‘I believe this is going to happen’: Warren says a minimum tax on corporations is still on table

Ben Werschkul

·Senior Producer and Writer

Thu, May 5, 2022, 

The Democratic Party's effort to pass a social spending package, formerly known as Build Back Better, is now stretching into its second year with advocates still holding out hope it could happen via a slimmed down version in the months ahead.

On Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) suggested that there may be a consensus forming on how to at least pay for it.

During an event at the progressive Center for American Progress, Warren said that her push to impose a minimum tax on the income that corporations report to their shareholders — rather than their taxable income — remains a real possibility.

“We haven't gotten it all the way through, but anytime you've got something that you can raise revenue on and you've got a majority, I believe this is going to happen,” she said of her push of what she describes as an alternative minimum tax on so-called “book income”.

“We've got 50 Democrats ready to do this,” Warren claimed, before quickly adding a cautionary note. “So they said, I'll feel better when they vote.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) during a Senate Banking Committee hearing in March. (Tom Williams/Pool via REUTERS)

This latest version of Warren’s idea, which she has been pushing since at least her 2020 presidential run, would raise more money from corporate America without changing the 21% corporate tax rate. Of course, the fate of the effort is likely to come down to moderate Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ).

Sinema, more so than Manchin, has been the most skeptical voice on tax increases, and she's killed previous White House efforts to enact new taxes on both the richest Americans and on corporations. But a corporate minimum tax has been one of the few areas for which she has expressed openness, though it remains unclear if she would be in favor of focusing on book income versus taxable income.

And while talks last winter included a corporate minimum tax and ended up failing, Todd Simmens, BDO National Managing Partner of Tax Risk Management, recently appeared on Yahoo Finance (video above) and predicted that some flavor of tax reform — either changes to the nominal rate or a corporate minimum tax — could still be in the offing. "I do think that the game isn't over yet,” he said, adding that each week as the midterms edge get closer and closer "the likelihood of substantial legislation, I think, fades."

Representatives for Sinema didn’t respond to Yahoo Finance request for comment.

'What really matters is asking why these divergences between book income and taxable income exist'

Warren’s push for this corporate minimum tax has long had its critics. As an early version of idea was being debated last year, the Tax Foundation wrote the idea would “misconstrue why there are differences between a corporation’s taxable income and book income,” arguing that lawmakers enacted the rules to create a gap for specific reasons — such as encouraging research & development (R&D) and spending money on renewable energy production — which lawmakers of both parties support and have identified as priorities.

"What really matters is asking why these divergences between book income and taxable income exist in the first place," Alex Muresianu, a Federal Policy Analyst at the Tax Foundation, said in an interview Thursday. If this were to be enacted, he said, "It would be pretty clear that the directional impact would be negative" when it comes to how much a company is willing to invest in things like R&D.

The renewed focus on the issue comes after a 2021 tax season that saw, once again, a range of America’s biggest companies avoiding the nominal rate of 21% on corporate income. Nineteen companies among the Fortune 100 paid a rate of less than 10% and 4 paid a negative tax rate on last year’s income through tax adjustments from prior years and being able to write off investments.

President Biden has been on board with the idea of a 15% minimum tax rate saying in his State of the Union address it’s “simply not fair” for corporations to avoid taxes. During the speech, Biden also said, “We got more than 130 countries to agree on a global minimum tax rate so companies can’t get out of paying their taxes at home by shipping jobs and factories overseas.”

During her remarks Wednesday, Warren also addressed the ongoing global effort, revealing that she had recently had lunch with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen where the issue came up. "We are very much pinkie-promised together," Warren said on coordinating a 15% minimum book tax domestically with an eventual global rate.

But negotiations on Capitol Hill remain very fluid with many previous efforts on a consensus bill falling short. Manchin recently threw another monkey wrench into the process by announcing support and holding meetings to try and pass the climate and energy provisions of the package via a separate bipartisan bill. Where that leaves changes to the corporate tax rate, which are a non-starter with Republicans, is unclear.

Ben Werschkul is a writer and producer for Yahoo Finance in Washington, DC.

Greg Abbott Reveals the GOP’s Plan After Killing Roe v. Wade: Killing Public Education

Jack Crosbie
Thu, May 5, 2022

Texas Governor Greg Abbott is often the tip of the spear for the great conservative project in America, which makes him a good bellwether for which parts of the American system the GOP will attack next. Abbott now has his sights set on public education.

The Austin American-Statesman reports that Abbott on Wednesday said Texas “will resurrect” a 1982 Supreme Court case requiring states to provide free public education to all children, including the children of undocumented immigrants.

“Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler vs. Doe,” Abbott said on a conservative talk radio show. “And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue. … I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different than when Plyler versus Doe was issued many decades ago.”

Public education has been increasingly demonized by the right, particularly surrounding sex, gender, and racial issues. Conservative candidates running in contested primaries have been hammering the issues of critical race theory and gender education in state-run schools to rounds of applause, while singing the values of private education. State legislatures are passing bills that hamstring school discretion over how to educate children, arguing that parents should be the ones controlling curriculums. The backlash has grown to the point that some on the right are questioning whether public schools should exist at all.

It seems ludicrous, but it’s clear that after the Supreme Court’s draft decision on Roe v. Wade leaked earlier this week, conservatives are plotting out which other cases they can turn out to advance their broader goals. Justice Alito’s draft decision on Roe specifically referenced both Lawrence v. Texas, which legalized sodomy, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, saying that “none of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.” Abbott, meanwhile, is licking his chops over Plyler vs. Doe. Conservatives control the Supreme Court by a 6-3 margin. The GOP sees the draft decision on Roe as a green light to abuse their advantage as much as possible.

Abbott framed the potential of overturning Plyler v. Doe as a way to lessen the costs of educating undocumented immigrants, giving the plan a convenient spin that dovetails with a common conservative talking point. But overturning Plyer v. Doe may result not just in relief for overburdened school systems; it could create a gateway for their abolition, further crippling education in America and shuffling more children into a privatized system with few common standards. It would be a disastrous turn not just for children of undocumented immigrants, but for children all across America.

Abbott is one of the nation’s most extreme right-wing governors, and though he may be the first to suggest axing Plyler vs. Doe, other Republican governors, statehouses, and national administrations are liable to follow his lead. They already did so with the state’s abortion ban.

Disney vs. DeSantis: Chapek's 'Don't Say Gay' fumble a warning to CEOs, says Harvard professor

Alexandra Canal

·Senior Reporter

Wed, May 4, 2022,

Disney (DIS) versus DeSantis.

As the media conglomerate continues to grapple with the aftermath of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis revoking the company's special tax district, business leaders around the globe are contemplating their own company values as political issues take center stage.

"I don't think [Disney CEO Bob Chapek] did his homework," Bill George, a Harvard Business School professor and former chairman and CEO of medical device company, Medtronic, told Yahoo Finance.

"We're in a different world today — he was acting like he was back in the 1990s. In this world of 2022, you have all kinds of stakeholders who expect you to take a position, especially your employees," the professor continued, adding that workers today have found their voice "particularly in this post-COVID world."

"They want to be respected and heard, and they want their CEOs to speak on their behalf," he said, saying that Bob Chapek's silence on the Parental Rights in Education Act, or what critics have dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill, created the "uproar" that eventually led to the political crossfire with DeSantis.

"Disney is right in the thick of it, and it's struggling to get out of this mess."

CEOs today need to know how to lead through a crisis...Bill George, Harvard Business School professor and former chairman and CEO of Medtronic

The controversial bill, which will go into effect on July 1, states, "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." Parents will be able to sue districts over violations.

Chapek initially decided not to speak publicly on the matter, opting instead to work behind the scenes in an attempt to soften the legislation. It didn't work.

The executive eventually reversed course following intense backlash. He publicly denounced the act during the company's annual shareholder meeting on March 9, in addition to directly apologizing to employees in a company memo.

But many believe it was just too little, too late.

"When this legislation started in Florida, [Disney] should have had a position ready to go...a position that was true to the mission and values of what Disney is — a place that accepts everyone for who they are," George noted.

FILE PHOTO: Bob Chapek, chairman of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, speaks during the 10th anniversary ceremony of Hong Kong Disneyland in Hong Kong, China September 11, 2015. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu/File Photo

Chapek's fumble now serves as a cautionary tale to other business leaders who are "very concerned" about future political battles, according to the professor.

Executives "don't want to get caught in the crossfire, either, but they are all going back and really thinking, 'What do I stand for?' 'What issues should I get involved in?' 'When should I get involved?' and 'How do I avoid getting caught in the crosshairs of some politician?' George explained.

"CEOs today need to know how to lead through a crisis because we go from one crisis to the next — from COVID to George Floyd to Russia and Ukraine, and probably another one just around the corner," he continued.

"They need to be prepared to deal with these crises and have a position that's true to their company."

'Vatican with mouse ears'

ORLANDO, FL - MARCH 22: Disney employee Nicholas Maldonado holds a sign while protesting outside of Walt Disney World on March 22, 2022 in Orlando, Florida. Employees are staging a company-wide walkout today to protest Walt Disney Co.'s response to controversial legislation passed in Florida known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. (Photo by Octavio Jones/Getty Images)

Currently, Walt Disney World Resort sits on a 40-square mile area known as Reedy Creek, the special tax district that has allowed Disney to operate as a self-governing entity since its inception.

That means Disney controls all of its utilities and infrastructure, sets building codes, operates its own police and fire departments, and can expand and grow whenever it wishes — all without local or state government interference.

"I call it a Vatican with mouse ears, because it's essentially the same kind of authority that the Vatican has in Rome in the state of Italy," said Richard Foglesong, Disney historian and author of the book "Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney World and Orlando."

Consequently, the district (in addition to providing immense control and flexibility) saves the company tens of millions of dollars every year in certain taxes and fees.

The new ruling will therefore force Disney to pay taxes on those government-funded programs; however, it also means that Reedy Creek's $997 million worth of bond debt, and some $163 million in annual tax payments, could fall on the citizens of Orlando.

U.S. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Orlando, Florida, U.S. February 24, 2022. REUTERS/Octavio Jones

DeSantis revealed in a town hall last week that there will be "additional legislative action" to address potential tax fallout and any issues regarding the legality of dissolving the district.

"We've contemplated that. We know what we're going to do, so stay tuned. That'll all be apparent," the governor stated.

Still, who or what will pay off Disney's bond debt is "the billion dollar question."

"There are many unintended consequences, frankly, that have not been thought through that will give Disney more ammunition," George said.

'Florida needs Disney'

Consequently, due to the many uncertainties surrounding the bill, some experts say the dissolution might not even happen.

"I don't think it's very likely — frankly, the consequences are too dire," Foglesong surmised.

Still, the bill was signed into law by Governor DeSantis last month and, barring any major backpedaling on the part of lawmakers, will go into effect in June 2023. Disney could also sue Florida for retaliation in an attempt to thwart the legislation, although experts say it is more likely that the media giant will enter into negotiations to alter the terms of the district.

"Florida needs Disney — it's a huge revenue producer and has changed everything around [Orlando,]" George stated bluntly, saying the battle has turned into a question of "who needs who more."

"Florida can't do without Disney World, I can tell you that."

The Must-Read Mitch McConnell Quote on Social Security

AND THE MUST READ QUOTE FROM RICK SCOTT

By Christy Bieber - May 3, 2022

KEY POINTS
Mitch McConnell is currently the Senate minority leader.

McConnell has rejected the ideas of some of his Senate colleagues.

McConnell has made his position on Social Security clear in recent comments.

You’re reading a free article with opinions that may differ from The Motley Fool’s Premium Investing Services. 

Mitch McConnell could become the Senate majority leader after the next election, and he's made it clear Social Security won't be at risk.

If you're concerned about the future of Social Security, it's helpful to understand what lawmakers in power have said about it. That's because those in a leadership position on the federal level could potentially make changes that affect benefits for the elderly.

Currently, the White House, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate are all controlled by Democrats. Most lawmakers on the left have voiced strong support for expanding Social Security and uniform opposition to any benefit cuts. After the midterm elections next November, however, it is very possible that control of the House or the Senate could change hands.

If the Republicans reclaim a Senate majority again, current Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will likely become the majority leader. That's why this quote from McConnell about Social Security is so important.

 


The potential future majority leader has made his position on Social Security clear

Mitch McConnell recently addressed the issue of Social Security's future, stating, "If we're fortunate enough to have the majority next year, I'll be the majority leader. I'll decide in consultation with my members what to put on the floor. We will not have as a part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years."

McConnell's quote came in response to a plan put forth by Senator Rick Scott, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Scott created "An 11-Point Plan to Rescue America," which he described as a blueprint for what the GOP might do if it took control of Congress. Among the other things in the plan, Scott called for all federal legislation to sunset after five years so Congress would need to approve it again if it was important.

This would have the effect of requiring Congress to vote regularly to reauthorize Social Security and Medicare. It would create substantial uncertainty for seniors and could pose problems for future retirees, who wouldn't necessarily be able to count on Social Security being available for them.

McConnell rejected this plan, though, and his words suggest that a Republican majority in the Senate likely would not pose a serious immediate threat to Social Security.

 
Is entitlement reform no longer on the table?

McConnell's words are important because they seem to reflect a shift in the Republican Party that has taken place in recent years.

Reforming Social Security has long been a priority on the right, with many Republican lawmakers expressing concern that the program's finances are in trouble. Traditionally, while the left was in favor of Social Security expansion, lawmakers on the right routinely proposed changes that would serve as a de facto cut to benefits. These included raising full retirement age or changing the way raises are calculated to make cost-of-living adjustments less generous.

However, former President Donald Trump embraced a more populist approach and said that he wasn't in favor of Social Security cuts that would leave less money for seniors. McConnell's assurances that Social Security wouldn't be subject to sunsetting may suggest other Republicans have embraced this shift and that cuts to Social Security may no longer be a priority -- or even a Republican goal at all.

If that is indeed the case and this trend continues, then current and future retirees may be able to enjoy greater confidence that they'll get all the promised retirement benefits they deserve.

OR NOT

SIMPLY PUT NEVER BELIEVE THE GOP OR TRUMP

Biden Names MAGA Movement As ‘the Most Extreme Political Organization’ In Recent U.S. History


Murjani Rawls
Wed, May 4, 2022

US President Joe Biden speaks about the economy in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2022.

In a press conference earlier today, President Biden went on the offense and spoke about the GOP’s Trump-shaped agenda, which he characterized as ‘extreme’ in an effort to set his administration with momentum heading into the midterm elections, Politico reports.

“Let me tell you about this ultra MAGA agenda. It’s extreme, as most MAGA things are,” Biden said in remarks at the White House, seeking to tie the plan to former President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” tagline.

Biden also spoke about Sen. Rick Scott’s (R-FL) “11 Point Plan to Rescue America”– something Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn’t even support. Scott’s plan would raise taxes on millions of American families, reduce the government workforce, outlaw asking about “gender identity” on government forms, and propose a sunset on all federal legislation every five years that would force Congress to reauthorize essential programs like Social Security and Medicare.

“Senator Rick Scott of Florida … released what he calls the ultra-MAGA agenda. It’s a MAGA agenda all right,” Biden said. “Let me tell you about this ultra-MAGA agenda. It’s extreme, as most MAGA things are.”

“I think it is truly outrageous,” Biden said. “I’ve offered a different plan, a plan rooted in American values of fairness and decency.”

Biden set out proposals to pay for his domestic climate and social spending package by raising taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations and imposing a minimum tax on billionaires. He also reiterated his comments about the leaked Supreme Court opinion and wondered what other rights would be on the chopping block.

“What happens if you have states change the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can’t be in classrooms with other children?” Biden said. “Is that legit under the way the decision is written? What are the next things that are going to be attacked?”

The World’s Most ‘Pro-Life’ Nations Offer a Grim Preview of America's Future

Jill Filipovic
Tue, May 3, 2022

Supporters of Honduras' ruling National Party hold signs and flags reading "Honduras yes, abortion no" during a march

Supporters of Honduras' ruling National Party hold signs and flags reading "Honduras yes, abortion no" during a march against abortion at a rally attended by Nasry Asfura, the party's candidate for president in elections this month, in Tegucigalpa, Honduras November 7, 2021. Credit - Fredy Rodriguez—Reuters

A few years ago, in a small home off an uneven road in Honduras, I got a little peek into what life is like when abortion is illegal.

There, I met a woman in her early 20s, who for privacy I’ll call Alma. She lived with her family and a smattering of extremely cute animals – there were a few little dogs, a kitten or two, a hen and her chicks. Months earlier, Alma had had stillbirth – she hadn’t even known she was pregnant, she told me. Doctors, though, suspected that she had taken medication to induce an abortion. They called the police. When I met Alma, she was awaiting trial.

In Honduras, abortion is outlawed, along with emergency contraception. Sexual violence is commonplace, and women are barred from a basic tool to prevent pregnancy after rape, and then potentially jailed if they end an unwanted one. Through both abortion restrictions and endemic violence, women hear one message: Your body isn’t yours.

Read More: Inside Mississippi’s Last Abortion Clinic—and the Biggest Fight for Abortion Rights in a Generation

Alma was far from the only woman I’ve met whose body has borne the weight of abortion bans. There was a girl I called Sofia when I wrote about her, also in Honduras, forced to have a child as a 12-year-old rape victim. There was Anita, the pseudonym for a woman who fled war in South Sudan and was forced into sex by her husband even after a doctor told them another pregnancy too soon could kill her; she self-induced an abortion and nearly paid with her life. There was Silvana, raped as a child during Colombia’s civil war, who starved herself into a miscarriage. There was a woman whose name I don’t know, but whose story I heard again and again in a Bangladeshi camp full of Rohingya Muslim refugees from Myanmar – to end an unwanted pregnancy, she put a red-hot brick on her stomach, searing off her flesh.

A leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion suggests that the Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion for American women. Those of us who have followed the long arc of reproductive-rights law in the U.S. aren’t surprised, although many of us are devastated and angry. Those of us who have reported on abortion rights and access, and women’s rights more broadly, know just how high the stakes are.

The reality is that abortion access, and the procedure itself, has changed quite a bit since the bad old days of pre-Roe America. Now, a combination of misoprostol and mifepristone, taken orally, can effectively and safely induce an abortion without the potentially fertility- or even life-ending complications of older methods that required something be inserted into the cervix. Activists have worked hard to make these medications are available to women in places where abortion is illegal or hard to get, including in the United States. If Roe goes, these activist networks will undoubtedly expand. Abortion won’t end, and activists will try to make sure that as many women as possible can access safe abortion-inducing medications. Again, the pro-choice movement will save women’s lives.

Read More: The Battle Over the Future of the Anti-Abortion Movement if the Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade

But activists working to deliver safe abortions in a hostile legal environment simply cannot reach every woman in need. Even now, with Roe still standing, a great number of American women cannot get the abortions they want. And the women who are best able to access safe abortions will be those with greater resources: Money, to be sure, but also the education, connections, and internet literacy to know where to find help, and how to tell charlatans and scammers from safe providers. Women who are already vulnerable – who are poor, who are young, who live in rural areas, who don’t speak English well or at all, who are the least able to take on a child they haven’t planned for – are the most likely to fall through the cracks.

U.S. Supreme Court police officers set up barricades during a protest outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, May 3, 2022.Al Drago—Bloomberg/Getty Images

The criminalization of abortion will in and of itself discourage some women from pursuing abortion procedures, and those women will carry pregnancies to term against their wishes, making them more likely to be stuck in poverty and tied to abusive men. Some of those women will die because of that lack of choice. One estimate suggests that maternal mortality might increase by as much as 21% if abortion is outlawed nationwide.

Other women, fearful of the law but desperate to not be pregnant and too scared or ashamed to ask for help, will take matters into their own hands. Others won’t know how to find help or where to look. Some will be fine. Some may not be.

Read More: If Roe v. Wade Is Overturned, Our Clinic Will Stop Providing Abortions Immediately. But We Won’t Shut Down

Overzealous prosecutors in the U.S. have already jailed women over suspected abortions. If abortion is outlawed, every indication is that more women, and certainly more doctors, will wind up behind bars.

The world’s most “pro-life” nations show us what could be in store. In countries with the strictest anti-abortion laws, women face pervasive violence from men. That isn’t to say that anti-abortion laws cause violence. It is to say that violence against women, like restrictions on what women can do with their reproductive lives, is a tool of misogynist dominance. It stems from the urge to force women to do your bidding, and the belief that women’s bodies and women’s lives should be under male control. It’s not a coincidence that the countries where women do the best – where they are the most economically prosperous, the safest, have the highest levels of education and employment, are the most supported in parenthood, and are the freest – are also countries where abortion is legal and contraception is easily accessible.

By curtailing abortion access, the U.S. is again making itself an outlier on women’s rights, and joining a small number of nations – Poland, Hungary, Brazil, Russia, China – that are moving ever rightward toward authoritarianism. While many countries have liberalized their abortion laws as they have become more democratic, just a handful have restricted reproductive rights – and those restrictions have gone hand-in-hand with shifts away from democratic traditions and toward autocracy.

According to the U.N., nearly 50,000 women’s lives could be saved each year simply by repealing anti-abortion laws. The U.S. has instead restricted abortion even further. Overturning Roe would be the biggest blow in nearly 50 years to abortion rights in the U.S., and just the first step in a broader conservative effort to make abortion totally illegal – and if anti-abortion activists get their way, a national abortion law would have no exceptions for rape, incest, health, or the pregnant woman’s life.

These are the stakes if this draft opinion becomes law: Some women’s lives, many women’s futures, and all of our freedoms.

Trump says 'a lot of people are very happy' the Supreme Court looks ready to overturn Roe v. Wade: 'Some people maybe say it's my fault'

Bryan Metzger,Oma Seddiq
Thu, May 5, 2022, 

Trump stands with now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett at the White House after she was sworn in on October 26, 2020.

Brendan Smialowski / AFP via Getty Images

Trump took some credit for the fact that SCOTUS appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.


"Some people maybe say it's my fault and some people say, 'Thank you very much,'" he said.


Trump cemented the high court's 6-3 conservative majority by appointing three new justices.

Days after the unprecedented leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion showing a majority of justices in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, former President Donald Trump took some credit for the potential loss of constitutionally protected abortion rights.

Trump echoed other Republicans in condemning the fact that the opinion was leaked at all during an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network on Wednesday. Until then, Trump had stayed uncharacteristically quietsince Politico published the draft opinion on Monday night.

"I will say the leak was a terrible thing," Trump said. "You're just not used to that for the Supreme Court. It was very shocking. I think it was a very bad thing for the court."

The former president also said that the opinion is "something that they're working on I would imagine, I don't think anyone made it up." The court confirmed the validity of the document on Tuesday and Chief Justice John Roberts announced an investigation into the leak.

Trump was then asked about Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer blaming Trump for the likely gutting of reproductive rights. In a speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Schumer laid the responsibility for the revocation of abortion rights at the feet of both the former president and Senate Republicans, who had stacked conservative judges on the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court.

"The party of Lincoln and Eisenhower has now completely devolved into the party of Trump," said Schumer. "Every Republican senator who supported Senator McConnell and voted for Trump justices pretending that this day would never come will now have to explain themselves to the American people."

Trump was apparently unfazed by the comments.

"Well, a lot of people are very happy about that," Trump said of the court potentially overturning Roe. "So some people maybe say it's my fault and some people say, 'Thank you very much.'"

While anti-abortion rights activists would celebrate the reversal of Roe, a majority of Americans actually oppose overturning the 1973 landmark ruling that guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion, according to public opinion polling.

Anti-abortion rights advocates have for decades pushed the high court to throw out Roe and have had some success in restricting access to abortion in red states across the country. Conservative legal groups, at the same time, have strategically promoted judges who've made their opposition to abortion known.

Trump, when running for president in 2016, pledged to put anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court and that if elected, Roe would "automatically" be overturned.

All three of Trump's Supreme Court appointees — Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — voted in the majority to overturn Roe v. Wade, Politico reported. The court is expected to take a final vote and issue a final opinion by late June on the major abortion-rights case, Dobbs v. Jackson's Women Health Organization. The case concerns a Mississippi law that seeks to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, challenging the 24-week standard set in Roe, commonly referred to as viability.

Before Trump entered the political scene, he supported abortion rights. During an NBC News interview in 1991, Trump described himself as "very pro-choice."

Trump Wanted to Launch Missiles Into Mexico to Destroy ‘Drug Labs,’ Former Defense Secretary Says

Ryan Bort
Thu, May 5, 2022, 


Former President Donald Trump suggested launching missiles into Mexico to “destroy the drug labs” ahead of the 2020 election, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper writes in his forthcoming book. The New York Times reported the revelation on Thursday afternoon.

Esper writes in his new memoir a A Sacred Oath that Trump suggested to him at least twice during the summer of 2020 that the United States could “shoot missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs,” and that it could be done secretly. Trump even said the operation could be conducted “quietly” and that the U.S. could simply deny it had anything to do with it. “No one would know it was us,” Trump said, according to Esper.

Esper’s book describes an administration that was obsessed with Trump’s reelection campaign throughout 2020, according to the Times. The defense secretary, who was jettisoned for butting heads with the former president over using the military to quell Black Lives Matter protests, reportedly writes that he was also concerned Trump would use the military around Election Day, potentially to seize ballot boxes.

A Sacred Oath isn’t the first time Esper has talked about the Trump’s plans to take on the drug cartels. He told the Times last year that Trump had to be talked out of invading Mexico in a harebrained scheme to cut off the flow of drugs at the source. Trump has also suggested shooting migrants trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. Axios reported earlier this week that Esper writes in his book that Trump suggested Black Lives Matter protesters demonstrating outside of the White House in the summer of 2020 should also be shot.

“Can’t you just shoot them?” Trump asked, according to Esper. “Just shoot them in the legs or something?”

‘Shattered’: How the Trump Family Won the D.C. Inauguration Case


Jose Pagliery
Thu, May 5, 2022

Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty

As the dust settles from the legal fight between the District of Columbia’s attorney general and the Trump family, it’s becoming clear to government watchdogs and the case’s star witness that the former president has once again gotten off easy.

On Tuesday, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine declared victory after the multibillion-dollar Trump Organization and the former president’s inauguration committee agreed to fork over $750,000 for their shady dealings in the run-up to Donald Trump’s 2017 celebrations in the nation’s capital. The deal ends his years-long investigation into the way Trump’s family and company misused nonprofit funds to honor the incoming president to instead enrich themselves.

But that’s less than the $1 million the AG had accused the Trump family of misspending in nonprofit funds by booking events at the Trump International Hotel Washington D.C.’s vastly overpriced rooms.


More importantly, the Trump Organization and the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee were allowed to maintain they did absolutely nothing wrong.

Judge Orders Deposition of Ex-Trump Org CFO Allen Weisselberg in Inauguration Lawsuit

“Defendants dispute these allegations on numerous grounds and deny having engaged in any wrongdoing or unlawful conduct,” the proposed settlement reads.

The announcement was severely disappointing news for Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, who helped plan the event and became a key government witness against the Trumps after news stories appeared to pin the blame for mismanagement of funds on her.

“I’m just so shattered. It’s awful, it’s unjust, it’s absurd,” she told The Daily Beast. “I can’t believe this. They stole so much. The self-dealing. The perjury. They all know about it.”

Winston Wolkoff, who wrote a tell-all book about her time as first fady Melania Trump’s adviser, lamented that Donald Trump had slithered away again.

“He is above the law. There’s just no accountability whatsoever. For $750,000,” she said.

Elizabeth Hempowicz, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight, described the settlement as “the kind of thing that helps fuel this public perception that there are two systems of justice: one for the everyman and another for the rich and powerful.”

“It's not about the money at the end of the day. What is a million dollars to the Trump family?” she said.

In reality, the money owed by the former president’s inaugural committee–some $350,000–was actually already paid by an insurance company. Lee Blalack, an attorney representing Trump’s Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC), said in a statement that an insurer had already delivered its half of the penalty and the nonprofit could officially wind down now that the litigation was over.

Trump Org Wins ‘Partial Victory’ as Judge Tosses Its Portion of D.C.’s Inauguration Lawsuit

“As the settlement states, the PIC continues to dispute all of the Attorney General’s claims and remains confident that had this case gone to trial, the PIC would have prevailed based on the evidence,” he said in a statement.

There was even some dancing on the grave, per se.

“It would have required the PIC’s insurer to spend double the amount of this insurance settlement just to try this case to verdict, and thus this modest settlement payment only makes common sense,” he added.

Presidential inaugurations are hastily put together celebrations that potentially fall prey to all the misgivings of a pay-for-play scheme: they’re organized by the incoming president’s associates and quickly funnel millions of dollars from donors who could see this as an opportunity to call in future favors from the administration. The concerns were heightened with Trump, who held extravagant parties for his children at the hotel with their name on it—one that soon became the go-to spot for lobbyists seeking to curry favor with his administration.

But the proposed settlement between the Trump entities and the D.C. attorney general shows that an incoming president’s family can use the opportunity to enrich itself with minimal consequences, Hempowicz told The Daily Beast.

“It certainly doesn't give us any bright-line rules that other inaugurations can operate under,” she said.

AG Karl Racine still declared victory, putting out a statement on Twitter that the district was “resolving our lawsuit and sending the message that if you violate DC nonprofit law—no matter how powerful you are—you'll pay.”

Trump Organization Honcho Allen Weisselberg Has One Defense: Gross Incompetence

But what the local attorney general gave up in the deal is the ability to pursue the matter any further, meaning prosecutors may ignore how the Trump Organization’s then-chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, held a shadow job auditing the committee’s finances. The Trump Organization maintained that it had nothing to do with the case—it was merely a shell company with zero employees and no relationship to the hotel—and that somehow its CFO managed to get looped in three months after the celebration to conduct an audit of the committee’s finances.

Investigators will also be ignoring how daughter of the twice-impeached former president, Ivanka Trump, testified under oath that she “really didn’t have an involvement” in the planning of the inauguration, even though emails surfaced at Mother Jones showing she closely scrutinized the event.

D.C. law enforcement is also forgoing further exploration into how a firm pertaining to long-time Trump buddy Mark Burnett, who created The Apprentice, walked away with nearly $25 million in nonprofit funds for helping broadcast the event, even though accounting records appear to show fudged numbers.

Accounting documents viewed by The Daily Beast show the committee’s planners drafted at least three versions of a television production budget with vastly varying costs for the same services that all curiously added up to almost exactly $25 million.

However, Noah Bookbinder, president of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said any of the merited disappointment should be tempered with the grim reality that prosecutors face when targeting the rich and political powerhouse of the Trump family.

“Donald Trump and his associates have a strategy of aggressive litigation and particularly delay tactics. They will try to drag things out as long as possible. They will make it as difficult as possible. For the attorney general to get them to a place where they were willing to pay up is pretty remarkable,” he said.

“I wish it was more. And I wish it were all the money they got through self-dealing,” Bookbinder told The Daily Beast. “It is frustrating that Donald Trump always seems to escape without admitting anything.”

Donald Trump Jr. Deposed in D.C. AG Inauguration Probe

According to the pending deal, D.C. will receive the money and redirect it equally to two youth development nonprofits, the Mikva Challenge Grant Foundation and the DC Action for Children Today.

The settlement isn’t final yet, though. A local judge will still have to approve it and be convinced that the terms are fair and stand up to scrutiny.

In fact, the Trump Organization would have got out of this entirely were it not for Judge Yvonne Williams, who inherited the case at the start of the year. Williams dragged the Trump Organization back into the lawsuit as a defendant after the previous judge had inexplicably let it go on the theory that the New York-based company was outside his jurisdiction.

The Trump loyalist who led the committee, billionaire Tom Barrack, is still dealing with his own legal problems. He was indicted last summer on charges that he abused his position in the president’s circle of trust by engaging in foreign lobbying and obstructing justice.

Meanwhile, the worst of Trump’s present legal nightmare seems to be merely inching forward. A years-long criminal investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office into his alleged business fraud seems to be falling apart, now that the new DA who inherited the case from his predecessor this year has thus far blocked investigators attempts at seeking a grand jury indictment, according to multiple inside sources and a leaked resignation letter.

A parallel investigation by the New York attorney general remains a civil matter that would not land him in prison. And what could be the most promising criminal investigation—the Fulton County district attorney’s probe of the infamous phone call where Trump pressured Georgia's top elections official into flipping the 2020 election results by materializing 11,780 MAGA votes out of thin air—is just getting started.

COVID led to 15 million deaths globally, not the 5 million reported - WHO

AMERIKA REACHED 1 MILLION DEATHS TODAY

Thu, May 5, 2022, 
By Jennifer Rigby

(Reuters) - Almost three times as many people have died as a result of COVID-19 as official data show, according to a new World Health Organization (WHO) report, the most comprehensive look at the true global toll of the pandemic so far.

There were 14.9 million excess deaths associated with COVID-19 by the end of 2021, the U.N. body said on Thursday.

The official count of deaths directly attributable to COVID-19 and reported to WHO in that period, from January 2020 to the end of December 2021, is slightly more than 5.4 million.

The WHO's excess mortality figures reflect people who died of COVID-19 as well as those who died as an indirect result of the outbreak, including people who could not access healthcare for other conditions when systems were overwhelmed during huge waves of infection.

It also accounts for deaths averted during the pandemic, for example because of the lower risk of traffic accidents during lockdowns.

But the numbers are also far higher than the official tally because of deaths that were missed in countries without adequate reporting. Even pre-pandemic, around six in 10 deaths around the world were not registered, WHO said.

The WHO report said that almost half of the deaths that until now had not been counted were in India. The report suggests that 4.7 million people died there as a result of the pandemic, mainly during a huge surge in May and June 2021.

The Indian government, however, puts its death toll for the January 2020-December 2021 period far lower: about 480,000.

WHO said it had not yet fully examined new data provided this week by India, which has pushed back against the WHO estimates and issued its own mortality figures for all causes of death in 2020 on Tuesday. WHO said it may add a disclaimer to the report highlighting the ongoing conversation with India.

In a statement issued after the numbers were published, the Indian government said WHO had released the report "without adequately addressing India's concerns" over what it called "questionable" methods.

The WHO panel, made up of international experts who have been working on the data for months, used a combination of national and local information, as well as statistical models, to estimate totals where the data is incomplete – a methodology that India has criticised.

However, other independent assessments have also put the death toll in India far higher than the official government tally, including a report published in Science which suggested 3 million people may have died of COVID in the country.

Other models have also reached similar conclusions about the global death toll being far higher than the recorded statistics. For comparison, around 50 million people are thought to have died in the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, and 36 million have died of HIV since the epidemic began in the 1980s.

Samira Asma, WHO assistant director general for data, analytics and delivery for impact, who co-led the calculation process, said data was the "lifeblood of public health" needed to assess and learn from what happened during the pandemic.

She called for more support for countries to improve reporting.

"Too much is unknown," she told reporters in a press briefing.

SOURCE: https://bit.ly/38Tk83Q World Health Organisation, online May 5, 2022.

(Reporting by Jennifer Rigby; Additional reporting by Leroy Leo in Bengaluru; Editing by William Maclean and Hugh Lawson)