It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Wednesday, December 16, 2020
Coalition Lawsuit: Science Says Wolverines Need Protection
WASHINGTON - Today, a coalition of wildlife advocates challenged the Trump Fish and Wildlife Service’s (the Service’s) decision to deny protections to imperiled wolverines under the Endangered Species Act. This is the second time the Service has prioritized politics over science for wolverines, which number about 300 in the contiguous U.S.
The groups in today’s filing defeated the Service in court in 2016, forcing the agency back to the drawing board with a directive to apply the best science. Four years later, the Service has returned with the same decision to deny wolverine protective status, despite no new scientific support for such a determination.
“This is yet another chapter in this administration’s war on science,” said Matthew Bishop, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. “Public records reveal the Service decided not to protect wolverine from day one and then worked backwards to figure out how to make the decision stick. It’s really unfortunate.”
In April 2016, a federal judge sided with conservation groups, agreeing that the Service’s August 2014 decision not to list wolverine as threatened was arbitrary and contrary to the scientific literature. The court held: “[T]he Service’s decision against listing the wolverine as threatened under the ESA is arbitrary and capricious.
“No greater level of certainty is needed to see the writing on the wall for this snow-dependent species standing squarely in the path of global climate change. It has taken us twenty years to get to this point. It is the [court’s] view that if there is one thing required of the Service under the ESA, it is to take action at the earliest possible, defensible point in time to protect against the loss of biodiversity within our reach as a nation. For the wolverine, that time is now (Opinion at page 83).”
The court also noted clear evidence of political interference in the Service’s reversal. “Why did the Service make the decision [to not list the wolverine]?…Based on the record, the Court suspects that a possible answer to this question can be found in the immense political pressure that was brought to bear on this issue, particularly by a handful of western states (Opinion at page 56).”
Before its decisions to deny wolverines endangered species protections, the Service identified climate change, in conjunction with small population size, as the primary threat to the species’ existence in the contiguous U.S.
The wolverine relies on snow year-round. With its large paws, it can travel easily over snow, and often relies on deep snow for hunting. Snow is also a “freezer” that permits the wolverine to store and scavenge food. One study found 98% of all wolverine den sites in places with persistent snowpack.
Published, peer-reviewed research, the independent Society for Conservation Biology, the majority of experts who reviewed the decision, and the Service’s own biologists all verified this finding.
The Service proposed listing the wolverine as a “threatened” species under the ESA in 2013. At the eleventh hour, however, the Service reversed course and chose not to protect wolverine, citing too many “uncertainties” in the scientific literature. This dubious about-face led the court to reverse the decision.
Today’s complaint aims to ensure the Service utilizes the best available science when making listing decisions, and provide wolverines the protective status they desperately need and deserve.
“This is something we were really hoping to avoid after the court’s 2016 decision,” said Bishop. “I was cautiously optimistic the Service would get it right this time and we’d be focusing our time and energy on developing a conservation strategy, recovery plan, critical habitat, and possibly reintroduction efforts for wolverine. Instead, we’re back in court challenging an agency that continues to put politics over science.”
The groups on today’s complaint include WildEarth Guardians, Friends Of The Bitterroot, Friends Of The Wild Swan, Swan View Coalition, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Alliance For The Wild Rockies, Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, George Wuerthner, Footloose Montana, Native Ecosystems Council, Wildlands Network, Helena Hunters and Anglers Association.
Background:
Wolverine number just 250-300 individuals in the contiguous U.S. and are dependent on high elevation habitat with deep winter snows. Imperiled by climate change, habitat loss, small population size and trapping, wolverine were first petitioned for Endangered Species Act protections in 2000. The Service found the petition did not contain adequate information to justify a listing. A federal court overturned that decision in 2006. The Service then issued a negative 12-month finding in 2008, which was challenged in court resulting in a settlement that led to a new finding that wolverine should be protected under the ESA, but that other priorities precluded the listing at that time. A landmark settlement, which resolved the backlog of imperiled species awaiting protections, then guaranteed a new finding for wolverine. In February 2013, the Service proposed listing the wolverine as “threatened” under the ESA. In August 2014, however, the Service reversed course and issued a decision not to list the species, contradicting its own expert scientists’ recommendations. In April, 2016 the court overturned the Service’s decision not to list, reinstating wolverine’s status as a candidate species and requiring a new final rule. This decision is the result.
Final PPP Data Reveals Oil, Gas, and Mining Scored Billions While Wind and Solar Were Left in the Cold
Analysis finds 70% of all oil, gas, mining sector corporations awarded ppp bailout.
WASHINGTON - New analysis finds that the Trump Small Business Administration’s (SBA) flawed Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) has been abused by fossil fuel and extractive corporations to rake in billions of dollars. In striking contrast, only 1,100 recipients in the wind and solar sector were awarded funds, while over 22,000 polluting extractive resource corporation cashed in after a review of SBA data.
“Actual struggling businesses that need pandemic relief are not getting it, while billions have flowed to oil, gas, and mining corporations and their wealthy CEOs. It’s no coincidence — but certainly a disservice to taxpayers — that the clean energy wind and solar sector was awarded little in comparison to polluters from the Trump administration,” said Jayson O’Neill, spokesperson for Accountable.US.
In total, 22,382 oil, gas, mining and related extractive resource corporations received a staggering $4,530,469,847 in taxpayer-funded monies through the PPP. In contrast, the wind and solar sector received a total of $164,987,228, going to some 1,133 businesses. The average loan amount was nearly 40% higher for extractive resource corporations as well.
Data from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics shows that 31,992 private oil, gas, and mining establishments are currently operating in the United States, meaning 70% of all the entire sector received a PPP bailout, up 8% from a previous analysis by Accountable.US. In total, a new report by Bailout Watch finds that the fossil fuel sector may have received upwards of $15.2 billion from the Trump administration during the pandemic.
The renewable energy sector has struggled during the economic downturn, shedding almost half a million jobs. The Trump administration has ignored calls to invest in a cleaner energy future that would create millions of jobs, instead using taxpayer money to prop up many polluting corporations that were in deep financial trouble well before the pandemic.
Accountable.US has been tracking the administration’s failure to get aid to those who need it most on its website, www.COVIDBailoutTracker.com, where the new SBA PPP data as well as all previously publicly released PPP data and additional CARES Act program spending is posted in a searchable format. The group will be analyzing the new data and releasing its findings on a rolling basis at the PPP Live Blog.
New Analysis of Fracking Science (nearly 2,000 studies) Finds Grave Health, Environmental Justice, and Climate Impacts
Major report from health experts and scientists who have closely assessed a decade of science on fracking reveals alarming trends for people and the environment.
WASHINGTON - A new report from leading scientists, doctors, and environmental experts examining nearly 2,000 academic studies, government reports, and investigative reporting finds that drilling, fracking, and the entire fracked oil and gas cycle impose grave harms to human health and well-being and that those problems cannot be mitigated.
Overwhelmingly, evidence demonstrates that these activities are dangerous to public health, the environment, and the climate, and that there are fundamental problems with the entire life cycle of operations associated with fracking. Emerging science also shows that fracking is a grave environmental justice issue, with communities of color, Indigenous people, and impoverished communities bearing disproportionate harm.
The Compendium reviews nearly 2,000 academic studies, government reports, and investigations of data by journalists about the environmental and health impacts of drilling and fracking. It is increasingly important to consider the whole body of evidence and identify key trends. That’s what the Compendium uniquely does, allowing the public, elected officials, and regulators to consider the whole body of evidence, identify key trends, and utilize important new research as it appears, promoting health and potentially saving lives.
Sandra Steingraber, PhD, co-founder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York and an author of the Compendium, said, “Our knowledge about the dangers of fracking is now both broad and deep. All together, thousands of scientific studies, reports, and investigations show us that extracting oil and gas by shattering the nation’s bedrock with water and chemicals creates fundamental, intrinsic, unfixable problems. Toxic pollution, water contamination, earthquakes, radioactive releases, and methane emissions follow fracking wherever it goes. Some of these problems get worse after depleted wells are abandoned, and no set of regulations is capable of preventing harm.”
With hundreds of new peer-reviewed scientific studies published in the past year alone, several trends in the evidence have been increasingly well-documented. Among more than a dozen emerging trends:
Fracking poses serious health harms to people, especially those living in proximity not only to drilling and fracking but also to associated infrastructure like compressor stations and gas-fired power plants.
Fracking raises human rights and environmental justice issues, disproportionately affecting people of color and low-income communities
Health problems associated with fracked gas include cancers, asthma, respiratory distress, rashes, heart problems, and mental health problems.
Multiple studies of pregnant women living near fracking operations across the nation show impairments to infant health, including birth defects, preterm birth, and low birth weight. Preterm birth and low birth weight are the leading causes of infant death in the U.S.
Fracking and natural gas are incompatible with climate solutions.
Pediatrician Edward Ketyer, M.D., F.A.A.P., of Physicians for Social Responsibility/Pennsylvania, said, “The fracking science Compendium is an essential resource for health professionals like myself who are addressing how terribly damaging fracking is to the health of our patients and the communities we live in. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies contained in the Compendium indicate clearly that women and children are most vulnerable to the impacts of pollution coming off every piece of fracking infrastructure. As a pediatrician, I’m very concerned that children bear the greatest burden of all as they face cradle-to-grave health impacts from health-damaging chemicals and emissions – to say nothing of the stability of the planet’s climate system which we all depend on. It is clear from this report that fracking has never been done safely anywhere; it is inherently dirty and dangerous, and industry rules and government regulations can’t fix that fact.”
These health problems are born disproportionately by communities of color and impoverished communities. Significant evidence now makes clear that fracking is a significant and growing environmental injustice.
Laura Dagley, BSN, RN, of Physicians for Social Responsibility in Pennsylvania, said, "As a nurse and PSR staffer, I advocate for the health of my communities. Through my work, I have met many people whose lives are negatively impacted by fracking. From seeing the stress that fracking infrastructure has brought to their daily lives, to hearing of many visits to the doctor managing new asthma exacerbation or skin rashes, to feeling their fear as their neighbors' children suffer from a rare cancer, I am reminded of the real people behind the data. With fracking literally in their backyards, many of these individuals struggle to have their voices heard. They do not have the time, money, or numbers in their rural communities to draw attention to the negative toll fracking is taking on their lives. The Compendium compiles a large body of data demonstrating fracking’s harm and succinctly summarizes the research and reports. It is a powerful tool to show policymakers the evidence that fracking is harming people."
At a broader scale, the evidence is overwhelming that fracking is significantly exacerbating climate change and is responsible for the current surge in global levels of methane, a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent at trapping heat than carbon dioxide over a twenty-year period. Methane escapes into the atmosphere all along the gas extraction, processing, and distribution system, at significant rates that exceed earlier estimates by a factor of two to three and in ways that cannot be mitigated or eliminated through regulations.
Kathleen Nolan, MD, MSL, of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of NY, said, “Detailed and comprehensive research now demonstrates decisively that fracking and its related activities release significant amounts of methane into the atmosphere, making the process calamitous for climate change. Science is telling us that drilling and fracking are incompatible with any meaningful effort to mitigate carbon emissions and that to curb global warming most quickly, we need to stop permitting and subsidizing fracking. Just as we have learned to give up smoking to protect our lungs, we must give up fracking to protect our atmosphere, the air that we all breathe.”
From the Main Findings of the Compendium, “As fracking operations in the United States and abroad have increased in frequency, size, and intensity, a significant body of evidence has emerged to demonstrate that these activities are dangerous in ways that cannot be mitigated through regulation. Threats include detrimental impacts on water, air, climate stability, public health, farming, property values, and economic vitality… Our examination uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health directly and without imperiling climate stability upon which public health depends.”
Several experts are available, upon request, for interviews about the new report and the issue more broadly.
For Immediate Release
Monday, December 14, 2020
As Trump Continues Killing Spree, Pressley Leads Call for Biden to Immediately Abolish Death Penalty
"Your historic election with record turnout represents a national mandate to make meaningful progress in reforming our unjust and inhumane criminal legal system," wrote the lawmakers to Biden.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) led a call by congressional Democrats for President-elect Joe Biden to immediately end the federal death penalty when he takes office in January. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
More than 40 Democratic lawmakers joined Rep. Ayanna Pressley late Tuesday in calling on President-elect Joe Biden to immediately abolish the federal death penalty upon taking office next month, bringing an end to a period of six months in which President Donald Trump has overseen more federal executions of people "than the total number executed over the previous six decades."
Biden is opposed to capital punishment and has pledged to abolish its use at the federal level. In Pressley's letter, the lawmaker emphasizes that Biden must make the policy change a top priority after January 20, when he will take office.
""The sheer number of executions set the Trump administration apart as an outlier in the use of capital punishment, compared both to the historical practices of American presidencies and the contemporary practices of the states in the Union. —Death Penalty Information Center
"With a stroke of your pen, you can stop all federal executions, prohibit United States Attorneys from seeking the death penalty, dismantle death row at [Federal Correctional Complex] Terre Haute, and call for the resentencing of people who are currently sentenced to death," Pressley wrote.
The letter was signed by lawmakers including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.). Recently elected Reps.-elect Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) also signed the document.
The president is in the midst of what The Guardiancalled an "execution spree," having killed three people—Orlando Hall, Brandon Bernard, and Alfred Bourgeois—since losing the presidential election on November 3. Before Biden takes office, Trump is planning to put to death inmates Lisa Montgomery, Corey Johnson, and Dustin Higgs.
Trump is the first president to carry out the death penalty during a lame-duck session since 1889, when President Grover Cleveland executed a Native American named Richard Smith.
Pressley sent the letter to Biden as the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) released a year-end report showing that Trump has killed more people in 2020 than all states that have carried out executions, combined—an unprecedented use of the death penalty by the federal government.
Seven state executions were carried out in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas this year, while the president has killed 10 people since July, when he resumed the use of the federal death penalty after 17 years.
"The sheer number of executions set the Trump administration apart as an outlier in the use of capital punishment, compared both to the historical practices of American presidencies and the contemporary practices of the states in the Union," the DPIC wrote. "In addition, the details of the cases and the highly politicized manner in which they were carried out revealed significant problems in the application of the federal death penalty."
The people Trump has put to death and plans to execute before his term is over—five Black men and one white woman—have been the subject of calls by global human rights advocates, prosecutors, and former jurors who have pleaded with the administration for clemency.
Montgomery is the survivor of lifelong sexual and physical abuse and was experiencing psychosis, according to her lawyers, when she commited a murder in 2004. Bernard was 18 when he was involved in a kidnapping and killing of a couple in Texas, did not fire the gun that killed the victims, and has shown remorse for his crime. Bourgeois's lawyers argue that he has a severe intellectual disability.
"Capital punishment is unjust, racist, and defective," Rep. Connolly said in a press release on Tuesday. "The United States stands alone among its peers in executing its own citizens, a barbaric punishment that denies the dignity and humanity of all people and is disproportionately applied to people who are Black, Latinx, and poor. For example, Black people make up less than 13% of the nation's population while accounting for more than 42% of those on death row."
Trump's executions have sparked outcry on social media in recent weeks.
Study of 50 Years of Tax Cuts For Rich Confirms 'Trickle Down' Theory Is an Absolute Sham
"Major tax cuts for the rich since the 1980s have increased income inequality, with all the problems that brings, without any offsetting gains in economic performance."
A yacht belonging to British billionaire Joe Lewis, pictured in Butler's Wharf on July 3, 2018 in London. (Photo: Jack Taylor/Getty Images)
Neoliberal gospel says that cutting taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone by boosting economic growth and reducing unemployment, but a new analysis of fiscal policies in 18 countries over the last 50 years reveals that progressive critics of "trickle down" theory have been right all along: supply-side economics fuels inequality, and the real beneficiaries of the right-wing approach to taxation are the super-rich.
"Cutting taxes on the rich increases top income shares, but has little effect on economic performance." —David Hope and Julian Limberg
The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich(pdf), a working paper published this month by the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics and written by LSE's David Hope and Julian Limberg of King's College London, examines data from nearly 20 OECD countries, including the U.K. and the U.S., and finds that the past five decades have been characterized by "falling taxes on the rich in the advanced economies," with "major tax cuts... particularly clustered in the late 1980s."
But, according to Hope and Limberg, the vast majority of the populations in those countries have little to show for it, as the benefits of slashing taxes on the wealthy are concentrated among a handful of super-rich individuals—not widely shared across society in the form of improved job creation or prosperity, as "trickle down" theorists alleged would happen.
"Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak," Hope said Wednesday. "Major tax cuts for the rich since the 1980s have increased income inequality, with all the problems that brings, without any offsetting gains in economic performance."
In their study, the pair of political economists note that "economic performance, as measured by real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate, is not significantly affected by major tax cuts for the rich." However, they add, "major tax cuts for the rich increase the top 1% share of pre-tax national income in the years following the reform" by a magnitude of nearly 1%.
The researchers continue:
Our findings on the effects of growth and unemployment provide evidence against supply-side theories that suggest lower taxes on the rich will induce labour supply responses from high-income individuals (more hours of work, more effort etc.) that boost economic activity. They are, in fact, more in line with recent empirical research showing that income tax holidays and windfall gains do not lead individuals to significantly alter the amount they work.
Our results have important implications for current debates around the economic consequences of taxing the rich, as they provide causal evidence that supports the growing pool of evidence from correlational studies that cutting taxes on the rich increases top income shares, but has little effect on economic performance.
Limberg is hopeful that the research could bolster the case for increasing taxes on the wealthy to fund a just recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and ensuing economic fallout.
"Our results," he said Wednesday, "might be welcome news for governments as they seek to repair the public finances after the Covid-19 crisis, as they imply that they should not be unduly concerned about the economic consequences of higher taxes on the rich."
Progressives have argued that America's disastrous handling of the ongoing catastrophe is attributable to several decades of "free-market" ideology and associated policies that exacerbated vulnerabilities and undermined the government's capacity to respond effectively.
According to social justice advocates, taxing billionaires' surging wealth—akin to the "Millionaire's Tax" passed earlier this month in Argentina—could contribute to reversing the trend of intensifying inequality plaguing the nation.
Ocasio-Cortez Warns Biden That War and Wall Street Appointees Are a 'Huge Reason We Got Trump'
The congresswoman attributed the rise of Trump partly to "extreme disdain for this moneyed political establishment that rules Washington."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) speaks during a news conference outside of the Democratic National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, November 19, 2020. (Photo: Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a stern warning for President-elect Joe Biden about filling his Cabinet with the types of war and Wall Street candidates that have come to characterize Democratic administrations over the past three decades.
"A larger issue that we have right now... is the Biden administration is bringing back a lot of Obama appointees." —Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
In an interview for The Intercept's "Intercepted" podcast aired on Wednesday, host Jeremy Scahill asked Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) what she thought of Biden hiring members of former President Barack Obama's administration from corporations including Goldman Sachs and McKinsey.
"It's horrible," she replied. "I think it's also part of a larger issue that we have right now, which is the Biden administration is bringing back a lot of Obama appointees, which depending on where you are in the party, may sound nice, I guess."
"But I think what a lot of people fail to remember is that we now have a Biden administration that's bringing back a lot of Obama appointees, but when Obama was making appointments, he was bringing back a lot of Clinton appointees," she added.
As Obama took office during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, many believed his "hope and change" message would translate into action against banks and other corporations responsible for the crash, which cost millions of Americans their homes, their retirements savings, and their livelihoods.
It was a similar story on matters of war and peace. Although Obama promised a less militant foreign policy, he expanded the war in Afghanistan, intervened in the Libyan and Syrian civil wars, backed the Saudi-led war in Yemen, oversaw a global assassination program, and ultimately bombed more countries than his predecesor, former President George W. Bush, earning him the moniker of "drone warrior-in-chief."
As Common Dreamsreported Tuesday, Biden's transition team has quietly hired people including Goldman Sachs veterans Monica Maher and Eric Goldstein, and former McKinsey and current Cove Hill Partners manager Josh Zoffer, and several Big Tech executives in recent weeks.
Biden has tapped former Obama officials, including Avril Haines for director of national intelligence and Antony Blinken for secretary of state, who played key roles in planning and executing militarist policies.
Such picks and policies, admonished Ocasio-Cortez, are "a huge reason why we got [President] Donald Trump in the first place."
"In addition to just the racism that was waiting to be reanimated in this country, [there] was just an extreme disdain for this moneyed political establishment that rules Washington," she said.
Ocasio-Cortez also told Scahill that she believes the Democratic Party needs new leadership, and that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) should be replaced. However, she said the party has no plan for how to accomplish this or to fill the leadership vaccum their departures would leave.
"If you create that vacuum, there are so many nefarious forces at play to fill that vacuum with something even worse," she cautioned.
Ocasio-Cortez has been a controversial figure during her short but impactful House tenure. The freshman firebrand has raised eyebrows and ire by being unafraid to criticize members of her own party when she believes they have strayed from serving the needs of their middle- and working-class constituents.
Earlier this year, some centrist Democrats were apoplectic after the democratic socialist asserted that "we don't have a 'left' party in the United States," that the Democratic Party is more of a "center-conservative" party than a progressive one, and that "in any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party."
'What a Failed State Looks Like': GOP Under Fire for Blocking Necessary Funds as Covid Vaccine Distribution Begins
"The end of a tragic, crippling pandemic is in sight and Senate Republicans can't get around to authorizing any money to complete the job."
by Jake Johnson, staff writer COMMON DREAMS UPS employees move one of two shipping containers containing the first shipments of the Pfizer and BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine on a ramp at UPS Worldport in Louisville, Kentucky on Sunday, December 13, 2020. (Photo: Michael Clevenger/Pool/Getty Images)
As U.S. distribution of the newly approved Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine kicked off Sunday with the shipment of millions of doses to sites across the nation, Senate Republicans faced mounting outrage for continuing to block federal funds that crisis-ravaged states and localities desperately need to carry out an unparalleled mass inoculation effort.
Facing large budget shortfalls due to the Covid-19 pandemic and lack of relief from the deadlocked Congress, state and local governments will soon be tasked with executing a rapid vaccination campaign that will require large quantities of supplies as well as new clinics, additional workers, and public outreach—all of which will cost money that states and localities fear they don't have.
As the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday, "State leaders say they are short billions of dollars in funding needed to successfully provide Covid-19 vaccinations to all Americans who want to be inoculated by health officials' June goal."
"States are so stretched. It would be a shame if all the effort on Warp Speed for development isn't warp speed for distribution." —Dr. Leana Wen, George Washington University
"The federal government is providing the vaccine, along with syringes, needles, face masks, and shields," the Journal noted. But local officials are warning of a repeat of the Trump administration's slow and inadequate rollout of protective equipment in the early months of the pandemic, a failure that resulted in a chaotic free-for-all as states scrambled to obtain necessary supplies.
Nevertheless, the Journal reported, "officials in several states said they would spend whatever is needed to get residents vaccinated. Some said that might force spending cuts in areas like education, unless Congress provides additional funding or the federal government reimburses a large chunk of their rollout costs."
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine for emergency use, setting in motion an unprecedented and urgent campaign to distribute the vaccine as U.S. Covid-19 deaths approached 300,000.
The FDA's move, and the subsequent shipment of around three million doses of the vaccine to facilities across the nation, came as talks over a coronavirus relief package remained at a standstill, calling into question whether billions of dollars for vaccine distribution and additional relief to state and local governments will be approved before the end of the year.
"If you want to know what a failed state looks like, this is it," David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, tweeted Sunday. "The end of a tragic, crippling pandemic [is] in sight and Senate Republicans can't get around to authorizing any money to complete the job."
Dr. Leana Wen, former health commissioner for Baltimore and a professor at George Washington University, warned that states "are running a marathon at sprint speed with very little support.
"States are so stretched," Wen told the Journal. "It would be a shame if all the effort on Warp Speed for development isn't warp speed for distribution."
Congressional Republicans have for months dismissed Democrats' calls for robust aid to state and local governments, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made clear that he will not approve such relief without the inclusion of a sweeping liability shield for corporations—a proposal that consumer advocacy groups, labor unions, and progressive lawmakers have denounced as a "get-out-of-jail-free card" for large companies.
"Imagine holding emergency aid hostage—help for the unemployed, small businesses, first responders, people, funding to deliver a vaccine—to give corporations legal immunity. But that has been the GOP position for eight months," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) tweeted last week. "Senator McConnell: It is past time for the Senate to act."
On Monday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both chambers of Congress is expected to unveil legislative text for a $908 billion relief proposal that has been in the works for weeks. Politico reported late Sunday that "the deal is expected to be split into two pieces... One would be a $748 billion piece of coronavirus relief with less controversial items like schools and healthcare; the other would marry $160 billion in money for local governments with a temporary liability shield."
As it stands, the bipartisan proposal reportedly contains $16 billion in funding specifically for vaccine distribution, an amount that has been criticized as inadequate. Dayen on Saturday called the proposed figure "appalling."
Lower Drug Prices Now, a progressive advocacy coalition, tweeted that "a Covid-19 vaccine doesn't do much good if our communities don't have the resources to distribute it. We need lawmakers to come together and pass Covid relief if we want to beat this pandemic.
"The Senate Majority leader blocked the HEROES Act, and 'hit pause' on Covid relief while he continued confirming judge after judge," the coalition said Sunday. "So many lives and businesses are at stake, we can't wait any longer."
