Tag Archives : Build House

NASA’s Artemis I launch Monday was scrubbed. But why is the US trying to go back to the moon?

The launch of NASA’s Artemis I mega rocket from the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Fla., was postponed Monday due to an issue with one of the rocket’s four engines.  

 “We don’t launch until it’s right,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said during an interview shortly after the launch was scrubbed.  

 “They’ve got a problem with the gasses going on the engine bleed on one engine…It’s just illustrative that this is a very complicated machine, a very complicated system, and all those things have to work. You don’t want to light the candle until it’s ready to go,” Nelson said.   

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

 The next opportunity for NASA to successfully launch the rocket into space to embark on its journey around the moon is Friday, but further testing on the craft is needed before a relaunch date is decided.   

 If team members can fix the rocket’s engine issue within the next two to three days, a Friday launch is possible.   

 The last U.S. mission to the moon, Apollo 17, took flight almost 50 years ago. So, why is NASA returning to the moon?  

There’s still a lot to be studied on the Moon   

The Artemis I launch is the first in a series of tests to eventually put humans on the lunar surface for the first time since 1972. The Space Launch System (SLS) rocket will carry an unmanned crew capsule called Orion on a 42-day long trip around the moon. NASA is hoping to eventually land astronauts on the moon in 2025 or 2026.  

But while some might think it’s strange for NASA to go where man has once gone before, NASA officials say the Artemis mission will allow researchers to study previously unexamined parts of the lunar surface. The lunar rocks and dust brought back from the moon by Apollo astronauts have played a major role in scientists’ current understanding of the Earth and moon’s rock and soil history.  A return to the moon could mean that astronauts replenish NASA’s moon rock and soil supply for further research.   

NASA is considering sending astronauts on the manned Artemis II and Artemis III to the moon’s south pole region where there’s evidence of water ice.   

The mission also includes sending the first person of color and woman to walk on the moon’s surface.  

Make way for Mars 

If all goes well with the first SLS launch, NASA could use what is learned from the new and lengthier moon missions to help astronauts eventually get to Mars. NASA in part is carrying out the Artemis missions to “learn to live, to work, to survive,” on the moon, according to Nelson. 

“How do you keep humans alive in those hostile conditions? And we’re going to learn how to use the resources on the moon in order to be able to build things in the future as we go – not a quarter of a million miles away, not a three-day journey – but millions and millions of miles away on a months and months if not years-long journey,” Nelson added, according to CNN.  

Source: TEST FEED1

The rich are using long-term care funds meant for the poor

Medicaid is a major payer for long-term care (extended-stay nursing home and home care for the disabled) in the United States. This health care program, intended for the poor and funded by federal and state governments, covers almost half of all long-term care spending, now nearly $500 billion a year. 

With the aging of the population and the declining birth rate, government spending on long-term care is expected to increase rapidly as people become disabled and family members providing free home care become rarer. These trends will cause Medicaid-provided long-term care to take up more and more of the government’s budget and national income. It is therefore important that Medicaid long-term care benefits be targeted to those who do not have the resources to pay for care, and not to those who have significant assets or the ability to purchase private insurance. 

Unfortunately, several studies show that many older people with significant real estate and financial asset holdings get long-term care from Medicaid for free or at subsidized rates. These findings should not be surprising because, in many states, the rules and administration of the program are loose and porous, and little effort is made to recover assets from the estates of deceased Medicaid users, despite this being required by federal law. By my estimate every year almost $6 billion of Medicaid funds are inappropriately used for the long-term care of individuals with significant asset holdings. Breaking this amount down, almost $3 billion could be recuperated from enhanced estate recoveries and more than $3 billion from retirement assets.

Why is that? Because many states do not count retirement assets in assessing whether the individual is impoverished and eligible for Medicaid. By my estimate, this exemption alone amounts to a more than $3 billion loss to the government annually. Besides representing considerable resources for Medicaid, it is unfair because retirement assets, which have extensive tax advantages, are intended for spending on health and long-term care during old age, not for bequests. Also, despite federal law requirements, most states make little or no effort to recover assets from the estates of deceased Medicaid beneficiaries, whether real and financial. 

Legislation introduced earlier this year by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.,) if passed, would worsen the problem by repealing the federal requirement that state Medicaid programs go after families and estates for repayment of long-term care services. In 2020, less than $700 million was recovered, which I estimate represents less than 3 percent of the $48 billion in total estates of deceased Medicaid beneficiaries in aggregate every year. 

Of course, there are many (legally consistent) legitimate reasons which explain why some assets are not recoverable, but the superior results of states like Iowa and Idaho, which have 10 percent recovery rates by my estimate, show that much more can be done. California, which represents more than one-seventh of total U.S. economic activity, has yet to adopt the requirements of the 2005 federal law that tightened eligibility for Medicaid long-term care benefits. In fact, by removing all asset eligibility tests, California is seeking to move in the opposite direction. And despite several improvements to the 2005 law, there are still many techniques employed by lawyers of well-to-do families in all states which enable the transfer of assets to qualify their elderly disabled relatives for Medicaid.

I, therefore, recommend that Congress amend the law with the following rule changes:

1. Count retirement assets in eligibility tests for Medicaid, as most states do, but some large states do not.
2. Set reasonable but increasingly ambitious goals for states — based on the best practices and experiences of successful states — for estate recovery efforts. If not met, these goals should be enforced by a penalty that reduces matching federal funds for Medicaid.
3. Require California to meet all current federal law requirements in this area, again enforced by a federal funding penalty.
4. Outlaw asset transfer techniques used by the wealthy.

These reforms would make Medicaid fairer, more sustainable and more consistent with the value of self-reliance — not government dependence by the well-to-do. It would also encourage the use of private insurance and increase asset accumulation. This is particularly important now, with an aging population, large and prospectively growing federal budget deficits and the impending exhaustion of funds for Social Security and Medicare in the next few years.

Mark Warshawsky is the Searle Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the vice chair of the 2013 Federal Commission on Long-term Care. This op-ed is based on his article “Steps to Make Long-Term Care Financing Fairer and More Sustainable” which appeared in the August 8, 2022 volume of Tax Notes Federal.

Source: TEST FEED1

Virginia AG says state bound by California rule phasing out new gas-powered cars

California’s newly-announced rule barring the sale of new gas-powered cars in 2035 will apply to Virginia as well under the terms of a 2021 state law, Attorney General Jason Miyares’s (R) office confirmed to The Hill on Monday. 

In 2021, the state General Assembly, where Democrats then held majorities in both chambers, passed a law requiring the state to adopt the same automobile standards as those adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Although Democrats lost their majority in the state House of Delegates in 2021, efforts to repeal the legislation in this year’s legislative session were unsuccessful. 

California’s new rule, passed last week, will also apply to Virginia, Miyares spokesperson Victoria LaCivita confirmed to The Hill. The news was first reported by The Virginia Mercury. 

“The Attorney General is hopeful that the General Assembly repeals this law and discontinues any trend that makes Virginia more like California,” LaCivita told The Hill in an email. “Unelected California bureaucrats should not be dictating the will of Virginians.” 

Virginia is one of 15 states that have adopted an earlier CARB standard that imposes stricter tailpipe emissions standards than the federal rule.

The rule on new gas-powered vehicles does not apply to used cars or restrict the use of existing gas-powered cars. Under the terms of the 2021 law, the California rule would not take effect until 2024, giving Republicans in the legislature at least one more chance to attempt repeal, particularly if they take the state Senate in 2023. 

Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) has vowed to prevent the rule from taking effect in Virginia, saying in a statement Friday “I am already at work to prevent this ridiculous edict from being forced on Virginians.” Although Democrats retain a single-vote edge in the state Senate, Sen. Joe Morrissey (D) has been known to buck his colleagues on votes. 

California has frequently spearheaded state-level action to reduce auto emissions, a major driver of climate change. Several other states have already announced their intentions to comply with the new rule.

Despite the stricter regulations, many automakers have been broadly receptive to phasing out internal combustion vehicles while increasing production of electric vehicles. The lobbying group the Virginia Auto Dealers Association was a vocal backer of the 2021 law, and praised the new requirement as well. 

“Virginia’s new car dealers are embracing the future of electric vehicles. VADA dealer members supported the adoption of the ZEV standards as part of the state’s commitment to fostering EV adoption, along with charging infrastructure and EV purchase incentives,” president and CEO Don Hall said in a statement. “The state must step up and do its part with all the related policies, in addition to these standards.”

Source: TEST FEED1

The worst-paying states for teachers

Teachers in the U.S. have seen their salaries decline over the past decade, with some educators paid anywhere from 5 to 18 percent less than the national average wage. 

Business.org analyzed average teacher salaries from the National Center for Educational Statistics and the Bureau of Labor Statistics and ranked the best and worst average teacher salaries in comparison to the average salary for all other occupations. 

The results revealed that nationally, teacher salaries dropped by about 3 percent from 2010 to 2021, and six states – including Indiana, Wyoming, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana — had even steeper declines of 10 percent or more.  

It’s consistent with a separate report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) which found from 1996 to 2021, average weekly wages increased just $29 for public school teachers —consistently earning less than their non-teacher, college-educated counterparts.  

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

Here are some of the worst-paying states for teachers in the 2020-2021 academic year: 

1. District of Columbia 

Teachers working out of the nation’s capital earned 18 percent less than the average salary of all other occupations. Teachers earned an average of about $80,659 while all other occupations in D.C. get $98,370. 

2. Arizona 

The average salary of a teacher in Arizona was $52,157, which is 5 percent less than the average $55,170 earnings of all other occupations.  

3. Virginia 

Teachers in Virginia on average made $59,267 and all other occupations received $62,330. That’s just under 5 percent less for teachers. 

4. Florida 

The average salary for teachers was $49,583 in Florida—the second lowest in the country after Mississippi. All other occupations averaged $51,950, a 4.6 percent difference. 

5. Colorado 

In Colorado, teachers earn on average $60,611, about 3 percent less than the $62,900 of other occupations. 

6. Minnesota 

Teachers in Minnesota earn $59,069 on average while all other occupations average $60,480— with teachers earning about 2 percent less. 

Though, Business.org found that teachers in the U.S. can find some good-paying jobs depending on where they live, taking into account the industry’s downward trend in wages, it’s unclear if it’ll be enough to retain a solid teaching population for the country’s future.  

That’s a reality that classrooms across the country are facing, as the National Education Association estimates there’s a shortage of nearly 300,000 educators and support staff across the country. 

Researchers at EPI concluded that targeted policy is urgently needed to address the country’s teacher crisis and without it there’s, “no reasonable expectation of reversal in sight for pandemic-stressed schools and those who serve public education.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

How to cut ties with China once and for all

China presents the greatest threat to the United States today, and that threat is increasing at an ever-accelerating rate.

We need to stop feeding the beast. China’s economy has grown more than anything else due to its sales to the United States. If we do not stop feeding this beast, it will bite off our arms or consume us whole.

Its intentions are clear — world domination.

In 2008, I had the chance to spend time with a Chinese government official tasked with dealing with a rise in rabies infections in the nation. He told me that the government announced that dogs threatened the health of all Chinese people. Within a week municipal services reported having to dispose of the bodies of tens of thousands of dogs killed by their owners or by neighbors.

Autocracies do not have the restraints imposed upon them that are customarily operational in democracies. You cannot trust that a mugger will only take your wallet and leave you and your family unharmed.

The U.S. consumer became addicted to the low cost of goods from China, made possible by the low cost of labor, which includes the abusive mistreatment of workers, including children and oppressed peoples.

The United States, as a matter of the highest national security threat, should begin an intensive effort to end all imports from China. We could potentially do that within 10 years, though I fear that that may already be too late. We could probably reduce our purchases from China by 80 percent within just five years.

What would it take?

First, there should be a clear recognition by American businesses that their interests are not safe. In an autocracy, especially where one individual is inordinately consolidating power, much as it has by Vladimir Putin in Russia, the rule of law is by fiat of the leader.

When China inevitably does precisely as it has said it will and wages war on Taiwan — whether by strangulating blockade or direct invasion — then all of the American companies doing business in China will suffer the same fate as befell McDonald’s in Russia.

Second, what moved U.S. auto production to Mexico was cheap labor and tax policy. Yes, moving companies’ means of production from China will be inconvenient, and there will be costs in setting up new facilities elsewhere. But on the flip side, there will be long-term investment security and tremendous long-term savings from far less expensive labor.

Now is the time for us to repatriate the production of national security-dependent and high-tech goods, such as is being done with the CHIPS Act, back to the United States.

And, now is the time for us to move the production of all other labor-dependent goods from China to a more benign place with even lower labor costs. While there is a long list of such places, we must not cede Africa to China, and thus this provides a clear opportunity.

There are currently more than 1.4 billion people living in Africa. Approximately 500 million live in extreme poverty (defined as less than $2 per day). Presently, more than half of those are in danger of death by starvation.

China is already eyeing Africa for its abundance of natural resources. By financing the construction of the transportation infrastructure required to export the desired materials, China is placing sovereign nations in a stranglehold of debt.

While educational opportunities vary from place to place, innate intelligence does not. The means of manufacturing goods can be set up anywhere in the world, as the displacement of U.S auto production to Mexico has proven.

It is possible to teach someone without formal education how to perform a particular task or series of tasks, to perfection, on an assembly line. So by ending all imports from China and moving production to Africa, we can achieve all of the following:

1. Slow down economic support for China’s march to world economic domination.
2. Counter China’s accelerating interest in gaining economic control of Africa’s resources and placing the poorer countries of that continent in its debt.
3. Lift the most economically impoverished people in the world, and expand opportunities for them to prosper.
4. Strengthen the basis for economically stable democracies in Africa.
5. Create new markets for U.S. technologies, products and services.
6. Protect U.S. companies doing business in China from a sudden and complete loss of their investments.

Gary K. Michelson, M.D. is the founder and co-chair of the Michelson Center for Public Policy

Source: TEST FEED1

National Archives head says anti-Trump accusations not 'accurate or welcome'

The acting head of the National Archives and Records Administration’s (NARA) pushed back on accusations that the agency is corrupt or conspiring against former President Trump in its actions over his presidential records.

“The National Archives has been the focus of intense scrutiny for months, this week especially, with many people ascribing political motivation to our actions,” Debra Steidel Wall, the acting archivist, wrote in the a memo to employees sent Wednesday.

“NARA has received messages from the public accusing us of corruption and conspiring against the former president, or congratulating NARA for ‘bringing him down,’” she continued. “Neither is accurate or welcome.”

The memo was made public under the Freedom of Information Act and was previously reported by The Washington Post.

The National Archives had attempted to recover presidential records stored at Trump’s Florida home for months, dating back to last year. Officials retrieved 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago in January, including at least 700 pages of classified materials, and asked the Justice Department to examine the former president’s handling of records.

The investigation ultimately led the FBI to execute a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence earlier this month, when agents seized 11 sets of classified documents. The DOJ is probing whether Trump violated the Espionage Act or two other federal statutes.

The search led to a flurry of criticisms against the involved agencies by Trump and his allies, who allege the probe and related actions are politically motivated.

Wall’s memo references some of those criticisms, including Trump’s unfounded claim on his social media platform that former President Obama “kept 33 million pages of documents, much of them classified.”

The Archives debunked that claim in a statement, saying it keeps classified Obama records in a government facility outside of Obama’s control.

“Our fundamental interest is always in ensuring that government records are properly managed, preserved and protected to ensure access to them for the life of the republic,” Wall wrote. “That is our mission, and what motivates us as we seek to uphold the public trust.”

Wall also thanked employees for their professionalism and integrity. “We will continue to do our work, without favor or fear, in the service of our democracy,” she wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1

Fetterman calls on Biden to move toward decriminalizing marijuana ahead of Pennsylvania visit

Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nominee John Fetterman called on President Biden to deschedule marijuana, with a goal of ultimately decriminalizing the drug, ahead of Biden’s visit to the state next week.

Biden is expected to travel to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, two key swing states, on Labor Day ahead of the November midterms.

“It’s long past time that we finally decriminalize marijuana,” Fetterman said in a statement. “The president needs to use his executive authority to begin descheduling marijuana, I would love to see him do this prior to his visit to Pittsburgh. This is just common sense and Pennslyvanians overwhelmingly support decriminalizing marijuana.”

Fetterman also took a shot at his Republican opponent Mehmet Oz, who has spoken out against marijuana legalization.

“I don’t want to hear any bullshit coming out of Dr. Oz’s campaign trying to conflate decriminalizing marijuana with seriously harmful crime. Are we supposed to believe that neither he nor any members of his staff have ever used marijuana?” Fetterman said. 

“As mayor of Braddock, I made it my mission to combat serious crime. I know firsthand what real crime looks like. Marjiuana does not fit the bill. It’s time to end the hypocrisy on this issue once and for all.” 

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug and is illegal at the federal level, though a number of states have approved its use either for medical use, recreational use or both. 

A spokesperson for Fetterman’s campaign previously said the Senate candidate would be pressing the president on the issue of decriminalizing marijuana while Biden was in the state. 

Fetterman has led Oz in recent polling and the nonpartisan election handicapper Cook Political Report recently shifted its rating of the Senate seat from “toss up” to “lean Democrat.”

The Hill has reached out to the White House and Oz’s campaign for comment.

Source: TEST FEED1

On the lawn: Biden travels to Pennsylvania

President Biden is off to Pennsylvania this week. He is traveling on Tuesday to Wilkes-Barre, which is near his hometown of Scranton, to give remarks geared toward community safety.

Pennsylvania is a key swing state to watch for control of the Senate, with Democrat John Fetterman facing Trump-backed Republican Mehmet Oz in November for the open seat, which is currently held by retiring Republican Pat Toomey.

The trip on Tuesday comes as the president has been turning his attention to the midterm elections and is expected to ramp up his travel after Labor Day to tout the benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Watch the video above for more.

Source: TEST FEED1

Contamination leaves NM town with fewer than 20 days of clean water

(NewsNation) — Contamination has left a northern New Mexico town with less than three weeks worth of clean water.

Wildfires that spread through the northern part of the state earlier this year tainted the water supply for the city of Las Vegas, forcing the town to distribute bottled water and cut consumption.

“We’re very fortunate in that the community has been very supportive through this crisis,” Mayor Louie Trujillo said Sunday on “NewsNation Prime.” “Everyone is doing a fantastic job in conserving the water that we do have.”

The city’s watershed was burned over in the Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak Fire, and now debris is running off into the Gallinas River. The current filtration system can’t handle the excess contaminants, leaving the city looking elsewhere for a clean water supply.

Residents have cut their usage by about 40% to 50% of typical levels, Trujillo said, and officials are investigating tapping into other nearby reservoirs, among other solutions.

“We’re relying now mostly on a temporary filtration system,” Trujillo said. He said there are fewer than 20 days worth of clean drinking water left.

The cleanup effort could take up to 10 years, Trujillo has been told. It could mean having to completely replace the city’s water filtration system.

“We’re told that we’re in this for quite some time,” Trujillo said. “Now we will have to design and pay for a huge improvement or replacement of our filtration system.”

As climate change results in hotter temperatures, drier air and more frequent wildfires, the economic costs of natural disasters are rising. Flooding in Dallas last week resulted in an estimated $6 billion in damages.

Economist Rebecca Ryan said the insurance market is facing higher claims than its ever had. Additionally, the White House has estimated climate change will cost the U.S. $2 trillion each year by the end of the century.

“This is more than the value of Google,” Ryan said. “Sometimes those numbers don’t include things like loss of life … so I think that’s probably a pretty conservative number.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Our work reforming student loans is far from finished

President Joe Biden’s decision to extend the pause on federal student loan repayments and forgive $10,000 of debt for all borrowers will do nothing to repair a seriously flawed higher education financing system. Rather than take piecemeal action, policymakers should reform the system in ways that lower borrowing costs, target relief to the most hard-pressed borrowers and reduce student dependence on loans over the long term.

The repayment pause that began in March 2020 provided important relief to struggling households during the deep, COVID-driven economic downturn but, with conditions improving, there’s no compelling reason to extend it. The $10,000 in debt forgiveness, meanwhile, will provide the most help to high-wealth households while doing nothing for workers who did not attend college. Both policies come at taxpayer expense.

Even before the pandemic, nearly two out of five federal student loans were delinquent or in default. Black and Hispanic borrowers faced more financial problems and defaulted more often than their white peers. Women assumed more student debt and repaid it more slowly than men. Now, inflation is stretching family budgets, especially for low-income households, making it harder for many borrowers to afford monthly payments.

The new measures sidestep the fundamental problems plaguing higher education financing; student debt will remain well above $1 trillion and continue to grow and once repayment resumes, borrowers will continue to suffer from high levels of defaults and large loan balances that grow with compounding interest.

Policymakers should reform the system in two basic ways.

First, they should make college more affordable and reduce or prevent the loans most likely to cause harm.

Policymakers should provide at least $5 billion per year in flexible block grants to states that increase their annual total investment in higher education. These funds would go towards reducing the cost of college enrollment through such measures as tuition cuts, grants, scholarships and “free college” programs.

Policymakers also should invest between $5 billion and $10 billion per year to raise the maximum annual Pell Grant for students and give more middle-income students access to these grants. Along with these reforms, grant funding should be shifted away from high-income families and better targeted to low-income families, reducing their need for student loans.

In addition, policymakers should force higher education institutions — which are now largely unaccountable for the quality of education they provide — to pay penalties based on unpaid student loan balances if they can’t show that their students get a tangible return for attending, such as higher lifetime earnings compared to high school graduates who do not attend college.

And policymakers should reform the PLUS loan programs, which issue the fastest-growing type of debt, by limiting graduate student debt and the debt that low-income parents of undergraduates can assume while increasing financial aid for the students themselves.

Second, policymakers should change how the federal government manages loans and how borrowers repay them.

Policymakers should enroll borrowers automatically in a uniform income-driven repayment plan in which payment amounts are based on family income and size rather than simply on the amount of total borrowing, and a family’s income and size are verified through data sharing among federal agencies.

Policymakers should reform the interest owed on student loans — such as by capping or eliminating interest, especially compound interest, and perhaps replacing it with loan origination fees — in ways that alleviate the burdens on low-income borrowers and do not provide unwarranted help for high-income borrowers.

Policymakers also should update the public service loan forgiveness (PSLF) program for borrowers who work in government or not-for-profit jobs. Specifically, legislation should replace the lump-sum forgiveness after 10 years of qualifying employment with a monthly subsidy that a borrower can tap as soon as they start repaying their loans — that is, when they are early in their careers and probably most need the help. Making PSLF’s benefits more immediate could also improve recruiting in fields struggling with worker shortages, such as teaching and nursing.

Finally, policymakers should codify into law the Biden administration’s prior actions that, together, have streamlined about $25 billion in loan forgiveness and other support for disabled borrowers and for borrowers whose schools closed or committed fraud or who were hurt by Education Department mistakes. Codifying these changes would ensure that future administrations cannot undo them unilaterally.

Together, these reforms could cut college costs, especially for low-income students, enable low- and moderate-income students to borrow less and still attend college and slow if not reverse the growth of both existing and new loan debt.

We need systemic reforms rather than partial or poorly targeted steps that will not meet the long-term needs of current or future borrowers.

Kevin Miller is the associate director of Higher Ed at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Shai Akbas is the director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Source: TEST FEED1