myGrilloCOM | Category: All

Millions of Americans are enrolled in Medicaid who shouldn’t be — and it’s costing taxpayers billions

January 6, 2023 Published by Justin Haskins, Opinion Contributor

Just In | The Hill

The recent rise in Medicaid enrollment is one of the most remarkable expansions of a welfare program in U.S. history. Because of reckless government policies, 90.9 million Americans are now enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). That’s an increase of more than 20 million compared to February 2020, just before the COVID-19 pandemic emerged as a significant public health problem in the United States.

However, despite these eye-popping numbers, few, if any, politicians in Washington seem concerned about the massive cost to taxpayers caused by this expansion or the long-term problems it will create. And because the mainstream press has largely ignored the issue, most Americans have no idea it’s even happening.

The rise in Medicaid enrollment has its roots in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump in March 2020. Congress created FFCRA as a direct reaction to a rapid increase in COVID-19 cases and coronavirus-related economic lockdowns imposed by state and local governments that occurred early in 2020.

Under the FFCRA, states were provided with additional federal funds meant to help combat the effects of the pandemic. But there were important strings attached. To receive the additional funds, states had to agree to stop disenrolling people from their Medicaid rolls, even if enrollees would otherwise no longer qualify for coverage, including because an enrollee has substantially increased his or her income.

Congress’s purpose for this provision was to keep states from kicking people off Medicaid rolls during the pandemic. But when does the pandemic officially end? Under the FFCRA, the Medicaid rule change remains in effect until the executive branch officially stops declaring public health emergencies.

In his final months in office, Trump signaled that he thought the public health emergency had been dying down and that it was time for Americans to get back to work. But the Biden administration has taken the opposite approach.

Even though life has returned to normal for the vast majority of Americans, the coronavirus-related government-imposed lockdowns have mostly ended and full-time employment has returned to pre-pandemic levels, the Biden administration has continued to redeclare a national public health emergency every 90 days since coming into office, keeping Medicaid rolls bloated with Americans who would otherwise be ineligible to enroll in the costly program.

No one knows exactly how many people currently enrolled in Medicaid would have been denied access to the program under the pre-pandemic rules. But according to the Biden administration’s own estimates, it’s in the millions.

A report published in August 2022 by the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, an office within the Department of Health and Human Services, estimates that as many as 15 million people could leave Medicaid and CHIP when the public health emergency finally ends. The report further predicts that 8.2 million of the 15 million total will no longer be considered eligible for the program, and about 5 million are expected to quickly gain coverage through an existing employer.

These figures are just estimates, however, based on old survey data. The real numbers may be much larger.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average cost of all Medicaid enrollees was $6,556 in 2019, the most recent year for which data are available. (The current cost is likely much greater.) Assuming the Biden administration’s estimate is accurate that 8.2 million Medicaid enrollees wouldn’t be eligible if the public health emergency were to end today, thanks to Biden’s never-ending renewal of the COVID-19 public health emergency, taxpayers are spending an additional $53 billion per year paying for Medicaid recipients who shouldn’t even be enrolled in the program in the first place.

This is a stark reversal of the policies of the Trump administration prior to the coronavirus pandemic, as well as the effects of those policies. Due in large part to the significant economic growth and welfare reform policies of President Trump, enrollment in Medicaid dropped by more than 500,000 in the final six months of 2019.

Congress created Medicaid and CHIP to help impoverished Americans, single mothers and children gain access to publicly funded health coverage during tough times. They were never meant to provide government-subsidized health care for working Americans who can afford to pay their own way, and especially not for those with access to employer-sponsored insurance.

But the Biden administration doesn’t seem interested in improving the quality of social safety nets or helping people escape poverty. It is much more concerned with doing what it can to expand the size and power of government, no matter the cost to taxpayers or the potential impact of increasing government spending while inflation remains high.

Justin Haskins ([email protected]) is the director of the Socialism Research Center at The Heartland Institute and a New York Times bestselling author.

Finance, Opinion, government spending, Medicaid Read More

Ransomware attacks on health care systems are increasing in frequency, sophistication: research

January 6, 2023 Published by Gianna Melillo

Just In | The Hill

Story at a glance

In this time window, personal health information exposure grew more than 11-fold, suggesting attacks are growing in sophistication and frequency.

Findings are based on an analysis of 374 attacks throughout the country.

Clinics were the most targeted health care delivery systems, followed by hospitals and other delivery centers.

The annual number of ransomware attacks against U.S. hospitals, clinics and other care delivery organizations more than doubled from 43 to 91 between 2016 and 2021, new research shows. The security breaches exposed personal health information of an estimated 42 million patients.

Findings were published in JAMA Health Forum and include data on 374 attacks throughout the country. During the five years studied, researchers found attacks exposed larger quantities of personal health data over time and became more likely to target large, multi-facility organizations.

Ransomware can prevent users from accessing electronic systems while perpetrators demand a ransom to restore access. Unlike other data breaches, the goal of the attacks is to disrupt operations rather than steal data, authors wrote. The software is a major cybersecurity threat and can jeopardize patient outcomes when health organizations are targeted.

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

When a health care delivery organization’s system goes down, it can lead to delayed or canceled surgeries or appointments. Emergency departments may also be forced to divert ambulances, threatening patient safety and outcomes, researchers explained in the study.

Several government agencies warned about the increase in attacks coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic— a time when health systems were already strained due to historic demand.

Of all the attacks included in the study, almost half disrupted care delivery, while over time, the attacks were less likely to be restored from data backups.

The amount of personal health information exposed in attacks increased more than 11-fold from 2016 to 2021, growing from 1.3 million to more than 16.5 million.

Evidence showed actors made some or all of the health information public in around 16 percent of attacks, “typically by posting it on dark web forums where stolen data are advertised for sale by including a subset of records,” authors explained in the study.

Clinics were the most common targets of the attacks, followed by hospitals, other delivery centers, ambulatory surgical centers, and mental/behavioral health organizations. Dental practices and post–acute care organizations were also targeted.

Around 9 percent of attacks lead to disruptions lasting longer than two weeks.

Researchers cautioned the totals reported are likely an underestimate of actual events due to underreporting.

“Missing attacks and delayed reporting suggest opportunities for legislators who wish to strengthen data collection around cyberattacks, particularly ransomware, so as to shape an informed and well-targeted policy response,” they wrote.

When it comes to defense against the attacks, some underfunded or vulnerable organizations may not have the time or money to comply with existing cybersecurity recommendations, researchers added. More research is needed to address this vulnerability and motivate increased investment in health system information technology budgets, they said.

Infrastructure, Changing America, Sustainability Read More

Trump Politicized the Military. Was That the Real Problem With the Jan. 6 Response?

January 6, 2023 Published by Politico

To rewind a bit: The lack of a National Guard response on Jan. 6 is one of the major subjects of lingering finger-pointing two years after the insurrection. Was this Trump administration malfeasance? Poor law enforcement planning? Opinions vary, but the issue is front and center again with this week’s publication of Sund’s memoir, Courage Under Fire.

In the book, Sund is sharply critical of numerous figures he says were responsible for the failure to deploy federal resources to back up the outnumbered police as they battled the mob. He recounts meetings with congressional staffers in the days before the insurrection in which he was told that then-speaker Nancy Pelosi was “never going to go” for deploying the Guard, and meetings in the midst of the crisis when Pentagon brass said they didn’t want to take responsibility for the unprecedented spectacle of the military rushing the citadel of democracy.

“It was sickening,” Sund told me this week. “I’m sitting here watching my men and women fighting, you know, defend every inch of ground. … I get on the call with the Pentagon to find that they’re really [more] concerned about the look of having the National Guard up at the Capitol than they are about my men and women and their asses handed to them. That’s sickening.”

In the book, Sund ruefully notes that on Jan. 6, it took less time for the New Jersey State Police to deploy from the Garden State than it took for the guard to show up from an armory less than two miles down East Capitol Street.

Sund is one of the more controversial Jan. 6 law enforcement figures, the first person ousted over the day’s security failures, and someone who has come under vocal criticism from fellow cops like the injured Metropolitan Police Department Officer Michael Fanone, whose book beat Sund’s to market by three months. When I interviewed him last fall, Fanone scoffed at the idea of Sund writing a book at all. “The reality is that the United States Capitol Police as an agency was an absolute and utter fucking failure,” he said.

But John Falcicchio, the D.C. deputy mayor who sat in on the day’s panicked law enforcement conversations from the city police command center, says that Sund’s depiction of the unheeded calls for federal backup rings true.

“[D.C. Police] Chief [Robert] Contee kind of says, Hey, listen, guys. Let’s just get right down to it. Chief Sund, are you inviting the National Guard to come support the U.S. Capitol Police on the grounds of the Capitol? And there’s like a silent moment. Then he says yes. And literally, the Pentagon is the next voice heard. And they’re literally like, we’re not going to be able to fulfill that request.” The room deflated. “The Pentagon, in fairness, was saying: Listen, that visual of the National Guard charging up to the Capitol is one we don’t know that it’s the best one to portray.”

Whatever his intentions — and I’m not competent to litigate whether he was a goat or a scapegoat — Sund’s book draws an interesting connection, one that is worth pondering as the country looks forward: In his telling, there’s a direct connection between the decision making on Jan. 6 and something that had happened just a half-year earlier, when the Trump administration flooded the city with federalized law enforcement to counter the protests that followed the murder of George Floyd.

If the consensus about Jan. 6 is that there was an unconscionably weak federal response, the general opinion about the summer of 2020 is that there was a disgracefully excessive military presence when Donald Trump took his infamous walk across a freshly-cleared Lafayette Square in the company of the uniformed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

From the aforementioned general — Mark H. Milley, who soon gave a full-throated apology for an appearance that “created the perception of the military involved in domestic politics” — on down, the photo-op was panned as a dangerous break from American traditions.

“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution,” retired General and former Trump administration defense secretary James Mattis wrote in a statement at the time. “Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo-op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”

It’s less well remembered now, but the summer of protests was full of smaller-scale versions of this disagreement. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser remade her previously conflict-averse political reputation by clapping back at Trump’s threats to sic Secret Service dogs on protesters. As late as Jan. 5, Bowser was writing Trump’s acting attorney general to note that the city’s requests for assistance the next day did not mean there was any interest in a repeat of 2020, when “unidentifiable personnel — in many cases armed — caused confusion among residents and visitors.”

And of course, the New York Times’ decision on June 3, 2020, to run an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton headlined “Send In the Troops” famously led to a staff revolt and the ouster of the paper’s editorial page editor as the organization disavowed the column’s publication.

Sund’s book got advance attention ahead of its publication because of the former chief’s warning that the failures ahead of Jan. 6 could easily be repeated — in his view, the system that failed to pass along intelligence about far-right insurrectionists’ plans has not really changed. When we spoke this week, he went into wonky detail about the system for calling out the guard and other reinforcements, a cumbersome process that involved sign-offs from Pentagon brass as well as from the congressional leadership to whom the Capitol Police report. He thinks a single person should be put in charge of Capitol security.

The complicated reporting structure remains, he said, though the 2021 recommendations of a panel of security experts to make it easier for the chief to call in the Guard were instituted later that year. Still, Sund said, the chief’s call for backup can be overridden, and depends on there already being an emergency — something that wouldn’t make it any easier to pre-deploy in response to intelligence.

“It’s a no-win situation for a chief,” he told me.

In Washington’s local government, meanwhile, the issue connects to a perpetual sore point: D.C.’s lack of statehood. Anywhere else in the country, a governor could simply call out the Guard. But in the capital, it requires sign-off from the executive branch, which on Jan. 6 was occupied by the administration whose admirers were behind the disturbance. In pushing for statehood, the locals would like to change that arrangement.

All of this process stuff makes sense as far as it goes. But as with so much else about permanent Washington’s perennial hope of a return to normal after the chaos of 2020, it doesn’t factor in the reality of what America is in 2023: a country where the kinds of crises that lead to calls for the National Guard are likely to have a partisan overlay.

That’s an enormous change. Beyond hurricanes and other natural disasters, there’s a long history of federal backup being brought in to deal with things that were in some sense enormously political: civil disturbances like the 1968 riots that burned swathes of D.C., standoffs like the eviction of the Bonus Army of jobless World War I veterans that marched on the capital in 1932. Further afield, federalized Guard units enforced desegregation rulings during civil rights-era standoffs like the one in Little Rock.

But in none of those cases was it about the results of an election pitting one party against another, as on Jan. 6, or even about an issue that tracked as closely with party as did the protests in the summer of 2020, by which point opinions on the civil rights issues of the day had — unlike in the era of Little Rock — sundered along partisan lines. Especially after the spectacle of Lafayette Square, can you blame the brass for not wanting to get involved on their own?

It’s healthy, in a free country, to feel uncomfortable about having armed forces sort out partisan battles. But it’s dangerous to not police political lawlessness because the authorities are afraid they’ll be dragged by the insurrectionists’ elected admirers.

Which is why Sund’s preferred solution, that deployment decisions somehow be yanked away from politics, isn’t going to cut it. All the procedural improvements in the world won’t change the fact that political timidity will hamper any fight against insurrection. Ending the partisan divide over insurrectionism would be the best way out of danger. But if that’s not possible, ending the timidity about fighting it would help, too.

source

Newly elected Rep. James on 20 McCarthy holdouts: 'Nancy Pelosi's best friend'

January 6, 2023 Published by The Hill

Rep.-elect John James (R-Mich.) said the 20 Republicans who are continuing to withhold their support for House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) to become Speaker are “Nancy Pelosi’s best friend.”

James told Fox News’s Sean Hannity in an interview on Thursday that the group still not supporting McCarthy following the concessions he has given them to win over their support is “nonsensical.”

“We need to work forward and to work together because, frankly, these 20 holdouts are Nancy Pelosi’s [D-Calif.] best friend,” he said. “They are working right now in concert with the Democrats to stymie an America First agenda. And we cannot allow that to continue.”

James said these 20 care more about their “egos” than the American people.

“We’re beginning to cross that line between negotiation and extortion,” he said. “These 20 are beginning to extort the American people.”

He said the constituents to the 20 holdouts should call their representatives to tell them that they “need to get to work for you and not for any nebulous agenda out there.” He said Democrats are winning because they “refuse” to take a victory.

McCarthy has given numerous concessions to his opponents in an effort to consolidate GOP support behind him, but he has been unable to move any of them to back him. Among the concessions he has given include allowing a single Republican member to force a vote to remove the Speaker from their post at any time and creating a subcommittee to investigate the “Weaponization of the Federal Government.”

McCarthy appeared to be approaching a deal on Thursday that would secure the support of some of those opposed to him, but some of them have still said there is nothing McCarthy can do to win them over.

He has been unable to win the Speakership over the course of 11 ballots across three days, bringing the House to a standstill. The House is unable to do additional business, including swearing in new members and considering rules for the body, until a Speaker is chosen.

source

The ‘Stolen’ Election That Poisoned American Politics. It Happened in 1984.

January 6, 2023 Published by Politico

“Coelho asked me to go in,” said Jim Margolis, the former senior adviser to Barack Obama who back then was a twentysomething Democratic operative. “I thought I was going in for two days, and I emerged, like, eight weeks later,” he told me. “I can just see us in these crowded little clerks’ offices, with the throngs of people, and the vote-counting attempting to take place, and all the histrionics.”

“Hand-counting paper ballots and punch-card ballots is a grueling process,” Stephen Nix, now the senior director of Eurasia at the International Republican Institute, then the Midwest field director for the NRCC, told me. “Complete monotony,” he recalled, “and then all of a sudden there’s a questionable ballot and everybody runs to the table and surrounds the table, and there’s all this scrutiny, and there’s all this debate.”

By the middle of April, as the auditors went from county to county, the day-to-day updates in the papers in Evansville read like a neck-and-neck horse race. “McCloskey jumps ahead three votes,” a headline read on April 11. “Lead seesaws,” a headline read on April 12. “McIntyre stretches lead to six,” a headline read on April 13. The NRCC ran full-page advertisements in the papers. “Frank McCloskey and the Democrats in Washington,” the ads read, “are doing more than just insulting the people of Indiana — they are trying to steal an election.”

On April 18, though, at the intermittently testy last public hearing at the Municipal Building in Evansville, the task force had had one final, fateful decision. At issue were 94 unnotarized, unwitnessed absentee ballots from a handful of counties. By law, none of them should have been counted — a point upon which everyone agreed. The trouble was some of them were, because some county clerks had sent 62 of them to precincts, meaning they already had been among the mix of the counted. It was too late to take them out. The rub now was the remaining 32. They had been rightfully held back by other clerks. They had not been counted.

“These were held separately,” Panetta explained at the hearing. “They ought not to be counted.”

Clay, the other Democrat, concurred. It was “unfortunate,” he said, that first group was counted, but to now count the second “would be to compound the problem that already exists.”

Thomas, the one Republican, was livid. He charged “hypocrisy.” The abiding proposition of the task force was to “treat like ballots in a like way,” he said. “I heard over and over again that the cry is count all the ballots,” he said. They should “at least be consistent,” he said.

“The reality is this,” Panetta countered. “While we say we count all the ballots, we do make some judgments and we do apply some discretion.”

Thomas, becoming more and more frustrated, which is clear even from just reading the transcript, asked Shumway for some guidance. But Shumway’s job was to be in charge of the counting of the ballots — that the task force decided to count. “I am glad the basic decision on this,” he told the trio, “is yours and not mine.”

“Some were sent to the precinct and some were retained by the clerks. My question is: So what?” Thomas said. “Is the difference in where they have been physically located sufficient to treat them entirely differently?”

“These became scrambled when they went to the precincts. It is too bad. But they became scrambled at the precinct level,” Panetta stressed. He called this “the distinguishing feature.”

The task force put it to a vote. The Democrats said no to counting the 32. The Republican said yes.

“Really surprising,” Thomas said sarcastically.

And with that, and at the end of this 5-hour, 14-minute hearing, Shumway announced the final tally — McCloskey, 116,645; McIntyre, 116,641. A margin of four votes. The task force audit had made the result even closer and less certain.

Republicans’ recriminations ramped up even more.

“They have the arrogant power and they use it,” Thomas said. “We will not be civilized. We will not assume it’s business as usual. We will not go back to playing the lackey.” Thomas said he felt like he’d been “raped.” Too strong? “Talk to a rape victim,” he would tell the Los Angeles Times. “Ask them after it’s over if they can just forget about it. I feel personally violated.” (Thomas declined to comment.)

source

McCarthy flips a new dissenter on 13th speaker ballot but remains short

January 6, 2023 Published by Anthony Adragna, Nicholas Wu, Kyle Cheney and Olivia Beavers

Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories

Kevin McCarthy came up short in the 12th ballot in his bid for speaker on Friday, but chipped away at his dissenters by winning the support of 14 members who previously opposed his bid for the top gavel.

Reps.-elect Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), Michael Cloud (R-Texas), Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), Keith Self (R-Texas) and Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) — all of whom previously opposed the California Republican’s bid for speaker — flipped to support McCarthy amid ongoing discussions for further concessions to the party’s conservative flank.

“We’re at a turning point. I’ve negotiated in good faith, with one purpose: to restore the People’s House back to its rightful owners. The framework for an agreement is in place,” Perry, chair of the conservative Freedom Caucus, tweeted during the vote. He and some other conservatives who switched their votes to McCarthy addressed reporters after the twelfth ballot, largely declining to discuss specifics of the emerging deal.

McCarthy got an additional jolt of energy on the 13th ballot when Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), another previous opponent, also flipped to support him. He still fell short of the necessary majority of those voting present, however, with six GOP members remaining in the no camp.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a moderate and key McCarthy ally, said the chamber hoped to adjourn after the thirteenth ballot to allow allies of the California Republican to sit down one-on-one with his remaining dissenters. As to whether their opposition comes down to McCarthy himself, he said: “We’re gonna find that out.”

And lawmakers then followed suit, voting to adjourn the chamber until 10 p.m. That will tee up a potentially decisive ballot late Friday night.

McCarthy, speaking to the press, said he would have the votes needed for election when it came back into session.

Elements of the emerging pact between McCarthy and conservatives that Perry did confirm included a one-member threshold for forcing a vote to oust a speaker, controls on government spending and “conservative representation” in Congress — particularly on the powerful Rules Committee.

It’s a significant show of momentum for McCarthy, with one person close to Republican leadership indicating that the number of flips exceeded internal projections. Even so, it’s unclear what more the Californian can do to placate the remaining six Republicans opposed to his bid.

The historic ballot comes two years to the day after the Jan. 6 insurrection, as the House is mired in a different breed of crisis over the speakership — one with a direct line back to the violent riot that appeared blurrier than ever on Friday.

Some of the same conservatives who have submerged the House in gridlock were the most vocal supporters of Donald Trump’s effort to challenge the 2020 election two years ago. Yet even their rebellion against Kevin McCarthy this week underscored how diminished Trump’s influence is over his party’s right flank: The former president’s endorsement of the California Republican did almost nothing to dislodge his 20 dissenters.

And the day’s smattering of memorial events, public statements and remembrances seemed understated compared to the intense focus on the attack last year, when Democrats ran the House and President Joe Biden marked the occasion with a major address at the Capitol. In fact, as lawmakers prepared to mark the anniversary of the Capitol attack with a remembrance of the officers who lost their lives or were injured during and after it, some were laser-focused on the problem in front of them now.

“Look, January 6 is going to roll around every year, just like Pearl Harbor Day rolls around every year, treated like just another day in the calendar,” Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) said. “I want us to keep going until we get a speaker. This is ridiculous stuff.”

McCarthy and his leadership team convened a conference call Friday morning to update members on the status of negotiations, hours after he appeared to gather some momentum late Thursday by hashing out concessions to hardline members of the GOP conference — offers that his allies were hopeful would move even more votes in his direction as the weekend drew closer.

But enormous uncertainty lingered before the twelfth ballot, as members of the Trump-aligned Freedom Caucus had yet to commit their support to McCarthy and a handful of other holdouts continued to signal their opposition. Absences scrambled things somewhat further, with Rep. David Trone’s (D-Md.) absence midday Friday temporarily lowering the number of votes McCarthy would have needed to win.

“Mr. McCarthy doesn’t have the votes today. He will not have the votes tomorrow, and he will not have the votes next week, next month, next year,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), one of McCarthy’s most ardent opponents, said to jeers from other Republicans on the floor. “Is this an exercise in vanity?”

Other Republicans streamed out of the chamber as Gaetz, who nominated Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) for speaker, continued making his remarks. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) nominated Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) for speaker for the second consecutive day.

The ongoing negotiations appear not to have yielded much progress among McCarthy’s most dug-in dissenters. Asked what could get him to yes on the speaker, Gaetz replied: “Kevin’s withdrawal.” Boebert said: “There’s no deal with me.”

Several members missed the first Friday vote due to personal matters. Reps. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) and Ken Buck (R-Colo.) are expected back Friday evening, while Rep. David Trone (D-Md.) made it to the day’s second vote following a medical procedure.

All the while, McCarthy’s moderate allies, many of whom represent districts won by Biden, are increasingly leery of the number of concessions getting made to the right.

“If this remains the face of the GOP in 2024 we will get pummeled in the Presidential and Congressional elections,” said centrist Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). “We would have won more seats in 2022, but too many feared the extremes in the GOP even before this.“

Underscoring the contrast between the historic anniversary and the ongoing speakership drama, a top aide to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the stand Friday against members of the Oath Keepers — charged with seditious conspiracy for their Jan. 6 actions — to recount the horrors that he and other aides endured as they sheltered from the mob two years ago. The partner of a Capitol Police officer who died hours after the riot also filed suit late Thursday against Trump.

In addition, members of the so-called gallery group of Democratic lawmakers who bonded while sheltering during the attack were planning on holding a lunch for Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department officers. That group, which includes Wild, planned to sit together on the floor during Friday’s proceedings.

Biden also presented Presidential Citizens Medals on Friday to key figures who resisted Trump’s efforts to reverse his 2020 loss — from state officials to Capitol Police to election workers.

Back on the Hill, Gaetz made the rounds on the Democratic side of the aisle throughout Thursday’s session and said in a Fox News interview that he was seeking assurances that they wouldn’t leave the House floor, inadvertently helping the GOP leader claim the gavel.

He told one Democrat, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, that his group had gotten everything they wanted from McCarthy so far but still didn’t plan to vote for him, according to a person familiar with the conversation who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Indeed, Democrats have held together through all 11 speaker ballots so far and signaled no willingness to bail Republicans out of their predicament. They’re preparing to stay through the weekend and have been whipping against efforts to adjourn the House.

Sarah Ferris and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

[Business] US economy sees robust jobs growth in December

January 6, 2023 Published by

BBC News world-us_and_canada

Getty Images

Jobs growth in the US remained strong last month even as the economy wrestled with the impact of fast-rising prices.

Employers added 223,000 positions in December, pushing the jobless rate down to 3.5%, from 3.6% in November.

The resilience of the labour market has raised hopes that the world’s largest economy will avoid a severe economic downturn this year.

The US central bank is raising borrowing costs to try to cool the economy and ease the price pressures.

As firms struggle with the impact of higher interest rates and the possibility of lower consumer spending, recent news of big job cuts at banks and tech companies, such as Amazon, has drawn attention.

But the monthly report from the US Labor Department showed nearly every sector in the economy adding jobs, with bars and restaurants, health care firms and construction businesses helping to drive the gains.

Though job losses are rising – especially in the tech sector – the figures overall remained near historic lows last year, said Andrew Challenger, senior vice president at Challenger, Gray & Christmas, which has been tracking such announcements since the 1990s.

“The overall economy is still creating jobs, though employers appear to be actively planning for a downturn,” he said.

Fed hikes rates again and warns of more rises US price increases slow as fuel costs fall

The US economy has slowed sharply since 2021, when it boomed after the pandemic reopening.

Higher borrowing costs are hitting firms in areas such as housing and banking, while rising prices are straining household budgets, raising concerns about consumer spending – the biggest driver of the US economy.

The most recent report showed prices in the US climbing 7.1% from a year earlier – far faster than the 2% rate considered healthy.

Analysts said the strength of the labour market makes the path ahead uncertain, since the Federal Reserve may need to continue with big interest rate rises if it hopes to rein in inflation.

“As long as the labour market remains this tight, the Fed cannot rest assured that inflation will return to its 2% target,” said Ronald Temple, chief market strategist at Lazard.

Average hourly earnings in December rose by 4.6% from last year, the Labor Department said. That was a slower pace than in November, in what analysts said was a positive sign for the fight against inflation.

However, it was mixed news for workers, who have not seen their pay rises keep up with prices.

“Worker pay is failing to keep up with the rise in prices at the consumer level. This is a source of stress on household budgets. How that equation unfolds in the months ahead will be key, including whether inflation pressures relent,” said Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst for Bankrate.com.

‘I’m a Food Scientist, and This Is How To Make the Perfect Cup of Coffee’

January 6, 2023 Published by Tehrene Firman

Well+Good

Making a perfect cup of coffee is easy enough if you know what you’re doing. The taste and mouthfeel of every cup is affected by the beans, the roast, and even the water quality. And if there’s anyone who knows what they’re doing, it’s a food scientist. “There’s definitely a rabbit-hole of coffee science to explore,” says food scientist and chef Makenzie Bryson Jackson, MS.

According to Jackson and Kaleena Teoh, co-founder of Coffee Project NY, an award-winning coffee brand, roastery, and training center, there are a handful of simple tips that allow you to make barista-level coffee in the comfort of your own kitchen. Here’s what to keep in mind the next time you’re brewing yourself a pot.

How to make a perfect cup of coffee at home

1. Choose the right beans

If you’re not choosing high-quality beans, your coffee isn’t going to taste good. It’s as simple as that. “Bean selection is the most important part of a good cup of coffee. Hands down,” says Jackson. And there are two main species you should know: “There’s Robusta, which has low acidity and high bitterness, and Arabica beans, which are less bitter and often more flavorful,” she says. “Knowing how old the beans are, where they were grown, and how they were handled and stored is important as well.”

To find the best quality beans, Teoh recommends shopping from local roasters who roast fresh weekly, but don’t use them just yet. “Let the coffee rest for three to five days after roast before you consume them,” she says. “During the resting period, your coffee will release carbon dioxide and brewing after degassing will ensure better extraction.”

2. Consider the roast

The roast plays a big role in how your coffee ends up tasting, too. “The roasting process initiates one of the most magical reactions in food science: Maillard browning,” says Jackson. “This reaction brings out the delicious caramelized complex coffee flavor and aroma, but too much browning will definitely increase bitterness.”

When choosing a roast, you’ll see there’s a range from light to dark. The key with this is knowing your preference. “Do you like a lighter roast that highlights the floral, fruity, more delicate notes in the coffee or a darker roast that highlights the chocolate, nutty sometimes smokey notes in coffee?” Teoh says. “Or maybe you prefer a medium roast that preserves the balance of floral, fruity and chocolatey, caramelly notes.”

According to Jackson, the lighter the coffee, the fruitier and more acidic it will be. And when you choose a darker roast, the beans are more bitter—but the flavors are more complex. “A medium roast is a good place to start with a nice balance and a bittersweet finish, but it’s good to try a range of roasts to find what your unique palate likes best,” she says.

3. Rethink your storage

Where and how you’re storing your coffee beans can make or break how it’s going to taste once you brew it. “Your coffee should be stored in an airtight vessel with no light exposure,” says Jackson. And the reason behind that? Both can cause your beans to go bad… very quickly. And no one wants to start their morning with a stale cup of coffee. Try this airtight container from Airscape ($31).

The benefits of coffee, explained by a dietitian:

4. Grind your beans correctly

When you’re grinding your own coffee beans, Jackson says to make sure the grind is uniform. “A burr grinder is typically best for this,” she says. “The blade grinders don’t uniformly break the beans up, so you’ll have small dust-sized particles and larger bean bits.”

In addition to the grind size being uniform, the size also has to be just right, not too fine or not too coarse. “When it is grind too fine, we will tend to over extract the coffee and get a bitter aftertaste,” Teoh says. “If it is too coarse, we will tend to under extract the coffee and end up with a cup that is too high in acidity. A good grind size for drip coffee is between table salt and sea salt.”

Also, make sure you’re not grinding your beans too far in advance of brewing. “This will alter the flavor of your coffee, as you’ve exposed more surface area of the bean to oxygen,” Jackson says.

5. Check your water quality

While Jackson says water quality is lower on the list of priorities when making a cup of coffee, it’s still something to consider if you want to take your brew to the next level. “There are research scientists who have studied this—legitimately. I could nerd out here,” says Jackson. “The hardness of your water will affect the coffee’s flavor; a harder water has more minerals, which may increase the bitter perception of the coffee. I use distilled water when I brew coffee.”

6. Decide on a water ratio

It’s also important to decide your ideal water ratio, which comes down to how strong you like your coffee. “If you prefer a stronger coffee, go with a 1:15 coffee to water ratio,” Teoh says of the ideal coffee to water ratio in ounces. “If you prefer a less intense cup, go with a 1:18 or 1:19 ratio.”

7. Be aware of water temperature

When you’re brewing, you don’t want your water to be too hot or too cold. “If the water is over 205°F, your coffee will be prone to over-extract and be bitter and harsh. If it’s under 195°F, it will make it more difficult to extract, leaving you with sour flat coffee,” says Jackson. “This isn’t a hard and fast rule, but general guidelines.”

So a water temperature of 200°F is the sweet spot, Teoh adds. If you don’t have a thermometer to check the precise temperature, as long as the water is boiled, she says you should be good to go.

8. Choose your brewing method

There are many different coffee brewing methods available, such as French press, which “saves time and gives you a heavier body cup of coffee,” Teoh says. There’s also the drip pour over method. “It highlights the acidity in the coffee and gives you a cleaner cup. It’s easy to use but requires a little more skill.” And there’s the more detailed espresso brewing method “that involves pressure pushing water through the compact coffee puck, resulting in a small but intense cup of flavor.”

According to Teoh, there is no one best brewing method. It comes down to personal preference. “I would suggest thinking about your lifestyle: When do you drink coffee? How much time do you have to make coffee? What do you enjoy drinking?” Teoh says. “There are manual and automatic brewers in the market that can meet your needs at different price points.” Select a brewer that is compatible with your lifestyle.

9. Pay attention to brew time

Brew time, meaning how long it takes for the coffee to complete brewing, is another thing to keep in mind. Teoh says each device and brewing method has a suggested brew time and advises keeping the brew time within the recommended range by adjusting the grind size.

Another pro tip: When brewing the perfect cup of coffee, Teoh says to ensure the coffee grounds are evenly wet and liquid is drawing down at a slow and steady pace.

10. Adjust the recipe to your liking

Your version of the perfect cup of coffee may differ from someone else’s, so you won’t know the best recipe for you until you actually taste it, Teoh says. Her advice: Make one brew at a time and taste it. If it’s not quite right, adjust the recipe and brew another cup and repeat until you have the perfect cup. Each time you do, Teoh recommends changing only one factor at a time so you know exactly what contributed to the change in flavor and can replicate it again later. With these tips, you may never want to order coffee elsewhere ever again

Here’s how to make creamy dairy-free coffee:

Biden agenda, lithium mine, tribes, greens collide in Nevada

January 6, 2023 Published by The Associated Press

RENO, Nev. (AP) — Opponents of the largest lithium mine planned in the U.S. urged a federal judge in Nevada on Thursday to vacate the U.S. government’s approval of the project until it completes additional environmental reviews and complies with all state and federal laws.

U.S. District Judge Miranda Du said after a three-hour hearing in Reno that she hoped to make a decision “in the next couple months” on how to proceed in the nearly two-year-old legal battle over the Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the mine Lithium Nevada Corp. plans near the Nevada-Oregon line.

Lawyers for the company and the Bureau of Land Management insisted the project complies with U.S. laws and regulations. But they said that if Du determines it does not, she should stop short of vacating the agency’s approval and allow initial work at the site to begin as further reviews are initiated.

Lawyers for a Nevada rancher, conservation groups and Native American tribes suing to block the mine said that should not occur because any environmental damage would be irreversible.

Dozens of tribe members and other protesters rallied outside the downtown courthouse during the hearing, beating drums and waving signs at passing motorists.

Du has refused twice over the past year to grant temporary injunctions sought by tribal leaders who say the mine site is on sacred land where their ancestors were massacred by the U.S. Cavalry in 1865.

Lithium Nevada and the Bureau of Land Management say the project atop an ancient volcano is critical to meeting the growing demand for lithium to make electric vehicle batteries — a key part of President Joe Biden’s push to expedite a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

“It is the largest known lithium deposit of its kind,” Laura Granier, a lawyer representing the company, told Du Thursday. “Our nation and the world will suffer if this project is delayed further.”

Opponents say it will destroy dwindling habitat for sage grouse, Lahontan cutthroat trout, pronghorn antelope and golden eagles, pollute the air and create a plume of toxic water beneath the open-pit mine deeper than the length of a football field.

“We need a smart energy future that transitions our economy from fossil fuels to renewables without sacrificing rare species in the process,” said Greta Anderson, deputy director of the Western Watersheds Project, which also petitioned in September for protection of a tiny nearby snail under the Endangered Species Act.

The Bureau of Land Management fast-tracked the project’s approval during the final days of the Trump administration. The Biden administration continues to embrace it as part of the president’s clean energy agenda.

Demand for lithium is expected to triple by 2030 from 2020. Lithium Nevada says its project is the only one on the drawing board that can help meet the demand.

Will Falk, a lawyer for the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, said that “in this rush for lithium in Nevada, the BLM went way too fast in permitting this mine.”

Roger Flynn, a lawyer for the Western Mining Action Project representing several environmental groups, said the agency wants the project to move forward even though it botched the environmental reviews it was determined to complete before ex-President Donald Trump left office.

“Meanwhile, there will be this immediate, permanent massive environmental damage,” Flynn said.

Thursday’s hearing marked the first on the actual merits of the lawsuit filed in February 2021. It will set the legal landscape going forward after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling in Arizona that voided federal approval of a copper mine.

That potentially precedent-setting decision raises questions about the reach of the Mining Law of 1872 and could have a bearing on disposal of waste rock at the lithium mine in the high desert about 200 miles (321 kilometers) northeast of Reno.

In addition to the cultural and environmental concerns about the potential effects, the new 9th Circuit ruling halting the Arizona mine in July was a focus of Thursday’s hearing. Du told lawyers on both sides she was interested in “the extent to which (that case) controls the outcome of this case.”

The San Francisco-based appellate court upheld the Arizona ruling that the Forest Service lacked authority to approve Rosemont Copper’s plans to dispose of waste rock on land adjacent to the mine it wanted to dig on a national forest southeast of Tucson.

The service and the Bureau of Land Management long have interpreted the Mining Law of 1872 to convey the same mineral rights to such lands.

The 9th Circuit agreed with U.S. Judge James Soto, who determined the Forest Service approved Rosemont’s plans in 2019 without considering whether the company had any mining rights on the neighboring lands. He concluded the agency assumed under mining law that Rosemont had “valid mining claims on the 2,447 acres it proposed to occupy with its waste rock.”

Leilani Doktor, a Justice Department lawyer for the Bureau of Land Management, said the Forest Service and the BLM are under “different regulatory schemes.”

“Each step of the way, BLM followed its own regulations,” she said.

source

Yes, There’s More Than One Type of Monogamy

January 6, 2023 Published by Gabrielle Kassel

Well+Good

Even in a world that’s growing more inclusive by the day, many of us still embrace the concept of monogamy in a strictly binary framework: You are either monogamous or you are not. “From the day we are born, there’s an overarching narrative that one day we’ll grow up, fall in love with someone of the ‘opposite’ gender, get married and be monogamous,” says LGBTQ+ activist Robyn Ochs, editor of the anthology Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World and Recognize. (“Opposite” is in quotations because gender isn’t organized into a neat binary given that there are more than two genders). That restrictive continuum neither leaves room for different types of monogamy that are more nuanced or any other type of relationship structure.

For Ochs, and many other folks who identify as queer and LGBTQ+, that narrative took a plot twist. “Growing up, it never once crossed my mind that I wouldn’t be with a man, monogamously, but then I fell in love with a woman and came out as bisexual,” she says. That’s when she began unpacking why she haphazardly accepted the understanding of monogamy that was foisted on her rather than exploring what makes better sense for the scope of her own life.

“I started to interrogate why I was in a monogamous relationship. I looked within myself, read about polyamory, talked with my non-monogamous friends, and did the work to unlearn what I was told growing up: that monogamy was and is the only way and the right way to structure a relationship,” she says. Ultimately, she found there are actually two types of monogamy: radical monogamy and reflexive monogamy.

How many types of monogamy are there?

The critical difference between the two types of monogamy—radical monogamy and reflexive monogamy—is that one involves actively seeking out a monogamous relationship, while the other involves falling into a monogamous relationship.

“Reflexive monogamy is when you’ve internalized messages about monogamy being the way to date and relate, and you are, therefore, monogamous,” she says. “Radical monogamy is when you decide to unpack those cultural biases, ask yourself what type of relationship actually works best for you, and then choose monogamy.

In other words, radical monogamy is monogamy on purpose. “What makes it radical is that you have considered, and perhaps even participated in, other relationship structures before arriving at a deliberate choice for monogamy,” says Sara Stanizai, a therapist and founder of Prospect Therapy, a private therapy practice that focuses on serving first-generation American and immigrant communities. “The term implies that an internal and/or exploration has taken place and that monogamy is a conscious choice.”

Reflexive monogamy, Stanizai adds, is lovingly referred to as the monogamy of past generations. “Reflexive monogamy is unquestioned, unexamined, and decidedly not a choice,” she says.

What is monogamy?

To practice radical monogamy, it’s important to first define monogamous. Stanizai says monogamous relationships are “romantic and sexual exclusivity between two people.” She adds, “It is founded on the idea that love and commitment are finite and that sharing those with more than one person means each person gets less of you.”

An example of monogamy is two partnered people who only have romantic, emotional, sexual, and intimate connection with each other, Stanizai says. However, she notes that “intimate” is defined differently by each person. For instance, having a platonic “work husband” may be considered emotionally cheating or watching pornography may be a form of betrayal for some people.

Types of Non-Monogamy

The opposite of monogamy then is non-monogamy. The main difference between monogamy and non-monogamy, Stanizai explains, is, “the divestment from the idea that sharing more of yourself with more people means that each person gets less of you. Instead, non-monogamous people generally understand the idea that sharing more relationships creates more intimacy and love to go around.”

There are many labels and types of non-monogamy and Stanizai says it’s up to each person to define it for themselves. Think of non-monogamy as an umbrella term which can include only dating others but being sexually exclusive with one partner, open relationships, monogamous couples who have sexual encounters with others (aka swingers), or polyamory.

How To Practice Radical Monogamy

Whether you’re already in a closed, committed relationship or more single than a dollar bill, you can embrace radical monogamy into your relationship structure. The first step, though, is to learn about all relationship structures, says therapist Dana McNeil, LMFT. Talking with your friends about how they came into their relationship structure of choice, and reading up on recommended material can help. McNeil suggests More than Two: A Practical Guide To Ethical Monogamy, The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide To Polyamory, Open Relationships and Other Freedoms, and PolyInfo.org as great sources. And on the podcast front, Kinky, Nerdy, and Poly and Black Radical Queer are worth a listen, she says.

Seeking a therapist who specializes in polyamory and LGBTQ+ issues is also a great avenue for information. “A good therapist can help you make a pros and cons list about the advantages and disadvantages of being in a monogamous or non-monogamous relationship, for you,” McNeil says, adding that they can help you understand what to do with that information you unravel, and then decide how to move forward.

If after putting in the work, you decide monogamy works best for you, you fall into the radical-monogamy camp of relationship structures. Ultimately, Ochs says, the goal of this work is to realize that beyond the two types of monogamy, there’s not a single relationship structure that will work for every person. Because of this, it’s key to suss out what works uniquely well for you.

Types of Monogamy FAQs

Is monogamy possible? Does it work?

The short answer: yes.

“It absolutely works and is an extremely satisfying, healing, and beneficial relationship structure,” Stanizai says. “It requires honesty, communication, and shared values. It helps people create meaning, heal attachment injuries, and builds community.” Polyamory, she adds, also does the same.

Is there a way a monogamous person can be polyamorous?

According to Stanizai, yes, people that consider themselves a monogamous person can do the work to learn what it means for them and begin polyamorous relationships. However, she says, there is a caveat.

“I often say polyamory is not about the hook up. You are not necessarily going to be successful long-term if the only reason you are considering polyamory is so you can hook up with a specific person,” she says. “The reason behind this is that you are not changing the way you view relationship structures, you’re just changing the behavior.”

What is serial monogamy?

Someone being referred to as a “serial monogamist” is something you often hear. Stanizai explains serial monogamy is when someone stays in exclusive relationships of any length, one after another.

What is toxic monogamy?

“Toxic monogamy is when the tenets of monogamy are taken to an extreme,” Stanizai says, by using monogamy to justify coercive or abusive behavior. This can include going through someone’s phone messages or dictating who they can be friends with. Stanizai adds that with toxic monogamy, jealousy is seen as a strength and one partner protects the exclusivity of their relationship to their partner’s detriment.

Is monogamy suitable for everyone?

Lastly, Stanizai says monogamy is just as suitable for everyone as polyamory. Again, she emphasizes that the key is that each person decides their relationship philosophy and then designs relationships that suit their personal needs and capacity.