Upgrade2754

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/3239908

Despite the impressive growth in broad economic indicators like GDP and a reduction in unemployment, millions of Americans are grappling with an ongoing humanitarian crisis. The Democrats' touted economic recovery, often referred to as "Bidenomics," faces scrutiny as food insecurity reaches its highest level since Biden took office, and financial hardship in 2023 is worse than in the previous three years. While the initial aid measures helped alleviate the blow of the COVID-19 pandemic, the subsequent failure to enact a robust social agenda and the termination of temporary aid programs have left many Americans struggling. The situation is compounded by the fact that the country's strong economic recovery has not translated into welfare for many, as financial distress increased significantly after the expiration of pandemic aid programs. This dichotomy between macroeconomic success and the reality on the ground has led to growing discontent, with recent polls reflecting low approval of Biden's economic leadership.

Summary:
In a significant setback for railroad safety reform, contributions from a major oil corporation may have stalled critical legislation in Congress. Occidental Petroleum, the producer of the toxic chemicals released during a train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, earlier this year, donated $2 million to the Senate GOP's super PAC as bipartisan rail safety legislation was delayed. The American Chemistry Council, Occidental's lobbying arm, also donated $250,000 to the House GOP's super PAC while campaigning for amendments that would weaken the proposed bill.

The rail safety bill, initially presented as a landmark opportunity to impose new regulations on the rail industry, appears doomed six months after the East Palestine disaster. Despite comprehensive amendments proposed by Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), the legislation is still not expected to garner sufficient Republican support for Senate passage. As part of the amendments, the deadline to replace older, puncture-vulnerable tank cars with safer models was extended by three years — a move heavily promoted by chemical and rail supply industry lobbyists. The derailment in East Palestine involved flammable and carcinogenic vinyl chloride being transported in such outdated tank cars.

Summary:

Democrats are becoming increasingly concerned about a possible drop in Black voter turnout for the 2024 presidential election, according to party insiders. The worries arise from a 10% decrease in Black voter turnout in the 2022 midterms compared to 2018, a more substantial decline than any other racial or ethnic group, as per a Washington Post analysis. The decline was particularly significant among younger and male Black voters in crucial states like Georgia, where Democrats aim to mobilize Black voter support for President Biden in 2024.

The Democratic party has acknowledged the need to bolster their outreach efforts to this demographic. W. Mondale Robinson, founder of the Black Male Voter Project, highlighted the need for Democrats to refocus their attention on Black male voters, who have shown lower levels of engagement. In response, Biden's team has pledged to communicate more effectively about the benefits that the Black community has reaped under Biden's administration, according to Cedric L. Richmond, a senior advisor at the Democratic National Committee.

However, Black voter advocates have identified deep-seated issues affecting Black voter turnout. Many Black men reportedly feel detached from the political process and uninspired by both parties' policies. Terrance Woodbury, CEO of HIT Strategies, a polling firm, suggests that the Democratic party's focus on countering Trump and Republican extremism doesn't motivate younger Black men as much as arguments focused on policy benefits. Concerns are growing within the party that if they fail to address these issues, disenchanted Black voters might either abstain or, potentially, be swayed by Republican messaging on certain key issues.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2577999

This summer has emerged as the warmest in recorded history, following last year's record-breaking levels of global fossil fuel consumption which continue to escalate the climate crisis. Amid this alarming scenario, former President Barack Obama and his top White House strategist, David Axelrod, have taken to public platforms to decry climate inaction, despite their past contributions to the exacerbation of this crisis. The pair chose to escalate fossil fuel production during their time in power rather than prioritize climate policy, even as they enjoyed a significant influx of campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Obama's 2018 boast about the unprecedented fossil fuel boom under his presidency, advised by Axelrod, highlights the contradiction between their past actions and their current advocacy for climate action.

While they now publicly advocate for climate policy, their refusal to acknowledge their past contributions to the climate crisis stands in stark contrast. This posturing risks rendering their recent statements as mere lip service, undermining the accountability needed for the United States to adhere to its climate commitments. This contradiction was underscored this week when President Joe Biden acknowledged climate change as an "existential threat," but refrained from declaring a climate emergency or limiting fossil fuel extraction. This strategy, initially adopted by Obama and Axelrod, could potentially be reformed if they were to openly accept their past roles in escalating the crisis and used their significant influence to advocate for stronger action from Biden and other Democratic leaders to adhere to the Paris Agreement.

This summer has emerged as the warmest in recorded history, following last year's record-breaking levels of global fossil fuel consumption which continue to escalate the climate crisis. Amid this alarming scenario, former President Barack Obama and his top White House strategist, David Axelrod, have taken to public platforms to decry climate inaction, despite their past contributions to the exacerbation of this crisis. The pair chose to escalate fossil fuel production during their time in power rather than prioritize climate policy, even as they enjoyed a significant influx of campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Obama's 2018 boast about the unprecedented fossil fuel boom under his presidency, advised by Axelrod, highlights the contradiction between their past actions and their current advocacy for climate action.

While they now publicly advocate for climate policy, their refusal to acknowledge their past contributions to the climate crisis stands in stark contrast. This posturing risks rendering their recent statements as mere lip service, undermining the accountability needed for the United States to adhere to its climate commitments. This contradiction was underscored this week when President Joe Biden acknowledged climate change as an "existential threat," but refrained from declaring a climate emergency or limiting fossil fuel extraction. This strategy, initially adopted by Obama and Axelrod, could potentially be reformed if they were to openly accept their past roles in escalating the crisis and used their significant influence to advocate for stronger action from Biden and other Democratic leaders to adhere to the Paris Agreement.

Matt Stoller discusses how Mr. Beast is facing challenges with his new food company from large monopolies in the US.

Summary:

The health insurer Friday Health Plans, supported by private equity, was ordered by Colorado state regulators to cease operations, leaving 30,000 policyholders without health insurance. This follows the path of Bright Health, another private equity-backed insurer that had to terminate its business, affecting hundreds of thousands of policyholders. These events highlight the risks of private equity entering an already unstable health insurance market, with over a million people losing their health insurance due to the failures of these two companies. The private equity business model, centered on profit extraction rather than provision of consistent, affordable care, often results in worse patient outcomes. The collapses expose regulatory gaps, where these insurers were approved to operate without adequate capital and oversight.