Navigating Political Changes

The Senate has signed off on a sweeping retooling of the United States Postal Service (USPS). On Tuesday, 79 across-the-aisle yeas approved the $107 billion Postal Service Reform Act of 2022 – providing the cash necessary for the agency to modernize its service and make it more efficient for Americans.

The USPS could certainly use the money. From 2007 to 2020, it recorded losses of more than $80 billion and produced over $188 billion in unfunded liabilities and debt. From October 2021, to December 2021, it lost $1.3 billion.

President Joe Biden had indicated earlier that he would sign the legislation once it gets to his desk. The House has already approved the bill.

The bipartisanship support that the bill received reflects the agency's importance to the public. For years, Republicans and Democrats have squabbled over upgrading the USPS. Republicans postured the agency as being incompetent and said supporting it was just throwing good money away.

When the COVID-19 pandemic took over, the agency experienced some hiccups, like forcing the Veterans Administration (VA) to find alternative ways to deliver medications. However, Democrats like Virginia's Jerry Connolly remained on postal workers' side, lauding mail workers as everyday heroes and nothing that Americans support the Postal Service.

“After more than a decade of hard work and negotiations, the Postal Service Reform Act is finally on its way to the president's desk," Connolly commented on the Senate's passage. "This will save the Post Office from financial ruin, and ensure our mail is delivered for decades to come."

The postal union calls the legislation “critical” for consumers

The American Postal Workers Union (APWU) praised the legislation. On top of maximizing its members' participation in Medicare, the group said the legislation will also ensure that Americans can count on deliveries six days per week.

The group said it will also ensure that letter mail, flats, and packages remain combined into one postal network while helping meet the demand of package growth. It also gives the agency the approval to contract with local, state, and indigenous governments to offer non-mail services like fishing and hunting licenses.

“It is not an exaggeration to say that this bill is one of the most critical pieces of postal legislation in modern history — the struggle to win Postal Reform has been 15 years in the making,” said the American Postal Workers Union’s (APWU) Legislative and Political Director, Judy Beard.

The White House has announced that America’s crumbling roads and bridges are up next in its infrastructure agenda. The Biden team says its Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will not only rebuild deteriorating roads and bridges, but it will also replace lead pipes and improve the quality of the internet to “every family in America.”

If the administration’s recipe goes according to plan, the offshoot of the infrastructure improvements will create good-paying jobs and bolster the country’s manufacturing and supply chains. However, the plan doesn’t stop there. The White House also pledged that 40% of its investment in climate and clean energy will directly benefit disadvantaged communities.

“With over 44,000 bridges in poor condition around our country, today’s announcement of $27.5 billion in long-overdue funding is great news for rural and urban communities alike,” Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said in a statement emailed to ConsumerAffairs. 

“These investments will create good-paying jobs in all 50 states, DC, and the territories. Bridges connect communities and are critical to everyday life—helping Americans get to work, visit family, or explore our great country. Thanks to President Biden and Congressional Democrats, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is delivering for the American people and helping ensure they succeed in the 21st century economy.”

Clean energy, cheaper internet, and more

Here’s a quick look at what the White House hopes can be completed in its plan:

Bridge repair: The government is investing $27 billion over the next five years in funding to replace, repair, and rehabilitate bridges across the country to all 50 states, as well as Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and Tribal governments.

EV charging action plan: On top of what General Motors and others are doing to spread the availability of charging stations for electric vehicles, the President’s new goal is to build a national network of 500,000 electric vehicle chargers.

Clean energy: Biden said the Department of Energy is establishing a new Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, which will oversee $20 billion in funding to scale up clean energy, create new, good-paying jobs for American families and workers, and reduce pollution.

Clean water: Also in the works is a lead pipe and paint action plan to replace all of the nation’s lead pipes in the next decade while expanding access to clean drinking water.

Cheaper and wider internet: President Biden's infrastructure law includes what he terms a historic investment of $65 billion that should help close the digital divide and “ensure that all Americans have access to reliable, affordable, high-speed broadband.”

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is coming to the table with its own plan to provide broadband subsidies of up to $30/month for low-income households and up to $100 towards the purchase of a computer.

President Joe Biden has signed an executive order that’s intended to reduce the complexity of government services, such as the processing of benefits and passports. He stated that the U.S. needs to design and deliver services in a way that every American can navigate easily. 

“We must use technology to modernize Government and implement services that are simple to use, accessible, equitable, protective, transparent, and responsive for all people of the United States,” he said in an announcement.

Improving customer service and service delivery

When the baseline for interacting with Americans was set in 1993, it required agencies that provide significant services directly to the public to gather feedback from consumers and establish standards that meet or exceed those provided by the private sector. 

Under the new order, government agencies will be tasked with improving service delivery and customer experience, making them “fundamental priorities.” One of the major service delivery items that the Biden administration is focusing on involves passports.

As any American who has tried to apply for or renew a passport knows, the process can take time and require a lot of jumping through hoops. To change that perception, Biden is asking the Secretary of State to “design and deliver a new online passport renewal experience that does not require any physical documents to be mailed.”

Digitize, digitize, digitize

Biden hammered home the importance of digitizing government forms and services. He specifically pointed out that the Veterans Administration needs to provide digital services through a single, integrated, and equitable digital platform on VA.gov and the VA mobile app. 

He also asked for a complete makeover of the USA.gov website so that it can be a centralized, digital “Federal Front Door” that citizens can use to access all government benefits, services, and programs. 

“Every interaction between the Federal Government and the public, whether it involves renewing a passport or calling for a status update on a farm loan application, should be seen as an opportunity for the Government to save an individual’s time (and thus reduce “time taxes”) and to deliver the level of service that the public expects and deserves,” Biden said.

“By demonstrating that its processes are effective and efficient, in addition to being fair, protective of privacy interests, and transparent, the Federal Government can build public trust.”

After months of wrangling and deal-cutting in Congress, President Biden has finally gotten to put his signature on one of his loftiest agenda items -- a $1.2 trillion infrastructure package. 

In the administration’s view, the law delivers on a long-overdue promise. It includes everything from rebuilding the country’s infrastructure to creating better jobs for millions of Americans. Below are some of the items that are included in the legislation.

What Americans can expect from the new law

A revamped infrastructure: When it comes to infrastructure, Biden says “things are going to turn around in a big way.” He said 2022 will be the first year in two decades that the U.S. infrastructure investment will grow faster than China’s. 

“We’ll once again have the best roads, bridges, ports, and airports over the next decade. And we’ll lead the world into the 21st century with modern cars and trucks and transit systems,” the President stated. 

The biggest overhaul in that laundry list will be roads and bridges. Biden said the rebuilding of those two items will be the most significant investment the U.S. has made in the past 70 years. Right behind that is the most significant investment in passenger rail the country has put forth in the last 50 years, as well as the most aggressive effort ever put in public transit. 

Jobs: With the investment in infrastructure also comes the need for workers to make that happen -- plumbers to replace all the lead pipes in the country, people to install broadband lines, workers to install electric vehicle charging stations. Biden says it will take tens of thousands of workers to export clean energy technologies to the rest of the world.

“This law delivers on that long-overdue promise, in my view. It creates better jobs for millions of Americans. And no one — no one earning less than $400,000 a year will pay a single penny in federal taxes because of it.”

Broadband: The new law intends to make high-speed internet affordable and available everywhere while boosting competition and creating more price transparency. That’s likely to be a hit with many consumers who are unhappy with their internet and a nation of parents who wrestled with getting their children set up for remote learning during the pandemic.

“Folks, as we saw with remote learning, remote working during the pandemic, access to high-speed Internet is essential… No parent should have to sit in a parking lot at a fast-food restaurant again just so their child can use the internet to do their homework. That’s over,” Biden said at his press conference announcing the passage of the law.

Electric vehicles: From the moment Biden entered the White House, he’s been championing electric vehicles -- everything from changing out the federal government’s fleet to all-electric vehicles to offering top-dollar incentives to consumers who buy one. Now, he has a real chance to advance all those hopes and says Americans can expect a “true” countrywide network of more than a half-million charging stations for electric vehicles.

“It is also going to make it possible for Americans to get off the sidelines and into the game of manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines, batteries to store energy and power for electric vehicles, including electric school buses, which will mean millions of children will no longer inhale the dangerous diesel fumes that come out of the buses,” Biden stated.

After two presidents at the Federal Reserve banks crossed the line in trades they made, senior officials have put new restrictions on investments in place to prevent an overreach from happening again.

The new rules forbid both policymakers and senior staff members at the Fed from buying individual stocks in active trading. They are also prohibited from holding market products like individual bonds or derivatives -- in fact, they can no longer hold any investment that is secured and backed by the government.

What’s left isn’t much, but it’ll have to do. Starting immediately, the only investments Fed officials can make are to purchase diversified investment vehicles, like mutual funds.

"These tough new rules raise the bar high in order to assure the public we serve that all of our senior officials maintain a single-minded focus on the public mission of the Federal Reserve," said Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell.

Who crossed the line?

NPR reports that the two Fed bank presidents who crossed the line were Robert Kaplan and Eric Rosengren. Kaplan, who works at the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, bought or sold stock worth more than a million dollars in 2020 in nearly two dozen companies, including Amazon and Delta Air Lines. Rosengren, who heads the Boston Federal Reserve Bank, bought or sold securities tied to real estate and made investments worth tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in AT&T, Chevron, and Pfizer.

Those two were certainly in the right place at the right time, as the Fed was flooding the market with trillions of dollars. Both men tried to justify their trading by claiming they were in compliance with existing ethics rules. However, Kaplan and Rosengren won’t be putting themselves in danger anymore -- both have since announced their retirements.

Guarding against conflicts of interest

Powell said the Fed’s primary reason for drawing the new boundaries is simple: to help guard against even the appearance of any conflict of interest in the timing of investment decisions.

Going forward, policymakers and senior staff are obliged to provide 45 days advance notice for almost any financial investment purchase or sale they make. Plus, they have to hold on to those investments for at least one year. Additionally, no purchases or sales will be allowed during periods of heightened financial market stress. 

According to the Office of Financial Research, the U.S.’ financial stress level is in a safe zone, with the most recent stress spikes coming in March 2020, and April 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic started to flare.

Late Thursday, President Joe Biden signed Congress' 11th-hour funding bill to prevent a nationwide government shutdown. The move gives the government access to enough funding to last through the weekend.

Talk about close calls -- government funding was set to expire at midnight. But Democrats, who control both the House and Senate, were adamant that the government would remain open. And, thanks to a sprinkling of bi-partisanship, the bill passed the House and Senate.

Earlier in the week, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned Congress that the government needed to deal with the debt ceiling. She said if Congress failed to act and find a way to keep federal funding alive, a monetary default would likely be devastating.

Disaster and COVID-19 relief extended

H.R. 5305, the “Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act,” not only provides fiscal year 2022 appropriations to federal agencies through December 3; it also allows for the continuation and appropriation of certain projects such as disaster relief. 

Through an amendment crafted by Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, the bill keeps the National Flood Insurance Program's ability to sell new policies and renew existing ones afloat by providing $28.6 billion to address natural disasters like Hurricane Ida. Additionally, it provides assistance to support Afghan refugees and America’s Afghan partners.

“It meets critical and urgent needs of the nation, including disaster relief for both red and blue states hit hard by Hurricane Ida and other devastating natural disasters, and funding to help us resettle Afghan allies in the United States following the end of the 20-year war in Afghanistan,” Biden said in announcing the bill’s passage “will also keep up our fight against COVID-19 and—on this International Recovery Day—it will continue our battle against the opioid crisis.”

The Senate on Tuesday passed a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package aimed at addressing the maintenance of roads, bridges, and broadband internet access. 

The legislation, called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, includes $550 billion in new funding over the next five years -- $110 billion is set to go toward roads, bridges and other projects; $65 billion will go toward broadband, $66 billion will be spent on passenger and freight rail, $55 billion will support water infrastructure, $39.2 billion will be set aside for public transit, $47.2 billion will go toward resiliency purposes, $7.5 billion will fund electric vehicle infrastructure, and $21 billion will address pollution. President Biden announced the successful vote on Twitter. 

"Big news, folks," Biden wrote. "The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal has officially passed the Senate. I hope Congress will send it to my desk as soon as possible so we can continue our work of building back better."

Democrats pushing a paired deal

The measure was negotiated by a group of 22 bipartisan lawmakers and made it through the Senate in a 69-30 vote. Nineteen Republicans joined all 50 Democrats, but some members of the GOP expressed their opposition. 

“This isn’t exactly the bill I would have written on my own, in my office, and 99 of my colleagues would say the same. This is a compromise product crafted by colleagues with big, principled differences in a Senate with the narrowest possible split,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the floor Saturday. 

The bill isn’t likely to be taken up by the House of Representatives until the fall. The House is out for recess until September 20. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has indicated that she will not take up the infrastructure bill until Democrats’ separate proposal to expand the social safety net is passed. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has expressed optimism that the two-track plan will work. 

Schumer stated that he intends to move quickly on the resolution, and he noted that the reconciliation process was used earlier this year to pass the COVID-19 relief package despite unanimous Republican opposition.

"Today the Senate takes a decades overdue step to revitalize America's infrastructure and give our workers, our businesses, our economy the tools to succeed in the 21st century," Schumer said. "Of course, we Democrats believe we need to do much more. We are moving on to a second track, which will make generational transformation."

President Biden is set to sign an executive order on Friday that will impose new rules on big tech companies and internet service providers. The changes outlined in the order should ultimately help to promote competition and lower prices for consumers. 

Under the order, Biden will encourage the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reintroduce a “broadband nutrition label” to provide consumers with greater price transparency. 

The label will provide “basic information about the internet service offered so people can compare options,” the White House said in a fact sheet. “The Trump Administration FCC abandoned those plans.” 

The FCC will be urged to restrict early termination fees and to prohibit exclusivity arrangements, which force apartment buildings and rental units to use only one ISP. Additionally, the order will direct the FCC to restore the net neutrality rules that were undone in 2017, requiring broadband companies to treat all internet services equally. 

Targeting Big Tech 

The mergers of major internet platforms like Amazon and Facebook will also be scrutinized more carefully. 

The Biden administration said it will be paying “particular attention to the acquisition of nascent competitors, serial mergers, the accumulation of data, competition by ‘free’ products, and the effect on user privacy.” This is the type of deal that many believe Facebook exemplified when it bought Instagram and WhatsApp. 

The order also zeroes in on companies’ collection and use of consumer data and how it affects competition. 

"For decades, corporate consolidation has been accelerating. In over 75% of US industries, a smaller number of large companies now control more of the business than they did 20 years ago. This is true across health care, financial services, agriculture and more," the White House said in a statement.

"That lack of competition drives up prices for consumers. As fewer large players have controlled more of the market, mark-ups (charges over cost) have tripled. Families are paying higher prices for necessities -- things like prescription drugs, hearing aids, and internet service."

The White House said higher prices and lower wages caused by lack of competition are now estimated to cost the median American household $5,000 per year.

Other elements of the order

Under the order, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will be tasked with creating new rules on data collection. The agency will also be asked to clamp down on unfair competition in online marketplaces. 

The Biden administration also wants consumers to have the right to repair their own devices. The order encourages the agency to “limit powerful equipment manufacturers from restricting people’s ability to use independent repair shops or do DIY repairs, such as when tractor companies block farmers from repairing their own tractors.” 

Biden’s order also asks the Department of Health and Human Services to work up a plan to lower the cost of prescription drugs and prevent price gouging. It also pushes for states to be allowed to safely import prescription drugs from Canada, where medication costs are lower, and to allow for hearing aids to be sold over the counter. 

President Joe Biden is set to sign a bill on Thursday that will establish June 19 as Juneteenth National Independence Day, officially making it the eleventh federal holiday observed by the U.S. government. It’s the first federal holiday to be established since Martin Luther King Jr. Day was accepted in 1983.

Juneteenth celebrates the day in 1865 when Black slaves in Galveston, Texas, learned that they were free under the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Juneteenth legislation passed by a unanimous vote in the Senate on Tuesday, and that was followed by another passing vote in the House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 415 to 14. 

In 2020, a bill that attempted to establish Juneteenth as a federal holiday was blocked in Congress by Sen. Ron Johnson, who said its passage would cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. However, he put aside those objections this year after Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) reintroduced the bill in February.

“Although I strongly support celebrating Emancipation, I objected to the cost and lack of debate," Johnson said in a statement. "While it still seems strange that having taxpayers provide federal employees paid time off is now required to celebrate the end of slavery, it is clear that there is no appetite in Congress to further discuss the matter.”

A momentous day

Despite Johnson’s objections, many lawmakers celebrated the passage of the bill and described it as an important step in U.S. history. 

"Juneteenth commemorates the moment some of the last formerly enslaved people in the nation learned that they were free. Making Juneteenth a federal holiday is a major step forward to recognize the wrongs of the past. But we must continue to work to ensure equal justice and fulfill the promise of the Emancipation Proclamation and our Constitution,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in a statement.

“What I see here today is racial divide crumbling, being crushed this day under a momentous vote that brings together people who understand the value of freedom,” said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee ahead of Biden’s signature.

On Tuesday, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution establishing June 19 as Juneteenth National Independence Day, a holiday commemorating the day in 1865 that slaves in Galveston, Texas, learned of their freedom. 

If the legislation passes the House, it will be sent to President Biden’s desk and will likely be designated as a federal holiday. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy has said he will support the bill when it comes to the floor, and Biden has previously said he recognizes the significance of commemorating Juneteenth. 

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) reintroduced the bill in February. 

The legislation encountered opposition in 2020 when Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson blocked it. Johnson argued that establishing it as a day off for federal employees would cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. This week, he dropped his objection but stood by his concerns. 

"Although I strongly support celebrating Emancipation, I objected to the cost and lack of debate," he said in a statement. "While it still seems strange that having taxpayers provide federal employees paid time off is now required to celebrate the end of slavery, it is clear that there is no appetite in Congress to further discuss the matter."

Acknowledging the wrong that was done

If passed by the House and signed by President Biden, the federal holiday would mark the day -- June 19, 1865 -- that Major General Gordon Granger of the Union Army landed in Galveston, Texas, and delivered the news that enslaved people were free under the Emancipation Proclamation.

"Juneteenth commemorates the moment some of the last formerly enslaved people in the nation learned that they were free," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. "Making Juneteenth a federal holiday is a major step forward to recognize the wrongs of the past. But we must continue to work to ensure equal justice and fulfill the promise of the Emancipation Proclamation and our Constitution."

In a statement, Sen. Markey said the U.S. has "failed to acknowledge, address, and come to grips with our nation’s original sin of slavery."

"Today’s Senate passage of our legislation to commemorate Juneteenth as a federal holiday will address this long-ignored gap in our history, recognize the wrong that was done, acknowledge the pain and suffering of generations of slaves and their descendants, and finally celebrate their freedom," he stated.

President Joe Biden has finished drafting his annual budget proposal, and it appears to lean heavily into investments in domestic spending and public support programs. 

The Office of Management and Budget sent the proposal to congressional lawmakers on Friday. The 2022 budget plan calls for $1.5 trillion in spending, with Biden requesting discretionary funding to support K-12 education, medical research, housing, and civil rights, among other priorities. 

“The upcoming appropriations process is another important opportunity to continue laying a stronger foundation for the future and reversing a legacy of chronic disinvestment in crucial priorities,” said OMB Acting Director Shalanda Young. “Together, America has a chance not simply to go back to the way things were before the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn struck, but to begin building a better, stronger, more secure, more inclusive America.”

The discretionary funding to-do list

Below is a list of several of the priorities that the Biden administration is focusing on when it comes to discretionary funding in 2022:

Investing in High-Poverty Schools: The Biden administration wants to invest $36.5 billion in Title I grants, an increase of $20 billion from 2021. The money is meant to address funding disparities between economically diverse communities and provide more support to low-income areas.

Fighting the Opioid Epidemic: The opioid epidemic has been raging in the U.S. for years. To help put it to an end, the Biden team wants to invest $10.7 billion to support research, treatment, and recovery support programs within at-risk communities.

Tackling Climate Change: To address the growing threat of climate change, the Biden administration is looking to increase investment by $14 billion in 2022 to go towards climate change initiatives. This includes helping developing countries reduce emissions to improve global climate health. 

Addressing Homelessness: The discretionary spending plan calls for $30.4 billion for Housing Choice Vouchers so that 200,000 more families can obtain “vital assistance” for housing. Another $500 million will be added to the American Rescue Plan to prevent homelessness in 100,000 more households.

Reinvigorating Civil Rights Enforcement: The Biden administration plans to invest $209 million to help protect marginalized communities. Some of the initiatives that money would go towards include police reform, prosecution of hate crimes, voting rights enforcement, and mediation and conciliation services for community conflicts related to discriminatory practices, among other related activities. The funding would also create more civil rights offices in federal agencies.

You can read a detailed breakdown of the White House’s proposed discretionary budget here.

President Biden is set to sign two executive orders on Thursday afternoon, one aimed at expanding enrollment for the Affordable Care Act during the COVID-19 pandemic and another to address reproductive health. 

In a White House fact sheet, the Biden administration argued that opening a special enrollment period will help a significant number of Americans while the pandemic rages on. By giving Americans another chance to enroll, the administration hopes more people will sign up for health care. 

"Reliable and affordable access to health insurance doesn't just benefit families' health; it is a critical source of economic security and peace of mind for all," the administration said.

Expanding the ACA

Under the order, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would open a three-month enrollment period from February 15 to May 15 on Healthcare.gov. The order will also direct agencies to “re-examine” their current policies with the aim of making sure consumers have unencumbered access to protections and care. 

During his presidential campaign, Biden promised to expand the Affordable Care Act, saying health care should be a “right, not a privilege.” Biden will also address the issue of reproductive health on Thursday, specifically by doing away with the “Mexico City Policy” -- the rule that blocks U.S. funding to international nonprofits that provide counselling or referrals for abortion. 

The president is also expected to expand access to family planning and reproductive care for low-income people. He’s asked the HHS to "take immediate action to consider whether to rescind regulations under its Title X family planning program.” 

In a new executive order, President Biden has ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to phase out contracts with private prisons. 

The president said the executive order, which was signed on Tuesday, is part of a larger push to end racial inequity in America through governmental changes. The order directs the DOJ to stop renewing contracts with privately managed prisons, which some argue do not have effective models in place for rehabilitating offenders. 

“To decrease incarceration levels, we must reduce profit-based incentives to incarcerate by phasing out the federal government's reliance on privately operated criminal detention facilities,” Biden wrote in the order.

More than 14,000 federal inmates are housed at privately-run criminal detention facilities, which is just a small percentage of the nearly 152,000 inmates currently in federal prisons. Biden said the order is “a first step to stop corporations from profiting off of incarceration.”

Reforming the prison system

At a White House press briefing, Susan Rice, the president’s domestic policy advisor, said privately run prisons “profiteer off federal prisoners and are proven to be, or found to be by the Department of Justice inspector general, less safe for correctional officers and prisoners.”

Rice noted that Biden’s order does not apply to private-prison contracts with other agencies, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

On Twitter, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D - Mass.) praised Biden's order but said more action was needed. Warren said the president should also move to end the use of private facilities to hold immigrants. 

"Our justice and immigration systems reward private prison companies for locking up more people in worse conditions. I've repeatedly called for an end to private prisons, and I'm glad President Biden is taking action. For-profit immigrant detention facilities have to go too," Warren tweeted.

President Joe Biden is set to sign an executive order today aimed at strengthening U.S. manufacturing.

During his campaign, Biden said that he would bolster the government’s Buy American rules if elected. Monday’s “Made in America” order will come with a 180-day deadline to formalize changes, according to an administration official. 

"He believes we can rebuild the vitality of American manufacturing and our industrial strength. A big piece of that is centered around the idea that when we use taxpayer money to rebuild America, we buy American and we support American jobs," the official said.

Under the order, the Buy American program will be modified to make it more difficult for contractors to sell foreign-made goods to federal agencies. The order will also make it harder to obtain waivers that let agencies avoid the Buy American rules. 

Investing in U.S. workers

The manufacturing industry took a hit under the COVID-19 pandemic, and the sector is still down 543,000 jobs since February 2020, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

The order is part of Biden’s "Build Back Better" plan to revitalize the U.S. economy. It seeks to ensure that "when the federal government spends taxpayer dollars they are spent on American made goods by American workers and with American-made component parts," the White House said in a briefing document.

The newly installed president has signed 30 executive orders in less than a week. A majority have focused on fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, and many have reversed policies enacted under the Trump administration. 

The president has started the process of bumping the minimum wage for federal workers to $15 and hour and has set out to provide additional relief to very low-income Americans. Additional orders focusing on racial equity, climate, health care, and immigration are expected to come this week. 

During his second day in office, President Joe Biden is expected to sign two more executive orders -- one focusing on expanding food assistance and delivering stimulus checks to low-income Americans, and the other directing federal agencies to bump the minimum wage for federal workers to $15 an hour. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant financial hardship for many, and those who are out of work or struggling to buy food “can’t afford to wait,” said Brian Deese, the National Economic Council director. 

"We're at a precarious moment in our economy," Deese said on Thursday. "We saw again today 900,000 new claims for unemployment insurance, another week at a level above any week during the Great Recession. "More than 10 million Americans are out of work, 14 million Americans are behind on their rent and nearly 30 million adults and as many as 12 million children are experiencing food insecurity."

"So many are hanging by a thread. They need help, and we are committed to doing everything we can to provide that help as quickly as possible,” he said, adding that the president’s actions aren’t a substitute for comprehensive legislative relief, “but they will provide a critical lifeline to millions of American families.”

Fighting the pandemic 

Last week, Biden proposed a $1.9 trillion relief package to Congress. The plan would give $1,400 in additional direct payments to Americans, offer enhanced unemployment benefits, and provide federal aid to state and local governments, among other measures.

Biden is also pushing to increase access to food for children who are missing meals due to pandemic-related school closures. The directive could provide a family of three with more than $100 in additional support every two months. 

“USDA will consider issuing new guidance that would allow states to increase SNAP emergency allotments for those who need it most. This would be the first step to ensuring that an additional 12 million people get enhanced SNAP benefits to keep nutritious food on the table,” a White House fact sheet said.

Since becoming president, Biden has signed 27 executive orders. He’s made fighting the pandemic and its effects a key focus during his first 100 days. 

The incoming Biden administration has signaled many policy changes that it plans to make in the days ahead, and many will affect consumers. Most have drawn applause from consumer advocates.

“Our administration will hit the ground running to deliver immediate, urgent relief to Americans; confront the overlapping crises of COVID-19, the historic economic downturn, systemic racism and inequality, and the climate crisis; and get this government working for the people it serves,” Pres-elect Joe Biden said in a statement shortly before his inauguration. 

“These tireless public servants will be a key part of our agenda to build back better — and I am confident they will help make meaningful change and move our country forward.”

Among the highest-profile initiatives, Biden has said he wants to send every American an additional $1,400 to supplement the $600 contained in the end-of-the-year stimulus bill. However, he will need the cooperation of Congress to do that.

Executive orders

But there are plenty of changes Biden can make through executive orders, just as his predecessor did. Biden has already announced that he plans to nationalize the COVID-19 vaccine rollout with the goal of vaccinating 100 million people in the first 100 days of his administration.

Another big change from the past four years may come in the form of financial regulation. Biden has tapped Rohit Chopra, the former student loan ombudsman for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), to be that agency’s executive director.

Chopra, who is a current commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), is a close ally of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and consumer advocates were quick to applaud the choice.

“Consumers can rest just a little bit easier knowing that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will not just be on their side, but aggressively establishing rules to stop ripoffs and enforcing the rules against financial cheats and scamsters,” Public Citizen said in a statement.

Big changes

Democrats have been highly critical of the GOP's management of the CFPB, claiming it has failed to properly protect the financial interests of Americans. Ashley Harrington, senior counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, foresees big changes at the agency.

“Commissioner Chopra has long fought for financial markets that are fair for consumers, including student loan borrowers,” Harrington said. “We are encouraged that the CFPB will now return to its mission of protecting people’s finances, which has heightened significance in this economic downturn, and which includes a strong fair lending program.

Some of Biden’s other appointments have also signaled a shift in emphasis. During her confirmation hearing this week to become Treasury Secretary, former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen told lawmakers that her emphasis would be on workers. She will replace Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, a former investment banker.

President-elect Joe Biden has quickly established his priorities, appointing a COVID-19 Advisory Board to work during the transition to establish a national response to the pandemic that is surging across America.

Members include Dr. David Kessler, who was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner in both the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations and Dr. Vivek Murthy, the surgeon general under the Obama administration, who will serve as co-chair.

They’re joined by Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, an associate professor of internal medicine at Yale University; Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who served as a special adviser for health policy during the Obama administration.

Biden was declared president-elect Saturday after the mail-in vote count in Pennsylvania gave him that state’s 20 electoral votes. President Trump has not conceded and announced plans to file a legal challenge to Pennsylvania’s results.

The Biden campaign, however, has already moved into a transition phase, preparing to take power on January 20. In a statement, Biden identified COVID-19 as one of the most important challenges faced by the incoming administration.

“The advisory board will help shape my approach to managing the surge in reported infections; ensuring vaccines are safe, effective, and distributed efficiently, equitably, and free; and protecting at-risk populations,” Biden said.

Possible nationwide mandate

The board may also recommend nationwide mandates, reversing the Trump Administration’s policy of leaving the management of the pandemic to individual states. Under that policy, some states initiated more aggressive mitigation measures than others.

But cases of the virus are surging all across America, even in states with more stringent mitigation rules. Over the weekend the U.S. recorded 237,000 new cases of the virus with the total number of cases approaching 10 million. More than 287,000 Americans have died from the virus.

U.S. health officials are once again worried about the rate of hospitalizations as institutions in the hardest-hit states are filling up quickly.

Biden made clear that any policy changes are likely to be instituted on a national level, and that could require an order that all Americans wear face coverings when gathered in public. The incoming administration said it plans to consult with state and local officials to determine what steps are needed to get the virus under control.

Twitter has temporarily restricted the Twitter account of President Trump’s re-election campaign, @TeamTrump. The step was taken after the account posted a video referring to a New York Post story from Wednesday which contained alleged details of presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter’s link to a Ukrainian energy company. 

After the account was barred from publishing new tweets, Republican lawmakers accused Twitter of being “speech police.” Donald Trump Jr. tweeted that Twitter’s ban represented “clear election interference.” 

Twitter said that it was within its rights to ban the account since its policies state that “hacked materials” and posts containing private information aren’t allowed. Facebook also limited the reach of the New York Post story. 

“We don’t permit the use of our services to directly distribute content obtained through hacking that contains private information, may put people in physical harm or danger, or contains trade secrets,” the company stated.

Not incentivizing hacking

Twitter said it took action against the account that posted the New York Post story because “the images contained in the articles include personal and private information — like email addresses and phone numbers — which violate our rules.” 

Twitter said its policy also prohibits users from distributing content obtained without authorization. 

“We don’t want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials,” the company tweeted. 

Major outage

Shortly after restricting the president’s campaign account, Twitter’s website and mobile app experienced a widespread outage for an unknown number of users. Service was restored for most people by around 8 p.m. ET, and the platform explained that a change to its systems was to blame for the outage. 

“The recent issue was caused by an inadvertent change we made to our internal systems,” the company tweeted. 

Although the original deadline to respond to the 2020 U.S. Census passed on Wednesday, consumers still have time to submit their answers to the mandatory questionnaire. 

With the coronavirus outbreak bearing down on the nation, the government has extended the deadline for completing the form and is strongly encouraging consumers to respond online via the Census Bureau’s website, by phone, or by mail. 

Completing the 12-question form now “will minimize the need for the Census Bureau to send census takers out into communities to follow up,” the Bureau notes. The self-response period of the census has been extended from July 31 to August 14 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Determines federal funding

Consumers are legally required to provide a tally of how many people reside in their household, regardless of their citizenship. Filling out the census helps shape a person’s impact on the government as a whole, as well as their community. Responses determine how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives, how much federal funding will be given to your community, and more. 

For When We All Vote, a nonprofit civic engagement group launched in 2018 by Michelle Obama, released a video on Wednesday featuring famous faces encouraging people to participate in the census

“We can all take care of our communities – from the comfort of our couches!” said Tom Hanks, “Participate in the 2020 Census online, over the phone or by mail. These few minutes will make a difference and impact our democracy for years to come. Come on, everyone! Let's do it!”

While it’s not uncommon for consumers to be stressed when it comes to political concerns, a new study found that adults aren’t the only ones expressing worry about the state of our country. 

According to researchers from American University, kids and teens are just as likely as adults to express concern over political issues -- particularly those that can affect their age group. 

“I was interested in finding out if worry about political issues extends to kids beyond those with anxiety disorders,” said clinical psychologist Nicole Caporino. “It turns out that it does. In our study, it was common for caregivers to report that their children have worried about political issues.” 

Are kids too worried?

To better understand kids’ attitudes about politics, the researchers had nearly 400 caregivers of children between the ages of six and 17 participate in the study. 

The participants went through a questionnaire that detailed 15 different voting measures and indicated if their child had expressed worry about the issue in the past. Participants were also required to indicate their political leanings. 

The researchers learned that worry related to political issues was common among young people, regardless of their mental health struggles or their caregivers’ political affiliation. However, most of the caregivers reported that their children expressed worry to some degree, political worry was heightened for those children who were already struggling with an anxiety disorder. 

Caporino says that some level of worry is expected and can actually be beneficial, but caregivers should be mindful of how concerned their children are on a regular basis. 

“...it’s not clear from these data that the worry experienced by the average kid is harmful,” Caporino said. “It may not be a problem that kids are worrying. We know that anxiety and worry, to a certain degree, are helpful because they motivate us to take action to improve what is troubling us.” 

Create a political dialogue

Moving forward, Caporino encourages parents to keep the political dialogue open with their children, as that is the best way to keep them informed and monitor their anxiety levels. 

“Youth are worrying about a wide range of issues, and especially those that disproportionately affect their generation,” said Caporino. “Talk to your kids to make sure that the information they’re getting is accurate, and that they’re not worrying unnecessarily because they’re making assumptions about political issues they don’t understand very well due to their development level.” 

While Congress plays pitch-and-catch with quid pro quo on Capitol Hill, China has decided to give the U.S. some tit-for-tat of its own.

The Financial Times reports that the Chinese government has laid down the law that all government and public institutions must get rid of their foreign (meaning U.S.) computer gear. Those entities have until 2022 to make the transition and replace American-made hardware and software with Chinese alternatives.

Why did this happen?

This is not the first time China and the U.S. have rolled around in the dirt. In 2014, the two countries were embroiled in a dispute over spying. China’s retort was mild when compared to its current stance, only going as far as reviewing if its banks relied too much on servers from IBM. 

But things are dramatically different this time around.

In May, 2019, Chinese tech company Huawei ran afoul of the U.S. Department of Commerce and was blacklisted for "knowingly and willfully causing the export, re-export, sale and supply, directly and indirectly, of goods, technology and services (banking and other financial services) from the United States to Iran and the government of Iran without obtaining a license from the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).”

Ouch

Not that China’s eye-for-an-eye move was unexpected given the Department of Commerce’s ban. It’s just that the reality is bigger than life -- and costly, too.

The Huawei ban meant that the $11 billion that the company spent every year for things like semiconductors, peripherals, and software made in America immediately flew out the window. Hard hit were tech companies like Google, Broadcom, Intel, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and Western Digital. Google even tried to convince the government that cutting off Huawei could be a blow to national security.

Non-tech companies also got their dander up over the move. For example, FedEx filed a complaint that Export Administration Regulations were keeping it from doing its job. The company said that it shouldn’t be expected to enforce a ban on exports to some Chinese companies.

Yours, mine, and ours?

As U.S. trade talks with other countries become less like negotiations and more like push coming to shove, it’s possible that American tech will take another hit or two. It’s also possible that the very nature of a globally-connected internet might be in peril.

“The move may have more urgency this time as the country looks to push back against the broader geopolitical picture,” writes Engadget’s Daniel Cooper. “Not to mention that other nations, like Russia, are also doing their best to push domestic technology onto their citizens.”

“China is also looking for ways to better control the internet and keep its data within its borders, following the 2017 China Internet Security Law. One of its tentpole features is a rule to ensure that all technology is ‘secure’ and ‘controllable,’ which is, as usual, particularly troubling.” Cooper said.

A Trump administration plan announced Wednesday will require more food stamp recipients to work in order to receive a helping hand from the government. 

Under the policy change, which has been finalized and will go into effect on April 1, 2020, the ability of states to waive current work mandates for “able-bodied” adults with no dependents who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP) benefits will be limited. 

The rule change is likely to cause nearly 700,000 SNAP recipients to lose their benefits. 

Stricter criteria

Current work requirements state that low-income adults with no dependents can receive SNAP benefits for a maximum of three months during a three-year period if they don’t meet the 20-hour per week work requirement.

“States have been able to waive this time limit to ensure access to food stamps during the ups and downs of reentering the workforce,” The Washington Post reported. “Before this rule, counties with an unemployment rate as low as 2.5% were included in waived areas.” 

The new rule will “tighten the criteria for states applying for such waivers, making 6% the minimum unemployment rate for a county to receive a waiver,” the Post added. 

Cutting costs

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which announced the rule change on a call with reporters Wednesday, said it estimates that the changes will save roughly $5.5 billion over five years.

“At USDA, our informal motto is ‘Do Right and Feed Everyone,’” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue wrote in a USA Today column before the rule change was finalized. “With these proposed improvements, we will ‘do right’ by the taxpayers and restore the dignity of work to the able-bodied who receive SNAP benefits. And, we will ‘feed everyone’ by ensuring the health and stability of SNAP for those who truly need it.” 

Purdue added that, “in the midst of the strongest economy in a generation, we need everyone who can work, to work.” The rule, he said, “lays the groundwork for the expectation that able-bodied Americans re-enter the workforce where there are currently more job openings than people to fill them."

The Trump administration has two additional changes planned for the federal food stamp program. Another regulation currently in the works would limit the rules that determine who is eligible for assistance. It could result in upwards of three million people losing their benefits and leave close to half a million children without access to free school meals. A third modification would change how allowances for utility expenses are calculated. 

The Trump administration has announced new tariffs on $7.5 billion in imports from the European Union (EU). The White House says the tariffs are related to EU subsidies to aircraft manufacturer Airbus.

The levies, which will make some imports more expensive, are likely to add to economic uncertainty and increase concerns about the possibility of a global recession next year.

The U.S. is imposing a 10 percent tariff on EU aircraft imports, which may not have a direct effect on consumers. However, the U.S. is imposing a 25 percent duty on a range of consumer goods that could raise the cost of consumer purchases.

The U.S. has set October 18 as the date to begin collecting tariffs on whiskey, cheese, olives, wool sweaters, aircraft parts, and other items to be named later. The World Trade Organization (WTO) cleared the way for the tariffs when it ruled that the EU violated trade rules with its support of Airbus. The agency says the U.S. is justified in imposing the tariffs.

Bad news for whiskey makers

Forbes reports the tariffs are particularly bad news for Europe’s Scotch whiskey makers since the U.S. is the biggest market for single-malt Scotch whiskey.  European distillers exported more than $1.3 billion in Scotch to the U.S. in 2018, with the single-malt variety accounting for $463 million of that.

Even the aircraft tariff could eventually impact consumers. Airlines must make aircraft purchase decisions years in advance, and carriers flying the Airbus must prepare for higher capital expenses. Those costs could get passed on to passengers in the form of higher fare and ancillary fees.

Comes at a bad time

Analysts say the tariffs on the EU come at a bad time since global markets are still trying to digest the impact of the billions of dollars in tariffs imposed by both the U.S. and China on one another. One analyst says both household income and business revenue will probably decline as a result.

It may also add to the uncertainty on Wall Street that has sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average 800 points lower in just the last two sessions. Stocks have fallen from their near record highs this week on growing evidence that the economy is slowing.

The sell-off picked up speed after the Institute of Supply Management (ISM) reported data which suggests the manufacturing sector of the economy is slowing down.

A poll released Friday has shed light on Americans’ thoughts on Democratic Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren’s plan to break up large technology companies, CNBC reported.

By 50 percent to 47 percent, those who responded to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll said they disagree with Warren’s proposed plan to break up companies like Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google into smaller competing companies.

By a larger majority, 68 percent to 28 percent, those who responded to the telephone survey said decisions like this should be left to the free market instead of the government.

Breaking up big tech companies

Last month, Senator Warren (D.-Mass.) outlined a plan to designate certain firms -- specifically, those with global revenues of at least $25 billion -- as “platform utilities.” Warren also proposed to have regulators undo mergers that are anti-competitive in order to ensure that “tech giants do not crowd out potential competitors.”

“Today’s big tech companies have too much power — too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy,” Warren wrote in a blog post. “They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation.”

Though most Americans surveyed said they weren’t on board with Warren’s plan, the poll revealed that a majority of consumers also aren’t on board with the data privacy policies of big tech companies.

A solid majority (92 percent) said they don’t trust Facebook to protect their personal information. Americans were less skeptical of Google and Amazon, but only slightly. Three in 4 polled said it was “unacceptable” that social media companies collect users’ personal data for ad-targeting purposes.

What administration officials have insisted is only a “trade dispute” appears closer to becoming a trade war.

After Washington slapped 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum from Mexico and Canada, Mexico has retaliated with tariffs on a diverse range of American exports. Canada is said to be considering a similar response.

The Mexican tariffs target U.S. pork, produce, bourbon, and steel – products chosen with a political objective in mind. With midterm elections looming, the tariffs are crafted to affect states and regions of the country where Republican politicians appear most vulnerable.

The tariffs will make those U.S. products more expensive for Mexican consumers. But in an odd twist, American consumers could eventually pay less, especially for pork products.

Could affect pork prices

Mexico is a huge importer of American pork. With tariffs raising the price by 20 percent, Mexican consumers may purchase less of it, meaning the country may end up buying a smaller quantity of U.S. pork products.

American producers would either have to reduce production, find another market, or sell more domestically, which would increase the supply and lower prices in the U.S. In an immediate response, hog futures prices dropped by 2 percent on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

'Gut punch'

“This is a gut punch to Virginia farmers, who exported more than $68 million in pork to Mexico last year,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), wrote in a tweet. “The President’s trade war is going to cost Virginia ag jobs.”

Virginia farmers' pain, however, could make it harder for Republicans to capture a U.S. Senate seat from Warner's colleague, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who is seeking reelection.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has stepped up his criticism of the Trump administration in recent days, taking special offense to the “national security” rationale Washington used to justify steel and aluminum tariffs on its close ally and trading partner.

The U.S. announced tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum after talks stalled on a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Trump administration has held out the possibility of scrapping the treaty entirely and negotiating bilateral trade agreements, something both Canada and Mexico oppose.

The U.S. and China agreed over the weekend to put their simmering trade war on hold while they try to work out a long-term agreement on trade.

The immediate result for consumers is price stability. The threat of tariffs imposed by both sides could have resulted in higher prices for consumer goods imported from China.

Retaliation from China could also have affected U.S. industry, which in turn could have impacted employment. In response to U.S. tariffs, China could have responded with tariffs of its own, making things the U.S. sells to China more expensive to Chinese consumers, and ultimately reducing those sales.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and other economic officials hit the Sunday talk shows, explaining the Trump administration's position and what would happen next. Mnuchin told Fox News Sunday that neither country will implement tariffs while they attempt to negotiate a framework both can live with.

Growing trade deficit

Right now, China sells $335 billion more in goods to the U.S. than America sells to China. Mnuchin says the Trump administration's goal is to reduce that imbalance. Previously, the U.S. demanded that China reduce its trade surplus by $155 billion, but the weekend statement from the negotiators did not set any specific trade deficit goal.

There are other issues on the table as well. The U.S. has pressed China on its practice of requiring U.S. companies doing business in the country to turn over intellectual property, in some cases. It has also expressed concern about cyber attacks originating from China.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the U.S. should continue to hold out for progress on those points. He said it isn't enough that China agrees to purchase more U.S. goods and services.

“If President Xi is going ... to fail to take strong actions on intellectual property, cyber theft, and American companies having free access to sell goods in China ... we will have lost,” Schumer told Reuters.

Larry Kudlow, President Trump's economic adviser, says it's too soon to try to hold China to specific targets for reducing the trade imbalance between the two countries. What's more important, he says, is the structural changes China is making, which he said will result in more U.S. exports to that country.

After years of squabbling over spending priorities, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have agreed on a two-year budget that gives both sides more of what they want.

The budget deal gives Democrats a substantial boost in domestic spending and Republicans a sizable increase in military spending, all of which will raise the deficit by approximately $500 billion. The House and Senate are expected to pass the measure within hours.

A two-year budget will remove the need for Congress to pass short-term spending authorizations -- the last one covered just three weeks -- which in the past have turned into showdowns between the two parties, with the threat of a government shutdown hanging in the balance.

While bipartisan agreement is increasingly rare in Washington, the budget proposal coaxed Democrats to the table with massive increases in programs the party has long championed. Programs that fall under education, scientific research, health care, and infrastructure maintenance are getting cash infusions of 21 percent over current budget caps.

Not everyone is happy

Like most compromises, the budget deal isn't making everyone happy. Republican deficit hawks have denounced it for its expansion of red ink. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) took to Twitter, calling it irresponsible.

"In light of the danger posed by America’s massive debt & deficits, I won’t support the debt junkie’s spending deal & urge my debt addicted colleagues to reject fiscally irresponsible spending," Brooks wrote in a Tweet.

Across the aisle, Democrats fumed that the measure did not address the legal status of children, many now young adults, brought to the U.S. by their parents who entered the country illegally.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi held the floor of the House for a modern record of eight hours in a speech demanding action. President Trump has expressed support for addressing the issue, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has promised a vote next week in the Senate.

“This bill is the product of extensive negotiations among Congressional leaders and the White House," McConnell said on the floor of the Senate. "No one would suggest it is perfect. But we worked hard to find common ground and stay focused on serving the American people."

In a lengthy State of the Union speech, President Trump ticked off a list of economic accomplishments during his first year in office and promised it was just the beginning.

"Our massive tax cuts provide tremendous relief for the middle class and small business, to lower tax rates for hard-working Americans," Trump said. "Millions of Americans will have more take-home pay, starting next month. A lot more."

Most consumers will, in fact, see an increase in their take-home pay under new tax withholding tables. That's largely due to a nearly doubling of the standard deduction to $12,000.

Infrastructure plan

As for the future, Trump proposed spending $1.5 trillion on an infrastructure program to improve roads, highways, bridges, and airports. He said the program would make transportation safer and easier while also providing jobs and boosting economic growth.

"We built the Empire State Building in just one year," Trump said. "Isn't it a disgrace that it can now take 10 years just to get a minor permit approved for the building of a simple road? I am asking both parties to come together to give us the safe, fast, reliable, and modern infrastructure that our economy needs and our people deserve."

Even though infrastructure spending is popular with both political parties, Mark Hamrick, Bankrate.com's senior economic analyst, says the divisive partisan atmosphere in Washington poses a challenge to getting a deal.

Broken lawmaking process

"Unfortunately, the lawmaking process has been broken for quite some time," Hamrick told ConsumerAffairs. "There’s no getting around the fact that Congress is highly dysfunctional, where passing meaningful legislation has become the exception, rather than the rule."

One reason a bipartisan infrastructure plan is not a slam dunk is the very real differences between Democrats and Republicans on how to pay for these projects.

"Democrats want to see more public funding, while many Republicans prefer more private sector involvement," Hamrick said. "As with tax reform, the quality of infrastructure legislation will rely on the details."

In the meantime, Hamrick said other economic issues will preoccupy Washington -- namely approving a spending plan and raising the debt ceiling.

"Sadly, hopes have recently dimmed on whether lawmakers will be able to avoid passing another temporary spending bill with a February 8 budget deadline looming," he said. "After that, the critically-important debt ceiling loom in early March."

Hamrick acknowledges that consumers will soon see more take-home pay, thanks to the new tax law, but suggests it's long overdue. He says the 2.5 percent rise in average hourly earnings over the last year, cited in the President's speech as an accomplishment, remains the most disappointing aspect of the nearly nine-year economic expansion.

Whether you love him or hate him, President Donald Trump is unlike any other man who has held the office before him. While getting a read on what a sitting president is thinking has been more nuanced and difficult in the past, there’s not much guesswork when it comes to Trump – all you have to do is read his Twitter feed.

However, that same Twitter feed can often turn vitriolic when Trump feels attacked or set upon by others, perhaps so much so that critics are questioning whether the account violates Twitter’s terms of use.

In a recent report, Recode asked Del Harvey, Twitter’s VP of Trust and Safety, if the site is able to treat Trump’s account like any other when it comes to suspending or banning it for being abusive. Although the executive prefaced her statement by saying that she couldn’t talk about individual accounts or hypotheticals, she said that the platform does its best to treat all users equally.

“We apply our policies consistently,” Harvey said. “We have processes in place to deal with whomever the person may be, we try to be as consistent as possible, as scalable as possible, and there’s always all sorts of context and other things that come into play that make it impossible to comment on hypotheticals as it is…The rules are the rules, we enforce them the same way for everybody.”

Crossing the line?

While the answer certainly won’t be enough to assuage the president’s critics, the answer brings up a lot of questions about whether Trump’s online conduct crosses the line.

Earlier this month, he re-tweeted a video of himself body-slamming a person with the CNN logo edited over their face. While seen as harmless by many, several media outlets and experts took it as a threat of violence against the media, which Trump has clashed with numerous times over the past year.

But according to Twitter’s own rules, posting any threat of violence against another entity is grounds for suspension or a permanent ban. The site also makes a similar distinction surrounding harassment and targeted abuse of others, and arguments could be made that past attacks of figures like Rosie O’Donnell or more recently Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski fit that bill.  

"Beneath the office"

Lawmakers have even questioned Trump’s use of the social media platform. After his attack on Scarborough and Brzezinski, members of Trump’s own party expressed their dissatisfaction with the President’s actions.

“Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in a tweet of his own.

“Obviously, I don’t see that as an appropriate comment,” added House Speaker Paul Ryan. “What we’re trying to do around here is improve the tone, the civility, of the debate; and this obviously doesn’t help do that.”

Senate Republicans have taken the wraps off their version of the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, saying it preserves some of the important elements of the original legislation but is more sustainable.

People who want to eliminate Obamacare altogether don't like it very much. Neither do people who want to keep Obamacare.

The bill, hammered out behind closed doors, maintains some of the subsidies to pay for health insurance policies but rolls back Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid to low-income consumers. A number of organizations immediately lined up in opposition.

AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond said the proposal would impose an “age tax” on older Americans, increasing their premiums and reducing tax credits.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the bill is the result of extensive collaboration. 

"Through dozens of meetings, open to each and every member of the Conference, we had the opportunity to offer and consider many ideas for confronting the Obamacare status quo," McConnell said in a statement on his website. "We debated many policy proposals. We considered many different viewpoints."

'Higher costs and less coverage'

This new Senate bill was crafted in secrecy behind closed doors without a single hearing or open debate—and it shows,”LeaMond said. “The Senate bill would hit millions of Americans with higher costs and result in less coverage for them. AARP is adamantly opposed to the Age Tax, which would allow insurance companies to charge older Americans five times more for coverage than everyone else while reducing tax credits that help make insurance more affordable.”

Dr. Georges Benjamin, Executive Director, American Public Health Association, also denounced the bill, saying millions would lose their health insurance under it.

“The bill would devastate the Medicaid program, our nation’s health care safety net on which 69 million low-income Americans and people with disabilities — including 37 million children — rely,” Benjamin said. “The measure would slash investments in core public health activities by eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund.”

'Shamful'

J. David Cox Sr., President, American Federation of Government Employees, said the Senate bill is even harsher than the house bill that repeals the Affordable Care Act. He called the final result “shameful.”

The Catholic Health Association announced its strong opposition to the Senate legislation. Sister Carol Keehan said the Senate should be able to do better.

“We recommend a new bipartisan focus to make improvements in our health care system that will stabilize the insurance market, improve affordability and strengthen and expand health coverage. W,” Keehan said. “We ask Congress to ensure that the funds currently supporting health care programs remain in the system under any legislative proposal, instead of being diverted for tax cuts for the more fortunate.”

In the Senate, all Democrats have lined up against the measure and so far, four Republican Senators have announced their opposition. Should the four GOP lawmakers remain firm, the bill would be doomed to failure since the Republicans hold only a slim two vote majority in the chamber.

Anyone who visited the Standing Rock Sioux's anti-Dakota Access Pipeline protest encampment in November or December, when newcomers caused the population at the makeshift city to swell to as many as 10,000 people, would be met with a warning from the "water protectors" and other activists who had been there from the beginning: the government is watching you.

Now a file of newly leaked documents published by The Intercept confirms what the activists had suspected all along. TigerSwan, a private security firm that has previously worked as a contractor for the United States government, used “military-style counterterrorism measures” to monitor the Sioux’s peaceful and largely prayer-driven protest against the pipeline.

TigerSwan’s services were retained by Energy Transfer Partners, a Fortune 500 oil and gas transmission company that is aggressively trying to add new projects such as the Dakota Access Pipeline to its portfolio. The spate of new pipeline projects being built across the United States, all promising inexpensive and more efficient delivery of oil and gas, undermines attempts to halt climate change and locks the United States economy into further dependency on fossil fuels, environmentalists and some lawmakers argue. 

The Dakota Access Pipeline route in particular falls under a lake that supplies the Standing Rock Sioux with their water and feeds into the Missouri River, raising concerns about contaminating the water supply should the pipeline ever leak. Even now, barely in operation, the Dakota Access Pipeline has already leaked in two spots. Vicki Granado, spokesman for Energy Transfer Partners, responded to news reports about the leaks by distancing the company from the very same contractors they had hired.  

"They are responsible for the operations, maintenance, etc.," Granado told the news media.

Native American prayer and protest compared to Jihad

For the Standing Rock Sioux, the fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline was both environmental and spiritual, ignited in part by a Sioux legend about a “black snake” that wreaked havoc on sacred land. The prayer and resistance encampment that the Standing Rock Sioux began in opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline last August grew into something bigger than anyone imagined, drawing people from all over the world and American Indians from all nations. The camp, as visitors were told by volunteer security guards and other organizers, should be peaceful and treated as a place of sacred prayer. 

But for TigerSwan, that combination of religious ideology and protest apparently was reason enough to draw comparisons between the protesters and war-torn Afghanistan.  

In one report, TigerSwan claimed that the water protectors “generally followed the jihadist insurgency model while active, we can expect the individuals who fought for and supported it to follow a post-insurgency model after its collapse.” In another report using language more fitting for a war zone than a peaceful protest, TigerSwan writes that “aggressive intelligence preparation of the battlefield and active coordination between intelligence and security elements are now a proven method of defeating pipeline insurgencies.”

The prosecution of protesters 

A pick-up truck with no license plates charged toward the larger anti-pipeline camp on October 28, nearly hitting pedestrians who were walking along the road, according to witnesses interviewed afterward. A volunteer guarding Oceti Sakowin, as the camp was called, said he caught a glimpse of an AR-15 inside the plateless truck and unsuccessfully tried to reach his hand inside to grab it. That set off a tense car chase, with at least two protesters going after the truck with their own vehicles.

Witnesses later told reporters that one of the protesters, trying to stop the truck from entering camp, purposefully hit it from the side to force the vehicle off the road. Footage then captured shortly after the chase shows a man standing in a lake, wielding an AR-15 rifle and pointing it at people nearby. Another man, dressed in a fur hat, talks to the gun-wielder, and appears to persuade him to back away and to stop pointing the weapon at people. A voice in the background is heard urging someone to call the police. 

Police with the Bureau of Indian Affairs eventual came and arrested Kyle Thompson, allegedly the driver behind the wheel of the plateless truck and the man seen holding the AR-15.  It turned out that Thompson was a security guard, working for a firm hired by Energy Transfer Partners. 

The BIA turned the case over to the Morton County Sheriff’s Department, which subsequently declined to press charges against Thompson, though he was later charged with domestic violence over a separate incident. 

Instead, over a month after the truck chase and gun incident, it was Thompson who became the victim in the eyes of law enforcement. The Morton County Sheriff's Department decided to charge the protesters who allegedly ran Thompson off the road with felony reckless endangerment. And Pueblo water protector Brennon Nastacio, the man captured wearing a fur hat and persuading Thompson to stop pointing his AR-15 at people, was charged with felony terrorizing, a federal crime. Thompson had later told police that Nastacio and other protesters caused him to fear for his life that day and that they were armed with knives during the confrontation.

It was just one example of the many arrests, crackdowns using "non-lethal force" and other aggressive tactics police used against those taking part in the protest, leading the water protectors to create their own nickname for police of "oil protectors."

In response, authorities have denied that they were working in the interest of Energy Transfer Partners. The state of North Dakota even launched a site specifically to dispel this and similar “myths” about the Dakota Access Pipeline, writing that there is no merit to the claim that Morton County received money directly from Energy Transfer Partners to protect company equipment.  

“Fact: Morton County and the State of North Dakota, through the various involved agencies, is paying for the protest response,” the site writes. “Ultimately, the expenses associated with the protests fall squarely on the taxpayers of North Dakota.”

But the leaked TigerSwan documents provide proof of a close relationship between Energy Transfer Partners and law enforcement. TigerSwan has collected information about the anti-DAPL camps and about individual protesters, the Intercept report found. TigerSwan then distributed that information to police agencies in at least five states. One leaked report from September 14, 2016, for example, indicates that TigerSwan met with representatives from the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation “regarding video and still photo evidence collected for prosecution.” Notes from the meeting add that TigerSwan workers “continue building Person of Interest (POI) folders and coordination with [law enforcement] intelligence.”

Police confirm using TigerSwan

In statements to the Intercept, the Morton County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that the agency “did maintain communication with TigerSwan security in order to understand when and where DAPL construction activities were taking place” and to gain “situational awareness in order to monitor and respond to illegal protest activity.” 

Energy Transfer Partners, meanwhile, declined to comment, telling the site that they do not “discuss details of our security efforts.”

DAPL helicopters help police make federal case against protesters

Public court documents from the law enforcement side have similarly shown that information gathered by Dakota Access Pipeline workers was later used to make arrests of protesters. Late last year, the Morton County Sheriff’s Department put out a warrant and a “Wanted” poster for Michael Markus, a water protector known as Rattler, who had a popular Facebook page documenting daily happenings at the camp. The charges that the “Wanted” poster described were vague, and this "Wanted" poster, like the many others that Morton County has published against those taking part in the protest, used photographs taken directly from the suspect's Facebook page.

It was a federal affidavit later filed by the Bureau of Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that laid out the specifics of what Markus was wanted for; he allegedly was part of a group that poured gasoline onto a makeshift barricade and set it on fire to deter law enforcement from raiding the camp in late October. Authorities said they deployed firefighters to put out the blaze.

Afterward, the feds apparently received some information from Energy Transfer Partners, who had been monitoring the scene from a private helicopter. 

“While law enforcement was conducting their operation,” says an affidavit signed by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agent Derek Hill, “a helicopter that was being utilized by the Dakota Access Pipeline was monitoring the situation from the air. A passenger in the helicopter was utilizing a digital camera to document the operation and these digital photos were provided to law enforcement….Upon reviewing the digital photos, I was able to identify several individuals pouring what is believed to be gasoline on the barricades,” Hill writes, with Markus and others allegedly captured in the phtograph and now facing federal charges.

Five people in total are currently facing federal charges in relation to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, with their trial dates pending.

President Trump has released his proposed Fiscal 2018 budget, slashing federal spending nearly across the board, targeting many popular programs used by different groups of consumers.

After looking over the spending blueprint, various consumer, charity and health groups have weighed in, nearly unanimous in their opposition.

"AARP opposes the budget proposed today because it explicitly harms the very people we are counting on the President to protect," said AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond, in a statement.

LeaMond says the budget targets Social Security benefits, as well as spending on health, hunger, housing, and transportation assistance to low and middle income seniors. While she concluded the budget sends a troubling message to older Americans and their families, she did find one thing that is praiseworthy.

"We do want to acknowledge the Administration's paid leave proposal," she said. "Although it must be improved so that it addresses the workplace needs of all family caregivers, we hope that it leads to a national conversation about ways to support family caregivers in the workplace."

CDC budget slashed

John Auerbach, president and CEO, of Trust for America's Health (TFAH), expressed alarm at the budget's slashing of funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). He notes that the CDC has been in the forefront of combating exotic diseases like Ebola and Zika, as well as chronic disease like diabetes and heart disease.

"The proposed $1.2 billion cut to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be perilous for the health of the American people," Auerbach said.

If the budget cuts were to be approved, he predicts an increase in illnesses, injuries and preventable deaths.

Border adjustment tax

An association representing retailers took issue with the proposed border adjustment tax, that could raise the price of imported consumer items. Though not specifically part of the proposed budget, the measure has wide support in the GOP-controlled Congress, that will also consider the budget proposal. Jennifer Safavian, an executive with the Retail Industry Leaders Association, says the measure would threaten jobs as well.

"Retailers will continue to aggressively oppose any plan that attempts to shift the nation's tax burden from certain corporations that currently are subject to low effective tax rates onto America's working families," she said. "The border adjustment tax would jeopardize 42 million jobs retailers currently support, and would put an undue burden onto millions of American families that are struggling."

In its coverage of the budget proposal, the BBC reports it would "take the axe to the social safety net for the poor." Among the steep cuts are funding for food stamps, Medicaid, disability payments, and student loan subsidies. At the same time, it raises military spending by 10%.

There's a reason groups opposing the budget cuts are speaking up now. The White House request is just that -- it has to go before Congress where a number of changes are likely.

President Trump is unveiling a tax reform plan that would sharply cut taxes for businesses as well as most individual taxpayers. In perhaps the most far-reaching proposal for individuals, Trump wants to eliminate the federal deduction for state and local taxes.

This wouldn't mean much to residents of states like Nevada that don't have a state income tax, but it would take a big bite out of taxpayers from New York, New Jersey, California, and other high-tax states, many of which are Democratic.

But while the local tax deduction would go away, Trump proposes to double the standard deduction for everyone. The top tax rate for individuals would fall from today's 39.6% to 35%. There would be lower rates of 10% and 25% for those with lower incomes.

The estate tax and alternative minimum tax -- which often snares high-income taxpayers who take a lot of deductions -- would both be eliminated.

Effect on real estate

Real estate interests were earlier concerned that Trump would eliminate the deduction for mortgage interest. But even without that, doubling the standard deduction and cutting tax rates might make the mortgage deduction less valuable, thereby reducing consumers' inclination to go into debt to buy a home.

Businesses would get a hefty helping of tax relief. The corporate tax rate would be more than halved, dropping to 15% from 35%, and most foreign profits would not be taxed, as is the case in most countries. 

The tax rate on business income that "flows through" to individual returns from LLCs, Subchapter S corporations, and similar corporate entities would also drop to 15% instead of being taxed at individual tax rates. 

The stated goal, of course, is to stimulate growth of the economy, but the many tax cuts would also increase the deficit, which may spark opposition from more conservative members of Congress.

“It’s our intention to create a huge tax cut and equally as important, a huge simplification of the tax system in America,” said Gary Cohn, the director of Trump’s National Economic Council, in a briefing to a small group of reporters today, the Wall Street Journal reported. 

But skeptics say it won't be that easy.

“Trump's proposal to cut corporate tax rates won't boost growth or create jobs," said Marshall Steinbaum, Senior Economist and Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. "In fact, it will discourage corporate investment, as corporations and their shareholders earn even higher profits and pocket more of the cash -- just like they did last time we tried a big corporate tax cut."

If Trump wants to encourage investment, Steinbaum said, "He should close loopholes that CEOs exploit to move profits offshore and increase the effective tax rate on corporations, their CEOs, and their shareholders.”

Don't look now, but Congress is about to play chicken with the White House over keeping the lights on once again. This time, the shoe is on the other foot.

In the most recent past, government shutdowns occurred when Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House. Back in the mid 1990s, the GOP-led Congress locked horns with the Clinton White House on spending. After neither side would budge, the government shut down -- twice in three years.

Now there is a Republican in the White House and Republicans control Congress. So what's the problem?

The problem is the GOP is divided and the Democrats are in no mood to help. Congress has to pass a budget, or a continuing resolution (CR), by Friday or the government can't spend money.

Except, it sort of can.

Essential services continue

In past government shutdowns -- and there have been plenty of them -- essential services continued. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security stay on the job. Social Security checks also still go out.

At the same time, if you're still waiting for your tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service and the government shuts down, you might have to wait a while longer, until it's back up and running.

Consumers receiving food stamps will continue to receive them. That's an entitlement that doesn't get its money from the annual budget.

But if you're planning a visit to a National Monument or Park next week, you might have to change your plans. These venues will close if the government does.

If you're applying for a passport for an international trip, a government shutdown could interrupt the process and might require you to postpone your trip.

Why the threat?

Why is there even a threat of a government shutdown? One reason, really. President Trump had insisted that the spending bill contain appropriations to begin building a wall along the border with Mexico. Democrats in Congress said they would oppose any spending measure containing funds for that purpose. Trump would need eight Democrats to pass the spending measure in the Senate.

Earlier this week, Trump backed away from his demand, saying he could wait until October for the wall money. That could allow some Democrats to vote in favor of the spending measure and avert a government shutdown. Only, they might not.

As the deadline approaches, the odds of a shutdown are going down. But with partisan bitterness still simmering in the nation's capital, nothing is certain.

A mayor in Texas rose to unlikely national stardom several years ago when she began suggesting that radical Muslims were imposing Sharia Law in her town of Irving, the suburb previously known for hosting the Dallas Cowboys before they moved to a bigger stadium in another suburb.

Concerns about Sharia Law coming to Irving began with Breitbart Media, the right-wing outlet whose founder Steve Bannon was appointed to the White House chief strategist position this year. Breitbart News had reported in 2015 on finding an “Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law in Texas.” 

While that assertion may conjure images of people losing their hands or being stoned to death in Saudi Arabia, the truth was very different. What Breitbart News had actually discovered was the Islamic Tribunal, a Dallas-based nonprofit advertising “intra-community arbitration” for Muslims who would prefer to handle civil disputes privately rather than in court.

That other religions such as Christianity and Judaism offer similar tribunals in accordance with their own religious laws goes unmentioned in the Breitbart story.  The Islamic Tribunal’s “judges” -- in reality they are Imams -- repeatedly say that their decisions are non-binding and that they have no authority or intention of overriding American laws. Breitbart News acknowledges this but still implies without evidence that something more sinister is actually happening.  

“If the parties are not satisfied with the tribunal’s decision, they do not have to accept it and they can take the matter to Texas civil courts,’” Breitbart quotes one Imam as saying.

“However, [the Imam] would not discuss what happens to someone who did not follow their rulings,” the Breitbart reporter adds ominously at the end of his piece.

"Fight with every fiber ..."

Shortly after the story went viral, Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne published a post on Facebook promising to look into the matter and to stand up against human rights violations. “While I am working to better understand how this ‘court’ will function and whom will be subject to its decisions, please know if it is determined that there are violations of basic rights occurring,  I will not stand idle and will fight with every fiber of my being against this action,” she wrote in her post.

Van Duyne’s words on Facebook catapulted her into right-wing stardom. She repeatedly appeared on Glenn Beck’s talk show afterward and sat beside him as he discussed issues such as the supposed importance of Irving to “Sharia law advocates." 

"Mayor Van Duyne closed down the first known Sharia court on American soil," another conservative news site inaccurately reported. "The Irving mayor was met with intense backlash for doing what her oath of office mandates -- following the law."

The tribunal has not actually been shut down, and at a hearing before the Texas Homeland Security Forum earlier this year, Van Duyne pleaded with state lawmakers to investigate it. "I haven't seen any action at all. I am asking you as mayor, help me," Van Duyne had testified. "I need to get to the bottom and find out, are there people in my community whose rights are not being observed?"

And on a speaking tour, she has given talks to crowds similarly concerned about being subjected to Sharia Law in America. “We have a civilized society that the rest of the world tries to emulate and wants to come to, and at the same time tries to destroy. And what we’re seeing is they destroy from within,” she said in one speech.

And now, Van Duyne is reportedly moving up in the ranks and is possibly in line for a top post in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Last week, she informally announced during a luncheon that she had accepted a role in the Trump Administration. Though she has not yet announced what that job would be, The Daily Caller, another right-wing news site, published a report Friday stating that Van Duyne was recently appointed to work under Housing Secretary Dr. Ben Carson, who had been touring the Dallas area last week. 

Van Duyne did not return messages left by ConsumerAffairs. “The mayor has been much busier than usual,” one person who answered the telephone for the City of Irving said. 

An Imam sees armed protests form outside mosque

Only two mosques existed in north Texas when Imam Moujahed Bakhach arrived from Lebanon in 1982, he recalls. He quickly signed on to serve the rapidly growing Muslim population near his new home of Fort Worth, becoming the Imam for the Islamic Association Of Tarrant County that year, founding a school ten years later and serving as chairman for a local chapter of the Fiqh Council, an association for Muslims living in North America. 

“Now we have more than 86 mosques in north Texas,” Bakhach tells ConsumerAffairs. Despite being in the minority, Bakhach describes being welcomed as a religious leader in this stereotypically Christian and red state. Bakhach was the first Imam invited to the Texas House of Representatives as a “Pastor of the Day,” a tradition in which state lawmakers take turns selecting pastors from their district to lead each legislative session with a payer.

Bakhach also currently volunteers for the Clergy and Police Alliance, an interfaith program in which clergy members accompany officers from the Fort Worth Police Department on calls so that they can console family members. “I’ve never been rejected,” from a stranger’s home on a police call, Bakhach says. He was also invited to lead the audience in prayer at the Fort Worth Stock Show & Rodeo several years ago and currently serves in the Mayor of Fort Worth’s Faith Leaders Cabinet, an interfaith advisory panel.  “We are in debt to her as a Muslim community,” Bakhach favorably says of Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price.

A counselor and licensed mediator, Bakhach is one of four Imams advertising his dispute-resolution services for civil matters on the Islamic Tribunal website, a role that he says brought him no controversy until the negative press began in early 2015. In addition to the Breitbart story, a local CBS affiliate published their own report one week later claiming to have discovered the Islamic Tribunal themselves. In their report, CBS unsuccessfully asked the Dallas County District Attorney’s office to make a comment about the tribunal. Van Duyne’s reaction to the reports, Bakhach says, “showed the world that she’s absolutely ignorant and completely irresponsible acting.”

Despite claiming to stand up to Sharia Law in Texas and promising to investigate the local Islamic Tribunal specifically, Van Duyne never actually contacted him or any of the other mediators, Bakhach says. She became a celebrity in the right-wing news circuit “but she was failing her citizens as a public figure, as a mayor...I wish the mayor would pay attention maybe. It doesn't need [to be] more than a one-hour meeting, to sit down with the community, to understand what we have. She can question whatever she wants.”

Later that year, in November 2015, a crowd of armed protesters gathered outside the Islamic Center of Irving, a development that Bakhach blames Van Duyne for inspiring. In interviews outside the mosque with the Dallas Morning News, the shotgun and rifle-wielding protesters cited rumors that Muslims were sending death threats to Van Duyne and rumors of a Sharia law court in Irving as their reasons for being there.

Talk shows weren’t much better; Bakhach recalls calling one radio program that was discussing the tribunal and asking to be put on the line, but they refused to give him airtime. “They want to use it for their own benefit. They want to use the show to scare the people,” he says. Looking back, he sees Van Duyne’s warnings about Sharia law coming to Texas as a similarly calculated attempt to use people’s fears to build a bigger following. “She’s a politician, she wants to play the game,” he says. “Everybody wants to be famous.”

The infamous 'Clock boy' incident

Van Duyne’s role in the Islamic Tribunal controversy would not be the last time that Irving’s relationship with its Muslim community would bring her into the national spotlight. Later that same year, 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed was famously arrested at school when administrators and police claimed that they mistook a homemade clock he had brought in for a bomb.

"We've heard more from the media than the child ever released to police when we were asking him questions,” Van Duyne said on Glenn Beck’s show. “He told a lot more to the reporters than he ever told to the police. There’s a problem with that.”

Mohamed’s father later filed a defamation lawsuit against Glenn Beck and Van Duyne, but a judge tossed out the case.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Housing and Urban Development department said he had read the same story on Friday reporting that Van Duyne would be appointed to the housing agency, but he was not authorized to confirm whether or not it is accurate. “We can only talk about people that are federal employees and people who have been federal employees,” the spokesman tells ConsumerAffairs. 

Not long ago, the Justice Department argued in court that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was perfectly legal. Now it says it isn't.

What changed? The Constitution remains the same and the law that established the CFPB remains intact, but the United States is under new management and President Trump is determined to jettison holdovers whose views he finds disasteful.

Thus, the Justice Department is now arguing that Trump should be able to fire CFPB Director Richard Cordray, even though a few months ago it made exactly the opposite argument.

When the CFPB was established as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, lawmakers wanted to protect it from political pressure so they gave it a single director who, unlike most other appointees, can be fired only "for cause," meaning for misconduct or dishonesty.

Most political appointees are routinely dismissed when a new administration takes office, but Cordray's term runs through next year, and so far Trump has not found grounds to dismiss him. 

"Extreme risk"

The pressure comes from the financial services industry. It has been calling for a rollback of the CFPB, which has recovered billions of dollars for consumers in lawsuits and enforcement actions against banks, mortgage lenders, car dealers, and payday loan operators, among others.

The current challenge to the CFPB grew out of a lawsuit brought by mortgage lender PHH Corp., which argued that the one-director structure of the CFPB is unconstitutional. It notes that the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and many other executive branch agencies are governed by a group of commissioners. 

The CFPB and its supporters note that the Constitution does not specify that independent agency heads are subject to firing without cause and they point to the Social Security Administration and Federal Housing Finance Agency. They each have a single director who has not been replaced by the Trump Administration.

The Justice Department agreed with them a few months ago, but in a brief filed Friday, it argues that an agency headed by a single director represents an "extreme risk" of deviating from the President's policies. 

The case is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which has scheduled a hearing for May 24, Chief Judge Merrick Garland presiding. But however the appeals court rules, the case is almost certain to go to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final disposition, by which time Cordray's term will most likely have expired. 

Everybody hates reporters, or journalists as they're now called. Reporters know this and generally don't give a damn. Consumers should care though, since reporters are their eyes and ears and their primary job is to report on how taxpayers' representatives are conducting themselves.

This is not just an opinion, it's the law. The Constitution enshrines the right (and duty) of the press to report all the news it deems fit to print or otherwise distribute. No other private enterprise -- not lobbyists, not airbag manufacturers, not dietary supplement hucksters -- are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. 

It is also worth noting that journalism is not fed from the public trough. Taxpayers can choose to subscribe to a newspaper or cable channel, but it's their choice. This, obviously, isn't true of the services provided by governmental entities.

Thus the hubbub that ensued when White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer barred some reporters but not others from a briefing last week. The briefing was being conducted on public property by public employees being paid with taxpayer funds and concerned the public's business. Some states have what are called "open meeting" laws that spell out in detail the right of the press to cover public events, but there is a notable lack of consistency and the feds are generally quite far behind.

May have been illegal

In light of all this, it's worth noting that just last Monday, a federal judge in New York ruled that the New York Police Department may have acted illegally when it revoked the press credentials of a free lance reporter, Jason B. Nicholas.

Judge J. Paul Oetken wrote that earlier decisions have held that it is impermissible to exclude reporters from public events "in a content-based or arbitrary fashion." In other words, public officials can't exclude reporters whose stories they don't like while freely admitting those who parrot the prevailing party line.

Judge Oetken is not alone. The New York Times reports today that a leading legal scholar, Jameel Jaffer of Columbia University, agreed that the White House action last week was unconstitutional.

"If you exclude reporters from briefings that they otherwise have a right to attned because you don't like their reporting, then you have engaged in viewpoint discrimination," which he said is almost always unconstitutional.

The White House case generated a vast outcry because, well, it's the White House, and the barred reporters worked for some of the country's largest and most reputable news organizations. But similar things happen every day around the country and often go unreported, at least in part because the press is not the unilateral foe its critics make it out to be. Many reporters are lazy or simply afraid to rock the boat.

Red golf socks

In my earliest years as a reporter, I was covering a city council meeting in a small Midwestern town for the local weekly when Tony Stevens, a reporter for a large regional daily, interrupted the meeting to say that remarks by the mayor indicated a decision had already been reached on a matter that had never come before the council in a public meeting.

"Did you guys get together at the Logan House (a local watering spot) and decide on this among yourselves or what?" he demanded. The mayor and councilmen fell silent for a moment, then scheduled a public hearing to discuss the issue, as they should have done in the first place.

Some other reporters were aghast and thought that Tony, who until then had been best known for his red golf socks, had been out of line, but it was quite clear to me that it was the elected council members who had tried to sneak something past the reporters and the taxpayers they represent and that Tony deserved an award, or at least a free round at the Logan House.

Fast forward to about ten years ago when the Senate Press Gallery, a group of reporters who regularly cover the House and Senate, ejected ConsumerAffairs reporter Joe Enoch, giving no reason and providing no opportunity for Enoch or ConsumerAffairs to appeal. 

Gallery employee Joe Keenan, whose salary was paid by taxpayers, refused to meet with Enoch's editor (me) and would say only that he had questions about ConsumerAffairs' "business model," which was then pretty simple: we tried to sell enough advertising to keep the lights on. Other long-accredited members openly work for industry interests or foreign publications.

Lobbying journals OK

Accredited members of the Gallery today include the American Banker, published by and for the American Banking Association, a lobbying organization; Energy Guardian, an energy industry trade publication; and Times of India, an Indian newspaper, one of countless foreign news organizations accredited by the Gallery.

How is it that reporters from these publications are permitted to cover the people's business when a consumer news site is not? The question was never answered and board members refused to discuss it. Unlike the case of The New York Times, CNN, and Politico, among others, being barred from the White House briefing, no other reporters came to our defense and Enoch was unable to cover some hearings crucial to investigations he was then conducting, effectively deep-sixing some promising stories.

At the time, Enoch was covering the somewhat controversial nomination of Michael Baroody, then-President Bush's nominee to head the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. He had recently exposed a computer sales scam and several "cramming" scams involving telecommunications companies. This perhaps offended some journalists who consider "consumer journalism" to be demeaning clickbait.

Why is this important? 

Open government is important to consumers -- taxpayers, citizens, Americans -- because it is their health, welfare, safety, and financial well-being that are largely determined by government bodies. When some reporters are barred from public events, taxpayers don't get all the information they might have otherwise received.

I hear from readers who say the press is only out for itself, is pushing an "agenda," or seeking special treatment. But while it's true that journalism organizations spend time and money fighting illegal and unconstitutional restrictions, their bottom line is not really affected.

After all, on any given day, there is more news than anyone can possibly cover. But consumers should wonder what they're missing when public employees sit around in public buildings and conduct the public's business in private. What don't they want you to know about?

Trade was a major issue that Donald Trump rode to a presidential victory in November. He said trade agreements had placed the U.S. at a sharp disadvantage and had hurt American workers.

Trump's biggest beef appeared to be with Mexico, but the trade relationship with China was also one he pledged to overhaul. As President, Trump has not let up, and the two countries -- huge trading partners -- have traded barbed words ever since.

That's led some on Wall Street to fear a potential trade war, with dire consequences for both businesses and consumers.

On CNBC this week, Timothy Moe, Goldman Sachs co-head of Asia macro-research and chief Asia equity strategist, said China views any U.S. border adjustment tax as a threat because it would have a serious impact on the country's rate of economic growth.

Both sides would take some hits

"We also think that, although the U.S. is more important to China than China is to the U.S., China is still important to the United States," Moe said. "If a conflict did develop, it's not just one side that would be bloodied, both sides would take some hits."

An academic task force led by University of California (UC) San Diego professor Susan Shirk has reached a similar conclusion. The group has provided the Trump administration with a set of policy recommendations for dealing with China on trade.

“We are at a critical moment for our two countries, a moment that calls for our government and the public to reassess and reexamine policy toward China,” Shirk said. “We are confident our recommendations will support a stable relationship that is in American interests and help the U.S. maintain an active, positive presence in the Asia-Pacific.”

Getting in the way of bigger issues

Task force members include Democrats and Republicans, many of whom have served every president since the Nixon administration. Its members warn that contentious trade disputes, while creating economic problems for both countries, threaten to get in the way of bigger issues that require cooperation.

For example, the task force says the U.S. needs China's help in keeping North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions in check.

While increasing tariffs on goods imported from China might bring some benefit to U.S. manufacturing, the gain could be offset by lower exports if China and other countries retaliate with tariffs of their own. Consumers would also pay more for currently-inexpensive goods imported from China.

Meanwhile, President Trump may be extending an olive branch in an effort to lessen tensions. The White House says Trump has written a letter to China's President Xi Jinping, saying he wants to develop “a constructive relationship that benefits both the United States and China.”

Steve Forbes is no stranger to either economics or politics. His name is associated with one of America's preeminent business publications. He sought the GOP presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000.

So it turns out Forbes has some definite ideas about his party's proposed border adjustment tax, which he shared during an appearance on CNBC's "Squawk Box."

"It's insane," Forbes said.

He points out a number of problems with the tax, but says first and foremost that it will end up punishing consumers to the tune of $100 billion a year. It's not a direct tax on consumers, but Forbes said it will make things imported into the U.S. more expensive; since the companies aren't going to absorb the tax, they're going to add it to the price of goods.

'Punish American consumers'

"So the Republicans are now proposing this crazy tax, they're going to punish American consumers over $100 billion a year, give subsidies to Boeing and GE, so we're going to help foreign consumers in China and Iran but punish American consumers. It's insane!"

Forbes points out such a tax would hurt middle class consumers the most, the very people who voted for Donald Trump. Bad economics and bad politics, he said.

Backers of the border tax say it's part of an overall package to reform corporate taxes, lowering the rate businesses pay. They say the result would be a stronger dollar, meaning importers wouldn't have to raise prices, or if they did it wouldn't be my much.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has not firmly committed to the idea, with White House officials saying a wide range of economic options are still being considered.

How a border tax would work

Under a border adjustment tax, U.S. companies would not be able to write off the cost of imported goods, which would make those goods more expensive and reduce the incentive to import them. At the same time, they would pay no taxes on the goods they export to other countries.

Republicans in Congress initially embraced the idea because of the money it would raise, which could be used to offset the losses in revenue from cutting the corporate tax rate.

Late last week, Business Insider reported that some GOP lawmakers have begun walking back their enthusiastic support for the border tax, worried that it could harm specific industries. U.S. retailers, oil refiners, and auto manufacturers are among the industries that have spoken up against it.

Obamacare is not the only piece of Barack Obama's legacy that's under attack. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is fighting a lawsuit that argues its structure is unconstitutional.

Although the agency has returned hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers and cleaned up numerous predatory financial practices, it is not exactly a household word, and its defenders fear that a well-financed campaign by big business will succeed in weakening or even eliminating the CFPB.

Coming to the bureau's aid are the attorneys general of 17 states who have filed a motion to intervene in the federal appeals court case that threatens the CFPB's continued existence.

"The CFPB is the cop on the beat, protecting Main Street from Wall Street misconduct," said Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, who is leading the coalition. "It was structured by Congress to be a powerful and independent agency that would protect consumers from the abuses of Wall Street, banks, and other large financial institutions."

The case – PHH Corporation, et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – is currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In an October 2016 ruling, a divided court found the structure of the CFPB unconstitutional. The CFPB filed a petition for a rehearing of the decision, and that petition is currently pending before the court.

"Bitter broken promise"

The Trump Administration has said it intends to curtail the CFPB's authority, Jepsen noted.

"Contrary to his populist rhetoric, the President's failure to support the CFPB would be a gift to powerful financial interests and a bitter broken promise to regular Americans he vowed to defend," Jepsen said. "Should the Trump Administration fail to adequately defend the CFPB in this litigation, state attorneys general – and the public – could lose the benefits of a powerful enforcement partnership."

Among the issues being litigated is the governance of the CFPB. Similar agencies -- like the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- are governed by a panel of commissioners who serve more or less at the pleasure of the President. 

The CFPB was structured differently when it was founded in 2010, as part of an effort to make it immune from political pressure. Instead of a panel of commissioners, it has only a single director, in this case Richard Cordray, who was previously the attorney general of Ohio.

Filing the motion were the attorney generals from Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

Please click here to view the motion to intervene filed today. The full text of the motion is available here.

When the shock of Tuesday's stunning election results begins to wear off, consumers may start to wonder what a Trump administration might mean for their pocketbook. Will it help or hurt?

It's possible that many voters who pulled the lever for the GOP ticket were voting against the status quo and for change, hoping for better job opportunities and rising incomes, which have been stagnant since the recovery from the Great Recession.

Trump has said on numerous occasions that his first priority as president would be to “repeal and replace” Obamacare. Some consumers faced with skyrocketing premiums might be interested in an alternative. On the other hand, consumers who have health coverage only because they can't be denied due to a pre-existing condition might reasonably wonder how they would fare under a replacement plan.

Repealing Obamacare a challenge

But repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may prove to be a tall order. While it is true that Republicans will control the White House, House, and Senate next year, they will still need the cooperation of some Democrats to get anything through the Senate.

In an interview with NPR, Jack Hoadley, a research professor at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute, says the Trump Administration is more likely to use executive powers to tinker with Obamacare around the edges.

"They are probably, practically speaking, talking about leaving the ACA, as is, in place," Hoadley told NPR. "Then he can change the ACA to have it showcase the kinds of plans he wants to see in place."

Rising interest rates

The outlook for interest rates under a Trump administration remains unclear. The Wall Street Journal has been quick to point out that Trump's surprise victory makes a Federal Reserve rate hike less certain, since the markets have reacted negatively to the election results. It says the Fed is now much less likely to take any action that might introduce economic headwinds.

At the same time, Trump has been highly critical of the Fed's extended low interest rate policy and will likely replace Fed Chair Janet Yellen at the first opportunity. Consumers and investors should expect a rising interest rate environment, if not immediately, in the near future.

Gasoline prices should remain low

Short term, the election results may keep gasoline prices down for months, if not years. Bloomberg News reports the Trump victory likely makes it harder for OPEC to reach any kind of agreement later this month on capping oil production.

“The pressure on OPEC to come up with a deal only increases in the wake of Trump’s victory,” said Giovanni Staunovo, an analyst at UBS in Zurich told the news agency. “Even though the oil market is rebalancing, the political uncertainty in the short term leaves oil prices vulnerable to downside, that makes it more urgent for OPEC to act.”

Added pressure comes from Trump's stated support for U.S. energy production, which has lagged since OPEC began creating a world oil glut two years ago.

Consumer agency in the cross-hairs

Finally, the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) could be very much in doubt. The agency, created by the Dodd-Frank legislation, has taken a large number of very consumer-friendly actions. In the process, it has earned the opposition from Republicans, as well as the financial institutions it is regulating.

As CNBC reports, the legal challenges facing the agency, created in 2010, may require Congress to make changes. The business network says those changes are almost certain to reduce the agency's power and make it less consumer friendly.