Connect with us

Published

on

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is seizing the moment in debt ceiling negotiations, staying out front in public messaging as he pushes the White House to change its debt limit posture while also keeping the right flank in his conference satisfied — for now.

Negotiators have yet to reach a deal, political dynamics could easily change depending on its final form and a bumpy weekend in the talks pose another challenge for him. But McCarthy’s public relations strategy on the debt limit has seen results so far. 

McCarthy united his far-flung conference to pass a bill that paired a debt limit increase with spending cuts and other GOP priorities. Shortly after, President Biden backed away from his no-negotiations stance and invited McCarthy and other congressional leaders to meet — though the White House has continued to frame the talks as a negotiation on the budget separate from the debt limit.

And after McCarthy expressed pessimism about how those talks were going, the structure of discussions was narrowed to be between just his deputies and the White House, cutting out congressional Democrats and Senate Republicans. 

House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who some previously thought might have to step in to negotiate a compromise, has thrown his full support behind the Speaker to negotiate a deal.

The Speaker is holding frequent press conferences, gaggles, and TV interviews to advocate for spending cuts and policy reforms as a condition of raising the debt limit, a contrast to the press-shy President Biden. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) said he was “pretty impressed with his [Wednesday] press conference” that featured Republicans from both chambers.

A source familiar with McCarthy’s strategy said that his decision to be in front of the media shows his confidence in his policy asks and that the public will back him up in those.

McCarthy embraces an underdog, “House GOP vs. the world” message. 

“Here’s a Republican conference that none of you gave credibility to or thought we could achieve anything,” McCarthy said Tuesday.

With the talks amping up this week, the White House has appeared to back away from its longtime stance that it wants a “clean increase” without any other conditions, though it has still framed the negotiations in terms of the budget rather than the debt limit.

“He has the bully pulpit of the Speakership,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said of McCarthy’s messaging in contrast to the Democrats. “We always struggle to get our message amplified.”

Public opinion surveys have shown that Democratic attacks on Republicans for holding the economy “hostage” are struggling to sway the electorate in their favor.

A May 17-18 Harvard/Harris poll found that 57 percent of voters think Democrats should cave their position to prevent a default, up from 55 percent in April, while 43 percent said Republicans should cave. 

Meanwhile, Economist/YouGov polls have found that McCarthy’s net job approval rating has dramatically improved in the months since January, when a 15-ballot saga ended with him being elected Speaker.

A May 13-16 survey found that 42 percent of adults approved of the way McCarthy was handling his job as Speaker, while 34 percent disapproved while 24 percent were not sure. In a January 21-24 survey, just 32 percent approved, while 37 percent disapproved and 32 percent were not sure.

And some Democratic messaging on the negotiations has conflicted.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Monday that the GOP’s request for beefed-up work requirements for public assistance programs was a “nonstarter.” But later in the week, Biden signaled willingness to compromise on work requirements, though rejected any kind of significant change.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that she was being “watchful” of the White House in the negotiations now that congressional Democrats have been cut out of the room.

“The President’s done such a phenomenal job of leading the country over the last two years and keeping Democrats united behind core Democratic values, and I would urge them to continue to do so,” Jayapal said.

Some progressive Democrats have continued to hold out hope for a “clean” debt limit increase. 

“I want to believe that the White House is holding firm to its commitments and our values,” Huffman said.

Several Democrats suggest Biden could test a 14th Amendment strategy to raise the debt limit unilaterally without the help of Congress. While Biden said over the weekend that he thinks he has the authority to do so, he warned there may not be enough time to invoke that authority, have it litigated, and still avoid a default.

House Democrats have also filed a escape-hatch discharge petition plan to force a vote on a clean debt ceiling increase — though that would need support from at least five Republicans, who have shown no willingness to help.

McCarthy is not out of the woods yet, though. 

It remains unclear whether he will be able to secure a compromise that appeases the right flank of his conference — some of whom expect nothing less than the sweeping policy reforms and cuts that they passed in their April debt limit bill. And others are trying to throw more policy proposals, such as beefed-up border security measures, into the mix.

Political observers note that it takes just one GOP member to call a motion to vacate the chair and force a vote on ousting the Speaker.

Hardline conservatives, however, insist such an upheaval is not being considered right now, signaling that McCarthy still has their support as negotiations continue.

“I’ve heard anybody talking about motion to vacate except for reporters who asked me about that,” said Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), one of the 20 hardline conservatives who withheld support from McCarthy during the Speaker’s election. 

However, the conservative House Freedom Caucus on Thursday threw another wrinkle in the mix when it called for “no further discussion” on the debt ceiling, pressuring the Senate to pass the House GOP bill. That position became cloudy, though, when the group’s chairman, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), later said the position did not mean McCarthy and the White House should not talk at all.

And Friday, McCarthy hit pause on debt limit talks for much of the day as his top negotiator, Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), said the White House was being “unreasonable.” The talks resumed that evening but made little progress before McCarthy is set to meet with Biden on Monday.

That threw another wild card into the mix: Former President Trump. Veterinarians warn dog owners of rise in deadly parvovirus The northern lights are heating up: Could they come to all 50 states?

“REPUBLICANS SHOULD NOT MAKE A DEAL ON THE DEBT CEILING UNLESS THEY GET EVERYTHING THEY WANT (Including the “kitchen sink”),” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday.

McCarthy had been careful to not contradict Trump earlier in the week when asked to respond to the former president downplaying the potential economic consequences of a default. 

“I think President Trump is a great negotiator. And I think that President Trump when does that, he’s trying to help the negotiation,” McCarthy said.

Continue Reading

Politics

Emerging technology regulations: a comprehensive, evergreen approach

Published

on

By

Emerging technology regulations: a comprehensive, evergreen approach

Emerging technology regulations: a comprehensive, evergreen approach

Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD

Technology is advancing at the speed of light today more than ever. We have surpassed Moore’s law — computational power is doubling every six months rather than every two years — while regulations are, and have been, playing catchup.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act just came into force in August 2024 and is already falling behind. It did not consider AI agents and is still wrestling with generative AI (GenAI) and foundation models. Article 28b was added to the act in June 2023 after the launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022 and the flourishing of chatbot deployments. It was not on their radar when lawmakers initially drafted the act in April 2021.

As we move more into robotics and the use of virtual reality devices, a “new paradigm of AI architectures” will be developed, addressing the limitations of GenAI to create robots and virtual devices that can reason the world, unlike GenAI models. Maybe spending time drafting a new article on GenAI was not time well spent.

Furthermore, technology regulations are quite dichotomized. There are regulations on AI, like the EU AI Act; Web3, like Markets in Crypto-Assets; and the security of digital information, like the EU Cybersecurity Act and The Digital Operational Resilience Act.

This dichotomy is cumbersome for users and businesses to follow. Moreover, it does not align with how solutions and products are developed. Every solution integrates many technologies, while each technology component has separate regulations.

It might be time to reconsider the way we regulate technology.

A comprehensive approach

Tech companies have been pushing the boundaries with cutting-edge technologies, including Web3, AI, quantum computing and others yet to emerge. Other industries are following suit in the experimentation and implementation of these technologies. 

Everything is digital, and every product integrates several technologies. Think of the Apple Vision Pro or Meta Quest. They have hardware, goggles, AI, biometric technology, cloud computing, cryptography, digital wallets and more, and they will soon be integrated with Web3 technology.

A comprehensive approach to regulation would be the most suitable approach for the following principal reasons.

A full-system solution

Most, if not all, solutions require the integration of several emerging technologies. If we have separate guidelines and regulations for each technology, how could we ensure the product/service is compliant? Where does one rule start and the other end? 

Recent: Animoca Brands revenue climbs as AI cuts costs by 12%

Separate guidelines would probably introduce more complexity, errors and misinterpretations, which eventually might result in more harm than good. If the implementation of technologies is all-encompassing and comprehensive, the approach to regulating it should also be.

Different technologies support each other’s weaknesses

All technologies have strengths and weaknesses, and often, the strengths of one technology can support the shortcomings of the other.

For example, AI can support Web3 by enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of smart contract execution and blockchain security and monitoring. In contrast, blockchain technology can assist in manifesting “responsible AI,” as blockchain is everything that AI is not — transparent, traceable, trustworthy and tamper-free.

When AI supports Web3 and vice versa, we implement a comprehensive, safe, secure and trustworthy solution. Would these solutions be AI-compliant or Web3-compliant? With this solution, it would be challenging to dichotomize compliance. The solution should be compliant and adhere to all guidelines/policies. It would be best if these guidelines/policies encompass all technologies, including their integration.

A proactive approach

We need proactive regulation. Many of the regulation proposals, across all regions, seem to be reactions to changes we know about today and don’t go far enough in thinking about how to provide frameworks for what might come five or 10 years down the line. 

If, for example, we already know that there will be a “new paradigm of AI architectures,” probably in the next five years, then why not start thinking today, not in 5 years, how to regulate it? Or better yet, find a regulatory framework that would apply no matter how technology evolves.

Think about responsible innovation. Responsible innovation, simplistically, means making new technologies work for society without causing more problems than they solve. In other words: “Do good, do no harm.”

Responsible innovation

Responsible innovation principles are designed to span all technologies, not just AI. These principles recognize that all technologies can have unintended consequences on users, bystanders and society, and that it is the responsibility of the companies and developers creating those technologies to identify and mitigate those risks.

Responsible innovation principles are overarching and international and apply to any technology that exists today and will evolve in the future. This could be the basis for technology regulation. Still, companies, regardless of regulation, should understand that innovating responsibly instills trust in users, which will translate to mainstream adoption.

Truth in Technology Act

The Securities Act of 1933, also known as the “truth in securities” law, was created to protect investors from fraud and misrepresentation and restore public confidence in the stock market as a response to the stock market crash of 1929. 

At the core of the act lie honesty and transparency, the essential ingredients to instill public trust in the stock market, or in anything for that matter. 

This act has withstood the test of time — an “evergreen” law. Securities trading and the financial industry have become more digital and more technological, but the core principles of this act still apply and will continue to.

 Based on the principles of responsible innovation, we could design a “Truth in Technology Act,” which would instill public trust in technology, internationally, now and in the future. Fundamentally, we seek these products and services to be safe, secure, ethical, privacy-preserving, accurate, easy to understand, auditable, transparent and accountable. These values are international across regions, industries and technologies, and since technology knows no boundaries, neither should regulations.

Innovation may create value, but it may also extract or destroy it. Regulation helps limit the latter two types of innovation, while well-designed regulation may enable the first kind to survive and flourish. A global collaboration may find ways to incentivize innovation that creates value for the good of the global economy and society.

It might be time for a Truth in Technology Act — an international, comprehensive, evergreen regulation for the good of the citizens of the world.

Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Continue Reading

Politics

Mike Amesbury to quit as MP after punching man in street – triggering by-election

Published

on

By

Mike Amesbury to quit as MP after punching man in street - triggering by-election

Mike Amesbury has announced he will stand down as an MP after he was convicted of punching a man in the street.

A by-election will now be triggered in his seat of Runcorn and Helsby, where constituents will vote to elect a new MP.

Amesbury, who was suspended from the Labour Party, was jailed on 24 February for 10 weeks after he pleaded guilty in January to assault by beating of 45-year-old Paul Fellows in Main Street, Frodsham, Cheshire, in the early hours of 26 October.

However, following an appeal, his sentence was suspended for two years, so he does not have to serve it in prison.

Amesbury, 55, told the BBC on Monday he will begin the “statutory process” of closing up his office before resigning as an MP “as soon as possible”.

His resignation will trigger a by-election – the first of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government.

He said he regrets the attack “every moment, every day” and said he would have tried to remain as an MP if he had been given a lighter community sentence.

Parliamentary rules state any prison sentence, even suspended, given to an MP triggers a recall petition.

A by-election will then be called if 10% of constituents vote to remove him as their MP.

Amesbury has continued to take his £91,000 salary after he was sentenced, including when he spent three nights in prison before his appeal was successful.

He told the BBC he carried out casework while behind bars as his office manager forwarded on emails.

“Life doesn’t stop as an MP,” he said.

Labour suspended Mr Amesbury from the party shortly after the incident, so he has been sitting as an independent MP in the Commons.

The party said he would not be readmitted to Labour and had called for a by-election, saying Mr Amesbury’s constituents “deserved better” after his “completely unacceptable actions”.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

Environment

Destroyed Cybertruck used in Vegas bombing is for sale, Musk said Tesla would rebuild it

Published

on

By

Destroyed Cybertruck used in Vegas bombing is for sale, Musk said Tesla would rebuild it

The Tesla Cybertruck used in the Las Vegas bombing appears to have landed in an auction for sale as salvaged, still destroyed. CEO Elon Musk said Tesla would put it back on the road.

Good luck with that.

In January, a Tesla Cybertruck exploded at the Trump Tower in Las Vegas.

The driver is believed to have shot himself in the head right before the vehicle exploded. Evidence proved that some firework mortars and gas canisters were inside the Cybertruck’s bed.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

After the explosion, Tesla CEO Elon Musk praised the Cybertruck for “containing” the explosion and reducing the damage.

He even went as far as claiming that the powertrain was still working and that Tesla would rebuild the Cybertruck and bring it back on the road:

“Once we get this Cybertruck back to Tesla, we’ll buff out the scratches and get it back on the road.”

When questioned about the seriousness of this statement, he affirmed, “No, I mean it.”

They clearly haven’t yet because the Cybertruck has now shown up as a salvaged vehicle for auction on IAA’s site:

It’s not clear if Tesla had an opportunity to get the truck until now, but they certainly could buy it now.

Electrek’s Take

Good luck rebuilding the truck. Maybe they can salvage the battery pack and motors in a new truck, but there’s no way or point to salvage the chassis.

Elon has already confirmed that Tesla engineers have looked at the car. I’m sure that they had the opportunity to get it from the insurance company.

I bet that Tesla doesn’t want the car, and it won’t be back on the road as Elon claimed. You can add it to the list of lies he told this year. Are we in the hundreds already? And we are only in March.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending