Archive by Author

Zelensky outlines proposal to confiscate Russian assets, compensate losses caused by war

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday suggested that those who have suffered losses caused by Russia’s invasion in Ukraine could receive compensation through a multilateral agreement that would confiscate Russian assets held under the jurisdiction of other countries.

“We invite the partner countries to sign a multilateral agreement and create a mechanism through which each and every one who has suffered from different actions will be able to receive compensation for all losses,” Zelensky wrote in a Telegram post.

“Under such an agreement, Russian funds and property under the jurisdiction of partner countries must be seized or frozen, and then confiscated and directed to a specially created fund from which all victims of Russian aggression can receive appropriate compensation,” he continued. “That would be fair. And Russia will feel the true weight of every missile, every bomb, every projectile it has fired at us.”

The development comes as the Russian war in Ukraine nears three months of fighting. 

President Biden signed legislation amid his trip to Asia authorizing a $40 billion aid package to Ukraine, which was overwhelmingly voted in favor by both Republicans and Democrats.

Among the aid offered in the package, it includes close to $9 billion for supporting Ukrainian government operations and tackling human trafficking, $9 billion to fill up U.S. weapons stockpiles that were used up and transfers $11 billion in weapons to the former Soviet Union nation.

Zelensky lauded the move on Saturday.

“Grateful to @POTUS for signing the law on additional support for [Ukraine]. The leadership of [U.S.], President Biden & the American people in supporting [Ukraine]’s fight against the Russian aggressor is crucial. Look forward to new, powerful defense assistance. Today it is needed more than ever,” he tweeted. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Both Democrats and Republicans are wrong about student debt cancellation

Reports are swirling that the White House is only weeks away from rolling out a plan to cancel some of the $1.6 trillion in student loan debt currently held by tens of millions of Americans across the country.

Although President Biden has been vague about his commitment to use executive action to reduce federal student loan debt, the White House has said that the total debt forgiven for each borrower will be less than the $50,000 requested by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The Biden administration has also said there will be income limits on the program, capping eligibility at $150,000 or less in household income.

Since news broke about the possibility of a soon-to-be-released debt cancellation plan, congressional Republicans and pundits on the right have gone on the war path, calling any student loan forgiveness “outrageous” and “immoral.”

Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, called student debt forgiveness a “bailout” for those with “graduate degrees, six-figure incomes, and high lifetime earnings” — a standard talking point among Republican politicians and some conservative pundits.

The left wing of the Democratic Party has taken the opposite approach, reiterating that $50,000 ought to be the minimum amount of student debt forgiven, because tens of millions of families are being crushed by student loan debt. Some, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have gone further, reiterating their calls for total debt forgiveness.

Meanwhile, the establishment wing of the Democratic Party, one of the few ideological groups where support for the president remains high, is claiming that if Biden were to forgive student loan debt, it would have a far-reaching, positive impact on the economy, helping millions of people currently burdened by the debt.

The truth is, however, none of these groups have the story quite right.

Republicans and conservatives are correct that forgiving student loan debt would be unfair to the millions of people who have already paid off most or all their debt. But the characterization that Biden’s plan to cancel around $10,000 would primarily benefit young professionals earning six figures is very misleading.

Most student loan debt is held by higher-income earners. According to a widely cited 2020 report by the Brookings Institution, “The highest-income 40 percent of households (those with incomes above $74,000) owe almost 60 percent of the outstanding education debt and make almost three-quarters of the payments.”

But millions of those higher-earning households have large debt loads and are already enrolled in a federal income-based repayment plan, which limits monthly payment amounts largely based on a borrower’s household income. More than 8 million borrowers are enrolled in an income-based or income-contingent repayment plan. And many of them have very high debt loads, earn above-average incomes and have a costly four-year or graduate degree.

For many of these borrowers, forgiving $10,000 in student loan debt would have little immediate financial impact, because $10,000 would not be nearly enough to pay off their large student debt balance and because their monthly payment is tied to income, not debt owed. It might help them pay off their student debt a little faster over the long run, but probably not quickly enough to qualify as substantial aid. In many cases, the interest accrued on the debt would increase the total debt owed by more than $10,000 over the next several years anyway.

Who then would be helped significantly by the student debt forgiveness proposal? At first glance, the group that appears most likely to receive the biggest aid is those with small debt loads. About 15 million borrowers owe less than $10,000, so a loan forgiveness policy that “cancels” $10,000 in debt would wipe away all of their existing federal student loan debts and monthly payments.

However, contrary to the standard talking points of the Democratic Party, most of these individuals don’t need student debt forgiveness. Americans with average and higher incomes can afford to make the small payments required when owing less than $10,000. For example, a borrower with a household income of $50,000 and a total student debt of $8,000 is required to pay only $87 per month, less than most cable bills.

A lower-income individual earning $20,000 per year with $8,000 in student loan debt would qualify for an income-based repayment plan that would lower the monthly bill to just $16, an amount so low that anyone with a job should be able to afford the payment.

Even more importantly, federal law already provides for automatic debt cancellation after 20 or 25 years, depending on whether the debt was for undergraduate or graduate studies. A person earning $20,000 per year with $8,000 in debt while enrolled in an income-based repayment plan would not pay enough each month to offset the interest amassed. In 20 years, he or she will have paid off only about $3,100 in student loan debt and will have more than $13,900 in loan debt forgiven, nearly $4,000 more than the $10,000 figure floated by President Biden while he was on the campaign trail.

That’s not to say there aren’t borrowers who would be greatly helped by a loan forgiveness of roughly $10,000. Some middle-income and higher-income earners with moderate amounts of debt, say $30,000, would be able to pay off their debts more quickly, although their monthly payment amounts might not change at all, depending on the payment plan they are enrolled in.

All things considered, though, Biden’s plan would substantially and immediately help a relatively small group of borrowers, most of whom would not be high-earning professionals with expensive graduate degrees (as many Republicans claim) or lower-income working families (as numerous Democrats have suggested).

It’s also important to remember that Biden’s proposal would do nothing to solve the problem of skyrocketing tuition and other costs associated with attending a higher-education institution. If anything, it will encourage young people to take out even more student loan debt than they already are, because the expectation could be that some or all that debt would be cancelled by the federal government.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is the director of the Socialism Research Center at The Heartland Institute and a New York Times bestselling author.

Source: TEST FEED1

Right-to-work protections do work

Ten years ago, our home states of Michigan and Indiana adopted right-to-work statutes. These laws state that no worker as a condition of employment needs to join nor financially support a union. In addition to providing workers greater freedom, scholarly research suggested that right-to-work laws are powerful economic development tools. Our new study lends credence to those conclusions.

Our desire to measure the initial economic impacts from right-to-work adoptions led us to examine changes in employment shares in industries such as manufacturing — among others — at the county level, across the nation and during two time periods. We also zeroed in on the impact of right-to-work’s adoption for Michigan, Indiana and the state borders they touch.

We found that in 2018 the manufacturing employment share was almost 21 percent higher in the border counties of states that adopted right-to-work laws after the year 2000 than they would have been without them. They were 31.5 percent higher in interior, right-to-work counties. This finding is particularly impressive when you consider that five of those six states adopted their laws only recently. In other words, the full economic impact of the laws’ adoptions has yet to unfold.

Our study also found that manufacturing’s share of employment in Indiana and Michigan were up 27.3 percent and 26.1 percent, respectively, though in the latter case data availability may have limited the statistical strength of the finding. One unambiguous result is that while employment share in manufacturing in a region may not have increased on balance, there is a clear realignment away from counties in non-right-to-work states toward those with them. Ohio’s share of manufacturing employment is 30.0 percent lower than it likely would be, had the state also adopted a right-to-work law in 2012.

The Mackinac Center’s study is not the only of its kind. Last November, two Harvard scholars published a working paper titled “The Long Run Effects of Right to Work Laws,” and used a similar approach to measuring right-to-work laws’ possible impacts. They found a 28 percent increase in the manufacturing share of employment “on the right-to-work side of a policy border.”

We looked at the impact of right-to-work across 18 industrial sectors, six of which we identified as union-dense. In addition to manufacturing, we found intriguing and robust results in the construction, utilities, information and education sectors.

States that adopted right-to-work laws prior to 2000, for example, had 2018 construction employment shares (as a percent of total private employment) 14.2 percent higher in their border counties than they would absent right-to-work. In non-right-to-work border counties adjacent to states that adopted right-to-work laws after 2000, the share of construction employment fell 8.7 percent.

The utilities and information sectors were mixed, but the most robust numbers in our analysis show large drops in employment share in border counties without right-to-work protections. In states that adopted right-to-work prior to 2000, these sectors’ share of employment dropped 22.5 percent and 13.8 percent, respectively, absent right-to-work protections.

Education services was arguably among the worst-performing sectors. We found a 31 percent decline in the share of employment among states that adopted right-to-work laws after 2000 in border counties. We also found a 39.3 percent drop in interior counties in right-to-work states that adopted their law prior to 2000.

Even industries that are not union dense showed positive gains from adoption of right-to-work laws. Our estimates indicate counties in right-to-work states experienced increases in the employment share in the food services and accommodations industry. Nearby counties in non-right-to-work states, by contrast, saw employment share declines in this industry.

We chose to perform this study using a border county-level methodology because there is often little in the way of weather, topography, or attitudes toward unions that might confound our analysis. What is abruptly different at state borders are state policies that may drive economic well-being, including right-to-work laws. By adopting this methodology, and adjusting for other factors such as population and education, as well as state tax, spending and regulation, we better isolate the role that right-to-work has had in driving employment changes.

Early evidence from the Great Lake and Hoosier states demonstrates that adoption of right-to-work laws benefited both states — facts both states should celebrate during the 10th anniversary of their adoption.

Michael D. LaFaive is the senior director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich. Follow him on Twitter @lafaive.

Todd Nesbit, Ph.D., is assistant professor of free enterprise and entrepreneurial economics at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden signs $40B Ukraine aid package into law

President Biden has signed into law a far-reaching aid package for Ukraine that will provide $40 billion in security, humanitarian, and economic assistance for the country as it battles the Russian war over the coming months. 

The White House said in a release on Saturday that Biden signed the measure while abroad on a trip to Asia. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass it on Thursday. 

The package brings the total U.S. assistance Congress has approved for Ukraine this year to nearly $54 billion to help the country battle a Russian onslaught that began on Feb. 24.   

The president had asked Congress at the end of April to authorize an additional $33 billion for Ukraine as he exhausted the drawdown authority from the last bill passed in March. The figure lawmakers ultimately landed on was higher.   

While the White House initially hoped lawmakers would link the package to billions more in COVID-19 pandemic funding, Biden ultimately asked leaders to separate the two to allow the Ukraine aid to move as quickly as possible.   

The bill passed the House in a 368-57 vote earlier this month and cleared the Senate in an 86-11 vote on Thursday. All “no” votes in the House and Senate came from Republicans.  

Still, the support for Ukraine in Congress has been a rare instance of bipartisanship in Washington.   

The legislation allows Biden to transfer $11 billion in weapons to Ukraine and provides $9 billion to replenish depleted U.S. weapons stockpiles. It also provides roughly $8.8 billion to support operations of Ukraine’s government and combat human trafficking, $5 billion in global food assistance, $4.35 billion in international disaster aid and $900 million to support refugees.   

Ukraine has been battling Russian forces for roughly three months since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the large-scale invasion.  

While U.S. officials initially expected Ukraine’s capital of Kyiv to fall quickly, Ukrainians have been able to withstand the Russian attacks and deal the Russian embarrassing losses.   

A Russian operation to seize Kyiv failed and Moscow has refocused its mission on Ukraine’s south and east.   

Biden administration officials believe that the $40 billion will be enough to sustain Ukraine through the current fiscal year, which ends in September.  

The U.S. has sent heavy weapons to Ukraine and shared intelligence with the Ukrainians, but Biden has drawn the line at sending U.S. forces on the ground in Ukraine to fight the Russians. 

Editor’s note: This article was previously published at an incorrect time.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden signs bill to protect access to baby formula amid shortage

President Biden on Saturday passed a bill intended to expand access to baby formula for certain families amid a shortage in the United States after Congress passed the legislation earlier this week.

Biden signed the Access to Baby Formula Act of 2022 while in Seoul during a four-day trip to Asia.

The legislation is aimed at expanding the pandemic-era flexibilities granted to the government’s nutrition program for women, infants and children (WIC). WIC participants buy about half the baby formula in the U.S., making the program the nation’s largest purchaser of formula.

Each state awards a sole-source contract to a formula manufacturer to provide its product to WIC participants. As a result, WIC participants can only redeem their WIC voucher for formula made by the manufacturer that holds the contract for that state.

The formula shortage occurred after an Abbott Nutrition plant was shuttered back in February over reports of babies falling ill after ingesting formula from the facility. Increased attention on the shortage in recent weeks has led to even shorter supply and price gouging.

The White House has been under intense pressure to do more to address the baby formula shortage over the past week. Officials have announced a series of actions, including new FDA guidance aimed at boosting imports of formula from abroad not typically sold in the U.S.  

Biden on Wednesday invoked the Defense Production Act to require suppliers to “direct needed resources to infant formula manufacturers before any other customer who may have ordered that good.” 

The White House also announced the first flights would take place this weekend under its “Operation Fly Formula” to deliver roughly 1.5 million bottles worth of formula from Switzerland to Indiana for distribution.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden says US has offered vaccines to North Korea but got no response

President Biden said Saturday the United States has offered vaccines to North Korea and China to help fight COVID-19 outbreaks, but neither has responded.

“The answer is yes we’ve offered vaccines, not only to North Korea but to China as well,” Biden said at a joint press conference in Seoul with the South Korean president. “And we’re prepared to do that immediately. We’ve gotten no response.”

North Korea has long been isolated from the rest of the world, and the secretive government did not report any coronavirus cases for much of the first two years of the pandemic. But in recent weeks, the country has seen an outbreak of hundreds of thousands of cases and dozens of deaths from the virus, according to state media, triggering concern from the international community given North Korea’s limited access to outside medicine and its fragile health care system.

In a joint statement following a one-on-one meeting, Biden and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol said they would work to provide humanitarian aid to vulnerable North Koreans, despite tensions between the nations and concerns over missile tests by Pyongyang.

China similarly saw a large spike in COVID-19 cases earlier this month. The country has typically imposed a “zero-Covid” strategy that includes harsh lockdowns and other restrictive measures in a bid to eliminate the virus dating back to the original outbreak in Wuhan.

U.S. officials have worked to share vaccine doses with developing nations and other parts of the world, with experts noting that an unvaccinated global population will give the virus more opportunity to mutate and become more contagious or possibly more deadly.

Source: TEST FEED1

Gisele Fetterman steps into the spotlight after husband's stroke

Pennsylvania second lady Gisele Fetterman stepped into the spotlight this week and took on a central role in the campaign of her husband, Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nominee John Fetterman after he suffered a stroke.

Gisele Fetterman has long been a presence on the campaign trail, with her husband frequently citing her status as a Dreamer when talking about immigration.

But being front and center on primary night when her husband couldn’t be introduced her to a far wider audience.

“Women can do anything,” Gisele Fetterman said in an interview with The Hill on Friday when asked what it was like to step into the spotlight on primary night.

“John’s used to always being the strong one in the relationship for our family and it was my opportunity to step in and I wanted to make him proud, so it was easy to have to rise to that,” she said.

John Fetterman suffered a stroke on the Friday before Pennsylvania’s primaries and had a procedure to implant a pacemaker on Election Day. It was Gisele Fetterman who gave remarks at his campaign’s party after he clinched the Democratic nomination for Senate, spoke to media and provided updates on her husband.

The lieutenant governor credited his wife with urging him to seek medical attention when he wasn’t feeling well.

“I didn’t want to go – I didn’t think I had to – but Gisele insisted, and as usual, she was right,” he said in a statement.

Since her husband’s stroke, Fetterman has been vocal about the importance of learning the warning signs of strokes.

“It’s a really important conversation to have,” she said.

Born in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Fetterman came to the U.S. as an undocumented immigrant to when she was seven years old with her mother and brother. The family settled in Queens, New York City, where her mother worked cleaning houses and hotels. Fetterman described her mother’s work in the U.S. as an “adjustment,” after earning her Ph.D. and running hospitals in Brazil.

“That began our journey in this new country as new Americans,” she said.

Fetterman later pursued a career in the nonprofit space, focusing on issues like food insecurity, poverty, and equity. She is the founder of Freestore 15104, a Braddock, Penn.-based organization dedicated to redistributing donated and surplus goods to communities in need. She is also the co-founder of the nonprofits For Good PGH and 412 Food Rescue.

“Access is really my passion,” Fetterman said. “Working to ensure that everyone has access to all of the things we should.”

It was Gisele Fetterman’s work in the nonprofit space that led to her meeting her husband,

“It’s a really romantic story. Are you ready?” Fetterman exclaimed.

Fetterman said she was working in Newark as a nutritionist when she read about the work then-Braddock, Penn., Mayor John Fetterman was doing.

“I was inspired by the work he was doing and I wrote a letter to the Borough of Braddock sharing my work with food justice and food access,” she said. “The letter ended up with John who called me and then planned a visit.”

“He came to visit after the call and then I arrived and he fell madly in love with me,” she said. She noticed bridges that she drove on, like the Brooklyn Bridge, were made with steel from Braddock.

“I felt that was a connection and a sign,” she said.

The two married in 2008. Since becoming lieutenant governor and second lady, the Fettermans have been seen as a team unit by Pennsylvanians.

“You have two people that can literally draw crowds,” said TJ Rooney, the former chairman of the state’s Democratic Party. “That’s what you call a political blessing.”

Gisele and John Fetterman have been vocal about Gisele’s history growing up as an undocumented immigrant. In 2020, the couple penned a joint op-ed in support of  Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), an Obama-era program that protects immigrants who came to the U.S. as children from deportation. More recently, the lieutenant governor has cited it on the campaign trail.

That same year, Gisele Fetterman was the victim of a racist verbal attack in which a white woman hurled racial slurs at the second lady as she was in line at the grocery store and later approached her in the parking lot. Fetterman posted a video of the incident online.

The second lady told The Hill that a “compassionate approach” to immigration is just one topic that her husband would focus on if elected to the Senate, also listing ending the filibuster, raising the minimum wage, legalizing cannabis, and addressing climate issues.

Fetterman is recovering well, his campaign spokesperson Joe Calvello told the Post-Gazette on Thursday, though he’s not ready to be back on the campaign trail quite yet.

Even after he is, experts say that Gisele Fetterman’s presence on the campaign trail is likely not going anywhere ahead of November.

“People know her in the state already,” said Kelly Dittmar, an assistant research professor at Rutgers University’s Center for American Women in Politics. “It would make sense to leverage that notability beyond his illness.”

When asked whether she would one day like to run for office, Fetterman immediately threw cold water on the idea.

“I would never, ever, ever want to be in politics,” Fetterman said laughing. “I like having a backseat, I like having nonprofit work.”

“I imagine I would continue that work, maybe have a slightly bigger platform to do so, but in running for anything, I promise you will never catch me there,” she said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Giuliani met with Jan. 6 committee for 9 hours: reports

Rudy Giuliani, who served as a personal lawyer for former President Trump, met with members of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot for 9 hours, according to reports from CNN and NBC News.

Two sources told CNN that Giuliani appeared virtually to the committee for a deposition Friday that lasted over nine hours.

Following the 2020 election, the former New York City mayor had echoed claims by the former president that the presidential race was tainted by widespread voter fraud. Giuliani was also part of Trump’s core legal team following the Nov. 3 election.

The virtual appearance in front of the committee comes after the committee originally subpoenaed Giuliani in January along with three others: Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell and Boris Epshteyn. The subpoena focused on the former mayor’s ability to offer insight into Trump’s thinking around Jan. 6, 2021.

“The four individuals we’ve subpoenaed today advanced unsupported theories about election fraud, pushed efforts to overturn the election results, or were in direct contact with the former President about attempts to stop the counting of electoral votes,” committee chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said at the time.

Giuliani declined to appear on the original date after the committee said it would not allow him to record audio and video of the meeting.

The Hill has reached out to Giuliani’s attorney Robert Costello and the Jan. 6 Committee for comment on the deposition.

Source: TEST FEED1

Flight attendant union president slams Musk over sexual misconduct allegations

The Association of Flight Attendants Union President Sara Nelson slammed Elon Musk on Friday over allegations that he sexually propositioned a SpaceX flight attendant.

According to a report published by Insider Thursday, Musk was accused of exposing himself to one of his SpaceX employees and asking her for sex.

Later Thursday, the Tesla CEO denied the allegations which he called “wild” and “utterly untrue.”

“The attacks against me should be viewed through a political lens — this is their standard (despicable) playbook — but nothing will deter me from fighting for a good future and your right to free speech,” said Musk Thursday.

However, Nelson said that the allegations against the billionaire are a “stark reminder” of why flight attendants organized decades ago.

“Musk’s alleged actions in the cabin are a stark reminder of why Flight Attendants first organized 76 years ago: to beat back discrimination and sexual harassment/assault by claiming our power to put misogyny and the privileged corporate class of men in check,” Nelson told The Hill.

SpaceX and the unnamed flight attendant reportedly reached an out-of-court settlement of $250,000, according to Insider. The settlement included a nondisclosure agreement.

Nelson said that Musk thinks that his wealth “gives him the right to do anything that he pleases, regardless of the rights, humanity, or protestations of others.”

“The fact that he required Flight Attendants to become licensed masseuses on their own dime demonstrates what we see all too often — the super rich think they own everything and have to pay for nothing,” said Nelson.

She continued: “Flight attendants are not just another accessory on Musk’s little rocket. His corporate America no longer holds the power it tried to take from workers. We know our worth and the power we have together. We’re here on earth, there on SpaceX, and everywhere. He’s going to have to face it or face the final frontier without any of the people who make it possible.”

The news comes amid the news that Musk reached a deal with Twitter to purchase the social media platform. The move was cheered by lawmakers and conservatives who say that the CEO will bring the principles of free speech back to the platform.

Source: TEST FEED1