Dems Have Crazy New Plan to Fund Biden’s Infrastructure Bill: Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share


Which appears fairly affordable, notably to individuals who, for instance, didn’t see their internet price double prior to now 12 months to $222 billion, as was the case for Elon Musk, who just lately took to Twitter to taunt Jeff Bezos for less than being price roughly $194 billion, and thus the second richest particular person on the earth. (Yes, this occurred, and might be a superb argument not only for a tax on billionaires however for bringing again the gulag.)

A spokesman for Sinema wouldn’t affirm or deny whether or not she helps the billionaire tax, saying solely that she “is committed to ensuring everyday families can get ahead and that we continue creating jobs,” and that “she has told her colleagues and the president that simply raising tax rates will not in any way address the challenge of tax avoidance or improve economic competitiveness.” The White House has reportedly been concerned in crafting the small print, and Biden has endorsed the idea. Republicans, it’s protected to assume, shall be throwing an absolute hissy match over the entire thing briefly order, as a result of if there’s one factor they’ll’t stand, it’s the ultrarich paying their justifiable share.

If you want to to obtain the Levin Report in your inbox every day, click on here to subscribe.

The Supreme Court as soon as once more f–ks over pregnant folks

Procedural arguments shall be heard on November 1, however within the meantime, Texas‘s barbaric abortion law, banning the procedure at six weeks, will remain in effect. Per The New York Times:

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to immediately block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks. But the justices agreed to fast-track their consideration of appeals from the Justice Department and abortion providers in Texas, scheduling arguments for Nov. 1. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent. “For the second time, the court is presented with an application to enjoin a statute enacted in open disregard of the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion care in Texas,” she wrote. “For the second time, the court declines to act immediately to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm.”

But she added she welcomed the court’s determination to hear arguments within the two circumstances, which is able to apparently be restricted to the procedural query of whether or not the Texas legislation, S.B. 8, is topic to evaluate in federal courtroom given its novel construction. The courtroom mentioned it might determine this query within the federal authorities’s enchantment: “May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post