wackrow, who worked for the Secret Service for 14 years, said it would make sense for the inspector general to be doing the review after January 6. From the Secret Service view, both the President and vice president were kept safe, so the agency would not consider that an incident to review in an after-action report, Wackrow said.

This story has been updated with additional developments Friday.

CNN’s Morgan Rimmer contributed to this report.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

Biden pledges executive action after Joe Manchin scuppers climate agenda

Adam Gabbatt and Martin Pengelly in New York and Chris Stein in Washington -

Joe Biden has promised executive action on climate change after Joe Manchin, the Democratic senator who has repeatedly thwarted his own party while making millions in the coal industry, refused to support more funding for climate action.


© Provided by The GuardianPhotograph: Tom Brenner/Reuters

Related:Did Joe Manchin block climate action to benefit his financial interests?

In another blow to Democrats ahead of the midterm elections, the West Virginia senator also came out against tax raises for wealthy Americans.

Manchin’s opposition became clear on Thursday night. On Friday, with Biden in Saudi Arabia, the White House issued a statement.

Biden said: “Action on climate change and clean energy remains more urgent than ever.

“So let me be clear: if the Senate will not move to tackle the climate crisis and strengthen our domestic clean energy industry, I will take strong executive action to meet this moment.

“My actions will create jobs, improve our energy security, bolster domestic manufacturing and supply chains, protect us from oil and gas price hikes in the future, and address climate change. I will not back down: the opportunity to create jobs and build a clean energy future is too important to relent.”

Biden and Democrats hope to include environmental measures in a $1tn version of the $2tn Build Back Better spending bill Manchin killed last year in dramatic fashion.

Then, the Biden White House angrily accused Manchin of breaching “commitments to the president and [his] colleagues in the House and Senate”. Bridges were rebuilt but on Thursday night Manchin appeared to reach for the dynamite once again.


Joe Manchin with Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP

According to a Democrat briefed on negotiations, Manchin told Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, he would oppose legislation if it included climate or green energy provisions or higher taxes on the rich and corporations.

The Democrat also said Manchin told Schumer he would support a new spending package only if it was limited to curbing pharmaceutical prices and extending federal subsidies for buying healthcare insurance.

Manchin disputed that version of events in a call to a West Virginia radio show. He said he told Schumer he would not commit to environmental or tax measures until he saw the inflation rate for July, which is due out on 10 August, and the size of the expected interest rate hike by the Federal Reserve at the end of July.

“Let’s wait until that comes out, so we know that we’re going down a path that won’t be inflammatory, to add more to inflation,” Manchin said. “I can’t make that decision … on taxes … and also on the energy and climate because it takes the taxes to pay for the investment into clean technology that I’m in favor of. But I’m not going to do something and overreach that causes more problem.”

Related video: Dems scramble after Manchin deals blow to climate bill (Reuters)

View on Watch

Manchin said he asked Schumer for time.

“I said, ‘Chuck, can we just wait. How much more and how much damaging is that going to be?’ He took that as a no, I guess, and came out with this big thing last night, and I don’t know why they did that.”

In Riyadh, Biden told reporters: “I’m not going away. I’m using every power I have as president to continue to fulfill my pledge to move toward dealing with global warming.”

Asked if Manchin had been “negotiating in good faith”, Biden said: “I didn’t negotiate with Joe Manchin.”

In his earlier statement, Biden also promised progress on healthcare.

He said: “After decades of fierce opposition from powerful special interests, Democrats have come together, beaten back the pharmaceutical industry and are prepared to give Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices and to prevent an increase in health insurance premiums for millions of families with coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

“Families all over the nation will sleep easier if Congress takes this action. The Senate should move forward, pass it before the August recess, and get it to my desk so I can sign it.”

To pass legislation, Democrats are dependent on Manchin’s vote in a Senate divided 50-50 and controlled by the vice-president, Kamala Harris.

In March last year, Manchin backed Biden’s $1.9tn coronavirus relief package after tense negotiations during which, according to the Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Biden told him: “Joe, please don’t kill my bill.”

But the senator has since stood in the way of much of Biden’s agenda, from the Build Back Better package to measures which would require reform to the filibuster, the Senate rule which requires a 60-vote supermajority for most legislation.

Democrats and progressives have argued for scrapping or reforming the filibuster in order to legislate on key issues under attack from the right, including voting rights and abortion.

But Manchin and others opposed to such moves, prominently including Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, are in part aligned with Biden, a former senator opposed to abolishing the filibuster entirely.

Manchin will not face re-election as the only Democrat in statewide office in West Virginia, a state with a powerful coal industry lobby, until 2024. His business, Enersystems, has earned millions of dollars as the only supplier of low-grade coal to a high-polluting power plant near Fairmont, West Virginia.

Related: ‘A modern-day villain’: Joe Manchin condemned for killing US climate action

According to campaign finance filings, in 2021-22 Manchin is the senator who has received most money from donors in coal mining, natural gas transmission and distribution and oil and gas. He is second for donations from alternate energy production and services.

Climate advocates reacted angrily to Manchin’s move.

“It’s outrageous that Manchin and the Republican party have killed climate legislation this Congress,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity advocacy group.

Norm Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said: “Senators have told me and others that negotiating with Joe Manchin is like negotiating with an Etch-a-Sketch. It appears to be a coal-powered Etch-a-Sketch.”

John Podesta, founder of the Center for American Progress, said: “It seems odd that Senator Manchin would choose as his legacy to be the one man who single-handedly doomed humanity. But we can’t throw in the towel on the planet.”

Biden promises 'strong executive action' on climate change after Sen. Manchin dooms domestic agenda

Joey Garrison, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden vowed Friday to take "strong executive action" to address climate change after Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., doomed the president's efforts to revive major pieces of his domestic legislative agenda.

Here are four things you should know about Senator Joe Manchin
View on Watch

Declaring he "won't back down," the president said he would use executive authority after Manchin on Thursday rejected proposals to combat climate change and raise taxes on the wealthy in negotiations for a spending package with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

What Biden is saying:

"Action on climate change and clean energy remains more urgent than ever," Biden said in a written statement while he is traveling in the Middle East. "So let me be clear: if the Senate will not move to tackle the climate crisis and strengthen our domestic clean energy industry, I will take strong executive action to meet this moment."

Biden did not specify the potential executive actions, but he said it would seek to create jobs, improve U.S. energy security, bolster manufacturing and supply chains, and address climate change. Whether any executive actions from Biden on climate have the same teeth as legislation remains to be seen. 

Biden also called on the Senate to pass legislation before the August recess aimed at lowering prescription drug prices and extending subsidies for the Affordable Care Act – the two areas where Manchin and other Democrats have found agreement.

More: Sen. Joe Manchin cools on spending negotiations, citing fears of an 'inflation fire'

How we got here:

Manchin, a moderate Democrat, told Schumer in a meeting Thursday that "he will not support" a reconciliation bill that has provisions addressing energy and climate or raises taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations, according to a Democrat briefed on the conversation.

Manchin told Schumer "unequivocally," according to the source, that he is only willing to support measures to the prescription drug prices and ACA law measures.
Manchin, appearing on the Hoppy Kercheval radio show in West Virginia on Friday, rejected the suggestion he's blown up talks. He said he wants to wait until August, when July inflation figures are released, to decide what can be passed without further spiking consumer prices.

"I said, 'Chuck can we just wait until the inflation figures come out in July?'" Manchin said. "He took that as 'no', I guess." The senator added: "As far as I'm concerned, I want climate. I want an energy policy."

What it means for negotiations

Schumer is hoping to pass legislation before the Senate leaves for recess in August – which Manchin's timeline wouldn't allow. The stalemate comes after concessions from Schumer on the climate package to eliminate tax credits for electric vehicles and direct pay for clean-energy developers opposed by Manchin, while lowering the price tag of energy components to $375 billion, the source said.
Schumer's final offer would have retained tax credits to support clean energy, a proposal that Democrats have estimated would reduce carbon emissions by nearly 40% by 2030.
Why the setback is crushing for Biden

Biden and Democrats had lofty ambitions to transform the economy and social-safety net, and to engineer the most significant climate provisions in U.S. history. But what began last year as a $3.5 trillion spending bill – dubbed Build Back Better by the president – is now gutted almost entirely. Omitted long ago were proposals for universal pre-kindergarten, free community college, national paid family leave, extending child tax credits, affordable housing and dental and vision coverage for seniors.

After Manchin torpedoed a slimmed-down $2.2 trillion Build Back Better bill last year, Schumer revived talks with the West Virginia senator in a last-ditch push to save some of the president's agenda, particularly addressing climate, before the November midterm elections. The White House hoped to pass legislation via reconciliation, which would allow Democrats to bypass a potential Republican filibuster with a simple majority, but doing so would require all 50 Democratic senators to be on board.

The reaction

Manchin, citing 40-year-high inflation, said he won't support anything "that causes more problems." He also balked at efforts to scale back fossil fuels, characterizing it as unrealistic to shift to renewable energy in a decade. "I'm not going to be part of eliminating what this country needs to run the economic engine and the lives of human beings throughout America."

The White House, which has refrained from talking publicly about the latest round of spending negotiations, declined to comment. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre also declined to say whether Manchin gave the administration a heads up about his position.

Progressives blasted Manchin. "It seems odd that Sen. Manchin would choose as his legacy to be the one man who single-handedly doomed humanity," said John Podesta, a former senior advisor to Barack Obama and founder of the Center for American Progress think tank. "But we can’t throw in the towel on the planet. Now it’s more important than ever that President Biden use all his authority to fiercely fight for the future."

More: Inflation hits another 40-year high. What does that mean for shoppers and the next Fed rate hike?

Top takeaways

Once again, despite controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, Democrats have proven unable to unify behind a progressive agenda. It has become one of the defining trends of the first years of Biden's presidency. And with November's midterm elections around the corner, time is running out for Democrats to pass major legislation.

The outsized role of Manchin – as one of the few Democrats willing to break from party ranks – also emerged again. The moderate Democrat, who hails from one of the country's biggest coal-producing states, has taken more than $730,000 in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry during the 2022 election cycle, by far more than any senator, according to Open Secrets.

Schumer and Democrats are left with only bad options. They could put forward a bill to take on prescription drug prices and extend ACA subsidies and claim a victory, but it would come at the expense of many of the priorities that progressives have demanded for years.

Reach Joey Garrison on Twitter @joeygarrison.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Biden promises 'strong executive action' on climate change after Sen. Manchin dooms domestic agenda

‘A modern-day villain’: Joe Manchin condemned for killing US climate action

Oliver Milman in New York - THE GUARDIAN

Joe Manchin’s decision to kill off sweeping US climate legislation has been called “nothing short of a death sentence” for younger people and a livable climate on Earth, amid an outpouring of anger and despair from activists, scientists and even many of the US Senator’s Democratic colleagues.



Manchin, the centrist West Virginia senator who has become a millionaire through his founding of a coal-trading company in his home state, dealt a crushing political blow to Joe Biden’s agenda on Thursday night when he made clear he would not support any spending to curb the climate crisis in a proposed bill.

Related: Did Joe Manchin block climate action to benefit his financial interests?

The loss of Manchin’s swing vote in an evenly-divided US senate means it’s now probable America will remain without legislation to cut planet-heating emissions for several more years, imperiling national and international climate goals and further escalating deadly wildfires, droughts, floods and heatwaves around the world.

“Given the US’s role as the leading all-time carbon polluter, it is difficult to see global action on climate without US leadership,” said Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University, who called Manchin “a modern-day villain, who drives a Maserati, lives on a yacht, courtesy of the coal industry, and is willing to see the world burn as long as it benefits his near-term investment portfolio”.

Biden and fellow Democrats have spent nearly two years trying to get Manchin to agree to a huge package of support for renewable energy and electric cars but now appear to have run out of time, with November’s midterm elections increasingly likely to see Congressional control switch to the Republicans, who uniformly oppose action on the climate crisis.

“The stakes for this midterm election couldn’t be greater,” said Mann. “We’re talking about the future livability of our planet.”

Activists were scathing of Manchin and Democrats’ failure to pass climate legislation during their control of both chambers of Congress and the White House with the advent of the Biden administration.

“Senator Joe Manchin has written his legacy: blocking our best shot at a transition to affordable, American clean energy and a livable planet,” said Jamal Raad, executive director of campaign group Evergreen Action. “Senator Manchin has betrayed the American public and the mandate given to the Democratic senate to act on climate.”

Varshini Prakash, executive director of the youth-led environmental Sunrise Movement, said: “This is nothing short of a death sentence … It’s clear appealing to corporate obstructionists doesn’t work, and it will cost us a generation of voters.”

Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice-president of government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters, added: “There truly aren’t words for how appalled, outraged, and disappointed we are.”

Even some of Manchin’s party colleagues weighed in. Jared Huffman, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives, called Manchin a “wrecking ball” and a “very corrupted, compromised man.”

Scientists say the US, and the world, must cut emissions in half this decade, and get to net-zero emissions by 2050, to avoid breaching internationally-agreed temperature limits and push the world into catastrophic climate impacts.

Related: The race to zero: can America reach net-zero emissions by 2050?

Last month was the hottest June on record globally, US space agency Nasa said on Thursday, while record heatwaves are currently ravaging the US, Europe and China. Meanwhile, huge sequoia trees that are thousands of years old are at risk from burning down in vast wildfires in California.

Biden, who has called the climate crisis “the greatest existential threat of our time”, had hoped to pass a major bill to lower emissions via tax credit incentives for wind, solar and other low-carbon energy, as well as support for electric vehicles amid other measures.

But Manchin, who has received more money in political donations from the fossil fuel industry than any sitting senator, sank the broader Build Back Better legislation last year and now has seemingly halted Democratic efforts to revive the climate measures in a new bill. Analysts say without any new bill, the US will fall around halfway short of its emissions-cutting target.

The West Virginia lawmaker has cited concerns over inflation, now at a 40-year high, as to why he has been reluctant to commit to a new climate package that would have totaled around $300bn and stood as a major long-term strategy to stave off global heating.

“Political headlines are of no value to the millions of Americans struggling to afford groceries and gas as inflation soars to 9.1%,” said a spokeswoman for Manchin.

“Senator Manchin believes it’s time for leaders to put political agendas aside, reevaluate and adjust to the economic realities the country faces to avoid taking steps that add fuel to the inflation fire.”

Biden will now have to face the consternation of other governments, with a major United Nations climate conference set to take place in Egypt in November, and try to craft a series of executive actions to make up the shortfall, although a recent supreme court ruling, in a case out of West Virginia, has limited the scope of his government’s response.

“Manchin’s decision is a bitter pill, for both US and global climate action,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate adviser, now with the Progressive Policy Institute.

“Ironically, the bill he rejected would have created millions of new American jobs, jumpstarting the US clean energy economy while reducing both emissions and long-term inflation, goals Manchin claims to embrace.”

Joe Manchin, who just torpedoed Democrats' climate agenda, has long ties to coal industry

Fredreka Schouten - CNN

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin’s long-standing financial ties to the coal industry face scrutiny after sources familiar with high-level negotiations told CNN he would not support the climate provisions of his party’s proposed economic package.

The senator has not yet issued a public statement about his opposition, though his spokesperson said Thursday evening that Manchin wished “to avoid taking steps that add fuel to the inflation fire.”

But climate advocates on Friday morning were quick to point to Manchin’s ties to the coal industry. Manchin, whose vote is crucial to passage of President Joe Biden’s domestic policy priorities in an evenly divided 50-50 Senate, has holdings valued at between $1 million and $5 million in Enersystems, Inc., the coal brokerage business he founded, according to his most recent financial disclosure form that covers 2020 activity.

In 2020, he made more than $491,000 from his Enersystems holdings, the filings show. That’s more than twice his $174,000 annual Senate salary.

“Manchin is a walking conflict of interest,” Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen, previously told CNN. “And what makes it all the more troubling is that he’s the 50th Democratic senator, which gives him enormous sway over climate change policy.”

The debate over Manchin’s coal interests also highlights what critics say are lax congressional ethics rules that give federal lawmakers broad leeway to regulate industries in which they have financial interests. In addition to his pivotal role on the domestic policy bill, Manchin helps set US energy policy as chairman of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He has served on the panel since entering the Senate in November 2010, after he won a special election to replace the late West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd.

Congressional rules also permit federal lawmakers to trade individual stocks – as long as they disclose the transactions and do not financially benefit from insider information.

“We have a system where a member of Congress can be invested heavily in, for example, the coal industry and then be responsible for overseeing climate policy,” Delaney Marsco, senior legal counsel for ethics at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, said in 2021. “It doesn’t make sense.”

In a written statement in October, a Manchin spokesperson said the senator “is and has been in full compliance with Senate ethics and financial disclosure rules.”

“He continues to work to find a path forward on important climate legislation that maintains American leadership in energy innovation and critical energy reliability,” the statement added.

The fresh attention to Manchin’s energy interests comes as Biden and Democrats are racing this week to complete a framework for a domestic policy bill that includes many of the President’s priorities on the economy and climate. To avoid a filibuster by Senate Republicans, Democrats are relying on a budget process that requires the support of all 50 senators who caucus with them. That gives Manchin, a moderate member of the caucus, enormous sway over the negotiations.

Manchin has resisted climate provisions since the earliest days of work on the bill – including the so-called Clean Energy Performance Program, which had been a cornerstone of Biden’s climate plan, aimed to reward utilities for switching to clean energy sources, such as wind and solar, and penalize those relying on coal and gas.

Manchin signaled in October he wouldn’t support that program, saying he didn’t support a program that would push utilities to move to clean energy faster than they were already doing. Manchin had also cited concerns that switching to clean sources of energy could mean energy would be more unreliable than continued use of fossil fuel.

“The transition’s already happening,” Manchin told CNN recently. “So I’m not going to sit back and let anyone accelerate whatever the market’s changes are doing.”

Even without the clean electricity program, Manchin could not get behind the climate provisions in the latest version of an economic package – including tax credits for clean energy and electric vehicles – citing increased federal spending as a main driver of inflation.

Energy interests

Manchin has never made any secret of his ties to coal. He’s a former governor of the country’s second-biggest coal-producing state, and he founded Enersystems before entering politics.

The senator also has a stake in another firm run by his son, Farmington Resources Inc. Its services include “support activity” for coal and metal mining and drilling oil and gas wells, according to corporate filings with the West Virginia secretary of state’s office.

Between 2011 and 2020, the Democrat made between $4.9 million and $5.1 million from coal-related enterprises, according to an analysis by Open Secrets, a nonprofit that tracks money in politics.

The organization also estimates Manchin’s net worth at anywhere from $4.3 million to $12.8 million. Lawmakers are only required to disclose their assets and liabilities in broad ranges, making it impossible to determine precise values.

Manchin’s Senate campaign also benefited from of a flood of political contributions from the energy industry in recent months. He took more than $400,000 from energy interests during the July-to-September 2021 fundraising quarter, according to a CNN review of that filing with the Federal Election Commission.

Donors in that period included billionaire oil tycoons Harold Hamm, the chairman of Continental Resources; Richard Kinder, the executive chairman of energy infrastructure company, Kinder Morgan; and Trevor Rees-Jones, who founded Chief Oil and Gas.

He also received donations from an array of energy-related political action committees in those months, including those affiliated with ConocoPhillips; utility companies such as Exelon and Dominion Energy; and Texas oil producer Pioneer Natural Resources.

Manchin, who isn’t up for reelection until 2024, raked in nearly $1.6 million in the third quarter of 2021 – as he and another centrist Democrat, Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Simena, emerged as key players in the negotiations over their party’s sweeping domestic policy proposals.

Patchwork of ethics laws

Manchin’s energy holdings – and his actions that benefit the coal industry – are legal under rules that police potential conflicts of interest in the Senate.

The rules differ dramatically, depending on the branch of government.

Executive branch employees, for instance, are generally required to recuse themselves from decision making when their financial interests conflict with their official duties. They face potential criminal and civil charges for failing to do so. Those appointees also must abide by additional ethics rules established by the President – such as not engaging in decisions involving their former employers. Appointees in the executive branch can and do seek and receive waivers of ethics rules in limited circumstances.

It is against the law for federal judges to hear cases in which they have any legal or financial interests, but the law doesn’t impose penalties for violations.

In Congress, meanwhile, lawmakers only must recuse themselves from taking official actions in a narrow set of circumstances: If they or their immediate family members are in a small group that would benefit from the legislative action.

But a lawmaker who owns a dairy farm, for instance, can still make policy decisions that affect the entire dairy industry because those actions “also have a broad, general impact on his state or the nation,” according to the Senate’s ethics manual.

And requiring lawmakers to recuse themselves from decisions that benefit certain industries could end up hurting their constituents “who are entitled to have their elected representatives represent them by voting and fully participating in all aspects of the legislative process,” the manual adds.

Watchdog groups are urging Congress to revisit its conflict-of-interest standards.

One bipartisan measure, authored by Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, would require House members, for example, to place a broad array of holdings in blind trusts. Investments in widely held funds, such as mutual funds, and Treasury bonds would be exempted.

“The rules are currently insufficient to meet the challenges, particularly if you take into consideration that the American people really view corruption as a huge problem,” said Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette of the Project on Government Oversight. His group supports the blind trust bill.

“The appearance of impropriety is just as bad as the real thing,” he added, “because that drives the way people feel about politics and government.”

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

Joe Manchin is a Never-Ending Nightmare for the Democratic Party
Brendan Cole - NEWSWEEK

Democrats have reacted angrily to Senator Joe Manchin's reported refusal to back his party's spending plans to tackle climate change.


Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) on July 07, 2022 in Sun Valley, Idaho.

The West Virginia lawmaker told his party leaders on Thursday that he would not support a spending package with either climate provisions or raising taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations to finance the legislation, The Washington Post reported.

After rejecting last December his party's $2 trillion Build Back Better (BBB) package which included environmental provisions, Manchin had been at the negotiating table with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, and a bipartisan group of senators.

The talks aimed to get the support of Manchin, who effectively wields veto power in the 50-50 split upper house, as the legislation requires the backing of every senator who caucuses with the Democrats to bypass a filibuster and pass with a simple majority.

But Manchin said he would only support a package that would include a plan to lower the cost of prescription drugs and extend expanded Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, but not the climate provisions, according to the Post.

It has spurred prominent Democrats and environmental groups to condemn Manchin following his latest move to oppose the agenda of President Joe Biden.

Representative Cori Bush, a Missouri Democrat, tweeted that the conservative-leaning senator "is forcing a deal that would abandon our obligation to act urgently on climate, strengthen social services, and prevent mass suffering.

"We must organize inside and outside of Congress—together—to ensure Manchin does not get away with this outrageous, failed leadership," she added.

Former California Governor Jerry Brown tweeted that it was a "tragic day for America—and the world."

"Oblivious to science and our common future, the dinosaurs of coal and their compliant stooge, @Sen_JoeManchin, have now torpedoed an absolutely vital climate initiative. Insane and criminal."

Adviser to former Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Julian Castro, Sawyer Hackett, tweeted: "People are going to die because of this. This may be our last chance to invest in climate in a decade. Decoupling infrastructure from reconciliation was a disastrous decision."

Lori Lodes, who worked in the Obama administration, said that Manchin "has taken more money from oil and gas than any other member of Congress in the last year.

"Now, he's condemned our kids and grandkids to a worse future. Just as the oil and gas companies hoped he would."

Manchin's opposition could end any chances of new climate spending for the rest of Biden's presidential term, as it comes only four months before the 2022 midterms which could see Democrats lose their majority in one or both houses of Congress.

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley tweeted the article about Manchin's stance, adding that Biden "must immediately use the full scope of his executive powers to address climate chaos, starting by declaring a climate emergency."

Meanwhile, Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Action Fund, said that the Senate failed "because Joe Manchin and the Republicans blocked Senate action" and that "the consequences will be profound— at home and abroad."

"This was a squandered chance to respond with strategic investment to confront the climate crisis in a way that would strengthen the economy, create a more equitable society and make the country more secure."

Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey tweeted: "Rage keeps me from tears. Resolve keeps me from despair. We will not allow a future of climate disaster. I believe in the power of the Green New Deal. The power of young people. I am with you. We will not give up."

Newsweek has contacted Manchin's office for comment.

It comes as Americans face soaring levels of inflation which on Wednesday rose to 9.1 percent in June, its highest level in four decades. Manchin's spokesperson Sam Runyon told the Post that the senator believed leaders must "reevaluate and adjust to the economic realities the country faces to avoid taking steps that add fuel to the inflation fire."

"Political headlines are of no value to the millions of Americans struggling to afford groceries and gas as inflation soars to 9.1 percent," Runyon added.

Biden intervenes in railroad contract fight to block strike

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday blocked a freight railroad strike that would disrupt shipments of all kinds of goods for at least 60 days by naming a board of arbitrators to intervene in the contract dispute.



The widely expected move will keep 115,000 rail workers on the job while the arbitrators develop a set of contract recommendations for both sides to consider. Biden had to act before Monday to prevent a possible strike. A new round of negotiations is likely after those recommendations are issued.

The president wrote in an executive order naming the arbitrators that he'd "been notified by the National Mediation Board that in its judgment these disputes threaten substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree that would deprive a section of the country of essential transportation service.”

If the railroads and their 12 unions can’t agree on a contract within the next 60 days, Congress would likely step in to prevent a strike by voting to impose terms or taking other action.

The United Rail Unions coalition said the labor unions are preparing to make their case to the board of arbitrators, and believe that current economic data shows the raises they are asking for “are more than warranted when compared to our memberships’ contribution to the record profits of the rail carriers.”

The National Carriers Conference Committee, which represents the nation’s freight railroads in national collective bargaining, cheered Biden's move, noting that it “remains in the best interest of all parties — and the public — for the railroads and rail labor organizations to promptly settle the bargaining round on reasonable terms that provide employees with prompt and well-deserved pay increases and prevent rail service disruptions.”

“Throughout the bargaining round, the railroads have worked to thoughtfully address issues raised by both sides and have offered pay increases that are consistent with labor market benchmarks and reward rail employees for their essential work,” the committee said in a statement.

Any prolonged rail strike could cripple the supply chain that has been slowly recovering from the backlogs and delays that became common during the pandemic because of worker shortages at the ports, trucking companies and railroads as demand for imports surged.

“It’s really in everybody’s best interests to avoid a strike,” Edward Jones analyst Jeff Windau said.

The group that represents Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern, Kansas City Southern and other railroads and the unions have expressed optimism that this new presidential board will be able to help them resolve the dispute that began more than two years ago.

Business groups had urged Biden to take this step to ensure the railroads would continue operating. They worry about what a strike or lockout would mean for the fragile supply chain because railroads deliver all kinds of raw materials, finished products and imported goods that businesses rely on. A railroad strike could jeopardize the health of the economy.

The board of arbitrators will hold hearings with both sides to learn more about their positions before issuing their recommendations about a month from now. The the unions and the railroads will have 30 days to negotiate a new deal before a strike could be permitted under the federal law that governs railroad contract negotiations.

So far, the two sides have remained far apart because workers want raises that will offset inflation and cover increased health insurance costs while reflecting the current nationwide worker shortages. Railroads maintain that the double-digit raises they are offering over the five year contract that would date back to 2020 are fair based on the kind of raises other companies gave their workers at the time.

The unions are expecting significant raises because the railroads have been reporting record profits in recent years since they eliminated nearly one-third of their employees over the past six years as they overhauled their operations.

The unions also want the railroads to back off their proposals to cut train crews from two people down to one and ease some of the strict workplace rules they have adopted in recent years that workers say make it hard to take any time off.

Agreeing to a new deal would likely help the railroads hire more workers, which they are currently struggling to do. The major railroads have said they each need to hire hundreds more workers to handle the increased demand as the economy recovers and deal with the chronic delays and missed deliveries that have plagued their service this year.

Josh Funk, The Associated Press