truthout--2020-08-28--Mail-In Voting’s Difficulties Extend Beyond DeJoy’s Gutting of USPS

While much of the recent attention on mail-in voting has focused on the U.S .
Postal Service or on the likelihood of voter fraud , there is a lesser-known , looming problem for the November elections : The burden of mail-in voting does not just fall on the Postal Service .
Approximately 8,000 local election offices in the United States will have a role in carrying out the 2020 election .
These offices manage almost 186,000 voting precincts and rely on state , county and local employees to run elections .
Some of these offices are poised to handle mail-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
Others are not .
To carry out an election by mail , each of these hundreds of thousands of offices and employees will need to coordinate to make sure that ballots are processed in a fair , consistent and timely manner .
What does this process entail ?
Take the example of Florida .
In order to vote by mail , an individual must request a ballot from one of the state ’ s 67 Supervisors of Elections offices .
Employees in each of these offices process requests according to standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Florida Secretary of State ’ s Division of Elections .
Once a voter picks up or receives her ballot by mail , they may either mail the ballot back to the office that issued the ballot or return the ballot to a secure drop box .
The office then reviews the ballot to make sure it meets legal requirements to be counted .
Processed ballots go to the County Canvassing Board , which meets to certify the ballots and tabulate the results .
Finally , the Canvassing Board reports the results to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can order a recount if necessary .
It is a complex process , involving multiple state agencies .
And Florida ’ s process is not unique .
Each state has its own set of rules regarding how to distribute , manage and count ballots .
The Elections Clause of the United States Constitution grants states the right to regulate and administer elections .
This means that , while Congress has passed laws to expand election access and protect voting rights , the legal framework governing both federal and state elections varies state by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important factors influencing how state and local governments run the 2020 election .
In some states , local governments must bear the entire financial burden of election administration .
In others , state governments will reimburse local authorities for certain electoral costs such as ballots or other voting equipment .
Regardless of who bears the financial burden of elections , the universal and most frequent complaint from those who administer elections at the state and local level is a lack of resources .
The true cost of election administration — printing ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials and disseminating voter information , among many other tasks — in the U.S. is unclear .
Some estimate it at US $ 2 billion per year .
Ensuring all voters have access to vote by mail is even more costly .
The Brennan Center for Justice estimated that switching to universal mail-in voting access will cost an additional $ 982 million to $ 1.4 billion .
This includes additional money for ballot printing , postage costs , security , ballot processing and storage , and more staffing .
Not all 8,000 offices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs .
Because not all states are equally prepared for mail-in voting , some states have to invest much more to ensure that they are able to process an increased volume of mail-in votes .
For example , five states currently use vote-by-mail as their primary means of election administration .
But more than 80 % of voters in other states , including key battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Virginia , cast ballots in person on Election Day in 2018 .
Introducing more widespread mail-in voting to states like these typically involves legislative changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a variety of state agencies such as local elections offices and chief elections officials , boards , or commissions and new procedures for counting votes .
The financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic have made the switch to mail-in voting even more complicated .
Decreases in state revenue mean that some state and local governments can not afford to invest in election administration .
According to Brian Sigritz , director of State Fiscal Studies at the National Association of State Budget Officers , “ Some states are projecting revenue declines of up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fiscal 2021.
” While the CARES Act did provide $ 400 million to help state and local authorities , states are required to match 20 % of the funds they receive .
Some states simply do not have the money to do so .
New York state Elections Commissioner Peter Kosinski put it this way : “ More resources , more personnel , more funding , and more patience would help .
It ’ s easy to criticize us , but it ’ s not easy to do our jobs.
” Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most jurisdictions , citizens likely will have different voting experiences depending upon where they live .
Varying administrative resources and capacity often influence election administration .
In some places , like rural Nebraska , the office that oversees elections may contain one permanent staff person and a handful of part-time workers .
In other places , like in Los Angeles , election officials manage a complex system involving longer ballots , more precincts and more employees .
Even in normal circumstances , election administrators rarely operate under clearly defined procedural processes or have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in variation with respect to how they implement election law and interact with citizens .
The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated this problem .
For example , in Baltimore ’ s mail-in primary some ballots were misprinted and there were problems tabulating returns .
In Florida and Georgia , voters from racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to cast ballots that election administrators subsequently reject .
These examples have real consequences .
If a state ’ s election administrators fail to follow uniform procedures for issuing , processing and counting ballots , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal treatment and fundamental fairness are violated .
Here ’ s an example : Take the contested 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore .
In that election , Florida ’ s election administrators used varying standards to determine whether ballots were legally cast .
The Supreme Court held that this variation violated the minimum requirements of the Constitution .
History suggests that making sudden policy changes to election administration without paying attention to the administrative burdens they create can bring implementation risks and constitutional challenges .
The November election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Will states be able to bear the burden ?

Underfunded election offices across the U.S. are not equally prepared for the administrative burdens of mail-in voting.
While much of the recent attention on mail-in voting has focused on the U.S. Postal Service or on the likelihood of voter fraud, there is a lesser-known, looming problem for the November elections: The burden of mail-in voting does not just fall on the Postal Service.
Approximately 8,000 local election offices in the United States will have a role in carrying out the 2020 election. These offices manage almost 186,000 voting precincts and rely on state, county and local employees to run elections.
Some of these offices are poised to handle mail-in voting in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Others are not.
Each State Sets Rules
To carry out an election by mail, each of these hundreds of thousands of offices and employees will need to coordinate to make sure that ballots are processed in a fair, consistent and timely manner.
What does this process entail? Take the example of Florida. In order to vote by mail, an individual must request a ballot from one of the state’s 67 Supervisors of Elections offices. Employees in each of these offices process requests according to standards set by Florida law and guidance from the Florida Secretary of State’s Division of Elections.
Once a voter picks up or receives her ballot by mail, they may either mail the ballot back to the office that issued the ballot or return the ballot to a secure drop box. The office then reviews the ballot to make sure it meets legal requirements to be counted.
Processed ballots go to the County Canvassing Board, which meets to certify the ballots and tabulate the results. Finally, the Canvassing Board reports the results to the Florida Secretary of State, who can order a recount if necessary.
It is a complex process, involving multiple state agencies. And Florida’s process is not unique. Each state has its own set of rules regarding how to distribute, manage and count ballots.
Decentralized Election System
The Elections Clause of the United States Constitution grants states the right to regulate and administer elections. This means that, while Congress has passed laws to expand election access and protect voting rights, the legal framework governing both federal and state elections varies state by state.
This results in a highly decentralized electoral system.
Money is one of the most important factors influencing how state and local governments run the 2020 election.
In some states, local governments must bear the entire financial burden of election administration. In others, state governments will reimburse local authorities for certain electoral costs such as ballots or other voting equipment.
Regardless of who bears the financial burden of elections, the universal and most frequent complaint from those who administer elections at the state and local level is a lack of resources.
The true cost of election administration — printing ballots, maintaining voting equipment, compensating election officials and disseminating voter information, among many other tasks — in the U.S. is unclear. Some estimate it at US$2 billion per year.
Ensuring all voters have access to vote by mail is even more costly.
The Brennan Center for Justice estimated that switching to universal mail-in voting access will cost an additional $982 million to $1.4 billion. This includes additional money for ballot printing, postage costs, security, ballot processing and storage, and more staffing.
Not all 8,000 offices have the ability to shoulder these administrative costs.
Unequal Burdens
Because not all states are equally prepared for mail-in voting, some states have to invest much more to ensure that they are able to process an increased volume of mail-in votes.
For example, five states currently use vote-by-mail as their primary means of election administration. But more than 80% of voters in other states, including key battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Virginia, cast ballots in person on Election Day in 2018.
Introducing more widespread mail-in voting to states like these typically involves legislative changes, new government contracts and coordination across a variety of state agencies such as local elections offices and chief elections officials, boards, or commissions and new procedures for counting votes.
The financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic have made the switch to mail-in voting even more complicated. Decreases in state revenue mean that some state and local governments cannot afford to invest in election administration. According to Brian Sigritz, director of State Fiscal Studies at the National Association of State Budget Officers, “Some states are projecting revenue declines of up to 20% between now and the end of fiscal 2021.”
While the CARES Act did provide $400 million to help state and local authorities, states are required to match 20% of the funds they receive. Some states simply do not have the money to do so.
New York state Elections Commissioner Peter Kosinski put it this way: “More resources, more personnel, more funding, and more patience would help. It’s easy to criticize us, but it’s not easy to do our jobs.”
Unequal Consequences
Even if mail-in voting theoretically is available across most jurisdictions, citizens likely will have different voting experiences depending upon where they live.
Varying administrative resources and capacity often influence election administration. In some places, like rural Nebraska, the office that oversees elections may contain one permanent staff person and a handful of part-time workers. In other places, like in Los Angeles, election officials manage a complex system involving longer ballots, more precincts and more employees.
Even in normal circumstances, election administrators rarely operate under clearly defined procedural processes or have effective training. This tends to result in variation with respect to how they implement election law and interact with citizens.
The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated this problem. For example, in Baltimore’s mail-in primary some ballots were misprinted and there were problems tabulating returns. In Florida and Georgia, voters from racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to cast ballots that election administrators subsequently reject.
These examples have real consequences. If a state’s election administrators fail to follow uniform procedures for issuing, processing and counting ballots, then the Constitution’s guarantees of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are violated.
Here’s an example: Take the contested 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. In that election, Florida’s election administrators used varying standards to determine whether ballots were legally cast. The Supreme Court held that this variation violated the minimum requirements of the Constitution.
History suggests that making sudden policy changes to election administration without paying attention to the administrative burdens they create can bring implementation risks and constitutional challenges.
The November election is a little over two months away. Will states be able to bear the burden?
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-08-29--Social Security Fund Would Be Depleted in 3 Years If Trump Kills the Payroll Tax

President Donald Trump claimed he would eliminate the payroll tax if he is reelected — but an analysis by the Social Security Administration found that such a move would cause the Social Security Trust Fund to run out of money by 2023 .
Trump recently signed a memorandum that would temporarily stop the collection of payroll taxes , which is a 12.4 % tax split evenly between employees and employers that funds the Social Security and Medicare trust funds .
Only Congress can cut taxes , however , so the payroll tax savings would still have to be repaid by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though Trump said he would push to forgive the deferred taxes if he is reelected .
Trump went a step further earlier this month , vowing not just to forgive this year ’ s payroll tax but eliminate it entirely .
“ If I ’ m victorious on November 3rd , I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax .
I ’ m going to make them all permanent , ” he said during a news conference at his Bedminster , N.J. golf course .
“ …In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond the end of the year and terminate the tax .
And so we ’ ll see what happens.
” The claim prompted alarm on Capitol Hill .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , and Sen. Ron Wyden , D-Ore. , sent a letter to the Social Security Administration questioning how permanently eliminating the tax and making no other changes would impact the viability of the Social Security Trust Fund .
“ While we would not be supportive of this hypothetical legislation , we would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implications , ” they wrote .
Stephen Goss , the chief actuary at the Social Security Administration , told the senators in his response that the hypothetical cut would cause the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund to be depleted by mid-2021 and the Social Security Trust Fund reserves “ would become permanently depleted by the middle of calendar year 2023 , with no ability to pay… benefits thereafter.
” Goss noted that past temporary payroll tax reductions did not affect the trust fund reserves because the Treasury Department authorized automatic transfers from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steven Mnuchin vowed to do for the deferred taxes , but it is unlikely to extend beyond that .
If the payroll tax is eliminated , Congress would have to replace the funds with about $ 1 trillion in tax increases .
Social Security benefits for retired workers average about $ 1,500 per month , and “ these amounts could be completely eliminated ” without alternative sources of funding , Forbes reported .
“ While benefits scheduled in the law… are obligations , such obligations can only be met to the extent that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
Democrats cited the analysis to warn that Trump ’ s promise would “ completely decimate Social Security.
” “ The Social Security Administration has made it clear : eliminating the payroll tax , as Trump has proposed , would bankrupt Social Security and prevent seniors and people with disabilities from receiving the benefits they have earned , ” Sanders said in a statement .
“ Defunding Social Security may make sense to the billionaires at President Trump ’ s country club , but it makes zero sense to me .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand it so that every senior can retire with the dignity they deserve.
” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , vowed to oppose any attempt to eliminate the payroll tax .
“ The new analysis today shows the swift potential devastation of President Trump ’ s reckless call to ‘ terminate ’ the payroll tax : shattering the sacred promise of Social Security , ” she said in a statement .
Advocacy groups sounded the alarm as well .
“ If Donald Trump is re-elected , Social Security will cease to exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Nancy Altman , president of Social Security Works , told CNBC in response to the analysis .
Trump ’ s advisers have attempted to walk back his comments .
“ There is no plan to eliminate Social Security taxes , ” top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters at the White House .
“ I don ’ t know where that idea came from .
It ’ s not true.
” “ When he referred to ‘ permanent , ’ I think what he was saying is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the year will be made permanent , ” he told CNN .
“ It will be forgiven .
The tax is not going to go away.
” “ That isn ’ t what the president said at all , ” host Dana Bash responded .
“ He said the opposite.
” Social Security advocates are alarmed at the deferral as well , noting that using the Treasury ’ s General Fund undermines how the program is supposed to work .
“ They ’ re not a handout .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the director of government relations and policy at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare , told CNBC .
“ That ’ s why even under those circumstances we are so strongly opposed to this.
” It is highly unlikely that Congress would entertain the idea of undermining the Social Security program given that even Republicans opposed Trump ’ s repeated calls to cut the payroll tax temporarily amid the pandemic .
“ A majority of Senate Republicans didn ’ t want a payroll tax cut , ” NBC News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that two-thirds of the benefits of a payroll tax cut would go to the richest 20 % of Americans while the poorest 20 % of Americans would get just 2 % of the benefits .
It would do nothing to help the tens of millions of people out of work .
Trump called for the payroll tax deferral after negotiations with Democrats broke down , but the fate of that deferral is still up in the air .
The memorandum called for the Treasury Department to start deferring taxes starting on September 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the department has not produced guidelines for employers or payroll processors to defer the taxes .
“ The deferral isn ’ t going to be in place for September 1st , ” Pete Isberg , president of the National Payroll Reporting Consortium , the payroll industry ’ s trade association , told The Washington Post .
Because the deferral is voluntary , the language in the memorandum “ raises the prospect that you have to get information to 100 million people , ” Isberg said , and then ensure the tax is only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ About 30 industry groups , led by the US Chamber of Commerce , called the proposal potentially “ unworkable.
” “ Therefore , many of our members will likely decline to implement deferral , choosing instead to continue to withhold and remit to the government the payroll taxes required by law , ” the groups said in a letter to Congress and the White House .
The groups said that the deferral would be “ unfair to employees to make a decision that would force a big tax bill on them next year.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration come together on a path that supports workers instead of burdening hard-working Americans with a large tax bill next year , ” the letter said .
Experts say that Trump ’ s order is unlikely to have much impact as a result .
“ There ’ s a lot of unresolved questions about the implementation of this deferral , [ and ] some of the unresolved questions are quite basic , ” Garrett Watson , a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation , told NBC News .
“ When would the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t a date specified .
There are many options here that have to be clarified .
The other big thing that ’ s hanging over a lot of this is whether or not this deferral will turn into a meaningful reduction in tax liability owed.
” Companies and employees that choose to opt for the deferral could have big headaches come tax time next year .
“ You don ’ t want to be in a position where you have to withhold months worth of payroll taxes from employees all at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center , told NBC .
“ That would create a horrible problem for people .
”

President Donald Trump claimed he would eliminate the payroll tax if he is reelected — but an analysis by the Social Security Administration found that such a move would cause the Social Security Trust Fund to run out of money by 2023.
Trump recently signed a memorandum that would temporarily stop the collection of payroll taxes, which is a 12.4% tax split evenly between employees and employers that funds the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Only Congress can cut taxes, however, so the payroll tax savings would still have to be repaid by next year’s tax deadline — though Trump said he would push to forgive the deferred taxes if he is reelected.
Trump went a step further earlier this month, vowing not just to forgive this year’s payroll tax but eliminate it entirely.
“If I’m victorious on November 3rd, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax. I’m going to make them all permanent,” he said during a news conference at his Bedminster, N.J. golf course. “…In other words, I’ll extend beyond the end of the year and terminate the tax. And so we’ll see what happens.”
The claim prompted alarm on Capitol Hill. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., sent a letter to the Social Security Administration questioning how permanently eliminating the tax and making no other changes would impact the viability of the Social Security Trust Fund.
“While we would not be supportive of this hypothetical legislation, we would like to be aware of its potential implications,” they wrote.
Stephen Goss, the chief actuary at the Social Security Administration, told the senators in his response that the hypothetical cut would cause the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund to be depleted by mid-2021 and the Social Security Trust Fund reserves “would become permanently depleted by the middle of calendar year 2023, with no ability to pay… benefits thereafter.”
Goss noted that past temporary payroll tax reductions did not affect the trust fund reserves because the Treasury Department authorized automatic transfers from its General Fund, which Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin vowed to do for the deferred taxes, but it is unlikely to extend beyond that.
If the payroll tax is eliminated, Congress would have to replace the funds with about $1 trillion in tax increases. Social Security benefits for retired workers average about $1,500 per month, and “these amounts could be completely eliminated” without alternative sources of funding, Forbes reported.
“While benefits scheduled in the law… are obligations, such obligations can only be met to the extent that asset reserves are available,” Goss wrote.
Democrats cited the analysis to warn that Trump’s promise would “completely decimate Social Security.”
“The Social Security Administration has made it clear: eliminating the payroll tax, as Trump has proposed, would bankrupt Social Security and prevent seniors and people with disabilities from receiving the benefits they have earned,” Sanders said in a statement. “Defunding Social Security may make sense to the billionaires at President Trump’s country club, but it makes zero sense to me. Instead of dismantling Social Security, we must expand it so that every senior can retire with the dignity they deserve.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., vowed to oppose any attempt to eliminate the payroll tax.
“The new analysis today shows the swift potential devastation of President Trump’s reckless call to ‘terminate’ the payroll tax: shattering the sacred promise of Social Security,” she said in a statement.
Advocacy groups sounded the alarm as well.
“If Donald Trump is re-elected, Social Security will cease to exist before the end of his second term,” Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, told CNBC in response to the analysis.
Trump’s advisers have attempted to walk back his comments.
“There is no plan to eliminate Social Security taxes,” top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters at the White House. “I don’t know where that idea came from. It’s not true.”
“When he referred to ‘permanent,’ I think what he was saying is that the deferral of the payroll tax to the end of the year will be made permanent,” he told CNN. “It will be forgiven. The tax is not going to go away.”
“That isn’t what the president said at all,” host Dana Bash responded. “He said the opposite.”
Social Security advocates are alarmed at the deferral as well, noting that using the Treasury’s General Fund undermines how the program is supposed to work.
“They’re not a handout. They’re not an entitlement,” Dan Adcock, the director of government relations and policy at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, told CNBC. “That’s why even under those circumstances we are so strongly opposed to this.”
It is highly unlikely that Congress would entertain the idea of undermining the Social Security program given that even Republicans opposed Trump’s repeated calls to cut the payroll tax temporarily amid the pandemic. “A majority of Senate Republicans didn’t want a payroll tax cut,” NBC News reported last month.
Analyses have found that two-thirds of the benefits of a payroll tax cut would go to the richest 20% of Americans while the poorest 20% of Americans would get just 2% of the benefits. It would do nothing to help the tens of millions of people out of work.
Trump called for the payroll tax deferral after negotiations with Democrats broke down, but the fate of that deferral is still up in the air.
The memorandum called for the Treasury Department to start deferring taxes starting on September 1, but that appears highly unlikely since the department has not produced guidelines for employers or payroll processors to defer the taxes.
“The deferral isn’t going to be in place for September 1st,” Pete Isberg, president of the National Payroll Reporting Consortium, the payroll industry’s trade association, told The Washington Post.
Because the deferral is voluntary, the language in the memorandum “raises the prospect that you have to get information to 100 million people,” Isberg said, and then ensure the tax is only deferred for employees who want it.
About 30 industry groups, led by the US Chamber of Commerce, called the proposal potentially “unworkable.”
“Therefore, many of our members will likely decline to implement deferral, choosing instead to continue to withhold and remit to the government the payroll taxes required by law,” the groups said in a letter to Congress and the White House.
The groups said that the deferral would be “unfair to employees to make a decision that would force a big tax bill on them next year.”
“We hope Congress and the Administration come together on a path that supports workers instead of burdening hard-working Americans with a large tax bill next year,” the letter said.
Experts say that Trump’s order is unlikely to have much impact as a result.
“There’s a lot of unresolved questions about the implementation of this deferral, [and] some of the unresolved questions are quite basic,” Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, told NBC News. “When would the deferred tax be owed back? There isn’t a date specified. There are many options here that have to be clarified. The other big thing that’s hanging over a lot of this is whether or not this deferral will turn into a meaningful reduction in tax liability owed.”
Companies and employees that choose to opt for the deferral could have big headaches come tax time next year.
“You don’t want to be in a position where you have to withhold months worth of payroll taxes from employees all at once,” Eric Toder, the co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told NBC. “That would create a horrible problem for people.”


truthout--2020-08-29--Trump Admin Faces Lawsuit for “Insidious” Attack on Major Environmental Law

A coalition of 27 U.S. states , commonwealths , territories , counties , and cities filed a federal lawsuit on Friday challenging the Trump administration ’ s “ unlawful , unjustified , and sweeping revisions ” to a 50-year-old law that the president claimed would “ streamline ” infrastructure projects by limiting environmental reviews .
After revealing plans to alter the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) in January , President Donald Trump announced what critics called “ reckless and unprecedented ” changes during a July campaign stop .
The revisions , detailed in a final rule released by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( CEQ ) , swiftly provoked legal threats from advocacy organizations .
The lawsuit filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California , led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson , follows a similar challenge to the NEPA changes from national environmental groups , filed in the same court last month .
“ NEPA is an unsung hero of environmental protection that protects our shared environment , ” Ferguson said in a statement .
“ NEPA allows our voices to inform public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government accountable , and builds transparency into the federal decision-making process to build trust.
” “ This administration ’ s insidious attack on one of our most important environmental laws is an attack on the democratic process itself , ” the Washington attorney general declared .
“ I will fight to make sure the people are heard.
” Becerra put the rollback and subsequent suit in the context of Trump ’ s broader deregulatory agenda targeting environmental protections and how states and local governments — often led by Democratic officials — have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration has spent the better part of four years trying to roll back critical protections and undo hard-fought progress , particularly when it comes to our environment , public lands , and natural resources , ” Becerra said .
“ But we haven ’ t let this unlawful conduct go unchecked .
We ’ ve fought back — and won.
” “ Today , we ’ re filing our 100th lawsuit against the Trump administration , ” he noted .
“ With today ’ s challenge , our goal is simple : preserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision-making as federal projects threaten to harm the health of our families in our own backyards.
” David J. Hayes , executive director of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at New York University School of Law , said in response to the suit that “ state attorneys general again are stepping up , this time to stop the Trump administration from going back on the basic ‘ good government ’ promise that before federal officials approve major projects , they must review potential adverse impacts , make them public , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We should not need to rely on our last line of defense — state attorneys general — to enforce the rule of law , ” added Hayes , former Interior Department deputy secretary in the Obama and Clinton administrations .
“ But here we are again , needing to turn to state legal officers and the federal courts to right the latest national environmental wrongs that the Trump administration is imposing on the American people.
” In March , Becerra co-led a coalition of 20 attorneys general who argued in a letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violated both NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA ) ; relied on a deficient rulemaking process ; restricted the scope of impacts considered in environmental reviews ; and unlawfully and without justification limited the requirement that an agency evaluate reasonable alternatives .
As the California attorney general ’ s office explained Friday , the lawsuit argues that the final rule violates NEPA and APA because it : • is contrary to NEPA ’ s language and purpose and exceeds the Council on Environmental Quality ’ s statutory authority ; • is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discretion , and otherwise not in accordance with law ; and • was promulgated without preparing an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement evaluating the rule ’ s environmental and public health impacts .
As Hayes put it : “ The administration ’ s final NEPA rule shatters that long-standing legal promise embedded in one of our nation ’ s earliest and most important environmental laws , the National Environmental Policy Act.
” “ In particular , the final rule abandons any environmental review for broad categories of project approvals that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many already impacted by historic , unjust environmental harms — voiceless and at the mercy of an administration that favors industry profits over Americans ’ health and well-being , ” he said .
“ And when reviews are begrudgingly undertaken , the new rule enables officials to downplay or skip altogether serious analyses of climate impacts and health dangers associated with proposed projects and connected activities.
” Ferguson and Becerra were joined in the filing by the legal representatives for Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Illinois , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , New Mexico , New York , Nevada , North Carolina , Oregon , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , Vermont , Wisconsin , the District of Columbia , the territory of Guam , the city of New York , the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection , the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , and Harris County , Texas .

A coalition of 27 U.S. states, commonwealths, territories, counties, and cities filed a federal lawsuit on Friday challenging the Trump administration’s “unlawful, unjustified, and sweeping revisions” to a 50-year-old law that the president claimed would “streamline” infrastructure projects by limiting environmental reviews.
After revealing plans to alter the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in January, President Donald Trump announced what critics called “reckless and unprecedented” changes during a July campaign stop. The revisions, detailed in a final rule released by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), swiftly provoked legal threats from advocacy organizations.
The lawsuit filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, follows a similar challenge to the NEPA changes from national environmental groups, filed in the same court last month.
“NEPA is an unsung hero of environmental protection that protects our shared environment,” Ferguson said in a statement. “NEPA allows our voices to inform public decisions, provides a tool for holding the government accountable, and builds transparency into the federal decision-making process to build trust.”
“This administration’s insidious attack on one of our most important environmental laws is an attack on the democratic process itself,” the Washington attorney general declared. “I will fight to make sure the people are heard.”
Becerra put the rollback and subsequent suit in the context of Trump’s broader deregulatory agenda targeting environmental protections and how states and local governments — often led by Democratic officials — have fought against it.
“The Trump administration has spent the better part of four years trying to roll back critical protections and undo hard-fought progress, particularly when it comes to our environment, public lands, and natural resources,” Becerra said. “But we haven’t let this unlawful conduct go unchecked. We’ve fought back — and won.”
“Today, we’re filing our 100th lawsuit against the Trump administration,” he noted. “With today’s challenge, our goal is simple: preserve the public’s voice in government decision-making as federal projects threaten to harm the health of our families in our own backyards.”
The Trump Admin spent the last four years rolling back critical protections and undoing hard-fought progress, particularly for our environment. Now @RealDonaldTrump is gutting the National Environmental Policy Act—one of our bedrock environmental laws. We’re suing. pic.twitter.com/nuje513lAx — Xavier Becerra (@AGBecerra) August 28, 2020
David J. Hayes, executive director of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at New York University School of Law, said in response to the suit that “state attorneys general again are stepping up, this time to stop the Trump administration from going back on the basic ‘good government’ promise that before federal officials approve major projects, they must review potential adverse impacts, make them public, and hear the views of affected citizens.”
“We should not need to rely on our last line of defense — state attorneys general — to enforce the rule of law,” added Hayes, former Interior Department deputy secretary in the Obama and Clinton administrations. “But here we are again, needing to turn to state legal officers and the federal courts to right the latest national environmental wrongs that the Trump administration is imposing on the American people.”
In March, Becerra co-led a coalition of 20 attorneys general who argued in a letter that the administration’s proposed rule violated both NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); relied on a deficient rulemaking process; restricted the scope of impacts considered in environmental reviews; and unlawfully and without justification limited the requirement that an agency evaluate reasonable alternatives.
Pretty remarkable quote from California AG @XavierBecerra on why so much of this case will be fought on procedural grounds. pic.twitter.com/9JnRO3WOVW — Rebecca Beitsch (@RebeccaBeitsch) August 28, 2020
As the California attorney general’s office explained Friday, the lawsuit argues that the final rule violates NEPA and APA because it:
is contrary to NEPA’s language and purpose and exceeds the Council on Environmental Quality’s statutory authority;
is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law; and
was promulgated without preparing an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement evaluating the rule’s environmental and public health impacts.
As Hayes put it: “The administration’s final NEPA rule shatters that long-standing legal promise embedded in one of our nation’s earliest and most important environmental laws, the National Environmental Policy Act.”
“In particular, the final rule abandons any environmental review for broad categories of project approvals that will leave our most vulnerable citizens — including many already impacted by historic, unjust environmental harms — voiceless and at the mercy of an administration that favors industry profits over Americans’ health and well-being,” he said. “And when reviews are begrudgingly undertaken, the new rule enables officials to downplay or skip altogether serious analyses of climate impacts and health dangers associated with proposed projects and connected activities.”
Ferguson and Becerra were joined in the filing by the legal representatives for Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, the territory of Guam, the city of New York, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Harris County, Texas.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-08-29--Roughly Half of Workplaces Have Not Filed Required Injury and Illness Reports

More than 100,000 U.S. workplaces required to submit injury and illness records flouted a new federal requirement to electronically submit their logs , keeping dangerous employers cloaked in secrecy .
Only about 60 % of the establishments expected to submit 2016 data to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration responded , according to an analysis by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting .
The next two years were no better .
OSHA received 2017 and 2018 data from less than half of the roughly 463,000 workplaces required to report in each of those years , according to statements made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filings .
The poor compliance rate by employers surfaced in court documents filed by OSHA in response to a lawsuit brought by the public interest group Public Citizen after the agency refused to release electronic injury and illness records .
Reveal filed a parallel suit challenging the government ’ s refusal to release the injury logs , known as Form 300As , in response to a Freedom of Information Act request .
A federal judge sided with Reveal and the 2016 records were released last week .
Establishments with 250 or more employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or more workers , such as agriculture and construction , are required to submit the Form 300A , which summarizes how many people were injured or killed on the job each year .
OSHA had intended to use the information to help prioritize its investigations .
With just 862 federal inspectors covering millions of workplaces as of Jan. 1 , OSHA has sought to focus its resources on the most dangerous industries and workplaces .
The agency also announced in 2016 that it would post the data on its public website .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to submit these reports have been penalized .
As of Aug. 16 , OSHA had issued only 259 citations carrying total fines of $ 127,000 to employers that did not send in their electronic injury logs .
That ’ s an average penalty of less than $ 500 per employer .
Only 30 of these penalties were imposed on large employers with at least 250 workers , a Labor Department spokesperson told Reveal .
The records are mandatory under an Obama-era rule that required companies to electronically submit injury and illness records , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was elected president , OSHA officials said that while employers still had to report the information , the data would not be made public .
That changed last week .
The U.S. Department of Labor released more than 237,000 injury and illness records from U.S. workplaces in response to the lawsuit brought by Reveal , a blow to government secrecy that allows the public to identify some of the nation ’ s most hazardous companies .
Reveal went to court to challenge the federal government ’ s refusal to release the injury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requested in February 2018 .
“ This court decision is a game changer , ” said David Michaels , who led OSHA under President Barack Obama and is now a professor at George Washington University ’ s Milken Institute School of Public Health .
“ Public disclosure on injury rates will reshape how employers , workers and the public think about the social cost of the goods and services we consume.
” A Reveal analysis of the roughly 60,000 company names in the 2016 data found that even some Fortune 500 companies neglected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s and The Home Depot appeared to be missing entirely , while only one establishment with 58 employees appeared for Boeing , one of the nation ’ s top federal contractors .
Representatives for McDonald ’ s , The Home Depot and Boeing did not immediately respond to requests for comment .
But even the spotty reporting did reveal some companies with high injury rates for their sectors .
Ford Motor Co. reported injury and illness rates at two establishments that were 80 % higher than the rate reported by the Bureau @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One even reported a death .
A Ford spokesperson did not immediately respond to queries , requesting additional time to review the data .
Injury and illness rates at facilities of other large companies – such as retailer Dollar Tree Stores Inc. , Southwest Airlines and pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly and Co. – were about twice the industry rates in some sectors reflected in their injury and illness reports .
Dollar Tree ’ s rates were elevated , for example , in its warehouses , while Eli Lilly ’ s rates were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ A safe workplace for our associates is our highest priority , ” Kayleigh Painter , a Dollar Tree spokesperson , said in an email .
“ We are focused on maintaining a safe environment that complies with all health and safety regulations at our facilities.
” In response to questions about Southwest Airlines ’ injury and illness cases in 2016 , Brian Parrish , a company spokesperson , said in an email : “ The safety of our employees and customers is always the uncompromising priority at Southwest Airlines and a responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , the Southwest Team has worked together to achieve a significant decrease in the number of annual injuries , and the airline is now pleased to be posting the lowest injury rates in our recent history – a downward trend demonstrated in the numbers reported to OSHA over the past several years.
” A spokesperson for Eli Lilly did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
Beginning with 2019 data , employers were required to submit their 300As with employer identification numbers , unique numbers assigned to each company or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company performance as a whole .
But the data released to Reveal was collected between 2017 and 2018 and lacks unique numbers .
In addition , the company names associated with each establishment are inconsistent in the 300As – misspelled or abbreviated differently – or missing entirely .
“ If OSHA doesn ’ t know the connection between different workplaces , if they have the same owner , it makes it difficult for OSHA to follow up at other facilities owned by the same company , ” Michaels said .
OSHA ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s past reporting , though Reveal has had to obtain the records by other means , such as through labor unions and workers ’ attorneys .
Last year , Reveal collected injury records for some of Amazon ’ s warehouses through current and former employees and showed that the injury rates for these sites surpassed the industry average .
Before that , Reveal combed through Tesla ’ s internal records and found some cases were missing from the company ’ s official logs – again , obtained from employees .
Yet another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obtained from a variety of sources , including workers and Freedom of Information Act requests – to show how a major shipbuilder for the U.S. Navy altered a power tool , ignoring the manufacturer ’ s warnings and creating a saw that company executives called “ a Widow Maker ” after it maimed dozens of workers .
Reveal won the public records suit in June when Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the federal Labor Department to release several months ’ worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied Reveal ’ s request , citing an exemption in the law that shields government records collected for law enforcement purposes .
After Reveal filed suit , Justice Department attorneys defending the case abandoned that argument .
Instead , they asserted that the injury logs could not be disclosed because they were confidential business records .
But Ryu found that “ the Form 300A information is both readily observable by and shared with employees , who have the right to make the information public.
” Rather than appeal , Justice Department lawyers complied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreed to release the injury data to Reveal .
“ OSHA reports have long been recognized as public information necessary for public health and safety – not confidential business information , ” said D. Victoria Baranetsky , Reveal ’ s general counsel .
“ We are glad the court recognized that , too.
” Companies have been required to record injuries and illnesses for nearly 50 years .
Some of that data is available on OSHA ’ s website .
But that program ended in anticipation of the new reporting requirements launched under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the original dataset of OSHA 300As provided by the Labor Department available to the public : Download the data and data dictionary .
Reporter Will Evans contributed to this story .
It was edited by Esther Kaplan and Soo Oh and copy edited by Nikki Frick .
Jennifer Gollan can be reached at [ email protected ] , and Melissa Lewis can be reached at [ email protected ] .
Follow them on Twitter : @ jennifergollan and @ iff_orr .

Just a tiny fraction of employers that failed to submit these reports have been penalized.
This story was originally published by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit news organization based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Learn more at revealnews.org and subscribe to the Reveal podcast, produced with PRX, at revealnews.org/podcast.
More than 100,000 U.S. workplaces required to submit injury and illness records flouted a new federal requirement to electronically submit their logs, keeping dangerous employers cloaked in secrecy.
Only about 60% of the establishments expected to submit 2016 data to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration responded, according to an analysis by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. The next two years were no better. OSHA received 2017 and 2018 data from less than half of the roughly 463,000 workplaces required to report in each of those years, according to statements made by a top agency official in court filings.
The poor compliance rate by employers surfaced in court documents filed by OSHA in response to a lawsuit brought by the public interest group Public Citizen after the agency refused to release electronic injury and illness records. Reveal filed a parallel suit challenging the government’s refusal to release the injury logs, known as Form 300As, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. A federal judge sided with Reveal and the 2016 records were released last week.
Establishments with 250 or more employees and workplaces in high-risk industries with 20 or more workers, such as agriculture and construction, are required to submit the Form 300A, which summarizes how many people were injured or killed on the job each year.
OSHA had intended to use the information to help prioritize its investigations. With just 862 federal inspectors covering millions of workplaces as of Jan. 1, OSHA has sought to focus its resources on the most dangerous industries and workplaces. The agency also announced in 2016 that it would post the data on its public website.
Just a tiny fraction of employers that failed to submit these reports have been penalized. As of Aug. 16, OSHA had issued only 259 citations carrying total fines of $127,000 to employers that did not send in their electronic injury logs. That’s an average penalty of less than $500 per employer. Only 30 of these penalties were imposed on large employers with at least 250 workers, a Labor Department spokesperson told Reveal.
The records are mandatory under an Obama-era rule that required companies to electronically submit injury and illness records, starting with 2016 data.
After Donald Trump was elected president, OSHA officials said that while employers still had to report the information, the data would not be made public.
That changed last week. The U.S. Department of Labor released more than 237,000 injury and illness records from U.S. workplaces in response to the lawsuit brought by Reveal, a blow to government secrecy that allows the public to identify some of the nation’s most hazardous companies.
Reveal went to court to challenge the federal government’s refusal to release the injury logs, which the nonprofit news organization requested in February 2018.
“This court decision is a game changer,” said David Michaels, who led OSHA under President Barack Obama and is now a professor at George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health. “Public disclosure on injury rates will reshape how employers, workers and the public think about the social cost of the goods and services we consume.”
A Reveal analysis of the roughly 60,000 company names in the 2016 data found that even some Fortune 500 companies neglected to fully report their data. McDonald’s and The Home Depot appeared to be missing entirely, while only one establishment with 58 employees appeared for Boeing, one of the nation’s top federal contractors. Representatives for McDonald’s, The Home Depot and Boeing did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
But even the spotty reporting did reveal some companies with high injury rates for their sectors. Ford Motor Co. reported injury and illness rates at two establishments that were 80% higher than the rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for automobile manufacturers overall. One even reported a death. A Ford spokesperson did not immediately respond to queries, requesting additional time to review the data.
Injury and illness rates at facilities of other large companies – such as retailer Dollar Tree Stores Inc., Southwest Airlines and pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly and Co. – were about twice the industry rates in some sectors reflected in their injury and illness reports. Dollar Tree’s rates were elevated, for example, in its warehouses, while Eli Lilly’s rates were elevated in its biological manufacturing facilities.
“A safe workplace for our associates is our highest priority,” Kayleigh Painter, a Dollar Tree spokesperson, said in an email. “We are focused on maintaining a safe environment that complies with all health and safety regulations at our facilities.”
In response to questions about Southwest Airlines’ injury and illness cases in 2016, Brian Parrish, a company spokesperson, said in an email: “The safety of our employees and customers is always the uncompromising priority at Southwest Airlines and a responsibility that we take very seriously. Since 2016, the Southwest Team has worked together to achieve a significant decrease in the number of annual injuries, and the airline is now pleased to be posting the lowest injury rates in our recent history – a downward trend demonstrated in the numbers reported to OSHA over the past several years.”
A spokesperson for Eli Lilly did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Beginning with 2019 data, employers were required to submit their 300As with employer identification numbers, unique numbers assigned to each company or organization that will allow OSHA to view company performance as a whole.
But the data released to Reveal was collected between 2017 and 2018 and lacks unique numbers. In addition, the company names associated with each establishment are inconsistent in the 300As – misspelled or abbreviated differently – or missing entirely.
“If OSHA doesn’t know the connection between different workplaces, if they have the same owner, it makes it difficult for OSHA to follow up at other facilities owned by the same company,” Michaels said.
OSHA’s Form 300As have been critical to Reveal’s past reporting, though Reveal has had to obtain the records by other means, such as through labor unions and workers’ attorneys. Last year, Reveal collected injury records for some of Amazon’s warehouses through current and former employees and showed that the injury rates for these sites surpassed the industry average. Before that, Reveal combed through Tesla’s internal records and found some cases were missing from the company’s official logs – again, obtained from employees. Yet another Reveal investigation relied on injury records – obtained from a variety of sources, including workers and Freedom of Information Act requests – to show how a major shipbuilder for the U.S. Navy altered a power tool, ignoring the manufacturer’s warnings and creating a saw that company executives called “a Widow Maker” after it maimed dozens of workers.
Reveal won the public records suit in June when Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the federal Labor Department to release several months’ worth of the logs.
The government had denied Reveal’s request, citing an exemption in the law that shields government records collected for law enforcement purposes. After Reveal filed suit, Justice Department attorneys defending the case abandoned that argument. Instead, they asserted that the injury logs could not be disclosed because they were confidential business records.
But Ryu found that “the Form 300A information is both readily observable by and shared with employees, who have the right to make the information public.”
Rather than appeal, Justice Department lawyers complied with the court’s order and agreed to release the injury data to Reveal.
“OSHA reports have long been recognized as public information necessary for public health and safety – not confidential business information,” said D. Victoria Baranetsky, Reveal’s general counsel. “We are glad the court recognized that, too.”
Companies have been required to record injuries and illnesses for nearly 50 years. Some of that data is available on OSHA’s website. But that program ended in anticipation of the new reporting requirements launched under the Obama-era rule.
Reveal has made the original dataset of OSHA 300As provided by the Labor Department available to the public: Download the data and data dictionary.
Reporter Will Evans contributed to this story. It was edited by Esther Kaplan and Soo Oh and copy edited by Nikki Frick.
Jennifer Gollan can be reached at [email protected], and Melissa Lewis can be reached at [email protected]. Follow them on Twitter: @jennifergollan and @iff_orr.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-08-29--No Big Pharma Company Has Committed to Make the COVID Vaccine Free or Cheap

In a business driven by profit , vaccines have a problem .
They ’ re not very profitable — at least not without government subsidies .
Pharma companies favor expensive medicines that must be taken repeatedly and generate revenue for years or decades .
Vaccines are often given only once or twice .
In many parts of the world , established vaccines cost a few dollars per dose or less .
Last year only four companies were making vaccines for the U.S. market , down from more than 20 in the 1970s .
As recently as Feb. 11 , Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top infectious disease expert , complained that no major drug company had committed to “ step up ” to make a coronavirus vaccine , calling the situation “ very difficult and frustrating.
” Oxford University surprised and pleased advocates of overhauling the vaccine business in April by promising to donate the rights to its promising coronavirus vaccine to any drugmaker .
The idea was to provide medicines preventing or treating COVID-19 at a low cost or free of charge , the British university said .
That made sense to people seeking change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that traditional vaccine development , characterized by long lead times , manufacturing monopolies and weak investment , was broken .
“ We actually thought they were going to do that , ” James Love , director of Knowledge Ecology International , a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology , said of Oxford ’ s pledge .
“ Why wouldn ’ t people agree to let everyone have access to the best vaccines possible ?
” A few weeks later , Oxford—urged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—reversed course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with AstraZeneca that gave the pharmaceutical giant sole rights and no guarantee of low prices—with the less-publicized potential for Oxford to eventually make millions from the deal and win plenty of prestige .
Other companies working on coronavirus vaccines have followed the same line , collecting billions in government grants , hoarding patents , revealing as little as possible about their deals—and planning to charge up to $ 37 a dose for potentially hundreds of millions of shots .
Even as governments shower money on an industry that has not made vaccines a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , failure to alter the basic model means drug industry executives and their shareholders will get rich with no assurance that future vaccines will be inexpensively available to all .
“ If there were ever an opportunity ” to change the economics of vaccine development , “ this would have been it , ” said Ameet Sarpatwari , an epidemiologist and lawyer at Harvard Medical School who studies drug-pricing regulation .
Instead , “ it is business as usual , where the manufacturers are getting exclusive rights and we are hoping on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price their products responsibly.
” In the United States and other developed nations , the solution to drug-company reluctance was to shower them with billions of dollars in public funds to persuade them to help .
The Trump administration has announced deals worth more than $ 10 billion with seven companies to try to turn basic research—often funded by the government—into effective , widely distributed vaccines—but with no guarantee they would be widely affordable or available .
That approach has driven up stock prices in the past four months and enriched drug executives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
AstraZeneca stock and options owned by CEO Pascal Soriot have increased by nearly $ 15 million in value since early April , according to calculations by KHN based on company disclosures .
The stock hit an all-time high in July .
The stock market value of Novavax , a biotech that never recorded a profit in more than two decades , soared tenfold to $ 10 billion after a nonprofit and the Trump administration agreed to give it $ 1.6 billion to make a vaccine .
Companies “ say we have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a risk , ” said Mohga Kamal-Yanni , an independent consultant on global health based in the United Kingdom .
“ Actually , the public is taking the risk .
The public is paying for the cost of research and development and probably the cost of manufacturing as well.
” Moderna , another company working on a vaccine candidate , received nearly $ 1 billion from the U.S. government to pay essentially all costs to research the product and get it approved by regulators .
It ’ s using a vaccine designed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health and academic scientists using federal grants .
If the vaccine works , the company gets an additional $ 1.5 billion to cover 100 million doses , a deal that U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett , a Texas Democrat , likened to giving taxpayers “ the privilege of purchasing that same vaccine that we already paid for.
” That deal comes to $ 15 a dose .
Moderna told Wall Street analysts it might charge as much as $ 37 a dose for smaller-volume contracts .
“ This is greedy , and the taxpayers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have expected better negotiation on the part of the U.S. government , ” said Margaret Liu , a globally respected vaccine scientist who once worked for Merck and is now chairperson of the International Society for Vaccines .
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department “ conducted extensive market research and price analysis ” to ensure prices are fair , said a senior HHS official who asked for anonymity .
“ We are prohibited from disclosing price discussions and details.
” Even if Moderna distributed a successful vaccine at a loss to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enormous benefits because government support would have helped validate its technology for future products , Liu said .
Moderna did not respond to requests for comment .
Nonprofits such as Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders have been pressuring drug companies to change for years .
Exclusive patents and high prices that sometimes make lifesaving medicines unaffordable in rich countries often render them completely unavailable in the poor world , they argue .
One workaround has been enormous private and government subsidies , including from the U.K. , the United States and the Gates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Geneva nonprofit Gavi , formerly known as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization .
The Gates Foundation helped launch another non-governmental organization , the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations , in 2017 .
CEPI was created to fight something exactly like the coronavirus : potential infectious threats ignored or slighted by pharmaceutical companies .
CEPI ’ s early principles of “ equitable access ” drew praise from reformers .
The group asked for public data disclosure from drug-company grantees , “ transparent ” accounting to show true vaccine cost and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine project if the developer failed to deliver .
The pharma industry immediately objected .
Even though they were bankrolled by public money , drug companies were “ concerned about the precedent that could be set if they allowed an outside entity , in this case CEPI , to set [ the ] price of a product unilaterally , ” CEPI reported in February .
The nonprofit backed down , removing most references to prices in a new policy that Doctors Without Borders called “ an alarming step backwards.
” The original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and CEPI ’ s “ commitment to equitable access as a principle is the same , ” said spokesperson Rachel Grant .
Some thought the worst infectious disease crisis in a century , along with the enormous public investments , would change industry behavior .
Governments could have demanded transparency and low prices .
They could have offered developers cash prizes for vaccines that would have incentivized science but let the public retain the marketing rights , said Love , of Knowledge Ecology International .
Agreement by researchers to publish the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for global scientific cooperation , many believed .
“ The full sequence was shared with the world without any strings attached , ” said Manuel Martin , a U.K.-based adviser to Doctors Without Borders on access to medical innovations .
The World Health Organization set up a “ COVID-19 Technology Access Pool ” to promote the sharing of patents and other knowledge .
Oxford stepped forward and said it would offer nonexclusive , royalty-free licenses for its vaccine , meaning multiple parties could sell it at a low cost .
“ I personally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time of pandemic there should be exclusive licenses , ” Adrian Hill , director of Oxford ’ s Jenner Institute , which is developing the vaccine , told The New York Times in April .
Instead , little has changed .
No vaccine maker has offered open licenses , although NIH is sharing key technology it developed with multiple vaccine companies .
Governments are signing lucrative deals with manufacturers to ensure vaccines for their own populations .
WHO has made no announcements about contributions to its COVID-19 shared technology pool since it launched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO officials did not respond to a reporter ’ s queries .
After Oxford announced the exclusive AstraZeneca deal , the company said it would sell vaccines at no profit—but only during the pandemic .
Johnson & Johnson ’ s pledge to earn no vaccine profit is similarly limited .
With financial information kept confidential , no one will be able to confirm whether the vaccines are truly being sold at cost .
And if vaccine immunity is only temporary and endemic coronavirus strains require regular shots for years , the companies will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , critics say .
Under its deal with AstraZeneca , Oxford will receive no royalties during the pandemic but could make millions after it ends through a web of patents including those held by Vaccitech , a for-profit spinoff .
Vaccitech ’ s ownership includes a 50 % stake held directly or indirectly by Oxford and 5.25 % each owned by Hill and Jenner ’ s other top vaccine scientist , Sarah Gilbert , U.K. regulatory filings show .
The potential for vaccine profits at Vaccitech was first reported by The Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only decades of industry research could have made it even possible to produce a coronavirus vaccine at the present speed .
“ The federal government can not research , develop and manufacture vaccines and other new treatments on its own , ” said Andrew Powaleny , a spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America , a lobbying group .
Large and early government investment “ is a well-accepted approach to addressing public health crises , ” he said .
Many argue that a health crisis is not the time to worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates that won ’ t deliver .
Getting a good vaccine as quickly as possible requires spreading bets , they say .
“ Spending some extra billions on vaccines is the right choice when human life is at stake and trillions in economic loss is at risk , ” said Edward Scolnick , a top scientist at the Broad Institute and former head of research for Merck .
He owns no stock in Merck or other pharma companies , he said .
Oxford backed off from its open-license pledge after the Gates Foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get its vaccine to market .
“ We went to Oxford and said , Hey , you ’ re doing brilliant work , ” Bill Gates told reporters on June 3 , a transcript shows .
“ But … you really need to team up.
” The comments were first reported by Bloomberg .
AstraZeneca , one of the U.K. ’ s two major pharma companies , may have demanded an exclusive license in return for doing a deal , said Ken Shadlen , a professor at the London School of Economics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported by comments from CEO Soriot .
“ I think IP [ intellectual property , or exclusive patents ] is a fundamental part of our industry and if you don ’ t protect IP , then essentially there is no incentive for anybody to innovate , ” Soriot told the newspaper The Telegraph in May .
Some see the Gates Foundation , a heavy funder of Gavi , CEPI and many other vaccine projects , as supporting traditional patent rights for pharma companies .
“ [ Bill ] Gates has staked out this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Love said .
“ He has an ideological belief that the intellectual property system is a wonderful mechanism that is necessary for innovation and prosperity.
” The Gates Foundation requires all its grantees to commit to making products “ widely available at an affordable price , ” a spokesperson said .
Oxford officials , including Hill and Gilbert , did not respond to requests for comment .
AstraZeneca , for its part , would set a “ reasonable ” post-pandemic price and is “ committed to ensure equitable access , globally ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The company has signed deals with CEPI , Gavi and the Serum Institute of India to bring more than a billion doses to low- and middle-income countries , he said .
If nothing else , governments and vaccine makers should be open about their relationships , including making contracts public , said Duncan Matthews , a patent law professor at the Queen Mary University of London .
“ We simply don ’ t know what ’ s in these deals , ” he said .
“ The biopharma industry is applying old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is unprecedented .
”

Companies are receiving federal grants without guaranteeing they will make the vaccine affordable for all.
In a business driven by profit, vaccines have a problem. They’re not very profitable — at least not without government subsidies. Pharma companies favor expensive medicines that must be taken repeatedly and generate revenue for years or decades. Vaccines are often given only once or twice. In many parts of the world, established vaccines cost a few dollars per dose or less.
Last year only four companies were making vaccines for the U.S. market, down from more than 20 in the 1970s. As recently as Feb. 11, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert, complained that no major drug company had committed to “step up” to make a coronavirus vaccine, calling the situation “very difficult and frustrating.”
Oxford University surprised and pleased advocates of overhauling the vaccine business in April by promising to donate the rights to its promising coronavirus vaccine to any drugmaker.
The idea was to provide medicines preventing or treating COVID-19 at a low cost or free of charge, the British university said. That made sense to people seeking change. The coronavirus was raging. Many agreed that traditional vaccine development, characterized by long lead times, manufacturing monopolies and weak investment, was broken.
“We actually thought they were going to do that,” James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology, said of Oxford’s pledge. “Why wouldn’t people agree to let everyone have access to the best vaccines possible?”
A few weeks later, Oxford—urged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—reversed course. It signed an exclusive vaccine deal with AstraZeneca that gave the pharmaceutical giant sole rights and no guarantee of low prices—with the less-publicized potential for Oxford to eventually make millions from the deal and win plenty of prestige.
Other companies working on coronavirus vaccines have followed the same line, collecting billions in government grants, hoarding patents, revealing as little as possible about their deals—and planning to charge up to $37 a dose for potentially hundreds of millions of shots.
Even as governments shower money on an industry that has not made vaccines a priority in the past, critics say, failure to alter the basic model means drug industry executives and their shareholders will get rich with no assurance that future vaccines will be inexpensively available to all.
“If there were ever an opportunity” to change the economics of vaccine development, “this would have been it,” said Ameet Sarpatwari, an epidemiologist and lawyer at Harvard Medical School who studies drug-pricing regulation. Instead, “it is business as usual, where the manufacturers are getting exclusive rights and we are hoping on the basis of public sentiment that they will price their products responsibly.”
In the United States and other developed nations, the solution to drug-company reluctance was to shower them with billions of dollars in public funds to persuade them to help. The Trump administration has announced deals worth more than $10 billion with seven companies to try to turn basic research—often funded by the government—into effective, widely distributed vaccines—but with no guarantee they would be widely affordable or available.
That approach has driven up stock prices in the past four months and enriched drug executives betting with somebody else’s money.
AstraZeneca stock and options owned by CEO Pascal Soriot have increased by nearly $15 million in value since early April, according to calculations by KHN based on company disclosures. The stock hit an all-time high in July. The stock market value of Novavax, a biotech that never recorded a profit in more than two decades, soared tenfold to $10 billion after a nonprofit and the Trump administration agreed to give it $1.6 billion to make a vaccine.
Companies “say we have to charge high prices because we are taking a risk,” said Mohga Kamal-Yanni, an independent consultant on global health based in the United Kingdom. “Actually, the public is taking the risk. The public is paying for the cost of research and development and probably the cost of manufacturing as well.”
Moderna, another company working on a vaccine candidate, received nearly $1 billion from the U.S. government to pay essentially all costs to research the product and get it approved by regulators. It’s using a vaccine designed in large part by the National Institutes of Health and academic scientists using federal grants.
If the vaccine works, the company gets an additional $1.5 billion to cover 100 million doses, a deal that U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat, likened to giving taxpayers “the privilege of purchasing that same vaccine that we already paid for.”
That deal comes to $15 a dose. Moderna told Wall Street analysts it might charge as much as $37 a dose for smaller-volume contracts.
“This is greedy, and the taxpayers who have funded all of this should have expected better negotiation on the part of the U.S. government,” said Margaret Liu, a globally respected vaccine scientist who once worked for Merck and is now chairperson of the International Society for Vaccines.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department “conducted extensive market research and price analysis” to ensure prices are fair, said a senior HHS official who asked for anonymity. “We are prohibited from disclosing price discussions and details.”
Even if Moderna distributed a successful vaccine at a loss to make it widely available, it would reap enormous benefits because government support would have helped validate its technology for future products, Liu said. Moderna did not respond to requests for comment.
Nonprofits such as Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders have been pressuring drug companies to change for years. Exclusive patents and high prices that sometimes make lifesaving medicines unaffordable in rich countries often render them completely unavailable in the poor world, they argue.
One workaround has been enormous private and government subsidies, including from the U.K., the United States and the Gates Foundation, to promote developing-nation vaccines through the Geneva nonprofit Gavi, formerly known as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization.
The Gates Foundation helped launch another non-governmental organization, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, in 2017. CEPI was created to fight something exactly like the coronavirus: potential infectious threats ignored or slighted by pharmaceutical companies.
CEPI’s early principles of “equitable access” drew praise from reformers. The group asked for public data disclosure from drug-company grantees, “transparent” accounting to show true vaccine cost and the right to step in and take over a vaccine project if the developer failed to deliver.
The pharma industry immediately objected. Even though they were bankrolled by public money, drug companies were “concerned about the precedent that could be set if they allowed an outside entity, in this case CEPI, to set [the] price of a product unilaterally,” CEPI reported in February. The nonprofit backed down, removing most references to prices in a new policy that Doctors Without Borders called “an alarming step backwards.”
The original policy was intended to be “interim,” and CEPI’s “commitment to equitable access as a principle is the same,” said spokesperson Rachel Grant.
Some thought the worst infectious disease crisis in a century, along with the enormous public investments, would change industry behavior.
Governments could have demanded transparency and low prices. They could have offered developers cash prizes for vaccines that would have incentivized science but let the public retain the marketing rights, said Love, of Knowledge Ecology International.
Agreement by researchers to publish the virus genome in January set the stage for global scientific cooperation, many believed.
“The full sequence was shared with the world without any strings attached,” said Manuel Martin, a U.K.-based adviser to Doctors Without Borders on access to medical innovations.
The World Health Organization set up a “COVID-19 Technology Access Pool” to promote the sharing of patents and other knowledge. Oxford stepped forward and said it would offer nonexclusive, royalty-free licenses for its vaccine, meaning multiple parties could sell it at a low cost.
“I personally don’t believe that in a time of pandemic there should be exclusive licenses,” Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, which is developing the vaccine, told The New York Times in April.
Instead, little has changed. No vaccine maker has offered open licenses, although NIH is sharing key technology it developed with multiple vaccine companies. Governments are signing lucrative deals with manufacturers to ensure vaccines for their own populations. WHO has made no announcements about contributions to its COVID-19 shared technology pool since it launched in May, patent experts said. WHO officials did not respond to a reporter’s queries.
After Oxford announced the exclusive AstraZeneca deal, the company said it would sell vaccines at no profit—but only during the pandemic. Johnson & Johnson’s pledge to earn no vaccine profit is similarly limited.
With financial information kept confidential, no one will be able to confirm whether the vaccines are truly being sold at cost. And if vaccine immunity is only temporary and endemic coronavirus strains require regular shots for years, the companies will make plenty of money down the road, critics say.
Under its deal with AstraZeneca, Oxford will receive no royalties during the pandemic but could make millions after it ends through a web of patents including those held by Vaccitech, a for-profit spinoff. Vaccitech’s ownership includes a 50% stake held directly or indirectly by Oxford and 5.25% each owned by Hill and Jenner’s other top vaccine scientist, Sarah Gilbert, U.K. regulatory filings show.
The potential for vaccine profits at Vaccitech was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
Pharma company officials say that only decades of industry research could have made it even possible to produce a coronavirus vaccine at the present speed.
“The federal government cannot research, develop and manufacture vaccines and other new treatments on its own,” said Andrew Powaleny, a spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a lobbying group. Large and early government investment “is a well-accepted approach to addressing public health crises,” he said.
Many argue that a health crisis is not the time to worry about overpaying for vaccines or backing some candidates that won’t deliver. Getting a good vaccine as quickly as possible requires spreading bets, they say.
“Spending some extra billions on vaccines is the right choice when human life is at stake and trillions in economic loss is at risk,” said Edward Scolnick, a top scientist at the Broad Institute and former head of research for Merck. He owns no stock in Merck or other pharma companies, he said.
Oxford backed off from its open-license pledge after the Gates Foundation urged it to find a big-company partner to get its vaccine to market.
“We went to Oxford and said, Hey, you’re doing brilliant work,” Bill Gates told reporters on June 3, a transcript shows. “But … you really need to team up.” The comments were first reported by Bloomberg.
AstraZeneca, one of the U.K.’s two major pharma companies, may have demanded an exclusive license in return for doing a deal, said Ken Shadlen, a professor at the London School of Economics and an authority on pharma patents—a theory supported by comments from CEO Soriot.
“I think IP [intellectual property, or exclusive patents] is a fundamental part of our industry and if you don’t protect IP, then essentially there is no incentive for anybody to innovate,” Soriot told the newspaper The Telegraph in May.
Some see the Gates Foundation, a heavy funder of Gavi, CEPI and many other vaccine projects, as supporting traditional patent rights for pharma companies.
“[Bill] Gates has staked out this outsized role in the vaccine world,” Love said. “He has an ideological belief that the intellectual property system is a wonderful mechanism that is necessary for innovation and prosperity.”
The Gates Foundation requires all its grantees to commit to making products “widely available at an affordable price,” a spokesperson said.
Oxford officials, including Hill and Gilbert, did not respond to requests for comment. AstraZeneca, for its part, would set a “reasonable” post-pandemic price and is “committed to ensure equitable access, globally” in the meantime, a spokesperson said. The company has signed deals with CEPI, Gavi and the Serum Institute of India to bring more than a billion doses to low- and middle-income countries, he said.
If nothing else, governments and vaccine makers should be open about their relationships, including making contracts public, said Duncan Matthews, a patent law professor at the Queen Mary University of London.
“We simply don’t know what’s in these deals,” he said. “The biopharma industry is applying old rules of commercial confidentiality in a situation that is unprecedented.”
Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.