By LAURA OLSON <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/09/15/putting-on-pandemic-pounds-state-obesity-rates-hit-all-time-highs/">Kansas Reflector</a>

WASHINGTON — The number of states with high obesity among residents has nearly doubled since 2018, according to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html">new data</a> Wednesday from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There were 16 states that had obesity
 rates among adult residents of at least 35% last year, with Iowa, Ohio,
 Delaware and Texas on that list for the first time. That’s an increase 
from 12 states in 2019 and nine states in 2018.

Officials with the Association of 
State and Territorial Health Officials described the obesity rates as 
having hit all-time highs, and that they signal how the COVID-19 
pandemic exacerbated the decades-long pattern of obesity in the United 
States.

“Our attention on COVID-19 diverted 
us from focusing on chronic disease prevention, which we need to get 
back to,” said Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer at the association.
 “We must get back on track to assure that we have the policies, systems
 and environments in place to support equitable access to physical 
activity opportunities and nutrition security for all.”

As recently as 2012, no state had an adult obesity rate above 35%, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.tfah.org/report-details/state-of-obesity-2021/">according to the Trust for America’s Health</a>, a D.C.-based health policy organization.&nbsp;

Last year, more than 20% of adults in every state were obese, according to the CDC.

Mississippi had the highest rate nationally, at 39.7%. The rate in Kansas is 35.3%.

Others that ranked high were Alabama,
 Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

Colorado had the lowest obesity rate, at 24.2%.&nbsp;

Others in the lowest tier — between 20% and 25% — were Hawaii, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.

The obesity rates are based on 
self-reported height and weight data gathered through telephone surveys 
on health-related risk behaviors, chronic health conditions, and use of 
preventive services.

Analyzing obesity rates from 2018 to 2020, federal health researchers identified racial, educational and regional trends.

No state had an obesity prevalence at
 or above 35% among Asian residents, seven had high obesity rates among 
white residents, 22 had high rates among Hispanic residents, and 35 
states had obesity rates at or above 35% among Black residents.&nbsp;

Among adults without a high school degree, obesity rates were 38.8%, while it was 25% among college graduates.

The Midwest and South had the highest levels of obesity among residents, at 34.1% in each region.&nbsp;

Western states had a rate of 29%, with 28% among residents in the Northeast.

Laura covers the nation's capital as a senior reporter for States Newsroom, a network of nonprofit outlets that includes Kansas Reflector.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1631800950996.png" alt="Carrots are an excellent source of Vitamin A, which is necessary for healthy eyesight, skin, growth, and also aids our bodies in resisting infection. Carrots are also a good source of potassium. Carrots have a higher natural sugar content than all other vegetables with the exception of beets. This is why they make a wonderful snack when eaten raw, and make a tasty addition to a variety of cooked dishes. (Mary Anne Fenley/CDC)" />
 <figcaption>Carrots are an excellent source of Vitamin A, which is necessary for healthy eyesight, skin, growth, and also aids our bodies in resisting infection. Carrots are also a good source of potassium. Carrots have a higher natural sugar content than all other vegetables with the exception of beets. This is why they make a wonderful snack when eaten raw, and make a tasty addition to a variety of cooked dishes. (Mary Anne Fenley/CDC)</figcaption>
 </figure>By LAURA OLSON <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2021/09/15/putting-on-pandemic-pounds-state-obesity-rates-hit-all-time-highs/">Kansas Reflector</a>WASHINGTON — The number of states with high obesity among residents has nearly doubled since 2018, according to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html">new data</a> Wednesday from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.There were 16 states that had obesity
 rates among adult residents of at least 35% last year, with Iowa, Ohio,
 Delaware and Texas on that list for the first time. That’s an increase 
from 12 states in 2019 and nine states in 2018.Officials with the Association of 
State and Territorial Health Officials described the obesity rates as 
having hit all-time highs, and that they signal how the COVID-19 
pandemic exacerbated the decades-long pattern of obesity in the United 
States.“Our attention on COVID-19 diverted 
us from focusing on chronic disease prevention, which we need to get 
back to,” said Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer at the association.
 “We must get back on track to assure that we have the policies, systems
 and environments in place to support equitable access to physical 
activity opportunities and nutrition security for all.”As recently as 2012, no state had an adult obesity rate above 35%, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.tfah.org/report-details/state-of-obesity-2021/">according to the Trust for America’s Health</a>, a D.C.-based health policy organization.&nbsp;Last year, more than 20% of adults in every state were obese, according to the CDC.Mississippi had the highest rate nationally, at 39.7%. The rate in Kansas is 35.3%.Others that ranked high were Alabama,
 Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.Colorado had the lowest obesity rate, at 24.2%.&nbsp;Others in the lowest tier — between 20% and 25% — were Hawaii, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.The obesity rates are based on 
self-reported height and weight data gathered through telephone surveys 
on health-related risk behaviors, chronic health conditions, and use of 
preventive services.Analyzing obesity rates from 2018 to 2020, federal health researchers identified racial, educational and regional trends.No state had an obesity prevalence at
 or above 35% among Asian residents, seven had high obesity rates among 
white residents, 22 had high rates among Hispanic residents, and 35 
states had obesity rates at or above 35% among Black residents.&nbsp;Among adults without a high school degree, obesity rates were 38.8%, while it was 25% among college graduates.The Midwest and South had the highest levels of obesity among residents, at 34.1% in each region.&nbsp;Western states had a rate of 29%, with 28% among residents in the Northeast.Laura covers the nation's capital as a senior reporter for States Newsroom, a network of nonprofit outlets that includes Kansas Reflector.&nbsp;

Pandemic pounds: State obesity rates hit all-time highs

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — An Omaha Marine killed last month in Afghanistan was remembered as a hero who died while trying to help others. 

The Rev. Suzanne Howe spoke of Bible scriptures during the funeral Friday for Marine Cpl. Daegan Page. 

He was one of 13 U.S. service members killed Aug. 26 in a suicide bombing at the Kabul airport. 

Howe said Jesus stood in the breach between good and evil, and that Page was killed as he “stood in that breach for as many of his fellow human beings as he could.” 

After the service, Page’s remains were taken to Omaha National Cemetery for burial. Page was born in Omaha. He lived in Red Oak, Iowa, before moving with his family to Omaha. He enlisted in the Marines in 2017.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1631964625999.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — An Omaha Marine killed last month in Afghanistan was remembered as a hero who died while trying to help others. The Rev. Suzanne Howe spoke of Bible scriptures during the funeral Friday for Marine Cpl. Daegan Page. He was one of 13 U.S. service members killed Aug. 26 in a suicide bombing at the Kabul airport. Howe said Jesus stood in the breach between good and evil, and that Page was killed as he “stood in that breach for as many of his fellow human beings as he could.” After the service, Page’s remains were taken to Omaha National Cemetery for burial. Page was born in Omaha. He lived in Red Oak, Iowa, before moving with his family to Omaha. He enlisted in the Marines in 2017.

Omaha Marine recalled as hero who died while helping others

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon retreated from its defense of a drone strike that killed multiple civilians in Afghanistan last month, announcing Friday that a review revealed that only civilians were killed in the attack, not an Islamic State extremist as first believed.

“The strike was a tragic mistake,” Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, told a Pentagon news conference.

McKenzie apologized for the error and said the United States is considering making reparation payments to the family of the victims. He said the decision to strike a white Toyota Corolla sedan, after having tracked it for about eight hours, was made in an “earnest belief” — based on a standard of “reasonable certainty” — that it posed an imminent threat to American forces at Kabul airport. The car was believed to have been carrying explosives in its trunk, he said.

For days after the Aug. 29 strike, Pentagon officials asserted that it had been conducted correctly, despite 10 civilians being killed, including seven children. News organizations later raised doubts about that version of events, reporting that the driver of the targeted vehicle was a longtime employee at an American humanitarian organization and citing an absence of evidence to support the Pentagon’s assertion that the vehicle contained explosives.

The airstrike was the last of a U.S. war that ended as it had begun in 2001 — with the Taliban in power in Kabul. The speed with which the Taliban overran the country took the U.S. government by surprise and forced it to send several thousand troops to the Kabul airport for a hurried evacuation of Americans, Afghans and others. The evacuation, which began Aug. 14, unfolded under a near-constant threat of attack by the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate.

McKenzie, who oversaw U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, including a final evacuation of U.S. forces and more than 120,000 civilians from Kabul airport, expressed his condolences to the family and friends of those killed.

“I am now convinced that as many as 10 civilians, including up to seven children, were tragically killed in that strike,” McKenzie said. “Moreover, we now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with ISIS-K or were a direct threat to U.S. forces,” he added, referring to the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate.

Prior to the strike, U.S. intelligence had indicated a likelihood that a white Toyota Corolla would be used in an attack against U.S. forces, McKenzie said. On the morning of Aug. 29, such a vehicle was detected at a compound in Kabul that U.S. intelligence in the preceding 48 hours had determined was used by the Islamic State group to plan and facilitate attacks. The vehicle was tracked by U.S. drone aircraft from that compound to numerous other locations in the city before the decision was made to attack it at a point just a couple of miles from Kabul airport, McKenzie said.

“Clearly our intelligence was wrong on this particular white Toyota Corolla,” he said.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in a written statement, apologized for what he called “a horrible mistake.”

“We now know that there was no connection” between the driver of the vehicle and the Islamic State group, and that the driver’s activities that day were “completely harmless and not at all related to the imminent threat we believed we faced,” Austin said.

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters two days after the attack that it appeared to have been a “righteous” strike and that at least one of the people killed was a “facilitator” for the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate, which had killed 169 Afghan civilians and 13 American service members in a suicide bombing on Aug. 26 at the Kabul airport.

After McKenzie’s remarks on Friday, Milley expressed regret.

“This is a horrible tragedy of war and it’s heart wrenching,” Milley told reporters traveling with him in Europe. “We are committed to being fully transparent about this incident.”

“In a dynamic high-threat environment, the commanders on the ground had appropriate authority and had reasonable certainty that the target was valid, but after deeper post-strike analysis our conclusion is that innocent civilians were killed,” Milley added.

Accounts from the family of the victims, documents from colleagues seen by The Associated Press, and the scene at the family home — where Zemerai Ahmadi’s car was struck by a Hellfire missile just as he pulled into the driveway — all painted a picture of a family that had worked for Americans and were trying to gain visas to the United States, fearing for their lives under the Taliban.

The family said that when the 37-year-old Zemerai, alone in his car, pulled up to the house, he honked his horn. His 11-year-old son ran out and Zemerai let the boy get in and drive the car into the driveway. The other kids ran out to watch, and the Hellfire missile incinerated the car, killing seven children and an adult son and nephew of Zemerai.

Amnesty International, the humanitarian aid group, called the U.S. military’s admission of a mistake a good first step.

“The U.S. must now commit to a full, transparent, and impartial investigation into this incident,” said Brian Castner, a senior crisis adviser with Amnesty International. “Anyone suspected of criminal responsibility should be prosecuted in a fair trial. Survivors and families of the victims should be kept informed of the progress of the investigation and be given full reparation.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said a fuller explanation must be provided.

“We need to know what went wrong in the hours and minutes leading up to the strike to prevent similar tragedies in the future,” he said. “I am also concerned about the accuracy and completeness of public statements made in the immediate aftermath of the strike, and whether those accounted for all of the information possessed by the government at the time.”

--------WHAT the U.S. military originally reported

WASHINGTON (AP) — Acting swiftly on President Joe Biden's promise to retaliate for the deadly suicide bombing at Kabul airport, the U.S. military said it killed two members of the Islamic State group's Afghanistan affiliate with a drone strike in the group's eastern stronghold.

The attack Saturday local time came amid what the White House called indications that IS planned to strike again as the U.S.-led evacuation from Kabul airport moved into its final days. Biden has set Tuesday as his deadline for completing the exit.

Biden authorized the drone strike and it was ordered by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to provide details not yet publicly announced. It was not immediately clear whether the targeted IS members were directly involved in Thursday's airport attack. The U.S. military initially said one person was killed.

“It was a single mission to get these targets and as the assessments and information flowed over time, we were able to recognize that another was killed as well and one wounded,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said at a Defense Department briefing Saturday.

"They were ISIS-K planners and facilitators and that’s enough reason there alone. I won’t speak to the details of these individuals and what their specific roles might be," Kirby said. He added: "We have the ability and the means to carry over the horizon counterterrorism capabilities and we’re going to defend ourselves.’’

He declined to identify those killed but said the United States knew who they were.

The airstrike was launched from beyond Afghanistan less than 48 hours after the devastating Kabul attack that killed 13 Americans and 169 Afghans with just days left in a final U.S. withdrawal after 20 years of war. U.S. Central Command said it believed its strike killed no civilians.

The speed with which the U.S. military retaliated reflected its close monitoring of IS and years of experience in targeting extremists in remote parts of the world. But it also shows the limits of U.S. power to eliminate extremist threats, which some believe will have more freedom of movement in Afghanistan now that the Taliban is in power.

The airstrike came after Biden declared Thursday that perpetrators of the attack would not be able to hide. “We will hunt you down and make you pay,” he said. Pentagon leaders told reporters Friday that they were prepared for whatever retaliatory action the president ordered.

The president was warned Friday to expect another lethal attack in the closing days of a frantic U.S.-led evacuation. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden's national security team offered a grim outlook.

"They advised the president and vice president that another terror attack in Kabul is likely, but that they are taking maximum force protection measures at the Kabul airport,” Psaki said, echoing what the Pentagon has been saying since the bombing Thursday at Kabul airport.

Late Friday, the State Department again urged Americans to stay away from airport gates, including “the New Ministry of Interior gate.”

Few new details about the airport attack emerged a day later, but the Pentagon corrected its initial report that there had been suicide bombings at two locations. It said there was just one — at or near the Abbey Gate — followed by gunfire. The initial report of a second bombing at the nearby Baron Hotel proved to be false, said Maj. Gen. Hank Taylor of the Pentagon's Joint Staff; he attributed the mistake to initial confusion.

Based on a preliminary assessment, U.S. officials believe the suicide vest used in the attack, which killed at least 169 Afghans in addition to the 13 Americans, carried about 25 pounds of explosives and was loaded with shrapnel, a U.S. official said Friday. A suicide bomb typically carries five to 10 pounds of explosives, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss preliminary assessments of the bombing.

Biden still faces the problem over the longer term of containing an array of potential extremist threats based in Afghanistan, which will be harder with fewer U.S. intelligence assets and no military presence in the nation.

In an Oval Office appearance Friday, Biden again expressed his condolences to victims of the attack. The return home of U.S. military members' remains in coming days will provide painful and poignant reminders not just of the devastation at the Kabul airport but also of the costly way the war is ending. More than 2,400 U.S. service members died in the war and tens of thousands were injured over the past two decades.

The Marine Corps said 11 of the 13 Americans killed were Marines. One was a Navy sailor and one an Army soldier. Their names have not been released pending notification of their families, but the Pentagon said Saturday they would be released soon.

Still, sorrowful details of those killed were starting to emerge. One Marine from Wyoming was on his first tour in Afghanistan and his wife is expecting a baby in three weeks; another was a 20-year-old man from Missouri whose father was devastated by the loss. A third, a 20-year-old from Texas, had joined the armed services out of high school.

Biden ordered U.S. flags to half-staff across the country in honor of the 13.

They were the first U.S. service members killed in Afghanistan since February 2020, the month the Trump administration struck an agreement with the Taliban that called for the militant group to halt attacks on Americans in exchange for a U.S. agreement to remove all American troops and contractors by May 2021. Biden announced in April that he would have all forces out by September.

Psaki said the next few days of the mission to evacuate Americans and others, including vulnerable Afghans fleeing Taliban rule, “will be the most dangerous period to date.”

The Pentagon said Saturday morning that about 6,800 people were airlifted from Kabul on U.S. and coalition aircraft in the past 24 hours, and about 117,000 people have been airlifted over the last two weeks.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon retreated from its defense of a drone strike that killed multiple civilians in Afghanistan last month, announcing Friday that a review revealed that only civilians were killed in the attack, not an Islamic State extremist as first believed.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">LIVE: <a href="https://twitter.com/PentagonPresSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PentagonPresSec</a> John F. Kirby and <a href="https://twitter.com/CENTCOM?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CENTCOM</a> commander, Marine Corps Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., hold a news briefing at the Pentagon. <a href="https://t.co/qSwXqCVfoo">https://t.co/qSwXqCVfoo</a>&mdash; Department of Defense 🇺🇸 (@DeptofDefense) <a href="https://twitter.com/DeptofDefense/status/1438941219757846530?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 17, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>“The strike was a tragic mistake,” Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, told a Pentagon news conference.McKenzie apologized for the error and said the United States is considering making reparation payments to the family of the victims. He said the decision to strike a white Toyota Corolla sedan, after having tracked it for about eight hours, was made in an “earnest belief” — based on a standard of “reasonable certainty” — that it posed an imminent threat to American forces at Kabul airport. The car was believed to have been carrying explosives in its trunk, he said.For days after the Aug. 29 strike, Pentagon officials asserted that it had been conducted correctly, despite 10 civilians being killed, including seven children. News organizations later raised doubts about that version of events, reporting that the driver of the targeted vehicle was a longtime employee at an American humanitarian organization and citing an absence of evidence to support the Pentagon’s assertion that the vehicle contained explosives.The airstrike was the last of a U.S. war that ended as it had begun in 2001 — with the Taliban in power in Kabul. The speed with which the Taliban overran the country took the U.S. government by surprise and forced it to send several thousand troops to the Kabul airport for a hurried evacuation of Americans, Afghans and others. The evacuation, which began Aug. 14, unfolded under a near-constant threat of attack by the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate.McKenzie, who oversaw U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, including a final evacuation of U.S. forces and more than 120,000 civilians from Kabul airport, expressed his condolences to the family and friends of those killed.“I am now convinced that as many as 10 civilians, including up to seven children, were tragically killed in that strike,” McKenzie said. “Moreover, we now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with ISIS-K or were a direct threat to U.S. forces,” he added, referring to the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate.Prior to the strike, U.S. intelligence had indicated a likelihood that a white Toyota Corolla would be used in an attack against U.S. forces, McKenzie said. On the morning of Aug. 29, such a vehicle was detected at a compound in Kabul that U.S. intelligence in the preceding 48 hours had determined was used by the Islamic State group to plan and facilitate attacks. The vehicle was tracked by U.S. drone aircraft from that compound to numerous other locations in the city before the decision was made to attack it at a point just a couple of miles from Kabul airport, McKenzie said.“Clearly our intelligence was wrong on this particular white Toyota Corolla,” he said.Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in a written statement, apologized for what he called “a horrible mistake.”“We now know that there was no connection” between the driver of the vehicle and the Islamic State group, and that the driver’s activities that day were “completely harmless and not at all related to the imminent threat we believed we faced,” Austin said.Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters two days after the attack that it appeared to have been a “righteous” strike and that at least one of the people killed was a “facilitator” for the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate, which had killed 169 Afghan civilians and 13 American service members in a suicide bombing on Aug. 26 at the Kabul airport.After McKenzie’s remarks on Friday, Milley expressed regret.“This is a horrible tragedy of war and it’s heart wrenching,” Milley told reporters traveling with him in Europe. “We are committed to being fully transparent about this incident.”“In a dynamic high-threat environment, the commanders on the ground had appropriate authority and had reasonable certainty that the target was valid, but after deeper post-strike analysis our conclusion is that innocent civilians were killed,” Milley added.Accounts from the family of the victims, documents from colleagues seen by The Associated Press, and the scene at the family home — where Zemerai Ahmadi’s car was struck by a Hellfire missile just as he pulled into the driveway — all painted a picture of a family that had worked for Americans and were trying to gain visas to the United States, fearing for their lives under the Taliban.The family said that when the 37-year-old Zemerai, alone in his car, pulled up to the house, he honked his horn. His 11-year-old son ran out and Zemerai let the boy get in and drive the car into the driveway. The other kids ran out to watch, and the Hellfire missile incinerated the car, killing seven children and an adult son and nephew of Zemerai.Amnesty International, the humanitarian aid group, called the U.S. military’s admission of a mistake a good first step.“The U.S. must now commit to a full, transparent, and impartial investigation into this incident,” said Brian Castner, a senior crisis adviser with Amnesty International. “Anyone suspected of criminal responsibility should be prosecuted in a fair trial. Survivors and families of the victims should be kept informed of the progress of the investigation and be given full reparation.”Rep. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said a fuller explanation must be provided.“We need to know what went wrong in the hours and minutes leading up to the strike to prevent similar tragedies in the future,” he said. “I am also concerned about the accuracy and completeness of public statements made in the immediate aftermath of the strike, and whether those accounted for all of the information possessed by the government at the time.”--------WHAT the U.S. military originally reportedWASHINGTON (AP) — Acting swiftly on President Joe Biden's promise to retaliate for the deadly suicide bombing at Kabul airport, the U.S. military said it killed two members of the Islamic State group's Afghanistan affiliate with a drone strike in the group's eastern stronghold.The attack Saturday local time came amid what the White House called indications that IS planned to strike again as the U.S.-led evacuation from Kabul airport moved into its final days. Biden has set Tuesday as his deadline for completing the exit.Biden authorized the drone strike and it was ordered by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to provide details not yet publicly announced. It was not immediately clear whether the targeted IS members were directly involved in Thursday's airport attack. The U.S. military initially said one person was killed.“It was a single mission to get these targets and as the assessments and information flowed over time, we were able to recognize that another was killed as well and one wounded,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said at a Defense Department briefing Saturday."They were ISIS-K planners and facilitators and that’s enough reason there alone. I won’t speak to the details of these individuals and what their specific roles might be," Kirby said. He added: "We have the ability and the means to carry over the horizon counterterrorism capabilities and we’re going to defend ourselves.’’He declined to identify those killed but said the United States knew who they were.The airstrike was launched from beyond Afghanistan less than 48 hours after the devastating Kabul attack that killed 13 Americans and 169 Afghans with just days left in a final U.S. withdrawal after 20 years of war. U.S. Central Command said it believed its strike killed no civilians.The speed with which the U.S. military retaliated reflected its close monitoring of IS and years of experience in targeting extremists in remote parts of the world. But it also shows the limits of U.S. power to eliminate extremist threats, which some believe will have more freedom of movement in Afghanistan now that the Taliban is in power.The airstrike came after Biden declared Thursday that perpetrators of the attack would not be able to hide. “We will hunt you down and make you pay,” he said. Pentagon leaders told reporters Friday that they were prepared for whatever retaliatory action the president ordered.The president was warned Friday to expect another lethal attack in the closing days of a frantic U.S.-led evacuation. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden's national security team offered a grim outlook."They advised the president and vice president that another terror attack in Kabul is likely, but that they are taking maximum force protection measures at the Kabul airport,” Psaki said, echoing what the Pentagon has been saying since the bombing Thursday at Kabul airport.Late Friday, the State Department again urged Americans to stay away from airport gates, including “the New Ministry of Interior gate.”Few new details about the airport attack emerged a day later, but the Pentagon corrected its initial report that there had been suicide bombings at two locations. It said there was just one — at or near the Abbey Gate — followed by gunfire. The initial report of a second bombing at the nearby Baron Hotel proved to be false, said Maj. Gen. Hank Taylor of the Pentagon's Joint Staff; he attributed the mistake to initial confusion.Based on a preliminary assessment, U.S. officials believe the suicide vest used in the attack, which killed at least 169 Afghans in addition to the 13 Americans, carried about 25 pounds of explosives and was loaded with shrapnel, a U.S. official said Friday. A suicide bomb typically carries five to 10 pounds of explosives, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss preliminary assessments of the bombing.Biden still faces the problem over the longer term of containing an array of potential extremist threats based in Afghanistan, which will be harder with fewer U.S. intelligence assets and no military presence in the nation.In an Oval Office appearance Friday, Biden again expressed his condolences to victims of the attack. The return home of U.S. military members' remains in coming days will provide painful and poignant reminders not just of the devastation at the Kabul airport but also of the costly way the war is ending. More than 2,400 U.S. service members died in the war and tens of thousands were injured over the past two decades.The Marine Corps said 11 of the 13 Americans killed were Marines. One was a Navy sailor and one an Army soldier. Their names have not been released pending notification of their families, but the Pentagon said Saturday they would be released soon.Still, sorrowful details of those killed were starting to emerge. One Marine from Wyoming was on his first tour in Afghanistan and his wife is expecting a baby in three weeks; another was a 20-year-old man from Missouri whose father was devastated by the loss. A third, a 20-year-old from Texas, had joined the armed services out of high school.Biden ordered U.S. flags to half-staff across the country in honor of the 13.They were the first U.S. service members killed in Afghanistan since February 2020, the month the Trump administration struck an agreement with the Taliban that called for the militant group to halt attacks on Americans in exchange for a U.S. agreement to remove all American troops and contractors by May 2021. Biden announced in April that he would have all forces out by September.Psaki said the next few days of the mission to evacuate Americans and others, including vulnerable Afghans fleeing Taliban rule, “will be the most dangerous period to date.”The Pentagon said Saturday morning that about 6,800 people were airlifted from Kabul on U.S. and coalition aircraft in the past 24 hours, and about 117,000 people have been airlifted over the last two weeks.___

Tragic mistake: U.S. airstrike killed 7 children, no terrorists

WASHINGTON (AP) — An influential federal advisory panel has overwhelmingly rejected a plan to give Pfizer booster shots against COVID-19 to most Americans, but it approved the extra doses for those who are 65 or older or run a high risk of severe disease. 

The twin votes Friday represented a heavy blow to the Biden administration’s sweeping effort to shore up nearly all Americans’ protection amid the spread of the highly contagious delta variant. The decision was made by a committee of outside experts who advise the Food and Drug Administration.

WASHINGTON (AP) — An influential federal advisory panel has rejected a plan to offer Pfizer booster shots against COVID-19 to most Americans. The vote Friday, 16-2, was a blow to the Biden administration's plan to shore up people's protection against the virus amid the highly contagious delta variant.

Over several hours of discussion, members of the Food and Drug Administration panel of outside experts voiced frustration that Pfizer had provided little data on safety of extra doses. And they complained that data provided by Israeli researchers about their booster campaign might not be suitable for predicting the U.S. experience.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration’s embattled plan to dispense COVID-19 booster shots to most Americans faced its first major hurdle Friday as a government advisory panel met to decide whether to endorse extra doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

Scientists inside and outside the government have been divided in recent days over the need for boosters and who should get them, and the World Health Organization has strongly objected to rich nations giving a third round of shots when poor countries don’t have enough vaccine for their first.

The panel, made up of outside experts who advise the Food and Drug Administration, weighed a less than clear-cut case: While research suggests immunity levels in those who have been vaccinated wane over time and boosters can reverse that, the Pfizer vaccine is still highly protective against severe illness and death, even amid the spread of the highly contagious delta variant.

The FDA experts were scheduled to vote on one basic question: Does the evidence show that a Pfizer booster would be safe and effective for people 16 and older? In the event of a yes vote, the FDA is expected to quickly approve boosters for Pfizer’s shot.

But that is just one step in the process. The more thorny question of who should get the shots and when will be debated next week by advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC generally adopts the recommendations of the group, which sets policy for U.S. vaccination campaigns.

Some group members have made clear they favor giving third doses to older people, nursing home residents and front-line health care workers, rather than all adults.

Separate FDA and CDC decisions will be needed in order for people who received the Moderna or J&amp;J shots to get boosters.

Friday’s meeting came as the delta variant continues to drive U.S. cases and deaths back to levels not seen since last winter. That has given urgency to efforts by top health officials to shore up Americans’ protection against the virus.

Dr. Peter Marks, FDA’s top vaccine regulator, acknowledged the intense disagreements in opening remarks to the advisory panel.

“We know there may be differing opinions in interpreting the data,” he said. “We strongly encourage all the different viewpoints to be voiced and discussed regarding the data, which is complex and evolving.”

President Joe Biden’s top health advisers, including the heads of the FDA and CDC, first announced plans for widespread booster shots a month ago, targeting the week of Sept. 20 as an all-but-certain start date. It said boosters would be dispensed eight months after the second dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

But that was before FDA staff scientists had completed their own assessments of the data. Some experts questioned whether Biden was breaking his own pledge to “follow the science” on COVID-19 by getting out ahead of government scientists.

Earlier this week, two top FDA vaccine reviewers joined a group of international scientists in publishing an editorial rejecting the need for boosters in healthy people. The scientists said continuing studies show the shots are working well despite the delta variant.

The editorial came two weeks after the two reviewers announced plans to retire from the FDA. One of them, Dr. Marian Gruber, addressed the American people directly in her opening remarks Friday but gave no reason for her retirement.

“All my actions and decisions over my 32-year FDA career have been grounded in science with you in mind and in the best interest of your health and safety,” Gruber said.

The Biden booster plan has raised major ethical concerns, given the dire shortages of vaccine in impoverished parts of the world. But the administration has argued that the plan is not an us-or-them choice and noted that the U.S. is supplying large quantities of vaccine to the rest of the globe.

The U.S. has already approved Pfizer and Moderna boosters for certain people with weakened immune systems, such as cancer patients and transplant recipients. And some Americans, healthy or not, have managed to get boosters on the sly by going to clinics and pretending they have yet to get their initial shots.

Pfizer was expected Friday to present data suggesting immunity from its vaccine begins to wane somewhere around six to eight months after the second dose.

The panel was also set to hear from Israeli health officials, who began offering boosters over the summer. Officials there tracked about 1 million people 60 and older and found that those who got the extra shot were far less likely to become infected soon afterward.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/12/1608677701818.png" alt="A worker prepares doses of Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine against the virus that causes COVID-19 -photo courtesy Truman Medical Center" />
 <figcaption>A worker prepares doses of Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine against the virus that causes COVID-19 -photo courtesy Truman Medical Center</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — An influential federal advisory panel has overwhelmingly rejected a plan to give Pfizer booster shots against COVID-19 to most Americans, but it approved the extra doses for those who are 65 or older or run a high risk of severe disease. <div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bQevYc2jX7Y" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>The twin votes Friday represented a heavy blow to the Biden administration’s sweeping effort to shore up nearly all Americans’ protection amid the spread of the highly contagious delta variant. The decision was made by a committee of outside experts who advise the Food and Drug Administration.-------------WASHINGTON (AP) — An influential federal advisory panel has rejected a plan to offer Pfizer booster shots against COVID-19 to most Americans. The vote Friday, 16-2, was a blow to the Biden administration's plan to shore up people's protection against the virus amid the highly contagious delta variant.Over several hours of discussion, members of the Food and Drug Administration panel of outside experts voiced frustration that Pfizer had provided little data on safety of extra doses. And they complained that data provided by Israeli researchers about their booster campaign might not be suitable for predicting the U.S. experience.----------WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration’s embattled plan to dispense COVID-19 booster shots to most Americans faced its first major hurdle Friday as a government advisory panel met to decide whether to endorse extra doses of the Pfizer vaccine.Scientists inside and outside the government have been divided in recent days over the need for boosters and who should get them, and the World Health Organization has strongly objected to rich nations giving a third round of shots when poor countries don’t have enough vaccine for their first.The panel, made up of outside experts who advise the Food and Drug Administration, weighed a less than clear-cut case: While research suggests immunity levels in those who have been vaccinated wane over time and boosters can reverse that, the Pfizer vaccine is still highly protective against severe illness and death, even amid the spread of the highly contagious delta variant.The FDA experts were scheduled to vote on one basic question: Does the evidence show that a Pfizer booster would be safe and effective for people 16 and older? In the event of a yes vote, the FDA is expected to quickly approve boosters for Pfizer’s shot.But that is just one step in the process. The more thorny question of who should get the shots and when will be debated next week by advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC generally adopts the recommendations of the group, which sets policy for U.S. vaccination campaigns.Some group members have made clear they favor giving third doses to older people, nursing home residents and front-line health care workers, rather than all adults.Separate FDA and CDC decisions will be needed in order for people who received the Moderna or J&amp;J shots to get boosters.Friday’s meeting came as the delta variant continues to drive U.S. cases and deaths back to levels not seen since last winter. That has given urgency to efforts by top health officials to shore up Americans’ protection against the virus.Dr. Peter Marks, FDA’s top vaccine regulator, acknowledged the intense disagreements in opening remarks to the advisory panel.“We know there may be differing opinions in interpreting the data,” he said. “We strongly encourage all the different viewpoints to be voiced and discussed regarding the data, which is complex and evolving.”President Joe Biden’s top health advisers, including the heads of the FDA and CDC, first announced plans for widespread booster shots a month ago, targeting the week of Sept. 20 as an all-but-certain start date. It said boosters would be dispensed eight months after the second dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.But that was before FDA staff scientists had completed their own assessments of the data. Some experts questioned whether Biden was breaking his own pledge to “follow the science” on COVID-19 by getting out ahead of government scientists.Earlier this week, two top FDA vaccine reviewers joined a group of international scientists in publishing an editorial rejecting the need for boosters in healthy people. The scientists said continuing studies show the shots are working well despite the delta variant.The editorial came two weeks after the two reviewers announced plans to retire from the FDA. One of them, Dr. Marian Gruber, addressed the American people directly in her opening remarks Friday but gave no reason for her retirement.“All my actions and decisions over my 32-year FDA career have been grounded in science with you in mind and in the best interest of your health and safety,” Gruber said.The Biden booster plan has raised major ethical concerns, given the dire shortages of vaccine in impoverished parts of the world. But the administration has argued that the plan is not an us-or-them choice and noted that the U.S. is supplying large quantities of vaccine to the rest of the globe.The U.S. has already approved Pfizer and Moderna boosters for certain people with weakened immune systems, such as cancer patients and transplant recipients. And some Americans, healthy or not, have managed to get boosters on the sly by going to clinics and pretending they have yet to get their initial shots.Pfizer was expected Friday to present data suggesting immunity from its vaccine begins to wane somewhere around six to eight months after the second dose.The panel was also set to hear from Israeli health officials, who began offering boosters over the summer. Officials there tracked about 1 million people 60 and older and found that those who got the extra shot were far less likely to become infected soon afterward.

🎥  FDA rejects Pfizer booster shots for general public

WASHINGTON (AP) — The architect of a Washington protest planned for Saturday that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-d2fb23af3f01387412a1a00b4eac531c">aims to rewrite history about the violent January assault&nbsp;</a>on the U.S. Capitol is hardly a household name.

Matt Braynard worked as an analyst for the Republican Party, crunched data for a small election firm and later started a consulting business that attracted few federal clients, records show. He started a nonprofit after he was dismissed by Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign following several months on the job, but struggled to raise money. The group’s tax-exempt status was revoked last year.

But Braynard’s fortunes changed abruptly after Trump’s 2020 election loss. He joined an aggrieved group of Trump allies seeking to overturn the election — and in the process reaped recognition, lucrative fees and a fundraising windfall that enabled him to rekindle his nonprofit.

Now, Braynard and his group, Look Ahead America, are using his newfound platform and resources to present an alternate history of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6 attack that was meant to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory</a>, rebranding those who were charged as “political prisoners.”

Although many members of Congress, including those who are allied with Braynard’s cause, have been mum on whether they will attend Saturday’s protest, the event has put law enforcement on edge,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-capitol-siege-a88ed1eb0525a50bf2fa5b047c56ec56">led to stepped-up security measures</a>&nbsp;and created worries that members of the same extremist groups that were present on Jan 6. could also be in attendance.

How much of a draw his “Justice for J6” rally ends up being will test the reach and potency of the emerging far-right movement, as well as the extent of Braynard’s own reach.

Braynard, who is in his 40s, did not respond to a request for comment for this story. The Associated Press earlier declined to accept his condition that an interview of him be broadcast live.

But a review of court records, campaign finance disclosures and social media postings, as well as Braynard’s past interviews with journalists that he has posted online, document his efforts to build his influence over the past year, culminating in Saturday’s event.

“At no point will I cancel this rally,” Braynard told WTOP radio in Washington. “This is happening even if I’m there by myself with a megaphone.”

The seeds of the rally were planted the day after the 2020 election as Trump made false claims of widespread voter fraud, which were later rejected by numerous courts, election officials and his own&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d">attorney general at the time, William Barr</a>.

Braynard suggested on Twitter that there could have been fraud in the election, while promoting an online fundraiser he created to defray the cost of analyzing voting data in states where the Trump campaign insisted it was winning.

He told BuzzFeed News in a summer interview that he brought some early findings to the attention of the Trump campaign. The campaign, which had declined to rehire him earlier in the 2020 campaign as a low-level field staffer, initially agreed to hear him out. But after he arrived at campaign headquarters, campaign officials changed their minds, he said.

“I stood on the sidewalk for an hour while they fought inside about whether or not to let me in,” he said. “Ultimately, I was told I would not be let in and I went home.”

His online fundraising, however, took off. After the crowdfunding site GoFundMe.com took down an early effort, citing misleading information, Braynard migrated to an conservative friendly site and quickly took in over $675,000.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/3/1615213886851.png" alt="Security fence is up again around the U.S. Capitol ahead of the rally-photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Security fence is up again around the U.S. Capitol ahead of the rally-photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The architect of a Washington protest planned for Saturday that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-d2fb23af3f01387412a1a00b4eac531c">aims to rewrite history about the violent January assault&nbsp;</a>on the U.S. Capitol is hardly a household name.Matt Braynard worked as an analyst for the Republican Party, crunched data for a small election firm and later started a consulting business that attracted few federal clients, records show. He started a nonprofit after he was dismissed by Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign following several months on the job, but struggled to raise money. The group’s tax-exempt status was revoked last year.But Braynard’s fortunes changed abruptly after Trump’s 2020 election loss. He joined an aggrieved group of Trump allies seeking to overturn the election — and in the process reaped recognition, lucrative fees and a fundraising windfall that enabled him to rekindle his nonprofit.Now, Braynard and his group, Look Ahead America, are using his newfound platform and resources to present an alternate history of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6 attack that was meant to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory</a>, rebranding those who were charged as “political prisoners.”Although many members of Congress, including those who are allied with Braynard’s cause, have been mum on whether they will attend Saturday’s protest, the event has put law enforcement on edge,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-capitol-siege-a88ed1eb0525a50bf2fa5b047c56ec56">led to stepped-up security measures</a>&nbsp;and created worries that members of the same extremist groups that were present on Jan 6. could also be in attendance.How much of a draw his “Justice for J6” rally ends up being will test the reach and potency of the emerging far-right movement, as well as the extent of Braynard’s own reach.Braynard, who is in his 40s, did not respond to a request for comment for this story. The Associated Press earlier declined to accept his condition that an interview of him be broadcast live.But a review of court records, campaign finance disclosures and social media postings, as well as Braynard’s past interviews with journalists that he has posted online, document his efforts to build his influence over the past year, culminating in Saturday’s event.“At no point will I cancel this rally,” Braynard told WTOP radio in Washington. “This is happening even if I’m there by myself with a megaphone.”The seeds of the rally were planted the day after the 2020 election as Trump made false claims of widespread voter fraud, which were later rejected by numerous courts, election officials and his own&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d">attorney general at the time, William Barr</a>.Braynard suggested on Twitter that there could have been fraud in the election, while promoting an online fundraiser he created to defray the cost of analyzing voting data in states where the Trump campaign insisted it was winning.He told BuzzFeed News in a summer interview that he brought some early findings to the attention of the Trump campaign. The campaign, which had declined to rehire him earlier in the 2020 campaign as a low-level field staffer, initially agreed to hear him out. But after he arrived at campaign headquarters, campaign officials changed their minds, he said.“I stood on the sidewalk for an hour while they fought inside about whether or not to let me in,” he said. “Ultimately, I was told I would not be let in and I went home.”His online fundraising, however, took off. After the crowdfunding site GoFundMe.com took down an early effort, citing misleading information, Braynard migrated to an conservative friendly site and quickly took in over $675,000.

Organizer of Capitol rally looks to rewrite Jan. 6 history

WASHINGTON (AP) —Two dozen Republican attorneys general warned the White House on Thursday of impending legal action if a proposed coronavirus vaccine requirement for as many as 100 million Americans goes into effect.

“Your plan is disastrous and counterproductive,” the prosecutors, led by Attorney General Alan Wilson of South Carolina,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.scag.gov/media/flsf1np3/ags-letter-to-pres-biden-on-vaccine-mandate-final-02715056xd2c78.pdf" target="_blank">wrote in a letter sent to President Joe Biden</a>. “If your Administration does not alter its course, the undersigned state Attorneys General will seek every available legal option to hold you accountable and uphold the rule of law.”

The letter is the latest GOP opposition to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-executive-branch-18fb12993f05be13bf760946a6fb89be">sweeping new federal vaccine requirements</a>&nbsp;for private-sector employees, health care workers and federal contractors announced by Biden earlier this month. The requirement, to be enacted through a rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is part of an all-out effort to curb the surging COVID-19 delta variant.

The OSHA rule, which covers nearly two-thirds of the private sector workforce, would last six months, after which it must be replaced by a permanent measure. Employers that don’t comply could face penalties of up to $13,600 per violation.

Once it’s out, the rule would take effect in 29 states where OSHA has jurisdiction, according to a primer by the law firm Fisher Phillips. Other states like California and North Carolina that have their own federally approved workplace safety agencies would have up to 30 days to adopt equivalent measures.

Republican leaders — and some union chiefs, too — have said that Biden was going too far in trying to muscle private companies and workers. One of the first to speak out was Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina, who said on Twitter that his state would fight to “the gates of hell to protect the liberty and livelihood of every South Carolinian.”

Writing to Biden that the vaccine “edict is also illegal,” Wilson warned that courts have fully upheld only one of 10 emergency temporary OSHA standards in recent decades

The prosecutors also cautioned that the “edict is unlikely to win hearts and minds — it will simply drive further skepticism” over vaccines.

“Your vaccine mandate represents not only a threat to individual liberty, but a public health disaster that will displace vulnerable workers and exacerbate a nationwide hospital staffing crisis, with severe consequences for all Americans,” they write.

In lieu of vaccine or weekly testing requirements, the prosecutors proposed that some companies could have employees work remotely, rather than report in person.

In addition to Wilson in South Carolina, the letter was signed by attorneys general in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1631875943863.png" alt="President Biden&nbsp;spoke about his economic proposals during a speech at White House Thursday afternoon. He refused to take questions-photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>President Biden&nbsp;spoke about his economic proposals during a speech at White House Thursday afternoon. He refused to take questions-photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) —Two dozen Republican attorneys general warned the White House on Thursday of impending legal action if a proposed coronavirus vaccine requirement for as many as 100 million Americans goes into effect.“Your plan is disastrous and counterproductive,” the prosecutors, led by Attorney General Alan Wilson of South Carolina,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.scag.gov/media/flsf1np3/ags-letter-to-pres-biden-on-vaccine-mandate-final-02715056xd2c78.pdf" target="_blank">wrote in a letter sent to President Joe Biden</a>. “If your Administration does not alter its course, the undersigned state Attorneys General will seek every available legal option to hold you accountable and uphold the rule of law.”The letter is the latest GOP opposition to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-executive-branch-18fb12993f05be13bf760946a6fb89be">sweeping new federal vaccine requirements</a>&nbsp;for private-sector employees, health care workers and federal contractors announced by Biden earlier this month. The requirement, to be enacted through a rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is part of an all-out effort to curb the surging COVID-19 delta variant.The OSHA rule, which covers nearly two-thirds of the private sector workforce, would last six months, after which it must be replaced by a permanent measure. Employers that don’t comply could face penalties of up to $13,600 per violation.Once it’s out, the rule would take effect in 29 states where OSHA has jurisdiction, according to a primer by the law firm Fisher Phillips. Other states like California and North Carolina that have their own federally approved workplace safety agencies would have up to 30 days to adopt equivalent measures.Republican leaders — and some union chiefs, too — have said that Biden was going too far in trying to muscle private companies and workers. One of the first to speak out was Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina, who said on Twitter that his state would fight to “the gates of hell to protect the liberty and livelihood of every South Carolinian.”Writing to Biden that the vaccine “edict is also illegal,” Wilson warned that courts have fully upheld only one of 10 emergency temporary OSHA standards in recent decadesThe prosecutors also cautioned that the “edict is unlikely to win hearts and minds — it will simply drive further skepticism” over vaccines.“Your vaccine mandate represents not only a threat to individual liberty, but a public health disaster that will displace vulnerable workers and exacerbate a nationwide hospital staffing crisis, with severe consequences for all Americans,” they write.In lieu of vaccine or weekly testing requirements, the prosecutors proposed that some companies could have employees work remotely, rather than report in person.In addition to Wilson in South Carolina, the letter was signed by attorneys general in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.___

Nebraska joins other states warning Biden over vaccine mandates

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Rumors that a middle school class gecko had died prompted one Nebraska girl to slap another student. 

Police said the girl admitted slapping a 13-year-old boy during a football game at Millard Central Middle School on Monday because the lizard was missing and some classmates had said the boy had killed it. 

But the Omaha World-Herald reports that the gecko was actually fine and was found in his cage Tuesday morning safe and sound, according to the police report. 

However, the 13-year-old girl wound up in a heap of trouble. 

She was cited on suspicion of third-degree assault and released to her mother’s custody.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Rumors that a middle school class gecko had died prompted one Nebraska girl to slap another student. Police said the girl admitted slapping a 13-year-old boy during a football game at Millard Central Middle School on Monday because the lizard was missing and some classmates had said the boy had killed it. But the Omaha World-Herald reports that the gecko was actually fine and was found in his cage Tuesday morning safe and sound, according to the police report. However, the 13-year-old girl wound up in a heap of trouble. She was cited on suspicion of third-degree assault and released to her mother’s custody.

Nebraska girl slaps boy over rumors that class lizard died

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/house-passes-budget-blueprint-0a1258e07b1a8b9aeddb69980093c838">“build back better” agenda</a>&nbsp;is poised to be the most far-reaching federal investment since FDR’s New Deal or LBJ’s Great Society — a prodigious effort to tax the rich and shift money into projects and programs touching the lives of nearly every American.

The thousands of pages being drafted and debated in Congress are the template for grand ambitions of the Biden agenda, a full funding of Democratic orthodoxy. The plan envisions the government shoring up U.S. households, setting industrial policy to tackle climate change and confronting the gaping income inequality that was laid bare by the COVID-19 crisis.

As the contours of the $3.5 trillion package come into focus, an undertaking on par with those earlier landmark bills, Americans will have to assess: Is this what they signed up for when Biden won the White House?

Lawmakers on the front lines are about to find out.

“We’re doing hard things,” said Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign committee tasked with maintaining the party’s slender majority.

“We’re not perfect,” he said in a conference call Wednesday about the party and its goals, “but we’re responsible adults, and we’re here to fix problems.”

Republicans fundamentally disagree, attempting to label the Biden agenda as “far left” and “socialism” that they will fiercely oppose.

If Biden can pass his plan, it will become a central referendum in the midterm elections in 2022 on whether voters embrace the vision put forth by Democrats who control the White House and Congress.

Among the Democrats’ goals are priorities like universal child care and lower prescription drug prices that have been elusive for decades.

Republicans have largely sidelined themselves from the debate, other than to say they are a hard “no” on Biden’s priorities. Democrats are relying on a budget process that will enable them to pass or fail with their votes alone, resulting in bruising internal party debate between centrists and liberals.

The Democratic differences may yet doom Biden’s project. Biden was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-kamala-harris-kyrsten-sinema-joe-manchin-3f796484455ad3f36aea0da36ac3363a">meeting separately Wednesday at the White House&nbsp;</a>with key centrist holdouts, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who want to lower the price-tag substantially. Meanwhile, the House was almost forced to halt deliberations as centrists objected to new restrictions on pharmaceutical company drug pricing.

Still, Democrats appear determined not to let this moment slip. Even with their majority at risk, they appear poised to push the package to passage.

“Democrats see that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to head this country in a better direction,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., after an intense private meeting of Democrats this week.

“People talk about how big this package is, it’s big because we have under-invested for so long,” she said.

For all its scope, many of the tax and spending policies are not necessarily new, or even that revolutionary.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-joe-biden-business-personal-taxes-137e00b41f113f85cc241438c780785b">tax provisions&nbsp;</a>largely push top rates back to where they were before the 2017 GOP tax cuts, and the spending expands on popular safety net programs -- for example, adding dental, vision and hearing aid benefits for seniors on Medicare.

The top tax rate bumps up to 39.6% on households earning more than $400,000, or $450,000 for married couples, before then President Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress lowered the top rate to 37%.

For corporations, the proposed 26.5% rate would be an increase from today’s 21%, but not as high as the 28% it had been before the GOP tax cuts.

There would be a tax on wealthier Americans -- 3% on earnings above $5 million a year -- but so far the House has refrained from imposing a billionaires or wealth tax as the Senate is considering, mindful as Republicans pile on complaints that Democrats are sliding toward European-styled socialism.

“The demonization of prosperity is unwise,” said Republican Rep. Adrian Smith of Nebraska, during Wednesday’s session at the tax-writing Ways &amp; Means Committee.

On the spending side, the bill would mostly expand on existing programs — continuing a COVID-19 increase in subsidies for people who buy their own health insurance and boosting funding for states to make community colleges free and for Pell Grants to make university tuitions more affordable.

As the coronavirus forced millions of parents, particularly women, out of the workforce to care for children and elderly adults, the Democrats are seizing on the opportunity to upgrade the safety net and begin to address simmering inequities along racial and class lines.

There’s universal pre-kindergarten, lower cost child care, paid family leave for working adults, an extension of the $300 a month child tax credit that was put in place during the COVID crisis. To help care for elderly Americans, it would shift Medicaid funding away from nursing homes for poorer seniors and toward home healthcare, as many older adults prefer to age in place.

The climate change provisions tap into long-running ideas to impose new emissions restrictions with a federal clean energy requirement and to boost the electrical vehicles industry with tax breaks and charging station infrastructure.

The last time Democrats succeeded in accomplishing something this big, the Affordable Care Act, it cost them their House majority in the 2010 midterm election, during then-President Barack Obama’s first term.

Americans say they overwhelmingly support the public works infrastructure proposals in an earlier $1 trillion package for roads, bridges, broadband and water systems that was approved by the Senate last month. But slimmer majorities backed some of the other ideas being considered now, including expanding child tax credits, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-government-and-politics-only-on-ap-a5454467619247e89b9c87697ac0d6f5">July polling&nbsp;</a>from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs research.

Support is generally stronger for funding for free preschool programs, with about two-thirds in support, including about 8 in 10 Democrats and about half of Republicans.

Having learned lessons from the Obamacare debate, Democrats and allied groups are fast at work framing the arguments to avoid a repeat of the health care battles from a decade ago.

“We have their backs,” said Danielle Melfi, the executive director of Building Back Together, which organized some 1,000 events supporting the project during the August congressional recess.

The organization’s own survey of polling shows the Biden plans are popular. “The American people voted for President Joe Biden and Democrats to deliver on the promises,” she said. “On our side we have such a strong case to make.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1631817363595.png" alt="During his statement on Thursday afternoon, President Biden said it's time the working people got the tax breaks" />
 <figcaption>During his statement on Thursday afternoon, President Biden said it's time the working people got the tax breaks</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/house-passes-budget-blueprint-0a1258e07b1a8b9aeddb69980093c838">“build back better” agenda</a>&nbsp;is poised to be the most far-reaching federal investment since FDR’s New Deal or LBJ’s Great Society — a prodigious effort to tax the rich and shift money into projects and programs touching the lives of nearly every American.The thousands of pages being drafted and debated in Congress are the template for grand ambitions of the Biden agenda, a full funding of Democratic orthodoxy. The plan envisions the government shoring up U.S. households, setting industrial policy to tackle climate change and confronting the gaping income inequality that was laid bare by the COVID-19 crisis.As the contours of the $3.5 trillion package come into focus, an undertaking on par with those earlier landmark bills, Americans will have to assess: Is this what they signed up for when Biden won the White House?Lawmakers on the front lines are about to find out.“We’re doing hard things,” said Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign committee tasked with maintaining the party’s slender majority.“We’re not perfect,” he said in a conference call Wednesday about the party and its goals, “but we’re responsible adults, and we’re here to fix problems.”Republicans fundamentally disagree, attempting to label the Biden agenda as “far left” and “socialism” that they will fiercely oppose.If Biden can pass his plan, it will become a central referendum in the midterm elections in 2022 on whether voters embrace the vision put forth by Democrats who control the White House and Congress.Among the Democrats’ goals are priorities like universal child care and lower prescription drug prices that have been elusive for decades.Republicans have largely sidelined themselves from the debate, other than to say they are a hard “no” on Biden’s priorities. Democrats are relying on a budget process that will enable them to pass or fail with their votes alone, resulting in bruising internal party debate between centrists and liberals.The Democratic differences may yet doom Biden’s project. Biden was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-kamala-harris-kyrsten-sinema-joe-manchin-3f796484455ad3f36aea0da36ac3363a">meeting separately Wednesday at the White House&nbsp;</a>with key centrist holdouts, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who want to lower the price-tag substantially. Meanwhile, the House was almost forced to halt deliberations as centrists objected to new restrictions on pharmaceutical company drug pricing.Still, Democrats appear determined not to let this moment slip. Even with their majority at risk, they appear poised to push the package to passage.“Democrats see that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to head this country in a better direction,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., after an intense private meeting of Democrats this week.“People talk about how big this package is, it’s big because we have under-invested for so long,” she said.For all its scope, many of the tax and spending policies are not necessarily new, or even that revolutionary.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-joe-biden-business-personal-taxes-137e00b41f113f85cc241438c780785b">tax provisions&nbsp;</a>largely push top rates back to where they were before the 2017 GOP tax cuts, and the spending expands on popular safety net programs -- for example, adding dental, vision and hearing aid benefits for seniors on Medicare.The top tax rate bumps up to 39.6% on households earning more than $400,000, or $450,000 for married couples, before then President Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress lowered the top rate to 37%.For corporations, the proposed 26.5% rate would be an increase from today’s 21%, but not as high as the 28% it had been before the GOP tax cuts.There would be a tax on wealthier Americans -- 3% on earnings above $5 million a year -- but so far the House has refrained from imposing a billionaires or wealth tax as the Senate is considering, mindful as Republicans pile on complaints that Democrats are sliding toward European-styled socialism.“The demonization of prosperity is unwise,” said Republican Rep. Adrian Smith of Nebraska, during Wednesday’s session at the tax-writing Ways &amp; Means Committee.On the spending side, the bill would mostly expand on existing programs — continuing a COVID-19 increase in subsidies for people who buy their own health insurance and boosting funding for states to make community colleges free and for Pell Grants to make university tuitions more affordable.As the coronavirus forced millions of parents, particularly women, out of the workforce to care for children and elderly adults, the Democrats are seizing on the opportunity to upgrade the safety net and begin to address simmering inequities along racial and class lines.There’s universal pre-kindergarten, lower cost child care, paid family leave for working adults, an extension of the $300 a month child tax credit that was put in place during the COVID crisis. To help care for elderly Americans, it would shift Medicaid funding away from nursing homes for poorer seniors and toward home healthcare, as many older adults prefer to age in place.The climate change provisions tap into long-running ideas to impose new emissions restrictions with a federal clean energy requirement and to boost the electrical vehicles industry with tax breaks and charging station infrastructure.The last time Democrats succeeded in accomplishing something this big, the Affordable Care Act, it cost them their House majority in the 2010 midterm election, during then-President Barack Obama’s first term.Americans say they overwhelmingly support the public works infrastructure proposals in an earlier $1 trillion package for roads, bridges, broadband and water systems that was approved by the Senate last month. But slimmer majorities backed some of the other ideas being considered now, including expanding child tax credits, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-government-and-politics-only-on-ap-a5454467619247e89b9c87697ac0d6f5">July polling&nbsp;</a>from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs research.Support is generally stronger for funding for free preschool programs, with about two-thirds in support, including about 8 in 10 Democrats and about half of Republicans.Having learned lessons from the Obamacare debate, Democrats and allied groups are fast at work framing the arguments to avoid a repeat of the health care battles from a decade ago.“We have their backs,” said Danielle Melfi, the executive director of Building Back Together, which organized some 1,000 events supporting the project during the August congressional recess.The organization’s own survey of polling shows the Biden plans are popular. “The American people voted for President Joe Biden and Democrats to deliver on the promises,” she said. “On our side we have such a strong case to make.”

President Biden: It's time working people got the tax breaks

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today explained how 
expanded tax benefits can help both individuals and businesses give to 
charity before the end of this year.

The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020, enacted 
last December, provides several provisions to help individuals and 
businesses who give to charity. The new law generally extends through 
the end of 2021 four temporary tax changes originally enacted by the 
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Here is a 
rundown of these changes.

Deduction for individuals who don't itemize; cash donations up to $600 qualify

Ordinarily, individuals who elect to take the standard deduction 
cannot claim a deduction for their charitable contributions. The law now
 permits these individuals to claim a limited deduction on their 2021 
federal income tax returns for cash contributions made to certain 
qualifying charitable organizations. Nearly nine in 10 taxpayers now 
take the standard deduction and could potentially qualify to claim a 
limited deduction for cash contributions.

These individuals, including married individuals filing separate 
returns, can claim a deduction of up to $300 for cash contributions made
 to qualifying charities during 2021. The maximum deduction is increased
 to $600 for married individuals filing joint returns.

Cash contributions to most charitable organizations qualify. However,
 cash contributions made either to supporting organizations or to 
establish or maintain a donor advised fund do not qualify. Cash 
contributions carried forward from prior years do not qualify, nor do 
cash contributions to most private foundations and most cash 
contributions to charitable remainder trusts. In general, a 
donor-advised fund is a fund or account maintained by a charity in which
 a donor can, because of being a donor, advise the fund on how to 
distribute or invest amounts contributed by the donor and held in the 
fund. A supporting organization is a charity that carries out its exempt
 purposes by supporting other exempt organizations, usually other public
 charities. See <a href="https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-publication-526">Publication 526, Charitable Contributions</a> for more information on the types of organizations that qualify.

Cash contributions include those made by check, credit card or debit 
card as well as amounts incurred by an individual for unreimbursed 
out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the individual's volunteer 
services to a qualifying charitable organization. Cash contributions 
don't include the value of volunteer services, securities, household 
items or other property.

100% limit on eligible cash contributions made by itemizers in 2021

Subject to certain limits, individuals who itemize may generally 
claim a deduction for charitable contributions made to qualifying 
charitable organizations. These limits typically range from 20% to 60% 
of adjusted gross income (AGI) and vary by the type of contribution and 
type of charitable organization. For example, a cash contribution made 
by an individual to a qualifying public charity is generally limited to 
60% of the individual's AGI. Excess contributions may be carried forward
 for up to five tax years.

The law now permits electing individuals to apply an increased limit 
("Increased Individual Limit"), up to 100% of their AGI, for qualified 
contributions made during calendar-year 2021. Qualified contributions 
are contributions made in cash to qualifying charitable organizations.

As with the new limited deduction for nonitemizers, cash 
contributions to most charitable organizations qualify, but, cash 
contributions made either to supporting organizations or to establish or
 maintain a donor advised fund, do not. Nor do cash contributions to 
private foundations and most cash contributions to charitable remainder 
trusts

Unless an individual makes the election for any given qualified cash 
contribution, the usual percentage limit applies. Keep in mind that an 
individual's other allowed charitable contribution deductions reduce the
 maximum amount allowed under this election. Eligible individuals must 
make their elections with their 2021 Form 1040 or Form 1040-SR.

Corporate limit increased to 25% of taxable income

The law now permits C corporations to apply an increased limit 
(Increased Corporate Limit) of 25% of taxable income for charitable 
contributions of cash they make to eligible charities during 
calendar-year 2021. Normally, the maximum allowable deduction is limited
 to 10% of a corporation's taxable income.

Again, the Increased Corporate Limit does not automatically apply. C 
corporations must elect the Increased Corporate Limit on a 
contribution-by-contribution basis.

Increased limits on amounts deductible by businesses for certain donated food inventory

Businesses donating food inventory that are eligible for the existing
 enhanced deduction (for contributions for the care of the ill, needy 
and infants) may qualify for increased deduction limits. For 
contributions made in 2021, the limit for these contribution deductions 
is increased from 15% to 25%. For C corporations, the 25% limit is based
 on their taxable income. For other businesses, including sole 
proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations, the limit is based on
 their aggregate net income for the year from all trades or businesses 
from which the contributions are made. A special method for computing 
the enhanced deduction continues to apply, as do food quality standards 
and other requirements.

The IRS reminds individuals and businesses that special recordkeeping
 rules apply to any taxpayer claiming a charitable contribution 
deduction. Usually, this includes obtaining an acknowledgment letter 
from the charity before filing a return and retaining a cancelled check 
or credit card receipt for contributions of cash. For donations of 
property, additional recordkeeping rules apply, and may include filing a
 Form 8283 and obtaining a qualified appraisal in some instances.

For details on how to apply the percentage limits and a description 
of the recordkeeping rules for substantiating gifts to charity, see <a href="https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-publication-526">Publication 526</a>, available on IRS.gov.

The IRS also encourages employers to help get the word out about the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021">advance payments of the Child Tax Credit</a> because they have direct access to many employees and individuals who receive this credit.

For more information about other Coronavirus-related tax relief, visit <a href="https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus-tax-relief-and-economic-impact-payments">IRS.gov/coronavirus</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599869632873.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>IRSWASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today explained how 
expanded tax benefits can help both individuals and businesses give to 
charity before the end of this year.The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020, enacted 
last December, provides several provisions to help individuals and 
businesses who give to charity. The new law generally extends through 
the end of 2021 four temporary tax changes originally enacted by the 
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Here is a 
rundown of these changes.<h2>Deduction for individuals who don't itemize; cash donations up to $600 qualify</h2>Ordinarily, individuals who elect to take the standard deduction 
cannot claim a deduction for their charitable contributions. The law now
 permits these individuals to claim a limited deduction on their 2021 
federal income tax returns for cash contributions made to certain 
qualifying charitable organizations. Nearly nine in 10 taxpayers now 
take the standard deduction and could potentially qualify to claim a 
limited deduction for cash contributions.These individuals, including married individuals filing separate 
returns, can claim a deduction of up to $300 for cash contributions made
 to qualifying charities during 2021. The maximum deduction is increased
 to $600 for married individuals filing joint returns.Cash contributions to most charitable organizations qualify. However,
 cash contributions made either to supporting organizations or to 
establish or maintain a donor advised fund do not qualify. Cash 
contributions carried forward from prior years do not qualify, nor do 
cash contributions to most private foundations and most cash 
contributions to charitable remainder trusts. In general, a 
donor-advised fund is a fund or account maintained by a charity in which
 a donor can, because of being a donor, advise the fund on how to 
distribute or invest amounts contributed by the donor and held in the 
fund. A supporting organization is a charity that carries out its exempt
 purposes by supporting other exempt organizations, usually other public
 charities. See <a href="https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-publication-526">Publication 526, Charitable Contributions</a> for more information on the types of organizations that qualify.Cash contributions include those made by check, credit card or debit 
card as well as amounts incurred by an individual for unreimbursed 
out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the individual's volunteer 
services to a qualifying charitable organization. Cash contributions 
don't include the value of volunteer services, securities, household 
items or other property.<h2>100% limit on eligible cash contributions made by itemizers in 2021</h2>Subject to certain limits, individuals who itemize may generally 
claim a deduction for charitable contributions made to qualifying 
charitable organizations. These limits typically range from 20% to 60% 
of adjusted gross income (AGI) and vary by the type of contribution and 
type of charitable organization. For example, a cash contribution made 
by an individual to a qualifying public charity is generally limited to 
60% of the individual's AGI. Excess contributions may be carried forward
 for up to five tax years.The law now permits electing individuals to apply an increased limit 
("Increased Individual Limit"), up to 100% of their AGI, for qualified 
contributions made during calendar-year 2021. Qualified contributions 
are contributions made in cash to qualifying charitable organizations.As with the new limited deduction for nonitemizers, cash 
contributions to most charitable organizations qualify, but, cash 
contributions made either to supporting organizations or to establish or
 maintain a donor advised fund, do not. Nor do cash contributions to 
private foundations and most cash contributions to charitable remainder 
trustsUnless an individual makes the election for any given qualified cash 
contribution, the usual percentage limit applies. Keep in mind that an 
individual's other allowed charitable contribution deductions reduce the
 maximum amount allowed under this election. Eligible individuals must 
make their elections with their 2021 Form 1040 or Form 1040-SR.<h2>Corporate limit increased to 25% of taxable income</h2>The law now permits C corporations to apply an increased limit 
(Increased Corporate Limit) of 25% of taxable income for charitable 
contributions of cash they make to eligible charities during 
calendar-year 2021. Normally, the maximum allowable deduction is limited
 to 10% of a corporation's taxable income.Again, the Increased Corporate Limit does not automatically apply. C 
corporations must elect the Increased Corporate Limit on a 
contribution-by-contribution basis.<h2>Increased limits on amounts deductible by businesses for certain donated food inventory</h2>Businesses donating food inventory that are eligible for the existing
 enhanced deduction (for contributions for the care of the ill, needy 
and infants) may qualify for increased deduction limits. For 
contributions made in 2021, the limit for these contribution deductions 
is increased from 15% to 25%. For C corporations, the 25% limit is based
 on their taxable income. For other businesses, including sole 
proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations, the limit is based on
 their aggregate net income for the year from all trades or businesses 
from which the contributions are made. A special method for computing 
the enhanced deduction continues to apply, as do food quality standards 
and other requirements.<h2>Keep good records</h2>The IRS reminds individuals and businesses that special recordkeeping
 rules apply to any taxpayer claiming a charitable contribution 
deduction. Usually, this includes obtaining an acknowledgment letter 
from the charity before filing a return and retaining a cancelled check 
or credit card receipt for contributions of cash. For donations of 
property, additional recordkeeping rules apply, and may include filing a
 Form 8283 and obtaining a qualified appraisal in some instances.For details on how to apply the percentage limits and a description 
of the recordkeeping rules for substantiating gifts to charity, see <a href="https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-publication-526">Publication 526</a>, available on IRS.gov.The IRS also encourages employers to help get the word out about the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021">advance payments of the Child Tax Credit</a> because they have direct access to many employees and individuals who receive this credit.For more information about other Coronavirus-related tax relief, visit <a href="https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus-tax-relief-and-economic-impact-payments">IRS.gov/coronavirus</a>.

Expanded tax benefits help individuals, businesses give to charity during 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration’s embattled plan to dispense COVID-19 booster shots to most Americans faced its first major hurdle Friday as a government advisory panel met to decide whether to endorse extra doses of the Pfizer vaccine.Scientists inside and outside the government have been divided in recent days over the need for boosters and who should get them, and the World Health Organization has strongly objected to rich nations giving a third round of shots when poor countries don’t have enough vaccine for their first.The panel, made up of outside experts who advise the Food and Drug Administration, weighed a less than clear-cut case: While research suggests immunity levels in those who have been vaccinated wane over time and boosters can reverse that, the Pfizer vaccine is still highly protective against severe illness and death, even amid the spread of the highly contagious delta variant.The FDA experts were scheduled to vote on one basic question: Does the evidence show that a Pfizer booster would be safe and effective for people 16 and older? In the event of a yes vote, the FDA is expected to quickly approve boosters for Pfizer’s shot.But that is just one step in the process. The more thorny question of who should get the shots and when will be debated next week by advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC generally adopts the recommendations of the group, which sets policy for U.S. vaccination campaigns.Some group members have made clear they favor giving third doses to older people, nursing home residents and front-line health care workers, rather than all adults.Separate FDA and CDC decisions will be needed in order for people who received the Moderna or J&amp;J shots to get boosters.Friday’s meeting came as the delta variant continues to drive U.S. cases and deaths back to levels not seen since last winter. That has given urgency to efforts by top health officials to shore up Americans’ protection against the virus.Dr. Peter Marks, FDA’s top vaccine regulator, acknowledged the intense disagreements in opening remarks to the advisory panel.“We know there may be differing opinions in interpreting the data,” he said. “We strongly encourage all the different viewpoints to be voiced and discussed regarding the data, which is complex and evolving.”President Joe Biden’s top health advisers, including the heads of the FDA and CDC, first announced plans for widespread booster shots a month ago, targeting the week of Sept. 20 as an all-but-certain start date. It said boosters would be dispensed eight months after the second dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.But that was before FDA staff scientists had completed their own assessments of the data. Some experts questioned whether Biden was breaking his own pledge to “follow the science” on COVID-19 by getting out ahead of government scientists.Earlier this week, two top FDA vaccine reviewers joined a group of international scientists in publishing an editorial rejecting the need for boosters in healthy people. The scientists said continuing studies show the shots are working well despite the delta variant.The editorial came two weeks after the two reviewers announced plans to retire from the FDA. One of them, Dr. Marian Gruber, addressed the American people directly in her opening remarks Friday but gave no reason for her retirement.“All my actions and decisions over my 32-year FDA career have been grounded in science with you in mind and in the best interest of your health and safety,” Gruber said.The Biden booster plan has raised major ethical concerns, given the dire shortages of vaccine in impoverished parts of the world. But the administration has argued that the plan is not an us-or-them choice and noted that the U.S. is supplying large quantities of vaccine to the rest of the globe.The U.S. has already approved Pfizer and Moderna boosters for certain people with weakened immune systems, such as cancer patients and transplant recipients. And some Americans, healthy or not, have managed to get boosters on the sly by going to clinics and pretending they have yet to get their initial shots.Pfizer was expected Friday to present data suggesting immunity from its vaccine begins to wane somewhere around six to eight months after the second dose.The panel was also set to hear from Israeli health officials, who began offering boosters over the summer. Officials there tracked about 1 million people 60 and older and found that those who got the extra shot were far less likely to become infected soon afterward.___

FDA scientists debate controversial COVID-19 booster shot plan

KANSAS CITY (AP) —Cities and urban counties across the U.S. are raising concerns that a recent rule from President Joe Biden’s administration could preclude them from tapping into $350 billion of coronavirus relief aid to expand high-speed internet connections.

Biden has set a goal of delivering fast, affordable internet to every American household. The massive&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-business-government-and-politics-92f86843f2197f52838164cd9fbe6bfb">American Rescue Plan took a step toward that</a>&nbsp;by including broadband infrastructure among the primary uses for pandemic aid flowing to each city, county and state.

But an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05-17/pdf/2021-10283.pdf" target="_blank">interim rule published by the U.S. Treasury Department</a>&nbsp;has narrowed the broadband eligibility. It focuses on areas that lack reliable broadband, which connects devices to the internet through a cable or data line, at download speeds of at least 25 megabits per second and upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps.

That threshold ensures funding for remote, rural areas that have slow or no internet service, and it matches the definition of broadband set by the Federal Communications Commission in 2015. But cities contend the eligibility mark overlooks the realities of today’s internet needs.

Though most cities already have broadband available, the speed still might not be fast enough to handle multiple people in a home trying to work, study and stream entertainment simultaneously — a common scenario during the coronavirus pandemic. The price also can be more than lower-income residents can afford.

“They’re basically prioritizing those rural areas over the underserved urban areas where there is more population,” said Detta Kissel, a retired Treasury Department attorney who helped write agency rules and now advocates for better internet service in the Washington, D.C., suburb of Arlington, Virginia.

Several cities, including Washington, Los Angeles, Milwaukee and San Antonio, have submitted public comments to the Treasury Department urging it to loosen the eligibility standard for spending pandemic relief money on broadband. Some want the Treasury to define underserved areas as anything less than download and upload speeds of 100 Mbps.

That would increase the number of locations eligible for funding from about 11 million to 82 million households and businesses nationwide, according to a study conducted for America’s Communications Association, which represents small and medium-sized internet providers.

Cities argue that the Treasury should use a 100/100 Mbps eligibility threshold because that’s the same speed projects are supposed to achieve if they receive funding. A separate&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-54bd38c58aaa30114eee72f352998fa4">infrastructure bill working its way through Congress</a>&nbsp;is more flexible, allowing some of its $65 billion in broadband funding to go to “underserved” areas lacking download speeds of 100 Mbps and upload speeds of 20 Mbps.

If the Treasury goes forward with its rule as originally written, sparsely populated areas currently lacking broadband could leapfrog certain urban areas in their internet speeds. That doesn’t sit well with some mayors.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/7/1627553548845.png" alt="President Biden has set a goal of delivering fast, affordable internet to every American household-photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>President Biden has set a goal of delivering fast, affordable internet to every American household-photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY (AP) —Cities and urban counties across the U.S. are raising concerns that a recent rule from President Joe Biden’s administration could preclude them from tapping into $350 billion of coronavirus relief aid to expand high-speed internet connections.Biden has set a goal of delivering fast, affordable internet to every American household. The massive&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-business-government-and-politics-92f86843f2197f52838164cd9fbe6bfb">American Rescue Plan took a step toward that</a>&nbsp;by including broadband infrastructure among the primary uses for pandemic aid flowing to each city, county and state.But an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-05-17/pdf/2021-10283.pdf" target="_blank">interim rule published by the U.S. Treasury Department</a>&nbsp;has narrowed the broadband eligibility. It focuses on areas that lack reliable broadband, which connects devices to the internet through a cable or data line, at download speeds of at least 25 megabits per second and upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps.That threshold ensures funding for remote, rural areas that have slow or no internet service, and it matches the definition of broadband set by the Federal Communications Commission in 2015. But cities contend the eligibility mark overlooks the realities of today’s internet needs.Though most cities already have broadband available, the speed still might not be fast enough to handle multiple people in a home trying to work, study and stream entertainment simultaneously — a common scenario during the coronavirus pandemic. The price also can be more than lower-income residents can afford.“They’re basically prioritizing those rural areas over the underserved urban areas where there is more population,” said Detta Kissel, a retired Treasury Department attorney who helped write agency rules and now advocates for better internet service in the Washington, D.C., suburb of Arlington, Virginia.Several cities, including Washington, Los Angeles, Milwaukee and San Antonio, have submitted public comments to the Treasury Department urging it to loosen the eligibility standard for spending pandemic relief money on broadband. Some want the Treasury to define underserved areas as anything less than download and upload speeds of 100 Mbps.That would increase the number of locations eligible for funding from about 11 million to 82 million households and businesses nationwide, according to a study conducted for America’s Communications Association, which represents small and medium-sized internet providers.Cities argue that the Treasury should use a 100/100 Mbps eligibility threshold because that’s the same speed projects are supposed to achieve if they receive funding. A separate&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-54bd38c58aaa30114eee72f352998fa4">infrastructure bill working its way through Congress</a>&nbsp;is more flexible, allowing some of its $65 billion in broadband funding to go to “underserved” areas lacking download speeds of 100 Mbps and upload speeds of 20 Mbps.If the Treasury goes forward with its rule as originally written, sparsely populated areas currently lacking broadband could leapfrog certain urban areas in their internet speeds. That doesn’t sit well with some mayors.“The inner city of Memphis is as in a dire need of broadband connection as rural Tennessee,” said Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland, who wants Treasury Department assurance before spending $20 million from the American Rescue Plan on a broadband project.Residents almost anywhere in Milwaukee already have access to at least one internet provider offering download speeds of 25 Mbps and upload speeds of 3 Mbps. But in parts of the city, fewer than half the households subscribe to internet service because of its cost, said David Henke, the city’s chief information officer.“If you don’t have a job and you can’t afford broadband, that’s kind of a cycle,” Henke said. “You’re locked out of remote learning, remote work, telemedicine and participating basically in a modern society.”Milwaukee has applied for a $12.5 million grant from Wisconsin’s share of the American Rescue Plan and would chip in $2.5 million of its own pandemic relief money to expand affordable broadband into more parts of the city, Henke said. But the city wants the Treasury Department to broaden “the narrow wording” of its rule.Although the public comment period ended in July, the Treasury has set no date for when it will publish the rule’s final version. A Treasury official said the department is undertaking a thorough review of the comments that is likely “to continue into the fall.”U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, is among those urging the Treasury Department to adopt a broader eligibility threshold. He wrote that it would be “severely misguided” to assume that communities are adequately served by the “woefully outdated” broadband benchmark the department has set.Broadband industry groups generally have urged the Treasury to stick with its original plan of targeting money at areas with the slowest internet speeds.“Rather than reinvesting in locations that already have broadband to make it better,” the pandemic relief money should go to “places that don’t have any broadband at all,” said Patrick Halley, general counsel at USTelecom, whose membership includes AT&amp;T, Verizon and others.The cable industry group NCTA urged treasury officials to tighten eligibility even further. It wants to limit the number of households that already have faster service that can be included in areas targeted for improvements. It also wants to remove the potential for locally subjective decisions about areas that lack reliable service.Allowing improvements in areas that already meet minimum speed thresholds could siphon money away from the neediest, hard-to-reach areas — potentially leaving them without service once the federal money is spent, industry groups said.To bring super-fast internet service to every place currently lacking 25/3 Mbps speeds could cost between $20 billion and $37 billion, according to the study for America’s Communications Association. That cost jumps to between $106 billion to $179 billion when covering all areas currently lacking speeds of 100/100 Mbps.“As a matter of prioritization, we think it’s best to start with the areas that have the least,” said Ross Lieberman, the association’s senior vice president of government affairs.Though most of the complaints about the Treasury Department rule have come from larger cities, some residents in rural areas also have raised concerns.Charlie Hopkins, a retired computer hardware and software designer, owns a home on a Maine island that is accessible only by boat. The internet speeds at his house registered barely 5 Mbps for downloading and just 0.4 Mbps for uploading when tested recently for The Associated Press.Because some homes have faster speeds, Hopkins is concerned the Treasury Department rule could make it difficult for the island to get funding to improve its internet. He said broadband is essential to attract and retain residents.“Other cities and towns in Maine, especially the cities, are getting higher-speed fiberoptic-based internet,” Hopkins said. “I don’t like being in a position where we’re essentially being told, `Well, you’re at the end of the Earth, so you don’t qualify.’”