No tips for Biden Administration…

The first article I posted was written by an Establishment Op-Ed author, Eugene Robinson, fyi.

U.S. Billionaires’ Pandemic Profits Could Fund $3.9K Stimulus Checks—Obama-era Economist

The $1.3 trillion wealth gain by America’s billionaires since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic could pay for a stimulus check of $3,900 for every U.S. citizen, the former Labour Secretary under Bill Clinton and Economic Advisor to former President Barack Obama has said.

Professor Robert Reich, who served as Labor Secretary under Democratic President Bill Clinton between 1993 and 1997, made the comments on Twitter. Reich also served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, and was a member of Former President Barrack Obama’s economic transition advisory board.

Biden Unveils Huge COVID Relief Plan: What To Know About $1,400 Stimulus Checks And More
“The $1.3 trillion wealth gain by America’s 660 billionaires since the pandemic began could pay for a stimulus check of $3,900 for every one of the 331 million people in the U.S.,” said Reich.

“And the billionaires would be as rich as they were before the pandemic. Tax the billionaires,” he added.

President Joe Biden is proposing a $1.9 trillion COVID rescue package, but Republicans in Congress have criticized it, saying it is too costly. Republicans have also resisted sending families stimulus checks most of last year, claiming they were too expensive.

However, a poll on February 24 conducted by Morning Consult, found that the majority of Republicans support Biden’s coronavirus relief package. Sixty percent of GOP legislators said they supported it, compared to 89 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of independents.

Overall 76 percent of Americans said they support the $1.9 trillion stimulus package, which includes $1,400 direct payments to eligible Americans, extended unemployment benefits and funding to states and local governments.

Reich, now a public policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said U.S. is living through a “second gilded age” where wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few at the top.

The former government official told Newsweek: “We’re in a Second Gilded Age which—just like the first—featured concentrated wealth in a few hands at the top, monopolistic practices, wage and voter suppression, wide inequality, and corruption (now called political donations). Then, it was steel magnates like Andrew Carnegie, railroad barons like Cornelius Vanderbilt, and oil tycoons like John D. Rockefeller.

“Now, it’s Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and a gaggle of Wall Street financiers. But the effects are similar. As the great jurist Louis Brandeis said, toward the end of the first Gilded Age, ‘we have a choice. We can either have great wealth in the hands of a few, or we can have a democracy. But we cannot have both.'”

The total wealth of America’s 664 billionaires—$4.2 trillion—is also more than two-thirds higher than the $2.4 trillion in total wealth held by the bottom half of the population, 165 million Americans, according to Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies.

The richest 1 percent of the population in America pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7 percent, little more than 19.3 percent paid by someone making an average of $75,000.

Reich also took aim at government military spending.

“For the cost of the $1.7 trillion failed fighter jet program, the government could have provided $5,135 survival checks for every one of the 331 million people in the U.S. today,” he said on Twitter on Thursday.

Excited for the day the parlamentarian rules we cant funds wars and police

— Iola Ella (@IolaElla) February 26, 2021

Some Democrats want to fire the Senate parliamentarian who scuttled $15 minimum-wage plans. It’s been done once before.

But at least one lawmaker called for an even more radical solution: firing the Senate’s referee.

“Abolish the filibuster. Replace the parliamentarian,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said in a tweet Thursday. “What’s a Democratic majority if we can’t pass our priority bills? This is unacceptable.”

The Biden administration showed little appetite to challenge MacDonough following her ruling on Thursday, saying it was “disappointed” but would move forward with the stimulus without the minimum-wage increase.

Still, Omar’s suggestion isn’t without precedent. Twenty years ago, faced with a similar hurdle in an equally divided Senate for an ambitious tax-cutting plan, Republicans fired the parliamentarian standing in their way.

Minimum-wage increase imperiled in covid relief bill by Senate official’s ruling

Parliamentarians are essentially the umpires of the Senate, ensuring that lawmakers follow the rules that govern how legislation moves forward. In recent years, the most difficult calls have involved bills passed through budget reconciliation, which allows the Senate to end debate and call a vote with the support of a simple majority. MacDonough has struck prohibited measures from those bills several times, confounding both Republicans and Democrats.

Parliamentarians often serve for decades and span multiple presidencies. Only six people have served in the role since its inception in 1935, and MacDonough, an independent and the first woman to serve as Senate parliamentarian, has been in the position since 2012.

MacDonough earned her degrees from George Washington University and Vermont Law School. She began working as an assistant parliamentarian for the Senate in 1999 before eventually being appointed by a Democrat to replace her predecessor after he retired in 2012. She has played a critical role in refereeing Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and unsuccessfully tried to dissuade Democrats from barring filibusters during most confirmation hearings for presidential appointees.

Generally, the parliamentarian’s rulings are respected by whichever party is in power.

But in 2001, Republicans took a drastic step after a series of rulings went against their plans. The Senate was evenly split at the time, with the GOP holding a razor-thin majority thanks to recently elected Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s tiebreaking vote.

Republicans tried to usher tax cuts through Congress under the budget reconciliation process that allows the Senate to move legislation forward with a simple 51-vote majority rather than the 60 votes normally required to avoid a filibuster. But then-Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove ruled that most of the tax cuts and a measure creating a $5 billion fund for natural disaster damage could not be considered using the reconciliation process.

He was promptly dismissed by Secretary of the Senate Gary Sisco at the behest of then-Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), the Senate’s top Democrat at the time, called the firing “very disappointing and extremely harmful to the process,” but did not say much else.

Eviction Moratorium Deemed Unconstitutional by Federal Judge in Texas

Judge J. Campbell Barker of the Eastern District of Texas, sided with plaintiffs who challenged the CDC’s eviction moratorium on Constitutional grounds. We’ve embedded the opinion for Terkel v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the end of this post. Even though some will be inclined to dismiss the ruling as politically-motivated (Barker was a Trump nominee), recall that it was the Trump Administration that first launched the eviction freeze. It initially ran through December 31, and covered tenants who gave their landlord a declaration attesting that the made less than $100,000 a year, had suffered a large hit to their income, were seeking assistance and would pay as much rent as they could. The Biden Administration planned to extend the moratorium to the end of March.

Bear in mind that the eviction halt dumped the cost of keeping coronavirus-whacked workers housed on landlords, rather than having the government provide income or rental subsidies.

Before we turn to the reasoning of the ruling, keep in mind that Judge Barker did not issue an injunction against the CDC’s moratorium, since the CDC apparently made noises at trial that they’d withdraw the moratorium if they lost. However, Barker told the plaintiffs they could come back and seek an injunction if the CDC didn’t play nice. There is no indication yet as to whether the Administration will appeal.

Constitutional law is often a slippery area of jurisprudence, but this short ruling is well argued. The Administration declared that its authority to impose the moratorium resided in the Commerce Clause: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The obstacle for the defendants is that the Commerce Clause has been found to cover interstate commerce, and instrastate commerce to the extent that it also impacts interstate commerce. For instance, in 2005, in Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court upheld Federal regulation of within-state marijuana production, since having some states permit marijuana farming and sales would clearly lead to sales in neighboring states.

The ruling on which Barker relied most heavily was United States v. Lopez, a 1995 Supreme Court decision challenging a prosecution under the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The defense argued that the Federal government lacked the authority to regulate guns at local schools, while the Department of Justice argued that it fell under the Commerce Clause, since violent crime in schools would affect the economy generally. The Supreme Court sided against the government, using three tests, as cited here:

(1) “the use of the channels of interstate commerce”; (2) “the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce”; and (3) “those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, . . . i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.”

Dirt law has long been reserved to the states and looking at those tests, you can see why. Both sides agreed to argue whether the moratorium met the “substantially affects” standard. The court had to determine if enough information has been presented for it to conclude this test had been satisfied. There are then at least four subordinate considerations, per a 2000 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Morrison:

(1) the economic character of the intrastate activity; (2) whether the regulation contains a “jurisdictional element” that may “establish whether the enact-ment is in pursuance of Congress’ regulation of interstate commerce”; (3) any congressional findings regarding the effect of the regulated activity on commerce among the States; and (4) a attenuation in the link between the regulated intra-state activity and commerce among the States

Judge Barker made a pretty conventional “real estate is local, buildings don’t move across state lines” contention. But he also pointed out that the “substantial effects” test is to be applied solely to the “regulated activity,” which here is eviction. The CDC moratorium made a point of not impairing the landlord’s economic claims: the tenants still owed any un/underpaid rent. Judge Barker found that the two cases that the government cited didn’t support its contention that eviction “affected commerce” to the required Constitutional standard. The Supreme Court in Lopez had already rejected “everything is connected, so everything affects interstate commerce” type arguments. The fact that coronavirus crosses state lines does not even begin to make an explicit connection to how stopping evictions would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

The government was only able to make general claims, of the sort that “reducing homelessness will keep people out of shelters, which can spread Covid” and “15% of the people who change residence go across state lines.” Judge Barker retorted that public health falls under state and local policing powers, so the arguments about shelters or other health hazards didn’t establish Federal authority. On top of that, the CDC order was not devised to limit disease spread to other states:

The order applies without regard to a tenant’s infection with, prior exposure to, or vaccination against COVID-19. It applies without regard to whether an evicted tenant would move to a new city, much less a new State.

As for the 15%, not only was the data not specific to evictions, but even if it were, even higher levels moved across state lines as the result of marriage and divorce, yet that condition didn’t result in Federal government being able to circumvent the states in family law matters.

It didn’t help that government had to admit that its claims about its Constitutional power would empower eviction moratoriums for any reason, including its beliefs about fairness.

Barker’s key point:

The federal government cannot say that it has ever before invoked its power over interstate commerce to impose a residential eviction moratorium. It did not do so during the deadly Spanish Flu pandemic….. Nor did it invoke such a power during the exigencies of the Great Depression. The federal government has not claimed such a power at any point during our Nation’s history until last year….

The absence of an historical analog here calls to mind the Supreme Court’s instruction that “[p]erhaps the most telling indication of [a] severe constitutional problem . . . is the lack of historical precedent.” … Similarly, the Necessary and Proper Clause inquiry asks whether a challenged law is “a modest addition to a set of federal . . . statutes that have existed for many decades” or “reasonably extended [a] longstanding [] system.” …Here, no historical practice of analogous federal regulation has been cited.

Needless to say, this decision affects many struggling households. Some states like New York have established eviction freezes; so have cities like New York and Seattle. But plenty of others are at risk. From CNN:

An estimated 10 million renters were behind on their rent and at risk of eviction in the middle of January, according to a Census Bureau survey. And an estimated 16 million renters had little to no confidence they could pay their rent in February.

Mind you, I am not saying that this ruling won’t be overturned on appeal. The government may file a much more cogent legal argument. But don’t let anyone tell you this decision is cray cray. Real estate and police powers, and public health is deemed to be part of police powers, have been repeatedly found to fall outside the Federal purview. I don’t see that the government made a strong case as to why not. And with the stimulus bill already having a rough go in Congress, it’s not as if the Administration could now add meaningful subsidies for renters at this late date.

Bernie Sanders Won’t Give Up on $15 Minimum Wage, ‘We Are Going To Deal With This’

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has taken aim at the official who ruled that raising the federal minimum wage cannot be folded into a COVID relief package, saying those championing the $15 rate will continue their fight.

16 Ways to Get Rid of Lower Back Pain for Good
Publix, Winn-Dixie and others open new COVID-19 vaccine sites. Here’s where…

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has taken aim at the official who ruled that raising the federal minimum wage cannot be folded into a COVID relief package, saying those championing the $15 rate will continue their fight.

Bernie Sanders sitting in front of a mirror posing for the camera: Sen. Bernie Sanders during a hearing on Capitol Hill on February 25, 2021 in Washington, DC. He said progressives would continue to fight to raise the minimum wage despite the setback that it is not deemed part of budget reconciliation.© Susan Walsh/Getty Images Sen. Bernie Sanders during a hearing on Capitol Hill on February 25, 2021 in Washington, DC. He said progressives would continue to fight to raise the minimum wage despite the setback that it is not deemed part of budget reconciliation.
The comments by Sanders came soon after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled the Raise the Wage Act 2021 did not meet budget rules that would allow it to go through the upper house with a simple majority.

Democrats had hoped that as part of the American Rescue Plan, the wage hike would bypass the 60-vote legislative filibuster.

Describing the ruling as a “setback”, Sanders told a virtual town hall organized by People’s Action that the “incredibly obtuse and undemocratic rules of the Senate” meant there was an “unelected parliamentarian” who decided if the minimum wage could be part of the overall bill.

“You have got an unelected parliamentarian…denying 30 million Americans a pay raise. So, we are going to deal with this, I don’t want anyone out there to think that we have given up.

“We have got a number of ideas about how we are going to come back but that is certainly not good news,” added Sanders.

In a separate statement, Sanders said he would work toward an amendment that “must be included in this reconciliation bill” that would take tax deductions away from large corporations that do not pay at least $15 an hour and to give small businesses incentives to raise wages.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has also said it would continue to fight for a raise to the minimum wage, although some small businesses hit hard by the pandemic are concerned at the provision.

MacDonough’s decision is an advisory one and although Vice President Kamala Harris could overrule her, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain told MSNBC “that’s not something we would do.”

"My hands were tied by the Senate Parliamentarian" is an insult to people who are choosing between housing and food.

— Zephyr Teachout (@ZephyrTeachout) February 26, 2021