The List

[Gunnar]

I find it hard to believe that that a majority of congress, or even a majority of the Republicans in congress would approve of a bill to take us out of NATO. To me it seems treasonous for Mike Lee or anyone else to propose such a thing. Is Trump trying to return us to the pre-WWII isolationism? He has already taken us out of vital organizations like WHO and the Paris Treaty On Climate Change. What's next? Is he going to take us out of the United Nations Organization as well? At this point, I wouldn't be greatly surprised if he proposed joining Russia in the Warsaw Pact against Ukraine and our current NATO allies!

Withdrawal from WHO alone was extremely foolish and is going to cost us far more that what we are likely to save by having done so.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-c ... om-the-who

But if we think it’s expensive to be part of the WHO, just wait until we aren’t part of the WHO. That's where we're going to see the true costs. This withdrawal will be incredibly costly for both the American people and the global community, and not just in the pure economic terms of our contributions to WHO.

Since World War II the U.S. has developed a reputation around the world as a country that supports others, and that has important consequences for global diplomacy. We are known in the health space as a country that provides assistance to many countries. In fact, many countries with whom we have very poor diplomatic relations, and that we don't see eye-to-eye with politically, still reach out to us for support around health.

Health provides an entryway for us to engage with countries, many of whom we may not agree with, and to have diplomatic conversations and other conversations. If that is lost, it will have tremendous consequences for the U.S.’s security and long-term economic and political outlook.

The Trump administration cites the WHO’s response to COVID as a reason for the U.S.’s withdrawal. What role did the WHO play in response to the COVID pandemic?

The COVID response globally can be classified in some ways as a technical success. We had many technical breakthroughs, including the development of vaccines at a pace that had never been seen before, the deployment of drugs and vaccines to places that previously were hard to access, and in some circumstances very quickly.

I firmly believe, despite Trump's stupidly vindictive bloviating, that if there was any serious fault in world-wide covid response it was Trump's administration, not WHO's. That's why the U.S.A with only 4.1% of the world's population had nearly a quarter of the fatalities from the pandemic!

[Chap]

I firmly believe, despite Trump's stupidly vindictive bloviating, that if there was any serious fault in world-wide covid response it was Trump's administration, not WHO's. That's why the U.S.A with only 4.1% of the world's population had nearly a quarter of the fatalities from the pandemic!

Good gracious - I knew that Trump (wash your lungs with bleach ...) was not the best leader for the US to have during a pandemic, but was it really that bad?

Just in case I want to repeat this somewhere, can you post a link to the 4.1% pop 25% fatalities evidence?

[Some Schmo]

Good gracious - I knew that Trump (wash your lungs with bleach ...) was not the best leader for the US to have during a pandemic...

You didn't need to qualify it that way.

This country is basically being run by one of those robot vacuums, bouncing off walls because it's been programmed to avoid resistance, looking to suck up everything in it's mindless path to keep for its clueless self.

[canpakes]

This country is basically being run by one of those robot vacuums, bouncing off walls because it's been programmed to avoid resistance, looking to suck up everything in it's mindless path to keep for its clueless self.

Ok, this made me actually lol.

A perfect analogy … the Roomba Presidency.

[canpakes]

The White House has released Trump’s latest OGE form. It makes for interesting reading and a good record of some of this Administration’s grift opportunities, even with the minimal or terse descriptions offered.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... dium=email

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

The White House has released Trump’s latest OGE form. It makes for interesting reading and a good record of some of this Administration’s grift opportunities, even with the minimal or terse descriptions offered.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u ... dium=email

234 pages of “preventing conflicts of interest in the Executive branch.” It’s interesting how how Trump can funnel capital through these trusts and investments. It looks like he’s carved up vast holdings into small reportable shell companies(?), piece-by-piece, so he can maintain plausible deniability and avoid oversight. What’s even more nauseating is to think of how many more shells have been created to hold under-the-minimum monies. It can be into tens of thousands if necessary.

Also, I wanna know what holdings are under the umbrella of the reported holdings. Like, it could easily be turtles all the way down.

[canpakes]

Republicans are just about ready to wrap up their performance about having some ‘concerns’ about their budget bill.

Senate Bill Would Add at Least $3.3 Trillion to Debt, Budget Office Says

A new analysis showing the legislation would be far more expensive than the House version could complicate its chances of final passage in that chamber, where fiscal hawks have said the cost must not grow.

By Andrew Duehren
Reporting from Washington
June 29, 2025

The sprawling tax and health care bill that Senate Republicans are trying to pass would add at least $3.3 trillion to the already-bulging national debt over a decade, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Sunday, putting a far higher price tag on the measure than some of the party’s fiscal hawks had indicated they could stomach.

The cost of the Senate bill, which Republicans rolled out overnight on Friday and were still shaping on Sunday, far exceeds the $2.4 trillion cost of the version passed in the House, where lawmakers had insisted that the overall price of the bill not substantially change. But Senate Republicans still moved forward with a number of costly changes to the bill, including making prized tax breaks for business a permanent feature of the tax code.

With roughly $29 trillion in debt currently held by the public, the budget office had already expected the government to borrow another $21 trillion over the next decade, meaning the Republican bill would make an already-dire fiscal forecast worse. And the initial estimate of a cost of $3.3 trillion for the Senate bill is an undercount, because it does not include additional borrowing costs which could push the bill’s overall addition to the debt closer to $4 trillion.

That is the central complaint of hard-right Republicans who have resisted the measure and insisted on a lower cost. On Saturday night, a group of them demanding bigger cuts — including Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida — held out for four hours before agreeing to begin debate on the bill.

The main component driving the cost of the Republican legislative effort is the extension of a series of tax cuts from 2017. Many of those tax cuts are set to expire this year, and extending them into the future represents a roughly $3.8 trillion hit to the budget. Republicans have also piled some additional tax cuts on top, including versions of President Trump’s promises to not tax tips and overtime, bringing the overall size of the Senate tax cut to roughly $4.5 trillion.

To offset some of that cost, Republicans have also proposed deep cuts to the country’s social safety net, particularly Medicaid. According to the C.B.O., the Senate version of the legislation would mean 11.8 million Americans lose their health insurance by 2034 as federal spending on Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare is reduced by roughly $1.1 trillion over that period.

To save more money, Mr. Johnson, who initially voted to block the bill on Saturday night but later reversed himself to allow it to move forward, told reporters that he planned to propose an amendment that would cut Medicaid even further. But it was not clear whether it would have enough support to be adopted — or whether Mr. Johnson would support the legislation if it failed.

Republicans in the House had sought to limit the size of the tax cut by necessitating that its cost not be more than $2.5 trillion larger than the total spending reductions. The Senate plan would miss that benchmark, angering some conservatives in the House, where nearly every Republican would have to support the bill for it to pass.

Continues at: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/29/us/p ... Position=1

[canpakes]

Filed under, ‘Trying to Anonymously Own The Libs by killing Thousands of Jobs and Raising the Electrical Costs for Millons of Americans’.

Apparently, whoever put this one in the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ wasn’t brave enough to sign their name to it or otherwise indicate who added it. It ended up not making the cut.

A megabill mystery: Republicans ax solar and wind tax that surprised senators
"I don't know where it came from," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chairman of the Budget Committee, told NBC News after releasing the 940-page bill.

June 30, 2025 / Updated July 1, 2025
By Frank Thorp V and Sahil Kapur

WASHINGTON — Tucked inside the massive domestic policy bill that Senate Republicans released over the weekend was an excise tax for wind and solar projects. The provision came as a surprise not just to the renewable energy industry, but also to numerous senators crafting the legislation.

In a twist, Republican senators insist they didn't know how or why the tax was inserted into the bill they were rushing to pass. No senator took credit for — or defended — it.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the Budget Committee chairman, who released the 940-page bill, said he was unsure where that provision came from.

"It's a secret, I guess," Graham told NBC News on Monday evening. "I don't know where it came from."

Moments before the final vote Tuesday to pass the multitrillion-dollar package, Republicans released a substitute bill that axed the provision after blowback from within their ranks, capping an unusual episode of legislating on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was baffled by its initial inclusion, saying the excise tax "just came about" like it was "airdropped" into the bill before a vote Saturday to advance the legislation.

"It wasn’t part of any consideration," she said. "It’s like, surprise! It’s Saturday night. And we looked at it like, where did this come from?"

"My view of it is — it’s just entirely punitive to the wind and solar industry," Murkowski said, adding that the Republican-controlled Senate was "looking at different options" to deal with it.

The provision would have taxed wind and solar projects if a certain share of their components come from China. It is ambiguously worded, and it would empower the Trump administration to iron out the rule.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., said she was "OK with that" when she was asked about the details of the provision. But she, too, was in the dark about who inserted it.

"You can add me to the group that doesn't know the answer," Lummis said.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the former Trump adviser, torched the legislation, saying it would "destroy millions of jobs in America."

"Utterly insane and destructive," Musk said of the bill. "It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future." He added, "A massive strategic error is being made right now to damage solar/battery that will leave America extremely vulnerable in the future."

Spokespeople for the Republican chairs of the Finance Committee (Mike Crapo of Idaho), the Energy and Natural Resources Committee (Mike Lee of Utah) and the Environment and Public Works Committee (Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia) didn't respond to requests for comment when they were asked whether the senators had championed the provision.

The White House and Republican leaders tout the broader bill as fulfilling President Donald Trump's promise to boost energy production in the United States, including fossil fuels. Trump also vowed to unravel clean energy incentives Democrats passed in the Biden administration.

Senate Republicans narrowly pass Trump megabill after marathon voting session
Democrats had blasted the excise tax — among other energy policies in the GOP bill — as an attempt to reward fossil fuel companies while further discouraging clean energy production.

Industry groups also tore into the new excise tax.

“With no warning, the Senate has proposed new language that would increase taxes on domestic energy production," said Jason Grumet, the CEO of the American Clean Power Association.

“In what can only be described as ‘midnight dumping,’ the Senate has proposed a punitive tax hike targeting the fastest-growing sectors of our energy industry," he said in a statement. "It is astounding that the Senate would intentionally raise prices on consumers rather than encouraging economic growth and addressing the affordability crisis facing American households."

Neil Bradley, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, praised the overall bill but criticized that provision, writing on X that "taxing energy production is never good policy, whether oil & gas or, in this case, renewables."

"Electricity demand is set to see enormous growth & this tax will increase prices," he said. "It should be removed."

[canpakes]

Of interest to note on July 4 - our Independence Day from monarchy - the Administration increases its demonstrations of punishment against employees who take issue with some of its decisions.

EPA puts 139 employees on leave after they sign a ‘declaration of dissent’
Letter from workers, which EPA claims is ‘unlawful’, says agency is no longer living up to its mission

Associated Press
Thu 3 Jul 2025 20.11 EDT

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday put on administrative leave 139 employees who signed a “declaration of dissent” about its policies, accusing them of “unlawfully undermining” the Trump administration’s agenda.

In a letter made public Monday, the employees wrote that the agency is no longer living up to its mission to protect human health and the environment. The letter represented rare public criticism from agency employees who knew they could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science.

In a statement Thursday, the EPA said it has a “zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging and undercutting” the Trump administration’s agenda.

Employees were notified that they had been placed in a “temporary, non-duty, paid status” for the next two weeks, pending an “administrative investigation”, according to a copy of the email obtained by the Associated Press. “It is important that you understand that this is not a disciplinary action,” the email reads.

More than 170 EPA employees put their names on the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor in chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign.

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June, but Berg said he was unaware of anyone at the NIH who had been placed on similar administrative leave.

Under administrator Lee Zeldin, the EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and on tribal reservations, proposed to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas.

Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA’s research and development office as part of his push to slash its budget and gut its study of climate change and environmental justice. He’s also seeking to roll back pollution rules that an AP examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275bn every year.

The EPA responded to the employees’ letter earlier this week by saying policy decisions “are a result of a process where Administrator Zeldin is briefed on the latest research and science by EPA’s career professionals, and the vast majority who are consummate professionals who take pride in the work this agency does day in and day out”.

[canpakes]

.
From Substack’s The Intellectualist:
- - - - - - - - - -

Churches Given Green Light to Endorse Political Candidates After 70-Year Ban Lifted

IRS ruling ends decades-long restriction on political endorsements from the pulpit, raising concerns over campaign finance and tax-exempt integrity.
THE INTELLECTUALIST - JUL 08, 2025

Amid the 2020 demonstrations over George Floyd’s death, then-President Trump posed for a photo outside St. John’s Episcopal Church, which had been vandalized the night before. The walk from the White House to the church was made possible after authorities cleared the area using crowd-control measures, drawing widespread criticism.

On July 7, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service announced that churches and other houses of worship may now endorse political candidates to their congregations without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, according to a report by The New York Times.

Historic Rule Overturned After Seven Decades

The IRS’s decision effectively ends the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, a provision introduced by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954. For more than 70 years, the rule barred tax-exempt nonprofit organizations — including churches — from engaging in political campaigning. The agency’s filing, intended to resolve a lawsuit brought by two Texas churches and a Christian broadcasters association, states that endorsements delivered during religious services to congregants are now considered private and permissible.

How the Change Unfolded

The lawsuit sought a broader exemption, asking the court to declare that all nonprofits, religious and secular, could endorse candidates to their members. The IRS stopped short of that, instead carving out a specific allowance for houses of worship. The filing asserted that communications to congregants about candidates during religious services are akin to “a family discussion concerning candidates,” and therefore fall outside the scope of prohibited political activity.

Formalizing an Unspoken Practice

Experts note that the IRS had long been reluctant to penalize clergy for political statements made from the pulpit. But this marks the first time the agency explicitly declared such endorsements legal. “It basically tells churches of all denominations and sects that you’re free to support candidates from the pulpit,” said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. “It also says to all candidates and parties, ‘Hey, time to recruit some churches.’”

Reaction From Nonprofit Advocates

The National Council of Nonprofits, which represents approximately 30,000 organizations, criticized the move, warning it could allow political operatives to use tax-exempt groups as vehicles to fund campaigns with taxpayer-subsidized dollars. Its president, Diane Yentel, called the IRS’s position “not about religion or free speech, but about radically altering campaign finance laws. The decree could open the floodgates for political operatives to funnel money to their preferred candidates while receiving generous tax breaks at the expense of taxpayers who may not share those views.”

The Stakes Moving Forward

While the filing claims the change applies only to direct communication with congregants during religious services, legal scholars caution it may set off disputes over where to draw the line. Ellen P. Aprill, a professor emeritus at Loyola Law School, warned that such endorsements, when posted online or shared beyond the congregation, could effectively become public campaign statements. “It’s not going to be limited to just their membership,” she said. “Even Las Vegas doesn’t stay in Las Vegas these days. Everybody has a web page.”

https://theintellectualistofficial.subs ... irect=true