Dems Have Crazy New Plan to Fund Biden’s Infrastructure Bill: Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share

Which seems pretty reasonable, especially for people who, for example, didn’t double their net worth to $ 222 billion in the past year, as they did with it Elon Musk, who recently went to Twitter to mock Jeff Bezos for being worth only about $ 194 billion, making him the second richest person in the world. (Yes, that happened and is probably a good argument, not just for a tax on billionaires, but also for bringing the gulag back.)

A spokesman for Sinema did not want to confirm or deny whether it supports the billionaire tax. Simply increasing tax rates will in no way address the tax avoidance challenge or improve economic competitiveness. ”The White House was reportedly involved in working out the details, and Biden supported the concept. It can be assumed that in a short time the Republicans will throw an absolute hissing fit over the whole thing because if there is something they can’t stand, it’s the ultra-rich who are paying their fair share.

If you’d like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox every day, click here to sign up.

The Supreme Court f-ks again on pregnant people

Procedural arguments will be heard on November 1, but in the meantime, Texas’s barbaric abortion law, which bans the process after six weeks, remains in effect. According to the New York Times:

The Supreme Court again refused on Friday to immediately block a Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks. But the judges agreed to expedite their review of appeals from the Department of Justice and abortion providers in Texas and set the arguments for November 1st. Just justice Sonia Sotomayor Objection filed. “This is the second time that a motion is brought before the court to pass a law that was passed in overt disregard for the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion in Texas,” she wrote. “For the second time, the court refuses to act immediately to protect these women from serious and irreparable harm.”

She added, however, that she welcomed the court’s decision to hear arguments in the two cases, which appear to be limited to the procedural question of whether Texas law, SB 8, is subject to federal review given its novel structure. The court said it would resolve that issue on the federal government’s appeal: “May the United States bring a lawsuit in federal court for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against the state, state judges, state judicial officers, other state officials, or any private person Parties who prohibit the execution of SB 8? “