Porter told Rogue Rocket that federal initiatives to address inflation are being hindered by GOP efforts to score political points ahead of the midterm elections.
The Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act
As millions of Americans continue to grapple with sky-high prices, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Ca.) is working to tackle one of the most significant areas of inflation: gas prices.
Last month, the House passed a bill co-introduced by Porter dubbed the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act. The legislation, which has been described as the first federal price-gouging law, would give the president the power to declare an emergency period under which it would be illegal for anyone to increase gas or home energy fuel prices in an exploitative manner.
The proposal would also give the Federal Trade Commission the power to investigate and manage price gouging violations from larger companies. In an interview with Rogue Rocket, Porter said that the act was specifically designed to target large oil companies which have seen record profits in the first quarter of 2022 when consumers were experiencing unprecedented prices at the pump.
“We are seeing prices at the pump that don’t line up with the price of the commodity of the oil that Big Gas, Big Oil companies are purchasing,” Porter said. “We’re seeing that in part because of Putin, we’re seeing that in part because of the pandemic, but we’re also seeing Big Oil companies price gouge.”
“There is a market-based element to this, but we also have incredible market concentration here where we have a handful of large companies that control the oil and gas, they control the refining,” she added.
“If Big Oil was passing along their higher input costs, then you wouldn’t see a huge jump in their profit. The price of oil that consumers pay may change, but the profit would stay steady.”
Porter Takes Aim at Republicans
Porter’s bill, which was passed by very slim margins in the House, faces an uphill battle in the 50-50 split Senate. The Congresswoman told Rogue Rocket she believes that opposition to the bill is driven in part by the immense political power Big Oil possesses.
“Oil and gas are huge spenders in the political ecosystem through their PACs, their corporate PACs, their executives,” she explained. “I think anybody who’s taking Big Oil money, that is an obvious first [sic] explanation here — it affects their thinking in all likelihood.”
“I think one of the things that we’ve seen from Republicans is that they want to use this moment, the pandemic, Putin, the price gouging, the whole constellation of things here in order to advance the longstanding agenda of Big Oil — which is more exploration, more speculative leasing, more market consolidation, and control,” she continued. “So the best you really hear from Republicans is ‘drill, baby, drill, more drilling here in the United States.’ And that really overlooks two things. One, we are already at record and near-record American production. We have not cut production.”
“It also ignores the fact that continued drilling, that’s a solution that’s not going to produce more oil for 10, 20, 30, 40 years. Congress has too much policymaking already that’s looking backwards, that’s trying to solve yesterday’s problem tomorrow. We need to be thinking about what is the energy policy that’s going to prevent this from ever holding back our economy again, and that is investing in clean energy and holding Big Oil companies accountable to follow the law.”
Porter also argued that high gas prices — and inflation in general — are being exacerbated by Republican lawmakers’ inaction and attempts to politicize the issue.
“We are seeing Republicans weaponize the hike in gas prices in order to try to win the election. And they are willing, through their votes, they are willing to let Americans continue to suffer at the pump in order to score political points,” Porter said “They are not bringing to the table solutions to bring down the price of gas, to bring down the price that consumers are paying. They are perfectly happy to have us have to deal with filling up a tank for $100 or more than $100 if it gets them a few more seats in November or they think it will.”
“Inflation is a problem — Democrats and Republicans agree on that,” she continued. “The difference is Democrats are putting forward solutions like my bill, the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, to try to address it. Republicans are willing to let Americans suffer in order to make sure they get reelected in the fall.”
Biden Ramps Up Efforts to Address Inflation
Porter’s remarks to Rogue Rocket come as President Joe Biden has recently launched a new initiative to combat inflation amid increased political pressure and low approval ratings ahead of the midterm elections.
In a meeting with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell last week, Biden appeared to underscore to voters that he is listening to their concerns and said that addressing inflation was his “top priority.”
While Biden emphasized that, first and foremost, he will help fix the problem by giving the Federal Reserve “the space they need to do their job,” he also launched a PR blitz to show Americans he and his top aides are seriously working to address the issue.
In an op-ed published by The Wall Street Journal, the president further laid out his plans to address inflation. Beyond outlining actions his administration has already taken, the president focused on multiple measures he has proposed in his domestic economic agenda — which has been stalled in the Senate.
These proposals included plans to make housing more affordable, reduce the price of prescription drugs, lower the cost of child and elder care, pass clean energy tax credits, and cut the federal budget deficit.
“I’ve done what I can on my own to help working families during this challenging time — and will keep acting to lower costs where I can — but now Congress needs to act too,” Biden wrote.
See what others are saying: (Vox) (Bloomberg) (The Associated Press)
Supreme Court Rules High School Football Coach Can Pray on Field
All of our rights are “hanging in the balance,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissenting opinion.
Court’s Conservatives Break With 60 Years of History
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a former high school football coach who lost his job after he refused to stop praying on the field at the end of games.
Joseph Kennedy, who was hired at Bremerton High School in Washington State in 2008, kneeled at the 50-yard line after games for years and prayed. He was often joined by some of his players, as well as others from the opposing team.
In 2015, the school asked him not to pray if it interfered with his duties or involved students.
Shortly after, Kennedy was placed on paid administrative leave, and after a school official recommended that his contract not be renewed for the 2016 season he did not reapply for the position.
Kennedy sued the school, eventually appealing the case to the Supreme Court.
The justices voted 6 to 3, with the liberal justices dissenting.
“Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse republic — whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.
“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance,” he added.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion.
“Today’s decision is particularly misguided because it elevates the religious rights of a school official, who voluntarily accepted public employment and the limits that public employment entails, over those of his students, who are required to attend school and who this court has long recognized are particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection,” she said.
“In doing so, the court sets us further down a perilous path in forcing states to entangle themselves with religion, with all of our rights hanging in the balance.”
The defense in the case argued that the public nature of Kennedy’s prayers put pressure on students to join him, and that he was acting in his capacity as a public employee, not a private citizen.
Kennedy’s lawyers contended that such an all-encompassing definition of his job duties denied him his right to self-expression on school grounds.
“This is just so awesome,” Kennedy said in a statement following the decision. “All I’ve ever wanted was to be back on the field with my guys … I thank God for answering our prayers and sustaining my family through this long battle.”
Religious Liberty or Separation of Church and State?
Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court decided that the government cannot organize or promote prayer in public schools, and it has since generally abided by that jurisprudence.
But the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts has been increasingly protective of religious expression, especially after the confirmation of three conservative Trump-appointed judges.
Reactions to the ruling were mostly split between liberals who saw the separation of church and state being dissolved and conservatives who hailed it as a victory for religious liberty.
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the Bremerton school district, said in a statement that the ruling “gutted decades of established law that protected students’ religious freedom.”
“If Coach Kennedy were named Coach Akbar and he had brought a prayer blanket to the 50 yard line to pray after a game,” one Twitter user said, “I’ve got a 401(k) that says this illegitimate, Christofascist SCOTUS rules 6-3 against him.”
“The people defending former Coach Kennedy’s right to kneel on the field after the game to pray – are the ones condemning Colin Kaepernick’s right to kneel on the field to protest police brutality against Black Americans,” another user wrote.
Others, like Republican Congressmember Ronny Jackson and former Secretary of State for the Trump administration Mike Pompeo, celebrated the ruling for protecting religious freedom and upholding what they called the right to pray.
“I am excited to build on this victory and continue securing our inalienable right to religious freedom,” Pompeo wrote.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Fox News)
Rep. Schiff Urges DOJ to Investigate Trump for Election Crimes: “There’s Enough Evidence”
“When the Justice Department finds evidence of criminal potential criminal wrongdoing, they need to investigate,” the congressman said.
Schiff Says DOJ Should Launch Inquiry
Rep. Adam Schiff (R-Ca.) told Rogue Rocket that he believes there is “certainly […] enough evidence for the Justice Department to open an investigation” into possible election crimes committed by former President Donald Trump.
Schiff, who took the lead in questioning witnesses testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection on Tuesday, said that it will be up to the DOJ to determine whether “they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of criminal activity, but added that an investigation must first be launched.
“Donald Trump should be treated like any other citizen,” the congressman said, noting that a federal judge in California has already ruled that Trump and his allies “likely” engaged in multiple federal criminal acts. “When the Justice Department finds evidence of criminal potential criminal wrongdoing, they need to investigate.”
“One of the concerns I have is it’s a year and a half since these events. And while […] there’s an investigation going on in Fulton County by the district attorney, I don’t see a federal grand jury convened in Atlanta looking into this, and I think it’s fair to ask why,” Schiff continued, referencing the ongoing inquiry into Trump’s attempts to overturn the election in Georgia.
“Normally, the Justice Department doesn’t wait for Congress to go first. They pursue evidence and they have the subpoena power. They’re often much more agile than the Congress. And I think it’s important that it not just be the lower-level people who broke into the Capitol that day and committed those acts of violence who are under the microscope,” he continued. “I think anyone who engaged in criminal activity trying to overturn the election where there’s evidence that they may have engaged in criminal acts should be investigated.”
Schiff Takes Aim at DOJ’s Handling of Committee Subpoenas
Schiff also expressed frustration with how the DOJ has handled referrals the committee has made for former Trump officials who have refused to comply with subpoenas to testify before the panel.
“We have referred four people for criminal prosecution who have obstructed our investigation. The Justice Department has only moved forward with two of them,” he stated. “That’s not as powerful an incentive as we would like. The law requires the Justice Department to present these cases to the grand jury when we refer them, and by only referring half of them, it sends a very mixed message about whether congressional subpoenas need to be complied with.”
As far as why the congressman thought the DOJ has chosen to operate in this manner in regards to the Jan. 6 panel’s investigation, he said he believes “the leadership of the department is being very cautious.”
“I think that they want to make sure that the department avoids controversy if possible, doesn’t do anything that could even be perceived as being political,” Schiff continued. “And while I appreciate that sentiment […] at the same time, the rule of law has to be applied equally to everyone. If you’re so averse, […] it means that you’re giving effectively a pass or immunity to people who may have broken the law. That, too, is a political decision, and I think it’s the wrong decision.”
On the Note of Democracy
Schiff emphasized the importance of the American people working together to protect democracy in the fallout of the insurrection.
“I really think it’s going to require a national movement of people to step up to preserve our democracy. This is not something that I think Congress can do alone. We’re going to try to protect those institutions, but Republicans are fighting this tooth and nail,” he asserted. “It’s difficult to get through a Senate where Mitch McConnell can filibuster things.”
“We don’t have the luxury of despair when it comes to what we’re seeing around us. We have the obligation to do what generations did before us, and that is defend our democracy,” the congressman continued. “We had to go to war in World War II to defend our democracy from the threat of fascism. You know, we’re not called upon to make those kinds of sacrifices. We see the bravery of people in Ukraine putting their lives on the line to defend their country, their sovereignty, their democracy. Thank God we’re not asked to do that.”
“So what we have to do is, by comparison, so much easier. But it does require us to step up, to be involved, to rally around local elections officials who are doing their jobs, who are facing death threats, and to protect them and to push back against efforts around the country to pass laws to make it easier for big liars to overturn future elections.”
“We are not passengers in all of this, unable to affect the course of our country. We can, you know, grab the rudder and steer this country in the direction that we want.”
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (CNN)
Senate Passes Bill to Help Veterans Suffering From Burn Pit Exposure
For Biden, who believes his son Beau may have died from brain cancer caused by burn pits, the issue is personal.
Veterans to Get Better Healthcare
The Senate voted 84-14 Thursday to pass a bill that would widely expand healthcare resources and benefits to veterans who were exposed to burn pits while deployed overseas.
Until about 2010, the Defense Department used burn pits to dispose of trash from military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations, dumping things like plastics, rubber, chemical mixtures, and medical waste into pits and burning them with jet fuel.
Numerous studies and reports have demonstrated a link between exposure to the toxic fumes emitted by the pits and health problems such as respiratory ailments and rare cancers. The DoD has estimated that nearly 3.5 million veterans may have inhaled enough smoke to suffer from related health problems.
For years, the Department of Veterans Affairs resisted calls to recognize the link between exposure and illness, arguing it had not been scientifically proven and depriving many veterans of disability benefits and medical reimbursements.
Over the past year, however, the VA relented, awarding presumptive benefit status to veterans exposed to burn pits, but it only applied to those who were diagnosed with asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis within 10 years of their service.
The latest bill would add 23 conditions to the list of what the VA covers, including hypertension. It also calls for investments in VA health care facilities, claims processing, and the VA workforce, while strengthening federal research on toxic exposure.
The bill will travel to the House of Representatives next, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged to push it through quickly. Then it will arrive at the White House for final approval.
An Emotional Cause for Many
Ahead of a House vote on an earlier version of the bill in March, comedian John Stewart publically slammed Congress for taking so long to act.
“They’re all going to say the same thing. ‘We want to do it. We want to support the veterans. But we want to do it the right way. We want to be responsible,’” he said. “You know what would have been nice? If they had been responsible 20 years ago and hadn’t spent trillions of dollars on overseas adventures.”
“They could have been responsible in the seventies when they banned this kind of thing in the United States,” he continued. “You want to do it here? Let’s dig a giant fucking pit, 10 acres long, and burn everything in Washington with jet fuel. And then let me know how long they want to wait before they think it’s going to cause some health problems.”
For President Biden, the issue is personal. He has said he believes burn pits may have caused the brain cancer that killed his son Beau in 2015.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer applauded the fact the long-awaited benefits could soon arrive for those impacted.
“The callousness of forcing veterans who got sick as they were fighting for us because of exposure to these toxins to have to fight for years in the VA to get the benefits they deserved — Well, that will soon be over. Praise God,” he said during a speech on Thursday.
A 2020 member survey by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America found that 86% of respondents were exposed to burn pits or other toxins.
Although burn pits have largely been scaled down, the DoD has not officially banned them, and at least nine were still in operation in April 2019.