Tag Archives : Build House

Biden moves to boost info sharing with families of Americans detained abroad

President Biden on Tuesday will sign an executive order that directs his administration to share more information with families of Americans that the U.S. government says are wrongfully detained abroad, according to senior administration officials.

The order also authorizes government agencies to impose financial sanctions on those “directly or indirectly” involved in American hostage-taking or wrongful detention, according to a White House fact sheet, though the administration is not announcing any immediate penalties.  

In addition, the State Department is rolling out a new “D” risk indicator for travel advisories to single out countries where the risk of wrongful detention by a foreign government is high.  

The Biden administration is immediately labeling six countries with the “D” indicator: Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela, a senior administration official told reporters on a call about the forthcoming announcement.   

The order comes as the Biden administration faces pressure from families of Americans detained overseas to do more to help their situations. The high-profile case of WNBA star Brittney Griner has brought more scrutiny to the administration’s strategy.  

Officials said the actions Biden will announce Tuesday would build on the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act, a 2020 law named after Bob Levinson, the longest-held American hostage who is believed to have died in Iranian custody.  

The executive order “is critical and gives the U.S. government expansive tools to help get Americans home,” another senior administration official said, adding that the order grants the government authority to impose sanctions on those responsible for or complicit in wrongful detention or hostage-taking.  

The official said that the administration would be “judicious and strategic” in its use of sanctions, noting the ultimate goal is to bring Americans home. Later, the official suggested that the administration would invite input from families of detained Americans on potential penalties.  

The 2020 law named after Levinson already authorized the president to impose visa restrictions and property-blocking sanctions against a foreign person responsible for or complicit in the wrongful or unlawful detention of an American citizen abroad. 

Another senior administration official suggested that Biden’s order contained more expansive language to punish those involved in hostage-taking or wrongful detentions. The official said that the administration’s hope is that the sanctions will help deter such behavior long term.  

Biden’s new executive order “directs relevant parts of the U.S. Government to bolster their engagement and sharing of relevant information, including intelligence information, consistent with the protection of sources and methods, with families regarding their loved ones’ status and U.S. Government efforts to secure their release or return, as appropriate,” the White House fact sheet says. 

Additionally, the executive order charges officials across federal agencies to “develop options and strategies” for deterring foreign countries from wrongfully detaining Americans or holding them hostage, according to the fact sheet.  

Biden will sign the executive order a day before a group of families of Americans being held hostage or detained abroad will visit Washington, D.C., to unveil a mural depicting 18 of those Americans. The event is being organized by the Bring Our Families Home Campaign, an effort launched earlier this year to help secure the release of American detainees.  

Officials would not say whether Biden planned to meet with the families but said the new actions showed his commitment to securing the release of Americans held overseas.  

Jonathan Franks, a spokesman for the Bring Our Families Home Campaign, criticized the White House in a statement Monday evening, saying officials held a call with families that day ahead of the mural unveiling but disabled the talk and chat functions so that the families could not speak.  

“As we always try to, we provided the White House with a simple plan for engaging with families more than a week ago. Instead, the White House is taking executive action to direct itself to follow existing law,” Franks said, presumably referring to the forthcoming executive order. 

Biden freed former U.S. Marine Trevor Reed from a Russian prison back in April through a prisoner swap. Reed, who the U.S. government classified as wrongfully detained, had been jailed for almost three years on charges he assaulted a police officer. 

Biden received praise for bringing Reed home, but the action simultaneously triggered questions about other cases, most notably those of Griner and Paul Whelan, who have been held in Russia since February 2022 and December 2018, respectively.  

Earlier this month, Biden phoned Griner’s wife, Cherelle Griner, and later phoned Elizabeth Whelan, Paul Whelan’s sister, after facing criticism from both a lack of outreach.

Source: TEST FEED1

Uvalde parents call for firings at emotional school board meeting: 'You need to clean house'

Parents from Uvalde, Texas, on Monday called for the school board to “clean house” and said “shame on you” during an emotional special meeting following a damning report about the response to the May elementary school shooting that left 19 children and 2 teachers dead.

During the meeting, community members called for the school board to have accountability after a report released on Sunday by a Texas House investigative committee “found systemic failures and egregiously poor decision making” in response to the May 24 school shooting.

Among their appeals, they called for five district officers and Uvalde school district police chief Pete Arredondo to be fired, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

Rachel Martinez, who has four children enrolled in Uvalde schools, asked the school board why they continued to employ the officers who responded to the school attack, according to the news outlet, adding “And then we will have to return our children to you for eight hours a day, five days a week. … You need to clean house and start from zero. This failure falls on all of you.”

“If he’s not fired by noon tomorrow, I want your resignation and every single one of these board members because you don’t give a damn about us or our children,” Brett Cross, whose niece died during the shooting said in reference to Arredondo, according to CBS News.

The Texas House investigative committee’s report on Sunday, which included thousands of documents and spoke with 35 witnesses, noted that while it “did not find any ‘villains’ in the course of its investigation” besides the suspect himself, it faulted the decision-making and “systemic failures” while the shooting was being addressed.

Chief among the issues noted was a “void of leadership,” noting that Arredondo did not perform his duty as incident commander at the time of the attack.

“This was an essential duty he had assigned to himself in the plan mentioned above, yet it was not effectively performed by anyone,” the report said.

“The void of leadership could have contributed to the loss of life as injured victims waited over an hour for help, and the attacker continued to sporadically fire his weapon,” it added.

Arredondo said in an interview last month that he did not believe he was the on-scene incident commander that day.

Source: TEST FEED1

The role of startups in restoring our climate with carbon removal

As the world faces a growing list of climate disasters, from unprecedented summer wildfires in Alaska to record-breaking heat waves in Asia, congressional negotiations on climate action continue to sputter. Amidst this landscape, the U.S. Department of Energy is convening a Carbon Negative Shot Summit this week on climate solutions. The summit is not focused on stopping climate pollution, which is essential to limit the devastation of climate change, but on another growing pillar of climate action: managing the massive amount of pollution that humans have already lodged in our atmosphere. Removing and managing carbon dioxide (CO2) is already happening in tandem with reducing climate pollution, but to reach gigaton-scale carbon management that can make a meaningful dent in U.S. and global climate targets, we need the innovation and ingenuity of startups.

The summit is part of the Energy Department’s efforts to lower the cost of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to $100 per ton or less, when it will be even more commercially viable to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. The federal government’s “moonshot” initiatives have a track record of success, like the 2011 SunShot Initiative lowering the cost of solar energy. Can the Carbon Negative Shot accomplish similar breakthroughs for CDR that the solar industry benefited from in the previous decade? To get to yes, the answer lies with start-ups, which operate in a currency of new ideas, nimbleness and innovation — necessary ingredients for scaling up carbon management. 

The roadmap to gigaton scale removal and management requires multiple approaches because each method provides unique benefits, from the length of time that carbon remains sequestered to the footprint of land area required. The need for a diversity of approaches is reflected in startups themselves, which are advancing a range of solutions to remove, utilize, and manage CO2. 

The increasing number of companies marshaling their talent toward carbon management solutions are guided by global scientific consensus that the world needs to remove gigatons of CO2 to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, in tandem with reducing emissions. As startups work to lower the costs of carbon management, there are precedents for success. Startup innovations have helped to bend the technology cost curve for everything from solar panels, DNA sequencing and 3D printing. Companies managing the opportunities and challenges around CO2 management are buoyed by billions of dollars in private and public funding, highlighting the growing resources for the industry to scale. 

Early-stage companies are uniquely positioned to ensure that the emerging CDR industry not only grows economically, but also responsibly. As the industry continues to grow, it needs a principle akin to the Hippocratic oath that doctors sign, an “Ethical Oath to Restore the Earth.” Designing projects with community benefits in mind is one example of how startups can ensure the responsible growth of the industry. 

Government policies that create a level playing field will help ensure that the best and most economical solutions are the ones that grow as we scale to gigatons of removal by 2030 (a target date established in the United Nations’ science reports). Policies like 45Q, which provides a tax credit for carbon sequestration, is an example of a policy where early-stage companies face challenges. 45Q was adopted before many promising forms of removal were developed and these solutions were not written into the policy. The eligibility requirement sets such a high bar for amount of removal that many startups are precluded.

With startups essential for bending the technology cost curve of carbon management, they are an important group to have at the policy table, to ensure that their voices are heard and that no promising solutions are cut out of the equation prematurely. Summits like Carbon Negative Shot benefit from multiple groups coming together. This includes corporations who rely on carbon management startup solutions to achieve their net-zero pledges, academics who guide research, community voices around project development, as well as governments that set the policies. As the industry scales up, we should not overlook the importance of having early-stage companies join this table. 

From the printing press to penicillin, innovation has a track record of improving our world. Startups can help us do the same for carbon management. 

Ben Rubin is the executive director and co-founder of the Carbon Business Council, a nonprofit trade association of more than 40 startups unified to restore the climate. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Gas prices hit two month low in US

Gas prices in the United States are easing amid high inflation and a continued Russian invasion in Ukraine, hitting a two-month low on Tuesday.

Data from the American Automobile Association (AAA) showed a $4.495 per gallon national average gas price on Tuesday, hitting a two-month low, according to Bloomberg. South Carolina was the only state on the association’s map that showed gas prices under $4.

The development comes as the nation still grapples with high inflation. 

Labor Department data released last week showed that inflation had increased more than nine percent from a year ago as the country navigates lingering supply chain issues and an international conflict in Ukraine that has further impacted commodities.

President Biden recently returned from a trip to the Middle East, which included a visit to Saudi Arabia where oil and energy was discussed.

He said last week that “we had a good discussion on ensuring global energy security and adequate oil supplies to support global economic growth” and added that “I’m doing all I can to increase the supply for the United States of America, which I expect to happen.”

However, Biden said there were no immediate plans regarding increased oil production.

But members of the Biden administration have expressed that oil prices are unlikely to continue remaining high for the foreseeable future.

Amos Hochstein, the special presidential coordinator for international energy affairs, said earlier this week he believed that in the coming weeks the national price of gas would move near $4 a gallon.

Source: TEST FEED1

Press: It’s Christmas in July for Joe Biden

Joe Biden needed a break. He’s had a ton of bad news lately: inflation; a new strain of COVID-19; low poll numbers; that awkward fist-bump with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman; and, worst of all, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who’s managed to single-handedly torpedo everything Biden’s tried to accomplish. 

Biden needed a break, and he just got one: Donald Trump’s all but announcing he’s going to run for president in 2024. “We did it twice and we’ll do it again,” Trump routinely crows. And he’s reportedly told top aides, who have advised against it, that he can’t wait. He plans to announce in September, before the midterm elections. 

How dumb of Trump, yet how good for Biden. If there were security cameras in place, you might see Biden dancing and singing “Hallelujah” in the Rose Garden. 

Of course, it’s no secret why Trump insists on jumping in so early. He wants to freeze the GOP primary field, and will. Not even uber-ambitious Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis would dare challenge the former president, unless Trump is indicted. Trump also wants to keep the GOP money spigot flowing, and will, milking supporters for campaign funds (even though his Save America PAC had $110 million on hand at the end of May). 

Trump may also believe that, by becoming a candidate for president, he could inoculate himself against criminal charges that might be filed against him by Fulton County, Ga., or the Department of Justice, which won’t work. Sitting presidents may be immune from being charged with a crime, but there’s no such protection for anyone seeking the office. 

But, more than anything, Trump wants to announce so soon because he feels oxygen-deprived. When he surfs the cables these days, he panics. People are talking about Ukraine, Uvalde, gas prices, shark sightings or baby formula. It’s not all about HIM. He’s not on the front page anymore. He’s lucky if he’s even on page 18. He can’t stand it. So he figures there’s only one way to get back on top of the news: Announce for president! Now! 

It awakened emotions of faith among leaders of both parties. Joe Biden exults: “Thank you, Jesus!” And most Republicans running for office in 2022 whisper (but only so low that nobody will hear them): “Oh, no. God forbid!” 

What Trump doesn’t get is that, above all, Biden had one thing going for him in 2020, one factor, more than any other, that propelled him into the Oval Office. Yes, he had more experience, both as  a senator and  as vice president. Yes, he knew how government worked. Yes, he might have been a little rusty and maybe too old. But, more than anything else, Biden had one huge selling point: He wasn’t Donald Trump.  

Biden himself admitted that to The New York Times, as Mark Leibovich reports in his rollicking new book, “Thank You for Your Servitude.” Asked by Leibovich early in the 2020 primary why he was running again, Biden didn’t list his own qualifications for office. Instead, he said simply: “I think it’s really, really, really important that Donald Trump not be reelected.” 

Now Biden and every Democratic candidate can make that argument all over again. They don’t even have to wait till 2024. They can make it now, starting in 2022. Before anything else, every Republican candidate will have to answer one question: Will you support Donald Trump in 2024?  

Once he announces, the midterms will become a national referendum on Trump. That’s the last thing Republicans want, but it’s great news for Biden. 

Press is host of “The Bill Press Pod.” He is the author of “From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Common questions about PFAS, answered

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of thousands of chemicals found in everything from floss, to makeup, to frying pans, to clothes — and the list goes on. 

Numerous studies have been published documenting the harmful health and environmental impacts of these chemicals, especially in water systems.

But no federal agency currently enforces PFAS regulations for drinking water, although several states have enacted local policies.

Meanwhile, reforms aimed at phasing out certain PFAS from U.S. production processes have resulted in companies substituting lesser-known — and sometimes understudied — chemicals that might be just as dangerous, researchers warn. 

A disjointed approach to regulation, the myriad health problems associated with exposure, lack of public information on private production practices, and limited communications from health agencies combined can easily lead to confusion in the average consumer. 

Here are some common questions about PFAS, and answers based on research and interviews with experts.

What exactly are PFAS and can they be dangerous?

PFAS are incredibly tough substances that are extremely difficult to break down, earning them the moniker “forever chemicals.” The bond between carbon and fluorine atoms is one of the strongest in chemistry, inhibiting PFAS’ natural environmental degradation. Along  with their high physiologic activity in humans, these characteristics contribute to the chemicals’ risks.

Over time the substances build up, and experts have concluded even periodic limited exposure to PFAS can be dangerous. Toxicology signals from low, infrequent exposure have put some scientists on high alert.

Despite the ubiquitous nature of these chemicals, their presence in drinking water is a pressing concern, researchers say.

“The difference between water and cosmetics is not really a difference of the route of exposure. It’s a difference of the amount that we get,” explained Alan Ducatman in an interview with Changing America. “And we get more [PFAS] if it’s in our water than if it’s in our cosmetics. But it’s undesirable in both cases.”

Ducatman is a doctor and professor emeritus at West Virginia University. He served as a principal investigator for health communications on the C8 health project, developed in response to E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co’s contamination of drinking water in West Virginia with certain PFAS. 

DuPont has since merged with Dow Chemical, and subsequently broken into Dow Inc., which specializes in material science; Corteva, which focuses on agriculture; and DuPont de Nemours, Inc., commonly referred to as DuPont, which focuses on specialty products. 

Chemours, another spinoff of DuPont established prior to the Dow merger, has come under fire for its use of GenX, a replacement PFAS manufactured without PFOA, though company efforts are underway to trap the pollutant before it enters the environment. An EPA toxicity assessment for GenX found the chemical has harmful impacts on animals’ liver, kidneys, immune system, and offspring development.

Unlike other toxic chemicals, the threat of PFAS exposure lies in their ability to result in chronic disease, said Jaime DeWitt, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at East Carolina University.

“In some ways that makes them worse than acutely toxic chemicals because once you develop a chronic disease, you’re probably not going to get cured,” DeWitt said in an interview. “If you develop something like an immune suppressive disorder, you may have other diseases as you progress through life.”

Why is public attention swelling now?

PFAS have been around since the 1930s, but some might credit the highly publicized court case brought against DuPont in the early 2000s for the increased attention paid to these chemicals throughout the past few decades. 

However, Ducatman would like to think it’s more “about the symphony crescendo of increasing evidence that” points to the chemicals’ harmful impact on humans.

“We now have very good evidence that the bio accumulative chemicals are problems from multiple perspectives including for the liver and the kidney, and the immune system, and for at least two cancer outcomes, [and] preeclampsia in women,” Ducatman said. 

Recent research has also prompted responses from state governments and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with particular focus on water contamination. 

EPA recommendations are just that though, recommendations absent any enforcement. These advisories also only pertain to four PFAS, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS).

“If and when EPA will establish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS it will take into account both technological feasibility and economic cost,” said Rainer Lohmann, a professor of oceanography and director of the University of Rhode Island Superfund Research Center, ‘STEEP,’ in a statement to Changing America. But removing PFAS from drinking water is a very pricey endeavor, underscoring the importance of preventing contamination in the first place.

U.S. production of PFOA and PFOS, two common PFAS, was phased out in 2016 but their effects linger in the environment, while products that were developed prior to 2016 still in circulation pose risks, as do products imported from other countries.

Under the new EPA health advisory, acceptable levels of PFOA in drinking water were set to .004 ng/l parts per trillion (PPT), and .02 ng/l ppt for PFOS – miniscule amounts that are effectively below limits of detection with current analytical technologies, DeWitt said.

“So the agency is saying, ‘if you can detect PFAS in your drinking water, then that level is too high.’”

How concerned should the average consumer be?

“Maybe best described as concerned but not panicked,” replied Lohmann when posed this question. 

“Having access to ‘clean’ drinking water is most important, as it is relatively easy to obtain (and to identify PFAS in it). It is far more difficult to know which of your cosmetics, outdoor gear or dental floss contains PFAS, to name a few,” he continued. Mandatory product labeling could better aid consumers looking to avoid these chemicals.

For Ducatman, given the choice between being a pack-a-day smoker and being exposed to 2005 levels of PFAS – the year DuPont settled with the EPA over the West Virginia contamination – he would choose PFAS exposure. 

“But that is not really very comforting, that’s the opposite of comforting,” he said, adding existing evidence puts this class of chemicals on par with other biopersistent organic chemicals like dioxins – substances that are regulated due to their health risks.

More research is needed to fully understand the effects of PFAS as a whole and exposure to individual chemicals. But ultimately, “I don’t think we have to wait for more instances of proving that yet another organ system is harmed before we get serious about them,” Ducatman said. 

Threats can also vary depending on where someone lives and their socioeconomic status.

“We know that some people are exposed to greater amounts of PFAS because of the water contamination in their area,” DeWitt explained. 

“And if you can’t afford to put in a whole house or even under the sink filtration system, then your exposure is going to be higher than somebody who can afford to pay for those things.”

What is being done to address this issue?

Addressing PFAS contamination is an expensive undertaking, due in part to the large number of chemicals included in this class. Although many studies have been conducted on PFOA and PFOS, relatively less is known about other PFAS. 

“The consumer can play a role in making sure that they don’t get these things if they don’t want them,” said Ducatman. Looking for the chemicals on product labels could be one way to mitigate exposure.

But private companies could also be more open and communicative with the federal government with regards to replacement PFAS used, he added. 

“Some of the replacement chemicals have remarkably active toxicology – whether they’re going to be as big a problem as their predecessors, I think it’s an open question because they may not be as bio accumulative in some circumstances,” he noted. 

These replacements can also be more physiologically active, “and we’re just hoping against hope that their lack of bioaccumulation is going to protect us and other species,” Ducatman said. “I don’t think hope is a very good federal policy.”

However, some experts argue the burden of vetting products should not fall on consumers and that state and federal regulators need to step up to address the problem.

“I’m not suggesting that our state and federal agencies aren’t doing their jobs. I am suggesting though, that we have a system that makes it especially difficult for our state and federal agencies to do their jobs,” DeWitt said, citing the recent Supreme Court decision that stripped EPA of some of its regulatory powers. 

Being proactive in addressing the problem instead of retroactive might also ease burdens put on regulators’ shoulders. 

Currently, the EPA acts on a single PFAS at a time, usually examining the risks of compounds already on the market, explained Lohmann. “This perpetuates EPA having to react to bad chemicals, rather than prevent their production in the first place.”

Lohmann and his team at the University of Rhode Island are working to identify the transport of PFAS away from contaminated sites. They are also working to establish detection tools for PFAS assessments in groundwater and better understand contamination routes in dust, indoor air or consumer products. 

More research aimed at understanding the class as a whole, or as several subclasses as opposed to individual chemicals can also help move the needle, according to DeWitt. 

“I think if we look at the common threads of concern among all PFAS, we can consider a class-based approach to their management,” DeWitt said. “So even though there’s greater than 12,000 individual chemicals, we don’t have to know everything about every single one of those 12,000 chemicals to know that as a class they pose concerns for society and for environmental health.”

Currently, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont enforce MCLs for drinking water, while 12 other states have issued guidance on safe PFAS levels. Local research labs are also working to study the effects of PFAS and mitigate their impact. 

“What has to come next is better health communications, and some approach to some cost effective way to cleaning up a very large mess that we haven’t completely characterized yet,” Ducatman concluded. 

What are companies saying?

3M, another manufacturing company, first developed and sold PFOA and PFOS. When asked about the company’s use of any replacement PFAS in current production processes, a spokesperson told Changing America, “Treating [PFAS] as a single group or class is not scientifically sound or appropriate.” 

This stance is in direct opposition to some of the solutions proposed by experts as it would likely take ample time and resources to individually study each of the over 12,000 chemicals. 

The statement continued: “In some applications, no suitable technical and/or economically feasible alternative is currently available,” and noted CDC testing for perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), a replacement for PFOS, in the general population was halted as none of the chemical was detected. 

However, just because a chemical is not widely detected in humans does not mean it is safe. 

According to an EPA toxicity assessment of PFBS, the chemical has been found in surface water, wastewater, drinking water, dust, carpeting, carpet cleaners and floor wax, while animal studies have linked PFBS exposure with effects on the thyroid, kidney, reproductive organs and tissues, and fetal development. 

DuPont de Nemours, which was formed in 2019 as result of the Dow-DuPont merger and subsequent spinoff, “has never produced PFOA or PFOS,” the company said in a statement to Changing America when asked about any replacement PFAS currently in use.

“The company has established a set of commitments to take responsible action related to PFAS, and also supports sensible, science-based regulatory standards on PFAS that will provide clear, uniform guidance for all,” the statement continued. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Despite ‘jobs recovery,’ millions more Americans hooked on Medicaid, food stamps — and Biden's to blame

In recent weeks, President Biden has continued his longstanding and deceptive tradition of claiming his administration has ushered in an era of unprecedented economic growth.

“This has been the fastest and strongest jobs recovery in American history, and it would not have been possible without the decisive action my Administration took last year to fix a broken COVID response, and pass the American Rescue Plan to get our economy back on track,” Biden said in a July 8 statement to the press.

Although it’s true that millions of jobs have been recovered since Biden entered the White House, few, if any, were the result of his administration’s efforts to “fix a broken COVID response” or the passage of the costly, inflation-inducing American Rescue Plan.

The vast majority of jobs recovered were the direct result of the development of COVID-19 vaccines – an achievement that occurred under the Trump administration, not Biden – and because state governments, not the White House, finally came to their senses in 2021 and reversed course on numerous draconian policies that had kept much of their economies closed throughout 2020.

Most importantly, Biden’s misleading claims make no mention of the myriad economic crises now brewing as a direct result of Democrats’ reckless policies, including the millions more Americans who are hooked on government welfare programs despite relatively low unemployment and more than 11 million job openings.

Enrollment in Medicaid and the Children Health Insurance Program (CHIP) offers an excellent illustration of this disturbing trend. In February 2020, just prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in America, there were 71.2 million people enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. As of March 2022, the most recently available data, enrollment was nearly 87.9 million, an increase of 23 percent in just over two years.

Although most of the rise in Medicaid enrollment occurred in 2020, when millions of workers lost their employment a result of government-imposed lockdowns, a sizeable chunk of the increase occurred during Biden’s time in the White House.

According to data from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services, enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP skyrocketed by more than 6 million from March 2021 to March 2022. But, strangely, during the same period, the number of Americans employed also rose, by more than 7 million.

This phenomenon is not limited to Medicaid, either. Enrollment in SNAP, commonly referred to as food stamps, has increased by more than 4 million since the start of the pandemic, from 36.8 million in February 2020 to 41.3 million in March 2022, even though total employment has nearly returned to its pre-pandemic levels.

Why has the number of American families dependent on government expanded while employment has recovered? You can thank backwards policies imposed by congressional Democrats in 2020 and further expanded by the Biden administration in 2021 and 2022.

When the Democrat-led Congress passed COVID-19 relief legislation in March 2020, it increased Medicaid funding for states. One of the conditions states were forced to accept to receive the additional funds was a “continuous coverage” requirement, which made it illegal for state governments to remove most Americans from their Medicaid rolls until the federal government lifted its official “public health emergency” designation.

A similar provision in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act allows states to continue to receive additional federal food stamp funding while waiving time limits and other recipient requirements — but again, only so long as the COVID-19 public health emergency designation remains in place.

Despite America’s relatively low coronavirus death rate and the near-complete reopening of state and local economies nationwide, the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services has repeatedly renewed its public health emergency declaration. Most recently, the public health emergency was set to expire on July 15, but before the emergency declaration ended, the Biden administration once again announced its renewal, keeping the emergency provisions in place until at least mid-October 2022.

Biden’s embrace of the never-ending “public health emergency” has forced states to keep millions of people enrolled in Medicaid who otherwise would not be eligible, and it has also substantially increased dependency on food stamps. Together, these expanded programs are costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in additional expenses every year.

Of course, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Liberal politicians like Biden always expand the size of government when the opportunity presents itself, and for them, COVID-19 has been the mother of all opportunities.

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

Source: TEST FEED1

Twitter won't remove Marjorie Taylor Greene anti-transgender tweets

Twitter is allowing several anti-transgender tweets from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) that reference HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine to remain on its platform.

In one tweet, Greene includes a clip of a video of Levine, who is trangender, during an MSNBC appearance in which the Biden administration official says, “We really want to base our treatment and to affirm and to support and empower these youth, not to limit their participation in activities to sports and even limit their ability to get gender affirmation treatment in their state.”

In the tweet, Greene used offensive language to refer to transgender reassignment surgery and also referred to Levine by her deadname. 

Another tweet from Greene misgendered the Biden administration official, used Levine’s deadname and similar language to reference transgender reassignment surgery.

Both tweets are still posted on Twitter and include labeling from the social media platform that says “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about hateful conduct. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.”

In a statement to Axios regarding the matter, Twitter reiterated what it said when it labeled Greene’s tweets.

Twitter has previously flagged tweets from other elected officials that have misgendered Levine, including in March when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) referred to the Biden administration official as a man.

The social media platform allowed that tweet to remain on its site but labeled it had violated its rules on hateful conduct, adding that Twitter has “determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.”

The Hill has reached out to Greene’s office and Twitter for comment. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Feehery: Post-Dobbs, Republicans need to get their act together on abortion

As a pro-lifer, I am delighted that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. That said, I think Republicans need to get their act together on abortion.  

Letting chaos reign – allowing the most extreme elements within the party to define the party’s position on abortion – is not good politically for the GOP and not good legally or morally for the nation.  

Republicans should state unequivocally that they do not support banning contraception. This is not a politically sustainable position.  

Republicans should also state unequivocally that Roe v. Wade (which legalized abortion nationally) is not Loving v. Virginia (which legalized interracial marriage) and it is not Obergefell v. Hodges (which legalized same-sex marriage). Democrats are trying to conflate all these decisions because they know Roe was bad law and by far the least politically sustainable position of the three.  

Republicans should state clearly and unequivocally that the drugs sometimes used for abortion but usually used for other purposes, such as medication to fight lupus and other diseases, will not be banned and can be used for whatever reason they are legally prescribed for. Democrats are trying to paint the worst-case scenarios to put Republicans on the defensive, and this is one of the prime examples. 

Republicans should be very careful on the rape and incest issue. Some policymakers believe that a child is a child no matter how they are made, and thus should be protected under all circumstances. I find that position compelling. But not all Republicans — I daresay it’s a small minority — share that position. Abortions following rape and incest are statistically very rare (about 1 percent of all abortions). But as we saw in Ohio when a pregnant 10-year-old travelled to another state for an abortion, they do happen, and wishing these hard cases away won’t make them go away.  

If the mother’s life is at stake, it should be preserved. Pro-life means protecting the life of the mother too. I know it can sometimes get very complicated, but on issues such as this one, we need more compassion and understanding and less dogma.  

Banning the morning-after pill won’t work either, and it will lead to a dangerous black market that could imperil the lives of young women and be a boon to criminal drug peddlers across the country.  

Chasing down women who travel across state lines to get an abortion is not politically or morally sustainable. 

The most politically defensible position is to find a timeframe, probably 15 to 20 weeks, after which most Americans believe abortion should be illegal. If this position is good enough for Western Europe, it should be good enough for the United States of America — and most polls find that it is.  

Making sure companies that pay for their employees’ abortions don’t get tax breaks is a winning issue for Republicans. Making sure that companies don’t pressure their employees to get abortions so they keep working is another good issue. 

It’s not just Republicans who are flailing on the issue of abortion. Democrats seem downright blood-thirsty in their approach. They not only want taxpayers to fund abortion, but they are more than willing to allow abortion up to the moment of birth.  

Democrats like to frame their quest for abortion-on-demand as reproductive rights, or reproductive justice, a horrific twisting of the language that hides their true goal, which is to terminate the life of an innocent unborn child.  

Politically, Republicans have probably already lost the white college-educated female cohort of voters who hated former President Trump and are most intense in their desire for abortion rights. But this issue presents peril for both political parties — if they let their most extreme elements define their positions.  

Republicans would be wise to come up with the most politically defendable position on abortion and define the Democrats as the real extremists on the issue. 

Feehery is a partner at EFB Advocacy and blogs at thefeeherytheory.com. He served as spokesman to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), as communications director to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and as a speechwriter to former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.).  

Source: TEST FEED1

Raising the game for athletes of Ukraine — and the world

Olha Zavhorodnya is a name you likely have not heard before. From the small industrial town of Pryluky, about 100 miles east of Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, Zavhorodnya was a talented sprinter who competed in the same event as I, the 400-meter run. After retiring from international competition, her passion for sport — clean sport — inspired her work at the National Anti-Doping Organization of Ukraine, where she became the head of education. She was promoted to head of testing, responsible for coordinating doping controls of Ukrainian athletes, after a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) investigation found her predecessor cheated on testing for years. 

When the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, and with her town under intense shelling, Zavhorodnya was able to board an evacuation train heading west, but not before she safely secured the remaining samples from the last testing of Ukrainian athletes so they could be removed later and analyzed at WADA-accredited laboratory. The Polish Anti-Doping Agency quickly arranged her safe passage to Warsaw, where she continues to work for Ukraine from her remote office. Her determination to protect clean sport and uphold the anti-doping system helps enable Ukrainian athletes to continue competing in international sporting events. Until Zavhorodnya can return to her native country and her family members there, she waits for a daily message from her mother and sister to let her know they survived another night. 

Apart from Zavhorodnya’s personal bravery and dedication, this story highlights what the world of anti-doping is all about — cooperation and solidarity. Led and coordinated by WADA, the global regulatory body, anti-doping efforts would not exist without the thousands of committed individuals in hundreds of countries.

Today, the world is in a precarious situation. As a result of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, war once again rages in Europe. WADA condemns this aggression and stands in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and its athletes.

Meanwhile, many Ukrainian athletes are still training and competing internationally and so, we must continue to support them and include them in the anti-doping process. WADA recently asked 19 national anti-doping organizations, in countries where elite Ukrainian athletes are now living, to include them in their testing plans. We asked them to fund sample collection and analysis as a gesture of goodwill, and to ensure the overall integrity of the system. I knew they would rise to that challenge. Of the 19 NADOs we contacted, all agreed to assist. In addition, International Sport Federations have agreed to test Ukrainian athletes. The response to our appeal shows, yet again, the fundamental strength of our system.

While the war continues, most Russian athletes are ineligible to participate in international sport. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) remains noncompliant with the World Anti-Doping Code because of the Russian authorities’ brazen attempts to manipulate data from its Moscow laboratory in an effort to thwart WADA’s investigations. But it is important that we keep an open line of communication with RUSADA to discuss operational matters and oversee its activities. We want to ensure that the war does not give a free pass to cheats. We also must continue to monitor RUSADA in accordance with the noncompliance ruling issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in December 2020.

The war in Ukraine is a tragedy. Yet it has brought out the best in the global anti-doping community. We stand united with athletes and clean sport colleagues from Ukraine. Last month, for the first time in three years because of the COVID-19 pandemic, WADA held its annual symposium for the clean sport community, featuring a varied agenda of 25 sessions addressing subjects such as athlete empowerment, scientific innovation, governance reforms, values-based education, and intelligence and investigations. For me, the highlight was the simple coming together — in person and virtually — of close to 1,000 people from all over the world under the conference theme of “Raising the Game.”

Clean sport is all about solidarity, unity, partnership. Without the commitment and dedication of every stakeholder group, our diverse anti-doping community simply cannot achieve its mission. We work tirelessly together to protect the integrity of sport worldwide.

More than two decades ago, the United States helped create WADA so that athletes from all over the globe would compete on a level playing field, with one set of anti-doping standards. As Poland’s former Minister of Sport, and now as WADA president, I know firsthand how critical U.S. leadership and engagement has been to protecting fair sport around the world. In particular, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and its director, Dr. Rahul Gupta, have provided ongoing support of WADA’s clean sport mission. 

As the global anti-doping system responds to the consequences caused by the Russian war against Ukraine, WADA and athletes everywhere will benefit from the unified foundation that has been set. Further inspired by Olha Zavhorodnya and many more of her compatriots, WADA is determined to deliver on its priorities, with our partners in Washington and around the globe.

Sport can represent everything that is pure and good. It builds communities, promotes tolerance and fosters respect — for teammates, for opponents, for ourselves. In this way, sport may be one of the best teachers for youths, but only clean sport. It is up to all of us to do everything we can to protect it.

Witold Bańka is president of the World Anti-Doping Agency. He is a former Minister of Sport and Tourism, Poland, who authored the country’s bill on the Fight Against Doping in Sport, and was an elite runner who represented Poland internationally from 2005-2012. Follow him on Twitter @WitoldBanka.

Source: TEST FEED1