Law & Crime – Page 137 – The Tarbabys Blog

Scammers using text messages to drain bank accounts in new ploy

CBS News

Scammers using text messages to drain bank accounts in new ploy

Anna Werner Wernera@cbsnews.com – May 26, 2023

In a stark reminder of the growing threat of financial scams, Deborah Moss, owner of a small catering business, found herself ensnared in a sophisticated bank scam that started with a seemingly harmless text message.

Moss, who had dedicated over a decade to building her business, says she had finally accumulated enough savings to pursue a peaceful life in rural Guerneville, California. But her dreams began to shatter after she received a text message purporting to be from her bank, Chase, inquiring about an unauthorized $35 debit card charge from another state. Initially dismissing it as a minor inconvenience, Moss promptly replied.

Shortly after replying to the text, Moss received a call from someone claiming to be a representative from Chase Bank, with the caller ID displaying the bank’s name. On the other end of the line was an individual identifying herself as “Miss Barbara” from “Chase ATM.” She requested permission from Moss to issue a new debit card to resolve the alleged fraudulent charge.

Moss says Miss Barbara told her she needed to verify Moss’s identity and to do so, instructed Moss to read the numbers from a subsequent text message back to her over the phone.

“And I would just repeat those numbers to her, and she’d say, ‘That’s great. Thank you so much, Ms. Moss,'” said Moss.

Over the next week, Miss Barbara called Moss several times, each time saying there was a problem with delivery of the card and each time asking Moss to verify her identity by reading back the numbers from subsequent text messages.

It wasn’t until Moss visited her nearest bank branch that the devastating truth emerged. A supervisor informed her that her account had been drained, leaving her life savings of nearly $160,000 completely depleted.

“That was all my money. It took me 12 years to get that money, and that was my life savings,” Moss said.

Moss’ ordeal sheds light on the escalating trend of fraud and the alarming financial losses suffered by Americans, with reported losses reaching a staggering $8.8 billion last year, marking a 30% surge from the previous year, according to government data.

The text messages asking Moss to authenticate her account were authentic: they were sent by Chase Bank as part of its two-factor authentication system, designed to enhance customer security. But the scammers deceived Moss into revealing the numbers to them over the phone, enabling them to bypass security measures and transfer large sums of money from Moss’s account. In just one week, they conducted six wire transfers, some as high as nearly $48,000.

Moss filed a police report and submitted a claim to Chase Bank, hoping to recover her stolen funds. However, her hopes were dashed when, after a five-week wait, the bank denied her claim.

Chase Bank appeared to fault Moss, writing her in a letter, “During our review we found you did not take the appropriate steps to protect your account from theft or unauthorized use.” Bank officials said they would not reimburse her account, leaving Moss devastated and feeling betrayed.

“My world fell apart. My whole world fell apart,” Moss said. “You think of your bank as being some place that you put your money so that it’s safe but it’s not safe. It needs to change.”

JPMorgan Chase provided a statement to CBS News in response, stating, “Regrettably, Ms. Moss’s account was compromised as a result of scammers deceiving her and obtaining her personal confidential information.”

Chase Bank told CBS News that bank officials had attempted to contact Moss via phone and email regarding the wire transfers at the time. Moss says she did not receive any of these messages. Chase offered the following tips for consumers to remember: Do not share personal account information such as ATM PINs or passcodes. Keep in mind that the bank typically does not initiate phone calls, but if you want to ensure you are speaking with the bank, call the number on the back of your card. Lastly, avoid clicking on suspicious links in texts or emails.

JPMorgan Chase defended its commitment to combating fraud, saying in a statement: “Each year we invest hundreds of millions of dollars in authentication, risk models, technology and associate, client education to make it harder for scammers to trick customers.”

David Weber, a certified fraud examiner and forensic accounting professor, believes that Chase Bank bears responsibility for, in his opinion, failing Moss and neglecting to implement stronger security measures.

“Anyway you look at it, they failed. They failed her,” Weber said. “The bank could have required her to come in and sign the wire form in person. They left everything for her to be at risk, and now they’re saying they bear no responsibility.”

He also said that the current two-factor authentication systems, including text messages, are insufficient in combating the increasingly sophisticated tactics employed by scammers.

“This is happening hundreds and thousands of times a day in the United States using the exact same methods here. The two-factor authentication is not strong enough to protect this customer,” Weber said.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM JPMORGAN CHASE:

Threats are changing every day as scams become more sophisticated. As threats evolve, so do our methods to prevent both fraud and scams.We know we cannot thwart these scams alone. It takes an all-hands-on deck approach in partnership with law enforcement, the private sector, and government to help prevent, avoid and prosecute these crimes. Consumers play a critical role too, which is why we continue to educate them about the latest scams so that they can spot and avoid them.

SCAM PREVENTION TIPS:

Protect your personal account information, ATM pins, passwords and one-time passcodes. If someone contacts you and asks for this information, especially if it’s someone claiming to be from your bank, do not share it with them.If you want to be sure you’re talking to a legitimate representative of the company that contacted you, call the number on their official website. If you want to be sure you are talking to a legitimate representative of your bank, call the number at the back of your card or visit a branch. Never click on suspicious links in a text or email or grant anyone remote access to your phone or computer. Do not respond to phone, text or internet requests for money or access to your computer or bank accounts. Banks will never call, text or email asking for you to send money to yourself or anyone else to prevent fraud. To learn more about common scams and ways to protect yourself visit: www.chase.com/security-tips.

NC Governor declares ‘state of emergency’ due to GOP school voucher expansion, tax cuts

The News & Observer

NC Governor declares ‘state of emergency’ due to GOP school voucher expansion, tax cuts

T. Keung Hui – May 22, 2023

Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper declared Monday that “public education in North Carolina is facing a state of emergency” in the face of “extreme legislation” being promoted by Republican state lawmakers.

In a video posted online Monday, Cooper said GOP lawmakers are “starving” public schools and “dropping an atomic bomb on public education” with plans to further cut taxes and increase funding for private school vouchers. He said the public needs to speak out against the changes before they’re adopted in the state budget.

“It’s clear that the Republican legislature is aiming to choke the life out of public education,” Cooper said. “I am declaring this state of emergency because you need to know what’s happening.

“If you care about public schools in North Carolina, it’s time to take immediate action and tell them to stop the damage that will set back our schools for a generation.”

Cooper’s speech comes as Republican legislative leaders are negotiating a state budget deal for the next two years that includes tax cuts and expansion of private school vouchers. The GOP has a legislative supermajority, so it can adopt a spending plan and other legislation without needing Cooper’s support.

The governor will hold public events across the state in the days ahead to call on parents, educators and business leaders to speak against the GOP proposals, the Associated Press reported.

Cooper, who can’t run again for a third consecutive term, has been losing political power. Last week, seven Democrats joined Republicans in passing the Senate budget proposal.

“Meaningless publicity stunts do nothing to improve educational outcomes in our state,” Randy Brechbiel, a spokesman for Senate leader Phil Berger, said in a statement Monday. “The House and Senate will continue working together to put forward budget proposals that address the needs of students and parents.”

‘Our teachers deserve better’

Under the Senate budget, average teacher pay would increase 4.5% over the next two years with the biggest increase going toward beginning educators. The House GOP budget had average 10.2% raises for teachers over the next two years.

Cooper has advocated for 18% raises for teachers over the next two years.

“Our teachers deserve better pay and more respect but the legislature wants to give them neither one,” Cooper said.

The $250 pay raise that the Senate would provide veteran teachers over the next two years “is a slap in the face,” Cooper said. He said the proposed Senate pay raise will not help the state deal with the thousands of teacher vacancies.

‘Cut public schools to the bone’

The Senate GOP budget would also expand the Opportunity Scholarship program so that any family, regardless of its income, would qualify to apply for vouchers to attend a K-12 private school.

Republicans point out that public education spending would grow by several hundred million dollars a year annually in their competing plans. And GOP leaders consider expansion of the private-school vouchers program part of a philosophy to give all children access to education options — whatever the source — to help them succeed.

But an Office of State Budget and Management analysis says the bill could cost traditional public schools $200 million in state funding, rural counties being particularly hard hit.

The Senate budget would also accelerate the tax cuts that Republicans put in previous budgets.

Cooper accused GOP lawmakers of wanting to help millionaires by giving them more tax cuts and making it possible for them to get private school vouchers. Currently, the Opportunity Scholarship program is limited to lower-to-middle-income families.

GOP lawmakers are choosing corporations and millionaires over public schools, the governor charged.

“Public school superintendents are telling me they’ll likely have to cut public schools to the bone — eliminate early college, AP and gifted courses, art, music, sports — if the legislature keeps draining funds to pay for private schools and those massive tax breaks,” Cooper said.

Trump Rolled Back Decades Of Clean Water Protections. The Supreme Court Just Went Even Further.

HuffPost

Trump Rolled Back Decades Of Clean Water Protections. The Supreme Court Just Went Even Further.

Alexander C. Kaufman, Chris D’Angelo – May 26, 2023

More than three decades ago, a Michigan man named John Rapanos tried to fill in three wetlands on his property to make way for a shopping center. State regulators warned him that doing so was illegal without federal Clean Water Act permits. Rapanos argued that you couldn’t navigate a boat from his wetlands to a federal waterway, so the Environmental Protection Agency had no jurisdiction on his land. When Rapanos ignored the EPA’s cease-and-desist letters, the government successfully brought a civil lawsuit against him, which he then vowed to “fight to the death.”

Instead, he made it all the way to the nation’s highest court. In a split decision in 2006, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment against Rapanos, but did not reach a majority ruling on whether wetlands that flowed into federally regulated “waters of the United States” qualified for the same protections.

In 2016, President Barack Obama sought to answer that question with a new EPA rule extending the Clean Water Act of 1972 to include millions of acres of marshes, bogs and lagoons whose water — and any pollution added to it — channel into already federally regulated waterways.

Republicans chided the move as a federal land grab, while environmentalists cheered what they saw as a reasonable interpretation of the decadesold law through the lens of the latest science shows about hydrology and the increasing threat of extreme droughts and toxic algae blooms.

In 2020, President Donald Trump rolled back much of the rule’s protections, slashing the total protected area of wetlands roughly in half. In 2022, President Joe Biden moved to restore the Obama-era rule.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court’s new right-wing supermajority revisited the 2006 decision to strike down federal protections for virtually all the wetlands Trump deregulated — and then some, eliminating even the few safeguards the Republican administration tried to preserve.

An environmental advocate holds up a sign during a rally outside the Supreme Court in October. (Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images for Protect our Waters)

The 5-4 decision — written by Justice Samuel Alito, and joined by Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — revoked the Clean Water Act’s authority over at least 59 million acres of wetlands across the U.S., according to an estimate by the environmental group Earthjustice.

“You’re going to see the Clean Water Act significantly scaled back in terms of coverage,” said Duke McCall, a partner who specializes in federal water rules at the law firm Morgan Lewis. “The impacted waters are going to be significantly narrowed.”

The Obama administration included any wetlands linked to existing federal waterways via underground aquifers or streams. The Trump EPA narrowed the scope to only include wetlands with visible surface connections to rivers, lakes and other long-standing “waters of the United States.” But the Republican administration made an exception for wetlands cut off from federal waterways via a berm, bridge or other artificial barrier.

The court granted no such leeway, instead dismantling nearly half a century of established federal jurisdiction over wetlands — a fact that conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his dissenting opinion.

At the very least, the ruling takes the U.S. back to the mid-1970s, to the early days of the Clean Water Act, said Emily Hammond, an energy and environmental law professor at George Washington University. But Hammond stressed it could be worse than that, noting that the majority’s opinion repeatedly cites the Supreme Court’s 1870 decision in The Daniel Ball case, which found that waterways are “navigable” only if they are “navigable in fact” and used for interstate or foreign commerce.

“It’s always been understood, I think, by courts and by Congress and by agencies that when Congress used the term ‘waters of the United States’ it meant to go further than that ‘navigable in fact’ standard that Daniel Ball stood for,” Hammond said. “To see the majority now citing that old decision suggests their eye is to shrink the scope of the Clean Water Act down back to where it would have been before we had a Clean Water Act.”

“In some ways, this takes us back that far,” Hammond said, referring to the 1870 case.

Kavanaugh wrote that while the last eight previous administrations dating back to 1977 “maintained dramatically different views of how to regulate the environment, including under the Clean Water Act,” all of them “recognized as a matter of law that the Clean Water Act’s coverage of adjacent wetlands means more than adjoining wetlands and also includes wetlands separated from covered waters by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, or the like.”

Thursday’s ruling, he argued, will have “negative consequences for waters” across the country.

“By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Michael and Chantell Sackett of Priest Lake, Idaho, pose for a photo in front of the Supreme Court in Washington on Oct. 14, 2011. The Supreme Court on Thursday, May 25, 2023, made it harder for the federal government to police water pollution in a decision that strips protections from wetlands that are isolated from larger bodies of water. The justices boosted property rights over concerns about clean water in a ruling in favor of an Idaho couple who sought to build a house near Priest Lake in the state’s panhandle.

The ruling is part of what liberal Justice Elena Kagan views as a clear trend by the court to curb the federal government’s legal authority to regulate pollution in an era of dramatic ecological upheaval — when other countries are taking drastic steps to preserve some semblance of nature’s current biodiversity and order. Last year, the Supreme Court drastically limited EPA’s authority to curb power plant emissions under the Clean Air Act.

“The vice in both instances is the same: the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy,” Kagan wrote. “So I’ll conclude, sadly, by repeating what I wrote last year, with the replacement of only a single word. ‘[T]he Court substitutes its own ideas about policymaking for Congress’s. The Court will not allow the Clean [Water] Act to work as Congress instructed. The Court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much.’”

Last year, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of hearing a case on a defunct power plant regulation — the high court typically rejects suits with no active legal bearing — in what was widely seen as an attempt to preemptively stop the Biden administration from reviving a controversial Obama-era rule. The court’s six conservative justices, including Kavanaugh, ruled in favor of permanently sealing off the legal avenue the Obama administration took to justify parts of its Clean Power Plan regulation.

The conservative justices’ apparent partisan agenda is hardly the only perceived conflict of interest sowing mistrust in the nation’s highest court. The Trump-appointed Barrett, whose father spent much of his career working for Royal Dutch Shell, declined to recuse herself from key cases involving the oil giant, even as Justice Samuel Alito stepped aside over his disclosed investments in oil and companies.

The investigative news outlet ProPublica published a series of exposés over the past month revealing that Thomas, who was appointed by President George H. W. Bush, failed to disclose private jet trips and land deals he received from billionaire real-estate developer Harlan Crow. The National Multifamily Housing Council, which has close ties to Crow — the CEO of Crow Holdings Inc. is also the chair of that group, and three of Crow’s companies are dues-paying members — filed an amicus brief on an earlier iteration of this case, as HuffPost’s Paul Blumenthal reported.

Republican lawmakers celebrated Thursday’s decision as a win for family farmers crushed under the boot of regulators seeking to make living off the land ever harder and more complicated.

“In a huge win for farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and families — the Supreme Court has ditched the Obama/Biden WOTUS rule overreach once and for all,” Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) wrote in a statement.

But while “farmers and small business owners have been held up” as the most sympathetic victims of purported government overreach, McCall said “developers are a huge affected group who have been strong opponents” of expanded wetland protections.

Another way that Thursday’s ruling turns the clock back to before the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 is by effectively restoring a variable patchwork of state water rules, Hammond said.

“The Clean Water Act was designed of course to create some floor among the states so that we wouldn’t have the race to the bottom, polluters moving to states where they could pollute more because the policies were more lenient,” they said. “This decision so dramatically undermines the Clean Water Act that we do in a sense go back to the times of significant disparities among the states in terms of protections for our waters.”

“These kinds of decisions are starting to add up,” Hammond added. “There’s no doubt there will be cumulative impacts and we’ll see shifts as a result.”

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story suggested the facts of the Rapanos case occurred in the 2000s. They occurred in the 1980s.

The Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act

NPR

The Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act

Nina Totenberg, Heard on All Things Considered – May 25, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on May 16.Alex Brandon/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court Court on Thursday significantly curtailed the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the nation’s wetlands and waterways. It was the court’s second decision in a year limiting the ability of the agency to enact anti-pollution regulations and combat climate change.

The challenge to the regulations was brought by Michael and Chantell Sackett, who bought property to build their dream house about 500 feet away from Idaho’s Scenic Priest Lake, a 19-mile stretch of clear water that is fed by mountain streams and bordered by state and national parkland. Three days after the Sacketts started excavating their property, the EPA stopped work on the project because the couple had failed to get a permit for disturbing the wetlands on their land.

Now a conservative Supreme Court majority has used the Sacketts’ case to roll back longstanding rules adopted to carry out the 51-year-old Clean Water Act.

While the nine justices agreed that the Sacketts should prevail, they divided 5-to-4 as to how far to go in limiting the EPA’s authority.Sponsor Message

Narrowing the scope of the law

Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the navigable waters of the United States regulated by the EPA under the statute do not include many previously regulated wetlands. Rather, he said, the CWA extends to only streams, oceans, rivers and lakes, and those wetlands with a “continuous surface connection to those bodies.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by the court’s three liberal members, disputed Alito’s reading of the statute, noting that since 1977 when the CWA was amended to include adjacent wetlands, eight consecutive presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic, have interpreted the law to cover wetlands that the court has now excluded. Kavanaugh said that by narrowing the act to cover only adjoining wetlands, the court’s new test will have quote “significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.”

In addition to joining Kavanaugh’s opinion, the court’s liberals signed on to a separate opinion by Justice Elena Kagan. Pointing to the air and water pollution cases, she accused the majority of appointing itself instead of Congress as the national policymaker on the environment.

Reaction to the opinion

President Biden, in a statement, called the decision “disappointing.”

It “upends the legal framework that has protected America’s waters for decades,” he said. “It also defies the science that confirms the critical role of wetlands in safeguarding our nation’s streams, rivers, and lakes from chemicals and pollutants that harm the health and wellbeing of children, families, and communities.”Sponsor Message

Two former EPA chiefs saw Thursday’s decision as a major setback for the nation’s environment, and its future in combating the effects of climate change. William K. Reilly, who served as EPA administrator in the George H.W. Bush administration, said that while he understands the economic objections of farmers and builders to many wetland regulations, the Supreme Court’s decision is “too broad” and will only limit further the already disappearing wetlands that protect many parts of the country from flooding and drought.

Carol Browner, who served as EPA administrator in the Obama administration, echoed those sentiments, calling the decision “a major blow to the landmark Clean Water Act and the federal government’s ability to protect our people from pollution and its negative health side effects.”

The decision also dismayed environmental groups.

“I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say it’s catastrophic for the Clean Water act,” said Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation. Wetlands play an “enormous role in protecting the nation’s water,” he said. “They’re really the kidneys of water systems and they’re also the sponges. They absorb a lot of water on the landscape. So they’re very important water features and they’re very important to the quality of the water that we drink, swim, fish, boat and recreate in.”

As in last year’s case limiting the EPA’s ability to regulate air pollution from power plants, the decision was a major victory for the groups that supported the Sacketts — mining, oil, utilities and, in today’s case, agricultural and real estate interests as well.

‘It’s not their money’: Older Americans worried debt default means no Social Security

ABC News

‘It’s not their money’: Older Americans worried debt default means no Social Security

Peter Charalamboust – May 23, 2023

If the United States defaults on its financial obligations, millions of Americans might not be able to pay their bills as well.

With Social Security and other government benefits at risk amid a political stalemate over the government’s debt ceiling, experts and older Americans told ABC News that the consequences of the impasse in Washington could be dire, including for older Americans who need the money to pay for basic needs such as food, housing or health care costs.

A quarter of Americans over age 65 rely on Social Security to provide at least 90% of their family income, according to the Social Security Administration.

PHOTO: President Joe Biden walks to the White House after landing on the South Lawn aboard Marine One, May 21, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

Fred Gurner, 86, of New York, told ABC News that he uses his Social Security payment for his $800 rent. But now there is real risk that his payment might not come in time in June — when the Treasury Department says the government might not be able to send him the money he counts on.

“It’s very stressful, gives me a heart attack,” Gurner said about how the issue has become politicized.

How are Social Security payments affected by the debt ceiling?

Since 2001, the United States has spent more money than revenue it has taken in overall.

To cover the difference, the United States Treasury issues debt through securities, according to University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business professor Olivia Mitchell. Backed by the United States, those securities are happily bought by investors who see it as a safe guarantee they’ll get paid back with interest.

However, the United States and Denmark are the only two countries to limit the amount of debt the government can issue, known as a debt ceiling, Mitchell noted.

MORE: Ahead of meeting with Biden, McCarthy says debt, spending deal needed ‘this week’

Lawmakers can pass new laws that require government spending, but the debt ceiling will remain in place until lawmakers vote to increase it. That has happened 78 separate times in the United States since 1960.

If that debt ceiling does not increase by June 1, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has warned House Speaker Kevin McCarthy that the country will not be able to satisfy all of its financial obligations.

Beyond not being able to pay interest and principal on government securities — which economists broadly agree would rattle the stock market and possibly damage the U.S. credit rating — the Treasury would be unable to issue new debt to cover expenses like Social Security, according to Mitchell.

The government projects to spend roughly $100 billion on Social Security in the month of June, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

“It’s going to be pretty tight for people for a while, unless Congress and the president can get together on this problem,” Mitchell said.

When would Social Security payments become delayed?

The Social Security Administration plans to send contributions to beneficiaries on four dates next month — June 2, 14, 21, and 28. Those checks would be the first ones at risk of being delayed, according to Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

“Millions and millions of Social Security beneficiaries are worried about having the income to pay their basic bills,” he noted.

Lynda Fisher, 80, told ABC News that her budget relies on her monthly Social Security check and that a delay would complicate her essential spending, frustrating the 80-year-old who has spent her life contributing to the system.

PHOTO: FILE - House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, speaks with reporters in the US Capitol in Washington, DC, May 17, 2023. (Andrew Caballero-reynolds/AFP via Getty Images, FILE) — PHOTO: FILE – House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, speaks with reporters in the US Capitol in Washington, DC, May 17, 2023. (Andrew Caballero-reynolds/AFP via Getty Images, FILE)

“I paid into Social Security, and I paid into Medicare,” she said. “And now they’re trying to take it away. It’s not their money, it’s my money that I paid into.”

Richtman is now actively encouraging older residents to save money in anticipation of a delayed Social Security payment, fearing negotiations will not yield a compromise in time to avoid default.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Yellen indicated that certain bills might be prioritized, including interest payments, Social Security and military contractor payments. However, Richtman expressed doubt that such a prioritization would be legally possible.

What does this mean for the future of Social Security?

Some Republican lawmakers have framed the debt ceiling fight as necessary to slow government spending; however, some economists, including Mitchell, see this as a “manufactured crisis” that threatens essential services, retirement savings and the overall economy.

“Every time one of these crises occurs, it’s signaling to the rest of the world, and to American investors that U.S. Treasuries are not as safe as we thought,” Boston University economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff said.

MORE: Debt ceiling breach could cut millions of jobs. Here’s who would lose employment first

Kotlikoff expressed further concern that the Social Security system will have over $65.9 trillion in unfunded financial obligations over the indefinite horizon, based on the entity’s own report.

However, the debate over the debt ceiling appears unlikely to produce a meaningful solution to the broader Social Security shortfall, though, according to Kotlikoff, Mitchell and Richtman.

When will retirees receive their payments?

Mitchell and Richtman remained optimistic that Social Security recipients would eventually receive their checks once a deal is made, albeit with some delay.

“I’m pretty confident that payments would be fulfilled,” Richtman said. “That’s not much comfort to those people who will not be able to pay for their groceries, their utilities or their rent while they’re waiting to receive a back payment.”

Ron DeSantis is learning that not every state wants to be Florida

NBC News

Ron DeSantis is learning that not every state wants to be Florida

Henry J. Gomez – May 22, 2023

Charlie Neibergall

Wherever Gov. Ron DeSantis goes, he brings greetings from “the free state of Florida.” He heralds his “Florida Blueprint.” And he brags about how many people originally from whichever state he happens to be visiting love taking advantage of Florida’s warm weather and low taxes.

But a funny thing has happened as DeSantis travels the country with a “Make America Florida” message that underpins the Republican’s soon-to-launch presidential campaign.

DeSantis has found that not everyone wants to be Florida. And he has encountered spirited pushback from competitive fellow governors and GOP officials who believe that their states have done just as much, if not more, to advance a conservative agenda.

“It’s a lot of fun competing with my colleagues and Republican governors across the country,” Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who has hosted DeSantis in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, said in an interview with NBC News. “But make no mistake, we are competitors.”

Reynolds introduced and interviewed DeSantis at two events in March, making sure to hold up her own record alongside his and frame them as equally accomplished governors. DeSantis, though, emphasized that he enjoys a “special perch” or “unique catbird’s seat” to view how other governors are doing, “because when people visit or move here, they tell me what’s going on in their states.”

After bestowing this authority onto himself, he took some shots at Democratic-led Illinois and proclaimed that Reynolds indeed presides over “one of the best-run states.”

It’s a tricky task — one that has caught attention of DeSantis’ home state reporters at Florida Politics — that in the wrong hands can come off as a magnanimous pander or a condescending pat on the back. And there have been signs in recent weeks that DeSantis recognizes he needs to shift how he talks about Florida, making it seem less aspirational and exceptional and more like an example of Republican leadership that has thrived elsewhere.

Reynolds, who stressed that her rivalry with DeSantis is friendly, brushed aside a question about whether his comments might offend Iowans and then quickly pivoted to her own accomplishments.

“Offend Iowans? Oh no, because I took care of that,” Reynolds said. “Because starting this year, we no longer tax retirement income. I made a deal with Gov. DeSantis. I said, ‘Hey, I’ll let our retirees go down to Florida — maybe a couple of months in January and February when the temperature’s not as good here in Iowa. … He’s gracious when he talks about it.”

DeSantis’ Florida boosterism has also prompted some ribbing in New Hampshire. At a GOP dinner there last month, DeSantis spoke admiringly about that state’s “Live Free or Die” motto before launching into his self-congratulatory story. Before DeSantis left the stage, New Hampshire GOP Chairman Chris Ager playfully jabbed at the governor.

“Instead of people moving to Florida,” Ager said, “maybe you can move up here.”

DeSantis’ spokesperson did not return a request for comment for this piece.

As boastful as DeSantis can be, he also searches for common cause with his audiences. During two stops in Ohio last month he played up his mother’s roots in the Youngstown area and his wife’s childhood in Troy, near Dayton. During that trip, he told a GOP crowd over breakfast in Akron that some parts of Florida are like “Ohio South,” given the number of retirees there.

“And it’s all good, because I’ll tell you, when it came time to get that big victory margin, there were a lot of transplanted people from Ohio who had my back,” DeSantis said, referring to his 19-point re-election margin last year. “So, God bless them for doing that.”

During a speech in South Carolina, DeSantis mentioned how his in-laws now live in the state and how he’s noticed more traffic on the roads there when he and his wife visit.

“Similar to what we’ve seen in Florida over the years with people coming down here,” he said.

But he was unable to resist an attempt at one-upmanship: “Famously — and, as long as I’m around, permanently — we have no state income tax. You guys should try that sometime.”

In Georgia, a compliment quickly gave way to grievance.

“One thing we’re no longer No. 1 in is college football,” DeSantis told an audience during a visit to a gun store in March. “So I just have a little bit of a plea … just stop taking so many of our high school football recruits. Can you give us a little bit of a chance?”

Ager, the New Hampshire GOP chair, said in an interview that he sees nothing wrong with friendly competition — and he wasted little time asserting his own state’s superiority.

“We are clearly No. 1. Gov. DeSantis calls it the free state of Florida. But the Cato Institute … in their whole scoring criteria, New Hampshire came in first last year,” Ager said, referring to a libertarian think tank’s ranking of New Hampshire as the freest state, based on personal and economic freedoms. “So we have some objective criteria from a third party.”

DeSantis himself seems to have softened his pitch a tad. While addressing the Utah GOP’s organizing convention in late April, he called the state, led by Republican Gov. Spencer Cox, “one of the best governed, best performing states.” DeSantis then went on to bestow perhaps the biggest compliment he could, even if it kind of came at the expense of a third state.

“I was recently visiting with some folks in Iowa, and people said, ‘Iowa, they’re really the Florida of the Midwest with all the conservative stuff they’re doing,’” DeSantis said. “Well, let me just tell you, maybe this is a little secret, but it might just be that Florida’s the Utah of the Southeast.”

By the time he returned to Iowa this month, DeSantis sounded ready to reconsider.

“I was here in March, and someone kind of took note and they’re like, ‘Man … Iowa’s like the Florida of the Midwest.’ … But I just want to let you know, after watching all the good stuff you’ve done in Iowa, it may be that Florida is the Iowa of the Southeast. So we’ll see.”

For the competitive Reynolds, there’s no question.

“Absolutely,” said Iowa’s governor, who has not endorsed a candidate for president. “Florida is the Iowa of the Southeast, and we’re doing everything we can to continue that narrative.”

David Axelrod: After Barack Obama, America will never be the same

CNN – Opinion

David Axelrod: After Barack Obama, America will never be the same

David Axelrod – May 20, 2023

In all the years I worked for Barack Obama, I didn’t think enough about the burdens of being America’s first Black president – in part because he bore them so gracefully.

There were bracing moments, of course, like the day, relatively early in his campaign for the White House, when Secret Service agents became a constant presence in his life, given the inordinate number of death threats against him.

There were the overtly racist memes about his citizenship and faith and worthiness, fueled by demagogues and social media, that continued throughout his presidency.

There was the startling outburst from a Southern congressman, who shouted “You lie!” during a presidential address to Congress – an intrusion that has since become more common but back then was a stunning departure from civic norms.

Among Obama’s staff, we dealt with these moments mostly as political challenges to navigate. And while he addressed issues of race, Obama rarely spoke, publicly or privately, about the unique pressures he faced personally.

It took someone else to open my eyes and cause me to think more deeply about the extraordinary burden – and responsibility – of being a trailblazer at the highest of heights in a nation where the struggle against racism is ongoing.

In 2009, Obama was considering nominating Sonia Sotomayor, a highly regarded federal appellate judge from New York, for a seat on the US Supreme Court.

If appointed, Sotomayor would become the first Latina on the nation’s highest court. The president asked me to chat with her and assess how she would hold up under the pressures of the confirmation process and that weighty history.

I met with Sotomayor in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex, where she had been spirited for a final round of clandestine interviews. I asked her what, if anything, worried her about the process.

“I worry about not measuring up,” she said, bluntly.

It was instantly clear to me that this brilliant, accomplished judge, who fought her way from poverty in the South Bronx to Princeton and Yale Law School, was talking about more than her own ambitions. As The First, she knew she also would be carrying with her the hopes and aspirations of young Latinas everywhere. Her success would be their inspiration. Her failure would be their setback.

That conversation prompted me to reconsider the unspoken burden the president himself had navigated so well for so long under the most intense spotlight on the planet. The burden was not just racism but the responsibility to measure up, to excel, to shatter stereotypes and to be an impeccable role model in one of the world’s toughest and most consequential jobs.

Watching the episode of CNN’s documentary series “The 2010s” about Obama, I was reminded again of how well he weathered those burdens.

It isn’t that he got everything right. No president does. And there always will be a debate about how much the election of the first Black president contributed to the reactionary backlash that yielded Donald Trump, a divisive and toxic figure who would lead the country in an entirely different direction.

But the history is clear: Obama led the nation through an epic economic crisis and war, passed landmark legislation on health care and strengthened the social safety net, bolstered America’s standing in the world and, in our most painful moments, comforted the nation by speaking eloquently to what Abraham Lincoln called the “better angels of our nature.”

Against the relentless pressure of being First and all the anger and resentment that it may have stirred among some fearful of change, Obama was consistently thoughtful, honorable and poised. He carried himself with the comforting authenticity of a man who knows who he is – and never flinched.

When Obama was considering a campaign for president in the fall of 2006, a small group of friends and advisers gathered with him in my office in Chicago to assess a possible race.

Michelle Obama – perhaps the greatest skeptic in the room at that moment about the advisability of such an audacious journey – asked a fundamental question: “Barack, it kind of comes down to this. There are a lot of good, capable people running for president. What do you think you could contribute that the others couldn’t?”

“There are a lot of ways to answer that but one thing I know for sure: The day I raise my hand to take that oath of office as president of the United States,” he said, lifting his right hand, “the world will look at us differently and millions of kids – Black kids, Hispanic kids – will look at themselves differently.”

Two years later, in Chicago’s Grant Park, where Obama claimed victory, I watched a sea of humanity, including Black parents, with tears rolling down their cheeks, as they held their kids aloft to witness the scene.

Jacob Philadelphia, the son of a White House staff member, touches then- President Barack Obama’s hair in the Oval Office of the White House. – Pete Souza/The White House/The New York Times/Redux

And then there was the iconic photo in the Oval Office of five-year-old Jacob Philadelphia, the son of a White House staffer who was leaving the administration. The little boy, who is Black, stood dressed in a shirt and a tie. He had looked up at the president and asked, “Is your hair like mine?” Obama bowed his head toward the boy and told him, “Go ahead, touch it,” which he did.

It was a moving, spontaneous scene captured by the splendid White House photographer Pete Souza. The moment spoke volumes about Obama, his meaning in our history and the unique responsibly he bore.

As the president bowed his head to this little boy, his unspoken message was clear: “Yes, you are like me. Yes, you can dream big dreams.”

Under extraordinary pressures, Obama more than “measured up,” not just as a president but as a role model. As a First.

And for that alone, America will never be the same.

Texas is facing a housing crisis, a migrant crisis, a multi-year drought, and an epidemic of mass shootings. Ted Cruz, meanwhile, has opened an investigation into Bud Light.

Insider

Texas is facing a housing crisis, a migrant crisis, a multi-year drought, and an epidemic of mass shootings. Ted Cruz, meanwhile, has opened an investigation into Bud Light.

Katie Balevic – May 20, 2023

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz opened an investigation into Bud Light’s partnership with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Meanwhile, Texas is grappling with a migration crisis and a severe housing crisis.

And also an epidemic of gun violence, extreme weather, and a multi-year drought.

Texas is facing a laundry list of crises: housing, immigration, and weather, among others.

So, naturally, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is opening an investigation into Bud Light.

Social conservatives across the country continue to clutch their pearls over Bud Light’s partnership with influencer Dylan Mulvaney, a 26-year-old transgender activist who has shaken the far-right’s perception of reality by existing in the open.

The company’s partnership with Mulvaney led to right-wing calls for a boycott of Bud Light, which has impacted sales at its parent company, Anheuser-Busch. The latter reported a 23% drop in sales for the last week of April compared to the previous year, CBS News reported.

Together with Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Cruz sent a letter to the beer industry’s regulatory body, the Beer Institute, inquiring whether Anheuser-Busch’s partnership with Mulvaney “violates the Beer Institute’s guidelines prohibiting marketing to underage individuals.”

“The Beer Institute must examine whether your company violated the Beer Institute’s Advertising/Marketing Code and Buying Guidelines prohibiting marketing to individuals younger than the legal drinking age,” the letter said, claiming that “Mulvaney’s audience skews significantly younger than the legal drinking age.”

To avoid an investigation, Cruz and Blackburn offered Anheuser-Busch the option to “publicly sever its relationship with Dylan Mulvaney, publicly apologize to the American people for marketing alcoholic beverages to minors, and direct Dylan Mulvaney to remove any Anheuser-Busch content” from her social media platforms, they wrote in the letter.

The letter, which misgendered Mulvaney throughout, also seeks documents and information on how “Anheuser-Busch vets its partnerships and how Anheuser-Busch failed in assessing the propriety of a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney.”

Meanwhile, in Cruz’ home state of Texas:

Following the expiration of Title 42, the fates of thousands of immigrants are up in the air as politicians on both sides of the aisle play hot potato by busing them to different cities.

The state faces an urgent housing and affordability crisis. There are just 25 available rental units for every 100 low-income households, according to The Texas Tribune.

Texas is also grappling with a series of deadly extreme weather events. In 2022, at least 279 people in Texas died from extreme heat, and the year before that, 246 Texans died from a brutal winter freeze. And Texas farmers are bracing for another growing season beset by a multi-year drought.

Texas is also the epicenter of gun violence. It is the site of 5 of the 10 deadliest shootings in US history.

Beer marketing, however — thanks to Cruz — has all the attention of the state’s top leaders in Washington.

Texas is facing a housing crisis, a migrant crisis, a multi-year drought, and an epidemic of mass shootings. Ted Cruz, meanwhile, has opened an investigation into Bud Light.

Insider

Texas is facing a housing crisis, a migrant crisis, a multi-year drought, and an epidemic of mass shootings. Ted Cruz, meanwhile, has opened an investigation into Bud Light.

Katie Balevic – May 20, 2023

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz opened an investigation into Bud Light’s partnership with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Meanwhile, Texas is grappling with a migration crisis and a severe housing crisis.

And also an epidemic of gun violence, extreme weather, and a multi-year drought.

Texas is facing a laundry list of crises: housing, immigration, and weather, among others.

So, naturally, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is opening an investigation into Bud Light.

Meanwhile, in Cruz’ home state of Texas:

Following the expiration of Title 42, the fates of thousands of immigrants are up in the air as politicians on both sides of the aisle play hot potato by busing them to different cities.

The state faces an urgent housing and affordability crisis. There are just 25 available rental units for every 100 low-income households, according to The Texas Tribune.

Texas is also the epicenter of gun violence. It is the site of 5 of the 10 deadliest shootings in US history.

Beer marketing, however — thanks to Cruz — has all the attention of the state’s top leaders in Washington.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch calls COVID-19 response “the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in peacetime history”

Insider

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch calls COVID-19 response “the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in peacetime history”

Sarah Al-Arshani – May 20, 2023

In a statement, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch made it clear where he stands on the pandemic-era emergency response.

Gorsuch called it “the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.”

His statement came in response to a Republican-led effort to extend Title 42, a restrictive immigrant policy.

As COVID-19 spread across the United States in 2020, among the wide-ranging efforts to insulate the country from the pandemic was Title 42, a restrictive immigration policy allowing the rapid expulsion of asylum seekers and other migrants.

The measure — initially implemented by the Trump administration and expanded under President Joe Biden — expired this month. The US Supreme Court last week rejected a push by Republican-led states to keep it in place.

In an eight-page statement in response to the case, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch didn’t mince words. He called the country’s response to the COVID-19 emergency “the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.”

“Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private, ” Gorsuch wrote in the statement, released Thursday.

Gorsuch has long been critical of restrictive COVID-19 measures, the Associated Press reported. In January 2022, he was the only Justice who refused to wear a mask, forcing Justice Sonia Sotomayor to participate in oral arguments virtually. Sotomayor has diabetes and is at a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19.

In Thursday’s statement, Gorsuch warned that the “concentration of power in the hands of so few” won’t lead to “sound government.”

“One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action —almost any action — as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat. A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force,” he wrote.