Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recertified Iran's compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal late Monday, but senior administration officials emphasized that Tehran is a dangerous threat to both U.S. interests and Middle East stability. Under U.S. law, the State Department is required to recertify to Congress Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal every 90 days. Despite President Trump's harsh criticism of the agreement forged under his predecessor, it is the second such certification since he took office.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/9713...ps-controversial-classical-architecture-order President Biden Revokes Trump's Controversial Classical Architecture Order Arbiters of good taste often disagree. That is certainly true of architecture. Late Wednesday, President Biden revoked a controversial executive order that then-President Donald Trump signed in December called "Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture." The announcement from the White House was included in an executive order that revoked a number of Trump's actions as president. When Trump first proposed his executive order, it was clearly an out-with-the-new, in-with-the-old approach to architecture. He called modern federal buildings constructed over the last five decades (think boxy, concrete-heavy Brutalism) "undistinguished," "uninspiring" and "just plain ugly." While the specifics are not yet clear, Biden's executive order instructs the director of the Office of Management and Budget and any related departments and agencies to "promptly consider taking steps to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof" that would've implemented Trump's actions. Biden also calls for the abolishment of any "personnel positions, committees, task forces, or other entities established" to fulfill Trump's actions, "as appropriate and consistent with applicable law." This will likely eliminate Trump's Council on Improving Federal Civic Architecture, which was established in his executive order. Biden's executive order may put his administration at odds with the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, an independent federal agency established in 1910 that advises lawmakers "on matters of design and aesthetics." In 2018, Trump appointed one of modern architecture's biggest critics to the CFA: Justin Shubow, president of the National Civic Art Society (NCAS). The organization was the driving force behind Trump's executive order. It also led a six-year campaign against Frank Gehry's Eisenhower memorial, which forced the architect to make some changes to his original design. In a statement to NPR, Shubow, who is now chairman, defends Trump's call to restore traditional architecture to federal buildings. He writes, "our federal architecture has been dismal for decades, and has been designed in modernist styles that do not represent what ordinary Americans actually want." Shubow points to an NCAS survey by the Harris Poll. It found that "72% of American adults prefer classical and traditional design for federal buildings. There were wide majorities for tradition across all demographic groups, including political party affiliation," he says. Shortly before he left office, President Trump appointed four new members to the seven member CFA including Steven W. Spandle of New Jersey, who designed the tennis pavilion on the White House grounds completed in 2020, and Perry Guillot of New York, who recently completed renovations of the Rose Garden and the Children's Gardens at the White House. All seven members of the commission are white men. Commission members serve four-year, unpaid terms. Washington Post recently, architecture critic Philip Kennicott called for Biden to "move quickly to remove the current members." He writes, "They should be replaced with a diverse body of professionals, including women and people of color, who bring a wide and spirited range of aesthetic viewpoints to the commission's monthly meetings." Shubow tells NPR, the National Civic Art Society intend to work with the Biden administration to implement change that will build a truly democratic architecture." He notes that "historically our advice is always heeded."
Robinette the enfranchiser, upholder of democracy, long may he reign. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-voter-registration-executive-order-senate-hr-1 Biden signs voter registration executive order as he pushes Senate to pass sweeping HR 1 bill Biden's executive order would require federal agencies to expand access to voter registration According to the White House, Biden's executive order modernizes Vote.gov, orders federal agencies to expand access to voter registration, provides voting access and education to prisoners in federal custody, examines barriers to citizens with disabilities voting and improves ballot tracking for overseas voters, including active duty military.
Trump's surrogate deSantis was last seen cryin' https://www.cbsnews.com/news/venezuelan-immigrants-temporary-legal-status/ Biden offers temporary legal status to 300,000 Venezuelan immigrants living in U.S. The Biden administration on Monday announced it will offer deportation relief and work permits to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants living in the U.S., citing the political and economic turmoil in the South American country. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a decree making certain Venezuelans eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which allows the U.S. government to grant provisional humanitarian protection to immigrants whose home countries are plagued by armed conflict, recovering from natural disasters, dealing with an epidemic or otherwise unable to guarantee the safe return of their citizens. "The designation is due to the extraordinary and temporary conditions in Venezuela, which is one of the statutory bases for it," a senior Biden administration official told reporters on a call Monday. "Because of conditions there, it is not safe for Venezuelans to return."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...it-immigration-financially-dependent-n1260239 Biden administration ditches Trump plan to limit immigration for those financially dependent on government The Department of Justice told the Supreme Court that it was dropping its defense of the Trump-era expansion of the "public charge" rule. The Biden administration notified the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it will no longer defend a government policy seeking to impose new limits on the admission of immigrants considered likely to become overly dependent on government benefits. The Department of Homeland Security announced in 2019 that it would expand the definition of "public charge" to be applied to people who could be denied immigration because of a concern that they would primarily depend on the government for their income. In the past, the designation was largely based on an assessment that an immigrant would be dependent upon cash benefits. But the Trump administration proposed to broaden the definition to include noncash benefits, such as Medicaid, supplemental nutrition and federal housing assistance. Anyone likely to require that broader range of help for more than 12 months in any three-year period would be swept into the expanded definition. The federal government has long had authority to refuse admission of immigrants who were likely to become public charges, but the term has never been formally defined. The Trump policy proposed to fill that void, adding noncash benefits and such factors as age, financial resources, employment history, education and health, arguing that the expansion would reinforce "the ideals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, ensuring that immigrants are able to support themselves and become successful here in America." In response to a series of lawsuits, lower courts were divided on whether the revised rule violated federal law, but its enforcement was eventually blocked, so the Trump administration appealed. The Supreme Court agreed in late February to consider the issue. But on Tuesday, the Justice Department notified the court that the Biden administration agreed with the local governments challenging the policy that the cases should be dismissed. President Joe Biden signaled his intent to change the policy in February, signing an executive order that ordered federal agencies to review the Trump rule.
https://www.motherjones.com/mojo-wire/2021/03/biden-title-ix-executive-order/ Biden Takes the First Step Toward Undoing Betsy DeVos’ Title IX Rules President Joe Biden has taken the first step toward dismantling former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ controversial overhaul of federal rules for how schools should handle allegations of sexual violence and harassment, issuing an executive order on Monday morning that lays the groundwork for newly confirmed Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to roll back the Trump administration’s actions. The executive order specifically calls out DeVos’ Title IX regulations, which took effect last August, to be reviewed for potential suspension, revision, or rescission. It also directs Cardonas and the attorney general to review any regulations, policies, and agency actions that that might run counter to the goal of eliminating sex discrimination in schools—including discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation—within the next 100 days. In 2011, the Obama administration had issued Title IX guidance that expanded protections for student survivors who reported assault or harassment to their schools. During her tenure, DeVos rolled back the Obama-era guidance and issued new rules, which she portrayed as a way of making school discipline fairer by expanding the due process rights of students accused of sexual misconduct. Her changes were celebrated by Republicans as well as organizations promoting men’s rights or free speech, which had claimed men accused of sexual misconduct were frequently railroaded in anti-male “kangaroo courts.” (Men’s rights activists had a hand in drafting DeVos’ regulations, an investigation by the Nation revealed last year.) Student sexual assault survivors say DeVos’ actions have pushed them into courtroom-like campus hearings and narrowed schools’ responsibility to respond to their reports. Women’s rights and anti-rape advocacy groups have fiercely opposed the regulations, organizing campaigns and filing federal lawsuits that argue the rules actually promote discrimination and violate the spirit of Title IX. They were joined by more than a dozen attorneys general who sued the Education Department before the DeVos’ rule took effect. Last week, more than 100 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to Cardona urging him to work with the Department of Justice to put the DeVos rule on hold because of the pending lawsuits. “The policy of this administration is that every individual, every student, is entitled to a fair education, free of sexual violence, and that all involved have access to a fair process,” Jennifer Klein, the co-chair of Biden’s newly established Gender Policy Council, said during a press briefing on Monday. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the notion that everybody involved, accused or accuser, should have a fair and full process. That’s exactly what the policy of this administration is, and the secretary of education will look at the regulations with that in mind.” “Sexual harassment and assault have no place in our schools, yet Betsy DeVos created a double standard that allows schools to ignore reports of harassment based on sex where similar reports based on race, national origin, or religion would require an appropriate response,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, in a statement on Monday. “While the DeVos rule included important provisions to promote fairness of disciplinary procedures, it offered no justification for imposing a double standard. We urge the Department of Education to withdraw Besty DeVos’ damaging double standard and replace it with stronger protections against sexual harassment and ensure fair processes for all students.” On social media, advocates for student sexual assault survivors are cheering the news of Biden’s executive order:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...jor-tax-hike-since-1993-in-next-economic-plan Biden Eyes First Major Tax Hike Since 1993 in Next Economic Plan Tax increases would help fund long-term U.S. recovery program Corporate, capital-gains levies targeted for hikes, aides say President Joe Biden is planning the first major federal tax hike since 1993 to help pay for the long-term economic program designed as a follow-up to his pandemic-relief bill, according to people familiar with the matter. Unlike the $1.9 trillion Covid-19 stimulus act, the next initiative, which is expected to be even bigger, won’t rely just on government debt as a funding source. While it’s been increasingly clear that tax hikes will be a component -- Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said at least part of the next bill will have to be paid for, and pointed to higher rates -- key advisers are now making preparations for a package of measures that could include an increase in both the corporate tax rate and the individual rate for high earners. With each tax break and credit having its own lobbying constituency to back it, tinkering with rates is fraught with political risk. That helps explain why the tax hikes in Bill Clinton’s signature 1993 overhaul stand out from the modest modifications done since. For the Biden administration, the planned changes are an opportunity not just to fund key initiatives like infrastructure, climate and expanded help for poorer Americans, but also to address what Democrats argue are inequities in the tax system itself. The plan will test both Biden’s capacity to woo Republicans and Democrats’ ability to remain unified. Federal U.S. revenues have trended lower since 1990s “His whole outlook has always been that Americans believe tax policy needs to be fair, and he has viewed all of his policy options through that lens,” said Sarah Bianchi, head of U.S. public policy at Evercore ISI and a former economic aide to Biden. “That is why the focus is on addressing the unequal treatment between work and wealth.” While the White House has rejected an outright wealth tax, as proposed by progressive Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, the administration’s current thinking does target the wealthy. The White House is expected to propose a suite of tax increases, mostly mirroring Biden’s 2020 campaign proposals, according to four people familiar with the discussions. The tax hikes included in any broader infrastructure and jobs package are likely to include repealing portions of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax law that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals, as well as making other changes to make the tax code more progressive, said the people familiar with the plan. The following are among proposals currently planned or under consideration, according to the people, who asked not to be named as the discussions are private: Raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21% Paring back tax preferences for so-called pass-through businesses, such as limited-liability companies or partnerships Raising the income tax rate on individuals earning more than $400,000 Expanding the estate tax’s reach A higher capital-gains tax rate for individuals earning at least $1 million annually. (Biden on the campaign trail proposed applying income-tax rates, which would be higher) White House economist Heather Boushey underlined that Biden doesn’t intend to boost taxes on people earning less than $400,000 a year. But for “folks at the top who’ve been able to benefit from this economy and haven’t been this hard hit, there’s a lot of room there to think about what kinds of revenue we can raise,” she said in a Bloomberg TV interview Monday. An independent analysis of the Biden campaign tax plan done by the Tax Policy Center estimated it would raise $2.1 trillion over a decade, though the administration’s plan is likely to be smaller. Bianchi earlier this month wrote that congressional Democrats might agree to $500 billion. The overall program has yet to be unveiled, with analysts penciling in $2 trillion to $4 trillion. No date has yet been set for an announcement, though the White House said the plan would follow the signing of the Covid-19 relief bill. An outstanding question for Democrats is which parts of the package need to be funded, amid debate over whether infrastructure ultimately pays for itself -- especially given current borrowing costs, which remain historically low. Efforts to make the expanded child tax credit in the pandemic-aid bill permanent -- something with a price tag estimated at more than $1 trillion over a decade -- could be harder to sell if pitched as entirely debt-financed. What Bloomberg’s Economists Say... “The next major legislative initiative, infrastructure investment, could provide the sort of durable economic gains that not only support higher pay, but promote diffusion of those gains across demographic lines and political persuasions.” --Andrew Husby and Eliza Winger, U.S. economists Democrats would need at least 10 Republicans to back the bill to move it under regular Senate rules. But GOP members are signaling they are prepared to fight. “We’ll have a big robust discussion about the appropriateness of a big tax increase,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said last month, predicting Democrats would pursue a reconciliation bill that forgoes the GOP and would aim for a corporate tax even higher than 28%. Kevin Brady, the top Republican on the House Ways & Means Committee, said, “There seems to a be a real drive to tax investment of capital gains at marginal income rates,” and called that a “terrible economic mistake.” While about 18% of the George W. Bush administration’s tax cuts were allowed to expire in a 2013 deal, and other legislation has seen some increases in levies, 1993 marks the last comprehensive set of increases, experts say. That bill passed on a two-vote margin in the House and required the vice president to break a tie in the Senate. “I don’t think it is an understatement to say the current partisan environment is more severe than 1993” said Ken Kies, managing director of the Federal Policy Group, a former chief of staff of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. “So you can draw your own conclusions” about prospects for a deal this year, he said. Still, there could be some tax initiatives Republicans could get behind. One is a shift from a gasoline tax to a vehicle-miles-traveled fee to help fund highway projects. Read More: By-the-Mile Vehicle Tax to Help Fund Infrastructure Gains Steam Another is more money for Internal Revenue Service enforcement -- a way to boost revenue without raising rates. Estimates have found that for every additional $1 spent on IRS audits, the agency brings in an additional $3 to $5. Democrats are also looking to revise tax laws that they say don’t do enough to stop U.S. companies from shifting jobs and profits offshore as another way to raise revenue, one aide said. Republicans could potentially support incentives, though it’s unclear whether they’d back penalties. White House officials including deputy director of the National Economic Council, David Kamin -- who wrote a 2019 paper on “Taxing the Rich” -- are in the process of fleshing out the Biden tax plans. Lawmakers have their own ideas for tax reforms. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden wants to consolidate energy tax breaks and require investors to pay taxes regularly on their investments including stocks and bonds that have unrealized gains. “A nurse pays taxes with every single paycheck. A billionaire in an affluent suburb on the other hand can defer paying taxes month after month to the point where their paying taxes is pretty much optional,” Wyden told Bloomberg in an interview. “I don’t think that’s right.” Warren has pitched a wealth tax, while House Financial Services Committee Chair Maxine Waters has said she would like to consider a financial-transaction tax. Democratic strategists see the next package as effectively the last chance to reshape the U.S. economy on a grand scale before lawmakers turn to the 2022 mid-term campaign. “Normally, the party in power gets one or two shots to do major legislative packages,” said Chuck Marr, senior director of Federal Tax Policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “This is the next shot.” — With assistance by Erik Wasson, and David Westin
I don’t want to see a tax hike, but I don’t see another solution after trumps deficit snd botched Covid response that has costed the country trillions in what would have been unnecessary stimulus money.
Joe's making it seem like he's being charitable to the poors but his 28% bump proposal ain't no 35%; which was the corporate tax rate before Trump gave wall street tax cuts the country nor the treasury needed with record employment. Joe's proposal is still a gift to corporate America, and our kids will still be paying for that gift and Trump's COVID fuck ups https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190522_R45736_8a1214e903ee2b719e00731791d60f26d75d35f4.pdf
Even a moron can sign a bunch of executive orders written by his handlers. Did you ET trolls see your Usurper in Chief being told by an underling to just sign the Executive Order? That was on video too complete with sound bites. No, overturning laws designed to protect Americans and their jobs just shows the utter incompetence and arrogance of extreme liberal Democrats. You ET trolls do not even have an ounce of a brain to realize how stupid you all look cheering your moron on to go ahead and destroy the US from within?