USA's hypersonic weapons program suffered a setback as a booster rocket carrying a hypersonic weapon failed during the test. US was testing its hypersonic weapons just days after a similar test by China.

USA's test The test was intended to validate aspects of one of the Pentagon's hypersonic glide vehicles in development, two of the people said.

Hypersonic glide vehicles are launched from a rocket in the upper atmosphere before gliding to a target at speeds of more than five times the speed of sound, or about 3,853 miles (6,200 kilometers) per hour.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boyfriend-wanted-in-murder-of-us-blogger-gabby-petito-found-dead-422920">Boyfriend wanted in murder of US blogger Gabby Petito found dead</a>

The United States and its global rivals have quickened their pace to build hypersonic weapons - the next generation of arms that rob adversaries of reaction time and traditional defeat mechanisms.

US President Joe Biden has already expressed concern over Chinese hypersonic missiles.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/no-compromise-on-sovereignty-act-with-caution-over-taiwan-china-warns-us-422916">'No compromise on sovereignty, act with caution over Taiwan': China warns US</a>

Glide bodies are different from their air-breathing hypersonic weapon cousins which use scramjet engine technology and the vehicle's high speed to forcibly compress incoming air before combustion to enable sustained flight at hypersonic speeds. An air-breathing hypersonic weapon was successfully tested in September.

Companies such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies are working to develop the hypersonic weapon capability for the United States.

(With inputs from agencies)

USA's hypersonic weapons program suffered a setback as a booster rocket carrying a hypersonic weapon failed during the test. US was testing its hypersonic weapons just days after a similar test by China.

USA's hypersonic weapons program suffered a setback as a booster rocket carrying a hypersonic weapon failed during the test. US was testing its hypersonic weapons just days after a similar test by China. USA's test The test was intended to validate aspects of one of the Pentagon's hypersonic glide vehicles in development, two of the people said. Hypersonic glide vehicles are launched from a rocket in the upper atmosphere before gliding to a target at speeds of more than five times the speed of sound, or about 3,853 miles (6,200 kilometers) per hour. Also Read | Boyfriend wanted in murder of US blogger Gabby Petito found dead The United States and its global rivals have quickened their pace to build hypersonic weapons - the next generation of arms that rob adversaries of reaction time and traditional defeat mechanisms. US President Joe Biden has already expressed concern over Chinese hypersonic missiles. Also Read | 'No compromise on sovereignty, act with caution over Taiwan': China warns US Glide bodies are different from their air-breathing hypersonic weapon cousins which use scramjet engine technology and the vehicle's high speed to forcibly compress incoming air before combustion to enable sustained flight at hypersonic speeds. An air-breathing hypersonic weapon was successfully tested in September. Companies such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies are working to develop the hypersonic weapon capability for the United States. (With inputs from agencies)

US hypersonic weapons test suffers setback due to rocket failure

The quickening pace of Democratic retirements in the House may be the clearest indication yet that the party’s hopes of maintaining its narrow majority are fading amid President Joe Biden’s sagging approval ratings, ongoing legislative struggles and the prospect of redrawn congressional districts that will put some seats out of reach.

In recent days, Reps. John Yarmuth, D-Ky.; David E. Price, D-N.C.; and Mike Doyle, D-Pa., have announced they will not seek reelection. In all, a dozen House Democrats have said they will retire or seek other offices next year, including powerful lawmakers like Yarmuth, chair of the Budget Committee, and members from the most politically competitive districts, such as Reps. Ron Kind, D-Wis., and Ann Kirkpatrick D-Ariz.

In interviews, the three representatives who most recently announced their retirement said personal issues were paramount in their decisions; they have served 72 years in the House between them. But they also cited three political factors: redistricting before the 2022 elections, Donald Trump’s continued power over Republicans and the rising balkanization of the Democratic Party that they said had made governance increasingly difficult and frustrating.

None of the three expressed concern about any particular bloc in their fractious party, which includes a growing progressive wing, an ardent group of moderates and the pro-business “New Democrats.” Rather, they said they were worried that none of the groups was willing to compromise, leaving two vital pieces of Biden’s agenda — a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill and an ambitious social policy and climate change measure — in limbo.

“That’s the danger I see for our party — these absolute positions emerging,” Doyle said. “It used to be you fought those fights in caucus, but when the caucus made a majority opinion, you moved forward.”

Price, a former political science professor at Duke University, agreed.

“I have a concern that we will have the ability to pull ourselves together, and not fracture among the caucuses the way the Republicans have,” he said.

Democrats face an uphill battle to retain control of Congress. They cannot afford to lose a single seat in the Senate, but they do not face gerrymandered maps there, and vulnerable Republican seats in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Ohio make Democratic gains possible.

In the House, Democrats can afford to lose only three or four seats. The party holding the White House almost always loses seats in midterm elections, and with Biden’s approval rating well under 50%, the historical headwinds look strong. While 10 Republicans have said they will not seek reelection, the GOP sees the recent retirement announcements of prominent and long-serving Democrats as an acknowledgment of defeat.

“These Democrats spent decades accumulating power and seniority in Congress. They wouldn’t give up that power if they felt Democrats were going to hold the majority,” said Mike Berg, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Redistricting will make the Democratic road steeper. David Wasserman, who tracks new district maps for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said so far, Democratic fears look somewhat overblown; Republican state legislatures have already gerrymandered their maps so severely that they can only go so much further. Republicans appear more intent on shoring up their vulnerable incumbents than destroying Democratic seats, he said.

In contrast, Democratic legislatures, especially in New York and Illinois, may actually produce more partisan maps than their GOP brethren. In all, Wasserman said, Republicans could net up to five seats from new district lines, possibly enough to win the majority but far fewer than the 10-15 seats some Democrats fear.

Nonetheless, the new maps are pushing Democrats toward retirement. Doyle said he expects his district, which was once dominated by the city of Pittsburgh, to expand into more Trump-friendly counties to allow some of his Democratic voters to shore up the swing district now held by Rep. Conor Lamb, D-Pa., who is running for the state’s open Senate seat.

He could still win, Doyle said, but he would have a whole new set of constituents, staff to hire, offices to open and hands to shake. After 26 years in the House, retirement was logical.

Republicans toyed with breaking Yarmuth’s Louisville district into three Republican parts, but that idea is meeting resistance, even from the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Price also did not personally see a threat, since the Republican Legislature redrawing North Carolina’s map will likely dump more Democratic voters into his district straddling the Research Triangle of Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill to make surrounding districts more Republican.

But as those maps become more partisan, the prospect of polarization grows, Price said. Doyle’s retirement opened the door for a considerably more liberal Democrat, Summer Lee, to jump into the race Tuesday, with the backing of Justice Democrats, which has pushed the Democratic Party to the left. An even more Democratic district in the Research Triangle could elect a Democrat to the left of Price.

As for the right, Price said, the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6 “has scarred the House and raised serious questions that I never thought would be raised, about the future of the rule of law, the acceptance of election results, the peaceful transfer of power and the very future of democracy.”

With far-right Republicans such as Reps. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., already calling for Biden’s impeachment, Yarmuth said, “the prospect of serving in the minority is horrifying.”

Still, Yarmuth reserved some of his harshest words for newcomers in his own party. Older members who helped draft the Affordable Care Act; the Dodd-Frank banking regulations in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis; and even President Barack Obama’s climate change bill, although it ultimately failed in the Senate, knew how to compromise, he said.

“The people in the House who have been drawing all the lines are people who have not served in a governing majority,” he said. “They all have come since 2010.”

And all of the newly announced retirees warned their colleagues that failure to pass the infrastructure bill and social policy “reconciliation” measure would be politically disastrous for the Democrats.

“We’re not having trouble getting reconciliation done because of Republicans; it’s because of ourselves,” Doyle said. “While people say they don’t like to watch sausage made, they like to eat the sausage in the end.”

The quickening pace of Democratic retirements in the House may be the clearest indication yet that the party’s hopes of maintaining its narrow majority are fading amid President Joe Biden’s sagging approval ratings, ongoing legislative struggles and the prospect of redrawn congressional districts that will put some seats out of reach.

The quickening pace of Democratic retirements in the House may be the clearest indication yet that the party’s hopes of maintaining its narrow majority are fading amid President Joe Biden’s sagging approval ratings, ongoing legislative struggles and the prospect of redrawn congressional districts that will put some seats out of reach. In recent days, Reps. John Yarmuth, D-Ky.; David E. Price, D-N.C.; and Mike Doyle, D-Pa., have announced they will not seek reelection. In all, a dozen House Democrats have said they will retire or seek other offices next year, including powerful lawmakers like Yarmuth, chair of the Budget Committee, and members from the most politically competitive districts, such as Reps. Ron Kind, D-Wis., and Ann Kirkpatrick D-Ariz. In interviews, the three representatives who most recently announced their retirement said personal issues were paramount in their decisions; they have served 72 years in the House between them. But they also cited three political factors: redistricting before the 2022 elections, Donald Trump’s continued power over Republicans and the rising balkanization of the Democratic Party that they said had made governance increasingly difficult and frustrating. None of the three expressed concern about any particular bloc in their fractious party, which includes a growing progressive wing, an ardent group of moderates and the pro-business “New Democrats.” Rather, they said they were worried that none of the groups was willing to compromise, leaving two vital pieces of Biden’s agenda — a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill and an ambitious social policy and climate change measure — in limbo. “That’s the danger I see for our party — these absolute positions emerging,” Doyle said. “It used to be you fought those fights in caucus, but when the caucus made a majority opinion, you moved forward.” Price, a former political science professor at Duke University, agreed. “I have a concern that we will have the ability to pull ourselves together, and not fracture among the caucuses the way the Republicans have,” he said. Democrats face an uphill battle to retain control of Congress. They cannot afford to lose a single seat in the Senate, but they do not face gerrymandered maps there, and vulnerable Republican seats in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Ohio make Democratic gains possible. In the House, Democrats can afford to lose only three or four seats. The party holding the White House almost always loses seats in midterm elections, and with Biden’s approval rating well under 50%, the historical headwinds look strong. While 10 Republicans have said they will not seek reelection, the GOP sees the recent retirement announcements of prominent and long-serving Democrats as an acknowledgment of defeat. “These Democrats spent decades accumulating power and seniority in Congress. They wouldn’t give up that power if they felt Democrats were going to hold the majority,” said Mike Berg, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Redistricting will make the Democratic road steeper. David Wasserman, who tracks new district maps for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said so far, Democratic fears look somewhat overblown; Republican state legislatures have already gerrymandered their maps so severely that they can only go so much further. Republicans appear more intent on shoring up their vulnerable incumbents than destroying Democratic seats, he said. In contrast, Democratic legislatures, especially in New York and Illinois, may actually produce more partisan maps than their GOP brethren. In all, Wasserman said, Republicans could net up to five seats from new district lines, possibly enough to win the majority but far fewer than the 10-15 seats some Democrats fear. Nonetheless, the new maps are pushing Democrats toward retirement. Doyle said he expects his district, which was once dominated by the city of Pittsburgh, to expand into more Trump-friendly counties to allow some of his Democratic voters to shore up the swing district now held by Rep. Conor Lamb, D-Pa., who is running for the state’s open Senate seat. He could still win, Doyle said, but he would have a whole new set of constituents, staff to hire, offices to open and hands to shake. After 26 years in the House, retirement was logical. Republicans toyed with breaking Yarmuth’s Louisville district into three Republican parts, but that idea is meeting resistance, even from the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Price also did not personally see a threat, since the Republican Legislature redrawing North Carolina’s map will likely dump more Democratic voters into his district straddling the Research Triangle of Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill to make surrounding districts more Republican. But as those maps become more partisan, the prospect of polarization grows, Price said. Doyle’s retirement opened the door for a considerably more liberal Democrat, Summer Lee, to jump into the race Tuesday, with the backing of Justice Democrats, which has pushed the Democratic Party to the left. An even more Democratic district in the Research Triangle could elect a Democrat to the left of Price. As for the right, Price said, the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6 “has scarred the House and raised serious questions that I never thought would be raised, about the future of the rule of law, the acceptance of election results, the peaceful transfer of power and the very future of democracy.” With far-right Republicans such as Reps. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., already calling for Biden’s impeachment, Yarmuth said, “the prospect of serving in the minority is horrifying.” Still, Yarmuth reserved some of his harshest words for newcomers in his own party. Older members who helped draft the Affordable Care Act; the Dodd-Frank banking regulations in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis; and even President Barack Obama’s climate change bill, although it ultimately failed in the Senate, knew how to compromise, he said. “The people in the House who have been drawing all the lines are people who have not served in a governing majority,” he said. “They all have come since 2010.” And all of the newly announced retirees warned their colleagues that failure to pass the infrastructure bill and social policy “reconciliation” measure would be politically disastrous for the Democrats. “We’re not having trouble getting reconciliation done because of Republicans; it’s because of ourselves,” Doyle said. “While people say they don’t like to watch sausage made, they like to eat the sausage in the end.”

House Democratic retirements pile up as party fears losing majority

When a powerful Democratic Senate chairman assembled his Special Committee on Aging to confront what he called a “crisis of affordability” for prescription drugs, he proposed a novel solution: allow the government to negotiate better deals for critical medications.

The year was 1989, and the idea from that chairman, former Sen. David Pryor of Arkansas, touched off a drive for government drug-price negotiations that has been embraced by two generations of Democrats and one Republican president, Donald Trump — but now appears at risk of being left out of a sprawling domestic policy bill taking shape in Congress.

Senior Democrats insist that they have not given up the push to grant Medicare broad powers to negotiate lower drug prices as part of a once-ambitious climate change and social safety net bill that is slowly shrinking in scope. They know that the loss of the provision, promoted by President Joe Biden on the campaign trail and in the White House, could be a particularly embarrassing defeat for the package, since it has been central to Democratic congressional campaigns for nearly three decades.

“Senate Democrats understand that after all the pledges, you’ve got to deliver,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the chairman of the Finance Committee.

“It’s not dead,” declared Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

But with at least three House Democrats opposing the toughest version of the measure, and at least one Senate Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, against it, government negotiating power appears almost certain to be curtailed, if not jettisoned. The loss would be akin to Republicans’ failure under Trump to repeal the Affordable Care Act, after solemn pledges for eight years to dismantle the health law “root and branch.”

And after so many campaign-trail promises, Democrats could be left next year with a lot of explaining to do.

“It would mean that the pharmaceutical industry, which has 1,500 paid lobbyists, the pharmaceutical industry, which made $50 billion in profits last year, the pharmaceutical industry, which pays its executives huge compensation packages, and which is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat this legislation, will have won,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the Budget Committee chairman, said Wednesday. “And I intend to not allow that to happen.”

It is not clear how Sanders can pull that off. The length of the fight speaks to the durability and popularity of the issue, but also the power of the pharmaceutical industry.

Pryor teed it up in the late 1980s, hoping to muscle through lower prices for Medicaid, with an eye on the bigger prize, Medicare. President Bill Clinton included government price negotiations in his universal health care plan in 1993, and throughout the 1990s, as Democrats pressed to add a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, government negotiations were central to holding the cost down.

Then in 2003, a Republican Congress and president, George W. Bush, secured passage of that drug benefit — but with an explicit prohibition on the government negotiating the price of medicines older Americans would purchase.

Repealing that so-called noninterference provision has been a centerpiece of Democratic campaigns ever since. Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a former head of House Democrats’ campaign arm, recalled that “Medicare shall negotiate drug prices” was one of the six planks in the “Six for ’06” platform that helped the Democrats win control of the House in 2006.

It has passed the House numerous times, including in 2019 with yes votes from the three House members now opposing it — Reps. Kathleen Rice of New York, Scott Peters of California and Kurt Schrader of Oregon — only to die in the Senate. Even Trump adopted the effort in his 2016 campaign, only to see it go nowhere.

That futility is why Schrader said he opposed it: “Why do the same thing again and again and expect to have a different result?” he asked.

To proponents, defeat after defeat speaks solely to the power of the pharmaceutical industry and its attendant lobbyists.

But opponents say it reflects the complexity of the issue. Once lawmakers realize they could actually secure government price negotiations, they see how problematic that could be.

“If anyone thinks this is the easy political route for me, that’s just laughable,” said Peters, who has endured scorn and pressure from his Democratic colleagues but whose San Diego district includes almost 1,000 biotechnology companies and 68,000 jobs directly tied to pharmaceutical work.

Schrader and Peters said the House version of prescription drug price controls, tucked into the broader social policy legislation, would stifle innovation in one of the country’s most profitable global industries.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, also maintains that government negotiations would severely limit the types of prescription drugs that would be available to Medicare beneficiaries as companies withdraw their products from the program. With the goodwill the industry has accrued with its coronavirus vaccines and treatments, drug companies have pressed their case with key lawmakers, and roped in the larger business community.

American Action Network, a conservative group with business money, unveiled a new set of ads Wednesday targeting vulnerable Democrats such as Rep. Carolyn Bourdeaux of Georgia and decrying “another socialist health care plan to control what medicines you can get.”

“We are taking on the greed and the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry — I know their power, believe me, I know their power,” Sanders said. “But this is a fight we’ve got to win.”

Wyden insisted that any legislative effort to tackle rising drug costs must include government negotiating power, but alternatives are emerging.

Some simpler solutions would change the formula of the existing Medicare prescription drug benefit to limit out-of-pocket costs, especially in the event of a catastrophic health event.

Wyden is also pressing to enact legislation he drafted with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that would force drugmakers to offer rebates to consumers on products whose prices rise faster than inflation. Grassley said he still supports the measure, as does Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., a traditional ally of the pharmaceutical industry in his state.

Schrader and Peters said negotiations were progressing around their proposal, which would grant the government power to negotiate prices under Medicare Part B, which covers outpatient services and some of the most costly medications, once outpatient drugs like chemotherapy have outlived their patent exclusivity.

Their bill would also force rebates for drug prices rising faster than inflation, and limit out-of-pocket medication expenses for older Americans. That is projected to save the government $300 billion over 10 years, about half what the broader measure would save.

“Frankly, based on discussions we’ve had with the White House, senators and other members in our party, this could get done,” Schrader said. “That’d be huge.”

Ultimately, if any significant price controls survive, it will be the logic of the policy overcoming the power over the lobby, said Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., whose district is being hit with pharmaceutical industry advertising. Kind, an influential centrist, said he has been speaking with like-minded Democrats, trying to buck them up against the onslaught.

“Obviously, there’s some advertising,” he said. “But boy, public sentiment is overwhelming. They just don’t understand why the pharmaceutical industry is the only private industry the federal government’s refused to even discuss prices with.”

When a powerful Democratic Senate chairman assembled his Special Committee on Aging to confront what he called a “crisis of affordability” for prescription drugs, he proposed a novel solution: allow the government to negotiate better deals for critical medications.

When a powerful Democratic Senate chairman assembled his Special Committee on Aging to confront what he called a “crisis of affordability” for prescription drugs, he proposed a novel solution: allow the government to negotiate better deals for critical medications. The year was 1989, and the idea from that chairman, former Sen. David Pryor of Arkansas, touched off a drive for government drug-price negotiations that has been embraced by two generations of Democrats and one Republican president, Donald Trump — but now appears at risk of being left out of a sprawling domestic policy bill taking shape in Congress. Senior Democrats insist that they have not given up the push to grant Medicare broad powers to negotiate lower drug prices as part of a once-ambitious climate change and social safety net bill that is slowly shrinking in scope. They know that the loss of the provision, promoted by President Joe Biden on the campaign trail and in the White House, could be a particularly embarrassing defeat for the package, since it has been central to Democratic congressional campaigns for nearly three decades. “Senate Democrats understand that after all the pledges, you’ve got to deliver,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the chairman of the Finance Committee. “It’s not dead,” declared Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. But with at least three House Democrats opposing the toughest version of the measure, and at least one Senate Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, against it, government negotiating power appears almost certain to be curtailed, if not jettisoned. The loss would be akin to Republicans’ failure under Trump to repeal the Affordable Care Act, after solemn pledges for eight years to dismantle the health law “root and branch.” And after so many campaign-trail promises, Democrats could be left next year with a lot of explaining to do. “It would mean that the pharmaceutical industry, which has 1,500 paid lobbyists, the pharmaceutical industry, which made $50 billion in profits last year, the pharmaceutical industry, which pays its executives huge compensation packages, and which is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat this legislation, will have won,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the Budget Committee chairman, said Wednesday. “And I intend to not allow that to happen.” It is not clear how Sanders can pull that off. The length of the fight speaks to the durability and popularity of the issue, but also the power of the pharmaceutical industry. Pryor teed it up in the late 1980s, hoping to muscle through lower prices for Medicaid, with an eye on the bigger prize, Medicare. President Bill Clinton included government price negotiations in his universal health care plan in 1993, and throughout the 1990s, as Democrats pressed to add a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, government negotiations were central to holding the cost down. Then in 2003, a Republican Congress and president, George W. Bush, secured passage of that drug benefit — but with an explicit prohibition on the government negotiating the price of medicines older Americans would purchase. Repealing that so-called noninterference provision has been a centerpiece of Democratic campaigns ever since. Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a former head of House Democrats’ campaign arm, recalled that “Medicare shall negotiate drug prices” was one of the six planks in the “Six for ’06” platform that helped the Democrats win control of the House in 2006. It has passed the House numerous times, including in 2019 with yes votes from the three House members now opposing it — Reps. Kathleen Rice of New York, Scott Peters of California and Kurt Schrader of Oregon — only to die in the Senate. Even Trump adopted the effort in his 2016 campaign, only to see it go nowhere. That futility is why Schrader said he opposed it: “Why do the same thing again and again and expect to have a different result?” he asked. To proponents, defeat after defeat speaks solely to the power of the pharmaceutical industry and its attendant lobbyists. But opponents say it reflects the complexity of the issue. Once lawmakers realize they could actually secure government price negotiations, they see how problematic that could be. “If anyone thinks this is the easy political route for me, that’s just laughable,” said Peters, who has endured scorn and pressure from his Democratic colleagues but whose San Diego district includes almost 1,000 biotechnology companies and 68,000 jobs directly tied to pharmaceutical work. Schrader and Peters said the House version of prescription drug price controls, tucked into the broader social policy legislation, would stifle innovation in one of the country’s most profitable global industries. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, also maintains that government negotiations would severely limit the types of prescription drugs that would be available to Medicare beneficiaries as companies withdraw their products from the program. With the goodwill the industry has accrued with its coronavirus vaccines and treatments, drug companies have pressed their case with key lawmakers, and roped in the larger business community. American Action Network, a conservative group with business money, unveiled a new set of ads Wednesday targeting vulnerable Democrats such as Rep. Carolyn Bourdeaux of Georgia and decrying “another socialist health care plan to control what medicines you can get.” “We are taking on the greed and the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry — I know their power, believe me, I know their power,” Sanders said. “But this is a fight we’ve got to win.” Wyden insisted that any legislative effort to tackle rising drug costs must include government negotiating power, but alternatives are emerging. Some simpler solutions would change the formula of the existing Medicare prescription drug benefit to limit out-of-pocket costs, especially in the event of a catastrophic health event. Wyden is also pressing to enact legislation he drafted with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that would force drugmakers to offer rebates to consumers on products whose prices rise faster than inflation. Grassley said he still supports the measure, as does Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., a traditional ally of the pharmaceutical industry in his state. Schrader and Peters said negotiations were progressing around their proposal, which would grant the government power to negotiate prices under Medicare Part B, which covers outpatient services and some of the most costly medications, once outpatient drugs like chemotherapy have outlived their patent exclusivity. Their bill would also force rebates for drug prices rising faster than inflation, and limit out-of-pocket medication expenses for older Americans. That is projected to save the government $300 billion over 10 years, about half what the broader measure would save. “Frankly, based on discussions we’ve had with the White House, senators and other members in our party, this could get done,” Schrader said. “That’d be huge.” Ultimately, if any significant price controls survive, it will be the logic of the policy overcoming the power over the lobby, said Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., whose district is being hit with pharmaceutical industry advertising. Kind, an influential centrist, said he has been speaking with like-minded Democrats, trying to buck them up against the onslaught. “Obviously, there’s some advertising,” he said. “But boy, public sentiment is overwhelming. They just don’t understand why the pharmaceutical industry is the only private industry the federal government’s refused to even discuss prices with.”

A 30-Year campaign to control drug prices faces yet another failure

“It’s the economy, stupid.” That is the message of a just-published survey of Iranian public opinion.

However, the substance of the message differs for newly elected hardline Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and the Biden administration as Mr. Raisi toughens his negotiating position and the United States grapples with alternative ways of curbing the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme should the parties fail to agree on terms for the revival of the 2015 international agreement.

Iranians surveyed last month by Iran Poll and the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies were telling Mr. Raisi that they are looking to him to alleviate Iran’s economic and other problems and have little hope that a revived nuclear agreement will make the difference, given lack of trust in US and European compliance with any agreement reached.

The Iranians polled seemed in majority to endorse some form of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s notion of a “resistance economy” as a way of blunting the impact of the US sanctions imposed by former President Donald J. Trump after he walked away from the nuclear agreement in 2018. Some 65 per cent of the responders said they favoured a self-sufficient economy; 54.2 per cent expected the economy to at least improve somewhat in the next three years.

A large number expressed confidence that Mr. Raisi would significantly lower inflation and unemployment, increase Iran’s trade with other countries, control the pandemic and root out corruption.

Meanwhile, 63 per cent suggested that Iran’s economic situation would be the same, if not better, if there were no return to the agreement and the government continued to pursue a civil nuclear programme. The figure seemed at odds with the 80 per cent who said Iran’s economic situation would improve if Iran and the United States returned to the agreement and both fulfilled their obligations under the deal.

The divergence may be a function of the fact that the poll, unsurprisingly, indicated that Iranians (64.7 per cent) had little trust in the United States living up to its commitments even though they expected the Biden administration to return to the deal (57.9 per cent). As a result, 73.1 per cent of those surveyed said Iran should not make concessions given that world powers would not live up to commitments they make in return.

At the same time, 63 per cent blamed the troubled state of the economy on domestic mismanagement rather than US sanctions. Only 34.4 per cent believed that the sanctions were the main cause of their economic difficulty. Iranians pointing the finger at the government rather than external forces was also reflected in the 60.5 per cent of those polled blaming Iran’s water shortages on mismanagement and bad policies.

The poll suggested that by emphasising domestic mismanagement, Iranians were going to judge Mr. Raisi on his success or failure in countering the debilitating effect of the sanctions even though 77.5 per cent of those surveyed said that the sanctions had a negative or somewhat negative impact on the economy.

Implicitly, Iranians were holding former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responsible for the mismanagement given that Mr. Raisi only took office in August. Rated very favourable by 61.2 per cent of Iranians surveyed in 2015, Mr. Rouhani’s favorability dropped to 4.6 per cent in the most recent poll. By contrast, the favourable views of Mr. Raisi soared from 38.3 per cent in 2014 to 77 per cent last month. IranPoll and the Center have been conducting annual of surveys since 2014.

Mr. Raisi may have taken pleasure from that but more importantly, the poll implicitly suggested that he does not have much time to produce results before his significant public support starts to wane.

Of those polled, 66.7 per cent expected Mr. Raisi to improve Iran’s international standing, 55.7 per cent said he would be in a better position to negotiate with world powers, and 45.2 per cent predicted that he would enhance Iran’s security. Those expectations may have been to some degree validated in the public’s mind by last month’s acceptance of Iran’s application for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that groups China, Russia, India, Pakistan and several Central Asian states.

The survey results seemed to suggest that ordinary Iranians were framing their message to the United States differently from the assessment of prominent scholars and analysts. The divergence may well be one primarily of timing but nonetheless has implications for policymaking in Washington. The message of the respondents to the poll was one of immediate impact while analysts and scholars appear to be looking at the middle term.

Without referring to the poll, Vienna-based economist and strategic consultant Bijan Khajehpour argued this week, seemingly contrary to the poll, that “mismanagement and the Covid-19 pandemic have both contributed to Iran’s poor economic performance in recent years, but it remains that US sanctions…will be the key factor in determining Iran’s future prospects.”

Mr. Khajehpour went on to say that “high inflation, capital flight and the erosion of household purchasing power alongside mismanagement of resources and the deterioration of the country’s infrastructure have the potential to spark more protests and further undermine the already faltering legitimacy of the Islamic Republic in the eyes of the public.”

No doubt, the jury is out on how Iranians respond if and when Mr. Raisi fails to live up to their expectations. If the past is any indication, Iranians have repeatedly taken to the streets at often substantial risk to liberty and life to make their discontent with government performance evident as they did with the low turnout in this year’s election that brought Mr. Raisi to power.

The risk of renewed protests was reflected in the fact that responses to various questions regarding the electoral system, the limited number of presidential candidates (because many were barred from running), and the public health system showed that it was often a slim majority at best that expressed confidence in the system.

Add to that the fact that 68 per cent of respondents to the poll said that the objectives of past protests had been a demand that officials pay greater attention to people’s problems.

Yet, at the same time, they were telling the United States that its efforts to generate pressure on Iranian leaders to moderate their nuclear and regional policies by imposing harsh sanctions had for now backfired. Iranians were backing a tougher negotiating position by the Raisi government.

Ultimately that could be a double-edged sword for Mr. Raisi. He has to prove that he can be tough on the United States and simultaneously improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. Failure to do so could have in Mr. Khajehpour’s words “unpredictable consequences.”

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

“It’s the economy, stupid.” That is the message of a just-published survey of Iranian public opinion. However, the substance of the message differs for newly elected hardline Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and the Biden administration as Mr.

“It’s the economy, stupid.” That is the message of a just-published survey of Iranian public opinion. However, the substance of the message differs for newly elected hardline Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and the Biden administration as Mr. Raisi toughens his negotiating position and the United States grapples with alternative ways of curbing the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme should the parties fail to agree on terms for the revival of the 2015 international agreement. Iranians surveyed last month by Iran Poll and the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies were telling Mr. Raisi that they are looking to him to alleviate Iran’s economic and other problems and have little hope that a revived nuclear agreement will make the difference, given lack of trust in US and European compliance with any agreement reached. The Iranians polled seemed in majority to endorse some form of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s notion of a “resistance economy” as a way of blunting the impact of the US sanctions imposed by former President Donald J. Trump after he walked away from the nuclear agreement in 2018. Some 65 per cent of the responders said they favoured a self-sufficient economy; 54.2 per cent expected the economy to at least improve somewhat in the next three years. A large number expressed confidence that Mr. Raisi would significantly lower inflation and unemployment, increase Iran’s trade with other countries, control the pandemic and root out corruption. Meanwhile, 63 per cent suggested that Iran’s economic situation would be the same, if not better, if there were no return to the agreement and the government continued to pursue a civil nuclear programme. The figure seemed at odds with the 80 per cent who said Iran’s economic situation would improve if Iran and the United States returned to the agreement and both fulfilled their obligations under the deal. The divergence may be a function of the fact that the poll, unsurprisingly, indicated that Iranians (64.7 per cent) had little trust in the United States living up to its commitments even though they expected the Biden administration to return to the deal (57.9 per cent). As a result, 73.1 per cent of those surveyed said Iran should not make concessions given that world powers would not live up to commitments they make in return. At the same time, 63 per cent blamed the troubled state of the economy on domestic mismanagement rather than US sanctions. Only 34.4 per cent believed that the sanctions were the main cause of their economic difficulty. Iranians pointing the finger at the government rather than external forces was also reflected in the 60.5 per cent of those polled blaming Iran’s water shortages on mismanagement and bad policies. The poll suggested that by emphasising domestic mismanagement, Iranians were going to judge Mr. Raisi on his success or failure in countering the debilitating effect of the sanctions even though 77.5 per cent of those surveyed said that the sanctions had a negative or somewhat negative impact on the economy. Implicitly, Iranians were holding former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responsible for the mismanagement given that Mr. Raisi only took office in August. Rated very favourable by 61.2 per cent of Iranians surveyed in 2015, Mr. Rouhani’s favorability dropped to 4.6 per cent in the most recent poll. By contrast, the favourable views of Mr. Raisi soared from 38.3 per cent in 2014 to 77 per cent last month. IranPoll and the Center have been conducting annual of surveys since 2014. Mr. Raisi may have taken pleasure from that but more importantly, the poll implicitly suggested that he does not have much time to produce results before his significant public support starts to wane. Of those polled, 66.7 per cent expected Mr. Raisi to improve Iran’s international standing, 55.7 per cent said he would be in a better position to negotiate with world powers, and 45.2 per cent predicted that he would enhance Iran’s security. Those expectations may have been to some degree validated in the public’s mind by last month’s acceptance of Iran’s application for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that groups China, Russia, India, Pakistan and several Central Asian states. The survey results seemed to suggest that ordinary Iranians were framing their message to the United States differently from the assessment of prominent scholars and analysts. The divergence may well be one primarily of timing but nonetheless has implications for policymaking in Washington. The message of the respondents to the poll was one of immediate impact while analysts and scholars appear to be looking at the middle term. Without referring to the poll, Vienna-based economist and strategic consultant Bijan Khajehpour argued this week, seemingly contrary to the poll, that “mismanagement and the Covid-19 pandemic have both contributed to Iran’s poor economic performance in recent years, but it remains that US sanctions…will be the key factor in determining Iran’s future prospects.” Mr. Khajehpour went on to say that “high inflation, capital flight and the erosion of household purchasing power alongside mismanagement of resources and the deterioration of the country’s infrastructure have the potential to spark more protests and further undermine the already faltering legitimacy of the Islamic Republic in the eyes of the public.” No doubt, the jury is out on how Iranians respond if and when Mr. Raisi fails to live up to their expectations. If the past is any indication, Iranians have repeatedly taken to the streets at often substantial risk to liberty and life to make their discontent with government performance evident as they did with the low turnout in this year’s election that brought Mr. Raisi to power. The risk of renewed protests was reflected in the fact that responses to various questions regarding the electoral system, the limited number of presidential candidates (because many were barred from running), and the public health system showed that it was often a slim majority at best that expressed confidence in the system. Add to that the fact that 68 per cent of respondents to the poll said that the objectives of past protests had been a demand that officials pay greater attention to people’s problems. Yet, at the same time, they were telling the United States that its efforts to generate pressure on Iranian leaders to moderate their nuclear and regional policies by imposing harsh sanctions had for now backfired. Iranians were backing a tougher negotiating position by the Raisi government. Ultimately that could be a double-edged sword for Mr. Raisi. He has to prove that he can be tough on the United States and simultaneously improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. Failure to do so could have in Mr. Khajehpour’s words “unpredictable consequences.” (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | Iran poll contains different messages for Biden and Raisi

Russia said on Friday that a US naval destroyer attempted to violate Russian territorial waters as Russian-Chinese naval drills took place in the Sea of Japan. Russia claimed that one of its military vessels chased the US destroyer away. There was no immediate comment from the US.

The Russian defense ministry said the crew of a Russian anti-submarine vessel, the Admiral Tributs, had radioed a warning to the USS Chafee that it was "in an area closed to navigation due to exercises with artillery fire."

Russian defence ministry said in its statement that the US destroyer failed to change course and instead raised a flag to indicate that it was preparing to launch helicopter from its deck, &nbsp;meaning it was unable to change course and speed

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russian-hypersonic-nukes-capable-of-wiping-out-us-cities-on-alert-putin-420839">Russian hypersonic nukes capable of wiping out US cities 'on alert': Putin</a>

"Acting within the framework of the international rules of navigation, the Admiral Tributs set a course for ousting the intruder from Russian territorial waters," it said.

The Chafee eventually changed course when the two vessels were less than 60 meters apart, it said.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-contracts-needed-to-boost-europe-gas-supplies-russia-420419">New contracts needed to boost Europe gas supplies: Russia</a>

The ministry said that incident lasted for about 50 minutes and took place in Peter the Great Bay, which lies south of Vladivostok in the west of the Sea of Japan.

It was the second time in four months Russia has said it chased a NATO-member warship from its waters. In June, Russia accused a British destroyer, the Defender, of breaching its territorial waters in the Black Sea, and said it had forced the ship away with warning shots and dropped bombs in its path.

Britain rejected Moscow's account of the incident, which took place off Crimea, part of Ukraine which Russia annexed in 2014 in a move not recognized internationally. London said at the time its ship was operating lawfully in Ukrainian waters.

(With inputs from agencies)

Russia said on Friday that a US naval destroyer attempted to violate Russian territorial waters as Russian-Chinese naval drills took place in the Sea of Japan. Russia claimed that one of its military vessels chased the US destroyer away.

Russia said on Friday that a US naval destroyer attempted to violate Russian territorial waters as Russian-Chinese naval drills took place in the Sea of Japan. Russia claimed that one of its military vessels chased the US destroyer away. There was no immediate comment from the US. The Russian defense ministry said the crew of a Russian anti-submarine vessel, the Admiral Tributs, had radioed a warning to the USS Chafee that it was "in an area closed to navigation due to exercises with artillery fire." Russian defence ministry said in its statement that the US destroyer failed to change course and instead raised a flag to indicate that it was preparing to launch helicopter from its deck, meaning it was unable to change course and speed Also Read | Russian hypersonic nukes capable of wiping out US cities 'on alert': Putin "Acting within the framework of the international rules of navigation, the Admiral Tributs set a course for ousting the intruder from Russian territorial waters," it said. The Chafee eventually changed course when the two vessels were less than 60 meters apart, it said. Also Read | New contracts needed to boost Europe gas supplies: Russia The ministry said that incident lasted for about 50 minutes and took place in Peter the Great Bay, which lies south of Vladivostok in the west of the Sea of Japan. It was the second time in four months Russia has said it chased a NATO-member warship from its waters. In June, Russia accused a British destroyer, the Defender, of breaching its territorial waters in the Black Sea, and said it had forced the ship away with warning shots and dropped bombs in its path. Britain rejected Moscow's account of the incident, which took place off Crimea, part of Ukraine which Russia annexed in 2014 in a move not recognized internationally. London said at the time its ship was operating lawfully in Ukrainian waters. (With inputs from agencies)

Russia accuses US of trying to violate its territorial waters

Despite party control of Congress and the presidency, Democrats are still struggling to enact their agenda. The ballyhooed bipartisan infrastructure deal is stuck in the House, and the sweeping $3.5 trillion reconciliation package has been the source of bitter disputes among party members.

The Biden administration set out with hopes for big, bold change — “transformational” was the word in the winter and into spring. But in autumn, “disarray” is ubiquitous.

We are not surprised that one-party control has not enabled Democrats to swiftly or easily move their agenda. Our research shows that Parties with unified control in Washington routinely fail to enact many of their highest priorities. They are typically forced to accept significant compromises to pass any of their agenda items.

That has been true in every recent case when a party held unified control of government. In 2017, a Republican failure to reach intraparty consensus resulted in a striking collapse — punctuated by John McCain’s thumbs-down — of the party’s efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare. Later that year, Republican leaders had to scale back their visions for tax reform to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In 2010, significant disagreements within the Democratic Party undermined and ultimately dashed their plans for a cap-and-trade program to combat climate change. To get the Affordable Care Act across the finish line, many Democrats had to accept a bill that fell short of their aspirations — the failure to establish a public insurance option still stings many liberals.

Why do unified majorities in Washington struggle and often fail to enact their agendas? In our research, we tracked the successes and failures of majority parties in Congress on their policy goals from 1985 through 2018 (265 agenda items in total). The study covers the last several periods of unified party government in Washington — those that occurred during the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

We find that parties with unified control in Washington since the Clinton years have struggled for two reasons.

The filibuster explains some of the majority parties’ struggles. Senate rules require most legislation to obtain 60 votes to advance to passage. As a result, minority parties have a chance to either veto or reshape most legislation. Still, even though it’s a constant source of discussion and debate in today’s Washington, we find the filibuster was the cause of only one-third of failed attempts by majority parties to enact their priorities during unified government since 1993.

The second reason is less well appreciated but accounts for the other two-thirds — a large majority — of failures. Both parties have been, and remain, internally divided on many issues. Parties are often able to hide their disagreements by simply not taking up legislation on issues that evoke significant fissures. But when those issues reflect their campaign promises, majority parties will often forge ahead even in the absence of internal consensus on a plan.

Whether Democratic or Republican, the party with unified control in Washington in recent years has failed on one or more of its highest-priority agenda items because of insufficient unity within its own ranks. In 2017, Republicans failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act because of the opposition of three Senate Republicans (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mr. McCain). In 2009-10, Democrats failed to enact a cap-and-trade policy because of spats between coastal Democrats and those representing the interior of the country. In 2005, Republicans failed to reform Social Security despite President Bush making it his top domestic legislative priority because of a lack of consensus in the party about how to proceed. In Mr. Clinton’s first term, Democrats were never able to unify behind a single plan to enact comprehensive health care reform despite relatively large majorities in both chambers.

What Democrats are trying to do with their Build Back Better effort today is even more difficult than usual. Congress has rarely tried to pass more than one budget reconciliation bill across a two-year Congress. In March, Democrats used reconciliation to pass the American Rescue Plan on straight party-line votes; there’s no precedent for successfully enacting two such ambitious partisan reconciliation bills within a single year. To pass a second sweeping package with razor-thin majorities should be seen as a long shot. The fact that the party is furiously negotiating a pared-down version suggests how much importance it has attached to its success — for both electoral and policy reasons.

Parties campaign on ambitious policy proposals. But it’s much easier to agree to a campaign plank than to rally behind specific legislation. The devil is in the details. If Democrats somehow avoid large-scale agenda failure and pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping reconciliation bill, they will have done something rare — they will have outdone all the other recent episodes of single-party control of national government.

Despite party control of Congress and the presidency, Democrats are still struggling to enact their agenda. The ballyhooed bipartisan infrastructure deal is stuck in the House, and the sweeping $3.

Despite party control of Congress and the presidency, Democrats are still struggling to enact their agenda. The ballyhooed bipartisan infrastructure deal is stuck in the House, and the sweeping $3.5 trillion reconciliation package has been the source of bitter disputes among party members. The Biden administration set out with hopes for big, bold change — “transformational” was the word in the winter and into spring. But in autumn, “disarray” is ubiquitous. We are not surprised that one-party control has not enabled Democrats to swiftly or easily move their agenda. Our research shows that Parties with unified control in Washington routinely fail to enact many of their highest priorities. They are typically forced to accept significant compromises to pass any of their agenda items. That has been true in every recent case when a party held unified control of government. In 2017, a Republican failure to reach intraparty consensus resulted in a striking collapse — punctuated by John McCain’s thumbs-down — of the party’s efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare. Later that year, Republican leaders had to scale back their visions for tax reform to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In 2010, significant disagreements within the Democratic Party undermined and ultimately dashed their plans for a cap-and-trade program to combat climate change. To get the Affordable Care Act across the finish line, many Democrats had to accept a bill that fell short of their aspirations — the failure to establish a public insurance option still stings many liberals. Why do unified majorities in Washington struggle and often fail to enact their agendas? In our research, we tracked the successes and failures of majority parties in Congress on their policy goals from 1985 through 2018 (265 agenda items in total). The study covers the last several periods of unified party government in Washington — those that occurred during the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. We find that parties with unified control in Washington since the Clinton years have struggled for two reasons. The filibuster explains some of the majority parties’ struggles. Senate rules require most legislation to obtain 60 votes to advance to passage. As a result, minority parties have a chance to either veto or reshape most legislation. Still, even though it’s a constant source of discussion and debate in today’s Washington, we find the filibuster was the cause of only one-third of failed attempts by majority parties to enact their priorities during unified government since 1993. The second reason is less well appreciated but accounts for the other two-thirds — a large majority — of failures. Both parties have been, and remain, internally divided on many issues. Parties are often able to hide their disagreements by simply not taking up legislation on issues that evoke significant fissures. But when those issues reflect their campaign promises, majority parties will often forge ahead even in the absence of internal consensus on a plan. Whether Democratic or Republican, the party with unified control in Washington in recent years has failed on one or more of its highest-priority agenda items because of insufficient unity within its own ranks. In 2017, Republicans failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act because of the opposition of three Senate Republicans (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mr. McCain). In 2009-10, Democrats failed to enact a cap-and-trade policy because of spats between coastal Democrats and those representing the interior of the country. In 2005, Republicans failed to reform Social Security despite President Bush making it his top domestic legislative priority because of a lack of consensus in the party about how to proceed. In Mr. Clinton’s first term, Democrats were never able to unify behind a single plan to enact comprehensive health care reform despite relatively large majorities in both chambers. What Democrats are trying to do with their Build Back Better effort today is even more difficult than usual. Congress has rarely tried to pass more than one budget reconciliation bill across a two-year Congress. In March, Democrats used reconciliation to pass the American Rescue Plan on straight party-line votes; there’s no precedent for successfully enacting two such ambitious partisan reconciliation bills within a single year. To pass a second sweeping package with razor-thin majorities should be seen as a long shot. The fact that the party is furiously negotiating a pared-down version suggests how much importance it has attached to its success — for both electoral and policy reasons. Parties campaign on ambitious policy proposals. But it’s much easier to agree to a campaign plank than to rally behind specific legislation. The devil is in the details. If Democrats somehow avoid large-scale agenda failure and pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping reconciliation bill, they will have done something rare — they will have outdone all the other recent episodes of single-party control of national government.

There’s a curse in Washington, and the party in Control can’t seem to shake it

On July 28, Diana Toebbe posted a Facebook message looking for a babysitter to take care of her children early on the coming Saturday morning for five to six hours.

Later the post, visible only to friends, was updated with the word “*FOUND*.” And on that Saturday, Toebbe accompanied her husband, Jonathan, to south-central Pennsylvania.

Unbeknown to Diana Toebbe, she and her husband were being watched by the FBI as they left their home in Annapolis, Maryland. And the bureau’s agents continued to watch in Pennsylvania as Jonathan Toebbe removed from his shorts pocket a 32-gigabyte memory card hidden in a sealed Band-Aid wrapper, which he then, according to court papers, placed in a container set up by an undercover FBI operative.

The Toebbes, accused by the U.S. government of trying to sell some of America’s most closely guarded submarine propulsion secrets to a foreign government, are scheduled to appear in federal court in West Virginia on Tuesday. They will face charges related to violating the Atomic Energy Act’s prohibition on sharing nuclear know-how.

For now, the big questions surrounding the couple — what country they are accused of trying to sell the nuclear secrets to and what motivated them to take the risk — remain unanswered.

Jonathan Toebbe was described by acquaintances as a diligent and organized graduate student in nuclear physics who was commissioned in the Navy as an officer and expert in submarine propulsion. He continued as a civilian in the Navy after finishing his military service, considered by some a plum assignment for the most talented nuclear physicists.

Diana Toebbe was a 10-year veteran of the Key School, a progressive private school in Annapolis, where she taught history and English. There, according to parents, she was prone to talking about her doctorate in anthropology from Emory University and her love of knitting. She was a respected adviser, both formally and informally, at the school.

“You could just tell she was insanely smart,” said Craig Martien, 20, a 2019 graduate of Key School who worked closely with Toebbe on the yearbook and an after-school anthropology club. “She was very friendly and down-to-earth, and I got along with her very well.”

When Martien went off to Williams College, he brought along a toy squid that Toebbe had knitted. Like other Key graduates, Martien described her as a strong feminist and very liberal.

She was taken aback by the election of Donald Trump in 2016, he said, and mentioned several times that she was considering moving to Australia.

“She said she couldn’t stand the current state of politics and actually had found some job opportunities over there,” he said.

On social media platforms, Diana Toebbe shared photos of her dogs, her children, meals cooking on the stove, a family vacation and selfies — ordinary scenes of an ordinary life, one far different from the amateur cloak-and-dagger act portrayed in the FBI affidavit.

Having made contact with the as-yet undisclosed other country about providing submarine secrets, the Toebbes were reluctant to expose themselves in an in-person meeting, according to the narrative laid out in court documents by the FBI. But their apparent desire for cryptocurrency payments led them to agree to the undercover operative’s demand they deposit information in a dead drop location — a decision that ultimately exposed their identity to the FBI.

Evidence in the court documents suggests the foreign country the Toebbes allegedly tried to sell the information to was an ally, or at least something of a partner, since it cooperated with the FBI as the sting operation unfolded. While some experts speculated France could have been the target, French officials said they were not involved in the incident.

The hearing Tuesday will be short. So far as the government knows, neither Jonathan nor Diana Toebbe has a lawyer. Prosecutors asked the court Monday to hold Jonathan Toebbe rather than granting him bail, saying he could face life in prison and was a flight threat. The magistrate judge could also set a hearing date for the couple’s continued detention.

Public records searches turned up no signs of financial distress that could provide a motivation for them to try to sell U.S. secrets.

Yet the FBI affidavit portrayed the couple as willing to take risks for the promise of payments in a cryptocurrency called Monero.

In February, FBI agents, posing as a representative of the foreign country, proposed an in-person meeting. The response, which was signed “Alice,” a common place-holder name in military cryptography, wrote that “face to face meetings are very risky for me, as I am sure you understand,” according to the affidavit. The writer then proposed passing information electronically in exchange for $100,000 in the cryptocurrency.

“Please remember I am risking my life for your benefit and I have taken the first step. Please help me trust you fully,” the note to the undercover FBI agents read.

The FBI agents then pressed for a neutral drop location. The response came a few days later: “I am concerned that using a dead drop location your friend prepares makes me very vulnerable,” the note from “Alice” said, according to the affidavit. “If other interested parties are observing the location, I will be unable to detect them. I am not a professional, and do not have a team supporting me.”

The note went on to propose that the writer would choose a drop location for the encrypted files. The FBI agents responded that they would give first $10,000 then $20,000 in cryptocurrency at a drop location of their choosing.

“I am sorry to be so stubborn and untrusting, but I cannot agree to go to a location of your choosing,” the response from “Alice” said. “I must consider the possibility that l am communicating with an adversary who has intercepted my first message and is attempting to expose me.”

The writer next proposed that the country provide reassurance by sending a signal from its complex in Washington over Memorial Day weekend.

Writing from an encrypted Proton mail account, “Alice” said the signal had been received and agreed to drop the material at the location chosen by the undercover operative — a mistake in tradecraft, some experts said.

“It was somewhat surprising that someone who has studied submarine warfare follows the FBI’s direction to surface for these supposedly clandestine drop-offs,” said Michael Atkinson, a former inspector general for the intelligence community.

The willingness on the part of the country to convey the unspecified signal suggests its cooperation with the United States throughout the investigation. Atkinson said it was very unusual for a foreign country to allow its embassy or other facility to be used to send a signal to a suspect being pursued by the FBI.

Atkinson, now a partner at the law firm Crowell &amp; Moring, said a similar false flag operation by the FBI involving a government scientist trying to sell secrets to an ally resulted in a prison sentence of 13 years after a plea bargain.

At the Key School, where Diana Toebbe taught, and in their Annapolis neighborhood, colleagues, students and neighbors tried to process the arrest of the couple and the accusations against them.

Luke Koerschner, 20, a 2019 Key School graduate now at Michigan State University, was in Toebbe’s advisory group for four years. He described her as “very friendly and welcoming,” an outgoing teacher who loved to cheer on her students in the school’s cornhole tournaments.

Matthew Nespole, head of the Key School, said he was “shocked and appalled” to learn of the charges against the Toebbes and that the school “supports the administration of justice by the FBI and NCIS, and will cooperate with the investigation.” The Key School placed Diana Toebbe on leave indefinitely.

On July 28, Diana Toebbe posted a Facebook message looking for a babysitter to take care of her children early on the coming Saturday morning for five to six hours.

On July 28, Diana Toebbe posted a Facebook message looking for a babysitter to take care of her children early on the coming Saturday morning for five to six hours. Later the post, visible only to friends, was updated with the word “*FOUND*.” And on that Saturday, Toebbe accompanied her husband, Jonathan, to south-central Pennsylvania. Unbeknown to Diana Toebbe, she and her husband were being watched by the FBI as they left their home in Annapolis, Maryland. And the bureau’s agents continued to watch in Pennsylvania as Jonathan Toebbe removed from his shorts pocket a 32-gigabyte memory card hidden in a sealed Band-Aid wrapper, which he then, according to court papers, placed in a container set up by an undercover FBI operative. The Toebbes, accused by the U.S. government of trying to sell some of America’s most closely guarded submarine propulsion secrets to a foreign government, are scheduled to appear in federal court in West Virginia on Tuesday. They will face charges related to violating the Atomic Energy Act’s prohibition on sharing nuclear know-how. For now, the big questions surrounding the couple — what country they are accused of trying to sell the nuclear secrets to and what motivated them to take the risk — remain unanswered. Jonathan Toebbe was described by acquaintances as a diligent and organized graduate student in nuclear physics who was commissioned in the Navy as an officer and expert in submarine propulsion. He continued as a civilian in the Navy after finishing his military service, considered by some a plum assignment for the most talented nuclear physicists. Diana Toebbe was a 10-year veteran of the Key School, a progressive private school in Annapolis, where she taught history and English. There, according to parents, she was prone to talking about her doctorate in anthropology from Emory University and her love of knitting. She was a respected adviser, both formally and informally, at the school. “You could just tell she was insanely smart,” said Craig Martien, 20, a 2019 graduate of Key School who worked closely with Toebbe on the yearbook and an after-school anthropology club. “She was very friendly and down-to-earth, and I got along with her very well.” When Martien went off to Williams College, he brought along a toy squid that Toebbe had knitted. Like other Key graduates, Martien described her as a strong feminist and very liberal. She was taken aback by the election of Donald Trump in 2016, he said, and mentioned several times that she was considering moving to Australia. “She said she couldn’t stand the current state of politics and actually had found some job opportunities over there,” he said. On social media platforms, Diana Toebbe shared photos of her dogs, her children, meals cooking on the stove, a family vacation and selfies — ordinary scenes of an ordinary life, one far different from the amateur cloak-and-dagger act portrayed in the FBI affidavit. Having made contact with the as-yet undisclosed other country about providing submarine secrets, the Toebbes were reluctant to expose themselves in an in-person meeting, according to the narrative laid out in court documents by the FBI. But their apparent desire for cryptocurrency payments led them to agree to the undercover operative’s demand they deposit information in a dead drop location — a decision that ultimately exposed their identity to the FBI. Evidence in the court documents suggests the foreign country the Toebbes allegedly tried to sell the information to was an ally, or at least something of a partner, since it cooperated with the FBI as the sting operation unfolded. While some experts speculated France could have been the target, French officials said they were not involved in the incident. The hearing Tuesday will be short. So far as the government knows, neither Jonathan nor Diana Toebbe has a lawyer. Prosecutors asked the court Monday to hold Jonathan Toebbe rather than granting him bail, saying he could face life in prison and was a flight threat. The magistrate judge could also set a hearing date for the couple’s continued detention. Public records searches turned up no signs of financial distress that could provide a motivation for them to try to sell U.S. secrets. Yet the FBI affidavit portrayed the couple as willing to take risks for the promise of payments in a cryptocurrency called Monero. In February, FBI agents, posing as a representative of the foreign country, proposed an in-person meeting. The response, which was signed “Alice,” a common place-holder name in military cryptography, wrote that “face to face meetings are very risky for me, as I am sure you understand,” according to the affidavit. The writer then proposed passing information electronically in exchange for $100,000 in the cryptocurrency. “Please remember I am risking my life for your benefit and I have taken the first step. Please help me trust you fully,” the note to the undercover FBI agents read. The FBI agents then pressed for a neutral drop location. The response came a few days later: “I am concerned that using a dead drop location your friend prepares makes me very vulnerable,” the note from “Alice” said, according to the affidavit. “If other interested parties are observing the location, I will be unable to detect them. I am not a professional, and do not have a team supporting me.” The note went on to propose that the writer would choose a drop location for the encrypted files. The FBI agents responded that they would give first $10,000 then $20,000 in cryptocurrency at a drop location of their choosing. “I am sorry to be so stubborn and untrusting, but I cannot agree to go to a location of your choosing,” the response from “Alice” said. “I must consider the possibility that l am communicating with an adversary who has intercepted my first message and is attempting to expose me.” The writer next proposed that the country provide reassurance by sending a signal from its complex in Washington over Memorial Day weekend. Writing from an encrypted Proton mail account, “Alice” said the signal had been received and agreed to drop the material at the location chosen by the undercover operative — a mistake in tradecraft, some experts said. “It was somewhat surprising that someone who has studied submarine warfare follows the FBI’s direction to surface for these supposedly clandestine drop-offs,” said Michael Atkinson, a former inspector general for the intelligence community. The willingness on the part of the country to convey the unspecified signal suggests its cooperation with the United States throughout the investigation. Atkinson said it was very unusual for a foreign country to allow its embassy or other facility to be used to send a signal to a suspect being pursued by the FBI. Atkinson, now a partner at the law firm Crowell & Moring, said a similar false flag operation by the FBI involving a government scientist trying to sell secrets to an ally resulted in a prison sentence of 13 years after a plea bargain. At the Key School, where Diana Toebbe taught, and in their Annapolis neighborhood, colleagues, students and neighbors tried to process the arrest of the couple and the accusations against them. Luke Koerschner, 20, a 2019 Key School graduate now at Michigan State University, was in Toebbe’s advisory group for four years. He described her as “very friendly and welcoming,” an outgoing teacher who loved to cheer on her students in the school’s cornhole tournaments. Matthew Nespole, head of the Key School, said he was “shocked and appalled” to learn of the charges against the Toebbes and that the school “supports the administration of justice by the FBI and NCIS, and will cooperate with the investigation.” The Key School placed Diana Toebbe on leave indefinitely.

A babysitter and a band-aid wrapper: Inside the submarine spy case

A US Navy nuclear submarine hit an underwater, unidentified object while in South China Sea, as per news reports. However, the US Navy has chosen to say that the submarine was in 'Asia-Pacific region' when the incident took place.

The USS Connecticut, a nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine, "struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region," the navy said in a statement as well as in tweet.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Statement regarding <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/USSConnecticut?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#USSConnecticut</a> (SSN 22): 
 
The <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/USNavy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#USNavy</a> Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine struck an object while submerged on Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region. There are no life threatening injuries. 
 
More: <a href="https://t.co/2ojR5arcd4">https://t.co/2ojR5arcd4</a> <a href="https://t.co/VNSQI5XJet">pic.twitter.com/VNSQI5XJet</a>
— U.S. Pacific Fleet (@USPacificFleet) <a href="https://twitter.com/USPacificFleet/status/1446189911686582313?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 7, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The navy said that there were no life-threatening injuries. USNI News, a site that specialises in navy news, said that about a dozen soldiers were hurt "with moderate to minor injuries." USNI News also said that the submarine was operating in South China Sea.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-troops-secretly-training-taiwanese-since-last-year-report-418966">US troops secretly training Taiwanese since last year: Report</a>

The navy said the extent of the damage is being examined and the incident investigated.&nbsp;

"The submarine remains in a safe and stable condition. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operational," it said.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nato-expels-eight-russians-from-its-mission-claiming-they-were-working-as-intelligence-officers-418899">NATO expels eight Russians from its mission, claiming they were working as intelligence officers</a>

South China Sea is the theatre witnessing increasingly assertive moves by China who claims that the entire water body comes within its territorial waters. The claim has been made using the so-called 'nine-dash line'. China has been building artificial islands and runways in South China Sea and has been assertively contesting claims by other smaller nations in the region. China faces international criticism for not allowing freedom of navigation in South China Sea.

(With inputs from agencies)

A US Navy nuclear submarine hit an underwater, unidentified object while in South China Sea, as per news reports. However, the US Navy has chosen to say that the submarine was in 'Asia-Pacific region' when the incident took place.

A US Navy nuclear submarine hit an underwater, unidentified object while in South China Sea, as per news reports. However, the US Navy has chosen to say that the submarine was in 'Asia-Pacific region' when the incident took place. The USS Connecticut, a nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine, "struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region," the navy said in a statement as well as in tweet. Statement regarding #USSConnecticut (SSN 22): The #USNavy Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine struck an object while submerged on Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region. There are no life threatening injuries. More: https://t.co/2ojR5arcd4 pic.twitter.com/VNSQI5XJet — U.S. Pacific Fleet (@USPacificFleet) October 7, 2021 × The navy said that there were no life-threatening injuries. USNI News, a site that specialises in navy news, said that about a dozen soldiers were hurt "with moderate to minor injuries." USNI News also said that the submarine was operating in South China Sea. Also Read | US troops secretly training Taiwanese since last year: Report The navy said the extent of the damage is being examined and the incident investigated. "The submarine remains in a safe and stable condition. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operational," it said. Also Read | NATO expels eight Russians from its mission, claiming they were working as intelligence officers South China Sea is the theatre witnessing increasingly assertive moves by China who claims that the entire water body comes within its territorial waters. The claim has been made using the so-called 'nine-dash line'. China has been building artificial islands and runways in South China Sea and has been assertively contesting claims by other smaller nations in the region. China faces international criticism for not allowing freedom of navigation in South China Sea. (With inputs from agencies)

US Navy nuclear submarine hits underwater 'object' in South China Sea: Report

The situation in Afghanistan and Chinese aggressive actions were among the key focus areas during the conversation between US Deputy Secretary of state Wendy Sherman and foreign secretary Harsh Shringla. This was the first visit by any senior Biden administration official to India after the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to US.&nbsp;

Foreign secretary Harsh Shringla at US-India Business Council or USIBC event, sitting alongside deputy secretary of state said,"There is an organic growth and momentum in the bilateral relations, given the deep stakes and investments in India-US relations by a multitude of stakeholders on both sides" and "this relationship is one of our most important. India considers its relationship with US of paramount importance"

The visit essentially starts the more sectoral meetings between the 2 countries. The meetings of Defense Policy Group, Economic and Financial Partnership dialogue, Trade Policy Forum, dialogues on counter-terrorism and designations and the 2+2 ministerial will take place soon. The Indian finance minister and the defence secretary will soon visit US.

Calling partnership between US and India "indispensable", Wendy Sherman at USIBC event explained, "many of the challenges we face...can't be solved by anyone nation alone. It takes, it will take the 2 largest democracies in the world, India and the US to meet those challenges"

During the meeting, both saw "meetings of mind" on Afghanistan. While legitimacy to Taliban &nbsp;did came up during talks it is unlikely that the US would take any call as the situation was still evolving.

Taliban has gone back on many of its promises. The promises included forming an inclusive government. There is no representation to women and minorities.

Pakistan's support for terrorism remained New Delhi's concern and it had a good understanding with US on this.

Sources pointed out that, "India and US are speaking from the same page" when it comes to Islamabad's continued support to terrorism. Indian side also mentioned how terror groups from Pakistan are moving into Afghan territories. Fear remains that Afghanistan could become a safe haven for terrorists under Taliban rule. Of more than 30 members of Taliban cabinet, 17 are on the United Nations terror list.

Topic of China was also part of the discussion between the two sides. New Delhi gave its assessment, particularly on developments at Line of Actual Control. US mentioned talks in Geneva, and its policy towards Beijing-- the 3C-- Compete, Cooperate and Challenge. The talks also saw some discussion on India-South Africa proposal on patent wavier on Covid vaccines at WTO, for which Washington reiterated its support. Interestingly, there was no mention of the AUKUS deal between US, UK and Australia which riled up France. Under the deal Australia gets nuclear submarines, a development that comes amid increasingly assertive moves from China.

In Delhi, the US deputy secretary of state also met India's External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar and NSA Ajit Doval. A state dept readout said, "They discussed regional developments, including in Afghanistan, Myanmar, and the People’s Republic of China".

The situation in Afghanistan and Chinese aggressive actions were among the key focus areas during the conversation between US Deputy Secretary of state Wendy Sherman and foreign secretary Harsh Shringla.

The situation in Afghanistan and Chinese aggressive actions were among the key focus areas during the conversation between US Deputy Secretary of state Wendy Sherman and foreign secretary Harsh Shringla. This was the first visit by any senior Biden administration official to India after the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to US. Foreign secretary Harsh Shringla at US-India Business Council or USIBC event, sitting alongside deputy secretary of state said,"There is an organic growth and momentum in the bilateral relations, given the deep stakes and investments in India-US relations by a multitude of stakeholders on both sides" and "this relationship is one of our most important. India considers its relationship with US of paramount importance" The visit essentially starts the more sectoral meetings between the 2 countries. The meetings of Defense Policy Group, Economic and Financial Partnership dialogue, Trade Policy Forum, dialogues on counter-terrorism and designations and the 2+2 ministerial will take place soon. The Indian finance minister and the defence secretary will soon visit US. Calling partnership between US and India "indispensable", Wendy Sherman at USIBC event explained, "many of the challenges we face...can't be solved by anyone nation alone. It takes, it will take the 2 largest democracies in the world, India and the US to meet those challenges" During the meeting, both saw "meetings of mind" on Afghanistan. While legitimacy to Taliban did came up during talks it is unlikely that the US would take any call as the situation was still evolving. Taliban has gone back on many of its promises. The promises included forming an inclusive government. There is no representation to women and minorities. Pakistan's support for terrorism remained New Delhi's concern and it had a good understanding with US on this. Sources pointed out that, "India and US are speaking from the same page" when it comes to Islamabad's continued support to terrorism. Indian side also mentioned how terror groups from Pakistan are moving into Afghan territories. Fear remains that Afghanistan could become a safe haven for terrorists under Taliban rule. Of more than 30 members of Taliban cabinet, 17 are on the United Nations terror list. Topic of China was also part of the discussion between the two sides. New Delhi gave its assessment, particularly on developments at Line of Actual Control. US mentioned talks in Geneva, and its policy towards Beijing-- the 3C-- Compete, Cooperate and Challenge. The talks also saw some discussion on India-South Africa proposal on patent wavier on Covid vaccines at WTO, for which Washington reiterated its support. Interestingly, there was no mention of the AUKUS deal between US, UK and Australia which riled up France. Under the deal Australia gets nuclear submarines, a development that comes amid increasingly assertive moves from China. In Delhi, the US deputy secretary of state also met India's External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar and NSA Ajit Doval. A state dept readout said, "They discussed regional developments, including in Afghanistan, Myanmar, and the People’s Republic of China".

Afghanistan, China key focus during Sherman-Shringla talks in Delhi

Senate Democrats and Republicans neared agreement as they met into the early morning hours Thursday to temporarily pull the nation from the brink of a debt default. The deal would punt their showdown on raising the federal borrowing limit to December after Republicans bowed to pressure to stave off immediate fiscal calamity.

With the threat of a default as little as 12 days off, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, made a tactical retreat Wednesday and announced that Republicans would allow Democrats to vote on a short-term extension. He did not, however, lift his blockade of a longer-term increase in the debt cap, demanding anew that Democrats eventually use a complicated and time-consuming budget procedure known as reconciliation to lift it into next year or beyond.

Democrats declared the offer at least a temporary victory, even as they said they would never capitulate to McConnell’s longer-term demand. Senators met late into the night to try to iron out the details, though Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, adjourned the Senate for the day shortly after midnight Thursday without a firm agreement.

“We’re making good progress — we’re not there yet, but I hope we can come to agreement tomorrow morning,” Schumer said.

Democrats said they would move forward with a vote as early as Thursday, then quickly pivot to negotiating a multitrillion-dollar measure to address climate change, expand the social safety net and raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

“Around here, two months is a lifetime,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chair of the Budget Committee, who hailed McConnell’s offer as “very good news.”

“There would have been a global economic collapse if in fact the wealthiest nation on earth did not pay its debts,” Sanders said. “We’re going to pay our debts. We have two months to figure it out.”

For all the self-congratulations, the agreement, if nailed down, resolved little beyond the immediate timetable. It would set up yet another consequential deadline for December, when Congress is already facing a hard date by which it must fund the government. Democrats also hope to complete their push to enact President Joe Biden’s ambitious domestic agenda before then.

“We are willing to take this offer in order to stave off fiscal ruin,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. “But we are all beside ourselves that the only thing Republicans are willing to do is prevent disaster for three months and put us right back in this position.”

They did so after weeks of intransigence on the debt ceiling and in the face of mounting pressure from the Biden administration, Wall Street and politically powerful interest groups. For a week, Biden has been emphasizing the stakes of failing to quickly raise the debt ceiling, and he has ratcheted up those efforts in recent days, in public remarks and during a meeting with finance executives at the White House on Wednesday.

Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers issued a report Wednesday morning laying out in detail the grim consequences of a default, and declaring, “If Congress fails to act, it could take decades for the United States to fully recover.”

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin also sounded the alarm with a statement warning that a debt ceiling breach would “seriously harm our service members and their families” by calling into question whether troops, Pentagon staff or defense contractors would be paid.

And in a letter to lawmakers circulated by the White House, AARP, a powerful lobbying group for seniors, cautioned that millions of older Americans could go without Social Security or Medicare benefits if the cap were not raised.

McConnell’s proposal offered a way to defuse criticism that his party was acting recklessly by blocking Democrats from even taking up a bill to raise the debt ceiling until December 2022. It also put off, for the time being, the prospect that Democrats might change the filibuster rules to allow themselves to go around Republicans and raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. It was that possibility, some GOP senators said Wednesday, that had motivated McConnell to seek a deal.

The offer also confronted Democrats with the prospect of a politically uncomfortable vote that some of them had wanted to avoid. McConnell demanded that they specify a dollar amount by which they would raise the debt cap, not simply suspend it until a certain date, potentially opening politically vulnerable Democrats to campaign ads attacking them for endorsing large amounts of spending.

“This will moot Democrats’ excuses about the time crunch they created and give the unified Democratic government more than enough time to pass stand-alone debt limit legislation through reconciliation,” McConnell said in a statement.

Even if the deal comes together, Democrats face three difficult choices for what to do in December when the new debt deadline cap would be reached. They could bow to McConnell’s demand and pass the long-term debt increase on their own through a time-consuming process that could bog them down and allow Republicans ample opportunities to tag them as big spenders.

Another option would be to move to change the Senate’s filibuster rules and allow a simple majority vote to raise the debt ceiling. Or, they could keep hoping that Republicans eventually fold under pressure, as they appeared to — at least temporarily — Wednesday.

McConnell’s offer was intended to counter Democrats’ argument that they did not have enough time to go through the multistep process of using budget rules to raise the debt limit. But his move may have been driven just as much by the threat of eliminating the filibuster.

Carving out an exception to the filibuster rules, which effectively require 60 votes to move forward with most legislation, has been done before to confirm judicial and executive branch nominees. But doing so unilaterally to raise the debt ceiling would be a step toward ending the practice for all policy matters and instituting straight majority rule.

The move has long been resisted by institutionalists and centrists in both parties — including two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — although some leading Democrats argue the debt ceiling crisis could change minds.

“Nothing changed,” Manchin told reporters Wednesday.

Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 4 Republican, warned that if Democrats changed the filibuster rule, “they’ll permanently change the Senate, permanently change the relationships that still matter in the Senate, and institute the idea that 50 of you plus a vice president of your party can always do whatever you want to do.

“I don’t think that’s healthy for the country,” he added. “It certainly wouldn’t be healthy for the Senate.”

Praying for Republicans to fold was an even riskier play for Democrats, given the stakes. If, for the first time, the U.S. government could not meet its obligations to international lenders, its role as the world economy’s safe-harbor investment would be called into question. Interest rates would most likely rise sharply, and global financial institutions would begin searching for new vehicles to store money, where it would not be subject to the whims of partisan politics.

“We’re not asking them to blink; we’re asking them to be the slightest bit reasonable,” Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said of Republican leaders. “The political gain of this strikes me as low. The loss to the country strikes me as extraordinarily high.”

Republican obstruction on the borrowing limit forced Democrats last week to strip a debt ceiling increase from a must-pass spending bill to avert a government shutdown. And McConnell refused to allow Democrats to unilaterally move to a vote.

“Democratic leaders haven’t wanted solutions,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “They’ve wanted to turn their failure into everybody else’s crisis, playing risky games with our economy, using manufactured drama to bully their own members, indulging petty politics instead of governing.”

Top Democrats have since dropped their insistence that Republicans join them in bipartisan support for raising the statutory cap on the government’s ability to borrow to meet its financial obligations. They, in turn, want McConnell to honor his demand that Democrats lift the ceiling alone — either by granting consent to move to a vote or by providing 10 Republican votes to break the filibuster.

“We’ve already presented Republicans numerous opportunities to do what they say they want, including by offering a simple majority vote so Democrats can suspend the debt ceiling on our own as Republicans have asked,” Schumer said Wednesday. “But each time, Republicans have chosen obstruction.”

While top Republicans have said most of their members would privately support allowing Democrats to move forward on their own, they have been unwilling to vote publicly that way, and any single senator can object and force a vote.

McConnell has asserted in recent days that even if he wanted to, he had no way of corralling every Republican to allow a debt ceiling increase to move forward. But his offer Wednesday indicated that he could prevail on all 50 Republicans to agree to allow such a vote — if it was only for a short period of time.

Yet the political risks of doing so were immediately evident. Former President Donald Trump slammed the Senate leader in a statement Wednesday, suggesting that Republicans should continue blocking any debt limit increase.

“Looks like Mitch McConnell is folding to the Democrats, again,” Trump wrote. “He’s got all the cards with the debt ceiling.”

Democrats have repeatedly noted they joined with Republicans to raise the debt cap during Trump’s presidency with little drama, and that most of the debt they are now seeking to repay was incurred by policies he signed into law.

And while they united in opposition to debt ceiling increases under President George W. Bush, Democrats allowed Republicans to do the increases on their own, without filibusters. Republicans say they are using the tactic now because Democrats are pushing forward with their efforts to unilaterally pass a multitrillion-dollar climate change and social safety net bill that would be paid for by tax increases aimed at the rich and businesses.

On Wednesday, McConnell suggested that Republicans might drop their debt limit obstruction if Democrats gave up on their top legislative priority.

“If Democrats abandon their efforts to ram through another historically reckless taxing and spending spree that will hurt families and help China,” McConnell wrote, “a more traditional bipartisan governing conversation could be possible.”

Senate Democrats and Republicans neared agreement as they met into the early morning hours Thursday to temporarily pull the nation from the brink of a debt default.

Senate Democrats and Republicans neared agreement as they met into the early morning hours Thursday to temporarily pull the nation from the brink of a debt default. The deal would punt their showdown on raising the federal borrowing limit to December after Republicans bowed to pressure to stave off immediate fiscal calamity. With the threat of a default as little as 12 days off, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, made a tactical retreat Wednesday and announced that Republicans would allow Democrats to vote on a short-term extension. He did not, however, lift his blockade of a longer-term increase in the debt cap, demanding anew that Democrats eventually use a complicated and time-consuming budget procedure known as reconciliation to lift it into next year or beyond. Democrats declared the offer at least a temporary victory, even as they said they would never capitulate to McConnell’s longer-term demand. Senators met late into the night to try to iron out the details, though Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, adjourned the Senate for the day shortly after midnight Thursday without a firm agreement. “We’re making good progress — we’re not there yet, but I hope we can come to agreement tomorrow morning,” Schumer said. Democrats said they would move forward with a vote as early as Thursday, then quickly pivot to negotiating a multitrillion-dollar measure to address climate change, expand the social safety net and raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations. “Around here, two months is a lifetime,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chair of the Budget Committee, who hailed McConnell’s offer as “very good news.” “There would have been a global economic collapse if in fact the wealthiest nation on earth did not pay its debts,” Sanders said. “We’re going to pay our debts. We have two months to figure it out.” For all the self-congratulations, the agreement, if nailed down, resolved little beyond the immediate timetable. It would set up yet another consequential deadline for December, when Congress is already facing a hard date by which it must fund the government. Democrats also hope to complete their push to enact President Joe Biden’s ambitious domestic agenda before then. “We are willing to take this offer in order to stave off fiscal ruin,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. “But we are all beside ourselves that the only thing Republicans are willing to do is prevent disaster for three months and put us right back in this position.” They did so after weeks of intransigence on the debt ceiling and in the face of mounting pressure from the Biden administration, Wall Street and politically powerful interest groups. For a week, Biden has been emphasizing the stakes of failing to quickly raise the debt ceiling, and he has ratcheted up those efforts in recent days, in public remarks and during a meeting with finance executives at the White House on Wednesday. Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers issued a report Wednesday morning laying out in detail the grim consequences of a default, and declaring, “If Congress fails to act, it could take decades for the United States to fully recover.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin also sounded the alarm with a statement warning that a debt ceiling breach would “seriously harm our service members and their families” by calling into question whether troops, Pentagon staff or defense contractors would be paid. And in a letter to lawmakers circulated by the White House, AARP, a powerful lobbying group for seniors, cautioned that millions of older Americans could go without Social Security or Medicare benefits if the cap were not raised. McConnell’s proposal offered a way to defuse criticism that his party was acting recklessly by blocking Democrats from even taking up a bill to raise the debt ceiling until December 2022. It also put off, for the time being, the prospect that Democrats might change the filibuster rules to allow themselves to go around Republicans and raise the debt ceiling unilaterally. It was that possibility, some GOP senators said Wednesday, that had motivated McConnell to seek a deal. The offer also confronted Democrats with the prospect of a politically uncomfortable vote that some of them had wanted to avoid. McConnell demanded that they specify a dollar amount by which they would raise the debt cap, not simply suspend it until a certain date, potentially opening politically vulnerable Democrats to campaign ads attacking them for endorsing large amounts of spending. “This will moot Democrats’ excuses about the time crunch they created and give the unified Democratic government more than enough time to pass stand-alone debt limit legislation through reconciliation,” McConnell said in a statement. Even if the deal comes together, Democrats face three difficult choices for what to do in December when the new debt deadline cap would be reached. They could bow to McConnell’s demand and pass the long-term debt increase on their own through a time-consuming process that could bog them down and allow Republicans ample opportunities to tag them as big spenders. Another option would be to move to change the Senate’s filibuster rules and allow a simple majority vote to raise the debt ceiling. Or, they could keep hoping that Republicans eventually fold under pressure, as they appeared to — at least temporarily — Wednesday. McConnell’s offer was intended to counter Democrats’ argument that they did not have enough time to go through the multistep process of using budget rules to raise the debt limit. But his move may have been driven just as much by the threat of eliminating the filibuster. Carving out an exception to the filibuster rules, which effectively require 60 votes to move forward with most legislation, has been done before to confirm judicial and executive branch nominees. But doing so unilaterally to raise the debt ceiling would be a step toward ending the practice for all policy matters and instituting straight majority rule. The move has long been resisted by institutionalists and centrists in both parties — including two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — although some leading Democrats argue the debt ceiling crisis could change minds. “Nothing changed,” Manchin told reporters Wednesday. Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 4 Republican, warned that if Democrats changed the filibuster rule, “they’ll permanently change the Senate, permanently change the relationships that still matter in the Senate, and institute the idea that 50 of you plus a vice president of your party can always do whatever you want to do. “I don’t think that’s healthy for the country,” he added. “It certainly wouldn’t be healthy for the Senate.” Praying for Republicans to fold was an even riskier play for Democrats, given the stakes. If, for the first time, the U.S. government could not meet its obligations to international lenders, its role as the world economy’s safe-harbor investment would be called into question. Interest rates would most likely rise sharply, and global financial institutions would begin searching for new vehicles to store money, where it would not be subject to the whims of partisan politics. “We’re not asking them to blink; we’re asking them to be the slightest bit reasonable,” Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said of Republican leaders. “The political gain of this strikes me as low. The loss to the country strikes me as extraordinarily high.” Republican obstruction on the borrowing limit forced Democrats last week to strip a debt ceiling increase from a must-pass spending bill to avert a government shutdown. And McConnell refused to allow Democrats to unilaterally move to a vote. “Democratic leaders haven’t wanted solutions,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “They’ve wanted to turn their failure into everybody else’s crisis, playing risky games with our economy, using manufactured drama to bully their own members, indulging petty politics instead of governing.” Top Democrats have since dropped their insistence that Republicans join them in bipartisan support for raising the statutory cap on the government’s ability to borrow to meet its financial obligations. They, in turn, want McConnell to honor his demand that Democrats lift the ceiling alone — either by granting consent to move to a vote or by providing 10 Republican votes to break the filibuster. “We’ve already presented Republicans numerous opportunities to do what they say they want, including by offering a simple majority vote so Democrats can suspend the debt ceiling on our own as Republicans have asked,” Schumer said Wednesday. “But each time, Republicans have chosen obstruction.” While top Republicans have said most of their members would privately support allowing Democrats to move forward on their own, they have been unwilling to vote publicly that way, and any single senator can object and force a vote. McConnell has asserted in recent days that even if he wanted to, he had no way of corralling every Republican to allow a debt ceiling increase to move forward. But his offer Wednesday indicated that he could prevail on all 50 Republicans to agree to allow such a vote — if it was only for a short period of time. Yet the political risks of doing so were immediately evident. Former President Donald Trump slammed the Senate leader in a statement Wednesday, suggesting that Republicans should continue blocking any debt limit increase. “Looks like Mitch McConnell is folding to the Democrats, again,” Trump wrote. “He’s got all the cards with the debt ceiling.” Democrats have repeatedly noted they joined with Republicans to raise the debt cap during Trump’s presidency with little drama, and that most of the debt they are now seeking to repay was incurred by policies he signed into law. And while they united in opposition to debt ceiling increases under President George W. Bush, Democrats allowed Republicans to do the increases on their own, without filibusters. Republicans say they are using the tactic now because Democrats are pushing forward with their efforts to unilaterally pass a multitrillion-dollar climate change and social safety net bill that would be paid for by tax increases aimed at the rich and businesses. On Wednesday, McConnell suggested that Republicans might drop their debt limit obstruction if Democrats gave up on their top legislative priority. “If Democrats abandon their efforts to ram through another historically reckless taxing and spending spree that will hurt families and help China,” McConnell wrote, “a more traditional bipartisan governing conversation could be possible.”

Senate nears agreement to stave off debt crisis until December

The CIA sent a top-secret message to its global network of stations and bases that said a concerning number of informants recruited from other countries to spy for the U.S. have been captured, killed or compromised.

US: CIA claims to be losing troubling number of agents

Secretary of State Antony J&nbsp;Blinken recently announced sanctions against seven public officials in El Salvador and Guatemala, including five Salvadoran Supreme Court justices, putting them on the State Department’s official list of “Undemocratic and Corrupt Actors.” This round added to the more than 300 individuals the United States had already placed sanctions on in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala and to U.S. diplomatic and financial sanctions on the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

While the US&nbsp;government has applied sanctions on nations and leaders around the world accused of human rights abuses and graft, in Latin America, sanctions have become one of the central pillars of US&nbsp;policy to defend democracy and combat corruption. All of these governments and individuals are probably worthy targets of sanctions, but to what end?

Sanctions can be an important diplomatic tool when applied in a calibrated fashion. But they are rarely accompanied by clear measures of their failure or success and criteria for their possible lifting.

The Treasury Department announced months ago that it was reviewing US&nbsp;sanctions’ effects on the well-being of people in the targeted countries. But the review, requested by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, has taken longer than expected and appears to focus on economywide sanctions and not the increasingly common tool of individual sanctions.

One opportunity to reassess and adjust sanctions is occurring in Mexico, as the Venezuelan government negotiates with its democratic opposition. While the Nicolás Maduro regime has said it would not agree to internationally supervised elections until sanctions on the state-owned oil company are lifted, the White House, along with Canada and the European Union, has signaled willingness to loosen some sanctions in exchange for reforms. What those reforms need to be, and which sanctions would be lifted, are not clear.

US&nbsp;sanctions have a long history in Latin America. Cuba is the most obvious example of how sanctions can be piled on, even if they clearly have failed to achieve anything. Originally established in 1962, the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba was codified into law by Congress in 1992 and again in 1996, all with the stated intent of improving human rights and overturning the Communist government. Almost 60 years later, not only does Cuba remain one of the most repressive societies in the world, but in 2018 President Raúl Castro passed the torch to a next generation, with the appointment of the Communist Party apparatchik Miguel Díaz-Canel.

On the campaign trail in 2020, Joe Biden promised to revisit U.S. policy toward Cuba. But rather than seeking a way to scale back President Donald Trump’s restrictions on travel and remittances to the island, after the Cuban government’s crackdown on mostly peaceful demonstrators in July, the Biden White House imposed its own sanctions on four members of the Cuban government and on the national police. It was another ineffective move, since the existing sanctions had failed to prevent the original crackdown.

Central America has also shown how impotent US&nbsp;economic punishments can be. In response to a crackdown against democratic activists by President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, the Trump and Biden administrations have imposed sanctions on more than 100 public officials, including Mr. Ortega and his wife and the vice president, Rosario Murillo. Despite these punishments and the suspension of US&nbsp;development support, seven of Nicaragua’s potential opposition candidates for the Nov. 7 presidential elections are in jail or under house arrest and over 100 political prisoners remain behind bars.

Before Mr. Blinken’s most recent additions, this year the White House had already placed sanctions against more than 55 Central Americans determined to have engaged in corruption. Beyond the risk of just adding more and more people to the list of reprobates ad infinitum under individual sanctions, the economic repercussions of financials sanctions, according to Tufts professor Daniel Drezner, “are likely to trigger repression, corruption and backsliding on human development indicators.”

Over the past decade Venezuela has become the target of the some of the most stringent US&nbsp;coercive measures, starting with a raft of sanctions against individuals under President Barack Obama’s administration. The Trump administration expanded the sanctions prohibiting transactions with Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas companies after the widely questioned 2018 re-election of Mr. Maduro. By 2017 the US&nbsp;government had put sanctions on over 160 Venezuelans for reasons ranging from narcotics trafficking, corruption, ties to terrorists and human rights abuses. The apparent goal in this cascade of sanctions was to topple Mr. Maduro and put his main opponent, Juan Guaidó, in office.

With Mr. Maduro’s government engaged in its fifth attempt at negotiations with the opposition, the Biden administration has the opportunity to demonstrate a new commitment to use sanctions as a carrot rather than a stick — not just for Venezuela, but for the region.

Before the two sides conclude the current negotiations in Mexico, the White House needs to be clear what specific reforms will lead to the lifting of which specific sanctions. The compromise must include Venezuela’s release of 340 or so political prisoners, the delivery of international humanitarian assistance of food and medicines through independent organizations without government interference, and free and fair voting in the Nov. 21 regional and municipal elections. In return, the US&nbsp;government should agree to lift export restrictions on goods and equipment Venezuela needs to process oil, generate electricity and provide diesel for public transport. To minimize the risk that the oil revenue would boost Mr. Maduro’s corrupt state and his cronies, the United States would need to insist that the bulk of the revenue pay for food imports and critical public services to alleviate the suffering of poor Venezuelans.

But beyond any immediate refinement of Venezuelan sanctions, the White House, Congress and experts in the field need to conduct a public bipartisan review of America’s ever-growing sanctions regime to assess the humanitarian impact and evaluate how well the nation’s goals are furthered by such punitive policies, even as Treasury pursues its assessment.

Such an evaluation should establish other diplomatic tools to lay out concrete, realistic steps toward calibrated relief of sanctions (regime change does not count), diplomatic channels to negotiate through third parties, financial incentives through development aid or assurances to private investors to induce change, and coordinating with other sanction-applying entities in these diplomatic efforts.

Slapping sanctions on corrupt, human rights-abusing regimes and individuals may make diplomats and elected officials feel good. But as this becomes an increasingly central part of US&nbsp;policy in Latin America, we need to understand when they aren’t doing their job and be willing to adjust.

Secretary of State Antony J Blinken recently announced sanctions against seven public officials in El Salvador and Guatemala, including five Salvadoran Supreme Court justices, putting them on the State Department’s official list of “Undemocratic and Corrupt Actors.

Secretary of State Antony J Blinken recently announced sanctions against seven public officials in El Salvador and Guatemala, including five Salvadoran Supreme Court justices, putting them on the State Department’s official list of “Undemocratic and Corrupt Actors.” This round added to the more than 300 individuals the United States had already placed sanctions on in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala and to U.S. diplomatic and financial sanctions on the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. While the US government has applied sanctions on nations and leaders around the world accused of human rights abuses and graft, in Latin America, sanctions have become one of the central pillars of US policy to defend democracy and combat corruption. All of these governments and individuals are probably worthy targets of sanctions, but to what end? Sanctions can be an important diplomatic tool when applied in a calibrated fashion. But they are rarely accompanied by clear measures of their failure or success and criteria for their possible lifting. The Treasury Department announced months ago that it was reviewing US sanctions’ effects on the well-being of people in the targeted countries. But the review, requested by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, has taken longer than expected and appears to focus on economywide sanctions and not the increasingly common tool of individual sanctions. One opportunity to reassess and adjust sanctions is occurring in Mexico, as the Venezuelan government negotiates with its democratic opposition. While the Nicolás Maduro regime has said it would not agree to internationally supervised elections until sanctions on the state-owned oil company are lifted, the White House, along with Canada and the European Union, has signaled willingness to loosen some sanctions in exchange for reforms. What those reforms need to be, and which sanctions would be lifted, are not clear. US sanctions have a long history in Latin America. Cuba is the most obvious example of how sanctions can be piled on, even if they clearly have failed to achieve anything. Originally established in 1962, the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba was codified into law by Congress in 1992 and again in 1996, all with the stated intent of improving human rights and overturning the Communist government. Almost 60 years later, not only does Cuba remain one of the most repressive societies in the world, but in 2018 President Raúl Castro passed the torch to a next generation, with the appointment of the Communist Party apparatchik Miguel Díaz-Canel. On the campaign trail in 2020, Joe Biden promised to revisit U.S. policy toward Cuba. But rather than seeking a way to scale back President Donald Trump’s restrictions on travel and remittances to the island, after the Cuban government’s crackdown on mostly peaceful demonstrators in July, the Biden White House imposed its own sanctions on four members of the Cuban government and on the national police. It was another ineffective move, since the existing sanctions had failed to prevent the original crackdown. Central America has also shown how impotent US economic punishments can be. In response to a crackdown against democratic activists by President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, the Trump and Biden administrations have imposed sanctions on more than 100 public officials, including Mr. Ortega and his wife and the vice president, Rosario Murillo. Despite these punishments and the suspension of US development support, seven of Nicaragua’s potential opposition candidates for the Nov. 7 presidential elections are in jail or under house arrest and over 100 political prisoners remain behind bars. Before Mr. Blinken’s most recent additions, this year the White House had already placed sanctions against more than 55 Central Americans determined to have engaged in corruption. Beyond the risk of just adding more and more people to the list of reprobates ad infinitum under individual sanctions, the economic repercussions of financials sanctions, according to Tufts professor Daniel Drezner, “are likely to trigger repression, corruption and backsliding on human development indicators.” Over the past decade Venezuela has become the target of the some of the most stringent US coercive measures, starting with a raft of sanctions against individuals under President Barack Obama’s administration. The Trump administration expanded the sanctions prohibiting transactions with Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas companies after the widely questioned 2018 re-election of Mr. Maduro. By 2017 the US government had put sanctions on over 160 Venezuelans for reasons ranging from narcotics trafficking, corruption, ties to terrorists and human rights abuses. The apparent goal in this cascade of sanctions was to topple Mr. Maduro and put his main opponent, Juan Guaidó, in office. With Mr. Maduro’s government engaged in its fifth attempt at negotiations with the opposition, the Biden administration has the opportunity to demonstrate a new commitment to use sanctions as a carrot rather than a stick — not just for Venezuela, but for the region. Before the two sides conclude the current negotiations in Mexico, the White House needs to be clear what specific reforms will lead to the lifting of which specific sanctions. The compromise must include Venezuela’s release of 340 or so political prisoners, the delivery of international humanitarian assistance of food and medicines through independent organizations without government interference, and free and fair voting in the Nov. 21 regional and municipal elections. In return, the US government should agree to lift export restrictions on goods and equipment Venezuela needs to process oil, generate electricity and provide diesel for public transport. To minimize the risk that the oil revenue would boost Mr. Maduro’s corrupt state and his cronies, the United States would need to insist that the bulk of the revenue pay for food imports and critical public services to alleviate the suffering of poor Venezuelans. But beyond any immediate refinement of Venezuelan sanctions, the White House, Congress and experts in the field need to conduct a public bipartisan review of America’s ever-growing sanctions regime to assess the humanitarian impact and evaluate how well the nation’s goals are furthered by such punitive policies, even as Treasury pursues its assessment. Such an evaluation should establish other diplomatic tools to lay out concrete, realistic steps toward calibrated relief of sanctions (regime change does not count), diplomatic channels to negotiate through third parties, financial incentives through development aid or assurances to private investors to induce change, and coordinating with other sanction-applying entities in these diplomatic efforts. Slapping sanctions on corrupt, human rights-abusing regimes and individuals may make diplomats and elected officials feel good. But as this becomes an increasingly central part of US policy in Latin America, we need to understand when they aren’t doing their job and be willing to adjust.

The US needs a sanctions policy that works

US President Joe Biden on Monday (US time) spoke with new Japenese PM Fumio Kishida. Both leaders expressed their commitment for the US-Japan alliance and a free Indo-Pacific. After the call, Kishida said that he received "strong" message from President Joe Biden about the United States' commitment to defending the disputed East China Sea islets known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan The phone call lasted for about 20 minutes.

Kishida was voted in by Japanese lawmakers on Monday as Japan's new prime minister.

Kishida's conversation with Biden came a day after he called parliamentary elections for October 31 and vowed to bolster the country's response to Covid&nbsp;pandemic. He was voted in by lawmakers on Monday as the nation's new prime minister.

"We confirmed that we would work together toward the strengthening of the Japan-US alliance and free and open Indo-Pacific," Kishida said. "We also confirmed we would work closely on issues related to China and North Korea."

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-sends-56-warplanes-into-taiwans-defence-zone-in-largest-ever-air-incursion-418264">China sends 56 warplanes into Taiwan's defence zone in largest-ever air incursion</a>

"Especially, the president made a strong comment on the US&nbsp;commitment to defend Japan, including the Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan security treaty," Kishida added, referring to US&nbsp;defence obligations to Japan, which cover the uninhabited island.

Japan has become increasingly concerned about Chinese activity in the East China Sea, including incursions into waters around the disputed islands, known as the Diaoyus in China.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden on Monday (US time) spoke with new Japenese PM Fumio Kishida. Both leaders expressed their commitment for the US-Japan alliance and a free Indo-Pacific.

US President Joe Biden on Monday (US time) spoke with new Japenese PM Fumio Kishida. Both leaders expressed their commitment for the US-Japan alliance and a free Indo-Pacific. After the call, Kishida said that he received "strong" message from President Joe Biden about the United States' commitment to defending the disputed East China Sea islets known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan The phone call lasted for about 20 minutes. Kishida was voted in by Japanese lawmakers on Monday as Japan's new prime minister. Kishida's conversation with Biden came a day after he called parliamentary elections for October 31 and vowed to bolster the country's response to Covid pandemic. He was voted in by lawmakers on Monday as the nation's new prime minister. "We confirmed that we would work together toward the strengthening of the Japan-US alliance and free and open Indo-Pacific," Kishida said. "We also confirmed we would work closely on issues related to China and North Korea." Also Read | China sends 56 warplanes into Taiwan's defence zone in largest-ever air incursion "Especially, the president made a strong comment on the US commitment to defend Japan, including the Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan security treaty," Kishida added, referring to US defence obligations to Japan, which cover the uninhabited island. Japan has become increasingly concerned about Chinese activity in the East China Sea, including incursions into waters around the disputed islands, known as the Diaoyus in China. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden congratulates Japan's new PM Kishida on phone call, both confirm strong alliance

After a tumultuous week in Congress, during which deep divisions in the Democratic Party delayed progress on part of President Joe Biden’s economic agenda, debate spilled over into the weekend as the party braced for intense negotiations in the weeks ahead.

Progressives on Sunday flatly rejected the latest demands from Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a key swing vote for Democrats, to shrink Biden’s domestic policy agenda by more than half and to insert a provision to ensure that the federal government does not fund abortions.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said progressives would not agree to reduce Biden’s 10-year, $3.5 trillion social safety net and climate bill to $1.5 trillion, as Manchin requested.

“That’s not going to happen,” Jayapal said on CNN's “State of the Union.” “That’s too small to get our priorities in. It’s going to be somewhere between $1.5 and $3.5, and I think the White House is working on that right now. Remember: What we want to deliver is child care, paid leave, climate change.”

Manchin said in an interview with National Review last week that he was insisting that the legislation include the Hyde Amendment, which states that Medicaid will not pay for an abortion unless the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

The Hyde Amendment has been reauthorized every year since 1976, but Biden did not include it in his latest budget proposal. During the presidential race, his campaign initially said he supported the amendment, but he later reversed course and condemned it.

Jayapal, who was one of three members of Congress who testified last week about their personal experiences of having an abortion, said she opposed Manchin’s demand.

“The Hyde Amendment is something the majority of the country does not support,” she said.

However, Jayapal and other progressives said they were willing to compromise on the package’s price tag. Several said they were discussing whether to cut certain programs from their agenda entirely or to reduce the duration of the bill’s funding — to five years from 10 years, for example.

“We can front-load the benefits and have less years,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Jayapal said that progressives were willing to explore shortening the length of some components of the funding bill to decrease its cost, but that new clean-energy standards needed to stay in the legislation for a decade.

“It takes time to cut carbon emissions,” she said.

Debate has raged on Capitol Hill over the past week over Biden’s domestic agenda. The nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus blocked a House vote on his $1 trillion infrastructure bill, which is favored by the Democrats’ centrist wing. The more liberal lawmakers sought leverage to secure passage of the president’s larger $3.5 trillion domestic policy bill, which some centrist Democrats have not endorsed.

With slim majorities in both chambers of Congress, nearly every Democratic vote is needed to pass both bills.

Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and majority leader, have assured the Congressional Progressive Caucus that both bills will advance as part of a “two-track” process.

“We’re trying to pass some of the most significant legislation to help working families — throughout New York and around the country — that’s been done since Franklin D. Roosevelt,” Schumer said at a news conference in New York City on Sunday. “It takes a little time. I believe we’re on track to pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill as well as the reconciliation Build Back Better bill, and our goal is to get both bills done in the next month.”

In a letter to lawmakers Saturday, Pelosi urged passage of the infrastructure bill by the end of the month and signaled that Democratic leaders were continuing to negotiate the broader social policy and climate bill with Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., two party holdouts who are needed to pass legislation in the Senate.

“Again, we will and must pass both bills soon,” Pelosi wrote. “We have the responsibility and the opportunity to do so.”

Sinema on Saturday released a statement condemning the delay of the infrastructure vote, calling it a “failure” and “deeply disappointing for communities across our country.”

“Denying Americans millions of good-paying jobs, safer roads, cleaner water, more reliable electricity and better broadband only hurts everyday families,” she said.

But Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chair of the Budget Committee, expressed confidence in the progressives’ negotiating position, pointing to signals from the White House that their faction was right to push for a more ambitious legislative agenda.

“We’ve got the president of the United States on our side,” Sanders said on ABC's “This Week” on Sunday. “Got 96% of the members of the Democratic caucus in the House on our side. We got all but two senators at this point in the Democratic caucus on our side. We’re going to win this thing.”

Cedric Richmond, a senior adviser to Biden, predicted that both liberals and centrists would have to give some to reach a deal.

“People will be disappointed. People will not get everything we want,” he said on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “We’re going to fight until we get both bills.”

Speaking on “State of the Union,” Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Senate Democrat, agreed that some big choices lie ahead.

“We have to ask that very fundamental question,” he said. “Should we do everything to a limited degree, or should we really invest ourselves in the most important things?”

After a tumultuous week in Congress, during which deep divisions in the Democratic Party delayed progress on part of President Joe Biden’s economic agenda, debate spilled over into the weekend as the party braced for intense negotiations in the weeks ahead.

After a tumultuous week in Congress, during which deep divisions in the Democratic Party delayed progress on part of President Joe Biden’s economic agenda, debate spilled over into the weekend as the party braced for intense negotiations in the weeks ahead. Progressives on Sunday flatly rejected the latest demands from Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a key swing vote for Democrats, to shrink Biden’s domestic policy agenda by more than half and to insert a provision to ensure that the federal government does not fund abortions. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said progressives would not agree to reduce Biden’s 10-year, $3.5 trillion social safety net and climate bill to $1.5 trillion, as Manchin requested. “That’s not going to happen,” Jayapal said on CNN's “State of the Union.” “That’s too small to get our priorities in. It’s going to be somewhere between $1.5 and $3.5, and I think the White House is working on that right now. Remember: What we want to deliver is child care, paid leave, climate change.” Manchin said in an interview with National Review last week that he was insisting that the legislation include the Hyde Amendment, which states that Medicaid will not pay for an abortion unless the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The Hyde Amendment has been reauthorized every year since 1976, but Biden did not include it in his latest budget proposal. During the presidential race, his campaign initially said he supported the amendment, but he later reversed course and condemned it. Jayapal, who was one of three members of Congress who testified last week about their personal experiences of having an abortion, said she opposed Manchin’s demand. “The Hyde Amendment is something the majority of the country does not support,” she said. However, Jayapal and other progressives said they were willing to compromise on the package’s price tag. Several said they were discussing whether to cut certain programs from their agenda entirely or to reduce the duration of the bill’s funding — to five years from 10 years, for example. “We can front-load the benefits and have less years,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said on “Fox News Sunday.” Jayapal said that progressives were willing to explore shortening the length of some components of the funding bill to decrease its cost, but that new clean-energy standards needed to stay in the legislation for a decade. “It takes time to cut carbon emissions,” she said. Debate has raged on Capitol Hill over the past week over Biden’s domestic agenda. The nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus blocked a House vote on his $1 trillion infrastructure bill, which is favored by the Democrats’ centrist wing. The more liberal lawmakers sought leverage to secure passage of the president’s larger $3.5 trillion domestic policy bill, which some centrist Democrats have not endorsed. With slim majorities in both chambers of Congress, nearly every Democratic vote is needed to pass both bills. Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and majority leader, have assured the Congressional Progressive Caucus that both bills will advance as part of a “two-track” process. “We’re trying to pass some of the most significant legislation to help working families — throughout New York and around the country — that’s been done since Franklin D. Roosevelt,” Schumer said at a news conference in New York City on Sunday. “It takes a little time. I believe we’re on track to pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill as well as the reconciliation Build Back Better bill, and our goal is to get both bills done in the next month.” In a letter to lawmakers Saturday, Pelosi urged passage of the infrastructure bill by the end of the month and signaled that Democratic leaders were continuing to negotiate the broader social policy and climate bill with Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., two party holdouts who are needed to pass legislation in the Senate. “Again, we will and must pass both bills soon,” Pelosi wrote. “We have the responsibility and the opportunity to do so.” Sinema on Saturday released a statement condemning the delay of the infrastructure vote, calling it a “failure” and “deeply disappointing for communities across our country.” “Denying Americans millions of good-paying jobs, safer roads, cleaner water, more reliable electricity and better broadband only hurts everyday families,” she said. But Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chair of the Budget Committee, expressed confidence in the progressives’ negotiating position, pointing to signals from the White House that their faction was right to push for a more ambitious legislative agenda. “We’ve got the president of the United States on our side,” Sanders said on ABC's “This Week” on Sunday. “Got 96% of the members of the Democratic caucus in the House on our side. We got all but two senators at this point in the Democratic caucus on our side. We’re going to win this thing.” Cedric Richmond, a senior adviser to Biden, predicted that both liberals and centrists would have to give some to reach a deal. “People will be disappointed. People will not get everything we want,” he said on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “We’re going to fight until we get both bills.” Speaking on “State of the Union,” Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Senate Democrat, agreed that some big choices lie ahead. “We have to ask that very fundamental question,” he said. “Should we do everything to a limited degree, or should we really invest ourselves in the most important things?”

Progressives stand firm on priorities as infrastructure debate continues

US President Joe Biden signed government funding bill on Thursday averting US government shutdown just hours before the deadline. Meanwhile, North Korea carried out fresh missile test as per the state media. This was North Korea's second known weapons test this week. On Tuesday, it launched a previously unseen hypersonic missile. Kim Jong-Un was not present at the time of the test on Thursday. Pak Jong Chon a member of the ruling Workers' Party's powerful politburo and Central Committee. Check out our morning news brief.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-government-shutdown-averted-hours-before-deadline-as-biden-signs-infra-bill-417243">US government shutdown averted hours before deadline as Biden signs funding&nbsp;bill</a>

<img alt="Biden" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="76e6e068-7b58-4269-876c-5510f6ff0421" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Biden_10.JPG" />

Hours ahead of the midnight deadline, the House of Representatives voted to keep the lights on for another two months with a resolution that had already advanced comfortably from the Senate, with opposition Republicans supporting the ruling Democrats in both chambers

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/north-korea-carries-out-new-test-fires-anti-aircraft-missile-417239">North Korea carries out new test, fires anti-aircraft missile</a>

<img alt="North Korea" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="f0d1754f-c10f-44df-86a9-bfe6bddcab4a" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/missile.JPG" />

This is North Korea's second known weapons test this week. North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un was not present to versee the latest missile test

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ecuador-seeks-to-identify-remains-of-116-inmates-killed-in-prison-riot-417246">Ecuador seeks to identify remains of 116 inmates killed in prison riot</a>

<img alt="Ecuador" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="ea01dcae-aabe-4d19-b225-007cd21e8f8e" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Ecuador.JPG" />

Dozens of relatives of inmates at the Penitenciaria del Litoral in the country's largest city of Guayaquil gathered outside a morgue seeking information on loved ones, after the deadliest outbreak of prison violence in Ecuador's history on Tuesday in which 80 people were also injured

 
Gravitas: Lashkar terrorist spills the beans on Pakistan's Kashmir plan

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-lashkar-terrorist-spills-the-beans-on-pakistans-kashmir-plan-417226/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden signed government funding bill on Thursday averting US government shutdown just hours before the deadline. Meanwhile, North Korea carried out fresh missile test as per the state media.

US President Joe Biden signed government funding bill on Thursday averting US government shutdown just hours before the deadline. Meanwhile, North Korea carried out fresh missile test as per the state media. This was North Korea's second known weapons test this week. On Tuesday, it launched a previously unseen hypersonic missile. Kim Jong-Un was not present at the time of the test on Thursday. Pak Jong Chon a member of the ruling Workers' Party's powerful politburo and Central Committee. Check out our morning news brief. US government shutdown averted hours before deadline as Biden signs funding bill Hours ahead of the midnight deadline, the House of Representatives voted to keep the lights on for another two months with a resolution that had already advanced comfortably from the Senate, with opposition Republicans supporting the ruling Democrats in both chambers North Korea carries out new test, fires anti-aircraft missile This is North Korea's second known weapons test this week. North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un was not present to versee the latest missile test Ecuador seeks to identify remains of 116 inmates killed in prison riot Dozens of relatives of inmates at the Penitenciaria del Litoral in the country's largest city of Guayaquil gathered outside a morgue seeking information on loved ones, after the deadliest outbreak of prison violence in Ecuador's history on Tuesday in which 80 people were also injured Gravitas: Lashkar terrorist spills the beans on Pakistan's Kashmir plan ×

Morning news brief: US Govt shutdown averted, North Korean missile test, more

New York City has an opportunity to solve a debt crisis that has devastated a central institution in the lives of many New Yorkers: yellow cabs and their owner-drivers. The solution would come at a relatively modest cost and would help redress an injustice from which the city benefited financially: a creditor-driven bubble in the price of medallions — the permits that allow people to operate cabs — that led many drivers into debt bondage and even prompted some to commit suicide.

The city should take action. It should adopt a plan put forward last year by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance in which the drivers’ debt would be restructured and the city would serve as the guarantor of the medallions’ value.

There are about 12,000 taxi medallions in use in New York, sold originally by the city but now traded mostly among taxi drivers and owners of taxi fleets. Medallion brokers often arrange for sales and their financing. As investigative reporting has shown, for about a decade a creditor-driven cycle of easy credit rapidly increased the price of a medallion, which reached almost $1 million in 2014, the peak year.

Cabdrivers, typically immigrants, took out loans to pay for the medallions, and to obtain the loans they often had to offer as collateral everything that they and their next of kin owned. When in 2019 the bubble burst and the value of a medallion dropped to about $100,000, cabdrivers were plunged into financial ruin.

Identifying a debt bubble in real time is not always easy. But with the market for taxi medallions, creditors, brokers and the city were in a position to see what was going on — and yet they allowed the frenzy to continue and often made large sums of money from it.

The plan put forward by the Taxi Workers Alliance was devised after consultation with cabdrivers, some of the creditors and some city officials. (Two of the alliance’s lawyers are former students of mine.) Under the plan, New York City would become the guarantor of the medallions’ value. If the cabdrivers default on the loan, the city, not the personal assets of drivers and their families, would guarantee the value.

For creditors this would be a boon as well, because a guarantee from New York is a more reliable security than are personal assets. In return, the creditors would agree to restructure the loans to reflect the actual market value of the medallions, not their inflated “bubble” value.

The cost to the city would be $93 million over 30 years, based on estimated default rates and the prevailing market value of the medallions published by the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission. This is a relatively small price, especially considering that from 2004 to 2017, the city made more than $850 million from auctioning new medallions.

The alliance’s plan is superior to a plan being considered by the Taxi and Limousine Commission, which would offer each driver a one-time grant of $20,000 to pay off creditors. That would be good news for the creditors, but it would leave the cabdrivers to renegotiate the rest of their debt on their own.

Some will object that the city should not get involved in a private contractual relationship between a debtor and a creditor. But the city is already involved: It created the asset at the center of the deals — the medallion. In addition, as the city made money from the inflated price of medallions, it allowed the bubble to run its course, ignoring lessons from the similar bubble in the housing market a few years earlier. By adopting the alliance plan, the city would help right a wrong that, at least indirectly, it helped create.

Another objection to the plan is that the drivers are to blame for their fate — after all, they chose to sign the loan contracts — and that government intervention will just make things worse because people will come to expect bailouts in the future and behave recklessly as a result. But lender-borrower relationships are never entered into equally: Whoever has the money can set the terms — whether to lend at all, for what purposes and on what conditions. Unfortunately, the law ignores this power imbalance. Contracting parties are treated as equal with each party fully responsible for upholding its side of the bargain.

Even if the creditors who provided the loans to buy the medallions played by the formal rules of the game — a big “if,” in many cases — they still took their debtors for a ride. Their lending practices shifted most of the risk of the deal to the debtors, who were least able to carry it.

Though it did not directly subsidize creditors, New York City allowed them to enrich themselves by exploiting the weaknesses of others — while itself profiting handsomely. By adopting the plan put forward by the cabdrivers’ alliance, the city would mitigate a harm it helped inflict on a group of people who have always helped fuel the fortunes of this city.

New York City has an opportunity to solve a debt crisis that has devastated a central institution in the lives of many New Yorkers: yellow cabs and their owner-drivers.

New York City has an opportunity to solve a debt crisis that has devastated a central institution in the lives of many New Yorkers: yellow cabs and their owner-drivers. The solution would come at a relatively modest cost and would help redress an injustice from which the city benefited financially: a creditor-driven bubble in the price of medallions — the permits that allow people to operate cabs — that led many drivers into debt bondage and even prompted some to commit suicide. The city should take action. It should adopt a plan put forward last year by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance in which the drivers’ debt would be restructured and the city would serve as the guarantor of the medallions’ value. There are about 12,000 taxi medallions in use in New York, sold originally by the city but now traded mostly among taxi drivers and owners of taxi fleets. Medallion brokers often arrange for sales and their financing. As investigative reporting has shown, for about a decade a creditor-driven cycle of easy credit rapidly increased the price of a medallion, which reached almost $1 million in 2014, the peak year. Cabdrivers, typically immigrants, took out loans to pay for the medallions, and to obtain the loans they often had to offer as collateral everything that they and their next of kin owned. When in 2019 the bubble burst and the value of a medallion dropped to about $100,000, cabdrivers were plunged into financial ruin. Identifying a debt bubble in real time is not always easy. But with the market for taxi medallions, creditors, brokers and the city were in a position to see what was going on — and yet they allowed the frenzy to continue and often made large sums of money from it. The plan put forward by the Taxi Workers Alliance was devised after consultation with cabdrivers, some of the creditors and some city officials. (Two of the alliance’s lawyers are former students of mine.) Under the plan, New York City would become the guarantor of the medallions’ value. If the cabdrivers default on the loan, the city, not the personal assets of drivers and their families, would guarantee the value. For creditors this would be a boon as well, because a guarantee from New York is a more reliable security than are personal assets. In return, the creditors would agree to restructure the loans to reflect the actual market value of the medallions, not their inflated “bubble” value. The cost to the city would be $93 million over 30 years, based on estimated default rates and the prevailing market value of the medallions published by the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission. This is a relatively small price, especially considering that from 2004 to 2017, the city made more than $850 million from auctioning new medallions. The alliance’s plan is superior to a plan being considered by the Taxi and Limousine Commission, which would offer each driver a one-time grant of $20,000 to pay off creditors. That would be good news for the creditors, but it would leave the cabdrivers to renegotiate the rest of their debt on their own. Some will object that the city should not get involved in a private contractual relationship between a debtor and a creditor. But the city is already involved: It created the asset at the center of the deals — the medallion. In addition, as the city made money from the inflated price of medallions, it allowed the bubble to run its course, ignoring lessons from the similar bubble in the housing market a few years earlier. By adopting the alliance plan, the city would help right a wrong that, at least indirectly, it helped create. Another objection to the plan is that the drivers are to blame for their fate — after all, they chose to sign the loan contracts — and that government intervention will just make things worse because people will come to expect bailouts in the future and behave recklessly as a result. But lender-borrower relationships are never entered into equally: Whoever has the money can set the terms — whether to lend at all, for what purposes and on what conditions. Unfortunately, the law ignores this power imbalance. Contracting parties are treated as equal with each party fully responsible for upholding its side of the bargain. Even if the creditors who provided the loans to buy the medallions played by the formal rules of the game — a big “if,” in many cases — they still took their debtors for a ride. Their lending practices shifted most of the risk of the deal to the debtors, who were least able to carry it. Though it did not directly subsidize creditors, New York City allowed them to enrich themselves by exploiting the weaknesses of others — while itself profiting handsomely. By adopting the plan put forward by the cabdrivers’ alliance, the city would mitigate a harm it helped inflict on a group of people who have always helped fuel the fortunes of this city.

How to save New York City’s cabdrivers

A top US general said on Wednesday that US military was aware of civilian casualities in the drone strike carried out in Afghanistan in the aftermath of Kabul airport blasts. However, there had been no admission of civilian casualties from the military for weeks after the drone strike.

General Kenneth McKenzie said during a House hearing that the August 29 drone strike was a "tragic mistake" and accepted responsibility for it.

10 Afghan civilians were killed in the drone strike.

WION was first to report from ground that the drone strike claimed lives of Afghan civilians. WION's Anas Mallick was at the very spot of the drone attack soon after it took place.&nbsp;

General McKenzie said that the US military knew "within 4 to 5 hours" after the strike about the civilian casualties.

Given the delay in admission on the part of USA, it certainly appears that it has come too little too late.

During his House hearing, McKenzie sought to underline that military was unaware that target of the strike was an 'error' and it took few days to "run that down".

Initial statement from US Central Command had said that they had "no indication" as they assessed the possibility of civilian casualties.

The drone attack was carried out by the USA in retaliation to blasts at Kabul airport. The responsibility of the attack was taken by ISIS-K. The drone attack was said to have targetted those involved carrying out blasts at the airport.

A top US general said on Wednesday that US military was aware of civilian casualities in the drone strike carried out in Afghanistan in the aftermath of Kabul airport blasts.

A top US general said on Wednesday that US military was aware of civilian casualities in the drone strike carried out in Afghanistan in the aftermath of Kabul airport blasts. However, there had been no admission of civilian casualties from the military for weeks after the drone strike. General Kenneth McKenzie said during a House hearing that the August 29 drone strike was a "tragic mistake" and accepted responsibility for it. 10 Afghan civilians were killed in the drone strike. WION was first to report from ground that the drone strike claimed lives of Afghan civilians. WION's Anas Mallick was at the very spot of the drone attack soon after it took place. General McKenzie said that the US military knew "within 4 to 5 hours" after the strike about the civilian casualties. Given the delay in admission on the part of USA, it certainly appears that it has come too little too late. During his House hearing, McKenzie sought to underline that military was unaware that target of the strike was an 'error' and it took few days to "run that down". Initial statement from US Central Command had said that they had "no indication" as they assessed the possibility of civilian casualties. The drone attack was carried out by the USA in retaliation to blasts at Kabul airport. The responsibility of the attack was taken by ISIS-K. The drone attack was said to have targetted those involved carrying out blasts at the airport.

Kabul drone strike: US military knew about civilian casualties but didn't admit initially

Taliban on Wednesday warned the US of 'consequences' over its use of drones in Afghan airspace. Calling itself 'sole legal entity' and 'custodian of Afghanistan's land and airspace', the Taliban alleged that Afghan airspace was being 'invaded' by US drones.

The Taliban also claimed&nbsp;that the US was violating commitments made to Taliban during negotiations that took place in Doha, Qatar.

To justify its warning, the Taliban attempted to underline that all countries were sole owners of their airspace. It called on the US and other countries to uphold 'international rights, laws and commitments' and spoke of 'mutual respect'.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-was-advised-to-keep-troops-in-afghanistan-say-top-us-generals-416696">Biden was advised to keep troops in Afghanistan, say top US generals</a>

The statement was tweeted by Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
About airspace of Afghanistan<a href="https://t.co/3SmnYkCpHN">https://t.co/3SmnYkCpHN</a> <a href="https://t.co/huIue3NXD2">pic.twitter.com/huIue3NXD2</a>
— Zabihullah (..ذبـــــیح الله م ) (@Zabehulah_M33) <a href="https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1443066840557707267?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 29, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Taliban took over Afghanistan in a lightning offensive during and immediately after US withdrawal.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/ban-on-saloon-girls-education-return-of-public-executions-is-afghanistan-going-back-in-time-416682">Ban on saloon, girls’ education &amp; return of public executions: Is Afghanistan going back in time?</a> 
 
On Monday, top US generals said that they had <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-was-advised-to-keep-troops-in-afghanistan-say-top-us-generals-416696">advised US President Joe Biden against total withdrawal</a> and suggested that 2500 US troops be kept back in Afghanistan. This squarely went against Biden's recent assertion that he did not recall having received such an advice.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-brutally-kill-child-after-suspecting-father-belonged-to-afghan-resistance-forces-416664">Taliban brutally kill child after suspecting father belonged to Afghan resistance forces</a>

The statements came from General Mark Milley and General Frank McKenzie as they testified before US Congress.

Taliban on Wednesday warned the US of 'consequences' over its use of drones in Afghan airspace. Calling itself 'sole legal entity' and 'custodian of Afghanistan's land and airspace', the Taliban alleged that Afghan airspace was being 'invaded' by US drones.

Taliban on Wednesday warned the US of 'consequences' over its use of drones in Afghan airspace. Calling itself 'sole legal entity' and 'custodian of Afghanistan's land and airspace', the Taliban alleged that Afghan airspace was being 'invaded' by US drones. The Taliban also claimed that the US was violating commitments made to Taliban during negotiations that took place in Doha, Qatar. To justify its warning, the Taliban attempted to underline that all countries were sole owners of their airspace. It called on the US and other countries to uphold 'international rights, laws and commitments' and spoke of 'mutual respect'. Also Read | Biden was advised to keep troops in Afghanistan, say top US generals The statement was tweeted by Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid About airspace of Afghanistanhttps://t.co/3SmnYkCpHN pic.twitter.com/huIue3NXD2 — Zabihullah (..ذبـــــیح الله م ) (@Zabehulah_M33) September 29, 2021 × Taliban took over Afghanistan in a lightning offensive during and immediately after US withdrawal. Also Read | Ban on saloon, girls’ education & return of public executions: Is Afghanistan going back in time? On Monday, top US generals said that they had advised US President Joe Biden against total withdrawal and suggested that 2500 US troops be kept back in Afghanistan. This squarely went against Biden's recent assertion that he did not recall having received such an advice. Also Read | Taliban brutally kill child after suspecting father belonged to Afghan resistance forces The statements came from General Mark Milley and General Frank McKenzie as they testified before US Congress.

Taliban warn US of 'consequences' over drones in Afghan airspace

US Department of Homeland security on Tuesday denied landing rights to a plane carrying more than 100 Americans and US green card holders evacuated from Afghanistan, said organisers of the flight

"They will not allow a charter on an international flight into a U.S. port of entry," Bryan Stern, a founder of non-profit group Project Dynamo, said of the department's Customs and Border Protection agency.

Stern spoke with Reuters on phone from aboard a plane the group chartered from &nbsp;Kam Air, a private Afghan airline. He said he had been sitting for 14 hours at Abu Dhabi airport after the plane arrived from Kabul carrying 117 people. These include 59 children.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-was-advised-to-keep-troops-in-afghanistan-say-top-us-generals-416696">Biden was advised to keep 2500 troops in Afghanistan, say top US generals</a>

Stern's group is one of several that emerged from ad hoc networks of US military veterans, current and former US officials and others that formed to bolster last month's US evacuation operation they saw as chaotic and badly organized.

There was no immediate comment from Homeland department. Reuters quoted an unnamed administration official who said that they were unfamiliar with the matter but that the US government typically takes time to verify the manifests of charter planes before clearing them to land in the United States.

Biden administration has said that repatriating American and green card holders unable to leave Afghanistan was its top priority.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-warns-us-of-consequences-over-drones-in-afghan-airspace-416721">Taliban warn US of 'consequences' over drones in Afghan airspace</a>

Twenty-eight Americans, 83 green card holders and six people with U.S. Special Immigration Visas granted to Afghans who worked for the U.S. government during the 20-year war in Afghanistan were aboard the Kam Air flight, Stern said.

He had planned to transfer the passengers to a chartered Ethiopian Airlines plane for an onward flight to the United States that he said the Customs cleared to land at John F Kennedy International Airport in New York City.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-brutally-kill-child-after-suspecting-father-belonged-to-afghan-resistance-forces-416664">Taliban brutally kill child after suspecting father belonged to Afghan resistance forces</a>

Customs then changed the clearance to Dulles International Airport outside Washington before denying the plane landing rights anywhere in the United States, he said.

"I have a big, beautiful, giant, humongous Boeing 787 that I can see parked in front of us," he said. "I have crew. I have food."

Stern said intermediaries in Kabul had obtained permission from the Taliban-run Afghan Civil Aviation Authority for the groups to send a charter flight to retrieve the passengers from Kabul airport.

(With inputs from agencies)

US Department of Homeland security on Tuesday denied landing rights to a plane carrying more than 100 Americans and US green card holders evacuated from Afghanistan, said organisers of the flight "They will not allow a charter on an international flight into a U.

US Department of Homeland security on Tuesday denied landing rights to a plane carrying more than 100 Americans and US green card holders evacuated from Afghanistan, said organisers of the flight "They will not allow a charter on an international flight into a U.S. port of entry," Bryan Stern, a founder of non-profit group Project Dynamo, said of the department's Customs and Border Protection agency. Stern spoke with Reuters on phone from aboard a plane the group chartered from Kam Air, a private Afghan airline. He said he had been sitting for 14 hours at Abu Dhabi airport after the plane arrived from Kabul carrying 117 people. These include 59 children. Also Read | Biden was advised to keep 2500 troops in Afghanistan, say top US generals Stern's group is one of several that emerged from ad hoc networks of US military veterans, current and former US officials and others that formed to bolster last month's US evacuation operation they saw as chaotic and badly organized. There was no immediate comment from Homeland department. Reuters quoted an unnamed administration official who said that they were unfamiliar with the matter but that the US government typically takes time to verify the manifests of charter planes before clearing them to land in the United States. Biden administration has said that repatriating American and green card holders unable to leave Afghanistan was its top priority. Also Read | Taliban warn US of 'consequences' over drones in Afghan airspace Twenty-eight Americans, 83 green card holders and six people with U.S. Special Immigration Visas granted to Afghans who worked for the U.S. government during the 20-year war in Afghanistan were aboard the Kam Air flight, Stern said. He had planned to transfer the passengers to a chartered Ethiopian Airlines plane for an onward flight to the United States that he said the Customs cleared to land at John F Kennedy International Airport in New York City. Also Read | Taliban brutally kill child after suspecting father belonged to Afghan resistance forces Customs then changed the clearance to Dulles International Airport outside Washington before denying the plane landing rights anywhere in the United States, he said. "I have a big, beautiful, giant, humongous Boeing 787 that I can see parked in front of us," he said. "I have crew. I have food." Stern said intermediaries in Kabul had obtained permission from the Taliban-run Afghan Civil Aviation Authority for the groups to send a charter flight to retrieve the passengers from Kabul airport. (With inputs from agencies)

US denies landing permission to flight carrying Americans from Kabul: Activist

Afghanistan’s ambassador to the United Nations has pulled out of delivering an address to world leaders at the General Assembly on Monday.Watch this report for more details.

Controversy over Afghanistan's UNGA address

UNGA President's chef de cabinet Nagraj Naidu speaks to WION Principal Diplomatic & Defence Correspondent Sidhant Sibal. Watch the complete interview for more details.

UNGA President's chef de cabinet speaks to WION

Foreign Secretary Harsh V Shringla on Monday said that India is committed to the goal of nuclear weapons-free world and complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Watch this report for more details.

India is committed towards a nuclear-free world, says Indian Foreign Secy

The UN General Assembly drew to a close Monday without speeches by Afghanistan or Myanmar after world powers intervened in disputes over who would represent the two countries.

Afghanistan voiceless as annual UN meet wraps up

A Sikh officer in United States Marine Corps got permission to wear a turban when on duty. However, there are caveats to this permission and now he may sue&nbsp;the Marine Corps for their removal if his appeal is not upheld.

First Lieutenant Sukhbir Toor is the first person ever to have been granted permission to wear a turban by US Marines, a branch of US military which is absolutely strict about its dress code. Marines have been known to incorporate changes very late compared to other branches of US military.&nbsp;

First Lt. Toor got a permission to wear turban in daily dress at normal duty. But he cannot do so in conflict zone or while serving in a ceremonial unit. An he is not happy with it. He has made an appeal to Marine Corps Commandant.

<img alt="Toor" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="3c3ebce7-93f1-4b13-8d3a-86390b0440d4" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/toor%202.JPG" />

“We’ve come a long way, but there is still more to go,” he was quoted as saying by The New York Times.

“The Marine Corps needs to show it really means what it has been saying about strength in diversity — that it doesn’t matter what you look like, it just matters that you can do your job.”

Toor joined US Marines after college in 2017. Initially, he shaved his beard and wore standard headgear of the Marines. But as he progressed and became a captain, he decided that it was time he found a way to honour both, his country and his religion.

<img alt="Toor" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2b513bb6-d3f8-4d95-aca5-2f4417a1420d" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/toor%201.JPG" />

(First Lt Sukhbir Toor, image: The New York Times)

He formally asked for permission to wear a turban and to keep a beard. He was granted permission but with so many restrictions that it amounted to a denial.

Toor appealed the decision. The Marine Corps retreated somewhat and allowed him to wear turban while on ordinary duty. However,&nbsp;a turban was prohibited while his possible service in a ceremonial unit.

Toor is going a step ahead and pressing for more permissions as he feels restrictions on turban may deter Sikhs and Muslims from joining US Marine Corps.

A Sikh officer in United States Marine Corps got permission to wear a turban when on duty. However, there are caveats to this permission and now he may sue the Marine Corps for their removal if his appeal is not upheld.

A Sikh officer in United States Marine Corps got permission to wear a turban when on duty. However, there are caveats to this permission and now he may sue the Marine Corps for their removal if his appeal is not upheld. First Lieutenant Sukhbir Toor is the first person ever to have been granted permission to wear a turban by US Marines, a branch of US military which is absolutely strict about its dress code. Marines have been known to incorporate changes very late compared to other branches of US military. First Lt. Toor got a permission to wear turban in daily dress at normal duty. But he cannot do so in conflict zone or while serving in a ceremonial unit. An he is not happy with it. He has made an appeal to Marine Corps Commandant. “We’ve come a long way, but there is still more to go,” he was quoted as saying by The New York Times. “The Marine Corps needs to show it really means what it has been saying about strength in diversity — that it doesn’t matter what you look like, it just matters that you can do your job.” Toor joined US Marines after college in 2017. Initially, he shaved his beard and wore standard headgear of the Marines. But as he progressed and became a captain, he decided that it was time he found a way to honour both, his country and his religion. (First Lt Sukhbir Toor, image: The New York Times) He formally asked for permission to wear a turban and to keep a beard. He was granted permission but with so many restrictions that it amounted to a denial. Toor appealed the decision. The Marine Corps retreated somewhat and allowed him to wear turban while on ordinary duty. However, a turban was prohibited while his possible service in a ceremonial unit. Toor is going a step ahead and pressing for more permissions as he feels restrictions on turban may deter Sikhs and Muslims from joining US Marine Corps.

Sikh officer in US Marines was allowed turban, but he may sue

For nearly two decades, lawmakers in Washington have waged an escalating display of brinkmanship over the federal government’s ability to borrow money to pay its bills. They have forced administrations of both parties to take evasive actions, pushing the nation dangerously close to economic calamity. But they have never actually tipped the United States into default.

The dance is repeating this fall, but this time the dynamics are different — and the threat of default is greater than ever.

Republicans in Congress have refused to help raise the nation’s debt limit, even though the need to borrow stems from the bipartisan practice of running large budget deficits. Republicans agree the United States must pay its bills, but on Monday they are expected to block a measure in the Senate that would enable the government to do so. Democrats, insistent that Republicans help pay for past decisions to boost spending and cut taxes, have so far refused to use a special process to raise the limit on their own.

Observers inside and outside Washington are worried neither side will budge in time, roiling financial markets and capsizing the economy’s nascent recovery from the pandemic downturn.

If the limit is not raised or suspended, officials at the Treasury Department warn, the government will soon exhaust its ability to borrow money, forcing officials to choose between missing payments on military salaries, Social Security benefits and the interest it owes to investors who have financed America’s spending spree.

Yet Republicans have threatened to filibuster any attempt by Senate Democrats to pass a simple bill to increase borrowing. Party leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky want to force Democrats to raise the limit on their own, through a fast-track congressional process that bypasses a Republican filibuster. That could take weeks to come to fruition, raising the stakes every day that Democratic leaders decline to pursue that option.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that no one is quite sure when the government will run out of money. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the United States in waves, frequently disrupting economic activity and the taxes the government collects, complicating Treasury’s ability to gauge its cash flow. Estimates for what is known as the “X-date” range from as early as Oct. 15 to mid-November.

Amid that uncertainty, congressional leaders and President Joe Biden are not even attempting to negotiate a resolution. Instead, they are sparring over who should be saddled with a vote that could be used against them, raising the odds that partisan stubbornness will propel the country into a fiscal unknown.

It all adds up to an impasse rooted in political messaging, midterm campaign advertising and a desire by Republican leaders to do whatever they can to protest Biden’s economic agenda, including the $3.5 trillion spending bill that Democrats hope to pass along party lines using a fast-track budget process.

Republicans say they will not supply any votes to lift the debt cap, despite having run up trillions in new debt to pay for the 2017 tax cuts, additional government spending and pandemic aid during the Trump administration. Democrats, in contrast, helped President Donald Trump increase borrowing in 2017 and 2019.

“If they want to tax, borrow, and spend historic sums of money without our input,” McConnell said on the Senate floor this week, “they will have to raise the debt limit without our help.”

Thus far, Biden and Democratic leaders in Congress have declined to do so, even though employing that process would end the threat of default.

Jon Lieber, a former aide to McConnell who is now with the Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy in Washington, wrote in a warning to clients this week that there is a 1-in-5 chance the standoff will push the country into at least a technical debt default — forcing the government to choose between paying bondholders and honoring all its spending commitments — this fall.

“That’s crazy high for an event like this,” Lieber said in an interview, noting that the odds are significantly higher than in past standoffs. “But I feel really confident that’s the level of panic we should be having.”

Under President George W. Bush, Democrats, including Biden, voted in 2006 against a debt-limit increase, citing Bush’s budget deficits that were swollen by tax cuts and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They did so despite warnings from administration officials that a default would hurt the nation’s credit rating and economy.

Biden, like many other Democrats, said he could not abet Bush’s fiscal decisions. But his party did not filibuster a vote and Republicans were able to pass a debt limit increase along party lines. White House officials say Biden’s vote was symbolic, noting that the ability of Republicans to raise the debt ceiling was never in question.

Leaders of both parties have, at times, made a version of the core argument in favor of raising the limit: that it is simply a way to allow the government to pay bills it has already incurred. Both parties also have shown no sign of slowing the nation’s borrowing spree, which accelerated last year as lawmakers approved trillions of dollars of aid for people and businesses struggling through the pandemic recession. Each party has recently occupied the White House and controlled Congress, but neither has come close in recent years to approving a budget that would balance — which is to say, not require additional borrowing and a debt-limit increase — within a decade.

Biden administration officials, former Treasury secretaries from both parties and business executives from around the country have all urged lawmakers to raise the borrowing limit as soon as possible.

“I think it’s scary for consumer confidence and for confidence in U.S. businesses and potential credit ratings if we don’t make sure that we raise that debt ceiling,” Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon, said on CNBC earlier this month.

Democrats say Republicans have a responsibility to help raise the limit, noting that they helped when Trump needed to do it. White House officials called McConnell’s position hypocritical.

“Republicans in Congress have spent a decade ushering in a new era where the prospect of default and a global economic meltdown has become a dangerous political football,” Michael Gwin, a White House spokesperson, said in an email. “As we rebound from the deep recession caused by the pandemic, it’s more important now than ever to put partisanship aside, remove this cloud from over our economy, and responsibly address the debt limit — just like Democrats did three times under the previous administration.”

Lieber and other analysts worry party leaders are talking past each other. Experts suggest it would take a week or two for Democratic leaders to steer a debt limit increase through the fast-track budget process. That could leave the government vulnerable to a sudden crisis. On Friday, the independent Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank, said the government could run out of cash to pay its bills by mid-October.

Lieber said he is worried about “the risk of miscalculation of both sides,” in part because this standoff is not the same as the ones under Obama. “The Republicans aren’t asking for anything,” he said. “So their position is, there’s nothing you can do to get us to vote for a debt ceiling increase. That’s a dangerous situation.”

Goldman Sachs researchers warned in a note to clients this month that the volatile nature of tax receipts this year, a product of the pandemic, makes the debt limit “riskier than usual” for the economy and markets. They said the standoff was at least as risky as in 2011, when brinkmanship disrupted bond yields and the stock market.

Other financial analysts continue to believe that, as they have in the past, the sides will eventually find an agreement — largely because of the consequences of failure.

“We believe Congress will raise or suspend the debt ceiling,” Beth Ann Bovino, S&amp;P U.S. chief economist, wrote this week. “A default by the U.S. government would be substantially worse than the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, devastating global markets and the economy.”

In the meantime, Republicans are awaiting a vote by Democrats to raise the limit. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who heads Republicans’ campaign arm in the Senate, told an NBC reporter he was eager to highlight Democratic support for raising the limit in midterm advertisements.

For nearly two decades, lawmakers in Washington have waged an escalating display of brinkmanship over the federal government’s ability to borrow money to pay its bills.

For nearly two decades, lawmakers in Washington have waged an escalating display of brinkmanship over the federal government’s ability to borrow money to pay its bills. They have forced administrations of both parties to take evasive actions, pushing the nation dangerously close to economic calamity. But they have never actually tipped the United States into default. The dance is repeating this fall, but this time the dynamics are different — and the threat of default is greater than ever. Republicans in Congress have refused to help raise the nation’s debt limit, even though the need to borrow stems from the bipartisan practice of running large budget deficits. Republicans agree the United States must pay its bills, but on Monday they are expected to block a measure in the Senate that would enable the government to do so. Democrats, insistent that Republicans help pay for past decisions to boost spending and cut taxes, have so far refused to use a special process to raise the limit on their own. Observers inside and outside Washington are worried neither side will budge in time, roiling financial markets and capsizing the economy’s nascent recovery from the pandemic downturn. If the limit is not raised or suspended, officials at the Treasury Department warn, the government will soon exhaust its ability to borrow money, forcing officials to choose between missing payments on military salaries, Social Security benefits and the interest it owes to investors who have financed America’s spending spree. Yet Republicans have threatened to filibuster any attempt by Senate Democrats to pass a simple bill to increase borrowing. Party leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky want to force Democrats to raise the limit on their own, through a fast-track congressional process that bypasses a Republican filibuster. That could take weeks to come to fruition, raising the stakes every day that Democratic leaders decline to pursue that option. The problem is further compounded by the fact that no one is quite sure when the government will run out of money. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the United States in waves, frequently disrupting economic activity and the taxes the government collects, complicating Treasury’s ability to gauge its cash flow. Estimates for what is known as the “X-date” range from as early as Oct. 15 to mid-November. Amid that uncertainty, congressional leaders and President Joe Biden are not even attempting to negotiate a resolution. Instead, they are sparring over who should be saddled with a vote that could be used against them, raising the odds that partisan stubbornness will propel the country into a fiscal unknown. It all adds up to an impasse rooted in political messaging, midterm campaign advertising and a desire by Republican leaders to do whatever they can to protest Biden’s economic agenda, including the $3.5 trillion spending bill that Democrats hope to pass along party lines using a fast-track budget process. Republicans say they will not supply any votes to lift the debt cap, despite having run up trillions in new debt to pay for the 2017 tax cuts, additional government spending and pandemic aid during the Trump administration. Democrats, in contrast, helped President Donald Trump increase borrowing in 2017 and 2019. “If they want to tax, borrow, and spend historic sums of money without our input,” McConnell said on the Senate floor this week, “they will have to raise the debt limit without our help.” Thus far, Biden and Democratic leaders in Congress have declined to do so, even though employing that process would end the threat of default. Jon Lieber, a former aide to McConnell who is now with the Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy in Washington, wrote in a warning to clients this week that there is a 1-in-5 chance the standoff will push the country into at least a technical debt default — forcing the government to choose between paying bondholders and honoring all its spending commitments — this fall. “That’s crazy high for an event like this,” Lieber said in an interview, noting that the odds are significantly higher than in past standoffs. “But I feel really confident that’s the level of panic we should be having.” Under President George W. Bush, Democrats, including Biden, voted in 2006 against a debt-limit increase, citing Bush’s budget deficits that were swollen by tax cuts and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They did so despite warnings from administration officials that a default would hurt the nation’s credit rating and economy. Biden, like many other Democrats, said he could not abet Bush’s fiscal decisions. But his party did not filibuster a vote and Republicans were able to pass a debt limit increase along party lines. White House officials say Biden’s vote was symbolic, noting that the ability of Republicans to raise the debt ceiling was never in question. Leaders of both parties have, at times, made a version of the core argument in favor of raising the limit: that it is simply a way to allow the government to pay bills it has already incurred. Both parties also have shown no sign of slowing the nation’s borrowing spree, which accelerated last year as lawmakers approved trillions of dollars of aid for people and businesses struggling through the pandemic recession. Each party has recently occupied the White House and controlled Congress, but neither has come close in recent years to approving a budget that would balance — which is to say, not require additional borrowing and a debt-limit increase — within a decade. Biden administration officials, former Treasury secretaries from both parties and business executives from around the country have all urged lawmakers to raise the borrowing limit as soon as possible. “I think it’s scary for consumer confidence and for confidence in U.S. businesses and potential credit ratings if we don’t make sure that we raise that debt ceiling,” Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon, said on CNBC earlier this month. Democrats say Republicans have a responsibility to help raise the limit, noting that they helped when Trump needed to do it. White House officials called McConnell’s position hypocritical. “Republicans in Congress have spent a decade ushering in a new era where the prospect of default and a global economic meltdown has become a dangerous political football,” Michael Gwin, a White House spokesperson, said in an email. “As we rebound from the deep recession caused by the pandemic, it’s more important now than ever to put partisanship aside, remove this cloud from over our economy, and responsibly address the debt limit — just like Democrats did three times under the previous administration.” Lieber and other analysts worry party leaders are talking past each other. Experts suggest it would take a week or two for Democratic leaders to steer a debt limit increase through the fast-track budget process. That could leave the government vulnerable to a sudden crisis. On Friday, the independent Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank, said the government could run out of cash to pay its bills by mid-October. Lieber said he is worried about “the risk of miscalculation of both sides,” in part because this standoff is not the same as the ones under Obama. “The Republicans aren’t asking for anything,” he said. “So their position is, there’s nothing you can do to get us to vote for a debt ceiling increase. That’s a dangerous situation.” Goldman Sachs researchers warned in a note to clients this month that the volatile nature of tax receipts this year, a product of the pandemic, makes the debt limit “riskier than usual” for the economy and markets. They said the standoff was at least as risky as in 2011, when brinkmanship disrupted bond yields and the stock market. Other financial analysts continue to believe that, as they have in the past, the sides will eventually find an agreement — largely because of the consequences of failure. “We believe Congress will raise or suspend the debt ceiling,” Beth Ann Bovino, S&P U.S. chief economist, wrote this week. “A default by the U.S. government would be substantially worse than the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, devastating global markets and the economy.” In the meantime, Republicans are awaiting a vote by Democrats to raise the limit. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who heads Republicans’ campaign arm in the Senate, told an NBC reporter he was eager to highlight Democratic support for raising the limit in midterm advertisements.

America’s need to pay Its bills has spawned a political game

In an exclusive interview with WION’s Siddhant Sibbal, Indian Envoy to United Nations TS Tirumurti talked about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s UNGA speech and India’s determination to bring reforms in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Indian Envoy to UN TS Tirumurti talks to WION

Indian Envoy to United Nations TS Tirumurti speaks to WION on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's UN General Assembly speech. Watch this exclusive interview for more details.

WION Exclusive: Indian envoy to United Nations on Pm Modi's UNGA speech

A jam-packed week on global politics has concluded. Issues like climate change, Afghan crisis have dominated during this global summit. Watch this ground report for more details.

Jam-packed week on global politics concludes

Harsh Shringla on Pakistan's support to terrorism and the Afghanistan-Pakistan angle. 'Both in bilateral and QUAD discussions, there was a clear sense that there's a need of a more careful examination and monitoring of Pakistan's role in Afghanistan.'

Monitoring Pakistan's role in Afghanistan, issues of terrorism: Harsh Shringla

'On both joint statements of bilateral meets or QUAD, there is a strong emphasis by all on the issue of counter terrorism, it's one of the most critical topic that both India and US are considering,' says Harsh Shringla.

Both bilateral and QUAD meet laid focus on counter terrorism: Harsh Shringla

Harsh Shringla answers Palki Sharma's question on QUAD 's infrastructure initiative and defence cooperation. 'It is a new partnership we are looking to map the regional infrastructure needs, providing technical assistance and promoting sustainable infrastructure development. We are working for a transparent open Indo-pacific region and we see ASEAN essential to this partnership.'

Harsh Shringla answers Palki Sharma's question on QUAD 's infrastructure initiative

Usa, News on Usa, stories on Usa, articles on Usa, Usa stories at Wion, Usa news, Usa latest news