America Needs Colbert
Among these roles, the first quality is always the most important: audiences tune in to be entertained. But the lines between satire and political commentary have always blurred on the late-night format, and America has benefited greatly from the overlap. So when Paramount Global's CBS announced the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, it was clear that the move would be a disservice to the public.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
We must loosen China's chokehold on battery supply chains
A ceasefire in the U.S.-China trade war doesn't change the fact that Americans are subject to Beijing's whims when it comes to critical supplies of everything from magnets to minerals. This is not an accident but the result of decades of Beijing's deliberate practices to build monopolies, dominate supply chains, stifle competition, and foster resource dependencies. But the U.S. and its allies can break China's stranglehold on the battery supply chain, if they work together now to build the components and mine the minerals that go into advanced batteries, while fighting back against China's market manipulation. In our new report, Unplugging Beijing: A Playbook to Reclaim America's Advanced Battery Supply Chains, we lay out the scale and scope of China's non-market practices in battery supply chains — dumping, price manipulation, intellectual property theft, monopolies, and forced technology transfers — and, more importantly, say what America can do about it. One key way in which China controls the battery market is through intentional overproduction — making too much of everything — driving prices below profitability in ways that push out competition. For 2025, Chinese analysts are projecting that China will make twice as many electric cars as the entire global demand from last year. While enormous subsidies and state support cushion Chinese companies, American companies cannot sustain unprofitable production. China's decision to dump cheap batteries and underlying minerals on global markets sustains their monopolies but harms free markets and open competition. Beijing may finally be acknowledging that its massive overproduction of just about everything is fueling a race to the bottom. But as the central government frets about what Xi Jinping has labeled 'disorderly price competition,' local governments in China are still backing absurd strategies to juice production, such as state-sponsored programs to sell brand new cars as 'zero-mileage' used cars — sold at a loss and dumped on foreign markets, but allowing companies to inflate sales numbers to justify factories operating at full tilt. While Beijing deploys a suite of non-market tactics at scale, its price manipulation is especially damaging. Advanced batteries depend on a host of refined minerals — lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite — that are responsible for most of the cost of the resulting battery. China's intervention in nickel markets, for instance, has saddled Western producers with unsustainable costs. In lithium, Beijing has driven prices up or down at will, undermining competing U.S. projects. To counter this, we propose creating a critical minerals and metals exchange, backed by physical assets and a U.S. strategic stockpile. This would offer offtake guarantees above a price floor to support domestic processors. China's monopolies on mineral processing have also become a weapon in the broader trade war. Beijing has imposed export restrictions on key minerals, including graphite — of which it controls more than 95 percent of global battery-grade processing. To reduce these choke points, we advocate for the creation of special economic zones that co-locate processing, infrastructure, and energy access near known reserves. These zones could take advantage of colocation synergies around large reserves, such as the Salton Sea, and could feature pre-vetted environmental analysis and rigorous safety protocols to localize mining, on-site processing, downstream fabrication, energy, and water needs for all related infrastructure. We also recommend expanding the U.S. Development Finance Corporation's risk appetite to back more processing projects internationally. Beyond supply and demand, China's record on intellectual property theft is extensive. Most Chinese espionage cases involve attempts to acquire commercial technology. The battery sector is a repeated target: the Justice Department has charged Chinese actors with stealing battery tech from Tesla and Phillips 66. Many of China's non-market tactics — from forced labor to environmental shortcuts — thrive in secrecy. To increase transparency, we recommend that the U.S. bar foreign firms from selling into American markets unless they meet strict digital customs and trade data standards. U.S.-listed companies should also be required to map their full supply chains to expose any hidden reliance on forced labor. To compete with all this, the U.S. must invest in cleaner, more efficient, and higher-performing manufacturing processes. We propose increased academic research in battery science in exchange for low-cost licensing to U.S. companies, full cost recovery for research and development in the tax code, and publicly owned modular testing facilities to reduce innovation barriers for smaller firms. There is a way forward — if we choose to act boldly. New supply chains won't emerge from one nation alone. We need domestic reindustrialization and international ally-shoring. Both require upgraded infrastructure and reliable access to the raw inputs of advanced manufacturing — minerals, chemicals, and tooling. Strengthened trade rules, coordinated tariffs, and harmonized regulations among market economies are essential. Most importantly, this effort must be spearheaded by strong American leadership and a dynamic, integrated North American trading bloc. Rebuilding America's supply chains will take industrial work and political will, but we must commit to the hard tasks now to protect our economic security and resilience for the long term. The future of American prosperity depends on it. Elaine Dezenski is senior director and head of the Center on Economic and Financial Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Joshua Birenbaum serves as deputy director.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A boomer couple wants to sell their 5-bedroom home. But they're delaying in hopes of avoiding at least $700,000 in taxes.
Joel and Kathryn Friedman want to downsize, but have been discouraged by the capital gains tax. The retired couple is waiting to sell in case Congress reforms the tax on home sales. The Friedmans are among a growing number of older homeowners holding onto their large houses. Joel and Kathryn Friedman, both 71, are counting the days until they can sell their home and move into a 55-plus community. The retired empty-nesters have been ready to downsize for years, but are reluctant to sell their five-bedroom, 5,000-square-foot Southern California house in large part because of at least $700,000 in capital gains taxes they estimate they'd have to pay. Since 1997, home sale profits over $500,000 (for married couples) and $250,000 (for single filers) have been subject to a capital gains tax of up to 20%. That threshold hasn't changed since 1997, meaning that — between inflation and soaring home prices pushing an ever higher number of houses above that limit — many more home sellers have to pay the tax now than when it was first implemented. The Friedmans are among a growing number of older homeowners discouraged by the tax from selling their valuable properties. Housing economists say that dynamic has exacerbated a shortage of family-sized homes on the market, especially in expensive places like California. The Friedmans' house is too big for them, and maintenance costs are only rising, Joel said. "There are a million reasons why we'd like to move, but we're not because the tax is just burdensome," he said. But that could change — there's bipartisan support in Congress for raising the federal tax threshold to boost home sales in a stagnant market. President Donald Trump recently said he's weighing eliminating the levy altogether. Growing desperate to move, the Friedmans finally put their house on the market in May for nearly $4.5 million. But things changed for them in July, when the issue got new attention in Washington. Just weeks after Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced a bill to eliminate the federal capital gains tax on home sales, Trump said the effort could help juice housing market sales amid persistently high interest rates. Are you an older American who has struggled to downsize your home or find retirement housing? Reach out to this reporter at erelman@ So the Friedmans are letting their listing expire and hoping the law changes in the next year. "At the moment, it's a disincentive to put my house on the market, and it's an incentive, if you already have it on the market and you can afford to wait, to take it off the market," Joel said. A $700,000 tax bill The Friedmans bought their lot and built their home in 1990. Like many California homes, the property has since appreciated significantly. Joel calculates that he and Kathryn have spent a total of $1.8 million on purchasing their land, and building and improving their property over the last more than three decades. If the couple were to sell their house for $4.5 million, he estimated that federal and state capital gains taxes would apply to about $2 million in profit after existing exemptions. That, in addition to a net investment tax, would put their tax bill at almost $700,000, including more than $400,000 in federal capital gains tax and more than $200,000 in state capital gains taxes. Evan Liddiard, director of federal tax policy at the National Association of Realtors and a certified public accountant, estimated the couple's combined state and federal tax bill could exceed $800,000. While the Friedmans have done well financially, they're relying on the profits from their future home sale to help fund their retirement. They're concerned that Joel's Social Security checks and Kathryn's pension won't be enough to cover healthcare bills and long-term care as they age. "That's a sizable chunk of change for anybody," Joel said. "We're not going to be destitute, but it does help to have the extra cash." The future of the tax Over the last several years, the effort to reform the tax on home sales has been led by a Democrat. California Rep. Jimmy Panetta first introduced a bill in 2022 that would double the tax exclusion to $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for joint-filing couples and index it to inflation. It's unclear whether Congress will seriously consider Greene's bill or move forward with Panetta's legislation, which has bipartisan support. Liddiard is skeptical that lawmakers would support eliminating the tax entirely, but he argued that Panetta's bill "would solve most of the problem" by dramatically shrinking the number of home sellers who'd be subject to the tax. Liddiard said eliminating the capital gains tax or raising the exclusion threshold "is not a cure-all" for housing market woes, but would have a significant positive impact on inventory and affordability. He argued that reducing the tax burden would mean more homes would hit the market, raising supply and lowering home prices. NAR has been lobbying to reduce the capital gains tax burden on home sellers for years. But the proposed changes to the tax would disproportionately benefit homeowners in states, like California, that have the country's most expensive housing markets. They would also tend to help wealthier homeowners who are lucky enough to be sitting on significant home equity. Read the original article on Business Insider
The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
Iranian Americans are demanding peace, not war
Iranian Americans are still reeling from Israel's attack on Iran in June. For 12 days, we were frantically trying to reach our loved ones across Iran hoping that Israeli attacks would not kill our families as they fled cities, spurred on by cryptic social media threats from President Trump. Ultimately, more than a thousand Iranians were killed, most of them civilians, and it is likely that Israeli and American bombs will soon fall again if there is no diplomatic settlement. As the fog of war clears, an important truth has once again been exposed, which powerful voices in Washington and Tel Aviv have spent years and enormous resources distorting: Iranian Americans firmly believe that diplomacy – not war and sanctions that destroy innocent lives – is the most effective path for the U.S. to deal with Iran's government, whether on nuclear policy, regional stability, or its human rights abuses. For years now, an echo chamber on social media has sought to portray Iranian Americans as united in begging Trump and Netanyahu to bomb Iran and 'Make Iran Great Again.' On Persian-language satellite networks like Iran International — created and long funded by individuals closely tied to the Saudi royal family – viewers are led to believe that most Iranians view Netanyahu as a 'liberator' and welcome U.S. bombs and sanctions on Iran as tools of freedom. Meanwhile, voices opposed to war and sanctions have been viciously silenced. Our organization, NIAC, along with countless independent researchers, grassroots advocates, and prominent experts, has long been demonized, including by an oped author in this very publication, falsely smeared as part of a vast pro-Tehran conspiracy because of our anti-war, pro-diplomacy stance. In reality, our organization and those opposed to war and supportive of diplomacy put the interests of ordinary Americans first, guided by the belief that more war is not good for American security and prosperity — or for the people and future of Iran. Reports from Middle East Eye and Politico Magazine have detailed some of the scale of the campaign against pro-peace Iranian Americans – from doctored videos and anonymous bomb threats, to rape and death threats that have driven many out of the public debate. Until May 2019, the U.S. State Department was even funding an operation, the Iran Disinformation Project, until it was exposed defaming Iranian American journalists, human rights experts, and NIAC as ''mouthpieces' and supporters of the Iranian government.' The New York Times recently reported that Israel had used social media posts and AI-generated videos during the war on Iran to attempt to incite unrest there, raising urgent questions about the extent of these tactics' deployment in what Netanyahu has called the 'second battlefield' of information and public discourse. Politico also reported that a $2 million Israeli government-linked disinformation campaign targeted 128 U.S. lawmakers through hundreds of fake social media profiles, demonstrating that Americans are also on the target list. The intent behind a campaign to portray Iranian Americans as supportive of military invasion — and to silence those who disagree — echoes the same strategy used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Once again, violence is being repackaged as popularly supported liberation and humanitarianism. But when the war long pushed by hawks finally came, many of the Islamic Republic's staunchest critics inside Iran stood against the foreign bombs falling on their communities. Outside Iran, pro-war figures and outlets like Iran International watched their own bases turn against them. Those who opposed this violence weren't regime sympathizers — they were, and are, the majority of ordinary Iranians and Iranian Americans. That's why, before this illegal war began, our organization launched an independent, comprehensive poll to determine where Iranian Americans actually stand on war, sanctions, and diplomacy. We were driven by concern that outside political interests were distorting our community's views to sell yet another U.S.-backed regime change war. Contrary to what the propaganda machine was churning out, the views of Iranian Americans are clear. Most of us are anti-war, anti-broad sanctions, and pro-diplomacy. In the poll, conducted by YouGov in May and June, we found that: 53 percent of Iranian Americans oppose military action against Iran, versus just 36 percent in support. 62 percent support a new U.S. nuclear agreement with Iran. 49 percent say diplomacy is the most effective way to prevent a nuclear Iran — compared to just 22 percent who favor war. Only 21 percentsupport broad-based economic sanctions. 60 percent oppose Israel's military actions in Gaza. This is not a community calling for more bombs or the fantasy of cruel sanctions and 'liberating' Iran through airstrikes or invasion. It is a community calling for smarter, more humane policies that advance peace and protect people. In a time when truth is under siege and lives hang in the balance, this campaign of smears, disinformation, and intimidation are not just attacks on one community or organization. They are an attack on the idea that people should have a say in matters of war and peace in our democracy. The goal isn't just to manufacture consent for war, but to manufacture fear and surrender to the idea that war is inevitable. We reject that premise wholeheartedly and remain committed to advancing peace – which is supported not just by most Iranian Americans, but by most Americans as well.
