News – Page 2492 – 105.7 WDNY

Allies unsure of Biden’s policies, clout as he takes world stage

October 28, 2021 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — As President Joe Biden jets off to Europe to meet with allies, some of the United States’ closest partners are still wondering if America is truly “back” as Biden proclaimed earlier this year.

Cautious about Biden’s domestic standing, and smarting from his lack of coordination on the withdrawal from Afghanistan, they are concerned whether his presidency truly represents a break from the isolationist, confrontational foreign policies of his predecessor, President Donald Trump, according to U.S. foreign policy experts.

Biden’s second trip abroad as president will take him to Rome and Scotland, where he’ll attend international summits aimed at tackling the coronavirus pandemic, global finance and the climate crisis.

But the excitement over Biden’s arrival on the world stage has belied the fact that he’s continued some key Trump policies, such as tariffs on China and a general pivot — started under President Barack Obama — toward Asia and the Pacific. Congressional inaction on fighting climate change also has the potential to weaken Biden’s hand.

“I think there was probably too high expectation that we could just turn the page of the last four years, or maybe we attributed to Trump some policies that were more structural, such as the U.S. shift to China and to the Indo-Pacific,” Benjamin Haddad, the senior director of the Europe Center at the Atlantic Council, told ABC News.

Is America really ‘back’?

When the president took to the world stage for his first trip abroad, with a June trip to the United Kingdom, Belgium and Switzerland, he and other world leaders celebrated the United States’ changed tone.

Biden preached multilateralism, which Trump had maligned for four years. And European allies rejoiced.

When Macron met the U.S. president during a summit in England, the French leader told reporters that he “definitely” believed “America is back.”

“I think it’s great,” Macron said, “to have the U.S. president part of the club and very willing to cooperate.”

But French-U.S. relations hit a major snag last month when the Biden administration announced it would sell Australia nuclear submarines — resulting in Australia canceling a major defense deal with France.

France recalled its ambassador from Washington in response to the so-called “sub snub,” and its foreign minister compared Biden’s style to Trump’s.

But since then, Biden and Macron have sought to repair ties: They held a phone call last week, have launched meetings between senior officials from both countries, and on Friday, plan to meet in Rome. Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Paris next month, too, according to her office.

“In many ways, this is not just about the French,” Célia Belin, an expert on trans-Atlantic relations at the Brookings Institution, told ABC News. “It goes to the core of the conversation that the U.S. should be having with their allies, which is, what do you actually expect from European allies in the Indo-Pacific?”

What’s at stake in Rome and Glasgow

Before those major hiccups, Biden’s reception in Europe stood in stark contrast with the constant spats — both personal and policy-wise — between U.S. allies and Trump.

Calling his foreign policy “America First,” Trump actively sought to lessen American commitments abroad.

He pulled the United States out of international organizations and treaties and publicly called on allies to pay more for defense. His fights with foreign leaders marred the international summits he did attend.

Biden campaigned in large part on reversing the damage he said Trump had caused, and when he won the presidency, U.S. allies rattled by years of instability from Washington had high hopes of a return to the pre-Trump years.

“The decisions that the administration has taken, very much and consistent with the domestic mood and polarization, have left them quite disappointed,” Heather Conley, the director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said.

Allies are now facing the decision of whether to work independently of the United States on certain issues, uncertain whether Biden’s young administration will truly restore America’s relationship with the world, Conley said.

“I think the question for me is, moving forward, has the administration understood that these decisions have profoundly challenged and questioned our allies as far as our credibility?” she said. “Can we restore that trust?”

Biden planned to arrive in Rome late Thursday ahead of a Friday meeting with Macron, and another meeting with Pope Francis at the Vatican.

In the Italian capital, the president also planned to attend a summit of the leaders of rich and developing nations known as the Group of 20, or G-20, where he plans to formalize an international agreement on a 15% minimum tax for corporations. The global response to the coronavirus pandemic and other global finance issues are also expected to take center stage.

Biden then plans to travel to Glasgow, Scotland, where on Monday and Tuesday, he is scheduled to attend the U.N. climate change conference known as COP26. The U.S. is pushing countries to cement emissions-reduction targets they had set as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

He won’t have the opportunity to meet in person with two leaders who play a key role on climate and security issues: Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. They plan to attend the summits virtually, citing the COVID-19 situation in their countries.

‘It’s nice to have a win’

Biden had hoped to travel abroad with two major pieces of legislation in his pocket: his bipartisan $1 trillion physical infrastructure bill, which has already passed the Senate, and his larger social package — which he calls the “Build Back Better” bill and is full of Democratic priorities like universal pre-kindergarten, expanded healthcare, guaranteed paid leave and programs to combat the climate crisis.

Strong climate provisions, in particular, could lend him credibility at COP26, showing the United States put its money where its mouth is as it hectors developing nations to commit to lowering emissions — and others to fulfill their pledges.

A recent report by the New York-based research institute Rhodium Group — frequently cited by the White House — found that the only way the U.S. could meet its goal of halving its 2005 emissions levels by 2030 would be with congressional action. Experts have questioned whether the climate provisions in the “Build Back Better” bill will have enough teeth to help the U.S. meet that target.

“I’m presenting a commitment to the world that we will, in fact, get to net zero emissions on electric power by 2035 and net zero emissions across the board by 2050 or before,” Biden said last week during a town hall hosted by CNN, referencing COP26. “But we have to do so much between now and 2030 to demonstrate what we’re going to — that we’re going to do.”

Twin legislative victories would also show allies that Biden had political strength and could push through the policies he champions when abroad. They could also help him with sagging poll numbers at home.

“For messaging purposes, it’s nice to have a win when you’re abroad that you can brag about a little bit,” Amanda Rothschild, who served as a speechwriter on the Trump White House’s National Security Council, told ABC News.

Putting money where his mouth is

The president had made clear that he wanted his $1 trillion physical infrastructure deal to pass Congress by the time he departed, and that he also wanted a deal on his larger social bill — which is expected to contain massive climate-related investments.

When it became clear in recent days that might not be possible in time for the trip, the White House has emphasized, instead, that Democratic lawmakers’ negotiations seem to be coming to a conclusion soon.

Biden’s top national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told reporters Tuesday that U.S. allies are “excited” about the investments the president is pursuing in climate change, clean energy, infrastructure, and domestic economic growth.

“They want to see the United States making these investments,” Sullivan said. “They also recognize that the United States has a set of democratic institutions, has a Congress; that this is a process; that it needs to be worked through.”

Sullivan, though, said world leaders understood the ups and downs of policy-making.

“I think you’ve got a sophisticated set of world leaders,” he said, “who understand politics in their own country, and understand American democracy, and recognize that working through a complex, far-reaching negotiation on some of the largest investments in modern memory in the United States — that that takes time.”

Haddad, of the Atlantic Council, said European allies were less interested in the nitty gritty of legislating and more on practical matters like Republicans blocking the confirmation of most of Biden’s ambassadorial nominees.

“I don’t think the day-to-day negotiations in Congress are really being noticed in Europe,” Haddad said. “But the domestic political paralysis does have an impact on U.S. leadership.”

But if Biden arrives in Europe without those pieces of legislation in hand, “it’s going to be much harder for him to make the case, you know, the U.S. is back,” Matthew Goodman, an expert on international economic policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said.

Still, Biden’s not Trump — and even if allies are nervous, the fledgling administration still has time to gain its footing on the international front, after spending much of its time focused on the domestic economic recovery, according to Goodman, who served in the White House and State Department under President Barack Obama.

“I think the rest of the world is going to be relieved that, you know, it’s not Donald Trump at the table, frankly,” Goodman, who served in the Obama administration, said. “He was considered a very disruptive force, and so I think, by comparison, Biden’s going to be well received in that sense.”

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has no health issues despite weight loss, South Korea says

October 28, 2021 by WDNY Radio

(SEOUL, South Korea) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has seemed to have lost 44 pounds in the past two years, according to South Korean lawmakers who were briefed by the country’s intelligence agency in a closed-door meeting.

The massive weight loss has prompted rumors and conspiracies that North Korea was using a Kim Jong Un body double, which South Korea said is untrue.

South Korea’s National Intelligence Service conducted the assessment “based on various scientific methods including artificial intelligence” using super-resolution video analysis and a stereometry analysis model that gauges facial fat and weight, Rep. Kim Byung-Kee of the ruling Democratic Party told reporters.

Kim’s often-reported health problems do not pose any serious issues, South Korea said. The analysis also concluded that the conspiracy theories suggesting North Korea may have been exposing a Kim Jong Un look-alike are not credible.

The most noticeable change was the disappearance of the official portraits of his father and grandfather, former leaders Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung, from the main walls of official meetings. Instead, the communist regime religiously hung the two portraits in all public areas and individual homes.

“Kim seems to have been working on building a people-friendly image by releasing photos of him drinking beer and smoking together with high-level officials,” Byung-Kee said.

Kim has been more active in public appearances this year compared to the year before. So far, he has been seen through North Korean state media for a total of 70 days in 2021. In contrast, he appeared 49 times during the same time in 2020.

Biden makes last-minute push for agenda before heading overseas

October 28, 2021 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — In a last-minute push before heading overseas, President Joe Biden headed to Capitol Hill Thursday morning to try to get all Democrats behind his social spending and climate policy agenda.

On a call with reporters, senior administration officials laid out the framework of a $1.75 trillion social spending package President Biden will present to House Democrats, including skeptical progressives.

“The president believes this framework will earn the support of all 50 Democratic senators, and pass the House,” an administration official said.

Biden pulled up to the Capitol shortly after 9 a.m., flanked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, responding only with “It’s a good day” to a reporter asking what his message is to House progressives who don’t trust Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema who have been holdouts throughout the extended and often chaotic bargaining.

As he headed to the closed-door meeting, ABC News Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott asked, “Mister President, do you have a deal?” but Biden merely waved and said “How are you? Good to see you all.”

When reporters started shouting, “Do you think you have enough of a framework to get progressives to support the infrastructure bill?” Biden responded “Yes.”

The White House said he would give the nation an update on his domestic agenda before his international trip in a speech from the White House East Room at 11:30 a.m., saying he is “delivering” on his promises to rebuild the middle class.

“After hearing input from all sides and negotiating in good faith with Senators Manchin and Sinema, Congressional Leadership, and a broad swath of Members of Congress, President Biden is announcing a framework for the Build Back Better Act,” said a White House statement that notably did not say he had an agreement.

“President Biden is confident this is a framework that can pass both houses of Congress, and he looks forward to signing it into law. He calls on Congress to take up this historic bill – in addition to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act – as quickly as possible,” the statement said.

The White House said, “the framework will save most American families more than half of their spending on child care, deliver two years of free preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old in America, give more than 35 million families a major tax cut by extending the expanded Child Tax Credit, and expand access to high-quality home care for older Americans and people with disabilities.”

The Child Tax Credit expansion, which Biden has proposed extending until 2025, would now be only until the end of 2022. Paid family and medical leave, which Biden had originally proposed be 12 weeks and then scaled back to four weeks, appeared to have been dropped altogether after Manchin objected, despite progressives fighting back. Two free years of community college that Biden had promised is not included.

It also claimed it represents “the largest effort to combat climate change in American history” and “the biggest expansion of affordable health care coverage in a decade,” saying it would “reduce premiums for more than 9 million Americans by extending the expanded Premium Tax Credit, deliver health care coverage to up to 4 million uninsured people in states that have locked them out of Medicaid, and help older Americans access affordable hearing care by expanding Medicare.”

An expansion of Medicare to cover dental and vision, a top priority of Sen. Bernie Sanders, is not in the framework.

And, the White House said, “it is fully paid for … by making sure that large, profitable corporations can’t zero out their tax bills, no longer rewarding corporations that shift jobs and profits overseas, asking more from millionaires and billionaires, and stopping rich Americans from cheating on their tax bills.”

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

TikTok, phony doctors to blame for dangerous DIY lip filler trend: Experts

October 28, 2021 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — Young people everywhere are giving themselves lip filler using DIY methods seen on TikTok, and medical professionals want it to stop.

The popularity of lip filler has been on the rise for years, much thanks to celebrities like Kylie Jenner, who constantly promote the plump lip look. But because the beauty trend has become so common and the procedure so accessible, many people seem to have forgotten that it is, in fact, still a medical procedure that must be taken seriously.

“The omnipresence of medically-enhanced and Instagram filter-enhanced lips and other body parts on social media has led to a false perception that the procedures are easy to perform and carry no risk at all,” said Dr. Dmitry Schwarzburg, M.D., of New York City-based clinic Skinly Aesthetics.

Over the past two years, as people — possibly bored in quarantine during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic — spent more time on TikTok and Instagram, interest in and conversation around DIY filler and Botox treatments spiked. The hyaluron pen, for example, which can be purchased on Amazon or Etsy, has become one of the most popular tools to self-administer filler, thanks to social media. TikTok even has a #hyaluronpen hashtag where one can find over 65 million videos of people using or speaking about the pen.

Though at first glance, the tool does seem to work, Schwarzburg said it can cause life-threatening issues, or at the very least long-term damage to the lips. Unlike many other cosmetic procedures, it is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The hyaluron pen device essentially forces hyaluronic acid into the lips through the skin with very intense pressure,” he said. “This results in severe bruising, uneven distribution, lumping, and can cause severe and permanent tissue damage and potential for tissue infarction, secondary to obstruction of the blood vessels.”

He added that dermal filler, if desired, should only be applied with a needle, by a trained medical professional, using an approved substance.

Schwarzburg said he believes TikTok, Instagram and YouTube are responsible for the recent popularity of the hyaluron pen, and that unfortunately, many millennial and Gen Z users have bought into it, as they believe it means they can get their cosmetic procedure done at home, without a doctor, for a much lower price. At a reputable clinic, lip filler can cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, whereas a hyaluron pen goes for as little as $40 through an online vendor — a fact that matters greatly to many, especially those who’ve lost financial stability during the pandemic and are looking to take the cheaper route when it comes to their cosmetic procedures.

But medical professionals are advising people not to take a more dangerous, though inexpensive, route when it comes to fillers.

Stephanie Magana, 26, visited Skinly Aesthetics to get her lip filler dissolved after a different clinic used the hyaluron pen on her and left her with what she described as “white bumps all over my lips.”

She said she found the clinic on Instagram, and though “some of the results didn’t look so bad,” but as soon as the aesthetician administered the filler through the pen, she said she saw her lips swell up, bruise and develop strange bumps.

The clinic she went to did not answer ABC News’ request for comment.

“You don’t really think about it as being as scary, because it’s a pen,” she said, explaining that she chose to try out the pen because she initially thought it was safer and less invasive than a syringe.

After more than a week, with the bumps still not gone, Magana went to Schwarzburg, who dissolved the existing filler and injected her with FDA-approved Juvederm, to give her her desired results.

Schwarzburg said Magana is just one of many patients who’ve come to him this year with “botched filler” caused by unexperienced injectors.

What exactly is filler, and is it safe?

Fillers are often biodegradable substances that can be injected into or just below the skin. Hyaluronic acid — which is what most lip fillers are made up of — is a polysaccharide that is naturally produced by the body, and the filler works because when injected into the lip, it absorbs water from the body, “like a dry sponge thrown into water, which then creates volume and focal sterile inflammation,” Schwarzburg said.

Juvederm Ultra, Juvederm Voluma, Restylane Lyft and Revanesse tend to give more volume to the injected area, according to Schwarzburg, while Juvederm Volbella, Restylane Kysse, RHA fillers and Belotero are more subtle in their volume creation. These types of FDA-approved fillers are all often used by trained professionals to achieve volume in the lips and face.

“If injected properly, they essentially have a 100% safety profile,” Schwarzburg said, adding that some people can develop an allergy to the product, but that is rare and true of any injectable. Correctly administered fillers tend to last 6-15 months.

“As far as the technical aspect is concerned, the most dreaded complication is vascular occlusion, if the filler is inadvertently injected into one of the smaller branches of the facial artery, which if left unnoticed would lead to tissue necrosis, scarring and deformation,” Schwarzburg said, that’s why it’s so important that if a person is looking to get lip filler, they go to a trained expert who understands the human anatomy and the depths of the injections.

The qualifications of who can inject a patient with lip filler vary by country and by state, but in New York, doctors, physician assistants and nurses under the supervision of a doctor can legally administer it, Schwarzburg said.

Earlier this month, the FDA issued a warning about the use of the hyaluron pens.

“Today, the FDA is warning the public and health care professionals not to use needle-free devices such as hyaluron pens for injection of hyaluronic acid or other lip and facial fillers, collectively and commonly referred to as dermal fillers or fillers,” their statement, published on their website, reads. “Patients and healthcare providers should know that FDA has not approved any dermal fillers for over-the-counter sale for at-home use or for use with needle-free injection devices. These unapproved needle-free devices and fillers are often sold directly to customers online, bypassing consultation with a licensed health care provider, a critical safety measure for patients to make informed decisions about their personal health.”

It also said it is monitoring online platforms promoting these devices.

“We also want patients and providers to be vigilant by understanding which products have been approved by the FDA and the dangers of using unapproved products, some of which may be irreversible,” they said. “The FDA will continue to alert the public and take additional actions as necessary in order to protect public health.”

How to put a stop to this trend

Schwarzburg said that while he and other medical professionals are glad millennials are helping destigmatize safe cosmetic medicine by opening up about their experiences and procedures on social media, that openness has unfortunately also helped spread misinformation about the field as a whole, and essentially caused this potentially risky DIY filler trend.

The solution? Do your research, read the FDA guidelines, don’t take the cheap route when it comes to altering your appearance and don’t fall for the fake doctors who make these kinds of procedures appear safer and easier than an actual medical procedure, Schwarzburg said.

“I don’t think that this trend will last very long, as eventually people will come to realize that the whole thing is a dangerous scam, similar to the suction lip enhancements or suction butt enhancements that were trendy a few years ago, that are now joked about on the internet due to the ridiculous results that people were getting,” he added.

New York woman sues Kellogg’s for $5 million over Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts

October 28, 2021 by WDNY Radio

New York woman sues Kellogg’s for million over Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts

(NEW YORK) — A woman from New York is suing The Kellogg Company for $5 million because she says the company’s Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts product doesn’t have enough strawberries in its filling.

Elizabeth Russett filed a class-action lawsuit on Oct. 19 with lawyer Spencer Sheehan against Kellogg’s for falsely advertising the contents of its pastry.

“The strawberry representations are misleading because the Product has less strawberries than consumers expect based on the labeling,” the lawsuit says.

“The amount of strawberry ingredients is insufficient not merely to provide the nutrient benefits of strawberries but to provide a strawberry taste.”

The lawsuit asks for $5 million in damages under the Class Action Fairness Act and a jury trial, claiming that customers wouldn’t have purchased the treats repeatedly had they known it had fewer strawberries than expected. Russett is joined by three other plaintiffs — Illinois’ Stacy Chiappetta and Anita Harris and New York’s Kelvin Brown — who are also represented by Sheehan.

Despite its name, the Whole Grain Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts’ box states the pastries have less than 2% of pears, apples and strawberries with dried pears and dried apples listed before dried strawberries. The product is described on the company’s website as having “sweet frosting decorated with rainbow sprinkles and filled with strawberry-flavored goodness.”

“The Product’s common or usual name of ‘ Whole Grain Frosted Strawberry Toaster Pastries,’ is false, deceptive, and misleading, because it contains mostly non-strawberry fruit ingredients,” Russett’s lawsuit says.

The plaintiff also takes issue with the absence of information regarding artificial flavoring and added coloring on the front label and marketing materials.

Kellogg’s said in a statement to ABC News: “While we don’t comment on pending litigation, we can tell you the ingredients in and labeling of all of our Pop-Tart products fully comply with all legal requirements.”

COVID-19 live updates: Nearly two-thirds of Americans have had at least one vaccine dose

October 28, 2021 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — As the COVID-19 pandemic has swept the globe, more than 4.9 million people have died from the disease worldwide, including over 740,000 Americans, according to real-time data compiled by Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Systems Science and Engineering.

Just 67.3% of Americans ages 12 and up are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Oct 27, 6:43 pm
New York City braces for possible mandate-related reduction in fire, EMS service

New York City Fire Commissioner Daniel Nigro said Wednesday he’s preparing to make major operational changes next week as significant portion of the city’s firefighters and EMS personnel haven’t complied with the city’s vaccine mandate.

“We will use all means at our disposal, including mandatory overtime, mutual aid from other EMS providers, and significant changes to the schedules of our members,” he said in a statement.

The mandate for all New York City public employees will go into effect at the end of day Friday. The FDNY said that 65% of its members were vaccinated as of Wednesday.

An FDNY official told ABC News that by Monday fire and ambulance services could be reduced by as much as 20%.

FDNY leadership has held virtual meetings with uniformed staff explaining the vaccine mandate and imploring them to comply, and will continue doing so throughout the week, the official said.

Oct 27, 3:29 pm
CDC advisers to vote Nov. 2 on pediatric vaccines

The CDC’s independent advisors plan to discuss and hold a non-binding vote on the recommendations for the pediatric vaccine on Nov. 2.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky will likely endorse those recommendations for 5 to 11-year-olds following the vote that day.

Vaccinations can start as soon as Walensky sends out final recommendations.

Meanwhile, the FDA’s decision to authorize the pediatric vaccine is expected in the coming days.

Oct 27, 10:22 am
Nearly two-thirds of Americans have had at least 1 vaccine dose

Nearly two-thirds of all Americans — 220 million people — have had at least one vaccine dose, according to federal data.

But 111 million Americans remain completely unvaccinated, including about 48 million children under the age of 12, who are not yet eligible to get the shot.

National metrics continue to fall, according to federal data. About 51,000 Americans are currently hospitalized with COVID-19, down from 104,000 patients at the end of August

Deaths are are trending down, though numbers remain quite high at over 1,100 fatalities each day.

How the proposed billionaires’ income tax would work

October 28, 2021 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — A proposal to levy a new tax code on America’s ultra-wealthy has sent shockwaves through the nation’s capital and beyond on Wednesday, as lawmakers struggle to reach an agreement over how to pay for President Joe Biden’s trillion-dollar Build Back Better initiative.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on Wednesday morning unveiled a scheme dubbed the “Billionaires Income Tax,” which would tax capital gains on the unsold assets of billionaires — such as stocks — and significantly impact some of the nation’s wealthiest people, such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Musk, whose net worth is currently $287 billion per Bloomberg’s real-time data on billionaires, signaled on Twitter that he opposes the proposal.

“Eventually, they run out of other people’s money and then they come for you,” Musk wrote in response to a tweet featuring a templated letter opponents can send to their congressperson. The letter says that although holdings in 401(k) plans are excluded, the proposal takes tax hikes “a step closer to imposing unrealized capital gains tax on the average investor.”

As the wealthiest man in the world, however, Musk is far from the average investor, and has seen his net worth increase by some $117 billion in 2021 alone, per Bloomberg’s count.

While the proposal has garnered backing from the White House, it has already divided Washington, with some critics calling it unconstitutional, convoluted or unfairly targeting a specific group of people who have contributed to America’s economic growth.

Wyden and proponents, meanwhile, say it will help ensure the billionaires pay their fair share of taxes after reports that some of the richest 1% of Americans have legally avoided paying taxes on their wealth gains despite their net worths increasing dramatically — and at a time of massive wealth inequality in the U.S. that experts have said is exacerbated by America’s tax codes being tilted in favor of the wealthy.

Though it currently faces an uphill battle in implementation, here is what to know about the proposed billionaires’ income tax.

Who would be hit with the new tax?

The new tax would apply to roughly 700 taxpayers, according to a statement from Wyden’s office, or those with more than $100 million in annual income or more than $1 billion in assets for three consecutive years. With a population of 328 million, this means the new tax would impact less than 0.001% of Americans.

The wealth of billionaires tends to be more tied up in stocks compared to working-class Americans. The wealthiest 1% of households in the U.S. own more than half of all the publicly traded stock in the market, according to Federal Reserve data, and the bottom 50% own less than 1%.

Recent investigative reports, including a bombshell leak of tax documents to the nonprofit news organization ProPublica earlier this year, have found that the ultra-wealthy use legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes on their wealth gains — such as keeping their reported income, and thus income taxes, to just a fraction of what their net worth actually is. Musk, for example, earned a base salary of $0 at Tesla in 2020, according to SEC filings.

The ProPublica report found that while the median American household paid 14% of their income in federal taxes, the wealthiest 25 Americans had an average so-called “true tax rate” of 3.4% of the amount their wealth grew each year between 2014 and 2018.

Wyden alluded to this divide, saying that the Billionaires Income Tax would ensure “billionaires pay tax every year, just like working Americans.”

“There are two tax codes in America,” Wyden said in a statement accompanying his proposal on Wednesday. “The first is mandatory for workers who pay taxes out of every pay check. The second is voluntary for billionaires who defer paying taxes for years, if not indefinitely.”

How does it work?

Under current tax codes, if the value of stocks rises it can lead to swift, multimillion dollar gains in the net worth of the nation’s wealthiest individuals — but they don’t have to pay taxes on these wealth gains unless they sell the stocks.

Wyden’s proposal would ask billionaires to pay an annual tax on gains or take deductions for losses whether they sell the stocks or not.

“The way the system works today is that if you make a profit on assets that you hold, they’re worth more at the end of the year than the beginning. You don’t pay tax unless you sell those assets,” Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told ABC News on Wednesday.

“There are trillions of dollars in increased value of assets that simply go untaxed,” Gleckman added. “And that is one big reason for the income inequality, and the fact that the rich have gotten so much richer.”

Non-tradable assets like real estate or business interests would not be taxed annually, but when billionaires sell or transfer these non-tradable assets, they would pay a capital gains tax in addition to an interest charge that Wyden’s office labels as akin to interest charged on deferred tax.

The interest charge — or “deferral recapture amount,” as Wyden is calling it, would be the amount of interest that would be due on tax owed if the asset had been marked to market each year and the tax had been deferred until sale. The interest rate applied would be 1.22%, per Wyden’s office, or the applicable federal short term rate (currently 0.22%) plus one percentage point.

The proposal contains rules to help smooth the transition, such as being able to treat up to $1 billion of tradable stock in a single corporation as a non-tradable asset. It would also let billionaires elect to pay tax over five years the first time the billionaires’ tradable assets are marked to market.

The full, 107-page text of the tax proposal can be found here.

Gleckman said he sees potential issues arising if a major asset goes down in value and are calculated as losses by billionaires, and because of the potential for confusion over the valuation of privately held, non-tradable assets.

“The bottom line, the 30,000-foot level, this is a very interesting idea but it is very hard to administer,” Gleckman said. “This is not a wealth tax, but it has some of the common administrative problems of a wealth tax — the biggest being it’s hard to value the assets of rich people.”

Is it constitutional?

A legal challenge likely looms if the proposal is enacted, and critics have already questioned the constitutionality of taxing unrealized or unsold capital gains.

Under current law, the government has the power to tax “income” due to the 16th Amendment, but new wealth gains are only classified as income when they are realized or sold, not simply held. The Supreme Court in 1920 ruled that stock dividends did not become taxable as income until they were sold or converted.

This definition of income has benefits to working- and middle-class Americans, as they do not have to pay taxes on retirement savings such as their 401(k)s when they increase in value until they cash out.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki, however, signaled that they believe the new tax has legal footing.

When asked about the questionable constitutionality of the tax, Psaki said, “We’re not going to support anything we don’t think is legal.”

“The president supports the billionaire tax,” she added. “He looks forward to working with Congress and Chairman Wyden to make sure the highest income Americans pay their fair share.”

In a statement to ABC News, Wyden defended his proposal from critics, saying, “Entire sections of the tax code are unconstitutional if this is unconstitutional.”

“I can’t imagine the Supreme Court wants to give the wealthiest people on earth billions in tax cuts, particularly at a time when so many Americans are losing faith in the Supreme Court,” he added.

Eric Garner’s mother speaks out on first days of NYPD judicial inquiry

October 27, 2021 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — Petitioners in the judicial inquiry over the death of Eric Garner, who was killed by NYPD officers during an arrest for the alleged selling of untaxed cigarettes, are speaking out as the proceedings continue.

The petitioners represent leaders of the community fighting against racial injustice, including Garner’s mother, Gwen Carr. Together, they hope that the line of questioning will offer more insight and transparency into the fatal 2014 incident.

In a video conference with reporters, the petitioners called for the firing of officers involved in the incident who are testifying.

“I am sick and tired of listening to the lies,” Carr said. “These officers should not be on the force. They should have been fired immediately.”

The unique proceeding is hosting 13 NYPD officers and sergeants, who are testifying on the events surrounding Garner’s arrest, death and the alleged leak of several documents related to Garner and the incident. It will not result in any charges for those involved or any legal rulings.

On July 17, 2014, Garner was suspected by NYPD police officers Daniel Pantaleo and Justin D’Amico of selling untaxed cigarettes. Garner denied the accusation, but the police then tried to arrest the 43-year-old Black man.

Pantaleo used a prohibited chokehold that has been banned by the NYPD since the 1990s on Garner in order to detain him. Garner told officers “I can’t breathe” 11 times before falling unconscious.

Garner was left lying on the sidewalk for several minutes while officers waited for an ambulance to arrive, and was declared dead at the hospital.

Pantaleo, who committed the chokehold that led to Garner’s death will not be involved in the inquiry. He was fired in 2019 following a department disciplinary trial for using a banned chokehold method. Pantaleo was not indicted in Garner’s death.

He denies any wrongdoing. Garner’s family reached a $5.9 million settlement with the city over the incident.

Christopher Bannon, who was a special operations lieutenant at the time of Garner’s death, texted shortly after the incident that Garner’s death was “not a big deal” because he believed the arrest was lawful. On Monday, Bannon further testified that he still believes the arrest was lawful.

“My son lay dead on the ground and he said it wasn’t a big deal,” Carr said. “Well, officer Bannon, it was a big deal to me. That was my son. You had no sympathy or empathy for him.”

D’Amico admitted in testimony to falsities and mistakes he made when filing the initial incident report in his testimony; he claimed that no physical force was used during Garner’s arrest, and he also charged Garner with a tax-avoidance felony.

Garner only had four sealed packs of cigarettes on him, as well as an opened fifth pack that contained 15 cigarettes, however, a felony charge usually applies only to people in possession of at least 10,000 cigarettes.

D’Amico also claimed in testimony this week that he never heard Garner say that he couldn’t breathe.

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Affairs Joseph Reznick said in testimony that the Internal Affairs Bureau did not punish or investigate D’Amico for logging the false charge or falsity in the report, nor did they investigate media leaks of Garner’s medical and arrest history.

Petitioners on the press conference detested the actions being revisited and defended by officials.

“It’s horrendous that we are seven years later and they’re continuing to lie and they’re continuing to be on the force and that the mayor and commissioner have not made any substantive changes to hold these officers responsible,” said Kesi Foster, a petitioner from social advocacy organization Make the Road New York.

Several social justice organizations have joined Carr in what she said is a fight to seek justice for her son.

“Many of these kinds of offenses should be immediately fireable offenses,” said Joo-Hyun Kang, executive director of advocacy group Communities United for Police Reform and petitioner in the case.

“When you’re really talking about trying to end or reduce police violence that cannot happen unless you reduce the outside bloated budget, the bloated size, the outsized power, and the scope of the NYPD,” she added. “We have to reduce and limit the situations where officers are interacting with New Yorkers.”

ABC News’ Aaron Katersky contributed to this report.

Garland, under GOP attack, defends memo on violent threats against school board officials

October 27, 2021 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — A Senate hearing grew heated on Wednesday as Republicans repeatedly demanded Attorney General Merrick Garland retract and apologize for a memo he issued earlier this month aimed at addressing a rise in threats against school board officials around the country.

In an oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Garland defended the intent of the memo that had called for the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country to convene meetings with local officials to discuss strategies aimed at addressing the increase in threats.

“All it asks is for federal law enforcement to consult with, meet with local law enforcement to assess the circumstances, strategize about what may or may not be necessary, provide federal assistance if it is necessary,” Garland said.

Republicans, though, sought to characterize Garland’s directive as an order for FBI agents to investigate and pursue parents voicing concerns at school board meetings — which in recent months have been venues of intense debate over issues like policies to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and the teaching of race issues in American history.

Garland’s initial memo followed a letter sent by the National School Board Association to the White House that had requested federal assistance in addressing threats they argued should, in some cases, be classified as acts of “domestic terrorism.”

Following widespread backlash from Republicans and several state attorneys general, the NSBA issued an apology Monday for some of the language it included in the letter.

Asked over and over by Republicans whether he regretted issuing the memo following the NSBA’s apology, Garland said he did not.

“I have the letter from NSBA that you’re referring to and it apologizes for language in the letter, but it continues its concern about the safety of school officials and school staff,” Garland said in an exchange with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “The language in the letter that they disavow is language that was never included in my memo and never would have been. I did not adopt every concern that they had in their letter. I adopted only the concern about violence and threats of violence and that hasn’t changed.”

But the explanation did not stop Republicans in the more than 4-hour hearing from falsely accusing Garland of “siccing” the FBI and DOJ’s national security division on parents, as Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., accused Garland of doing in one exchange.

“This is shameful, this here, this testimony, your directive, your performance is shameful,” Cotton said. “Thank God you’re not on the Supreme Court. You should resign in disgrace, judge.”

“I wish if senators were concerned about this that they would quote my words,” Garland responded. “This memorandum is not about parents being able to object in their school boards. They are protected by the First Amendment as long as there are no threats of violence, they are completely protected.”

Garland also denied suggestions from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., that the White House effectively used him for political purposes by transmitting the NSBA’s letter to the Justice Department in order to have him take action to try and “intimidate parents.”

“Either you were just a vessel of political comms staffers at the White House or you yourself are in favor of politicizing the DOJ,” Sasse said.

“The purpose of this memorandum is to get our law enforcement to assess the extent of the problem and if there is no problem — if states and local law enforcement are capable of handling the problem, then there is no need for our involvement in it,” Garland said in response. “This memo does not say to begin prosecuting anybody. It says to make assessments. That’s what we do in the Justice Department, it has nothing to do with politics.”

Democrats in the hearing in several instances jumped to Garland’s defense, with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., using time near the hearing’s close to read off a list of incidents in recent months involving harassment or threats against school board officials.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Illi., also admonished the GOP members of the committee for their characterization of the memo.

“I wish my colleagues would reflect for a single moment as to why that memo is important not just for school board members, but to send a message across America that there’s a line we’re going to draw when it comes to political expression,” Durbin said. “When you say words, when you wave your arms, that’s all protected. When you threaten someone with violence or engage in acts of violence that is never going to be protected and shouldn’t be.”

Iran will resume indirect talks with US to revive nuclear deal, top negotiator says

October 27, 2021 by WDNY Radio

(TEHRAN, Iran) — Iran has agreed to restart negotiations over its nuclear program next month, its chief negotiator said Wednesday.

Those talks, in which Iran and the U.S. have engaged through intermediaries, come as the Obama-era nuclear deal hangs by a thread and amid warnings about Iran’s nuclear advances since Iran halted talks in June.

It’s unclear whether an agreement has been reached to resume talks, when they would begin and whether Iran still has preconditions like sanctions relief. Iran’s top negotiator, deputy foreign minister Ali Bagheri Kani, said the “exact date will be announced next week.”

A State Department spokesperson told ABC News the administration had “seen the reports but do not have any further details about a possible return to Vienna talks in November.”

Iran had halted those talks in the Austrian capital right before its presidential election in June, saying for months now that the new administration of hardliner Ebrahim Raisi needed time to transition and formulate his team.

But during that halt, Iran has advanced its nuclear program — expanding its stockpile of enriched uranium, enriching uranium to higher levels, spinning more centrifuges and more advanced ones — alarming U.S. officials.

It has also obstructed the work of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, whose chief said last week its monitoring ability is “no longer intact.”

The Biden administration has increasingly warned that while the door is still open to diplomacy, time is running out before restoring the deal would be pointless because of how advanced Iran’s nuclear program had become.

“This window will not remain open forever as Iran continues to take provocative nuclear steps, so we hope that they come to Vienna to negotiate quickly and in good faith,” the State Department spokesperson said Wednesday in a statement.

To critics, that window should have already been closed, while many analysts warned that Iran is still stalling, even as it talks about resuming negotiations.

“If they continue to stall while advancing their nuclear program, there may come a time when the U.S. or Israel turn to ‘plan B’,” tweeted Nicholas Miller, a Dartmouth College professor who researches nuclear proliferation.

The top U.S. negotiator, special envoy for Iran Rob Malley, said Monday there’s “shared impatience” with Iran among the U.S. and other negotiating parties — Russia, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the European Union, which coordinated the previous six rounds of talks.

“Time is not on our side. The JCPOA cannot survive forever,” Malley added, using an acronym for the nuclear deal’s formal name.

But there’s still a “strong preference for diplomacy, for an effort to revive the JCPOA,” he said, and said there’s “willingness” and “determination” from the Biden administration to make it happen.

On Wednesday, Bagheri met with Enrique Mora, a senior European Union diplomat who had been facilitating the talks. After their “serious and constructive conversation,” Bagheri tweeted, Iran “agreed to start negotiations by the end of November.”

But his boss, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian, also said Wednesday that while Iran would restart talks, it would not resume them with what had been agreed upon by June — jettisoning months of previous negotiations. He also called on the U.S. to release $10 billion of Iranian funds frozen by U.S. sanctions to build confidence ahead of any agreement.

That’s a sign of how far apart the new U.S. and Iranian governments are. Even if the parties convene again in Vienna, it will be a long road ahead to revive the deal.

As Abdollahian reiterated, Iran has demanded that the U.S. lift sanctions first, since it was former President Donald Trump who first violated the deal by exiting and reimposing sanctions. But President Joe Biden has committed to not lifting any sanctions until Iran returns to compliance — what his administration calls a “mutual return” to the deal — amid continued domestic criticism of the original agreement in Washington.

In the meantime, as Iranian centrifuges continue to spin, Iran hawks in the U.S. and Israel warn that it’s too late for diplomacy and that other options, including a possible military strike, must be considered.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has not engaged questions about a strike but told reporters two weeks ago the Biden administration was considering “every option to deal with the challenge posed by Iran.”

“We, of course, retain all other options to be able to deal with this program as necessary,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said Tuesday. “But beyond that, I’m not going to comment further because we believe there still is an opportunity to resolve this diplomatically.”

+ More