Tag: Face

Categories
Business

Pelosi Says Invoice on Investing Guidelines for Lawmakers Will Face Vote This Month

Pelosi Says Bill on Investing Rules for Lawmakers Will Face Vote This Month

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that Democrats would bring legislation into the House this month that would impose new restrictions on lawmakers’ ability to buy and sell stocks.

Her announcement comes after months of negotiations over whether and how to limit personal financial activities by members of Congress that could create real or perceived conflicts of interest with their public duties. And it came a day after the New York Times published an analysis showing that between 2019 and 2021, 97 congressmen and senators or their immediate family members reported trading in stocks, bonds or other financial assets mandated by committees, who they were could have been influenced serve on.

Ms Pelosi declined to give details of the proposed legislation other than calling it “very strong”.

“We believe we have a product to launch this month,” Ms. Pelosi said during her weekly news conference at the Capitol.

In the seven months since Ms Pelosi first signaled her support for legislation to tighten stock trading in Congress, there have been few signs of legislative progress likely to pass the House. A number of slightly different bills have been proposed in both the House and Senate, some with bipartisan support.

The slump in equity and bond markets this year has been painful and it remains difficult to predict the future.

  • Navigating in uncertainty: What should investors do in the face of repeated dizzying changes in direction in stock markets? Nothing, says our columnist.
  • college savings: As the stock and bond markets tumble, 529 plans crash. What’s a family to do? There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, but you have options.
  • Persistent Meme Stocks: The frenzy in which traders rallied on social media and drove up the stock prices of companies like GameStop can no longer be explained simply as a pandemic phenomenon.
  • Junk Bonds: Companies with poor credit ratings, whose debt is often labeled “junk,” are now taking the opportunity to borrow more money.

“For months, House and Senate leaders have promised action,” said Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Virginia Democrat and the main sponsor of a bipartisan trade curb proposal by the Legislature. “It’s long past time to move forward.”

One version of a legal framework in the House of Representatives, outlined in a late August memo reviewed by The Times, would effectively ban lawmakers, their spouses and dependent children from trading in individual stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies and other financial assets that are tied to specific companies.

Under the framework that forms the basis of current negotiations for a proposed law, congressmen would either have to divest these assets or place them in a blind trust in which they would have no visibility or interest. Legislators would still be allowed to invest in mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and some other categories.

According to the memo, the new legislation would also require more detailed transaction disclosures for permitted investments — for example, by narrowing published value ranges of assets — and toughen penalties for those who evade or break the law.

“Congress can add some bite to these penalties, which will encourage compliance and result in harsher penalties for violations,” the memo said.

According to the memo, members of the Supreme Court would be subject to the same restrictions. So would senior congressional officials, according to a Democratic official in the House of Representatives.

Congressional leaders have faced increasing pressure in recent months to crack down on their peers’ financial activities. An ongoing investigation by website Insider that began last year has found 72 examples of lawmakers who have violated applicable laws by late, inaccurate or not filing transaction reports.

A poll conducted earlier this year showed that nearly two-thirds of respondents supported a blanket ban on members of Congress from trading in individual stocks. And with public confidence in Congress down to just 7 percent in June, many lawmakers are reluctant to ignore voters’ demands.

“Congress is mired in a crisis of institutional legitimacy, caused in part by reports by members of both parties who appear to be benefiting from their public trust,” wrote Noah Bookbinder, president of Washington nonprofit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, in a letter on Wednesday calling for sweeping restrictions on trade by members of Congress.

In a separate news conference on Tuesday, other senior House Democrats signaled confidence that progress was being made on new trade restrictions.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, leader of the House Democrats, said he expects legislation “soon” from Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat who has commissioned Ms Pelosi to draft a bill that has broad support can.

It’s not clear if the Senate will pass legislation on the issue this year. A number of senators have been working on proposals, but none appear to have garnered the 60 votes required for passage by the Senate.

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, who is working on one of the proposals, said Wednesday, “I am committed to getting the stock trading ban in Congress across the finish line. I’ve carried this fight for a decade and I will not let it die.”

Categories
Business

Biden’s Pupil Mortgage Plan Might Face a Protracted Authorized Battle

Biden’s Student Loan Plan Could Face a Protracted Legal Fight

WASHINGTON – Die Initiative der Biden-Regierung zur Vergebung von Studentendarlehen steht vor einer Reihe rechtlicher Herausforderungen, die den Plan einfrieren könnten, bevor er in Betrieb genommen wird, und eine Politik bedrohen, die heftige parteiübergreifende Debatten und Machtkämpfe unter den Demokraten ausgelöst hat.

Der letzte Woche vom Weißen Haus angekündigte Plan würde erhebliche Schuldenberge für Millionen von Amerikanern tilgen. Diejenigen, die weniger als 125.000 US-Dollar pro Jahr verdienen, würden 10.000 US-Dollar Schulden erlassen, und diejenigen, die Pell-Zuschüsse erhalten, würden 20.000 US-Dollar Schuldenerlass erhalten.

Während es eines der Wahlversprechen von Präsident Biden erfüllt, Absolventen zu helfen, die mit ihren Zahlungen in Verzug geraten sind, verursacht der Plan erhebliche Kosten – voraussichtlich zwischen 300 und 500 Milliarden US-Dollar – für die Bundesregierung, die keine Rückzahlungen erhalten wird aktuell geschuldet.

Die Verabschiedung einer so großen Steuerausgabe durch Exekutivbefugnisse im Notfall hat Fragen darüber aufgeworfen, ob Herr Biden befugt ist, eine solche Politik selbst durchzuführen, und viele erwarten Klagen und einen langwierigen Rechtsstreit, auch von denen, die finanzielle Verluste erleiden werden der Plan. Diejenigen, die versuchen könnten, solche Schäden geltend zu machen, könnten Kreditdienstleister sein, denen Bearbeitungsgebühren entgehen, oder Gesetzgeber, die die Richtlinie als Verstoß gegen die Haushaltsbefugnis des Kongresses ansehen.

Handelsgruppen für Finanzdienstleistungen, Gelehrte und Think-Tank-Experten haben die letzten Tage damit verbracht, festzustellen, ob die Initiative des Weißen Hauses auf einer soliden rechtlichen Grundlage steht oder ob sie reif für gerichtliche Anfechtungen sein könnte.

Einige Kritiker haben Herrn Bidens Schritt mit ähnlichen Exekutivmaßnahmen des ehemaligen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump verglichen, einschließlich seines Einsatzes von Notstandsbefugnissen zur Finanzierung einer Grenzmauer im Jahr 2019. Obwohl dies etwas anderes war als der Erlass von Bundesschulden, argumentierten Gegner der Entscheidung Mr. Trump missbrauchte seine Autorität, indem er Pentagon-Gelder überwies, um den Mauerbau ohne Zustimmung des Kongresses zu bezahlen. Der Oberste Gerichtshof erlaubte die Fortsetzung des Baus, während der Fall seinen Weg durch die unteren Gerichte fand, aber Herr Biden stoppte die Arbeit an der Barriere bei seinem Amtsantritt.

Aufgrund der Erwartung eines Rechtsstreits haben einige davor gewarnt, dass Kreditnehmer, die auf Vergebung hoffen, ihre Hoffnungen noch nicht zu groß machen sollten.

„Der pauschale Erlass von Studentendarlehen ist zweifellos ein Akt von wirtschaftlicher und politischer Bedeutung, und die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass er innerhalb der Autorität des Präsidenten aufrechterhalten wird, ist zweifelhaft“, sagte Lanae Erickson, Senior Vice President für Sozialpolitik, Bildung und Politik bei The Third Way, einem Zentrum – Linkspolitische Denkfabrik. „Es obliegt den Befürwortern und politischen Entscheidungsträgern, die auf diesen beispiellosen Schritt gedrängt haben, den Kreditnehmern auch mitzuteilen, dass es sehr wahrscheinlich ist, dass er niemals zum Tragen kommt.“

Frühere Bemühungen der Biden-Regierung, Schulden zu erlassen, sind bereits auf rechtliche Hindernisse gestoßen. Ein Schuldenerlassprogramm in Höhe von 4 Milliarden US-Dollar für „sozial benachteiligte“ Landwirte wurde letztes Jahr angesichts von Herausforderungen eingefroren, was den Kongress dazu veranlasste, das Programm letztendlich in späteren Gesetzen, die letzten Monat verabschiedet wurden, neu zu schreiben.

Eine der Hauptfragen rund um das Studentendarlehensprogramm ist, wer – wenn überhaupt – die rechtliche „Stellungnahme“ hat, um zu behaupten, dass er durch die Police geschädigt wurde, und berechtigt ist, eine Klage einzureichen. Das wahrscheinlichste Ergebnis, sagen Rechtsexperten, ist, dass Banken oder Kreditdienstleister, die Geld durch Gebühren verlieren würden, für die sie geplant gewesen wären, Klagen einzureichen. Da viele Kreditnehmer insgesamt weniger Geld schulden würden, würde auch der Betrag schrumpfen, den sie monatlich an Unternehmen zahlen, die Kreditzahlungen verwalten.

Was Sie über den Schuldenerlass für Studentendarlehen wissen sollten

Karte 1 von 5

Was Sie über den Schuldenerlass für Studentendarlehen wissen sollten

Viele werden profitieren. Die Exekutivverordnung von Präsident Biden bedeutet, dass die Studiendarlehenssalden des Bundes von Millionen von Menschen um bis zu 20.000 US-Dollar sinken könnten. Hier finden Sie Antworten auf einige häufig gestellte Fragen zur Funktionsweise:

Was Sie über den Schuldenerlass für Studentendarlehen wissen sollten

Wer kommt für die Kreditkündigung infrage? Einzelpersonen, die ledig sind und 125.000 $ oder weniger verdienen, qualifizieren sich für den Schuldenerlass von 10.000 $. Wenn Sie verheiratet sind und Ihre Steuern gemeinsam einreichen oder ein Haushaltsvorstand sind, kommen Sie in Frage, wenn Ihr Einkommen 250.000 $ oder weniger beträgt. Wenn Sie einen Pell-Zuschuss erhalten haben und diese Einkommensvoraussetzungen erfüllen, könnten Sie sich für einen zusätzlichen Schuldenerlass in Höhe von 10.000 USD qualifizieren.

Was Sie über den Schuldenerlass für Studentendarlehen wissen sollten

Was muss ich als Erstes tun, wenn ich mich qualifiziere? Wenden Sie sich an Ihren Kreditdienstleister, um sicherzustellen, dass Ihre Postanschrift, Ihre E-Mail-Adresse und Ihre Mobiltelefonnummer korrekt aufgeführt sind, damit Sie Hilfestellung erhalten können. Befolgen Sie diese Anweisungen. Wenn Sie nicht wissen, wer Ihr Kreditverwalter ist, konsultieren Sie die Seite „Wer ist mein Kreditverwalter?“ des Bildungsministeriums. Webseite für Anleitungen.

Was Sie über den Schuldenerlass für Studentendarlehen wissen sollten

Wie weise ich nach, dass ich qualifiziert bin? Wenn Sie bereits in einem einkommensorientierten Rückzahlungsplan angemeldet sind und Ihre letzte Steuererklärung eingereicht haben, um dieses Einkommen zu bescheinigen, sollten Sie nichts weiter tun müssen. Halten Sie dennoch Ausschau nach Anleitungen von Ihrem Dienstleister. Für alle anderen wird das Bildungsministerium voraussichtlich bis Ende des Jahres ein Bewerbungsverfahren einrichten.

Was Sie über den Schuldenerlass für Studentendarlehen wissen sollten

Wann werden die Zahlungen für den ausstehenden Betrag wieder aufgenommen? Präsident Biden verlängerte eine Zahlungspause in der Trump-Ära, die nun nicht vor mindestens Januar fällig ist. Sie sollten mindestens drei Wochen vor Fälligkeit Ihrer ersten Zahlung eine Zahlungsmitteilung erhalten, aber Sie können sich vorher an Ihren Kreditdienstleister wenden, um Einzelheiten darüber zu erfahren, was Sie schulden und wann die Zahlung fällig ist.

„Alles ist Gegenstand von Rechtsstreitigkeiten, daher bin ich sicher, dass es hier einige Schwankungen geben wird“, sagte Jayne Conroy, Anwältin des Klägers bei der Anwaltskanzlei Simmons Hanly Conroy.

Frau Conroy sagte, dass Kreditdienstleister Verträge mit Verpflichtungen zur Langlebigkeit von Krediten haben könnten, die durch den Schuldenerlass verletzt werden könnten. Einige Dienstleister, schlug sie vor, könnten behaupten, dass ihre Konkurrenten von der Politik der Biden-Regierung profitierten.

Die Banken haben bisher wenig über die Richtlinie gesagt, da sie weitere Einzelheiten des Bildungsministeriums darüber erwarten, wie der Krediterlass funktionieren wird. Aber ein Beamter einer Gruppe der Finanzdienstleistungsbranche, der darum bat, bei der Erörterung interner Beratungen anonym zu bleiben, sagte, private Kreditgeber würden die Umsetzung des Schuldenerlasses mit ihren Rechtsteams überwachen, um festzustellen, ob Klagen die angemessene Vorgehensweise seien.

Von Republikanern geführte Staaten könnten ebenfalls versuchen einzugreifen, wobei weniger klar ist, auf welcher Grundlage sie Einspruch erheben müssten. Einige Generalstaatsanwälte haben gewarnt, dass sie eine rechtliche Anfechtung planen.

„Ich bin bereit, mich anderen Generalstaatsanwälten anzuschließen oder, wenn ich alleine gehen muss, gegen Präsident Bidens neueste Exekutivverordnung in Bezug auf Studentendarlehensschulden vorzugehen“, sagte Leslie Rutledge, die Generalstaatsanwältin von Arkansas, gegenüber dem Fox Business Network .

Wenn die Republikaner nächstes Jahr das Repräsentantenhaus zurückerobern, könnten sie auch versuchen, das Programm zu blockieren. Der Abgeordnete Kevin Brady aus Texas, der oberste Republikaner des Ways and Means Committee, sagte diese Woche, er glaube, dass der Umzug von Herrn Biden illegal sei.

„Ich glaube nicht, dass es die Musterung übersteht, aber ich mache mir Sorgen, dass das Geld im Wesentlichen aus der Tür fließen wird“, sagte Mr. Brady gegenüber CNBC. „Ich weiß nicht, wie ein Präsident eine halbe Billion Dollar bekommen kann, indem er einfach seine Unterschrift auf einer Exekutivverordnung unterschreibt.“

Die Biden-Regierung hat ein Memo des Rechtsberaters des Justizministeriums herausgegeben, in dem es heißt, dass die Schulden des Studentendarlehens unter der Autorität des Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act von 2003 gekündigt werden könnten. Dieses Gesetz verleiht dem Bildungsminister die Befugnis, „ Härten lindern“, die Kreditnehmer von Bundesstudentendarlehen aufgrund eines nationalen Notfalls wie der Pandemie erleben. Es wurde auch geltend gemacht, um dem Bildungsministerium zu erlauben, die Rückzahlung von Studentendarlehen seit 2020 auszusetzen, eine Aktion, auf die Beamte der Biden-Verwaltung hinweisen, die nicht rechtlich angefochten wurden.

Einige Rechtswissenschaftler warnen jedoch davor, dass es zu weit hergeholt sein könnte, einen breiten Schuldenerlass für Studenten auf die Pandemie zu stützen, und die Möglichkeit offen zu lassen, dass Gerichte die Politik niederschlagen könnten.

Jed Shugerman, Professor an der Fordham Law School, sagte, er sei besorgt, dass die Anwälte der Biden-Regierung „nachlässig“ seien, wenn sie das Gesetz von 2003 als Grundlage für einen solch umfassenden Schuldenerlass verwendeten. Er sagte voraus, dass die Politik eingefroren würde.

„Meine Vermutung ist, dass eine dieser Privatbanken mit einem günstigen Richter vor ein Bundesbezirksgericht gehen wird, und es wird eine landesweite einstweilige Verfügung geben, die verhindert, dass dieses Programm in Kraft tritt“, sagte Herr Shugerman.

Herr Shugerman fügte hinzu, dass es, obwohl er den Ehrgeiz der Politik für bewundernswert halte, heuchlerisch von den Demokraten sei, sich auf Notstandsbefugnisse zu berufen, um eine Politik zu erlassen, die denen ähnelt, die die Trump-Regierung für Maßnahmen zur Einwanderung verwendet hat.

„Wenn die Demokraten über den Missbrauch von Notstandsbefugnissen durch die Trump-Administration empört waren, warum tolerieren sie ihn dann grundsätzlich?“ er sagte.

Initiativen der Biden-Administration hatten im letzten Jahr vor Gericht Schwierigkeiten.

Ein Schuldenerlassprogramm in Höhe von 4 Milliarden US-Dollar für „sozial benachteiligte“ Landwirte wurde letztes Jahr aufgrund rechtlicher Anfechtungen eingefroren und schließlich im sogenannten Inflation Reduction Act, den der Kongress letzten Monat verabschiedete, neu geschrieben.

Anforderungen des amerikanischen Rettungsplans, den der Kongress im vergangenen Jahr verabschiedet hatte und die Staaten untersagten, Hilfsgelder zur Subventionierung von Steuersenkungen zu verwenden, wurden von Staaten und Gerichten mit Klagen konfrontiert, die die Biden-Regierung daran hinderten, diese Bestimmung des Gesetzes durchzusetzen.

Und der Oberste Gerichtshof beendete letztes Jahr das Räumungsmoratorium der Biden-Regierung und entschied, dass sie sich zu Unrecht auf ein altes Gesetz stützte, um den Centers for Disease Control mehr Macht zu geben, als der Kongress beabsichtigt hatte.

Herr Biden selbst hat zuvor Vorbehalte darüber geäußert, wie weit er gehen könnte, um Studentenschulden einseitig zu beseitigen.

Während einer Veranstaltung, die letztes Jahr von CNN veranstaltet wurde, sagte er, dass er glaube, er könne 10.000 Dollar Schulden abschreiben, aber dass 50.000 Dollar zu weit gehen würden.

„Ich glaube nicht, dass ich dazu befugt bin, indem ich den Stift unterschreibe“, sagte Biden.

Ein Sprecher des Weißen Hauses, Abdullah Hasan, sagte, jeder Versuch der Republikaner, den Schuldenerlass für Studenten zu stoppen, würde der Mittelschicht schaden.

„Lassen Sie uns klarstellen, was sie hier versuchen würden: Dieselben Leute, die für ein Steuergeschenk in Höhe von 2 Billionen Dollar für die Reichen gestimmt haben und Hunderttausende von Dollar ihrer eigenen Darlehensschulden für Kleinunternehmen erlassen haben, würden versuchen, Millionen zu behalten der arbeitenden Mittelklasse-Amerikaner in Schuldenbergen“, sagte Herr Hasan.

Bei einem Briefing letzte Woche sagte Bharat Ramamurti, ein stellvertretender Direktor des Nationalen Wirtschaftsrates des Weißen Hauses, er glaube, dass die Biden-Administration auf einer „sehr starken rechtlichen Grundlage“ stehe.

„Natürlich können Menschen Klagen vor Gericht anfechten“, sagte Herr Ramamurti. „Es wird Sache der Gerichte sein, zu entscheiden, ob dies gültige Ansprüche sind oder nicht.“

Categories
World News

EV makers face money squeeze amid hovering battery, manufacturing prices

EV makers face cash squeeze amid soaring battery, production costs

Production of electric Rivian R1T pickup trucks on April 11, 2022 at the company’s plant in Normal, Ill.

Michael Wayland/CNBC

In the transition from gas-powered vehicles to electric, the fuel every automaker is after these days is cold hard cash.

Established automakers and startups alike are rolling out new battery-powered models in an effort to meet growing demand. Ramping up production of a new model was already a fraught and expensive process, but rising material costs and tricky regulations for federal incentives are squeezing coffers even further.

Prices of the raw materials used in many electric-vehicle batteries — lithium, nickel and cobalt — have soared over the last two years as demand has skyrocketed, and it may be several years before miners are able to meaningfully increase supply.

Complicating the situation further, new US rules governing EV buyer incentives will require automakers to source more of those materials in North America over time if they want their vehicles to qualify.

The result: new cost pressures for what was already an expensive process.

Automakers routinely spend hundreds of millions of dollars designing and installing tooling to build new high-volume vehicles — before a single new car is shipped. Nearly all global automakers now maintain hefty cash reserves of $20 billion or more. Those reserves exist to ensure that the companies can continue to work on their next new models if and when a recession (or a pandemic) takes a bite out of their sales and profits for a few quarters.

All that money and time can be a risky bet: If the new model doesn’t resonate with customers, or if manufacturing problems delay its introduction or compromise quality, the automaker might not make enough to cover what it spent.

For newer automakers, the financial risks to designing a new electric vehicle can be existential.

Take Tesla. When the automaker began preparations to launch its Model 3, CEO Elon Musk and his team planned a highly automated production line for the Model 3, with robots and specialized machines that reportedly cost well over a billion dollars. But some of that automation didn’t work as expected, and Tesla moved some final-assembly tasks to a tent outside its factory.

Tesla learned a lot of expensive lessons in the process. Musk said later called the experience of launching the Model 3 “production hell” and said it nearly brought Tesla to the brink of bankruptcy.

As newer EV startups ramp up production, more investors are learning that taking a car from design to production is capital-intensive. And in the current environment, where deflated stock prices and rising interest rates have made it harder to raise money than it was just a year or two ago, EV startups’ cash balances are getting close attention from Wall Street.

Here’s where some of the most prominent American EV startups of the last few years stand when it comes to cash on hand:

Rivian

Production of electric Rivian R1T pickup trucks on April 11, 2022 at the company’s plant in Normal, Ill.

Michael Wayland/CNBC

Rivian is by far the best-positioned of the new EV startups, with over $15 billion on hand as of the end of June. That should be enough to fund the company’s operations and expansion through the planned launch of its smaller “R2” vehicle platform in 2025, CFO Claire McDonough said during the company’s earnings call on Aug. 11.

Rivian has struggled to ramp up production of its R1-series pickup and SUV amid supply chain snags and early manufacturing challenges. The company burned about $1.5 billion in the second quarter, but it also said it plans to reduce its near-term capital expenditures to about $2 billion this year from $2.5 billion in its earlier plan to ensure it can meet its longer-term goals.

At least one analyst thinks Rivian will need to raise cash well before 2025: In a note following Rivian’s earnings report, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas said that his bank’s model assumes Rivian will raise $3 billion via a secondary stock offering before the end of next year and another $3 billion via additional raises in 2024 and 2025.

Jonas currently has an “overweight” rating on Rivian’s stock, with a $60 price target. Rivian ended trading Friday at roughly $32 per share.

Lucid

People test drive Dream Edition P and Dream Edition R electric vehicles at the Lucid Motors plant in Casa Grande, Arizona, September 28, 2021.

Caitlin O’Hara | Reuters

Luxury EV maker Lucid Group doesn’t have quite as much cash in reserve as Rivian, but it’s not badly positioned. It ended the second quarter with $4.6 billion in cash, down from $5.4 billion at the end of March. That’s enough to last “well into 2023,” CFO Sherry House said earlier this month.

Like Rivian, Lucid has struggled to ramp up production since launching its Air luxury sedan last fall. It’s planning big capital expenditures to expand its Arizona factory and build a second plant in Saudi Arabia. But unlike Rivian, Lucid has a deep-pocketed patron — Saudi Arabia’s public wealth fund, which owns about 61% of the California-based EV maker and would almost certainly step in to help if the company runs short of cash.

For the most part, Wall Street analysts were unconcerned about Lucid’s second-quarter cash burn. Bank of America’s John Murphy wrote that Lucid still has “runway into 2023, especially considering the company’s recently secured revolver [$1 billion credit line] and incremental funding from various entities in Saudi Arabia earlier this year.”

Murphy has a “buy” rating on Lucid’s stock and a price target of $30. He’s compared the startup’s potential future profitability to that of luxury sports-car maker Ferrari. Lucid currently trades for about $16 per share.

fisherman

People gather and take pictures after the Fisker Ocean all-electric SUV was revealed at Manhattan Beach Pier on November 16, 2021 in Manhattan Beach, California.

Mario Tama | Getty Images

Unlike Rivian and Lucid, Fisker isn’t planning to build its own factory to construct its electric vehicles. Instead, the company founded by former Aston Martin designer Henrik Fisker will use contract manufacturers — global auto-industry supplier Magna International and Taiwan’s Foxconn — to build its cars.

That represents something of a cash tradeoff: Fisker won’t have to spend nearly as much money up front to get its upcoming Ocean SUV into production, but it will almost certainly give up some profit to pay the manufacturers later on.

Production of the Ocean is scheduled to begin in November at an Austrian factory owned by Magna. Fisker will have considerable expenses in the interim — money for prototypes and final engineering, as well as payments to Magna — but with $852 million on hand at the end of June, it should have no trouble covering those costs.

RBC analyst Joseph Spak said following Fisker’s second-quarter report that the company will likely need more cash, despite its contract-manufacturing model — what he estimated to be about $1.25 billion over “the coming years.”

Spak has an “outperform” rating on Fisker’s stock and a price target of $13. The stock closed Friday at $9 per share.

Nikola

Nikola Motor Company

Source: Nikola Motor Company

Nikola was one of the first EV makers to go public via a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. The company has begun shipping its battery-electric Tre semitruck in small numbers, and plans to ramp up production and add a long-range hydrogen fuel-cell version of the Tre in 2023.

But as of right now, it probably doesn’t have the cash to get there. The company had a tougher time raising funds, following allegations from a short-seller, a stock price plunge and the ouster of its outspoken founder Trevor Milton, who is now facing federal fraud charges for statements made to investors.

Nikola had $529 million on hand as of the end of June, plus another $312 million available via an equity line from Tumim Stone Capital. That’s enough, CFO Kim Brady said during Nikola’s second-quarter earnings call, to fund operations for another 12 months — but more money will be needed before long.

“Given our target of keeping 12 months of liquidity on hand at the end of each quarter, we will continue to seek the right opportunities to replenish our liquidity on an ongoing basis while trying to minimize dilution to our shareholders,” Brady said. “We are carefully considering how we can potentially spend less without compromising our critical programs and reduce cash requirements for 2023.”

Deutsche Bank analyst Emmanuel Rosner estimates Nikola will need to raise between $550 million and $650 million before the end of the year, and more later on. He has a “hold” rating on Nikola with a price target of $8. The stock trades for $6 as of Friday’s close.

Lordstown

Lordstown Motors gave rides in prototypes of its upcoming electric endurance pickup truck on June 21, 2021 as part of its “Lordstown Week” event.

Michael Wayland/CNBC

Lordstown Motors is in perhaps the most precarious position of the lot, with just $236 million on hand as of the end of June.

Like Nikola, Lordstown saw its stock price collapse after its founder was forced out following a short-seller’s allegations of fraud. The company shifted away from a factory model to a contract-manufacturing arrangement like Fisker’s, and it completed a deal in May to sell its Ohio factory, a former General Motors plant, to Foxconn for a total of about $258 million.

Foxconn plans to use the factory to manufacture EVs for other companies, including Lordstown’s Endurance pickup and an upcoming small Fisker EV called the Pear.

Despite the considerable challenges ahead for Lordstown, Deutsche Bank’s Rosner still has a “hold” rating on the stock. But he’s not sanguine. He thinks the company will need to raise $50 million to $75 million to fund operations through the end of this year, despite its decision to limit the first production batch of the endurance to just 500 units.

“More importantly, to complete the production of this first batch, management will have to raise more substantial capital in 2023,” Rosner wrote after Lordstown’s second-quarter earnings report. And given the company’s difficulties to date, that won’t be easy.

“Lordstown would have to demonstrate considerable traction and positive reception for the endurance with its initial customers in order to raise capital,” he wrote.

Rosner rates Lordstown’s stock a “hold” with a price target of $2. The stock closed Friday at $2.06.

Categories
Politics

Biden’s Immigration Insurance policies Face Contemporary Judicial Setbacks

Biden’s Immigration Policies Face Fresh Judicial Setbacks

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department on Friday called on the Supreme Court to halt a judge’s order to restart a Trump-era program that was causing migrants crossing the southern border to seek asylum to await their cases in Mexico , often in life-threatening situations.

The move came in response to one of two court rulings this week that marked a backlash in President Biden’s efforts to reverse his predecessor’s tough immigration policies.

On Thursday, a federal appeals court in Texas dismissed an attempt by the Biden administration to halt a court order reinstating the controversial migrant protection protocols program, also known as “Remain in Mexico” asylum policy, underway during the Trump administration. The order should take effect on Saturday.

And in a separate case, a federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s short-term strategy of limiting arrests of undocumented immigrants by prioritizing those who most threatened national and public security. A Justice Department spokeswoman said the agency is reviewing Judge Drew B. Tipton’s 160-page verdict of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and lawyers are considering next steps.

Taken together, the trials threaten two of the Biden government’s earliest efforts to reshape the country’s immigration system. Another blow came in July when a federal judge ruled that an Obama-era program protecting hundreds of thousands of undocumented young adults from deportation was illegal.

The judges’ decisions and the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, emphasized the role of the courts as the primary venue for shaping polarizing immigration policy, one legal challenge after another – a strategy that immigration advocates have refined during the Trump administration.

“Those who oppose the Biden government’s immigration agenda take every opportunity to ask political questions and have them answered in favorable courts,” said Tom K. Wong, director of the US Immigration Policy Center at the University of California, San Diego said.

The order for the Biden administration to restore Trump policies that forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases were being handled in the United States came from Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

He and Judge Tipton were both appointed by President Donald J. Trump. Of the three judges on the Fifth District Court of Appeal who on Thursday denied the government’s motion to stop the “stay in Mexico” ruling, two were appointed by Trump; the third was appointed by President George W. Bush.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, government attorneys said the reintroduction of asylum policy on Saturday was “almost impossible” and would cause “irreparable harm”. Critics said it would place asylum seekers in dangerous gathering environments at a time when the highly contagious Delta variant fueled a surge in coronavirus cases.

It was initially unclear what exactly the order would set in motion on Saturday or whether Mexico would allow the program to resume.

The program was also litigated during the Trump administration.

“You will likely see opponents of the Biden administration’s future policies using the courts to hold back progress, which only adds to the importance of Congressional action,” Wong said.

The most recent example is efforts to prevent the administration from prioritizing undocumented immigrants to be arrested.

In February, the Biden administration issued its preliminary arrest priorities for immigration and customs enforcement, a marked departure from the Trump administration’s policy of arresting undocumented immigrants for any immigration violations. The Biden team ordered ICE officials to give priority to the arrest of undocumented persons who pose a risk to national and public security, as well as those who recently illegally crossed the border. The Obama administration has similar enforcement priorities.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton celebrated the injunction on the priorities of Mr. Biden’s arrest, calling it “another Texas win over Biden.”

Texas is a party in both cases and this year has borne the brunt of the unusually high number of illegal border crossings, with many migrant families and children from Central America arriving in the state’s Rio Grande Valley and overwhelming border officials. The state has taken several measures to challenge the immigration policies of the Biden government; Earlier this summer, Republican Governor Greg Abbott ordered state law enforcement agencies to arrest migrants for trespassing in an attempt to tackle illegal immigration – because, he said, the Biden administration did not.

Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security, has been working to outline permanent arrest priorities for ICE that would replace the tentative ones currently under attack. It was not immediately clear whether the judge’s ruling would apply to the administration’s final arrest priorities.

If the Biden government cannot continue with its immigration arrest strategy, the postponement will likely continue to weigh on an immigration detention system that is already near full. ICE arrests have so far decreased by more than half this year compared to the same period in 2020, according to immigration statistics, in part due to pandemic-related rules to limit the number of people in meeting places and temporary arrest priorities.

Mr. Wong said that even if Republicans were to challenge arrest priorities, it would not change the reality that there was not enough room.

“And so the policy of ‘enforcement en masse’ does not take into account finite resources,” he said, “including limited detention capacities.”

The government is also waiting for a judge to rule on a lawsuit that would prevent them from continuing a public health rule that the Trump administration put in place at the start of the pandemic to help many asylum-seeking families arriving at the border to refuse. Immigration advocates filed the lawsuit last year, when Vice President Kamala Harris, then a Senator from California and a presidential candidate, argued against the rule.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys hoped to reach an agreement with the Biden administration. But discussions collapsed last month when the White House decided not to lift the health rule anytime soon due to the overwhelming number of migrants arriving at the southern border and the risk of further Covid-19 infections.

If the courts ultimately order the administration to repeal the public health rule, it will expand the federal government’s enforcement capabilities even further.

Charlie Savage contributed to the coverage.

Categories
Health

Nursing Properties Face Dilemma: Vaccinate Employees or Don’t Get Paid.

Nursing Homes Face Dilemma: Vaccinate Staff or Don’t Get Paid.

Marita Smith runs a nursing home in Seattle while Janet Snipes runs one in Denver. They share years of industry experience and painful memories of Covid-19, but have vastly different views on a new federal policy making vaccinations mandatory for all care home workers.

Ms. Smith said unvaccinated people should not be caring for a vulnerable population that has already been hit hard by the pandemic. The industry is seeing rising infection rates and deaths among residents again, but not reaching the highs of last year, and the mandate is expected to avert further increases.

“It’s great,” said Ms. Smith, administrator of the St. Anne Nursing and Rehab Center, calling the policy a “pretty big deal” that would “flush out health professionals who shouldn’t be in the health service.”

Such exits are exactly what worries Ms. Snipes, executive director of the Holly Heights Care Center in Denver. She, too, wants all homeworkers to be vaccinated, but not at the risk of losing employees who fail to do so in the midst of a labor shortage in an already high turnover industry.

Of the 1.5 million nursing home workers in the United States, approximately 540,000 – 40 percent of the workforce – are unvaccinated. Their fate could be directly affected by a directive announced by President Biden on Wednesday mandating vaccination of all nursing home workers, with the rules expected to go into effect in September. Institutions that fail to meet this goal could face fines or lose federal reimbursement, a major source of income for many.

The practical effect of the policy is that workers must be vaccinated or lose their jobs. Ms. Snipes said several employees told her they could leave. One who referred to her as her best nurse told her she was “very, very scared” of the vaccine, partly because she is black and worried about past medical experiments.

Getting vaccinated “is the safest thing for our residents and staff, but we believe he must contract all health care facilities,” Ms. Snipes said of President Biden. “We cannot afford to lose staff to hospitals and assisted living facilities.”

Several large nursing home chains and some states have already issued vaccination mandates. Industry officials said vaccinations were highly recommended, but their position on the new policy mirrored that of Ms. Snipes.

“We’re going to lose tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of workers,” said Mark Parkinson, president and chief executive officer of the American Health Care Association, a large nursing home trade group. He said he was hoping for policy changes and had already worked with Dr. Lee A. Fleisher, Chief Medical Officer of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, talked about it and looked for a meeting with Xavier Becerra, Secretary for Health and Human Services.

The most important change the industry is seeking is a signal from the administration that at some point there will be a mandate for all healthcare facilities so that nursing home workers can see there is nowhere else they can go. “Make it a commitment for everyone,” said Mr. Parkinson.

In fact, around 2,000 hospitals have already placed vaccination orders, reducing job opportunities for unvaccinated healthcare workers.

Dr. Fleisher said the CMS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention saw a “direct link” in the latest data between rising infections in nursing homes and unvaccinated staff.

Updated

Aug. 19, 2021, 6:01 p.m. ET

“The higher the percentage of unvaccinated workers, the higher the percentage of cases we have seen in these homes,” said Dr. Butcher. “There was a strong relationship.”

Currently, 60 percent of nursing home workers nationwide are vaccinated, well below the previous industry target of 75 percent by the end of June.

Parkinson said the industry is also lobbying the government to “launch a much more intense media campaign to influence workers” that vaccines are safe and effective. The trade organization also wants the government to create a grace period for hesitant employees.

Uy, a geriatrician and medical director of a Philadelphia nursing home, said he had seen the human resource challenges and was “excited about the mandate.”

“I’m exhausted,” he said. “The vaccine is like a small fortress around the weakest, in which the people inside remain safe even though a fire is raging outside.”

The mandate aims to avoid an increase in Covid cases and deaths in a high risk population.

Of the 625,000 Covid deaths to date in the US, almost a fifth – 133,700 – were residents of nursing homes, according to the CDC

Understand the state of vaccination and masking requirements in the United States

    • Mask rules. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in July recommended that all Americans, regardless of vaccination status, wear masks in public places indoors in areas with outbreaks, reversing the guidelines offered in May. See where the CDC guidelines would apply and where states have implemented their own mask guidelines. The battle over masks is controversial in some states, with some local leaders defying state bans.
    • Vaccination regulations. . . and B.Factories. Private companies are increasingly demanding coronavirus vaccines for employees with different approaches. Such mandates are legally permissible and have been confirmed in legal challenges.
    • College and Universities. More than 400 colleges and universities require a vaccination against Covid-19. Almost all of them are in states that voted for President Biden.
    • schools. On August 11, California announced that teachers and staff at both public and private schools would have to get vaccinated or have regular tests, the first state in the nation to do so. A survey published in August found that many American parents of school-age children are against mandatory vaccines for students, but are more supportive of masking requirements for students, teachers and staff who do not have a vaccination.
    • Hospitals and medical centers. Many hospitals and large health systems require their employees to receive a Covid-19 vaccine, due to rising case numbers due to the Delta variant and persistently low vaccination rates in their communities, even within their workforce.
    • new York. On August 3, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that workers and customers will be required to provide proof of vaccination when dining indoors, gyms, performances, and other indoor situations. City hospital staff must also be vaccinated or have weekly tests. Similar rules apply to employees in New York State.
    • At the federal level. The Pentagon announced that it would make coronavirus vaccinations compulsory for the country’s 1.3 million active soldiers “by mid-September at the latest. President Biden announced that all civil federal employees would need to be vaccinated against the coronavirus or undergo regular tests, social distancing, mask requirements and travel restrictions.

And a recent CDC study of 4,000 nursing homes found that the effectiveness of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines among nursing home residents dropped from 75 percent in the spring to 53 percent by midsummer, when the delta variant spread further. “The results underline the crucial importance of the Covid-19 vaccination for employees, residents and visitors,” stated the authors of the study.

Health experts fear that unvaccinated employees could bring Covid-19 into a nursing home and infect residents. Nationwide, more than 80 percent of residents of nursing homes are vaccinated, but the number of cases in this population group is already increasing. In the week ending August 15, 354 care home residents died of Covid-19, the highest number since mid-March, and 3,585 tested positive, according to the CDC

The CDC has found that more employees are getting sick. In the week ending August 15, 5,810 nursing home employees contracted Covid-19, five times more than a month earlier, and 25 employees died.

Earlier this month, the Good Samaritan Society, which operates 142 nursing homes nationwide, announced that all 15,000 employees must be vaccinated by November 1, a position the company took after in homes where unvaccinated workers also tested positive , an increase in infections among residents was recorded. So far, the workforce has remained stable, said Randy Bury, the company’s CEO, who has argued in the past that such mandates would create safe and desirable jobs.

However, he argued that the Biden government’s new policy was wrong unless it was applied to the health sector as a whole. “What’s the difference in a nursing home versus a hospital?” Said Mr. Bury. “They are susceptible to the virus when they come into contact with unvaccinated employees.”

LeadingAge, a non-profit organization that represents 2,000 nursing homes and had previously requested mandates in individual homes, criticized the Biden policy for its narrow focus.

“The administration is right,” said Katie Smith Sloan, president and chief executive officer of LeadingAge, in a released statement. “We are at war. It would be a tragic misstep for the nurses who continue to struggle on the front lines to withdraw funds. “

Ms. Snipes, the director of Holly Heights in Denver, said she spent months training the staff and promoting vaccinations. She said most of her unvaccinated employees agreed to obey the mandate, but she mentioned three that she feared might leave. One told her that she did not want to put anything strange in her body. A second Catholic said he did not want an mRNA vaccine for religious reasons and that he had a letter of support from his bishop.

The third was the black nurse, who “sounds the most fearful of all the people I have spoken to,” said Ms. Snipes. “I want to save you as an employee.”

Categories
Health

Unvaccinated folks face extra Covid restrictions in future

Unvaccinated people face more Covid restrictions in future

Thousands of protesters took to the streets in Toulouse against France’s mandatory health pass on July 12th 2021. More than 234,000 people demonstrated across France against the pass which will be mandatory for entry to a wide array of public venues such as cafes, theaters, concerts hall, cinemas, shopping malls, public transportation, public swimming pools, and even hospitals unless there’s a critical situation.

NurPhoto | NurPhoto | Getty Images

LONDON — The divide between the vaccinated and unvaccinated when it comes to Covid-19 is likely to become even deeper, with officials in the U.S. and Europe planning, or introducing, an increasing number of restrictions on people who haven’t gotten a Covid shot.

Almost all governments around the world have so far resisted making Covid vaccination mandatory for their citizens, although many have introduced forms of Covid vaccination certificates, passes or passports that allow the immunized bearer more freedoms and work opportunities than unvaccinated people.

Aspects of daily life are increasingly complicated for anyone who is not vaccinated against Covid, and there is a rising sense of anger and injustice among those who reject the vaccine.

Vaccine fault lines

Despite protests among groups against such moves, the freedom to travel, work, socialize and engage in leisure activities is increasingly determined by our Covid vaccination status.

Nationally the U.S. has ruled out making Covid vaccination mandatory, rejecting the concept of vaccination passports back in April due to concerns over privacy and citizens’ rights. But some states are moving toward more restrictions for unvaccinated people.

Covid vaccinations are now mandatory for New York City’s municipal workers, and from mid-September proof of inoculation will be required from employees and customers of indoor eateries, gyms and entertainment centers. Meanwhile, workers in health care facilities in California will be required to provide proof that they’ve been fully vaccinated against Covid from October. On Monday, the Pentagon said it plans to make Covid vaccination mandatory for military service members no later than mid-September.

Read more: Herd immunity from Covid is ‘mythical’ with the delta variant, experts say

France, Greece and the U.K. are among European countries mandating vaccinations for health professionals or home care staff. In China, some local governments have reportedly said students will not be allowed back to school in September unless their entire family is fully vaccinated. In Australia, some states in lockdown are allowing only vaccinated people back to work and have said restrictions will be lifted only when a majority of people are immunized.

A large number of European countries now require travelers to show they are fully vaccinated, provide proof of a negative Covid test, or show that they have recovered from a recent infection. Otherwise, they must quarantine.

“I ask all those who have been vaccinated to encourage their friends, acquaintances and family members to also get vaccinated,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tuesday, shortly after new measures were announced in that country. “This is not only a protection for us, but also for others who cannot be vaccinated — children or people with previous illnesses.”

‘Blackmail’ and ‘dictatorship’

There are many individuals who are unhappy about the trend toward differentiating between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Marco De Matteo, a young Neapolitan man who is a travel enthusiast, is angry about the situation in Italy where a “green pass” has been introduced, likening the situation to a “health and economic dictatorship.”

“Those in power are limiting, by law, individuals’ freedom and dignity,” he said. “The imposition of the green pass in the world of work, both in the public and in the private sector … is breaking society apart,” he told CNBC.

The pass is a digital or paper certificate that shows if someone has received at least one shot of a vaccine, has tested negative or has recently recovered from the coronavirus. The pass is now needed for any Italian citizen to access indoor bars and restaurants, cinemas, museums or gyms and will soon be required for travel and some jobs, such as teachers. Those who refuse will be suspended.

Members of the ‘No Vax’ take part in a demonstration against the introduction of a mandatory “green pass” in the aim to limit the spread of the Covid-19, at the Piazza del Popolo in central Rome on August 7, 2021.

ALBERTO PIZZOLI | AFP | Getty Images

De Matteo, and many others who are also concerned about encroachment on civil liberties, recognizes the need to protect the health of the community. But he says that for him “there are many doubts both about the nature of the virus and about the vaccine.” He also regrets negative stereotypes attributed to people that object to Covid vaccines.

“In Italy, many people are organizing peaceful demonstrations — people from all walks of life and economic backgrounds who care about everyone’s freedom, dignity and health — but they are labeled as conspiracy theorists,” he said.

Vaccine skepticism and outright anti-vaccination sentiment have become rife since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, coinciding with disinformation and misinformation on social media that can ultimately endanger lives. Clinical trials, peer-reviewed by international medical journals, have shown that vaccination reduces the spread of the virus and contributes to reducing deaths and severe illness.

Medical professionals, such as Dr. Scott Gottlieb, have repeatedly spoken of the benefits of vaccination. Gottlieb, a former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, also told CNBC last month that people who have previously been infected with the coronavirus would still benefit from receiving Covid vaccines.

French yoga teacher Amel Lamloum told CNBC back in January that she didn’t see the advantages of having the Covid vaccine, given her young age (30) and good health.

Read more: France’s vaccine-skepticism is making its Covid immunization drive much harder  

Speaking to CNBC again Thursday, Lamloum said she still had not received the vaccine and was even more reluctant to do so now, given what she saw as “blackmail” by the French government to do so.

“I really think society has changed and that there is no justice anymore,” she said, adding that she no longer trusted the government and had prepared herself to adjust how she lived.

“Many, many people will not get the vaccine, for sure, and we will have to live in a side society and we are ready for it, we are ready for everything.”

Why the reluctance?

For millions of people who have been happy and willing to receive a Covid vaccine, the rollout of vaccination programs has offered protection against a highly transmissible virus. It’s also allowed a return to much-missed freedoms, from seeing loved-ones and socializing to shopping and traveling.

But others across the U.S. and Europe see vaccination programs with ambivalence or worse.

Some have been critical of the speed of Covid vaccine development, distrusting clinical data on the efficacy and long-term safety credentials of Covid vaccines. Others have questioned why they need a shot when Covid can be a mild or asymptomatic illness for many people, especially the young.

Public bodies like the World Health Organization have repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of vaccinating as many people as possible against Covid to curb the spread of the disease and allow a return to a normal societal functioning. Covid vaccines have been proven in extensive clinical trials involving hundreds of thousands of people to be safe and highly effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization and death.

What’s less certain for experts is how long immunity lasts and whether future Covid variants could undermine vaccine efficacy. Many governments are weighing up the merits of booster vaccines too but for now, the main priority is to encourage vaccine uptake among the completely unvaccinated.

Who is most vaccine resistant?

Public confidence in vaccines, or the flipside of vaccine hesitancy, differs wildly from country to country and is often informed by the public’s trust in government and health care systems. France, for example, is renowned for a high rate of vaccine hesitancy, while vaccine uptake in the U.K. has traditionally been high.

One survey showed vaccine opposition highest in Russia, followed by the U.S., according to a global poll of 15 countries carried out by data intelligence company Morning Consult in July and August. With 43,054 interviews conducted in the U.S. alone, the percentage of people unwilling or uncertain about getting a Covid vaccine stood at 30%.

Young adults have a lower vaccine rate in every country that was tracked except in China, the poll also found, although that data could also reflect the speed and breadth of vaccination programs; some young adults are yet to be fully vaccinated in a number of countries polled.

Adults in the U.S. appear to be the most consistent when it comes to vaccine skepticism; the share of vaccine skeptics in the U.S. has remained at 30% for the past four weeks, Morning Consult said, and that share has only fallen by 4 percentage points since it began tracking in mid-April.

“Over that same time period, in the other 14 countries tracked, the share of skeptics has dropped by an average of 13 points, more than triple the decline in skepticism seen in the U.S.. No other country has seen a smaller decline,” Morning Consult noted.

The top reasons given for uncertainty over vaccines were concerns over side effects and worries that clinical trials had been conducted too fast.

Europe curbs

Back in Europe, parts of the leisure sector are being affected directly by the new rules. In Belgium, for instance, some soccer clubs are opening separate spectator stands for those who are unvaccinated. In the U.K., only the fully vaccinated will soon be able to enter a nightclub.

A number of countries have gone further, introducing types of Covid vaccination “passes” or “passports” at the national level, prompting criticism from some quarters.

France has introduced a “health pass,” meaning that individuals have to prove they are fully vaccinated, recently tested negative, or have recently recovered from the virus if they want to access cafes, restaurants, cinemas, museums and theaters. The pass has proved controversial, stoking protests attracting thousands of people who say the pass restricts civil liberties.

Charleroi, one of the Belgian soccer clubs introducing separate stands for unvaccinated fans.

VIRGINIE LEFOUR | AFP | Getty Images

Germany looks to be heading in a similar direction, aiming to encourage vaccine uptake by ending free, government-paid Covid tests while requiring anyone who’s not fully vaccinated (excluding children) to present a negative Covid test in order to access indoor spaces and events.

“Tests are therefore becoming a prerequisite, for example, for access to hospitals, old people’s and nursing homes, indoor catering, events and celebrations, but also for visits to the hairdresser or the cosmetic studio. The same applies to indoor sports or accommodation, for example in hotels and guest houses,” the government said on Tuesday.

Disclosure: Scott Gottlieb is a CNBC contributor and is a member of the boards of Pfizer, genetic testing start-up Tempus, health-care tech company Aetion Inc. and biotech company Illumina. He also serves as co-chair of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings’ and Royal Caribbean’s “Healthy Sail Panel.”

Categories
Health

Get a Covid-19 Vaccine or Face Jail, Judges Order in Probation Circumstances

Get a Covid-19 Vaccine or Face Prison, Judges Order in Probation Cases

In Ohio, as in the rest of the country, private companies can impose their own requirements on employees and customers. Federal government workers are required to get vaccinated or have regular tests, but state and local authorities set their own rules. In Ohio, more than 800 school districts and other local units operate independently, said Dan Tierney, a spokesman for Governor Mike DeWine, on Monday.

Mr. DeWine said Ohio is a state that is exemplary of double the risk of infection. “Those who are vaccinated are safe, those who are not vaccinated are not safe,” he said.

Updated

Aug 9, 2021, 1:33 p.m. ET

When asked about his decision, Judge Frye said in an email on Monday that he had issued vaccine orders three times and that none of the defendants had raised medical or religious objections.

“Ohio law allows judges to issue reasonable parole to rehabilitate the defendant and protect the community,” said Judge Frye. He said vaccination, based on medical evidence, would protect others and make those on probation safer as they seek or keep jobs.

Sharona Hoffman, professor and co-director of the Law-Medicine Center at Case Western Reserve University’s School of Law, said it was unusual to combine the conviction with the vaccine.

“Judges get creative with keeping people out of prison,” she said. “They impose all kinds of penalties, and again this is for the benefit of the person. And when you’re out in the community, you can’t go around infecting people with Covid. “

In some states, such as Georgia, judges have offered reduced sentences when defendants are vaccinated, WSB-TV in Atlanta reports. Earlier this year, prisoners in Massachusetts were offered the option of a reduced sentence for receiving the vaccine, but the decision was later overturned.

Categories
Health

The unvaccinated might face new restrictions for winter

The unvaccinated could face new restrictions for winter

Federal Minister of Health Jens Spahn on the way to the presentation of the National Reserve Health Protection at the Federal Press Conference on July 21, 2021 in Berlin.

Andreas Gora | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The German Ministry of Health is preparing comprehensive measures in the coming month that could exclude unvaccinated people from many areas of public life if the Covid-19 infection rates continue to rise.

Health Minister Jens Spahn has submitted proposals to parliament and representatives of the 16 federal states on how the state should deal with the pandemic in the coming months.

The plan comes as German authorities remain cautious about the potential impact of the highly transmittable Delta-Covid-19 variant at a time when many pandemic restrictions have been dropped. Covid-19 cases have risen gradually across the country in recent weeks, albeit from a relatively low level.

Respiratory diseases like Covid tend to thrive in cooler weather conditions, as people typically spend more time together in enclosed spaces, with less ventilation and less personal space than in summer.

The country’s new Covid plan, entitled “Safe through autumn and winter”, was reported for the first time by the German media DPA and the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

What is proposed

The measures, which would be among the strictest in Europe, would ensure that only those who have been vaccinated against the virus, have recovered from infection or have a negative test result have access to many facilities.

Shops, restaurants, hairdressers, beauty salons, indoor sports and large outdoor events were all listed as venues that could become inaccessible to those who did not comply with the proposed changes.

This was known as the “3G rule” and refers to the German terms for vaccinated, recovered (recovered) and tested (tested). The directive already applies to several areas of public life, including air travel and hotel accommodation.

The Ministry of Health said the government was also considering restricting unvaccinated people if infections and hospital stays continued to rise. This has been called the “2G rule” because only vaccinated or recovered people are allowed to visit certain facilities, while unvaccinated people are excluded.

A woman will be tested for the coronavirus on July 23, 2021 in a mobile test station next to a nightclub in Berlin-Kreuzberg amid the ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 pandemic.

STEFANIE LOOS | AFP | Getty Images

In parallel with these measures, the ministry recommended masking requirements by spring 2022; Test, ventilation and hygiene guidelines would have to be implemented nationwide in schools and day-care centers; and the country should get rid of free Covid-19 testing. Hopefully the latter will provide some incentive to vaccinate, as vaccinations are offered free of charge to all adults.

However, free rapid tests would still be offered to those who cannot be vaccinated or who do not recommend it, such as pregnant women, under the required age for vaccination, allergy sufferers, or other risk groups.

The Covid-19 plan is to be debated on Tuesday at a summit between Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Prime Minister. If approved, the measures should come into effect from September.

Legislators split

Civil rights groups have warned that vaccination-like measures are likely to be counterproductive from a public health perspective, and lawmakers should instead give priority to educating people about vaccination.

At a press conference last month, Merkel warned that measures that constitute an “indirect compulsory vaccination” must be carefully considered and indicated that the focus would remain on encouraging people to get their Covid vaccinations for the time being.

The legislature seems to be divided on this issue. Merkel Chief of Staff Helge Braun said late last month that those who oppose the vaccine should not expect the same freedoms as those who have been fully vaccinated.

Family and Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht has since rejected this view, defended the country’s current application of the “3G Rule” and called on the government to consider other ways of promoting vaccine uptake.

More than 44.5 million people in Germany, around 53% of the total population, are fully vaccinated against the virus.

At her last summer federal press conference as Chancellor at the end of last month, Merkel again called for vaccinations. “The more of us vaccinated, the more freedom we will regain.”

Stressing the importance of people encouraging their family, friends and colleagues to consider vaccinating, Merkel warned that the German Robert Koch Institute for Infectious Diseases could see another sharp rise in Covid-19 in the coming months. Cases expected.

“I tell everyone who is still unsure: A vaccination not only protects you, but also the people who are important to you, who mean a lot to you, your loved ones,” said Merkel.

Categories
Health

Unvaccinated Adults Who Had Virus Face Danger of Reinfection, C.D.C. Says

Unvaccinated Adults Who Had Virus Face Risk of Reinfection, C.D.C. Says

According to a small study that assessed the likelihood of re-infection, unvaccinated people who have had Covid-19 are more than twice as likely to be re-infected as those who test positive and maintain their natural immunity with a vaccine have strengthened.

The study, published Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, looked at the risk of reinfection in May and June in hundreds of Kentucky residents who tested positive for the virus in 2020.

Those who weren’t vaccinated this year were 2.34 higher risk of reinfection than those who received their vaccinations. The study, published Friday, suggests that adding a vaccine provided better protection to those who survived infection than the natural immunity created by their original battle with the virus alone.

Although the study looked at only a small number of people in Kentucky, it appears to disprove the argument made by one of its US Senators from his home state, Rand Paul, who has repeatedly claimed that vaccination for people like him who had the virus is unnecessary and developed immunity.

Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, director of the CDC, said the data reinforces the importance of vaccination, including for those who have already had the virus.

“If you have ever had Covid-19, please get vaccinated anyway,” said Dr. Walensky on Friday. “The vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant is spreading across the country.”

The study’s authors warned that not much is known about how long natural immunity to the virus lasts and that genome sequencing has not been performed to confirm the reinfections weren’t just flares of the remains of the initial infection of the subjects.

The CDC and the Biden government have been aggressively advocating an increase in vaccinations over the past few weeks as the number of cases and hospitalizations has risen sharply in the last month, largely due to the Delta variant and particularly in regions of the country where vaccination rates are low.

Last week, the number of new virus cases reported daily on Thursday averaged 100,200, and for the first time since mid-February the daily average exceeded 100,000, according to a database from the New York Times. On Friday, the country recorded 106,723 new cases a day.

Another study published on Friday reported that vaccinations drastically reduced hospital admissions for Covid in the elderly in February, March and April. The study looked at data from 7,280 patients from a Covid hospitalization monitoring network and used government records to check their vaccination status. The vast majority of hospital patients were not or only partially vaccinated; only 5 percent were fully vaccinated.

Although vaccination did not completely eliminate infection, the risk of hospitalization was significantly lower for people who were fully vaccinated. Among those 65 to 74, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalization related to Covid by 96 percent, and Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine reduced hospital admissions by 84 percent. In the 75+ age group, Pfizer vaccination reduced hospital admissions by 91 percent; the Moderna vaccine by 96 percent; and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine by 85 percent.

Categories
Politics

Proving Racist Intent: Democrats Face Excessive New Bar in Opposing Voting Legal guidelines

Proving Racist Intent: Democrats Face High New Bar in Opposing Voting Laws

The Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 ruling on Thursday that upheld the Arizona voting restrictions effectively raised the bar for voting lawyers for filing federal cases under the Voting Rights Act: demonstrating discriminatory intent.

This burden is causing civil rights and electoral groups to reshuffle their approach in court to challenge the series of new restrictions imposed by Republican-controlled lawmakers this year following Donald J. Trump’s electoral defeat in November. You can no longer rely on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, to act as a backbone to prevent racially discriminatory electoral restrictions.

“We have to remember that the Supreme Court doesn’t save us – it will not protect our democracy in those moments when it is most needed, ”said Sam Spital, the head of litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, on Friday.

The Supreme Court in a 2013 ruling gutted the core protections of the Voting Rights Act, and on Thursday the court further narrowed the law’s scope in combating discriminatory laws by setting tough new guidelines for demonstrating the effects of the law on colored voters thus litigation parties to overcome the much higher bar for the evidence of a specific intention to discriminate.

Mr Spital said his group must carefully weigh their next steps and “think very carefully” before bringing up new cases that, if defeated, could set harmful new precedents. The Arizona case, filed by the Democratic National Committee in 2016, was seen as a weak tool to challenge new electoral laws; even the Biden administration acknowledged that Arizona law was non-discriminatory under the electoral law. Choosing the wrong cases in the wrong jurisdictions could lead to further setbacks, said Mr. Spital and other proxies.

At the same time, according to Mr. Spital, it is imperative that the election restrictions imposed by the Republicans do not remain unchallenged.

“It will force us to work even harder in the cases we bring,” he said. “Once the rules of the game are in place, even if they’re against us, we have the resources – we have exceptional lawyers, exceptional clients, and we have the facts on our side.”

Thursday’s ruling also revealed an uncomfortable new reality for Democrats and electoral activists: Under current law, they can expect little help from the federal courts with electoral laws passed by the party that controls a state government. Republican lawmakers in Georgia, Florida, and Iowa have been aggressive to enforce electoral laws, brushing aside protests from Democrats, constituencies, and even big corporations.

The Arizona Republicans were open about the partisan nature of their efforts when the Supreme Court heard the case in March. An Arizona Republican Party attorney told judges that the restrictions were necessary because, without them, Republicans in the state would have “a competitive disadvantage compared to the Democrats.”

“It’s a lot harder to prove these things – it takes a lot more evidence,” said Travis Crum, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in voting rights and reassignment cases. “Courts are often reluctant to label lawmakers as racist. That is why the effect standard was added in 1982. “

The High Court’s decision also increases stakes for the 2022 gubernatorial competitions in major swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where Democratic governors stand ready to block measures proposed by Republican-controlled lawmakers. If a Republican won the governor’s seat in any of these states, lawmakers would have a clear way of enforcing new electoral laws.

Republicans on Friday praised the Supreme Court ruling, calling it an affirmation of the need to tackle electoral fraud – although no evidence of widespread fraud emerged in President Biden’s victory.

Justin Riemer, chief counsel for the Republican National Committee, argued that the new majority opinion Judge Samuel Alito “guides” would be welcome and would force recognition of the wider choice in a state.

“It affirmed, for example, that states have an incredibly important interest in protecting themselves from electoral fraud and in strengthening voter confidence,” said Riemer. “When the court looked at Arizona law, it found how generous the voting rules were.”

Riemer noted that Democrats would also find it harder to meet new standards to show that laws place undue burdens on voters.

“I don’t want to say that it completely excludes them from Section 2, but it will make it very difficult for them to remove laws that are really minimal, if any, onerous,” said Riemer, referring to the sections of the Voting Rights Act dealing with racially discriminatory practices.

Major rulings by the Supreme Court confirming a new restriction on the right to vote have been followed in the past by waves of new law at the state level. In 2011, 34 states introduced some form of new voter identification laws after the court upheld the Indiana Voter Identification Act in 2008.

The first immediate test of a newly encouraged legislature will take place next week in Texas, where the legislature is due to hold a special session in a second attempt by Republicans to pass an election revision bill. The first attempt failed after the Democrats staged a controversial night strike in the state legislature and temporarily halted proposals that were among the most restrictive in the country.

These proposals included bans on new voting methods, shortening Sunday elections, and provisions that would facilitate the cancellation of elections and greatly empower partisan election observers.

The uncertain litigation will be played out in a federal justice system reshaped during Mr. Trump’s tenure, and Democrats in Congress have failed to enact federal voter protection.

The Legal Defense Fund, which Mr. Spital represents, sued Georgia in May over its new voting laws, arguing that the laws had a discriminatory effect. Other lawsuits, including one filed by the Justice Department last week, argue that Georgia acted with intent to discriminate against colored voters.

However, some Democrats complained about the Supreme Court decision, but noted that they still have many constitutional tools to challenge repressive electoral laws.

“Obviously, litigation is getting harder now,” said Aneesa McMillan, deputy general manager of Super PAC Priorities USA, which oversees the organization’s voting efforts. “But most of the cases we contest we contest based on the first, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.”

One of the guidelines that Judge Alito formulated was an assessment of the “standard practice” of voting in 1982 when Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was amended.

“It is relevant that in 1982 the states generally obliged almost all voters to cast their ballots in person on election day, and only allowed narrow and well-defined categories of voters to cast postal ballots,” wrote Judge Alito.

The court did not address the purpose clause in Section 2. However, these cases are often based on racist statements by lawmakers or irregularities in the legislative process – elements of a legal dispute that are more difficult to prove than the effects.

“You won’t get any evidence of this smoking gun,” said Sophia Lakin, the ACLU’s deputy director of the Voting Rights Project. “Much evidence is being brought together to show that the purpose is to take away the rights of colored voters.”

In Texas, some Democrats in the Legislature had hoped they could work towards a more moderate version of the bill in the special session beginning next week; It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court decision will lead Republicans to adopt an even more restrictive law.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and State Representative Briscoe Cain, both Republicans, did not respond to requests for comment. Speaker Dan Phelan and State Senator Bryan Hughes, both Republicans, declined to comment.

However, whether the Supreme Court decision will open the floodgates for more restrictive electoral laws in other states remains an open question; more than 30 state legislatures adjourned for the year, and others have already passed their voting laws.

“It is hard to imagine what an increase in election restrictions would look like now because we are already seeing such a dramatic increase, more than ever since the reconstruction,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a research institute. “But the passing of new waves of laws has certainly been the answer in recent years.”

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers is one of the Democratic governors withholding voting actions passed by Republican-led lawmakers. On Wednesday, he vetoed the first of several Republican electoral process laws.

In an interview, he said that the Republicans’ months of efforts to revive the 2020 elections have made voting at the health and education level a top priority for voters in Wisconsin.

“People are realizing more and more that it’s an important issue,” said Evers. “Frankly, the Republicans have taken it upon themselves. I don’t think the Wisconsin people thought the election was stolen. You understand it was a fair choice. And so the Republicans’ inability to accept the loss of Donald Trump makes it more of a bread-and-butter problem here. “