Categories
Politics

Decide provides Trump time to problem tax return disclosure to Congress

President Donald Trump arrives for a photocall with sheriffs from across the country on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington.

Erin Scott | Reuters

WASHINGTON – A federal judge is giving former President Donald Trump time to challenge a Justice Department order that the IRS must file its income tax returns to Congress.

U.S. District Court Justice for the District of Columbia, Trevor McFadden, said Trump and his attorneys had until Wednesday to respond.

Neither Trump nor his lawyers have said whether they will challenge Friday’s order.

On Friday, the Justice Department announced that the former president’s tax returns must be passed by the IRS to Congress, a reversal of his position during the Trump administration.

The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel said in a 39-page statement that the Democrat-led House Ways and Means Committee had made a legitimate legislative motion to see Trump’s tax returns, with the stated aim of assessing how the IRS did the President of Tax Refunds.

Trump’s lawyers did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

Friday’s ruling came more than a year after the US Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s tax returns had to be turned over to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. by his longtime accountants on a criminal investigation subpoena.

In July, the Trump organization and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, were indicted by Vance on crimes related to a “comprehensive and bold” plan since 2005 to avoid paying compensation taxes.

Trump, who broke decades of precedent set by candidates and former presidents by refusing to publish his income tax returns, repeatedly said his filings would be scrutinized by the IRS.

However, taxpayers are allowed to publicly publish their tax returns during the audit.

Categories
Politics

Obamacare survives after Supreme Courtroom rejects newest Republican problem

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Thursday against Texas and other Republican-led states seeking to strike down Obamacare in the law’s latest test before the nation’s highest court.

The court reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down the law’s individual mandate provision. Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion, as did Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Breyer said Texas and the other states that challenged the law failed to show they were harmed by it.

“Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have shown that the injury they will suffer or have suffered is ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ of which they complain,” Breyer wrote.

The decision marks the third time that Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act, has survived a challenge before the Supreme Court since former President Barack Obama signed the landmark legislation into law in 2010.

Defenders of Obamacare worried that the Supreme Court – with its 6-3 majority of Republican-appointed justices – would scrap the law, a crucial element of the nation’s health-care system.

President Joe Biden, who served as Obama’s vice president when the law was signed, praised Thursday’s ruling as a “major victory” for millions of Americans who were at risk of losing their health care in the midst of the Covid pandemic if the law was overturned.

Biden also vowed to expand Obamacare, a central promise of his presidential campaign.

“After more than a decade of attacks on the Affordable Care Act through the Congress and the courts, today’s decision – the third major challenge to the law that the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected – it is time move forward and keep building on this landmark law,” Biden said in a statement.

“Today’s decision affirms that the Affordable Care Act is stronger than ever, delivers for the American people, and gets us closer to fulfilling our moral obligation to ensure that, here in America, health care is a right and not a privilege,” he said.

Obama said the Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that the law will endure, and the principle of universal health-care coverage has been established.

Two of former President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court picks, Kavanaugh and Barrett, joined the court’s overwhelming majority in rejecting the latest Republican effort to overturn the law. Democrats had warned during Barrett’s confirmation hearings that she was likely to cast a vote in the case that would jeopardize Obamacare.

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, both conservatives, dissented from the court’s majority opinion.

“Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two,” Alito wrote in a dissent that was joined by Gorsuch. “In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue.”

Trump tried unsuccessfully throughout his one term in office to overturn Obamacare. However, Congress as part of the 2017 tax bill effectively eliminated Obamacare’s so-called individual mandate penalties by reducing them to $0.

Texas and more than a dozen other Republican-led states then filed suit, arguing that that change to the law rendered it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had previously upheld the mandate under Congress’ power to tax, but the GOP-led states argued that the tax justification was no longer valid if the penalty was nonexistent.

Those states, backed by Trump’s Department of Justice, argued that the entire Affordable Care Act should be erased if the individual mandate provision was found to be unlawful.

The case made its way through federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which agreed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. But 20 Democrat-led states, led by California, asked the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s judgment, arguing that with the mandate reduced to zero Americans have the choice whether or not to buy insurance.

The Supreme Court agreed in March 2020 to hear the case.

A spokeswoman for Trump did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on the court’s ruling.

Numerous Biden administration officials and the top Democrats in Congress were quick to celebrate the decision.

“Each time, in each arena, the Affordable Care Act has prevailed,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor minutes after the ruling.

“Let me say definitively: The Affordable Care Act has won, the Supreme Court has ruled, the ACA is here to stay. And now, we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” Schumer said.

“What a day,” he added.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was instrumental in the law’s passage, hailed the ruling and praised Obamacare as a “pillar of American health and economic security.”

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a landmark victory for Democrats’ work to defend protections for people with preexisting conditions,” the California Democrat said during her weekly press conference.

White House chief of staff Ron Klain tweeted “It’s still a BFD” — an apparent reference to Biden’s infamous hot-mic comment at the signing of the bill in 2010, when he whispered to Obama, “this is a big f—— deal.”

“Today is a good day,” tweeted Sabrina Singh, deputy press secretary for Vice President Kamala Harris.

White House communications official Karine Jean-Pierre noted that the ruling marked the third time Obamacare survived a challenge in the high court.

Categories
Health

Obamacare Survives Newest Supreme Court docket Problem

WASHINGTON – The Affordable Care Act faced a third major challenge in the Supreme Court on Thursday.

A majority of seven judges ruled that Republican plaintiffs had not suffered the type of direct harm they would be suing.

The court neglected the bigger questions in the case: whether most of the sprawling 2010 Health Act, the defining domestic legacy of President Barack Obama, could exist without a provision that initially required insurance or fines for most Americans.

In the years since the bill was passed in 2010, Republicans have worked hard to destroy it, and President Donald J. Trump has been relentlessly critical of it. Attempts to overturn it failed, however, as did two previous Supreme Court challenges in 2012 and 2015. Over the years, the law grew in popularity and became woven into the fabric of the healthcare system. His future now seems certain.

The abolition of the Affordable Care Act would have added about 21 million people to the uninsured in the United States – an increase of nearly 70 percent – according to recent estimates by the Urban Institute.

The largest insurance loss would have occurred among low-income adults who were legally eligible for Medicaid after most states expanded the program to include them. But millions of Americans would also have lost their private insurance, including young adults who were legally allowed to stay with their parents until the age of 26 and families whose incomes were modest enough to receive subsidies to pay their monthly premiums.

A ruling against the law would also have doomed the protection of Americans with past or current health problems – or pre-existing conditions – to fail. The protective measures prevent insurers from denying them coverage or charging them more for it.

The California v Texas case, No. 19-840, was filed by Republican officials who said the mandate requiring health coverage was unconstitutional after Congress lifted the penalty for lack of coverage in 2017 because the Mandate could no longer be justified a tax.

The argument was based on the court’s 2012 ruling in which presiding judge John G. Roberts Jr., along with the then-four liberal wing of the court, said the mandate was authorized by the power of Congress to assess taxes been.

The new challenge was largely successful in the lower courts. A federal judge in Texas ruled the entire law was invalid, but he postponed the effects of his ruling until the case could be appealed. In 2019, the United States Appeals Court for the Fifth District in New Orleans agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but declined to rule on the further fate of the Health Act and asked the lower court to consider the matter further .

Categories
Health

Making vaccines available is a problem

A health worker delivers a dose of Covid-19 vaccine to a beneficiary at a vaccination center on June 6, 2021 in New Delhi, India.

Sanchit Khanna | Hindustan times | Getty Images

India has set an ambitious goal of producing more than 2 billion doses of Covid-19 vaccines by December – enough to vaccinate most of its massive 1.3 billion population.

But authorities need to convince people to get their vaccinations, especially in small towns and rural villages where there is some compulsory vaccination. The provision and access of vaccines is a challenge due to the lack of infrastructure, even in rural areas.

There is considerable eagerness to get vaccinated in India’s urban areas, where people saw the disastrous health consequences of the outbreak and wanted to avoid further lockdown, according to K. Srinath Reddy, president of the Public Health Foundation of India.

“The challenges will mainly be in small towns and rural areas, both in terms of health system performance and in terms of overcoming vaccine hesitation and creating demand,” he told CNBC over the phone.

India’s overcrowded urban centers, including metropolises like Mumbai, Delhi and Pune, bore the brunt of a catastrophic second wave that began in February and peaked in early May.

Vaccination of the rural population of India

India needs an efficient vaccine delivery plan that will make vaccine centers easier for these small towns and rural areas, according to Reddy.

This also includes setting up enough vaccination centers so that people don’t have to walk long distances to get their vaccinations. India must also consider mobile vaccination units to reach hard-to-reach places including villages.

“So these are innovations that probably need to be considered because not everyone will report to a vaccination center like in the cities because this can mean a lot of inconvenience and distance,” said Reddy.

Many people in rural India also face a technological hurdle: registering for a vaccination.

There is currently an online portal in India called Co-Win which most people can use to make their appointments in advance. According to the Co-Win website, vaccination centers only offer a limited number of walk-in spaces on a daily basis.

Reddy has stated that some are in the country may not have a smartphone or internet access, while others who may be tech-savvy may still have difficulty registering and booking vaccination appointments.

“This is where local governments actually have to make sure that people are supported with registration and vaccination,” said Reddy.

If you contain the transmission very effectively … then what is expected as a wave may be a ripple rather than a tidal wave.

K. Srinath Reddy

President, Public Health Foundation of India

He added that adequate numbers of family health teams and community volunteers are needed to help people overcome technological barriers.

At the same time, vaccine education needs to continue in order to convince people to show up for their vaccinations. This can be done through the media and grassroots engagement, including local community leaders and support groups, according to Reddy.

Like other countries, the South Asian nation is fighting hesitant vaccination, in part due to misinformation, fake news, and rumors about the vaccinations being spread through social messaging platforms like WhatsApp.

India is preparing for the third wave

Reddy said India must prepare for a third wave of Covid-19 on three fronts.

First, people need to do their part to protect themselves by wearing masks outdoors and avoiding crowded places.

Second, officials must prevent potential “super-spreader” events from taking place – such as overcrowded religious and political events that have been partially blamed India’s second wave.

Ultimately, India needs to invest in infrastructure and its medical staff to strengthen the health system’s ability to handle a further surge in cases – this includes training large numbers of frontline health workers. In the second wave, the system came under enormous strain, among other things due to years of underfunding.

“If you contain transmission very effectively, both through personal measures and by preventing ‘super-spreader’ events, what is expected to be a wave may be more of a wave than a tidal wave,” said Reddy.

Categories
World News

Netanyahu’s Problem: Israel Dwell Updates

Here’s what you need to know:

Credit…Ronen Zvulun/Reuters

JERUSALEM — Israeli opposition parties on Wednesday reached a coalition agreement to form a government and oust Benjamin Netanyahu, the longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history and a dominant figure who has pushed his nation’s politics to the right.

The announcement by the parties could lead to the easing of a political impasse that has produced four elections in two years and left Israel without a stable government or a state budget. If Parliament ratifies the fragile agreement in a confidence vote in the coming days, it will also bring down the curtain, if only for an intermission, on the premiership of a leader who has defined contemporary Israel more than any other.

The new coalition is an unusual and awkward alliance between eight political parties from a diverse array of ideologies, from the left to the far right. It includes the membership of a small Arab party called Raam, which would become the first Arab group to join a right-leaning coalition in Israeli history.

While some analysts have hailed the coalition as reflecting the breadth and complexity of contemporary society, others say its members are too incompatible for their compact to last, and consider it the embodiment of Israel’s political dysfunction.

The alliance would be led until 2023 by Naftali Bennett, a religiously observant former settler leader who opposes a Palestinian state and wants Israel to annex the majority of the occupied West Bank. He is a former ally of Mr. Netanyahu often described as more right-wing than the prime minister.

If the government lasts a whole term, it would then be led between 2023 and 2025 by Yair Lapid, a centrist former television host considered a standard-bearer for secular Israelis.

The son of American immigrants, Mr. Bennett, 49, is a former software entrepreneur, army commando, chief of staff to Mr. Netanyahu and defense minister. His home is in central Israel, but he was once chief executive of an umbrella group, the Yesha Council, that represents Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. Until the most recent election cycle, Mr. Bennett was part of a political alliance with Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right leader.

Though Mr. Bennett’s party, Yamina, won just seven of the 120 seats in Parliament, the anti-Netanyahu forces could not form a government without his support, allowing him to set the terms of his involvement in the coalition.

Mr. Lapid, 57, is a former news anchor and journalist who became a politician nine years ago and later served as finance minister in a Netanyahu-led coalition. His party placed second in the general election in March, winning 17 seats. But Mr. Lapid considered the ouster of Mr. Netanyahu more important than demanding to go first as prime minister.

Credit…United Arab List Raam, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Yair Lapid, the leader of the Israeli opposition, had until midnight on Wednesday to cobble together an unlikely coalition to topple Benjamin Netanyahu. He needed almost every minute — leaving it until 11:22 p.m. to inform Reuven Rivlin, Israel’s largely ceremonial president, that he had assembled an eight-party alliance.

“The government will do everything it can to unite every part of Israeli society,” Mr. Lapid said in a statement released shortly after his call with Mr. Rivlin.

Mr. Lapid’s celebrations will be put on hold for several days, however. The Speaker of the Israeli Parliament, Yariv Levin, is a member of Mr. Netanyahu’s party, Likud, and can use parliamentary procedure to delay the confidence vote until Monday, June 14, constitutional experts said.

In the meantime, Mr. Netanyahu’s party has promised to pile pressure on wavering members of Mr. Lapid’s fragile coalition, formed of hard-right parties, leftists, centrists and Arab Islamists, in a bid to persuade them to abandon the coalition. Many of them already feel uncomfortable about working with each other, and have made difficult compromises to join forces in order to push Mr. Netanyahu from office.

Mr. Lapid himself agreed to give Naftali Bennett, a hard-right former settler leader who opposes Palestinian statehood, the chance to lead the government until 2023, at which point Mr. Lapid will take over.

In a sign of the friction to come, Raam, the Arab Islamist party, announced that it had joined the coalition after receiving assurances about improvements to the Arab minority’s land and housing rights that many hard-right Israelis deem unacceptable, including the regularization of three illegally constructed Arab towns in the Negev desert.

An hour before the deal was announced, one hard-right lawmaker, Nir Orbach, whose party colleagues say he has been particularly unsure about joining the coalition, tweeted: “We are not abandoning the Negev. Period.”

The fact that these tensions were on full display even before the coalition was officially formed has left many Israelis wondering whether it will last more than a few months, let alone its full term.

Should the coalition collapse, analysts believe Mr. Lapid may emerge with more credit than Mr. Bennett. While Mr. Bennett gets first crack at the premiership, his decision to work with centrists and leftists has angered his already small following.

“Lapid has made a very strong set of decisions, conveyed an amazing level of maturity and really made a big statement about a different kind of leadership,” said Dahlia Scheindlin, an Israeli political analyst and pollster at the Century Foundation, a New York-based research group. “That will not be lost on the Israeli public.”

Credit…Gil Cohen-Magen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Now that opposition parties have reached agreement on a coalition government, it has up to seven days to present the government to Parliament for a vote of confidence.

Some disagreements within the fractious coalition were still being ironed out until shortly before the deadline on Wednesday, at midnight in Israel.

And with the fate of the new coalition dependent on a narrow margin and hanging on every single vote, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies were on the hunt for potential defectors leading up to the announcement, and signaled that they would continue until the vote of confidence.

The coalition, ranging from right to left, is united primarily by its opposition to Mr. Netanyahu, the prime minister since 2009.

Israel has held four parliamentary elections in two years, all of them inconclusive, leaving it without a stable government or state budget. If the opposition fails to form a government, it could lead to yet another election.

Credit…Sebastian Scheiner/Associated Press

Naftali Bennett, who is poised to become Israel’s next prime minister, is a former high-tech entrepreneur best known for insisting that there must never be a full-fledged Palestinian state and that Israel should annex much of the occupied West Bank.

The independently wealthy son of immigrants from the United States, Mr. Bennett, 49, first entered the Israeli Parliament eight years ago and is relatively unknown and inexperienced on the international stage. That has left much of the world — and many Israelis — wondering what kind of leader he might be.

A former chief of staff to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, Mr. Bennett is often described as more right-wing than his old boss. Shifting between seemingly contradictory alliances, Mr. Bennett has been called an extremist and an opportunist. Allies say he is merely a pragmatist, less ideological than he appears, and lacking Mr. Netanyahu’s penchant for demonizing opponents.

In a measure of Mr. Bennett’s talents, he has now pulled off a feat that is extraordinary even by the perplexing standards of Israeli politics. He has all but maneuvered himself into the top office even though his party, Yamina, won just seven of the 120 seats in the Parliament.

Mr. Bennett leveraged his modest but pivotal electoral weight after the inconclusive March election, Israel’s fourth in two years. He entered coalition talks as a kingmaker, and appears ready to emerge as the one wearing the crown.

Mr. Bennett has long championed West Bank settlers and once led the council representing them, though he is not a settler, himself. He is religiously observant — he would be the first prime minister to wear a kipa — but he will head a governing coalition that is largely secular.

He would lead a precarious coalition that spans Israel’s fractious political spectrum from left to right, and includes a small Arab, Islamist party — much of which opposes his ideas on settlement and annexation. That coalition proposes to paper over its differences on Israeli-Palestinian relations by focusing on domestic matters.

Mr. Bennett has explained his motives for teaming up with such ideological opposites as an act of last resort to end the political impasse that has paralyzed Israel.

“The political crisis in Israel is unprecedented on a global level,” he said in a televised speech on Sunday. “We could end up with fifth, sixth, even 10th elections, dismantling the walls of the country, brick by brick, until our house falls in on us. Or we can stop the madness and take responsibility.”

Credit…Dan Balilty for The New York Times

One of the most unlikely kingmakers involved in the formation of a new government is Mansour Abbas, the leader of the small Arab party known by its Hebrew acronym, Raam, with four seats in the current Parliament.

Under an 11th-hour deal, Raam formally agreed to join a Lapid-Bennett coalition government, though it would not hold any Cabinet seats. That was something of a surprise, as the party was expected to remain outside the coalition, while supporting it in a confidence vote in the Parliament. Some Arab lawmakers played a similar role by supporting Yitzhak Rabin’s government from the outside in the 1990s.

For decades, Arab parties have not been directly involved in Israeli governments. They have been mostly shunned by other parties, and are leery of joining a government that oversees occupation of the Palestinian territories and Israel’s military actions.

But after decades of political marginalization, many Palestinian citizens, who make up a fifth of Israel’s population, have been seeking fuller integration.

Israel’s early, leftist governments included Arab parties that were closely affiliated with the mostly Jewish parties. Raam would be the first independent Arab party in government, and the first Arab party of any kind in a right-leaning government.

Raam has been willing to work with both the pro- and anti-Netanyahu camps since the March election and to use its leverage to wrest concessions for the Arab public. The party has refused to commit to a deal unless it gets assurances for greater resources and rights for Israel’s Arab minority, including reforms to housing legislation that potential hard-right coalition partners do not accept.

Credit…Corinna Kern/Reuters

Sitting in her office in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon, Idit Silman, a hard-right lawmaker, flicked through hundreds of recent text messages from unknown numbers.

Some were laced with abusive language. Some warned she was going to hell. All of them demanded that her party abandon coalition negotiations with an alliance of centrist, leftist and right-wing lawmakers seeking to replace Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the first time in 12 years.

“It’s very hard,” Ms. Silman said. “People would rather put pressure on Idit Silman than see Benjamin Netanyahu leave Balfour Street,” she added, in a reference to the location of the prime minister’s official residence.

As opposition negotiators race to meet a midnight deadline to agree on a new government, supporters of Mr. Netanyahu and his Likud party were working overtime to pressure Ms. Silman and other members of the right-wing Yamina party.

Many right-wing Israelis see Yamina’s turn against Mr. Netanyahu as a betrayal.

This onslaught gave Ms. Silman and her colleagues pause for thought — and an incentive to be seen as prolonging the negotiations for as long as possible. Though Yamina did finally join the coalition on Wednesday night, Mr. Netanyahu’s party, Likud, is likely to continue to play on these fears.

Parliament might not hold a vote of confidence in a new government for another 10 days, giving Mr. Netanyahu more time to persuade Yamina lawmakers to reverse course.

His party has already promised to keep goading Ms. Silman and her colleagues.

“Behind the scenes,” said a senior Likud official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, “the Likud party is ramping up the pressure, particularly on the weakest links.”

The pressure has been relentless for days, since the phone numbers of Ms. Silman and her colleagues, they say, were posted on several WhatsApp and Facebook groups. That has prompted a barrage of messages — and not just from Israelis. Evangelical pastors in the United States have weighed in, and so have Hasidic activists in Britain, among many others.

The Likud party denies accusations that it posted any numbers publicly.

When Ms. Silman turned up at her local synagogue last week, she found several slick posters outside, each with her portrait overlaid with the slogan: “Idit Silman stitched together a government with terror supporters.”

For days, protesters have picketed her home, shouted abuse at her children, and trailed her by car in a menacing fashion, she said.

Yamina’s leader, Naftali Bennett, decided to negotiate with the opposition on Sunday night, after months of wavering. His calculus was based on realism, analysts say: Mr. Netanyahu cannot form a coalition, even with Mr. Bennett’s support. So Mr. Bennett can either fall in with the opposition, who have offered him the chance to be prime minister — or force the country to a fifth election in little more than two years.

“We always ask ourselves this question,” Ms. Silman said on Wednesday afternoon. “Is it right? Can we do something else?”

Credit…Pool photo by Yonatan Sindel

Naftali Bennett, who leads a small right-wing party, and Yair Lapid, the centrist leader of the Israeli opposition, have joined forces to try to form a diverse coalition to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister.

Spanning Israel’s fractious political spectrum from left to right, and relying on the support of a small Arab, Islamist party, the proposed coalition, dubbed the “change government” by supporters, could signal a profound shift for Israel. Its leaders have pledged to end the cycle of divisive politics and inconclusive elections.

The opposition parties announced a coalition agreement on Wednesday. But even if they survive a vote of confidence in the Parliament and form a government, toppling Mr. Netanyahu, how much change would their “change government” bring, when some of the parties agree on little else besides antipathy for Israel’s longest-serving leader?

Mr. Bennett, whose party won seven seats in Parliament, is often described as further to the right than Mr. Netanyahu. While Mr. Netanyahu eroded the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Bennett, a religiously observant champion of Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, openly rejects the concept of a sovereign Palestinian state and has advocated annexing West Bank territory.

Still, though the coalition will include several parties that disagree on both those issues, they have agreed to allow Mr. Bennett to become prime minister first.

If the coalition deal holds, Mr. Bennett would be replaced for the second part of the four-year term by Mr. Lapid, who advocates for secular, middle-class Israelis and whose party won 17 seats.

By conceding the first turn in the rotation, Mr. Lapid, who has been branded as a dangerous leftist by his opponents on the right, smoothed the way for other right-wing politicians to join the new anti-Netanyahu alliance.

In a measure of the plot twists and tumult behind this political turnaround, Mr. Bennett had pledged before the election not to enable a Lapid government of any kind or any government reliant on the Islamist party, called Raam.

The coalition would stand or fall on the cooperation between eight parties with disparate ideologies and, on many issues, clashing agendas.

In a televised address on Sunday night, Mr. Bennett said he was committed to fostering national unity.

“Two thousand years ago, there was a Jewish state which fell here because of internal quarrels,” he said. “This will not happen again. Not on my watch.”

Credit…Pool photo by Ronen Zvulun

Even as the country and its Parliament remained deeply divided over the formation of a new government, Israeli lawmakers came together on Wednesday to elect a new president, Isaac Herzog, a former leader of the Labor party and government minister.

Displaying a rare degree of consensus in a secret ballot, they voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Herzog, who currently serves as the chairman of the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency for Israel, which helps deal with immigration, interacts with the Jewish diaspora and runs social programs.

The president plays a mostly symbolic role as a national unifier in Israel’s fractious parliamentary democracy, where the prime minister wields the most power.

One of a president’s main responsibilities is to grant a candidate the task of forming a government after elections. In Israel’s current, fragmented politics, which have produced four inconclusive elections in two years, that involves more than the usual level of skill, legal interpretation and discretion.

The president can also play an important role in Israeli diplomacy and has the power to pardon convicted criminals and exercise clemency by reducing or commuting sentences.

Mr. Herzog, 60, the grandson of the first chief rabbi of Israel and the son of one of the country’s earlier presidents, Chaim Herzog, will take over from the current president, Reuven Rivlin, in July.

“Our challenges are many and should not be taken lightly,” Mr. Herzog said in his acceptance speech. “I intend to be the president of all Israelis, to lend an attentive ear to every position and respect every person.”

Credit…Mohammed Saber/EPA, via Shutterstock

Less than a month ago, an eruption of intense fighting between Israel and Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip plunged Israeli and Palestinian communities into chaos. As the civilian casualties grew, overwhelmingly on the Gaza side, the conflict polarized Israeli society, and the world, in ways seldom seen before.

At least 230 people were killed in Gaza during the war, including at least 65 children, while in Israel at least 12 were killed, including two children. Gaza’s infrastructure, already ailing, was gutted by Israeli airstrikes on the densely populated territory. And Israeli towns and cities within range of Hamas rockets went into repeated, frightening lockdowns in shelters.

The war also spurred unrest within Israel and the occupied territories that has been more explosive than any in years. It has inspired a new era of Palestinian activism, and has shifted the ground politically, coloring the drama that was playing out in Israel on Wednesday.

Here is what to know about the 11-day war, and its lasting effects.

JERUSALEM — For Israelis, the possible downfall of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving leader, is an epochal moment. Israeli media have barraged their audiences with reports and commentary on the opposition attempts to form a government.

But for many Palestinians, the political drama has prompted little more than a shrug and a resurgence of bitter memories.

During Mr. Netanyahu’s current 12-year tenure, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process fizzled, as Israeli and Palestinian leaders accused each other of obstructing the process, and Mr. Netanyahu expressed increasing skepticism about the possibility of a sovereign Palestinian state.

But to many Palestinians, his likely replacement as prime minister, Naftali Bennett, would be no improvement. Mr. Bennett is Mr. Netanyahu’s former chief of staff, and a former settler leader who outright rejects Palestinian statehood.

Instead, many Palestinians are consumed by their own political moment, which some activists have framed as the most pivotal in decades.

The Palestinian polity has long been physically and politically fragmented between the American-backed Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank; its archrival, Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza; a Palestinian minority inside Israel whose votes might make or break an Israeli government; and a sprawling diaspora.

But spurred by last month’s 11-day war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and the worst bout of intercommunal Arab-Jewish violence to have convulsed Israel in decades, these disparate parts suddenly came together in a seemingly leaderless eruption of shared identity and purpose.

In a rare display of unity, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians observed a general strike on May 12 across Gaza, the West Bank, the refugee camps of Lebanon and inside Israel itself.

“I don’t think whoever is in charge in Israel will make a great deal of difference to the Palestinians,” said Ahmad Aweidah, the former head of the Palestinian stock exchange. “There might be slight differences and nuances, but all mainstream Israeli parties, with slight exceptions on the extreme left, share pretty much the same ideology.”

The strike in mid-May, Mr. Aweidah said, “showed that we are united no matter what the Israelis have tried to do for 73 years: categorizing us into Israeli Arabs, West Bankers, Jerusalemites, Gazans, refugees and diaspora.”

“None of that has worked,” he said. “We are back to square one.”

Categories
Health

Want a Pandemic Reset? Strive This 10-Day Problem

While some people developed healthy new habits during the pandemic lockdown, if you’ve spent your pandemic days just getting through it, it’s not too late. The good news is that the end of the pandemic is likely a more propitious time for significant change than if you had the heightened fear of lockdowns.

“Covid-19 has been a terrible time for many of us,” said Laurie Santos, a psychology professor at Yale who teaches a popular online course called The Science of Well-Being. “There is a lot of evidence of what is known as post-traumatic growth – that we can come out stronger and with a little more meaning in our lives after negative events. I think we can all use this terrible time of the pandemic to achieve post-traumatic growth in our own lives. “

One of the biggest barriers to change has always been the fact that we tend to establish routines that are difficult to break. But the pandemic has destroyed many people’s routines and prepared us for a reset, said Dr. Santos.

“We’ve all changed our routines so much,” she said. “I think many of us realized during the pandemic that some of the things we did before Covid-19 weren’t the kind of things that made our lives flourish. I think many of us have realized that if we are to be happier, aspects of our work and family life, and even our relationships, may have to change. “

One reason new beginnings can be so effective is because people think about the passage of time in chapters or episodes rather than a continuum, said Dr. Milkman. As a result, we tend to look at the past in terms of unique periods, such as: For example, our high school years, college years, years we lived in a particular city or worked in a particular job. In the future, we will likely look back on the pandemic year as a similarly unique chapter in our lives.

“We have chapter breaks like life is a novel – that’s how we mark the time,” said Dr. Milkman. “This has an impact on the psychology of the new beginning, because these moments, which open a new chapter, give us the feeling of a new beginning. It is easier to attribute mistakes to the “old me”. You feel like you can do more now because we are in a new chapter. “

While the beginning of a new chapter is a good time to change, the pages will turn quickly. Now that we are getting out of the confines of pandemic life, social scientists say it is an ideal time to reflect on what you have learned over the past year. What new habits would you like to keep and what parts of your prepandemic life would you like to change?

Categories
Health

FDA to suggest ban on menthol-flavored cigarettes, with trade prone to problem

The Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday that it would propose a ban on menthol-flavored cigarettes in the US, which would mean a big blow to future tobacco sales.

Menthol is the last permitted flavor for cigarettes. According to the FDA, menthol cigarettes were disproportionately used by teenagers, black people and low-income groups. The vast majority of black smokers prefer menthol brands of cigarettes, and black men currently have the highest rates of lung cancer in the country.

“With these actions, the FDA will help significantly reduce initiation of adolescents, increase the likelihood of smoking cessation among current smokers, and eliminate health gaps that occur among color communities, low-income populations, and LGBTQ + people, all of which are far more likely are to use these tobacco products, “said Janet Woodcock, acting FDA commissioner, in a press release.

This decision was in response to a 2013 citizen application. A court had ordered a response from the agency by Thursday.

Years until implementation

However, Jefferies analyst Owen Bennett said that proposal would take years to reach a conclusion, as it would need sufficient evidence from both sides, which could be difficult.

“If we see a proposed rule for menthol, it could take years to reach the final rule as a waterproof evidence package would have to be put together … the FDA itself has said in the past that there was not enough evidence,” he said in a report, adding that large tobacco companies might strike back in response, which would mean more time.

This decision was made after years of deliberation by public health officials to help smokers make the transition to less harmful practices such as non-flammable products or smoking cessation altogether.

Menthol cigarettes make up about a third of all cigarettes sold in the United States. The leading brands are Newport, owned by British American Tobacco’s RJ Reynolds, and Kool, owned by Imperial Tobacco’s ITG Brands.

British American Tobacco controls a whopping 66% stake in the menthol market, while Altria has a 26% stake and Imperial an 8% stake, according to a report by Bernstein analyst Callum Elliott.

Altria’s business is less exposed to menthol sales. Elliott estimates that only about 17% of its volume falls into this category. It would be a bigger blow to British American as more than half of its cigarette volume comes from that category, Elliott said.

Imperial Brands said the FDA’s decision was “disappointing” but expected. According to Elliott, menthol makes up about 30% of its volume.

“We believe the rulemaking process will show that there is no clear scientific evidence to support a menthol and flavor ban at the federal level. We hope the FDA will comply with the law and prioritize sound politics and science over political pressure,” said the enterprise.

‘Unintended Consequences’

Marlboro cigarette maker Altria has warned of the possibility of a ban that could create an illegal market.

“We share a common goal of switching adult smokers from cigarettes to potentially less harmful alternatives, but the ban is not working,” Altria said in a statement. “The criminalization of menthol will have serious unintended consequences.”

Reynolds and his parent company British American Tobacco were not immediately available for comment.

The argument against flavors

If implemented, the proposal would be of great benefit to anti-tobacco advocates who have long seen flavored cigarettes as a way for consumers to become acquainted with smoking.

Tobacco product smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the country, according to the FDA. There are plans to introduce product standards to eliminate menthol in cigarettes within the next year, as well as to eliminate all signature flavors, including menthol, in cigars.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fourteen percent of all American adults smoked cigarettes in 2019. Although smoking rates are similar between black and white populations, black smokers are less likely to quit, which some have attributed to the menthol taste. The mint taste of menthol cools the throat and makes it easier for smokers to tolerate the tobacco taste.

The FDA cited a tobacco control study indicating that a ban could help smokers quit smoking. It pursued behavior after menthol bans were introduced in Canada. The FDA estimates a US ban could cause an additional 923,000 smokers, including 230,000 African Americans, to quit in the first 13 to 17 months.

Last week, the Biden government also announced it was considering limiting nicotine levels in cigarettes. This is another step that the FDA has been pushing for years. However, today’s announcement on menthol cigarettes makes no mention of a reduction in nicotine levels.

Altria and British American Tobacco, Reynolds’ parent company, lost nearly 2% in midday trading.

Read the FDA statement here.

Categories
Health

Oxford to launch human problem trial to review immune response

Caroline Nicolls will receive an injection of the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine administered by Nurse Amy Nash at Madejski Stadium in Reading, west of London, on April 13, 2021.

STEVE PARSONS | AFP | Getty Images

LONDON – Oxford University researchers announced the start of a Human Challenge study on Monday to better understand what happens when people who have already contracted the coronavirus become infected for the second time.

The researchers will investigate what kind of immune response can prevent people from becoming infected with Covid-19 again and examine how the immune system reacts to the virus a second time.

Little is currently known about what happens to people who had the virus the second time they were infected.

The experiment is carried out in two phases with different participants in each phase. The first phase is slated to begin this month and the second phase is slated to begin in summer.

In medical research, Human Challenge studies are controlled studies in which participants are intentionally exposed to a pathogen or beetle to study the effects.

“Challenge studies tell us things that other studies cannot because, unlike natural infections, they are tightly controlled,” said Helen McShane, chief investigator for the study and professor of vaccinology in the Department of Pediatrics at Oxford University.

“If we re-infect these participants, we will know exactly how their immune systems responded to the first COVID infection, when exactly the second infection occurs, and how much virus they have,” said McShane.

It is hoped that the study will help improve scientists’ basic understanding of the virus and develop tests that can reliably predict whether people will be protected.

What happens in each phase?

In the first phase, up to 64 volunteers between the ages of 18 and 30 who were previously infected naturally will be re-exposed to the virus under controlled conditions.

Researchers will oversee attendees’ care while they perform CT scans of the lungs and MRI scans of the heart while isolating in a specially designed suite for at least 17 days.

All participants must be fit, healthy and have fully recovered from their initial infection with Covid to minimize the risk.

Study participants will only be released from the quarantine unit if they are no longer infected and there is a risk of the disease spreading.

A view of the City of London on a clear day.

Vuk Valcic | SOPA pictures | LightRocket via Getty Images

In the second phase of the experiment, two different areas are examined.

“First we will very carefully define the basic immune response of the volunteers before we infect them. We will then infect them with the dose of virus selected from the first study and measure how much virus we can detect after infection. We will then.” to be able to understand what kind of immune responses protect against re-infection, “said McShane.

“Second, we will measure the immune response several times after infection so we can understand what immune response is being generated by the virus,” she added.

The entire study period is 12 months, including at least eight follow-up appointments after discharge.

“This study has the potential to change our understanding by providing high-quality data on how our immune systems react to a second infection with this virus,” said Shobana Balasingam, senior research advisor on vaccines at Wellcome, a nonprofit that funded the study.

“The results could have important implications for the future management of COVID-19, influencing not only vaccine development but research into the range of effective treatments that are also badly needed,” Balasingam said.

Categories
World News

China-Russia cooperation might be Biden’s greatest problem

ST PETERSBURG, RUSSIA 7 JUNE 2019: China’s President Xi Jinping (L) and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin at a plenary meeting of the St. Petersburg 2019 International Economic Forum (SPIEF).

Sergei Bobylev | TASS | Getty Images

President Joe Biden faces a nightmare scenario of global consequence: intensified Sino-Russian strategic cooperation to undermine US influence and strengthen Biden’s efforts to rally democratic allies.

It is the most significant and least recognized test of Biden’s leadership to date: it could be the defining challenge of his presidency.

Over the past week, Russia and China have simultaneously escalated their separate military activities and threats to the sovereignty of Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively – countries whose living independence is an affront to Moscow and Beijing but at the center of the interests of the US and its allies in theirs Regions stands.

Even if the actions of Moscow and Beijing do not lead to a military invasion of either country, and most experts still consider this unlikely, the scale and intensity of the military measures require immediate attention. US and Allied officials dare not deny the certainty that Russia and China are exchanging information or the growing likelihood that they will increasingly coordinate actions and strategies.

“The [Russian] The build has reached the point where it could provide the basis for a limited military incursion, “Central Intelligence Agency director William J. Burns told the Senate Intelligence Committee this week. Allies must take it very seriously.”

Regarding China, the secret services’ annual US threat assessment states: “China is trying to exploit doubts about US commitment to the region, undermining Taiwan’s democracy and expanding Beijing’s influence.” A warning of “Russia’s growing strategic cooperation with China – to achieve its goals” was lost in media coverage of the report.

Viewed independently, the challenges in China and Russia would be a handful for any US president. Should China and Russia act more coherently and coherently and you should have a narrative that is more consistent than the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. It is a scenario for which the US and its allies lack a strategy or even a common understanding.

For anyone who has doubts about Sino-Russian ambitions, the Global Times is one of my favorite places to read Chinese tea leaves, often a mouthpiece for Beijing’s leadership. In an editorial late last month, under the headline “China-Russia Relations Deepen as the US and Its Allies Fight”, he wrote: “The most influential bilateral relationship in Eurasia is China-Russia’s broad strategic coordination partnership for a new one Era.”

In a barely veiled warning to Japan and South Korea, it says: “China and Russia understand the weight of their relationship … To be honest, no country in the region can stand alone against China or Russia, let alone fight against the powers that be at the same time. It would be disastrous for any country that tends to confront China and Russia by forming an alliance with the US. “

Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who was asked last October about the possibility of a formal military alliance with China, said: “In theory it is entirely possible.”

In any case, there is nothing theoretical about the military escalations in Ukraine and Taiwan.

Last week, Russia amassed the largest concentration of troops along the Ukrainian border since annexing Crimea in 2014. According to Ukrainian government officials, Russian President Vladimir Putin has brought more than 40,000 soldiers near Ukraine’s eastern border to conduct “combat training exercises” over a border period of two weeks.

At the same time, China has taken its military overflights into Taiwan’s air defense zone to unprecedented levels after flying more than 250 sorties near the island this year. The Chinese military sent 25 fighter jets to Taiwan last Monday, a record high since Taiwan announced figures last year.

The Biden government responded to Putin this week with the carrot of a summit and the rod of new sanctions. On Tuesday, Biden called Putin signaling that he would not try to escalate tensions with the leader, whom he had agreed to be a “killer” just a month ago.

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stood next to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg as they condemned Russia’s military build-up. The Biden government’s strongest reprimand came Thursday when it announced new economic sanctions against 38 Russian entities accused of electoral disruption and cyberattacks, expelled ten diplomats, and introduced measures to keep U.S. financial institutions trading in newly issued Russian government bonds and bonds prohibited.

China’s raids on Taiwan came soon after the State Department issued guidelines relaxing the rules for US government officials working with Taiwan. Blinken said the government is concerned about China’s “increasingly aggressive actions” and is committed to ensuring that Taiwan “has the ability to defend itself.” The United States demonstrated its support for Taiwan on Wednesday by sending an unofficial delegation consisting of a former US Senator and two former US Assistant Secretary of State to Taiwan.

This unfolding great power drama couldn’t come at a worse time for the Biden government, whose officials won’t reach their 100-day term until April 30. However, this is likely the point for Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping as they try to gain an edge before Biden can move to a safer post by reviewing policy and filling senior leadership positions.

These real events also complicate the Biden administration’s carefully crafted plans to methodically order its actions, and reasonably argue that US renewal is a prerequisite for effective global governance.

Biden’s goal is to suppress Covid-19 through accelerated vaccine distribution, increase economic dynamism and competitiveness through $ 4 trillion in stimulus and infrastructure spending, and restore relationships with key allies, a goal that Biden’s meetings with the Japanese Prime Minister Suga this week reflected Yoshihide.

The Biden administration faces a number of other foreign policy challenges at the same time, from the president’s announcement this week to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, to efforts to keep nuclear talks with Iran despite the attack to resume facility on Tehran’s nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz last Sunday.

That’s a lot that every new president has to deal with. However, how skillfully Biden approaches the combined, growing challenge from Russia and China will shape our era.

Frederick Kempe is a best-selling author, award-winning journalist, and President and CEO of the Atlantic Council, one of America’s most influential think tanks on global affairs. He worked for the Wall Street Journal for more than 25 years as foreign correspondent, assistant editor-in-chief and senior editor for the European edition of the newspaper. His latest book – “Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place in the World” – was a New York Times bestseller and was published in more than a dozen languages. Follow him on Twitter @FredKempe and subscribe here to Inflection Points, his view every Saturday of the top stories and trends of the past week.

More information from CNBC staff can be found here @ CNBCopinion on twitter.

Categories
Business

How America’s Nice Financial Problem Out of the blue Turned 180 Levels

Container ships stretch far into the Pacific and wait days for their turn to unload goods in California ports. Automakers stop production because they can’t get enough of the computer chips that make a modern car work. Long-dormant restaurants are finally seeing a surge in customer demand, but they can’t find enough chefs.

These are all headlines of the past few days, and they have one thing in common: They show how America’s great economic challenge has turned 180 degrees in a breathtakingly short period of time.

Just a few months ago, the nation was facing a huge shortage of demand for goods and services that threatened to prolong the downturn caused by the pandemic well beyond the point in time when the virus was contained. The central economic problem of 2021 looks like the exact opposite. Businesses are increasingly faced with the challenge of producing adequate supplies of goods and services – whether wood or cold beer – to meet this resurgent demand.

Huge sections of the economy closed last spring and are now being switched back on. However, with roughly three million Americans vaccinated each day and nearly $ 3 trillion in federal funds flowing through the economy, it is an open question how long it will take companies to update themselves. Your collective success or failure will determine whether this is a year of Goldilocks economic conditions or a frustrating mix of price spikes and ongoing shortages.

“The global economy is fragile because it never really recovered,” said Nada Sanders, professor of supply chain management at Northeastern University. “There is massive pent-up consumer demand, but it is important to connect supply and demand because when you have a supply shortage, you don’t have the products that consumers want.”

After major disruptions over the past year, the intricate networks where the big industries hold shelves and services are available have frayed. Many workers have left the workforce. Worldwide manufacturing and shipping were temporarily shut down, followed by reopenings, causing disruptions made worse by random events like the Texas ice storms and the blockade of the Suez Canal.

Semiconductor companies cut production of the chips intended for cars and trucks when major automakers cut production in the early days of the pandemic. The semiconductor companies made the chips needed for popular computers and other home electronics.

The auto industry is now facing the delayed effects of this cut. Ford idled the factory that makes the popular F-150 trucks for two weeks. Overall, IHS Markit analysts are forecasting that one million fewer vehicles will be manufactured in the first quarter of 2021 due to the disruptions. This means that American consumers looking to target their new stimulus checks to a car may have fewer options and little leverage over price.

The labor market has now become a paradox. The unemployment rate is well above prepandemic levels at 6 percent, and the job market is even worse when you include Americans who say they are no longer looking for work. However, many employers, particularly in restaurants and related service industries, describe a labor shortage.

At Bibb Distributing Co., a distributor of Anheuser-Busch and other beers in Macon, Ga., Delivery drivers are so hard to find – and demand for the product is strong enough – that drivers have to work overtime and managers have to use trucks, said Win Stewart, the manager.

Updated

April 11, 2021, 2:45 p.m. ET

“When I talk to other people in the market and try to find out if it’s something we’re doing or if others are experiencing the same thing, all of my conversations are the same,” said Stewart. “We can’t find people.”

That could challenge things if the summer goes as many expect and the economy reopens more widely as most of the people are vaccinated. The 85-strong company already has 10 to 12 vacancies and drivers are routinely offered signing bonuses to move to another location.

“I have a feeling that as they open concert halls and resorts, demand will increase,” said Stewart. “You’re going to see a lot of demand and I’m not sure you have the labor pool to serve them.”

There are different theories for the separation between the data indicating a weak labor market and individual reports of a strong one.

Many prospective workers may be unable or unwilling to take jobs as long as they see health risks from the coronavirus, or they may spend their time looking after children or elderly or disabled family members. Jed Kolko, chief economist at Indeed and an Upshot employee, has calculated that the percentage of working women between the ages of 25 and 54 among mothers has decreased by 4.5 percentage points, compared with 3.4 percentage points for children without children.

This would mean that efforts to restore schools, daycare and nursing homes to full capacity will have important positive effects on the supply potential of the economy – part of the Biden government’s rationale for emphasizing spending on these areas in its pandemic rescue plan.

Another possible reason for the labor shortage is that the influx of federal funds has made some people less motivated to work. Stewart said five or six employees quit in the days after the government mailed $ 1,400 stimulus checks, and company executives have argued that expanded unemployment insurance benefits could deter people from getting back into work.

However, this theory is not supported by research from previous rounds of extended benefits which found that a lack of job opportunities is a bigger factor in unemployment than people receiving unemployment benefits.

The combination of increases in demand and disruptions in supply in the economy also has important global dimensions. Many companies rely on imports, including from countries that lag far behind the US in vaccinating their populations and, in some cases, are facing new outbreaks.

In addition, the securing of container ships in the port of Los Angeles and some other American ports, particularly on the West Coast, shows that the world trading system continued to be weighed down by the whiplash effect of last year’s shutdowns, followed by rising demand.

“There are companies that have changed the way they work before the pandemic and are more digital, and reopening isn’t such a big deal for them,” said James Manyika, a partner at McKinsey Global Institute, the giant consultancy’s internal research arm. “The problem is that this is not the majority of companies, and these other companies will find that they are highly dependent on their ecosystems and their supply chains.”

You can’t turn the world economy off, then turn it back on and expect everything to go back to normal right away, in other words. The question for 2021 is how slowly this reboot is turning out.