Sunday, November 21, 2021

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEHIND PAYWALL
Check out the full story in Bloomberg here.

  


Who pays America's taxes?

The Week Staff
Sat, November 20, 2021

Taxes. KAREN BLEIER/AFP via Getty Images

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


What do the wealthy pay?

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


Why isn't it more progressive?

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

How do they do it?


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

Can wealth itself be taxed?

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

Who does the tax code favor?


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

How the IRS was gutted

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

This article was first published in the latest issue of The Week magazine. 
This member of Congress wants everyone to know about the 'dark money scheme' that's 'captured' the Supreme Court
Oma Seddiq
Sat, November 20, 2021

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the original article on Business Insid

IRS seized $3.5B in crypto-related fraud 

money this year as illicit activity multiplies


·Senior Reporter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Several open investigations' into dark crypto money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


·Senior Reporter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep the dollar dominant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Courtenay Brown
Fri, November 19, 2021,

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

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

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

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

The latest: Omarova's critics are getting louder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go deeper: More Democrats cool on Biden currency comptroller pick

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

Aaron Parsley
Fri, November 19, 2021

Saule Omarova
Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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

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



US Senator John Kennedy
JIM WATSON/AFP 

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

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

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

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

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

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


Saule Omarova
Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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


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

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

"Yes I am," Omarova responded.


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



Lindsey Ellefson
Fri, November 19, 2021,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Reporting by Francesca Landini, editing by Barbara Lewis)
Evolutionary virologist once open to Wuhan lab leak theory now says COVID spread from animal market

Peter Weber, Senior editor
Fri, November 19, 2021,

Huanan seafood market in Wuhan Noel Celis/AFP/Getty Images

Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist who signed a high-profile letter in May urging further study of the theory that the COVID-19 coronavirus accidently leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, reported in the journal Science on Thursday that new research strongly suggests the new virus spread to humans from animals at the Huanan Seafood Market, several miles from the lab. His reconstruction of the early days of the pandemic adds to mounting evidence that the coronavirus originated in bats and infected humans through an intermediary mammal, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Worobey, a leading expert in tracking the evolution of viruses, pored through all available records and found that 10 of 19 early COVID-19 patients worked at or had visited the Huanan market, around the area where raccoon dogs were slaughtered. His research determined that a World Health Organization report incorrectly identified a 41-year-old accountant who had not been near the market as the earliest known case. Instead, the first confirmed patients was a female seafood vendor who became symptomatic on Dec. 11.

"In this city of 11 million people, half of the early cases are linked to a place that's the size of a soccer field," Worobey said. "It becomes very difficult to explain that pattern if the outbreak didn't start at the market." He reiterated to The Washington Post that "it becomes almost impossible to explain that pattern if that epidemic didn't start there."


Chinese officials have said the Huanan market wasn't the source of the pandemic. "The market was quickly closed, the animals culled before any were screened for SARS-CoV-2, and everything cleaned and sanitized soon after the outbreak began," the Post reports. "Still, a subsequent investigation showed that traces of the virus were found on surfaces in the market, including drains, particularly in the area where vendors sold animals."

Worobey's reconstruction of the pandemic's origin doesn't conclusively prove nature over lab leak, and some virologists said that given China's reticence to share information, that debate may never be settled. "He has done an excellent job of reconstructing what he can from the available data, and it's as reasonable a hypothesis as any," Columbia University virologist W. Ian Lipkin told The New York Times. "But I don't think we're ever going to know what's going on, because it's two years ago and it's still murky."

Wuhan’s seafood market may have been the origin of the covid-19 pandemic after all

ALY SONG / REUTERS
The Huanan meat and seafood market in Wuhan

By Samanth Subramanian
Looking into the Future of Capitalism
Published November 19, 2021

When and where the covid-19 pandemic began seems to hinge on when a 41-year-old accountant got sick.

The World Health Organization (WHO) thought it was Dec. 8, 2019, making him the first-known covid-19 patient, according to the WHO’s March 2021 report into the origins of the pandemic. Since the accountant hadn’t visited the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan—where the coronavirus was presumed to have first spread—theories of covid-19’s origins underwent a revision. And since the accountant lived closer to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the WHO report fed the “lab leak” theory: that the coronavirus had slipped into the world from a lab at the Institute.

Among the scientists who believed that the lab leak theory ought to be investigated was Michael Worobey, a virologist at the University of Arizona. On Nov. 18, however, Worobey took a different stance. Having studied the patterns of early cases as well as medical records, Worobey concluded that the accountant first showed symptoms not on Dec. 8 but on Dec. 16, 2019. As a result, Worobey argued in a paper published in Science, the most likely “patient zero” was a woman who sold seafood at the Huanan market, whose symptoms appeared on Dec. 11.

On Twitter, Worobey warned that his article didn’t cover every possible detail. But by bringing the Wuhan market back into the reckoning, Worobey’s paper offers ideas for scientists looking to figure out how the virus jumped the species barrier into human beings. And it offers a counter to those who still believe that the virus was loosed into the world from a Chinese lab.

Who was covid-19’s patient zero?


To determine the date of the accountant’s illness, Worobey relied in part on a video report from The Paper, a Shanghai-based publication funded in part by the Chinese government. In the video, shot in March 2020, the accountant said his covid-19 symptoms began on Dec. 16, 2019. He had been ill on Dec. 8 as well, he said, but that trip to the hospital had to do with a visit to the dentist, to treat “baby teeth retained into adulthood,” Worobey wrote. Closer to his covid-19 infection, the accountant added, he had traveled closer to the Huanan market; by then, several cases had emerged at the market already.

The WHO report doesn’t seem to take this timeline into account; it regards the date of the accountant’s sickness as Dec. 8, 2019. Speaking to the New York Times, Peter Daszak, a member of the WHO team, said the report’s conclusion about that date was a mistake.

Focusing again on the Huanan market

If the accountant is ruled out, the second confirmed case identified by the WHO becomes the first: the seafood vendor in the Huanan market. That fits the preponderance of cases that emerged in and around the market, Worobey argues. It wasn’t “just” a super-spreading site, he said; there were other places in Wuhan, such as restaurants or hospitals or shopping malls, that would have been more likely super-spreading sites. Instead, the market was the likely origin of the disease’s spread itself, Worobey believes.

Worobey’s paper isn’t, by any means, the final word. David Relman, a Stanford microbiologist, told the Washington Post that Worobey had based his paper “on fragmentary information and to a large degree hearsay.” Worobey responded on Twitter, saying that scientists should refrain from “dismissing the voices of the frontline workers and COVID patients in Wuhan as dishonest or hopelessly unreliable in recounting their own experiences.”

Column: A new research paper adds to the evidence that COVID-19 came from animals, not a Chinese lab


Michael Hiltzik
Fri, November 19, 2021

Medical staff help a patient walk into the hospital in Wuhan, China, in January 2020 as the pandemic was beginning. (Barcroft Media via Getty Images)

A new peer-reviewed research paper points to the likelihood that the COVID-19 pandemic originated at a seafood and wildlife market in Wuhan, China, rather than from a Chinese laboratory studying bat viruses.

The paper, by University of Arizona evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey, supports the consensus among virology experts that the pandemic's origin was natural — that the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing COVID-19 spread via contacts between humans and animals, first from bats, then to intermediate mammalian species, and then to humans. Worobey's report was published Thursday in the journal Science.

Worobey's finding that the earliest identified COVID-19 cases centered around the Huanan Market in central Wuhan, the teeming metropolis where the outbreak apparently originated, "takes the lab-leak idea almost completely off the table," he told me.

I would be very happy to have rejected the natural origin idea with this deep dive that I've done. But that's just not how it worked out
Michael Worobey, University of Arizona


Worobey notes that more than half of the earliest identified COVID-19 cases were centered around the market.

The patients either worked at the market or had friends or other contacts who did, some of whom has visited their homes. Others lived in the "direct vicinity" of the market and may have been connected by only one or two transmissions of the highly infectious virus to someone with direct contact with the market.

"So many of the early cases were tied to this one Home Depot-sized building in a city of 11 million people, when there are thousands of other places where it would be more likely for early cases to be linked to if the virus had not started there," he says.

For even early cases not directly linked to the market to arise among patients with home addresses clustered around the market "is an absolutely crucial point," he says. "There's no way you should expect a bunch of people with the earliest cases of the virus to live around the market unless it started at the market."

Worobey's paper takes aim at one of the central contentions of lab-leak proponents — that Chinese investigators tied the earliest COVID cases to the Huanan Market deliberately to steer attention away from government laboratories in Wuhan, specifically the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The institute was known to have been studying bat viruses purportedly similar to SARS-CoV-2.

The paper undermines a competing theory that the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaked from the Wuhan institute or another lab studying bat viruses, whether inadvertently or as the result of secret bioweapon research. No evidence of research at those labs on viruses that could be precursors to SARS-CoV-2 has ever emerged.

The lab-leak theory originated in 2020 among ideologues in the State Department under then-President Trump. For them, blaming a pandemic on the Chinese government served the dual purposes of scoring points against a geopolitical adversary and distracting attention from the Trump administration’s incompetent response to the pandemic.

Worobey performed what he calls a "deep dive" into the chronology and pattern by which the earliest patients were identified at local and regional hospitals.

He found that doctors were finding patients with what turned out to be telltale signs of COVID-19, such as distinctive X-ray images of infected lungs and patients' failure to respond to customary antiviral treatments, well before anyone identified the market as an epicenter of the infection.


(Reprinted with permission from the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science)

That ruled out any chance that investigators had "cherry picked" the early cases to place blame on the market and divert it from government labs.

"The experiences of these hospitals as they went from not understanding anything about these new cases to its dawning on people at different places and different times that it's spreading," Worobey says, "that rules out ascertainment bias. The link to the market is real, not a mirage."

Worobey concludes that the earliest known COVID-19 case was that of a female seafood vendor at the market, who fell ill on Dec. 11, 2019, and who told investigators that she knew of several other people who fell ill with the same symptoms around the same time.

That conflicts with the long-held identification of the first case as that of a 41-year-old male accountant who had been reported as falling ill on Dec. 8, despite living some 20 miles from the seafood market and having no connection to it.

Worobey unearthed reports, confirmed by hospital records, that the accountant's initial disease was related to a dental problem, not the virus. He did not fall ill with COVID-19 until Dec. 16, possibly during a hospital visit for his dental treatment or during a subway commute, and was hospitalized on Dec. 22.

Worobey's paper adds to the growing body of research pointing to a natural, or "zoonotic" origin of the pandemic. That conclusion is regarded as overwhelmingly likely by virologists, especially since it matches the path by which viral pandemics have typically started throughout history.

Worobey was an instigator an co-author of a May 14, 2021, open letter published in Science and signed by himself and 17 other scientists urging a "dispassionate, science-based" inquiry into the two hypotheses.

He says he was concerned that the potential that the virus escaped from a lab had been dismissed "prematurely," though "even at that time, I thought a natural origin was more likely, though I thought the lab-leak scenario was much more of a contender than I think now."

Multiple research findings since the letter's publication have dealt "body blows" to the lab-leak idea, he told me. Those include a published paper documenting that wildlife susceptible to the virus were being sold illegally at the Huanan Market, which Chinese authorities initially denied.

Other research has established that viruses collected from bats at a copper mine in Mojiang, on the Laotian border about 800 miles from Wuhan, and studied at the Wuhan institute are not nearly as genetically similar to SARS-CoV-2 as initially reported. That means they could not have been progenitors of the pandemic virus.

"I've been very much open to the lab-leak idea," Worobey says. "I would be very happy to have rejected the natural origin idea with this deep dive that I've done. But that's just not how it worked out."

Proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis argue that no empirical evidence exists for a natural spillover, as no animals of potentially intermediate species have yet been found to carry antibodies for the virus.

That's misleading, however. Scientists have found evidence pointing to an evolutionary pathway leading to SARS-CoV-2 from closely related viruses found in Laos and Cambodia, about 1,000 miles from Wuhan.

"The common wisdom is that we don't know very much about the emergence of SARS-CoV-2," virologist Robert Garry of Tulane University told a colloquium sponsored by the Global Virus Network earlier this week. He observed that nine coronaviruses that share structural features with SARS-CoV-2 have been known to infect humans, including the original SARS virus that spread globally and killed more than 700 people in 2002-2004, and the MERS virus that spread primarily in the Middle East in 2012.

"Compared to these other viruses, we actually know more about the emergence SARS-CoV-2," he said. "We know more about how it got into the human population, we know the proximal ancestor, we know there's a bat, we know the particular kind of bat, we have a virus that's extremely close to SARS-CoV-2 [a virus isolated from bats in Laos], and we know the place that the virus spilled over" from animals to people.

"We've made actually some great strides with determining the origin of SARS-CoV-2," Garry said. "You have to believe in quite a few impossible things to believe that the virus leaked from a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

The solution to climate change? It could be right under your feet


Jamie Blackett
Sat, November 20, 2021,

Pulling a carrot from the earth - Alamy

This is a very timely book. Farmers are pondering regenerative agriculture, gardeners are discussing “no dig” and we are all worried about reaching carbon “net zero”. But few of us know what we are talking about, largely because the scientific community has spent more time studying the stars than the soil on which our survival depends. As Matthew Evans observes: “For me, soil seemed dull and insipid.” Yet, “Good soil isn’t just an abstract concept; it’s a thing of wonder … There are more living things in a teaspoon of healthy soil than there are humans on Earth.”

Evans is the right man to explain. An Australian with an interesting CV, reflecting an insatiable curiosity: from chef-cum-food writer and broadcaster to Tasmanian farmer and now one of the best commentators on anything between the soil and our stomachs. He first came to attention over here with On Eating Meat, one of the best critiques of modern farming you will ever read. Evans is not an academic – which perhaps explains his didactic talents as he deftly guides us through the story of soil with simple explanations and the enthusiasm of a Blue Peter presenter – but has dug deep to understand the science and present it to us in an easily digestible format.

And what a story it is. Evans ranges freely from geology to nutrition via agronomy on an evangelical mission to show how central soil is to life. He explains how smelling healthy soil is good for our sense of wellbeing and how soil microbes have been found to be the nuclei of raindrops. He takes us to the University of Tennessee’s Forensic Anthropology Centre’s “body farm”, where volunteers leave their corpses for research into how bodies decompose, to give us a stark reminder that we are only briefly “not soil”. And he suggests, only partly tongue-in-cheek, that we should consider using human remains as fertiliser, particularly as cremation releases carbon and nitrogen into the atmosphere leaving calcium phosphate, which is “not available to plants in that form”. And then there is the discussion of “humanure”, which is best read between meals.

If some of it is shocking, it reinforces Evans’s main thesis that healthy topsoil has either been vanishing at an alarming rate, or poisoned by chemicals, and that we must make more of it. He shines a merciless light on the damaging side effects of the “green revolution” and particularly on its main architect, the Nobel laureate Fritz Haber, the inventor of the process that creates the nitrogen to produce “about one mouthful out of every two a human eats”. Haber’s invention of poisoned gas caused his wife, also a chemist, to kill herself a week after its first use at Ypres in 1915.

As a knowledgeable foodie, Evans traces the links between healthy bacteria in the soil biome and the nutrients we need for health and rattles off some very depressing statistics showing how the food we eat is far less nutrient dense than in our grandparents’ day. He is dismissive of air proteins, “lab food” manufactured using electricity when we should be utilising the sun’s energy to grow better food.

Happily, contrary to the zero-sum arguments we often hear from environmentalists, we can make more topsoil relatively easily. Some of the most interesting parts of the book are about how prehistoric peoples in West Africa and South America independently discovered different methods of creating rich dark soils from charcoals, manures and composts, something we have been slow to investigate in the modern era.

Most importantly, Evans explains how regenerative agriculture that draws carbon out of the atmosphere into the soil so that it is “like chocolate cake’” (through minimising soil disturbance and exposure, diverse cropping and grazing livestock) is our best hope of reversing climate change. He quotes Stéphane Le Foll’s “quatre pour mille” idea: that if all the world’s soils under human management were to increase in soil carbon by just four parts per 1,000 (0.4 per cent) annually, virtually the entire global increase in carbon emissions for each year could be offset. Suggestion for Mr and Mrs Thunberg: please pop a copy of Soil into Greta’s stocking this Christmas.

Soil is published by Murdoch Books at £14.99.