Tag Archives : Build House

Passing IRA was half the battle, now the real work begins

Yesterday, we toasted the “biggest step forward on climate ever.” Today, the Biden administration starts the difficult task of ensuring that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)’s historic investment in green energy benefits our nation’s hardest-hit communities — lest it exacerbate existing disparities.

Now that he has signed the IRA into law, President Biden is switching focus to its implementation, which history shows can either enhance our nation’s prosperity or widen its gulfs of inequity. For example, the IRA includes a commitment to complete a controversial pipeline carrying gas to West Virginia. If constructed without further analysis of its impacts through an environmental justice lens, this project will directly harm the health of low-income and majority-African-American residents of the Banister District in Pittsylvania County, Va., who already suffer from air pollution caused by previously-built pipeline facilities in the area.

There is much that federal, state, and local governments can do to ensure the IRA’s $369 billion in climate-related grants, tax credits and other subsidies actually help such disparately-impacted communities, rather than making it harder for them to breathe. Chief among these is putting Biden’s Justice40 Initiative (J40) into action.

The Justice40 Initiative requires at least 40 percent of the overall benefits from federal investment in climate and clean energy go to disadvantaged communities, which is critical for ensuring that the disproportionate, disparate and cumulative impacts of pollution and climate change do not continue to fall on low-income communities and communities of color. If applied to all IRA-funded programs, it could clean up our country’s most polluted places, create jobs where most needed, and fuel innovation in our highest-opportunity communities.

The Biden administration has not yet clarified that the J40 requirement applies to each and every climate funding program in both the recent Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the IRA. It should do so, immediately.

For example, the IRA includes $27 billion for federal green banks, which use innovative financing techniques in partnership with the private sector to accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies. Communities disproportionately harmed by climate change who need protection from sea level rise could benefit from green banks to fund climate resilience projects, like building up levees in Louisiana. However, under-resourced local governments are unlikely to know what a green bank is, how a green bank could improve their community, or how to engage with one to receive federal dollars. The federal government should provide additional implementation guidance to help ensure that at least 40 percent of the benefit of new green banks goes to these underserved communities.

In addition to clarifying the universal application of J40, federal agencies should issue guidance to help states and local governments define the disadvantaged communities that are eligible for funds to ensure that climate investments are going to where they are needed the most. The EPA’s recent guidance in the water infrastructure context provides a template that other federal agencies could use to help states identify and engage with disadvantaged communities. 

Further, both the BIL and the IRA should provide low-income communities impacted by climate change with significant technical assistance to secure federal funding for new climate change and climate resilience projects. Many underserved communities do not have staff to apply for, obtain, and implement federal environmental grants; they will need to hire project managers, recruit community liaisons, and work with nonprofits with technical expertise to secure federal funding.

For example, the IRA offers $15 billion in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to deploy projects that will reduce emissions, like rooftop and community solar, in low-income and disadvantaged communities. However, many such communities do not have the human resources to compete for such grants without technical assistance from nonprofits. Money must be allocated to front-line organizations to help community members understand what grants are available, help them apply, and support them in establishing a sustainable workforce that can put these federal dollars to work.

Last, but not least, the federal government cannot implement such a colossal piece of legislation alone. States must work in partnership to: 1) identify disadvantaged communities in their midst, 2) provide training and workforce development on securing and implementing climate change projects, and 3) provide local community liaisons that will meaningfully engage the community and prioritize projects that will mitigate climate change impacts in their own backyards.

There is no doubt the IRA has the potential to vastly improve American climate policy. Now, it is up to all of us to ensure it also bolsters our nation’s equity. What we do now, and who we include in decision-making, will determine whether this historic law once again sacrifices disadvantaged communities who have been left behind for decades, or collectively powers a just transition to a clean and equitable economy. Let’s get to work. 

Sterling Howard is vice president of development and communications for Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG).

Source: TEST FEED1

FDA approves first fast-acting oral drug for clinical depression

A newly approved drug from Axsome Therapeutics, Auvelity, can improve symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) — also known as clinical depression — after one week of administration, making it the first and only oral rapid-acting drug approved for the disorder. 

The drug’s mechanism is also novel and marks the first new type of medication to be approved for the condition in 60 years. Auvelity was granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation following a priority review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The announcement comes on the heels of a new review that found serotonin levels or activity are likely not the cause of depression, challenging a long-held belief the condition is the result of brain chemical imbalances, and opening a window for new research on different potential treatments. 

Common medicines on the market for those with MDD include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as Zoloft, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), like Cymbalta, for example, among others. 

Trial results showed the positive benefits of Auvelity, an N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, were sustained at all time points assessed, although its exact mechanism of action in MDD remains unclear. It will become available to patients in the fourth quarter of 2022.

“The approval of Auvelity represents a milestone in depression treatment based on its novel oral NMDA antagonist mechanism, its rapid antidepressant efficacy demonstrated in controlled trials, and a relatively favorable safety profile,” said Maurizio Fava of Massachusetts General Hospital in a press release. Fava is also a Slater Family professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

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

The treatment comes at an opportune time as many Americans continue to suffer poor mental health outcomes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Prior to COVID-19, “over 20 million American adults experienced major depressive disorder each year,” said Michael Pollock, Chief Executive Officer of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, in the release.

But research from Brown University, published in October 2021, found depression rates tripled during the first year of COVID-19 alone, while recent economic woes, global conflict and a contentious political landscape, coupled with a shortage of mental health care providers, can all compound poor outcomes. 

“Nearly two thirds of patients treated with currently available antidepressants do not adequately respond, and those that do may not achieve clinically meaningful responses for up to six to eight weeks,” Fava said. 

“Given the debilitating nature of depression, the efficacy of Auvelity observed at one week and sustained thereafter may have a significant impact on the current treatment paradigm for this condition.”

The FDA approval is based on a clinical trial program that tested the medication in over 1,100 adults with depression. In addition to being superior to placebo, an additional study found the treatment superior to 150mg sustained release tablets of bupropion, a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor (NDRI). 

Common adverse effects associated with Auvelity included dizziness, headache, diarrhea and dry mouth, among  others. 

“With symptom improvement happening at week one and then remission happening by week two, the combination of those two is incredibly differentiating in the marketplace right now,” said Lori Englebert, executive vice president of Axsome’s commercial and business development, in a statement. “We’re pretty excited about the product.” 

The company hopes to set the price for the treatment in the coming weeks.

Source: TEST FEED1

US, South Korea launch largest military drills in years amid tensions with North

The United States and South Korea on Monday kicked off their largest joint military exercise in five years, drills that were put on pause during the Trump administration in an attempt to sway North Korea toward nuclear disarmament.  

The war games, now known as Ulchi Freedom Shield, are set to run until Sept. 1 and are the largest-scale exercises between Washington and Seoul since 2017. 

Neither side has released details of the drills, but past versions of the exercise have involved tens of thousands of troops as well as aircraft, tanks and warships.  

In a joint statement, the two militaries said the drills would “bolster combined readiness” and were a response to an “increased volume and scale of [North Korean] missile tests” in the past year. 

Ulchi Freedom Shield is one of two major exercises that used to be held annually between South Korea and the United States, which bases about 28,500 troops on the Korean Peninsula. 

In 2018, then-President Trump halted the drills after he sought to persuade North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to denuclearize his country at an in-person summit. North Korea has often claimed that the U.S.-South Korea military exercises are a rehearsal for an invasion. 

The regular drills were either canceled or downsized to computer simulations to coax diplomatic concessions from North Korea, a mission that largely failed.  

After talks between Trump and Kim collapsed in early 2019, the North redoubled its efforts to build its nuclear arsenal.  

Then, when South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol took office in May, he vowed to “normalize” the joint war games and “step up” the two sides’ military training to deter North Korea from hostile actions. including nuclear tests and missile launches.  

The drills are likely to draw fresh ire from North Korea, which fired two cruise missiles last week after the U.S. and South Korea began preliminary training for the operation. 

Pyongyang has regularly conducted missile tests in the past year, including more than 30 ballistic missile launches, and U.S., Japanese and South Korean officials have all warned that the North is seeking to conduct its first nuclear test since 2017. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Nearly all marine species face extinction if greenhouse emissions don't drop: study

Maintaining the status quo for greenhouse gas emissions could risk the extinction of up to 90 percent of marine species, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change. 

Researchers, led by ecologist Daniel Boyce of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova Scotia, looked at some 25,000 species, including animals, plants, protozoans and bacteria. Under a high-emission scenario, they determined that nearly 90 percent of those species will be at high-to-critical risk across 85 percent of their distribution. This scenario involves an increase of three to five degrees Celsius in global ocean temperatures by the end of the century. 

About 10 percent of the ocean overall features ecosystems that are considered high-risk based on a combination of endemism, climate risk and the threat of local species’ extinction, according to the study.  

In addition to the threat this poses to biodiversity, it presents a major threat to people in the global south, with the biggest danger to species native to low-income countries that rely heavily on fisheries in the tropics and subtropics, according to Boyce and his colleagues. 

Meanwhile, reduced emissions — those consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement’s goals of keeping warming below 2 degrees — would cut the risk for about 98.2 percent of the analyzed species, according to the study.

The analysis is based on a combination 12 climate risk factors. Boyce and his team grouped them under the broader categories of sensitivity, exposure and adaptivity. 

“Our findings show a reduced climate risk for virtually all species and ecosystems under the low emissions scenario,” Boyce wrote in a blog post for Carbon Brief. “Thus, sticking to the goals of the Paris Agreement would have substantial benefits for marine life, with the disproportionate climate risk for ecosystem structure, biodiversity hotspots, fisheries and low-income nations being greatly reduced or eliminated.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Congress implies UFOs have non-human origins

In Congress, where legislation is drafted, debated and enacted, clear and concise definitions are of paramount importance. As military aircrews increasingly encounter unidentified flying objects (UFOs), lawmakers recently made several striking revisions to the definition of “UFO.” Key among them: The explosive implication that some UFOs have non-human origins.

As first reported by researcher Douglas Johnson, a draft bill approved unanimously by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence rebrands UFOs as “unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena.” Expanding the definition to include objects in space and under the oceans significantly broadens the scope of a muscular new office tasked by Congress with investigating UFOs.

The revised definition of “UFO” also includes “transmedium” objects which, according to lawmakers, “transition between space and the atmosphere, or between the atmosphere and bodies of water.”

In short, members of a key national security-focused committee believe that objects of unknown origin are demonstrating remarkably advanced technology by moving seamlessly between space, air and water. A report accompanying the legislation notes that “transmedium threats to United States national security are expanding exponentially.”

It strains credulity to believe that lawmakers would include such extraordinary language in public legislation without compelling evidence. Perhaps members have seen the classified sensor data that prompted former President Trump’s director of national intelligence to state that UFOs exhibit “technologies that we don’t have [and] that we are not capable of defending against” (among several other eyebrow-raising comments).

Most strikingly, Congress’s new definition of “UFO” excludes “man-made” objects.

Over the last seven decades, most UFO sightings involved “man-made” objects, such as misidentified aircraft, balloons, satellites or drones. Yet now, according to Congress, “man-made” objects “should not be considered under the definition as unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena.”

Moreover, in a congressional directive, objects identified by the new UFO office “as man-made…will be passed to appropriate [Department of Defense and Intelligence Community] offices” for further analysis.

Congress, in short, is forcing the government to focus on objects that are not “man-made.”

Imagine that the new UFO office identifies a highly advanced drone flying in sensitive airspace. Under the draft legislation, regardless of the drone’s origin – be it Chinese, Russian or otherwise – the UFO office must immediately stop investigating and hand the case over to another government entity.

This implies that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee believe (on a unanimous, bipartisan basis) that some UFOs have non-human origins. After all, why would Congress establish and task a powerful new office with investigating non-“man-made” UFOs if such objects did not exist?

Make no mistake: One branch of the American government implying that UFOs have non-human origins is an explosive development.

It is also part of a remarkable shift in official attitudes towards UFOs.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, many senior government officials believed that UFOs had “interplanetary” origins. But a series of still-unexplained encounters in the summer of 1952 sparked Cold War national security fears among defense and intelligence agencies. As a result, the U.S. government initiated a campaign to “debunk” and discredit all UFO sightings, no matter how credible. For decades, officials mocked any suggestion that UFOs had extraterrestrial origins.

Not anymore.

In discussions and interviews, NASA administrator Bill Nelson suggested that UFOs encountered by military aircrews in recent years have otherworldly origins. (NASA, it should be noted, is proceeding “full force” on an unprecedented scientific study of UFOs.)

Former CIA Director John Brennan stated that UFOs might “constitute a different form of life.” According to James Woolsey, a fellow ex-CIA director, “something is going on that is surprising to…experienced pilots.”

As Top Gun-trained aviators remain convinced that they observed objects “not of this world,” director of national intelligence Avril Haines – America’s top spy – has not ruled out extraterrestrial origins for UFOs.

Moreover, former President Clinton refers reflexively to the high likelihood of otherworldly life in the universe when asked about UFOs. For his part, former President Obama speculated openly about contact with extraterrestrial life when asked about recent military UFO encounters.

After the customary giggles and smirks that still accompany any mention of “UFO” died down, both Clinton and Obama adopted a serious, matter-of-fact demeanor when discussing the topic. Clinton, in particular, scolded a television audience for laughing when a host asked him about UFOs. Of note, former presidents continue receiving the government’s most sensitive intelligence briefings.

Unsurprisingly, this remarkable shift in attitudes towards UFOs is fostering a broader, richer discussion of the phenomenon.

Comedian and political commentator Bill Maher, for example, recently theorized that UFOs are intentionally revealing themselves to fighter pilots.

He may be on to something. The geometrically reconstructed flight path of a well-known 2015 UFO encounter off the U.S. East Coast indicates that the object reacted as a Navy fighter jet attempted to sneak up behind it. Importantly, the object’s movement did not suggest hostility as much as a desire to be observed by the aircrew, which ultimately “flew right up to the thing.”

A UFO involved in the now famous 2004 “Tic Tac” incidents appeared on radar at the precise location of a rendezvous point known only to a small group of aviators and radar operators. Ten years later, two fighter jets nearly collided with a UFO hovering at the exact location and altitude of an entrance point to a military training range.

To Maher’s point, some UFOs appear to move and position themselves in ways that make their presence obvious to nearby military aircrews.

With Congress openly suggesting that UFOs have non-human origins, this behavior is particularly intriguing.

Marik von Rennenkampff served as an analyst with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, as well as an Obama administration appointee at the U.S. Department of Defense. Follow him on Twitter @MvonRen.

Source: TEST FEED1

Moderate Colorado Republican switches parties, citing stolen election claims

Colorado state Sen. Kevin Priola announced on Monday he is switching to the Democratic Party, saying he could not “in good conscience” be silent about Republicans who baselessly cast doubt on the validity of the 2020 election and the existence of climate change.

Priola, a moderate who served four terms in the Colorado House before arriving in the state Senate in 2017, said the GOP has changed since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and he had hoped the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol would cause Republicans to distance themselves from former President Trump.

“Our political affiliations have become too tribal and too much of a litmus test,” he wrote in an open letter posted to his Twitter account.

“I’ve almost been an independent thinker and sometimes buck the conventional wisdom of my party, and I don’t plan to change that,” he added. “I do not believe either party has a monopoly on the truth.”

Democrats previously held 20 of the state Senate’s 35 seats, meaning Priola’s party change won’t affect the control of the chamber and will only further cement Democrats’ majority. 

But Priola said his ideological views hadn’t shifted, and he continues to hold conservative views on issues such as abortion, school choice and gun control. 

“To be clear, I will not be changing the way I vote on legislation,” he wrote. “I just simply will now cast my votes with a D next to my name instead of an R.”

Priola said he no longer wants to be affiliated with the Republican Party after Jan. 6, also commending in his letter Republicans who have broken with Trump’s position on the riots, including former Vice President Mike Pence, Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) and Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.).

In the wake of the Capitol insurrection, Priola told Colorado Politics that he supported removing Trump from office through the 25th Amendment. He also was the sole Republican to vote with Democrats to call on Congress to pass federal voting rights legislation the same month, Denver7 News reported.

“I cannot continue to be a part of a political party that is okay with a violent attempt to overturn a free and fair election and continues to peddle claims that the 2020 election was stolen,” Priola said.

He also took aim at Republicans’ position on climate change, calling the issue a crisis and an existential threat. Priola noted that Nixon, a Republican, signed legislation as president establishing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

“Today, my Republican colleagues would rather deny the existence of human-caused climate change than take action,” he said. “I increasingly believe this inaction is counter to our responsibility as political leaders.”

Colorado GOP Chairwoman Kristi Burton Brown said in a pair of tweets that Priola has “finally made the move to the party he’s consistently voted with.”

“After lying to his constituents, routinely voting for tax increases, & hurting the working families of his district, he’s now admitted his true affiliation: a pro tax-increase Democrat,” she continued. “It’s clear that Priola has selfishly chosen to make himself the story at the expense of Coloradans he was elected to fight for. He will regret this decision when he is in the minority come January 2023.”

Colorado state Senate President Steve Fenberg (D) celebrated Priola’s decision in a statement, saying the lawmaker chose his constituents over partisan politics.

“Where we’ve had disagreements with Senator Priola in the past, we have always maintained a respectful dialogue,” Fenberg said. “That conversation will continue, only now we will be engaging him as a member of the Democratic Party.”

Source: TEST FEED1

The Hill’s 12:30 Report — New polling recalibrates midterm outlook

To view past editions of The Hill’s 12:30 Report, click here: https://bit.ly/30ARS1U 

To receive The Hill’s 12:30 Report in your inbox, please sign up here: https://bit.ly/3qmIoS9

–> A midday take on what’s happening in politics and how to have a sense of humor about it.* 

*Ha. Haha. Hahah. Sniff. Haha. Sniff. Ha–breaks down crying hysterically.

NEWS THIS MORNING 

Anthony Fauci rides off into the sunset: 

Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical adviser, announced on Monday morning that he will step down from his position in December.  

Plus: He will step down as the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 

Is he retiring?: Fauci says he is not retiring. 

From Fauci’s statement: “While I am moving on from my current positions, I am not retiring. After more than 50 years of government service, I plan to pursue the next phase of my career while I still have so much energy and passion for my field. I want to use what I have learned as NIAID Director to continue to advance science and public health and to inspire and mentor the next generation of scientific leaders as they help prepare the world to face future infectious disease threats.” 

It’s Monday. I’m Cate Martel with a quick recap of the morning and what’s coming up. Did someone forward this newsletter to you? Sign up here. 

📊 Getting traction

This is a poll you will likely keep hearing about:

NBC News released a new poll of Americans’ feelings toward the U.S. ahead of the midterms — and the results are fascinating.  

For example, voters polled think “threats to democracy” is the biggest issue facing the country, even more so than inflation and the economy. 

POLL HIGHLIGHTS: 

This is raising eyebrows: Americans polled said that “threats to democracy” is the No. 1 issue in the country, even more so than “cost of living.” “Jobs and the economy” was ranked as the third-most issue facing the U.S. 

Democrats’ tax, climate and health care bill is popular: 42 percent of respondents think the recently passed reconciliation bill is a good idea; 31 percent say it’s a bad idea. 

The direction the country is headed: 74 percent of voters polled think the country is headed in the wrong direction. 

Are we in a recession?: 68 percent of voters think so.  

When was the poll conducted?: After former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home was raided by the FBI. 

More from the NBC News poll — including analysis from NBC’s Mark Murray 

Here’s the actual poll

🗳 On the campaign trail

The glass is moving from mostly empty to half full:

Via The Hill’s Max Greenwood, “Democrats are growing increasingly optimistic about their chances of holding the Senate this year amid a spate of favorable public polling and signs that some of the GOP’s top candidates are struggling to get their campaigns off the ground.”  

What changed for Democrats?: “The party’s Senate nominees have emerged as formidable campaigners, and many have a solid cash advantage. Party officials are also hoping that recent accomplishments in Washington — most notably the passage of a sweeping tax and climate law — might help energize their base voters ahead of November.” 

What changed for Republicans?: “Republicans, meanwhile, have nominated a series of first-time candidates – all of whom were endorsed by former President Trump in their primaries – who have struggled to turn their races into referendums on Democratic control of Washington, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had hoped, and failed so far to keep pace with their Democratic rivals in fundraising.”  

How the tides are shifting a bit 

INTERESTING ANALYSIS — A LOOK INTO TRUMP’S 220 ENDORSEMENTS: 
“[A] New York Times analysis shows [former President Trump’s] endorsements fall into two major categories: election deniers who have openly spread the lie that he won in 2020, and incumbents whose likely victories — in some cases uncontested — help sensationalize his power inside the party.” 

^ But neither of those categories help Republicans win control of Congress” “Meanwhile, a much smaller percentage of Mr. Trump’s endorsements have been aimed at Democratic seats that would help Republicans win back the majorities in the House and Senate that his party lost while he was in the White House.” 

The interactive story from The New York Times’s Michael C. Bender, Rebecca Lieberman, Eden Weingart, Alyce McFadden and Nick Corasaniti 

‘MIDTERM ELECTIONS TO PUT MISINFORMATION POLICIES TO THE TEST’:
Via The Hill’s Rebecca Klar 

‘THE MAR-A-LAGO RAID GAVE REPUBLICANS AN UNEXPECTED SECOND WIND’: 
Read the op-ed

📱 For Apple users

If you have an iPhone or iPad, do the latest security update ASAP: 

Security experts and Apple are encouraging users to quickly perform the latest update to protect against hackers taking total control of Apple devices. 

How to protect yourself: Go to “settings,” “general,” then “software update.”  

The Associated Press answered the question everyone is wondering — ‘does this mean Apple isn’t doing a good job protecting its users?’: “No. The reality is that hackers are constantly looking for ways to gain unauthorized access to phones, tablets, computers, and other internet-connected devices for a wide range of malicious and illegal purposes.” 

Which Apple devices could be affected?: Most iPhones, iPads and some laptops. Here’s the list of specific Apple products affected 

More on the update and the Apple vulnerability, via The Associated Press’s Mae Anderson and Michael Liedtke

🍊 In Mar-a-Lago

The judge gives the FBI’s evidence his stamp of approval:

Via Politico’s Kyle Cheney, “The federal magistrate judge who authorized the warrant to search Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate emphasized Monday that he ‘carefully reviewed’ the FBI’s sworn evidence before signing off and considers the facts contained in an accompanying affidavit to be ‘reliable.’”  

Will the judge release the affidavit?: “I cannot say at this point that partial redactions will be so extensive that they will result in a meaningless disclosure, but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the Government,” Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart wrote. What we know

🦠 Latest with COVID

➤ THE COVID-19 NUMBERS 

Cases to date: 93.2 million 

Death toll: 1,034,668 

Current hospitalizations: 34,083 

Shots administered: 607 million 

Fully vaccinated: 67.4 percent of Americans 

CDC data here.

🐥Notable tweets

I challenge you not to smile looking at this photo: 

@haysjr_9 tweeted a photo showing “dogs waiting to enter children’s hospital rooms for animal therapy.” Photo — it has more than 60,000 likes so far. 

Well, this will live in my dreams …er, nightmares tonight: 

NASA Exoplanets tweeted, “The misconception that there is no sound in space originates because most space is a ~vacuum, providing no way for sound waves to travel. A galaxy cluster has so much gas that we’ve picked up actual sound. Here it’s amplified, and mixed with other data, to hear a black hole!” Listen to the audio — it has 7.2 million views so far.

⏱On tap

The House and Senate are out. President Biden is in Rehoboth Beach, Del. 

• Vice President Harris has no public events scheduled. 
• Wednesday: Biden and first lady Jill Biden return to the White House.

📺What to watch

• 2 p.m.: State Department spokesperson Ned Price holds a press briefing. Livestream 

 All times Eastern.

🥧 In lighter news 

Today is National Pecan Torte Day.

Oooh, she’s pretty: 

The New York Times’s Priya Krishna writes, “She’s tall and svelte, with a sleek conical hat. She frequents New York City’s most coveted restaurant tables. She lights up a room. Perhaps you’ve seen her? She’s a lamp. The Pina Pro cordless lamp from the Italian design company Zafferano, to be exact. And she’s everywhere.”  

The full story of ‘the lamp that’s taking over New York’ — plus photos

And to brighten your Monday, here’s a dog who excels at braving the elements.

Source: TEST FEED1

Random acts of kindness more impactful than people realize, study finds

Source: TEST FEED1

Larry Summers says White House shouldn't extend student loan payment pause

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers on Monday cautioned the Biden administration against extending the moratorium on federal student loan repayments and knocked “unreasonably generous student loan relief” he said could worsen inflation.

“I hope the administration does not contribute to inflation macro economically by offering unreasonably generous student loan relief or micro economically by encouraging college tuition increases,” Summers, who served during the Clinton administration, said in a series of tweets on Monday morning.

“Every dollar spent on student loan relief is a dollar that could have gone to support those who don’t get the opportunity to go to college,” he continued. “Student loan debt relief is spending that raises demand and increases inflation.”

The Biden administration is expected to make a decision soon on whether to expend the freeze on repayment and interest accrual for student borrowers set to lapse at the end of the month.

The pause was implemented under the Trump administration at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and has since been extended six times.

Advocates and Democrats have pressed for continued relief for borrowers, citing ongoing financial hardship due to the coronavirus pandemic and rising inflation that has forced many Americans to spend more on basic necessities.

However, the continued moratorium has been met with considerable pushback from Republicans who say the relief is too costly and is unfair to Americans who didn’t attend college.

The four-decade high inflation the U.S. has seen in recent months has been at least partially attributed to the stimulus pumped into the American economy during the pandemic. Ending the repayment freeze has drawn support from some budget watchers as one of the most immediate tools the Biden administration has to help reduce inflation.

“It’s not large relative to the size of the inflation problem. But it’s large relative to the president’s tools to fight inflation,” Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told The Hill last week.

Goldwein called ending the payment freeze “one of the most direct and instantaneous tools that the administration has” to combat inflation.

Earlier this year, reports also emerged that the Biden administration was considering canceling $10,000 in student debt for borrowers with certain income restrictions. But it’s unclear if the White House will move forward with the plan. 

Proponents have pushed for widespread cancellation as a means to advance racial equity. Data shows borrowers of color face a disproportionate burden, especially Black Americans, who experts say are more likely to borrow at higher rates and struggle with repayment.

However, some experts have pressed for a more narrowly targeted plan to ensure those most vulnerable receive the relief.

“The worst idea would be a continuation of the current moratorium that benefits among others highly paid surgeons, lawyers and investment bankers,” Summers wrote.

“If relief is to be given it should not set any precedent, it should only be given for the first few thousand dollars of debt, and for those with genuinely middle class incomes.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Did Newt Gingrich wreck American politics?

Pundits and scholars looking for someone to blame for the dismal state of our politics often end up pointing their fingers at the same man: former U.S. representative and speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank argues in a recent column (and in his new book “The Destructionists”) that Gingrich “bears a singular responsibility for precipitating the ruin of the American political system.”

It’s an appealing argument, especially to those of us who worked on the Hill when Gingrich was there and witnessed his incendiary style of politics first-hand. But while Gingrich did help change the way congressional parties operate, his critics greatly overstate his influence on American politics.

Even before he was first elected to Congress in 1978, Gingrich believed that the most important objective of the Republican Party should be to win back control of the House from the Democrats, who had been consistently in charge of the chamber since 1955. As we explain in our new book about Gingrich, the freshman congressman devoted his next 16 years in office to establishing himself as a party entrepreneur, dedicating scarce resources to both help advance the goal of a GOP majority and further his own career.

Gingrich believed that a GOP majority would emerge if the party nationalized elections, better differentiated itself from the opposition and undermined the reputation of the Democratic Party. He and his allies were unafraid to use aggressive tactics in the process. They accused some Democrats of being communist sympathizers and others of being un-American (or worse). Gingrich himself masterminded a media campaign against House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) that suggested (with scant evidence) that Wright was corrupt, leading to the Texan’s resignation from the speakership in 1989. The next year, GOPAC, Gingrich’s campaign organization, urged Republican candidates to use inflammatory words such as “traitors,” “shallow” and “sick” to describe their political opponents.

When Republicans finally won control of the House in 1994, Gingrich pivoted from achieving to preserving his hard-fought majority. But being in charge did not make Gingrich turn soft. Instead, he redirected his energies towards taking on President Clinton, trying – and failing – to get him to agree to GOP spending cuts by forcing two shutdowns of the federal government.

To be sure, many of these tactics helped persuade other Republicans to be more oppositional and internally unified, and to emphasize messaging over legislating. Gingrich also successfully recruited assertive young partisan Republicans to run for Congress, which gradually increased the number of like-minded lawmakers serving in the House.

Moreover, the 1994 election did more than just deliver the majority to Republicans: It convinced lawmakers from both parties that such aggressive tactics were the key to winning power, thus helping to institutionalize these strategies.

In this respect, Gingrich has had a lasting influence over the norms of partisan behavior within Congress.

Still, Gingrich did not singlehandedly coarsen our political oratory. Radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, for example, was a master of provocative language and was heard by far more people than Gingrich. By 1990, Limbaugh’s show aired on close to 300 radio stations and boasted more than 5 million listeners weekly. His success helped boost the careers of other conservative commentators, like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, who are watched by millions of Americans every day.

The rise of rightwing political commentary is just one of several external factors that have encouraged harsh political speech. Modern congressional elections are another. Gerrymandered House districts lead to less competitive elections, with one party holding sway over a particular district for years. Fewer swing districts mean that lawmakers are more likely to lose a primary election than a general election. As a result, they are incentivized to position themselves as more extreme on the assumption that this is what primary voters will prefer.

Another factor is affective polarization – negative attitudes towards people of the opposite party – which is sizable and growing among citizens, creating an additional incentive for politicians to bash their political opponents. And the rise of social media, which is dominated by hateful and angry rhetoric, has almost certainly done more to encourage lawmakers to speak negatively about the opposing party than anything Gingrich may have done three decades ago.

Milbank and others note that Gingrich made baseless, conspiracy-like claims about his opponents, but such behavior has a pedigree that far precedes Gingrich’s time in Congress. Conspiratorial language was a hallmark of the John Birch Society, for example. In a New York Times essay, Robert Draper interviewed a far-right Arizona state party leader who cited as her influence not Gingrich but instead the 1950s Red-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.).

What about another common criticism of Gingrich, that he made lawmakers prefer obstruction to bipartisan cooperation? As a backbencher, Gingrich may have pushed hard for his colleagues to stop working with the majority party. But after suffering from years of heavy-handed rule by House Democrats, they hardly needed much encouragement to do so. Nor was obstruction even a particularly new idea, having been used effectively in the Senate by conservative Democrats like James Allen (Ala.) and, in 1968, by House backbencher Donald Rumsfeld (R-Ill.).

Even if Gingrich did make cross-party cooperation an unappealing strategy, the level of partisan conflict in our national legislature is greatly exaggerated. James Curry and Frances Lee have documented how Congress acts in a bipartisan fashion far more than the public realizes, as evidenced by the accomplishments of the 117th Congress in just the past few months.

In short, Gingrich should rightly be credited (or blamed, depending on your perspective) with helping to mold both parties in Congress into more unified entities that emphasize partisan position-taking over bipartisan legislating. Still, despite his lasting influence, no one person – not even Gingrich – can be held singularly responsible for all that plagues our political system.

Jeffrey Crouch is assistant professor of American politics at American University and the author of “The Presidential Pardon Power” and “The Unitary Executive Theory: A Danger to Constitutional Government.” Matthew Green is professor of American politics at The Catholic University of America, a former congressional staffer and author of several books, including “Legislative Hardball: The House Freedom Caucus and the Power of Threat-Making in Congress.” Their new book, “Newt Gingrich: The Rise and Fall of a Party Entrepreneur,” is published by University Press of Kansas. 

Source: TEST FEED1