Mediaboss Marketing

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and other U.S. lawmakers have rolled out a bill this week that would require car companies to have AM radio in their new vehicles, as the lawmakers aim to end the growing trend of electric vehicles getting made without that feature.

AM radio is a critical bulwark for democracy, providing a platform for alternative viewpoints and the ability for elected officials to share our efforts with our constituents, Cruz said in a statement Thursday.

Political pundit Sean Hannity made a similar point last month, saying leaving AM radio out of new EVs is a direct hit politically on conservative talk radio.

Markey, meanwhile, talked up the importance of the safety alerts that are broadcast over AM radio, echoing a point made by seven former Federal Emergency Management Agency administrators in a letter earlier this year.

For decades, free AM broadcast radio has been an essential tool in emergencies, a crucial part of our diverse media ecosystem and an irreplaceable source for news, weather, sports and entertainment for tens of millions of listeners, Markey said in a statement. Car makers shouldnt tune out AM radio in new vehicles or put it behind a costly digital paywall.

Some automakers have skipped having AM radio in their EVs, saying AM signals are subject to interference from those vehicles motors.

Markey said in March that eight car makers out of 20 that the senator contacted told him they have removed broadcast AM radio from their EVs. The eight were BMW BMW , Ford F , Mazda 7261 , Polestar PSNYW , Rivian RIVN , Tesla TSLA , Volkswagen VOW3 and Volvo VOLV.B .

Ford also plans to stop putting AM radio in most new gasoline-powered vehicles starting in 2024, according to a Detroit Free Press report.

Other backers of the new bill, called the AM for Every Vehicle Act, are Sens. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat; Deb Fischer, a Nebraska Republican; Ben Ray Lujn, a New Mexico Democrat; Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat; J.D. Vance, an Ohio Republican; and Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican.

The measure also has been rolled out in the U.S. House of Representatives, where its supporters include Reps. Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat; Tom Kean, a New Jersey Republican; Rob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat and son of Sen. Menendez; Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican; and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from Washington state.

I would think that if Elon Musk has enough money to buy Twitter and send rockets to space, he can afford to include AM radio in his Teslas, Gottheimer said in a statement, referring to the Tesla CEO who also leads SpaceX. Instead, Elon Musk and Tesla and other car manufacturers are putting public safety and emergency response at risk.

Tesla didnt respond to a request for comment, but a trade group for car makers criticized the AM for Every Vehicle Act.

Mandating AM radios in all vehicles is unnecessary. Congress has never mandated radio features in vehicles ever before, said the Alliance for Automotive Innovation in a statement.

Auto makers remain 100 percent committed to ensuring drivers have access to public alerts and safety warnings through the Integrated Public Alerts and Warning System (IPAWS) system, the industry group added, referring to a key FEMA system that the alliance said can distribute warnings in a number of ways, including by internet-based radio or satellite radio.

The point is this: whether or not AM radio is physically installed in vehicles in the future has no bearing on the various methods of delivering emergency communications that alert the public. This is simply a bill to prop up and give preference to a particular technology thats now competing with other communications options and adapting to changing listenership.

Original post:
Elon Musk 'can afford to include AM radio in his Teslas': Democrats and Republicans agree AM should go in EVs - MarketWatch

Workers' rights

Exclusive: group that helped elect lawmakers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez embraces policy popular with leftwing leaders

The progressive organization Justice Democrats has adopted a four-day working week, a policy that has received praise from leading leftwing leaders like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Justice Democrats, which has helped elect progressive lawmakers like Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, shifted to a four-day working week for its 20 employees starting last August on a six-month trial basis. In March, the group decided to extend the policy indefinitely after its employees reported the change allowed them to better manage the grueling nature of campaign work.

A big reason why we ultimately decided to do a four-day week indefinitely is because of how much we trust everyone in the organization to prioritize what they need to prioritize, said Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats. That extra space has, at least for us, improved productivity and peoples attitudes as they show up to work.

The shift comes as progressive leaders have embraced the idea of a shorter week, arguing that the 40-hour week established by the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 no longer reflects the reality of Americans working lives. In March, congressman Mark Takano of California reintroduced his bill to set the standard working week at 32 hours, and Sanders has now joined the cause.

Its time to reduce the work week to 32 hours with no loss in pay, Sanders wrote in a Guardian op-ed earlier this month. Its time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life. Its time to make sure that working people benefit from rapidly increasing technology, not just large corporations that are already doing phenomenally well.

Although few American companies have adopted a four-day working week, the idea is not novel. France has mandated a 35-hour work week since 2000, and some French politicians have called for lowering that threshold to 32 hours. Iceland has also seen success in its trials of a four-day, 35-hour working week. In comparison, Americans work an average of 43.1 hours per week, according to a 2022 Gallup survey.

Critics fear that the shift to a 32-hour week could increase employers labor costs and further decrease employee productivity at a time when American workers output has slumped. Data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows US productivity declined for three straight quarters last year, although labor output has still increased by nearly 500% overall since 1947.

But Justice Democrats employees said the switch to a 32-hour, Monday to Thursday schedule had made them more efficient and focused with their tasks.

Im highly productive during my work hours, and honestly I procrastinate less, said Becca Rast, a managing director at Justice Democrats. It allows me to have a tighter, more focused work schedule, which I really thrive under.

Trial studies of companies with 32-hour working weeks have shown similar results. One pilot program launched in the United Kingdom last year found that employees who worked fewer hours per week reported higher levels of job satisfaction while 23 participating companies witnessed an average revenue increase of 1.4%. When the program concluded, 56 out of 61 organizations said they would keep the policy in place at least temporarily.

The reduced stress levels among those with shorter working weeks can also help reduce employee burnout and turnover, ultimately making companies more productive in the long run. The UK pilot program found that 39% of employees with reduced working hours reported feeling less stressed, and 71% said they had reduced levels of burnout by the end of the trial.

Its really good for our health our mental health and our physical health, Rast said. When Im overworked and overrun with thinking about work, I am not able to actually show up for my team and make the kinds of change that were talking about. And so its been really healthy for me to be able to get there, and I see that for our whole team as well.

For Becca Rose, a senior strategist at Justice Democrats, the four-day week has given her the time and flexibility to address some chronic health conditions without feeling stretched thin by her other responsibilities at work and at home.

I need these extra eight hours in a week to be able to feel like I can both do my job and also manage some personal things that came up, Rose said. Those trials come up in life, whether its chronic health [issues] or something completely different. Those things come up for everyone. So what seems like a luxury quickly becomes something that feels very essential.

The switch has felt particularly necessary because of the grueling nature of campaign work, Justice Democrats staffers said. Particularly in the immediate run-up to an election, campaigns and their partner organizations are often expected to put in long hours with few days off to get their candidates across the finish line.

Especially for progressive challengers, because we have to launch so far out to be able to put up a competitive campaign [and] to build the infrastructure, a whole year of just go, go, go is not sustainable, said Supreet Kaur, candidate coordination manager for Justice Democrats.

Justice Democrats first started its four-day week policy last year at the close of the primary season, which is generally the organizations busiest time in the election cycle as they go toe to toe with more centrist Democratic candidates. Rojas acknowledged that it may be challenging to adjust the four-day working week to the demands of the primary season, but she still expressed a commitment to the policy, encouraging other progressive organizations to consider making the change as well.

Its better work. Its healthier workers, Rojas said. And when we think about our movement, everybody shows up better.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Read the original:
Progressive organization Justice Democrats adopts four-day work week - The Guardian

EXCLUSIVE: Former President Trump said Monday that former FBI Director James Comey and Democrats need to be held accountable for spending years investigating alleged collusion between Trump and Russia now that Special Counsel John Durham has released a report that says the Trump-Russia probe never should have been launched.

"I, and much more importantly, then American public have been victims of this long-running and treasonous charade started by the Democrats started by Comey," Trump told Fox News Digital. "There must be a heavy price to pay for putting our country through this."

Durham's report found that the Department of Justice and FBI "failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law" when it launched the Trump-Russia investigation.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Trump said the activities surrounding the FBI's original Trump-Russia investigation were "a total disgrace," and said "public anger over this report is at a level that I have not seen before."

READ DURHAMS REPORT ON THE ORIGINS OF THE FBIS RUSSIAN COLLUSION PROBE

Former President Donald Trump said the Durham report is a "total disgrace" for the Justice Department. ((Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images))

"This report took a long time because John Durham is a very thorough investigator," Trump said. "But the result is unequivocal and an absolute disaster in terms of justice."

Trump added that "the national security implications of what they did are very grave."

"It turned out to be a giant and very dangerous hoax," he said, adding that he would have "further comment in the near future."

Durhams report was released Monday afternoon after his years-long investigation into the origins of the FBIs original investigation, known as "Crossfire Hurricane." That investigation looked into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election, and his report spanned more than 300 pages.

DESPITE ACQUITTAL, DURHAM TRIAL OF SUSSMANN ADDED TO EVIDENCE CLINTON CAMPAIGN PLOTTED TO TIE TRUMP TO RUSSIA

Special Counsel John Durham released his final report on the Trump-Russia probe on Monday. (Photo by Ron Sachs/Consolidated News Pictures/Getty Images)

"Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report," the report said.

DURHAM PROBE: FBI OFFERED CHRISTOPHER STEELE $1 MILLION TO CORROBORATE TRUMP ALLEGATIONS IN DOSSIER

Durham added that his investigation also revealed that "senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically-affiliated persons and entities."

"This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Muellers investigation," the report states. "In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents."

The leadership of James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was questioned in Special Counsel John Durham's report on the Trump-Russia probe. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

"The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence," the report states.

Durham is referring to past FBI leadership in his report specifically former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Durham's report "does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In a statement to Fox News Digital reacting to Durham's report, the FBI said:

"The conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Special Counsel Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time. Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented," the FBI said. "This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect."

Read more from the original source:
Trump says there 'must be a heavy price to pay' for Comey, Democrats after release of Durham report - Fox News

Signage at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Andrew Kelly | Reuters

WASHINGTON More than 140 current and former Democratic lawmakers filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court on Monday to defend the country's leading consumer protection agency from challenges to its regulatory authority.

The brief led by Democrats Sen. Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, and Rep. Maxine Waters, of California relates to the case Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, which challenges the constitutionality of the agency and would undermine its funding and mandated authorities.

Brown chairs the Senate Banking Committee, while Waters is the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Upholding an appeals court decision that undermined the agency's funding mechanism "would place at risk a funding model that has been used since the early Republic, which now applies to the [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and a host of other crucial federal programs," the lawmakers wrote.

Democratic House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both of New York, along with Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are among 144 current and former members of Congress who signed on to the brief.

Ten consumer advocacy organizations also filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court this month in support of the CFPB.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case in February, four months after a federal appeals court panel unanimously ruled that the CFPB's funding method was unconstitutional.

Congress decided to fund the CFPB, which was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act after the 2008 financial crisis, from the Federal Reserve out of "needed independence from unpredictable annual funding cycles," according to the brief.

Though the CFPB bypasses the annual appropriations process, its director is required to justify its budget to the House biannually, the lawmakers wrote, and Congress set an annual cap on the agency's budget at a "modest" level using a portion of Federal Reserve earnings.

In the October ruling, Judge Cory Wilson, a member of the three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, called the funding mechanism a "scheme" that is "unique across the myriad independent executive agencies across the federal government."

The Biden administration appealed the 5th Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court, but a final decision could be delayed until June 2024 to hear other arguments in the case. In the brief, lawmakers concluded succinctly that "The judgment should be reversed."

See the original post here:
More than 140 Democrats defend CFPB in case before Supreme Court that threatens agency's existence - CNBC

The result, according to both environmental officials and carbon capture experts, is that many of the projects are likely to face either serious delays while waiting for safety assessments or worse be waved through with less than thorough scrutiny.

The EPA did not respond to questions about the safety of carbon storage and the size of the agencys program to monitor it.

Some climate activists whove long claimed that carbon capture is merely a way to perpetuate a fossil-fuel economy say the lack of regulatory apparatus is a sign of rushed decision-making. And they say it could put low-income residents and communities of color at risk, despite the Biden administrations pledges to address historical disparities in how environmental burdens are distributed.

For the most part leadership in both parties is aligned around trying to deploy as much [carbon capture] as possible, despite what the potential environmental justice impacts will be and despite considerable concerns about the technology and accountability, safety and security concerns, said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the progressive consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

Even government officials trying to get these projects to fruition are a little unsure about how this will play out given the lack of bodies behind the relevant desks.

Its tricky because this happened in a way that we werent super prepared for in a federal policy perspective, said Shuchi Talati, who until last April was chief of staff in the Energy Departments Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, which is handling billions of dollars for carbon capture grants and subsidies. I hesitate to call it a bottleneck. Its just going to take some time.

Funding a technology thats unproven at scale may be a massive gamble, though its one that only the U.S. government has the wherewithal to make, said Samantha Gross, who was director for international climate and clean energy at the Energy Departments Office of International Affairs during the Obama administration.

Theres some risk associated with the investment, but I think its a risk thats totally worth taking, said Gross, who now directs the Energy Security and Climate Initiative at the Brookings Institution. You want to take some risk thats the point. Its a technology that we need.

The money Congress approved is staggering. The bipartisan infrastructure law funded $6.5 billion for technology to capture carbon, pull it from the air or store it underground, another $3.5 billion for carbon capture demonstration projects and $2.1 billion to build pipelines to transport CO2. All that would go into an industry that research firm Allied Market Research estimates as having only $2.1 billion in global market capitalization.

Those are just the direct subsidies. Just as importantly, the Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act strengthened a key tax credit that expanded carbon captures viability across many sectors, including cement and steel.

The technology is advertised as being able to scrub carbon dioxide and other pollutants from industrial processes before they can reach the atmosphere and trap the heat raising the Earths temperature.

Carbon capture may be the only real way to cut emissions at heavy industry sites, where switching to renewable energy is not yet an option. But while the underlying technology has been used for years, it has yet to take off at a huge scale. Only 13 commercial carbon capture sites are in operation in the U.S., said Jessie Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, a group of oil and gas, tech, environmental and policy groups that back the technology.

Read more from the original source:
Democrats bet billions on carbon capture, but the government isn't ready - POLITICO