Mediaboss Marketing

Amid ongoing debates about the size of Alaskas annual budget deficit, Anchorage Democratic Rep. Cliff Groh introduced a proposal to raise the property tax levied on oil and gas companies.

State law currently allows local governments to tax oil and gas property things like drilling rigs, pipelines and associated equipment up to 20 mills, or $2 per $100 in value.

House Bill 153 would increase that cap from 20 mills to 30 mills from $2 to $3 and the state, rather than local governments, would keep the increase.

The effect would be $250 million in additional revenue for the state, Groh estimates. HB 153 designates the revenue for education and construction projects, but clauses of the Alaska Constitution would allow budget-writers to divert the money elsewhere if wanted.

In a written statement, Groh said he envisions the tax increase as part of a long-term fiscal plan for the state.

The draft budget under consideration in the House this week contains a deficit of about $600 million, and Groh said choosing between budget cuts and spending from savings to address that deficit is a false dichotomy.

This artificial scarcity created by lack of revenue pits Alaskan versus Alaskan. The increased revenue HB 153 will generate for our state will help sustain and grow the Permanent Fund Dividend without compromising high-quality state services, he said in the statement.

In 2019, Gov. Mike Dunleavys budget proposal would have shifted $420 million in oil property tax revenue from local governments to the state; the North Slope Borough would have shouldered much of the burden. The proposal never advanced in the Legislature and Dunleavy hasnt repeated the proposal since then. Grohs bill would leave the existing oil property taxes in the hands of local governments, with only the new revenue going to the state.

Grohs proposal joins other revenue bills, including a proposed state sales tax and proposed reductions in tax exemptions for North Slope oil and gas firms.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

See the original post here:
Anchorage Democrat offers oil and gas property tax as piece of ... - Alaska Beacon

State Treasurer Erick Russell has been crisscrossing Connecticut for the past two months, passionately advocating for Baby Bonds, an unprecedented wealth redistribution program that would invest $600 million in the future of the states poorest children.

But during a recent Sunday political affairs show appearance, Russell spent more than three-and-a-half minutes discussing Baby Bonds and less than 20 seconds discussing its chief obstacle, Gov. Ned Lamont.

The governors office, I believe, has kind of taken the position that they dont want to bond for the full [Baby Bonds] program, Russell told Fox 61 journalist Jenn Bernstein during his March 19 appearance on The Real Story, adding hes talked with the governor and lawmakers about other funding options. Weve had really productive discussions.

The new treasurer, who took office in January, has been hoping to rescue from political limbo a program advocates call crucial to stemming Connecticuts expanding wealth and income inequality.

[RELATED: Political clashes leave CT Baby Bonds program in limbo]

Simultaneously, Russell is taking great care not to inflame an issue that has pitted the governor a wealthy Greenwich businessman against many progressive Democratic lawmakers while threatening to stall adoption of the next state budget.

Weve seen the wealth gap and disparity in our state grow year over year over year, said Russell, a Democrat from New Haven, one of Connecticuts poorest cities.

U.S. Census data consistently ranks Connecticut as one of the most extreme states nationally in terms of income inequality.

The only two tax fairness studies the state has conducted, one in 2014 and the second just last year, both show the combined state and municipal tax systems disproportionately burden low- and middle-income households. Those earning less than $75,000 annually effectively pay three and four times the rate of Connecticuts richest families.

Legislators say access to health and child care, affordable housing, education and economic opportunity are increasingly limited, not only in urban centers but in much of rural eastern Connecticut.

Russells predecessor, Hartford Democrat Shawn Wooden, thought hed scored a big win in the battle to close these gaps two years ago when lawmakers passed and Lamont signed a measure creating the Baby Bond Trust.

It empowered the treasurer to place $3,200 in trust for each baby bornafter July 1 and covered by HUSKY, the states Medicaid program. Thats more than 15,000 kids annually.

The funds would grow over the lives of these children, who could tap these resources between the ages of 18 and 30, provided theyre living in Connecticut, for one of four purposes:

Russell said each childs bond likely would be worth between $11,000 and $24,000, depending on when the funds are accessed.

Equally important, the treasurer was empowered to borrow $50 million annually by issuing bonds to finance the program for 12 years, from 2023 through 2034.

Things changed last spring, though, when Democratic legislative leaders accommodated Lamont and removed the treasurers direct authority to borrow the funds. The revisions the legislature enacted as part of an omnibus budget and policy bill stipulate the borrowing cant happen unless first approved by the State Bond Commission.

Thats a huge qualifier.

The commission is the chief gate-keeper of governments credit card. The 10-member panel is chaired by the governor, who has sole authority to set its agenda. It decides how much of the billions of dollars in financing lawmakers propose annually actually gets borrowed.

If the bond commission doesnt give the green light to finance baby bonds, the program has no money to distribute.

This is probably not appropriate for bonding, the Democratic governor said last week when asked about the status of Baby Bonds.

With more than $88 billion in bonded debt and unfunded retirement benefit obligations stemming from bad savings habits stretching back to the late 1930s Connecticut is one of the most indebted states in the nation.

And thats despite racking up more than $9 billion in budget surpluses since 2017 and using two-thirds of that windfall to whittle down pension debt.

Rather than borrowing to start a trust fund that will assist poor children 18 years in the future, I prefer things that help people right now, such as free workforce training and the debt-free community college program, the governor said.

Legislators are talking this session about investing more in child care, social services, municipal schools and higher education. But if they also can find room in the next budget to launch a trust fund for poor children, Lamont said, that can be discussed.

At this stage of the game, youve got to set priorities, Lamont added.

And the governor isnt alone in making that point.

Sen. Tony Hwang of Fairfield, ranking GOP senator on the legislative subcommittee that oversees most non-transportation bonding, supports Baby Bonds.

But Connecticut currently has more than $15.3 billion in outstanding bonding authorized by the legislature borrowing approved by law that hasnt actually happened yet. Thats roughly 10 times that amount of bonding the state actually is projected to issue this year, mostly for capital projects.

If financing for Baby Bonds cant wait, then advocates should postpone borrowing for other programs. If a trust fund program is going to be paid for in cash in the budget, then other programs must do without, Hwang said.

Its about living within our means, Hwang said.

But the leaders of the legislatures Appropriations Committee say financing a trust fund program for poor children with cash from the state budget rather than with borrowing isnt really feasible.

Since 2017, Connecticut has operated with a spending cap that is more stringent than the original version crafted to complement the new state income tax in 1991.

This new cap has fewer exceptions. Aid to poor communities and contractually required contributions to pension funds which once were exempt from cap limits are not.

We just dont have the room for Baby Bonds in the budget, said Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, co-chairwoman of appropriations.

Her fellow co-chair, Rep. Toni Walker, D-New Haven, a strong advocate for Baby Bonds, agreed that borrowing is the best approach.

While state tax revenues largely have boomed since 2018, that came after nearly a decade of minimal growth.

It is a very, very unstable situation, Walker added.

Russell said hes been exploring options to pay for a trust fund program without borrowing, because it would save tens of millions of dollars, or more, in interest over the next decade.

House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, who accompanied Russell on at a recent event in the capital city to promote Baby Bonds, also has been seeking alternative means to pay for the program.

I dont have an answer yet, the speaker said. If the governor doesnt want to borrow money, he doesnt have to borrow money, so we have to work with him on that.

Ritter said hes been exploring whether a trust fund program, possibly with modifications, could be funded with a combination of public and philanthropic dollars, which would lessen pressure on the state budget.

Legislatures and governors also periodically use an accounting technique known as a revenue intercept to work around the spending cap, and Ritter said that also is being weighed. This mechanism targets dollars before they arrive in the General Fund and assigns them for specific purposes. Because the cap only applies to budgetary appropriations, these dollars then could be used for a specific purpose, such as a trust fund for poor children, without counting against the spending cap limit.

But Lamont generally has opposed maneuvers such as revenue intercepts, which critics often call an accounting gimmick that violates the spirit of the spending cap.

While the administration describes the governor as a fiscal moderate, some progressive lawmakers say Lamonts budgetary politics lean farther right than that.

The affluent governor consistently has refused to support higher taxes on wealthy households and large corporations as a means to finance either tax relief for the poor and middle class or more funding for health care or social programs.

Lamont also has said he believes wealth redistribution primarily should be done at the federal level, though he has supported some measures to do so through the state tax system.

The governors latest proposal to reduce the two lowest marginal state income tax rates chiefly would benefit middle-income families, and he also has endorsed boosting a credit that would send an average of $211 extra back to working poor households making less than roughly $60,000 per year.

[RELATED: Gov. Ned Lamont pitched an income tax cut in CT. Heres an overview of his proposal]

But critics say thats far too little, given Connecticuts extremely high cost of living and extreme income and wealth inequality problems exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic and by inflation that reached a 40-year high last summer.

The Federal Poverty Level a 60-year-old metric focused chiefly on pre-tax earnings and a projected minimum food diet holds that a family of four earning more than $30,000 annually doesnt meet the legal standard of impoverished.

The United Way of Connecticuts ALICE methodology labeled with an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed households says once other key elements like health and child care, transportation, utilities and other housing costs are properly assessed, the same family needs to earn $90,660 to cover basic survival needs.

Nearly four out of 10 Connecticut families live below this threshold.

Baby Bonds alone wont solve that problem either, Russell said, but an investment ultimately worth $11,000 to $24,000 could help a child reaching adulthood get a college degree, start a business, or make a similar investment that ultimately leads to greater prosperity.

Simply put, it could be a huge economic driver, he said.

Would it be worth setting aside the cap, as far as Lamont is concerned?

Lamonts budget spokesman, Chris Collibee, said, The governor is willing to listen to ideas while ensuring that we are taking actions that provide support to families today.

But Collibee added that Any proposals the administration agrees to must comply with all Constitutional and statutory requirements, including the spending cap.

What would that mean for the new biennial state budget and bond package that Lamont and the legislature must craft before the regular 2023 General Assembly session closes on June 7?

Sen. Marilyn Moore, D-Bridgeport, who co-chairs the legislative subcommittee overseeing non-transportation bonding, said no one should underestimate the strong support for Baby Bonds.

We expect him [Lamont] to put that money out there, Moore said, adding that expectations for this program have built since the governor signed the original Baby Bonds program into law two years ago.

A member of the legislatures Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, Moore said that group is standing firm on this and has many allies.

Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Windham, said the program also enjoys very strong support in rural eastern Connecticut, where many families rely on HUSKY and other Medicaid programs to make ends meet. Roughly half the children in her district would be eligible for the program, she said.

This would be life-changing for so many families, Flexer said, adding that financial seeds planted now would bear huge economic fruit in a few decades. What an incredible impact that can be, to wake up as an adult and have the opportunities that so many middle and upper-class people have.

Progressive policy groups also say the popularity of Baby Bonds has spread rapidly in just two years, and many expecting mothers hope their children will receive funds in trust this summer.

Connecticut Baby Bonds has come to symbolize the promise of what government can be that government can be a force for good and can in fact design systems that provide real opportunity for everyone, not just for the lucky few, said Emily Byrne, executive director of Connecticut Voices for Children. And thats why people across the state are still fighting for this policy.

Generational poverty plagues our state, holding back both individuals and entire communities, added the Rev. Rodney Wade, pastor of Long Hill Bible Church in Waterbury and a representative of Recovery For All CT, a coalition that includes more than 70 labor, faith and community organizations statewide.

Advocates say support for Baby Bonds runs deep in the Democratic majorities in both the state House and Senate. If that issue is strong enough to fracture the group, Lamont might have to try to build a coalition with Republican lawmakers to try to pass a budget and bond package this year.

I dont want to play poker, Moore said when asked to assess how vitalit is, politically, to fund Baby Bonds starting this summer. But I want that money to be allocated.

Go here to read the rest:
Baby Bonds gridlock threatens Democratic unity on next CT budget - The Connecticut Mirror

El Dorado County gun shop owner Adam Fahlbusch is shown in his store on June 12, 2013. (Photo: Randall Benton/Sacramento Bee)

ACaliforniaDemocrat is continuing a years-long push to impose a state tax on guns and ammunition that lawmakers have long debated with little success.

Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills, authored a bill that would levy an 11% excise tax on firearm dealers, manufacturers and ammunition vendors for receipts on guns, gun parts and ammunition.

The measure would create the Gun Violence Prevention, Healing, andRecovery Fundat the state Treasurers Office, which would distribute the money to various violence prevention initiatives. It would take effect inJanuary 2024.

Gun owners already pay a federal tax of 10 to 11% on firearms and ammunition, with the proceeds going to wildlife conservation efforts. Gun rights advocates call the state proposal punitive.

The Assembly Public Safety Committeeapproved Gabriels bill, with members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America showing their support in the audience.

We are talking about a very modest tax here that would simply put human life on the same equal playing field that we now have for funding there for wildlife, Gabriel said during the committee hearing. Which to me, seems absolutely absolutely common sense.

Gabriel has taken up the gun tax mantle from former AssemblymanMarc Levine, D-San Rafael,who tried multiple timesto pass a similar bill. Levines most recent attempt failed on the Assembly floor inAugust 2022.

Mike McLively, director of theGiffords Center for Violence Intervention, said the tax is appropriate, given increasing amounts of gun violence and significant firearm industry profits.

The firearm industry sells products that are regularly stolen and diverted to illegal markets and otherwise used to kill and injure tens of thousands of Californians every single year, McLively said. Its more than reasonable to ask the industry to pay a modest amount of its record profits to help mitigate the extreme harm that is done by its products.

Representatives from theNational Rifle Associationand theCalifornia Waterfowl Associationtold committee members the tax unfairly punishes law-abiding firearm owners and hunters.

Dan Reid,NRA Western Regionaldirector, said if passed the tax would be met with a legal challenge it wouldnt survive.

This tax is punitive in nature, Reid said. Its separating out gun owners because theyre exercising their constitutional right. And this is a matter of public safety. And matters of public safety should be borne by the public as a whole.

Committee members were supportive of Gabriels bill. AssemblywomanMia Bonta, D-Oakland, pointed out Gabriels gun excise tax would be lower than the states current 15% cannabis excise tax.

Committee ChairReggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, commended lawmakers for their willingness to consider gun legislation, saying it makes (him) proud to be in California.

If we were inTennessee, I would be kicked out of the state Legislature right now, Jones-Sawyer said, referring to two lawmakers who wereexpelled from the statesHouse of Representativesfor participating in gun control protests.

In Tennessee, you cant even get this far with legislation. So we should be really proud about what were doing here in California.

Read more:
California Democrat tries again to tax guns, ammunition. Heres how much state would charge - Woodland Daily Democrat

CHEYENNE House Speaker Albert Sommers, R-Pinedale, announced Wednesday that he will dismiss the complaints against an Albany County lawmaker related to social media posts she made almost two weeks ago.

Rep. Karlee Provenza, D-Laramie, has faced criticism and national attention for a post she made March 31 on her Facebook and Instagram pages depicting an older woman holding at her hip a scoped black rifle with an external magazine, and the words Auntie Fa Says Protect Trans Folks Against Fascists & Bigots!

Additional complaints were also made in reference to a post on her TikTok account after the video was reported by online outlets.

This promotion of violence is abhorrent and should not be tolerated by the Wyoming Legislature, Wyoming GOP Chairman Frank Eathorne wrote to the House Speaker, requesting Provenza be stripped of all committee assignments. It should be noted that a similar image was shared by Press Secretary to AZ Governor Katie Hobbs. After warranted public outcry, this official rightfully resigned.

The Wyoming Legislature should never promote political violence especially in the aftermath of the targeted attack on Christians by a transgender activist only one short week ago.

Although Sommers said he personally found Provenzas posts on social media to be inappropriate, uncivil conduct for a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives that reflects a discernable lack of judgment, he made his decision based on the scope of the Joint Rule 22-1 to examine ethics complaints and its application to misconduct involving legislative duties. He also said he took into consideration the protections afforded to legislators under the First Amendment.

Social media has become the preferred platform for political attacks in Wyoming and the nation. People and politicians no longer have to come face to face with someone to attack them or make a political point. Behavior on the internet has become beyond the pale at times, Sommers wrote in a prepared statement. Social media can be used to spread misinformation, foster polarization, and aggregate tensions, representing the worst in politics and personal behavior. Still, it is imperative to remember that political expression is protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 20 of the Wyoming Constitution.

With this constitutional right also comes personal responsibility. We must remember that even constitutionally protected actions have the potential to deeply hurt others. Free speech is at times a messy thing.

The Wyoming Legislative Service Office provided Sommers with an analysis that said Provenzas social media posts didnt appear to be misconduct involving legislative duties as defined in Joint Rule 22-1. LSO officials added that through their research and knowledge, the House has never previously disciplined a member for similar behavior through formal disciplinary procedures.

Misconduct involving legislative duties, as defined in the rule, encompasses a wide range of issues, from violating Article 3 of the Wyoming Constitution to violence or disorderly conduct during legislative meetings, sessions or during the performance of legislative duties. The LSO broke down each of these areas and how Provenzas actions might apply, and Sommers consulted with House leadership in a meeting Tuesday on what the next step might be.

House Majority Floor Leader Chip Neiman, R-Hulett, attended the meeting, but didnt respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

Sommers came to the conclusion Provenza didnt post the meme during performance of legislative duties or violate other areas of the ethics rule.

The Wyoming Legislature runs on its rules and traditions, Sommers said in the statement. Only one Wyoming legislator in recent memory has been completely removed from committee assignments, and that was an action taken by the body for a course of alleged conduct during legislative sessions and legislative meetings. In another instance, a legislator during a legislative session posted a violent meme on social media in response to the bodys action on a bill, and no disciplinary action was taken.

Sommers said he believes there is room in the future to examine and debate the issue of social media with respect to legislative decorum. He said he hopes that the Management Councils Legislator Ethics Complaint Procedure Subcommittee will look into this during the interim.

The House Speaker acknowledged that Provenza had recognized her conduct was hurtful and inappropriate. She wrote a letter of apology to her colleagues, and he said he appreciated and accepted the steps she took.

I have written Representative Provenza a private letter of reprimand. If Representative Provenza in the future engages in conduct on the internet or during her performance of legislative duties that fails to meet the decorum of the Wyoming House of Representatives, then I will take further action, he said. I do not believe it is my role as presiding officer to police all legislators online activity, especially when they are not performing legislative duties.

He further stated that if he becomes aware of any further escalation of uncivil behavior online by any members of the House that breaches decorum, he will also take appropriate action.

During the Easter season, I am particularly reminded of the importance of compassion for one another, he concluded. In coming to this decision, I was guided by my personal belief in the rule of law and the traditions of the Wyoming Legislature, not what may be politically expedient.

Provenza reacts to decision

Provenza told the Wyoming Tribune Eagle following Sommers decision that it wasnt up to her to decide whether it was fair or not. She said the body will make the judgment call, and history will have the final say.

The Speaker followed the Constitution and state statutes, and our rules and procedures, she said Wednesday evening. Ive respected the decision-making authority of the Speaker in the past and several times through the session, so I will respect it now.

She said she intended the posts to only be seen by her friends, family and community members who she knows personally, and who understand her perspective. She assumed that they would know her belief systems, and never meant the post to be a threat of violence in any way.

What I intended my post to convey, and what I have endorsed publicly on the House floor, is support for the use of the Second Amendment to protect trans people who are facing increased levels of violence, she explained. What is implied in that meme is the same message that is readily assumed and applied for anyone who endorses the use of the Second Amendment to protect ourselves and our families. So, ultimately, it comes down to protection equates to defense, which is viewed much differently than committing violence.

Provenza referenced the caption of the meme she shared on her Facebook page, which originated from an Off Color Decals Instagram page. It was recognizing the Trans Day of Visibility.

Weve been quiet because its been somber and stressful in TN this week, the caption read. There were several TDoV and Drag Ban related events scheduled for today and Saturday in Nashville that had to be canceled because of the increased anti-trans rhetoric online and throughout the city in general.

It went on to address local queer organizations being on red alert, and said it was important to take the time to post at last something today to acknowledge our trans comrades.

The caption concluded with, You are seen. You are loved. And so long as were still breathing, you will be protected.

The Albany County Democrat said she recognized the meme could be seen as crude by many peoples standards, but she reiterated she was intending to support those who are struggling with violence right now.

Walking away from the experience, she said the lesson she learned is that private social media doesnt exist as a state lawmaker. She said she now understands anything can be construed the wrong way.

She said her apology was sincere and genuine, and she plans to walk back into committee meetings and the next session with her head held high. Provenza said she has grown from this experience, and added the impact of the meme is what she is most apologetic for.

It pains me to consider that the families in Tennessee feel that theres a legislator in Wyoming who does not take their pain and grief to heart, she said. Thats absolutely not the case. And it tears me up to think that they might think otherwise.

Its also deeply saddening to me that loved ones of other victims of violence are also grieving, and do so with each new school shooting. Our country is constantly hurting and in pain and recovering from the last tragedy, which is happening weekly at this point. And my failure to recognize that words could be used to hurt people is something that Im truly sorry for.

She also was upset that her post was used against transgender people, and said it inadvertently increased violent rhetoric around them.

I just wish I had the foresight to have prevented that, she said. Because we know they suffer from so much more violence than anyone else. And its just not fair to have dragged them into this discussion.

View original post here:
House Speaker dismisses complaints against Albany County ... - Wyoming Tribune

New York Rep. George Santos. (Photo illustration: Jack Forbes/Yahoo News; photos: Drew Angerer/Getty Images, Getty Images)

Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., perplexed many Twitter users when he posted a tweet Thursday night claiming that Democrats want to ban toilet paper.

Republicans are working to put Americans First and lower the cost of living, the freshman member of Congress wrote. Democrats are busy trying to ban toilet paper and gas stoves.

Its not clear what he was referring to. Theres never been an effort to ban toilet paper in either Congress or any state legislature. Some Twitter users mocked Santoss claim with references to imaginary bills like the Ban Toilet Paper Act of 2023.

Other commentators accused him of lying or noted the lack of evidence for his claims some commenters obliquely alluding to Santoss numerous lies about his biography and alleged lies about his campaigns finances to which he did not respond. A few joked that he had uncovered a secret nefarious plot.

Santoss office did not immediately reply to requests for clarification as to what he was referencing.

One possibility is that he may have fallen for an April Fools Day joke. On April 1, New York City Councilman Erik Bottcher, a Democrat from Manhattan, put out a fake press release saying he would introduce legislation to ban single-use paper products including toilet paper, paper towels, facial tissues, paper napkins and cardboard boxes.

He fell for it big-time, Bottcher told Yahoo News on Monday of Santoss claim.

I dont know about you, but my dream is to live in a world where people look at a roll of toilet paper and say, What is that? Bottcher said in his spoof announcement. The text included a few hints that it wasnt on the square, like a quote from a fictional activist, Scottie Cotton, President of CAK (Coalition Against Kleenex), who said, I prefer to think of it as bringing back handkerchiefs.

A few social media users seemed to mistake Bottchers satire for sincerity, but most seemed to get the joke, as did local news outlets one of which built out the prank into a fake news story featuring interviews with skeptical constituents bearing pun names such as John Throne.

Story continues

Bottcher took notice of Santoss tweet, impishly responding that Our quest to ban toilet paper may have gone too far.

Bottcher told Yahoo News he was surprised his press release had been taken literally.

Santos outside criminal court in Manhattan, April 4. (Stephanie Keith/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

I thought long and hard about the best April Fools joke to do, and I picked something that I thought was so outlandish that no reasonable person would actually believe it, he said.

This isnt the first time the council member has played a prank. On April 1 of last year, he proposed banning all vehicles in Manhattan except golf carts an idea that some unironically embraced and that he said triggered a few calls from angry constituents.

One reason Santos may have been inclined to take Bottcher's statement seriously is that conservatives have been increasingly concerned that liberals will limit access to popular consumer products for environmental reasons. In February, right-wing Canadian author and professor Jordan Peterson denounced the petty tyranny of a sign in a public restroom encouraging people to use only as many paper towels as they need and to throw used ones into a recycling bin.

Santoss claim may also stem from an atmosphere of growing partisan polarization and increasingly separate sources of information for the left and right, in which news consumers are likely to believe the most extreme, implausible claims about their opponents agenda. For instance, at least 20 conservative politicians claimed last year that public schools are putting out litter boxes for students who identify as cats, despite no evidence of any such occurrence. And a majority of Republicans believe, without evidence, that the 2020 presidential election was stolen through fraud.

On the other side, a meme from the progressive group Occupy Democrats that was widely shared on social media falsely claimed that a majority of congressional Republicans had voted to raise the retirement age for Social Security. (The Republicans mentioned in the ad belong to the Republican Study Committee, which has proposed gradually raising the age for collecting Social Security, but no legislation has come to a vote and its not clear how most of the groups members would vote on such a bill.)

It is, in fact, true that toilet paper has a significant environmental impact, due to all the trees that are cut down to make it: Theaverage U.S. consumer will go through the equivalent of 384 trees just for toilet paper in their lifetime. Deforestation causes loss of wildlife habitats and contributes to climate change, because trees absorb and store carbon dioxide.

Rolls of toilet paper at a Walmart in Houston. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

To mitigate the impact of toilet paper production, environmentalists propose using recycled paper instead of virgin wood but not banning the product outright.

The other half of Santoss claim that Democrats seek to ban sales of new gas stoves, an issue that has recently become a common Republican attack is comparatively better grounded. Although neither the Biden administration nor any Democrats in Congress have proposed such a measure, cities such as New York and Los Angeles are phasing out the sale of fossil fuel infrastructure (such as gas stoves and boilers) in homes, and some Democratic legislators and governors have proposed the same at the state level.

In January, Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. said the agency was open to banning new gas stoves in response to a growing body of scientific research linking them to indoor air pollution and related health risks such as childhood asthma. But after swift backlash, CPSC Chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric said the commission has no plans to consider such a proposal.

Link:
George Santos claims without evidence that Democrats are 'trying to ban toilet paper' - Yahoo News