ReportWire

Tag: federal funding

  • Oshkosh Area Community Pantry is seeking partners after losing $120K worth of food from federal cuts

    [ad_1]

    OSHKOSH – The Oshkosh Area Community Pantry is seeking more community partnerships in the wake of federal cuts.

    Executive Director Ryan Rasmussen made the plea, saying the cancellation of the Local Food Purchase Cooperative Agreement Program resulted in the loss of around $120,000 worth of produce.

    “Of course, we will always continue to operate with the partnerships we have, but the level at which we feed the community may look different depending on the donations we get going forward,” Rasmussen told the Northwestern.

    “I have full faith in our community because they’ve always rallied, so I am certainly hopeful new donations will come our way.”

    Read more: Oshkosh’s top stories of 2025 so far include OASD facilities referendum, AirVenture & more

    The Trump administration cut two federal food programs that provided $1 billion of funding under the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    OACP is just one of more than 50,000 entities, including schools and other food banks, severely impacted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture ending two federal food programs in March that allotted around $1 billion in funding.

    It’s estimated the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement provided about $420 million — funding that food banks like OACP use to buy fresh produce from local farmers to feed their guests.

    Rasmussen said Oshkosh farmers already had allotted “plants in the ground” for OACP prior to the termination of the program, resulting in what he estimates to be the loss of an entire summer crop of food.

    “Access to healthy food shouldn’t be a luxury, it’s a basic need,” Rasmussen wrote in a recent news release. “Programs like LFPA helped us build strong connections between local farms and food assistance organizations.”

    Read more: Oshkosh bridge closure starts Sept. 2 — here’s what to know

    OASP assists more than 2,800 families monthly at its 2551 Jackson St. location.

    Volunteers Michelle Diener, left, and Sue Schmid sort and organize boxes of produce Monday, Oct. 4, 2021, at the Oshkosh Area Community Pantry in Oshkosh.

    According to Rasmussen, the loss of federal funding comes at a time when OACP assists more than 2,800 families a month — a record high for the Oshkosh food bank.

    It’s also a number Rasmussen doesn’t see “coming down any time soon.”

    OASP has received a measure of relief in the form of $60,000 worth of donations from Olden Organics, Winnebago County, Women Who Care Greater Oshkosh, Oshkosh Area Community Foundation and Feeding America Eastern Wisconsin.

    Rasmussen is also asking for more community members to assist OACP’s efforts by donating, volunteering and supporting local farmers.

    “Fresh, local food is not only better for our health, but it also strengthens our local economy and builds community resilience,” Olden Organics wrote in a news release.

    “We’re proud to continue working alongside OACP to make a difference right here in our region.”

    OACP is open for guest shopping at the St. Vincent de Paul building, 2551 Jackson St., from 2 to 6 p.m. Mondays and 10 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

    Contact Justin Marville at jmarville@gannett.com and follow him on X (formerly Twitter) at @justinmarville.

    This article originally appeared on Oshkosh Northwestern: Oshkosh Area Community Pantry impacted by federal cuts, seeks partners

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California lawmakers seek flood protection funding amid Hurricane Katrina anniversary

    [ad_1]

    As the nation reflects on the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, California lawmakers are raising concerns about the state’s flood preparedness and advocating for increased federal funding for essential flood protection projects.The Army Corps of Engineers is actively working along the Sacramento River to double the size of a weir, one of many flood protection projects deemed vital by officials. “The city of Sacramento is one of the most at-risk regions in the entire nation for catastrophic flooding,” said Greg Trible from the Army Corps of Engineers. It’s one of several projects that experts say is part of a large network of flood protection measures in the state. Despite the ongoing work, federal funding for four other projects is at risk.Representative Josh Harder and other Democratic California Representatives are pushing for $126 million to be reinstated in the President’s latest construction budget, warning that without it, construction updates necessary to protect Stockton, Lodi, and Manteca could halt.”We’re going to see hammers stop mid-stroke, we’re going to see money taken away from some of the needed construction updates to keep Stockton and Lodi and Manteca safe,” Harder said, attributing the situation to political games.RELATED | Do you live near an unsafe dam? See interactive mapHarder, along with other members of Congress, signed a letter in June urging the House to increase what they called “seriously insufficient” funding. Among the proposed cuts are repairs to levees in West Sacramento and Natomas, as well as increased flood protection in Watsonville and the San Joaquin River Basin. “San Joaquin County is one of the most densely populated floodplains anywhere in the United States,” Harder said, emphasizing the need for flood protection.Todd Bernardy from the California Department of Water Resources highlighted the state’s perspective, saying, “We need to improve and create better resiliency for our infrastructure.” He noted that 300 miles of levee improvements are needed in the Central Valley, equating to about $12 billion total. Trible stressed the importance of proactive measures. “It’s about protecting our people, our friends, and neighbors here in Sacramento families. That’s why we’re doing the work that we’re doing,” he said. Harder echoed this sentiment. “It’s so much cheaper to build a levee to prevent a flood than to rebuild after a natural disaster,” he said.Bernardy also acknowledged the ongoing risk. “You’re never going to get your risk down to zero,” he said. “There’s always going to be residual risk, and the infrastructure is part of reducing that risk.”The Trump administration’s budget requested approximately $1.5 billion for construction, with the House-passed version adding substantial funding, including for California projects. The Senate has yet to release its version, but the situation continues to be closely monitored.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    As the nation reflects on the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, California lawmakers are raising concerns about the state’s flood preparedness and advocating for increased federal funding for essential flood protection projects.

    The Army Corps of Engineers is actively working along the Sacramento River to double the size of a weir, one of many flood protection projects deemed vital by officials.

    “The city of Sacramento is one of the most at-risk regions in the entire nation for catastrophic flooding,” said Greg Trible from the Army Corps of Engineers.

    It’s one of several projects that experts say is part of a large network of flood protection measures in the state. Despite the ongoing work, federal funding for four other projects is at risk.

    Representative Josh Harder and other Democratic California Representatives are pushing for $126 million to be reinstated in the President’s latest construction budget, warning that without it, construction updates necessary to protect Stockton, Lodi, and Manteca could halt.

    “We’re going to see hammers stop mid-stroke, we’re going to see money taken away from some of the needed construction updates to keep Stockton and Lodi and Manteca safe,” Harder said, attributing the situation to political games.

    RELATED | Do you live near an unsafe dam? See interactive map

    Harder, along with other members of Congress, signed a letter in June urging the House to increase what they called “seriously insufficient” funding. Among the proposed cuts are repairs to levees in West Sacramento and Natomas, as well as increased flood protection in Watsonville and the San Joaquin River Basin.

    “San Joaquin County is one of the most densely populated floodplains anywhere in the United States,” Harder said, emphasizing the need for flood protection.

    Todd Bernardy from the California Department of Water Resources highlighted the state’s perspective, saying, “We need to improve and create better resiliency for our infrastructure.”

    He noted that 300 miles of levee improvements are needed in the Central Valley, equating to about $12 billion total.

    Trible stressed the importance of proactive measures.

    “It’s about protecting our people, our friends, and neighbors here in Sacramento families. That’s why we’re doing the work that we’re doing,” he said.

    Harder echoed this sentiment.

    “It’s so much cheaper to build a levee to prevent a flood than to rebuild after a natural disaster,” he said.

    Bernardy also acknowledged the ongoing risk.

    “You’re never going to get your risk down to zero,” he said. “There’s always going to be residual risk, and the infrastructure is part of reducing that risk.”

    The Trump administration’s budget requested approximately $1.5 billion for construction, with the House-passed version adding substantial funding, including for California projects. The Senate has yet to release its version, but the situation continues to be closely monitored.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge blocks Trump from withholding funds from Los Angeles, other sanctuary cities

    [ad_1]

    By Dietrich Knauth and Nate Raymond

    (Reuters) -A U.S. federal judge on Friday blocked Donald Trump‘s administration from withholding federal funding from more than 30 so-called sanctuary jurisdictions including Los Angeles, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago that have declined to cooperate with the Republican president’s hardline immigration crackdown.

    U.S. District Judge William Orrick expanded an injunction that he initially issued in April covering 16 cities and counties including San Francisco, where he is based, to cover a new batch of local governments that recently joined the case and sought to be protected under his court order.

    The lawsuit was filed after Trump signed two executive orders in January and February that the cities and counties said unlawfully threatened to cut off funding to them unless they cooperated with federal immigration law enforcement, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    Those orders targeted so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that have laws and policies that limit or prevent local law enforcement from assisting federal officers with civil immigration arrests.

    Orrick on Friday said Trump’s orders “threaten to withhold all federal funding from the plaintiffs as sanctuary jurisdictions if they do not adapt their policies and practices to conform with the Trump administration’s preferences.”

    “That coercive threat (and any actions agencies take to realize that threat, or additional Executive Orders the President issues to the same end) is unconstitutional, so I enjoined its effect,” Orrick wrote. “I do so again today for the protection of the new parties in this case.”

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration is already appealing Orrick’s earlier ruling.

    Among the cities covered by Orrick’s new order is Los Angeles. Trump’s deployment in June of the National Guard to patrol Los Angeles after protests against intensified federal immigration raids is the subject of a separate lawsuit by California Governor Gavin Newsom.

    (Reporting by Dietrich Knauth in New York and Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Kim Coghill)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Protests at Glacier as national parks reel from Trump cuts: ‘They’ve gutted staff, gutted funding’

    [ad_1]

    Dozens of former rangers, park volunteers, and local residents protested at the gateway to Montana’s Glacier national park on Wednesday against the staff cuts and hiring freezes that have thrown many national parks into crisis, including Glacier.

    Current and former staffers and watchdog groups say the cuts have meant staff are not able to keep up the facilities and infrastructure. Some say the park has been left with inadequate infrastructure and too little staff to be able to respond to emergencies.

    Although it might look to visitors like operations in Glacier are normal, “it’s like walking down a Hollywood movie set where the front looks great but there’s nothing behind it,” said Sarah Lundstrum, Glacier program manager with the National Parks Conservation Association.

    The protesters held signs, chanted and waved at tourists during a visit to the park from the Congressional Western Caucus. Hosted by Montana Republican congressman and former interior secretary Ryan Zinke, the caucus came to the park to showcase the success of the 2020 Great American Outdoors Act, which secured federal funding for protection and maintenance of public lands.

    Montana’s Republican senator Steve Daines championed that bill during Donald Trump’s first term, calling it “the greatest conservation win for Montana and the entire country in 50 years”. In May, Daines introduced the America the Beautiful Act to extend federal funding for projects to address crucial maintenance backlogs.

    But congressional support for funding projects in national parks comes at a jarring disconnect with the Trump administration’s slashing of jobs at national parks countrywide, including at Glacier, where an already overworked staff has been left with little to no bandwidth to implement projects.

    No congressional Republicans, including Daines or Zinke, have spoken up against the cuts and freezes, and all voted for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that rescinded $276m from the National Park Service (NPS).

    “We’re supporting the park, but drawing attention to the fact our policymakers are grandstanding in a national park where behind the scenes they’ve gutted staff and gutted funding,” said Suzanne Hindler, one of the rally’s organizers. She said organizers specifically chose to hold the event outside the park to avoid adding more work for already overburdened park staff during peak tourist season.

    Hindler emphasized that funding for national parks is crucial. But without the staff to execute the work, new problems will arise with no one to fix them, she said.

    Jan Metzmaker, a longtime park employee who was on Glacier’s first all-women’s trail crew in the 1970s, said: “I can see the deterioration in the services and in the facilities.

    “They really need to put some money into those, because this place is crazy with people. It’s being loved to death. But there’s no way that they can do the maintenance and all the things that need to be done in the park now.”

    Visitation to national parks reached a record 331.9 million last year. But because of the Trump administration’s hiring freezes, terminations, and buyout and early retirement offers, US national parks have lost nearly a quarter of permanent staff, with seasonal hiring behind by nearly 8,000 positions. Further staff cuts, described as “deep and blunt” and “aggressive and swift” by National Parks Traveler, the multi-media outlet that covers NPS, are held up in court but may still be forthcoming.

    In Glacier, which has seen a 7.5% increase in visitors from last year’s record high, the park is trying to operate with a 25% loss of staff. Vacancies span from chief ranger and fire positions, wildlife scientists, multiple environmental impact analysis positions, and emergency services, to mechanics, electricians, plumbers, and IT positions.

    After the federal government canceled all national parks’ internet contracts this year, Lundstrum said, Glacier now uses StarLink, which some staffers say is spotty, goes down entirely, and often fails to connect park dispatch and 911 calls. There’s only one IT person remaining to address technical problems, those staffers, who asked to remain anonymous because they fear retaliation for speaking out, in a park that spans the Continental Divide, has no cell service, and regularly sees lost and injured hikers and encounters with wildlife, including the park’s dense population of grizzly bears.

    On top of that, said a current park employee who spoke on condition of anonymity, there are no longer enough staff to safely respond to emergencies. It’s only luck “that the park hasn’t had any big events this year”, they said. “In past years we’ve had big fires, major search-and-rescue operations, really critical injuries. It’s only a matter of time until there’s an event we can’t respond to appropriately and there’s a mass failure of a system.”

    And yet the interior secretary Doug Burgum issued an order in April requiring all parks to remain “open and accessible” despite the reduced staff. In Glacier, that might come at the cost of visitor and staff safety.

    The department of the interior did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the concerns the staffers and watchdog groups raised. The offices of Zinke and Daines also did not respond to a request for comment.

    The staffers say that remaining staff are doing “twice the job they used to”. Law enforcement are covering twice their previous area, maintenance workers are doing jobs they are not trained for, and outside recreation operators, such as Glacier Guides and Montana Raft, are emptying trash and cleaning bathrooms at river accesses to make up for the gaps. The mentality inside the park, said the employee, “is that if you’re the only one left, you’ll do whatever you can to help”.

    The Association of National Park Rangers reported that “amid federal budget cuts, some seasonal employees at Yosemite national park worked for as long as six weeks without pay in recent months as park supervisors struggled to manage hiring”.

    One of the rally attendees, a local woman named Kathy who asked not to be identified by her last name, is a volunteer with the Glacier National Park Association. “We do restoration, painting, backcountry patrol, visitor center, vehicle reservations. We want to do things, but unfortunately, we don’t have enough supervisors – rangers – to have volunteers.”

    “It feels like the government is setting us up to fail,” said the Glacier employee.

    Experts worry that Trump’s budget proposal to cut 36% of the national park budget, which could force the closure of up to 350 park units, is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the park system as an excuse to sell those lands for profit.

    “Hollowing out staffing, cutting budgets, changing priorities – all of that very much lends itself to the idea of essentially causing those agencies to fail at meeting their mandates, and that will lead to the call for privatization,” said Lundstrum. “Because if the government can’t manage that land, then obviously somebody else should, right? In documents like Project 2025, there are calls for the privatization of land, or the selloff of land.”

    Multiple sources say that morale among Glacier staff is low. “The civilian federal workforce used to be nonpartisan, so you always felt like you could have your opinion – liberal or conservative – without fear of retribution,” said one employee. “And now the undertone is to stay under the radar. If you speak up and say ‘this is wrong’, you pretty much have a target on your back.”

    One young mother who came to the rally with her two small sons asked not to be identified because her husband is a federal employee; just this month, the justice department fired an official whose husband developed a phone app that tracked Ice agents.

    “Having these two little guys is just a constant reminder of how much our world is changing, and the need to stand up for it. Everything could be gone in a blink,” the mother said.

    Glacier is also the national park poster child for climate change, as its namesake glaciers are predicted to be completely gone in the coming decades. Yet the administration, without any pushback from congressional Republicans, has cut and scrubbed climate science and reversed Biden-era initiatives to curb climate change.

    In his press release, Daines said he introduced the America the Beautiful Act “so that people can get outside and enjoy the natural beauty we’re lucky to have here in the US”, and that he was “proud” to “protect our outdoor way of life for generations to come”.

    Hildner said she was not fooled. She said: “To see capitalism as the driving force for managing lands, rather than conservation, is really terrifying: for myself, for what it means for future generations, and what it means for the planet. How do we as a public help the folks who’ve been elected to govern see what the real costs are?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House committee launches investigation into California’s high-speed rail project

    [ad_1]

    A bipartisan congressional committee is investigating whether California’s High-Speed Rail Authority knowingly misrepresented ridership projections and financial outlooks, as alleged by the Trump administration, to secure federal funding.

    In a letter sent to Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Tuesday, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chair James Comer (R-KY) requested a staff briefing and all communications and records about federal funding for the high-speed rail project and any analysis over the train’s viability.

    “The Authority’s apparent repeated use of misleading ridership projections, despite longstanding warnings from experts, raises serious questions about whether funds were allocated under false pretenses,” Comer wrote.

    Comer’s letter copied Congressman Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee who has also voiced skepticism about the project. Garcia, whose districts represent communities in Southern California, was not immediately available for comment.

    An authority spokesperson called the House committee’s investigation “another baseless attempt to manufacture controversy around America’s largest and most complex infrastructure project,” and added that the project’s chief executive Ian Choudri previously addressed the claims and called them “cherrypicked and out-of-date, and therefore misleading.”

    Last month, the Trump administration pulled $4 billion in federal funding from the project meant for construction in the Central Valley. After a months-long review, prompted by calls from Republican lawmakers, the administration found “no viable path” forward for the fast train, which is billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. The administration also questioned whether the authority’s projected ridership counts were intentionally misrepresented.

    California leaders called the move “illegal” and sued the Trump administration for declaratory and injunctive relief. Gov. Gavin Newsom said it was “a political stunt” and a “heartless attack on the Central Valley.”

    The bullet train was proposed decades ago as a way to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours by 2020. While the entire line has cleared environmental reviews, no stretch of the route has been completed. Construction has been limited to the Central Valley, where authority leaders have said a segment between Merced and Bakersfield will open by 2033. The project is also about $100 billion over its original budget of $33 billion.

    Even before the White House pulled federal funding, authority leaders and advisers repeatedly raised concerns over the project’s long-term financial sustainability.

    Roughly $13 billion has been spent so far — the bulk of which was supplied by the state, which has proposed $1 billion per year towards the project. But Choudri, who started at the authority last year, has said the project needs to find new sources of funding and has turned focus toward establishing public-private partnerships to supplement costs.

    [ad_2]

    Colleen Shalby

    Source link

  • Newsom quashed bill. Now lawsuit aims to open UC jobs to undocumented students

    Newsom quashed bill. Now lawsuit aims to open UC jobs to undocumented students

    [ad_1]

    After Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed undocumented students to be hired on public universities, a legal effort has been launched to force open this doorway.

    On Tuesday, a UCLA alumnus and a lecturer filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against students based on their immigration status. They are seeking a court order requiring the system to consider undocumented students for on-campus jobs.

    “As an undocumented undergraduate student at the University of California, I experienced firsthand the pain and difficulty of being denied the right to on-campus employment,” said petitioner and UCLA alumnus Jeffry Umaña Muñoz on Tuesday. “Losing these opportunities forced me to extremely precarious and dangerous living situations, always moments from housing and food insecurity.”

    The suit argues that federal law barring the hiring of undocumented people does not apply to public universities. A UC spokesperson said on Tuesday afternoon that the university system had yet to be served with the filing but will respond as appropriate when served.

    The suit is being coordinated by the Opportunity4All campaign, which led the charge behind Assembly Bill 2486, or the Opportunity for All Act, this year.

    When vetoing the bill in September, Newsom cited concerns that state employees could be found in violation of federal laws for hiring undocumented people.

    “Given the gravity of the potential consequences of this bill, which include potential criminal and civil liability for state employees, it is critical that the courts address the legality of such a policy and the novel legal theory behind this legislation before proceeding,” he said in his veto message.

    UC regents, for their part, share Newsom’s fear that offering jobs to undocumented students may run afoul of federal law.

    In January, they shelved a plan to open jobs to students who lack legal work authorization, saying UC could be subject to civil fines, criminal penalties and the potential loss of billions of dollars in federal funding. The university system receives more than $12 billion in annual federal funding for research, student financial aid and healthcare.

    The lawsuit, however, argues that although the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 bars the hiring of people without legal status, this federal law does not apply to government employers such as the University of California.

    “No court has ever interpreted IRCA the way the [UC] regents do,” Jessica Bansal, counsel for the petitioner, said at a news conference announcing the lawsuit Tuesday. “To the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that federal laws regulating hiring do not apply to state employers unless they clearly and unambiguously state they do.”

    Bansal said the UC hiring policy also violates California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which prohibits state employers from discriminating in hiring based on immigration status.

    Although the lawsuit is directed at the UC system, counsel Ahilan Arulanantham said he hoped a favorable ruling would prompt California State University to also open employment to such immigrant students.

    California is home to one-fifth of the nation’s immigrant college students who are in the U.S. illegally, an estimated 55,500 of whom attend public colleges and universities.

    “It’s imperative for these students to have the opportunity to work and pursue career advancement,” petitioner and UCLA lecturer Iliana Perez said Tuesday. “By unlocking their potential and enabling them to contribute fully, we can rectify the missed economic opportunity and create a more inclusive and prosperous society.”

    [ad_2]

    Clara Harter

    Source link

  • Detroit corrects funding failures by renovating low-income apartments

    Detroit corrects funding failures by renovating low-income apartments

    [ad_1]

    The city of Detroit is rectifying its failure to properly administer federal funding for a program designed to support entrepreneurs by renovating eight lower-income apartment buildings and keeping the units affordable.

    The $6.1 million project is part of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which found that the city didn’t comply with spending standards when managing Motor City Match, a program designed to support small businesses. According to the investigation, the city did not maintain sufficient oversight of its spending and failed to adequately keep records, among other things.

    To resolve the problems, the city is using $6.1 million of its own general fund money to renovate six lower-income apartment buildings in the Hubbard Farms and Mexicantown neighborhoods. The additional two buildings still need city council approval.

    Detroiters were at risk of losing nearly 400 affordable housing units if the city didn’t spend the money. Now the lower-income residents will not only maintain their homes, but their apartments will be renovated.

    The owners of the buildings agreed to maintain the affordable rents for another 15 to 25 years in exchange for the city financing the renovations.

    “That level of investment is the reason Detroit is not experiencing tent cities and a homelessness crisis like some other large cities,” Julie Schneider, director of the city’s Housing and Revitalization Department, said in a statement Friday. “It is going to take many more years of sustained investment into affordable housing to meet the need and demand in the city and this $6.1 million investment will be an important part of that.”

    Launched in 2015, Motor City Match was intended to provide federally funded cash grants and additional resources to assist small business startups. Much of the funding came from federal block grants.

    Motor City Match no longer uses community block grants and instead relies on the city’s general fund budget and federal pandemic funds.

    In January 2021, an 18-month investigation by Detroit’s Office of Inspector General alleged that Motor City Match was plagued by excessive spending, poor oversight, inadequate payment controls, and a failure rate of nearly 77% among assisted businesses.

    “While waste is open to interpretation, it is clear that more money was spent on advertising, implementing and administering the programs than on direct assistance to the businesses,” the report stated.

    The report came about two years after HUD announced its concerns with the program.

    Since its inception, Motor City Match has helped 168 businesses open. An additional 104 businesses are under construction, according to the city. Of those businesses, 85% are minority-owned, and 70% are women-owned.

    The program has received a total of $102.7 million in investments so far.

    “We appreciate HUD’s partnership in working through this very complex process,” Schneider said. “This is a fair resolution and we are pleased to finally be able to put the matter to rest. As a result, we will be supporting the preservation of badly needed affordable housing in a way HUD fully supports and that protects our most vulnerable longtime residents.”

    As the prices of housing in Detroit continue to increase, many lower-income residents are having trouble finding affordable options.

    Acknowledging the rising demand for affordable housing, Mayor Mike Duggan’s administration has significantly increased the number of lower-income options. But it’s nowhere near enough to meet the demand, and many Detroiters are finding it difficult to buy a home in the city.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • A War on Blue America

    A War on Blue America

    [ad_1]

    During his term in the White House, Donald Trump governed as a wartime president—with blue America, rather than any foreign country, as the adversary. He sought to use national authority to achieve factional ends—to impose the priorities of red America onto Democratic-leaning states and cities. The agenda Trump has laid out for a second term makes clear that those bruising and divisive efforts were only preliminary skirmishes.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    Presidents always pursue policies that reflect the priorities of the voters and regions that supported them. But Trump moved in especially aggressive ways to exert control over, or punish, the jurisdictions that resisted him. His 2017 tax bill, otherwise a windfall for taxpayers in the upper brackets, capped the federal deductibility of state and local taxes, a costly shift for wealthy residents of liberal states such as New York and California. He moved, with mixed success, to deny federal law-enforcement grants to so-called sanctuary cities that didn’t fully cooperate with federal immigration agents. He attempted to strip California of the authority it has wielded since the early 1970s to set its own, more stringent pollution standards.

    In Trump’s final year in office, he opened a new, more ominous front in his campaign to assert control over blue jurisdictions. As the nation faced the twin shocks of the coronavirus pandemic and the protests that followed the murder of George Floyd, Trump repeatedly dispatched federal law-enforcement agents to blue cities, usually over the opposition of Democratic mayors, governors, or both. Trump sent an array of federal personnel to Portland, Oregon, ostensibly to protect a federal courthouse amid the city’s chaotic protests; reports soon emerged of camouflage-clad federal agents without any identifying insignia forcing protesters into unmarked vans. Trump responded to the huge racial-justice protests in Washington, D.C., by dispatching National Guard troops drawn from 11 states, almost all of them led by Republican governors. Later he sent other federal law-enforcement officers to combat rising crime in Kansas City and Chicago, a city Trump described as “worse than Afghanistan.”

    Trump has signaled that in a second presidential term, he would further escalate his war on blue America. He’s again promising federal legislation that would impose policies popular in red states onto the blue states that have rejected them. He has pledged to withhold federal funding from schools teaching critical race theory and “gender ideology.” He says he will initiate federal civil-rights investigations into liberal big-city prosecutors (whom he calls “Marxist local District Attorneys”) and require cities to adopt policing policies favored by conservatives, such as stop-and-frisk, as a condition for receiving federal grants.

    Even more dramatic are Trump’s open pledges to launch militarized law-enforcement campaigns inside blue cities. He has proposed initiatives that cumulatively could create an occupying federal force in the nation’s largest cities. Trump has indicated that “in cities where there’s been a complete breakdown of public safety, I will send in federal assets, including the National Guard, until law and order is restored.”

    Trump envisions an even more invasive door-to-door offensive against undocumented immigrants. In an early-2023 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said he “will use all necessary state, local, federal, and military resources to carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” Stephen Miller, who was his top immigration aide in the White House, later added that Trump envisions establishing massive internment camps for undocumented immigrants awaiting deportation. Trump has also promised “to use every tool, lever, and authority to get the homeless off our streets,” and move them to camps as well. (On this front, Trump has said he would work with states, but in practice that would likely involve partnering with Republican governors to impose policies to clear the streets opposed by their own Democratic mayors.)

    Michael Nutter, a former mayor of Philadelphia, told me that if a reelected Trump sought to implement these policies, the result would be “chaos, confusion,” and “massive demonstrations.” “Nobody is going to allow that to just happen,” Nutter said. “You are just going to see standoffs. It is going to be the Philadelphia Police Department versus the National Guard. Neighbors are going to be surrounding people’s houses. Folks are going to rush and seek safety in churches and synagogues and mosques and temples.”

    Of course, Trump would face other obstacles in attempting to implement these plans. The president’s legal authority to deploy federal forces over the objections of local officials is murky. And the relatively small number of federal law-enforcement officers under his direct control at agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection could limit his options, according to Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia University Law School who studies relations among cities, states, and the federal government.

    But in Trump’s final months in office, he got creative about augmenting the forces at his command by drawing on National Guard troops provided by sympathetic Republican governors. His advisers are already talking about doing the same to staff his deportation agenda, as well as using the emergency authority he cited to fund his border wall to build his camps for undocumented immigrants without congressional approval.

    Briffault told me that the inevitable court challenges to any Trump-ordered projections of force into blue cities would likely pivot on the courts’ interpretation of how much authority the president possesses under various emergency statutes. His advisers have already discussed invoking the 19th-century Insurrection Act, for example. As legal scholars have pointed out, the scope of the president’s emergency powers is much broader than most Americans recognize, and Trump is clearly signaling that if he returns to the White House, he intends to test the outer boundaries of that authority. The question for the courts will be “to what extent can he engage directly in law enforcement and having militarized law enforcement in the United States, in the absence of a request by a governor or a mayor that there is a riotlike condition or civil disorder?” Briffault said. “Can he declare an emergency even though he’s not being asked for it?”

    As president, Trump seemed to view himself less as the leader of a unified republic than as the champion of a red nation within a nation—one that constitutes the real America. If anything, Trump has assumed that factional role even more overtly in his 2024 campaign, promising that he will deliver “retribution” for his supporters and dehumanizing his opponents. Powered by such fetid resentments and grievances, the agenda Trump seeks to impose on blue cities and states could create the greatest threat to the nation’s cohesion since the Civil War.


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “A War on Blue America.”

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • What Joe Biden Has (And Hasn’t) Accomplished

    What Joe Biden Has (And Hasn’t) Accomplished

    [ad_1]

    Voters will render a midterm verdict on President Joe Biden as they decide whether to keep Democrats in control of Congress. Forgive them if their views about the president’s record so far are a bit complicated.

    In less than two years, Biden has chaotically ended the war in Afghanistan while struggling to bring the nation fully out of a two-and-a-half-year pandemic. Domestically, he’s pursued nothing less than a transformation of the American social safety net, with an agenda comprising a dizzying number of progressive policy goals. Biden has accomplished quite a lot of them—perhaps more than most political observers expected with such narrow Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill. Some of his legislative moves, on infrastructure and clean-energy manufacturing, for example, have even been bipartisan victories. But Biden has also failed to achieve many of his most progressive priorities, which have fallen victim to a combination of lockstep GOP opposition and crucial defections in his own party.

    Biden’s approval ratings have languished far below 50 percent for more than a year; the end of his presidential honeymoon coincided with the messy U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the prolonged pandemic. Most conservatives, of course, never gave him a chance. Many blame his high-spending policies for exacerbating inflation. The view from Democrats and independent voters is more complex: Will they conclude that Biden’s legislative successes—a record infusion of funds to fight climate change, a major infrastructure bill, action to lower prescription-drug prices, modest gun reform—outweigh his failure to enact promises such as paid family leave, universal pre-K, far-reaching voting-rights legislation, and a ban on assault weapons? In the past few months, Biden has bolstered his progressive record without the help of Congress, unilaterally forgiving student-loan debt for millions and pardoning thousands of people convicted of marijuana possession.

    The signing of just three enormous bills—the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, the roughly $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law, and this summer’s climate-and-health spending bill—made Biden’s first two years among the most productive of any president in the past half century. The initial pandemic bill, also known as the American Rescue Plan, was about the size of Barack Obama’s two biggest legislative achievements—his initial economic stimulus package and the 2010 Affordable Care Act—combined. The legislation sent $1,400 checks to Americans across the country, nearly doubled the child tax credit, shored up state budget accounts, and funded testing, treatment, and vaccines to fight the pandemic. The politically named Inflation Reduction Act is actually the largest climate bill in U.S. history and allows Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain prescription drugs for the first time.

    Beyond those headline bills, Biden more quietly amassed a bevy of smaller legislative wins, often with bipartisan support. A modest gun-safety bill expanded background checks (although not universally), made it easier to prosecute illegal gun trafficking, and provided federal funding for so-called red-flag laws. Congress also passed the CHIPS Act to boost domestic production of semiconductors, a long-stalled postal-reform bill, substantial military aid for Ukraine, and a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act—all with fairly broad support from both parties. Biden’s executive actions on student-loan forgiveness and pardons for marijuana possession answered a pair of progressive demands.

    Perhaps Biden’s biggest legislative disappointment in his first two years was the Senate’s failure to overcome a Republican filibuster of a major voting-rights-and-election-reform bill at the start of the year. (Democratic Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona memorably refused to support an exemption to the Senate’s rules to pass the bill.) The shrinking of Biden’s Build Back Better agenda sacrificed another large chunk of the president’s initially transformative progressive vision. Democrats jettisoned plans for a $15 federal minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, universal pre-K, free community college, a huge affordable housing initiative, an expansion of Medicare, and an extension of the American Rescue Plan’s child tax credit. They also bowed to Sinema’s opposition to reversing tax-rate cuts enacted by former President Donald Trump.

    Some of Biden’s plans never stood a chance. The Senate did not make a serious effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform or more aggressive gun-control measures, such as universal background checks or a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Nor did Congress act on restoring the public insurance option left out of Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • IEEE-USA TX Delegation Call on Congress to Support Investments in Research and Development

    IEEE-USA TX Delegation Call on Congress to Support Investments in Research and Development

    [ad_1]

    Press Release



    updated: May 8, 2017

    ​​​​An IEEE-USA delegation from Texas traveled to Washington, D.C. to express the importance of research and development activities to the nation’s economic growth, competitiveness and national security.

    The IEEE-USA TX delegation which included the current president of IEEE-USA Karen Pederson, president-elect Sandra Robinson, and current chair of the R&D policy committee Brendan Godfrey, joined with more than 150 scientists, engineers and business leaders who made visits on Capitol Hill as part of the Twentieth “Congressional Visits Day”, an annual event by the Science-Engineering-Technology Work Group on April 25 and 26.

    “It’s demonstrably true that the United States owes a great deal of its remarkable economic success, to its people’s audacious spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship, as well as basic scientific research, which stood as a key enabler for the American industrial might and its lead in technological innovation.”

    Mina J Hanna, Senior Application Consultant, Synopsys Inc.

    The visit came only a week before Congress released the FY17 spending bill which includes funding levels for key federal science agencies, including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense Office of Science and Technology, the National Institutes of Health and NASA. All of which received increased funding above the FY16 level.

    While visiting congressional offices, the IEEE-USA TX delegation discussed the importance of the nation’s broad portfolio of federal investments in science, engineering and technology to promoting our country’s prosperity and innovation. Most importantly, they provided a constituent perspective on the local and national impact of these programs and their significance to the Austin, Houston and Dallas metropolitan areas. Moreover, they spoke about the IEEE-USA legislative priorities that include taking active measures to strengthen America’s K-12 STEM education programs and improving America’s patenting and copyright system to keep it accessible to entrepreneurs and small businesses in the U.S.

    More than 50 percent of all industrial innovation and growth in the United States since World War II can be attributed to advances pioneered through scientific research, with publicly funded R&D constituting the vital foundation for today’s scientific and technological progress. Achievements from federally funded science, engineering and technology include global environmental monitoring, lasers, liquid crystal displays, the Internet, among many other scientific and technical advances.

    The federal government supports a unique research and education enterprise that fuels the American economy. This enterprise provides the underpinning of high-technology industries and expands the frontiers of knowledge in every field of science. Much of this research is carried out at academic institutions in Texas including The University of Texas system, Texas A&M, Rice University and The University of Houston and many other institutions across the country, ensuring knowledge transfer to future generations of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, physicians and teachers. Additionally, technology transfer from academic research adds billions of dollars to the economy each year and supports tens of thousands of jobs.

    Supporting the innovative scientific enterprise of the United States has consistently enjoyed bipartisan support. CVD was a valuable opportunity for the IEEE-USA delegation to reiterate the paramount importance of our lawmakers continuing their support for federally funded fundamental research despite tight fiscal constraints and the current tumultuous political climate. “It’s demonstrably true that the United States owes a great deal of its remarkable economic success, to its people’s audacious spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship, as well as basic scientific research which stood as a key enabler for the American industrial might and its lead in technological innovation.” said Mina J Hanna, a member of the delegation. He added “I am very pleased to see Congress making science a priority in the FY17 appropriations bill and I look forward for a similar prioritization in the FY18 bill.”

    During the visit, U.S. Senators Cory Gardner (CO) and Gary Peters (MI) were awarded the George E. Brown Award for outstanding leadership in support of Federal R&D. They were recognized for their outstanding efforts to advance and promote science, engineering and technology on Capitol Hill.

    The Science-Engineering-Technology Work Group is an information network comprising professional, scientific and engineering societies, institutions of higher learning, and trade associations. The sponsors represent more than one million researchers and professions in science and engineering. The Work Group is concerned about the future vitality of the U.S. science, mathematics, and engineering enterprise.

    This article does not reflect the official views, opinions or positions of IEEE-USA

    Media Contact: 
    Mina J Hanna
    Phone: 713.906.7295
    Email: minajean.stanford@gmail.com

    Source: Author

    [ad_2]

    Source link