SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Emma Cheuse, Earthjjstice, (202) 667-4500, ext. 220
Jane Williams, Sierra Club Air Toxics Task Force, (661) 510-3412
Robina Suwol, California Safe Schools, (818) 261-7965
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today issued a notice of its proposed decision not to update the emission standards for chromium electroplating plants, an action that poses significant threats to the health of people who live near such facilities. Chromium electroplating plants, also known as chrome platers, apply thin layers of chromium onto metal objects to increase their durability or attractiveness and in the process release dangerous amounts of cancer-causing chromium compounds including hexavalent chromium, an extremely potent human carcinogen that is unsafe at any level of exposure.
"Chrome plating facilities pose an unacceptable toxic threat to people living near them and are often located in neighborhoods already overburdened by toxic air pollution," said Jane Williams, the Chair of Sierra Club's Air Toxics Task Force.
More than 1,700 chrome platers operate in the United States, and the EPA acknowledges that many of these facilities are located in urban neighborhoods and communities with significant minority and low-income populations. As a result, many chrome platers release cancer-causing pollutants within a block or less of homes, schools, and day care centers.
"In San Diego, people living in between two separate chrome platers were being exposed to hexavalent chromium and getting sick as a result," said Robina Suwol, Executive Director of California Safe Schools. "That wasn't an isolated case. Nearly half of the chrome platers in California are within a few hundred feet of day care centers, residences or schools, so the state took action to protect its residents in 2007."
As the result of an Earthjustice lawsuit on behalf of Sierra Club, the EPA agreed to ensure that federal standards provide an ample margin of safety nationwide. But despite sufficient evidence that chrome platers' emissions endanger the communities where they operate, the EPA proposed to find that the threats of cancer and other disease are "acceptable." Although the agency acknowledged that control technologies are available, its proposed rule would not require chrome platers to use them.
"Communities across the country are suffering unnecessarily," said Williams. "Cost-effective control technologies have been available for years. California has required its hundreds of facilities to use them, and if it can be done here, it can be done in other states. I do not want to hear of another child dying from cancer in America because our federal government cannot summon the political will to control chromium emissions."
"The action proposed today sets an ominous precedent," said Earthjustice attorney Emma Cheuse. "We look to the EPA to seek meaningful input from local communities about the pollution they breathe every day, and then set strong final standards that actually reduce emissions from these industrial facilities. Thanks to existing technology and the important authority it has under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can still decide to issue final standards that avoid unacceptable health threats like cancer and give local communities real relief from toxic air pollution."
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"Their plan would force the largest Medicaid cuts in American history—all to pay for more tax giveaways to billionaires," said Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle.
At a press conference last week, U.S. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise claimed Democrats are lying when they warn that Medicaid is in the Republican Party's crosshairs.
"The word Medicaid is not even in this bill," Scalise (R-La.) declared, waving the text of a budget resolution that House Republicans went on to pass over unified Democratic opposition.
But an analysis released late Wednesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) makes clear that deep cuts to Medicaid would be required under the House GOP resolution, which President Donald Trump has endorsed.
The analysis, produced at the request of leading House Democrats, shows that Medicaid accounts for 93% of projected mandatory spending under the jurisdiction of the House Energy and Commerce Committee over the next decade, not including Medicare.
That means Republicans would have to cut Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or Medicare to achieve the $880 billion in spending reductions that the House budget resolution instructs the energy and commerce panel to impose between fiscal years 2025 and 2034.
"This analysis from the nonpartisan CBO confirms what we've been saying all along: Republicans are lying about their budget," said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. "Their plan would force the largest Medicaid cuts in American history—all to pay for more tax giveaways to billionaires."
I keep hearing Republicans claim their budget doesn't cut Medicaid. We all know that's a lie — so I asked the nonpartisan CBO to look into it. Their analysis confirms it: the Republican budget delivers the largest Medicaid cuts in history to pay for giveaways to billionaires.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Brendan Boyle (@congressmanboyle.bsky.social) March 5, 2025 at 5:45 PM
According to the CBO, just $135 billion in spending under the House Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction over the next decade would be available for cuts when excluding Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, and programs that are "budget-neutral with revenues offsetting spending."
That would leave the GOP far short of the $880 billion in energy and commerce spending reductions proposed in the House budget resolution, which still must make its way through the Republican-controlled Senate before the GOP can move ahead with Trump's legislative agenda.
The CBO's analysis comes a day after Trump neglected to mention Medicaid during his first address to Congress of his second term, a decision that one advocate said confirms the president "knows his plan to cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid is so deeply unpopular that he would rather sweep it under the rug."
Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Wednesday that the CBO analysis "confirms what we've been saying all along: The math doesn't work without devastating Medicaid cuts."
"The reality is the only way Republicans can cut at least $880 billion within the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction is by making deep, harmful cuts to Americans' healthcare," said Pallone. "Republicans know their spin is a lie, and the truth is they have no problem taking healthcare away from millions of Americans so that the rich can get richer and pay less in taxes than they already do."
"We know it won't be easy," said the AFL-CIO president. "There's no fight more righteous than ensuring that every single worker who wants a union has a fair shot to join or form one."
As U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Congressman Bobby Scott reintroduced the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act on Wednesday, labor union leaders prepared to fight for the legislation that would strengthen workers' rights.
While Sanders (I-Vt.) and Scott (D-Va.) have long led the battle for the bill on Capitol Hill, most Democrats in Congress—including both minority leaders—also support the PRO Act, which features a wide range of policies intended to hold companies accountable for violating employees' rights and make it easier for workers to form and negotiate with a union.
"Never before in the history of our nation have income and wealth inequality been greater than today. Workers are falling further and further behind. In response, millions of Americans have expressed their desire to join a union," Sanders said in a statement. "However, the billionaire class is fighting with all its might to put down attempts by workers to exercise their constitutional right to unionize."
The PRO Act's reintroduction comes as U.S. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk work to gut the federal government while congressional Republicans—who have narrow majorities in both chambers—work to cut healthcare and food assistance programs that serve working-class people to fund tax giveaways for the ultrawealthy and corporations.
"Congress has an urgent responsibility to ensure that workers can join a union and negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces."
Sanders pointed to Trump's decision "to illegally fire National Labor Relations Board Member Gwynne Wilcox and effectively shut down the NLRB," and warned that "without a functioning NLRB, corporate bosses can illegally fire unionizing workers, flagrantly violate labor laws and render free and fair union elections near impossible."
"Supporting the immediate reinstatement of Member Wilcox and the swift passage of the PRO Act would be major steps toward building real worker power," added the senator, who is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. "The PRO Act is long overdue and I am proud to be introducing this bill."
Scott also framed the bill as a necessity, saying that "unions are essential for building a strong middle class and improving the lives of workers and families. Regrettably, for too long, workers have suffered from anti-union attacks and toothless labor laws that undermined their right to form a union."
"As union approval remains at record highs, Congress has an urgent responsibility to ensure that workers can join a union and negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces," he argued. "The PRO Act is the most critical step Congress can take to uplift American workers. I urge my House and Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in advancing the most significant update for workers' labor organizing rights in over 80 years."
Labor leaders also called on members of Congress across the political spectrum to back the bill—which largely lacks GOP support, but is co-sponsored by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.).
"In too many workplaces, in too many industries across the country, big corporations and billionaire CEOs still retaliate against us for organizing," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler, who has led the federation since the bill's namesake, Trumka, died in 2021.
"They refuse to negotiate our contracts, force us to sit through hours of anti-union propaganda and engage in illegal union-busting every day," she said of companies and executives. "Now they have an unelected, unaccountable union-buster trying to illegally fire tens of thousands of our fellow workers in federal jobs and an administration rolling back the workplace protections."
Shuler added that "we know it won't be easy, but the labor movement never backs down from a righteous fight. And in today's economy, where our workers' hard-earned paychecks are covering less of what they need while still facing unsafe conditions and a lack of respect on the job, there's no fight more righteous than ensuring that every single worker who wants a union has a fair shot to join or form one."
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees president Lee Saunders reiterated AFSCME's support for the legislation on Wednesday, calling out billionaires and big business for "anti-union extremism" that "is deepening economic inequality, halting progress on health and safety, and harming millions."
"The PRO Act will loosen billionaires' grip on our economic future and make clear that their days of using illegal union busting tactics without consequence are over," he said. "This legislation will level the playing field, giving workers the legal protections they need to organize without fear of retaliation or obstruction. It's about time Congress prioritized workers over billionaires and gave them a fair shot at improving their workplaces."
Other groups that support the PRO Act include the American Federation of Teachers, Communications Workers of America, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, National Nurses United, Service Employees International Union, United Autoworkers, and United Steelworkers, among others.
The right to a union means fair wages, benefits, and security—but corporate greed stands in the way," the Laborers' International Union of North America said on social media Wednesday. "The PRO Act fights back! Congress must choose: Stand with working people or bow to Wall Street. The time is now!"
"If you think back at the last economic crashes... the rich were able to buy up assets on the cheap and emerged even wealthier and more powerful than before," noted one progressive commentator.
Are U.S. President Donald Trump, top adviser Elon Musk, and allied oligarchs deliberately trying to tank the economy in order to line their own gilded pockets?
More and more observers from both sides of the political aisle are asking the question this week as the U.S. president implemented steep tariffs on some of the country's biggest trade partners, threatened a global trade war, and is taking chainsaw to government spending and programs—policies that, while inflicting economic pain upon nearly everyone else, could dramatically boost their already stratospheric wealth.
Numerous observers have likened it to the " disaster capitalism" examined in Naomi Klein's seminal 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism—politicians and plutocrats exploit the chaos of natural or human-caused crises to push through unpopular policies like privatization and deregulation that harm the masses while boosting the wealth and power of the ruling class.
Economic alarm bells were already ringing before Trump's 25% tariffs on most products from Canada and Mexico and an additional 10% on China—for a total of 20%—took effect on Tuesday, prompting retaliatory measures and threats of more to come.
Then, during his rambling joint address to Congress on Tuesday night, Trump threatened to impose reciprocal tariffs on every nation on Earth starting April 2 (because he "didn't want to be accused of April Fools' Day") if those countries did not lower barriers to trade with the United States.
@jamellebouie Replying to @C. Stetzer ♬ original sound - b-boy bouiebaisse
New York Times economic policy reporters Alan Rappeport and Ana Swanson called Trump's sweeping tariffs "one of the biggest gambles of his presidency," and a move "that risks undermining the United States economy."
But what if that's the whole point?
"I've been entertaining this theory a little bit more lately, because [Trump's] economic moves seem so stupid and terrible and counterproductive without thinking that he is intentionally trying to cause harm," progressive political commentator Krystal Ball—who also has a degree in economics and is a certified public accountant— said Tuesday on the social media site X.
Ball cited an X
post by Saikat Chakrabarti, a progressive Democrat running for Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) House seat who worked on Wall Street for six years and helped found the online payment processing company Stripe, in which he accused Trump of "manufacturing a recession."
"But it makes sense when you realize his goal is to create something like Russia where the economy is run by a few oligarchs loyal to him," Chakrabarti added. "Creating that state is hard in a large, dynamic, powerful economy with too many actors who can oppose him. So he's accelerating concentrating money and power into the hands of his loyalists while he crashes the rest out."
Responding to this, Ball asserted that "at this point, until proven otherwise, the primary actor in the government and the economy is actually Elon, so I think it makes sense to think of Elon's incentives here and what he may actually want to accomplish."
"If you think back at the last economic crashes—both in Covid and in the 2008 financial crash—while initially everyone suffered, including the rich, out of both, the rich were able to buy up assets on the cheap and emerged even wealthier and more powerful than before," she noted.
"So in 2008, not only did they get their own custom bailout, but they were able to buy housing stock at absurdly low prices," Ball recalled. "The rich got richer than ever, inequality skyrocketed, and the big banks got bigger than ever."
"Same deal with the Covid-era recession," she continued. "So, while again, everyone suffered initially, there was a huge bailout package which, yes, did benefit ordinary people, but if you look at who came out really on top... you could see people like Elon Musk, people like Jeff Bezos, people like Mark Zuckerberg getting far wealthier. Their net worths, which were already very high, skyrocketed beyond anyone's wildest dreams."
Indeed, as Common Dreamsreported, 700 billionaires got $1.7 trillion richer during two years of pandemic. Between March 2020 and April 2022, Musk got 10 times richer, while Zuckerberg's net worth more than tripled and Bezos' grew by nearly $80 billion, according to Forbes.
"Here's the other piece that's worth thinking about as well," Ball added. "Crash and crisis leads to governments and authoritarian leaders claiming more power for themselves. They can use the crisis and the emergency as a justification for taking on extraordinary powers and for taking extraordinary measures... measures that can be custom fit to primarily benefit oligarchs like Elon Musk."
"So I don't know guys, while we're running around here going... 'can't they understand how this is going to be devastating for the economy,' maybe they do understand," she concluded, "and maybe that's kind of the point."