Podcasts about Assistant Secretary

Share on
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Reddit
Copy link to clipboard
  • 626PODCASTS
  • 981EPISODES
  • 44mAVG DURATION
  • 5WEEKLY NEW EPISODES
  • Jan 15, 2022LATEST

POPULARITY

20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022


Best podcasts about Assistant Secretary

Show all podcasts related to assistant secretary

Latest podcast episodes about Assistant Secretary

Wisdom.MBA
The Future of Private Aviation, Leadership & Special Forces Training with Tommy Sowers, PhD

Wisdom.MBA

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 15, 2022 56:52


Tommy Sowers is a true renaissance man with an incredible resume. He is an entrepreneur, academic, politician and a decorated Military officer with an 11-year career in the Army, having achieved the rank of Major. He has taught at West Point, the University of Missouri and Duke. He also served as the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.Tommy is currently the President of flyExclusive, which is the fastest growing private jet charter in the United States, located in Kinston, North Carolina. Tommy and I discuss the future of private aviation and how COVID-19 has impacted the demand for private jet ownership. Tommy also talks about cofounding GoldenKey, a venture backed firm which disrupted the buying and selling of homes. The company raised $3.7 million in funding and was sold in 2018.Tommy graduated first in his class at the Special Forces Qualification Course, and we talk about how his military training and time as a Green Beret prepared him for diverse leadership challenges. Tommy completed his undergraduate from Duke University and earned his MSc and PhD from the London School of Economics.This episode has a lot of great insights on leadership, dealing with adversity and adapting to different work environments and situations. Also … if you have dreams and aspirations about flying private or owning a jet, you'll want to tune in.Discussion Topics:(1:47) Duke basketball & being a seven-foot Army Ranger.(4:45) Private jet travel and sales during the COVID era.(14:14) Investment trends in the private aviation industry.(20:56) Adding innovative technical jobs in North Carolina.(26:15) The economics of jet ownership. Does it make financial sense?(29:00) Becoming an entrepreneur, founding GoldenKey and raising venture capital.(35:54) University education and teaching styles.(41:40) Special Forces mindset to help with career and life transitions.(49:35) Veteran career transition advice.(53:33) Rapid fire questions.

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast
I worked for President Trump and President Nixon. Monica Crowley with Sebastian Gorka One on One

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 14, 2022 50:28


Sebastian talks to former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Monica Crowley about her experiences working for both President Nixon and President Trump, and how their treatment at the hands of the mainstream media and the Deep State were very similar Support the show: https://www.sebgorka.com/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Steve Gruber Show
Monica Crowley, Biden's Worst Jobs Report

The Steve Gruber Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 11, 2022 11:00


Monica Crowley served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Public Affairs) at the United States Department of the Treasury. Biden's Worst Jobs Report

Cats at Night with John Catsimatidis
Guests: Terence Monahan, John Solomon, Tidal McCoy, Peter King, Dr. Mark Siegel

Cats at Night with John Catsimatidis

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 31, 2021 49:10


John Catsimatidis is joined in studio by Lidia Curanaj, Richard Schwartz, and Fmr. Gov. David Paterson. The Cats at Night crew is joined by Fmr. NYPD Chief Terence Monahan, who talks about the NYPD's presence at the New Year's Eve celebration in Times Square. Next, John Solomon calls in to break down breaking news. Then, Fmr. U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Tidal McCoy discusses the military threat posed by China. Finally, Dr. Marc Siegel slams the Biden Administration's failing COVID policies.

Cats at Night with John Catsimatidis
Tidal McCoy | 12-31-2021

Cats at Night with John Catsimatidis

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 31, 2021 11:28


Fmr. U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Tidal McCoy discusses the military threat posed by China.

Laura-Lynn & Friends
206 -Dr. Michael Palmer& Catherine Austin

Laura-Lynn & Friends

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 31, 2021 118:00


Our guests today are: Catherine Austin Fitts former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Bush administration and Dr. Michael Palmer, a chemistry professor from University of Waterloo. We will be talking about Covid and world governments response to it. Show Resources All of my content is completely, 100%, viewer supported and funded. Thank you for your kindness to keep information like this coming.  Fear is the Virus t-shirts Donate at: www.lauralynn.tv Patreon:  https://www.patreon.com/LauraLynnThompson E-Transfer to Email: lauralynnlive@gmail.com Twitter: @LauraLynnTT Facebook: Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson Parler: @LauraLynnTT Bitchute Twitch Dlive Flote Rumble Mobcrush      

Onward Podcast
Still I Rise with Ms. Donjette L. Gilmore, SES

Onward Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 27, 2021 62:39


Ms. Donjette L. Gilmore suggested the title, Still I Rise, for this episode. And, once you listen, you'll know why she chose this title after her favorite poem by Maya Angelou. As the  Executive Director, Public Private Partnership Audit-Level Reviews, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Energy Installations & Environment, Ms. Gilmore oversees an extensive portfolio of 80,000 Conus Military Family Houses valued at $7.6 billion. A Senior Executive, Ms. Gilmore is a dedicated Servant Leader focused on assessing whether public private partners' long-term financial viability will continue to provide safe, quality, well-maintained military family housing for or Sailors, Marines. Thus enabling them to remain focused on Navy's mission.   We cover many topics in this awesome interview to include: - The Navy stablished her office in October 27, 2019 amid intense congressional and media scrutiny. - Faced with limited resources, Ms. Gilmore got creative and established a professional development rotational program to attract personnel to help to achieve the mission. - Ms. Gilmore is proud of her dedicated, passionate staff that she calls  “PPPR Angels”. - Her work is not a job, it's her calling. - Finally, obstacles make you stronger. Ms. Gilmore has been “the first” many times, paving the way for other African American women to follow in her footsteps.  Resources Mentioned:  Connect with Ms. Gilmore on LinkedIn Ms. Gilmore's Official website Bio: Ms. Gilmore Friends of Guest House Connect with Emily on LinkedIn  Emily Harman Positive Intelligence Coaching Program  Onward Accelerator Coaching Program Onward: Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | Onward Movement Facebook Group | YouTube Buy Emily's Best Selling Book Step Into the Spotlight Schedule a Complimentary Coaching Call with Emily Music by Soul Pajamas Enjoyed the show? Please remember to leave a rating and review in Apple Podcasts.

NALC’s Postal Record Audiobook
December Postal Record: Assistant Secretary-Treasurer

NALC’s Postal Record Audiobook

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 20, 2021 7:10


Our NALC home in Washington, DC Read here

Poverty Research & Policy
Anna Gassman-Pines on Early Impacts of the Pandemic for Parents in Service Occupations

Poverty Research & Policy

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 20, 2021 15:50


When the pandemic hit the United States in March of 2020, Anna Gassman-Pines and her colleague Elizabeth Ananat were already conducting a text message survey among service workers who had children. As early-pandemic lockdowns and business closures began, Gassman-Pines and Ananat were able to pivot and began asking the people they were surveying about job and income loss, challenges that stemmed from school and childcare shifts, whether they were able to access government benefits, and about their own mental health. In this podcast episode Gassman-Pines offers an overview of their findings and discusses how what they learned fits within the larger context of low-wage work in the United States. Transcript:  Dave Chancellor: [00:00:04] Hello, and thanks for joining us for the Poverty Research and Policy podcast from the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I'm Dave Chancellor and, for this episode, I got to speak with Anna Gassman-Pines about the experiences early in the COVID-19 pandemic of parents who worked in service occupations. Now, before the start of the pandemic, Gassman-Pines and her colleagues were already doing a text message survey with workers that looked especially at how the precariousness of their work schedules affected other areas of their lives. And so when the pandemic hit, they were able to pivot and ask about many of the issues that especially impacted lower earning parents like income loss, shifts to remote learning or changes in child care challenges, accessing benefits, and mental health struggles. And even though we're around a year and a half into the pandemic, these are things that many families are still very much working through today. So let's turn to the interview. Dr. Gassman-Pines, thanks for being here for the Poverty Research and Policy podcast. So you are the WLF BASS Connections Associate Professor of Public Policy and Psychology at Duke University, right? Can you tell me a little bit about the kind of research that you do? Anna Gassman-Pines [00:01:21] Absolutely, and thanks so much for having me. My research focuses on understanding contextual influences on the well-being of low income children in the United States, and in particular, I'm interested in really understanding how parents experiences outside the home in labor markets, in low wage jobs, accessing social services spill over to the home and ultimately affect families and children's well-being. Chancellor [00:01:51] Today we're talking about how lower income working parents were kind of doing in the early months of the COVID 19 pandemic and you have a study that you've done with Elizabeth Ananat that ended up giving us a lot of insights into the picture of people's day to day. But that's not how the two of you kind of originally set out to do this study, right? What was the actual plan here? Gassman-Pines [00:02:14] That's right. So at the beginning of this study, we were interested in two big questions. One is understanding how common schedule changes are for hourly working parents who are working in the service sector. So working in retail, food service or hotel jobs. How common is it for their work schedule to be changed from the schedule that was originally posted or shared with them? And what are the consequences of those schedule changes for the well-being of both those parents and their children? So that was the first big question. The second big question was to try to understand whether. Local regulations that hold service sector employers that they had to give their employees more advance notice and to compensate their employees for changes made to the work schedule after it was shared would either alter the likelihood of those last minute changes or make their consequences less negative for those families. So, in other words, would a local law that tries to make schedules more predictable, improve well-being for working parents and their families, either by making schedule changes less common or by making them less costly? Chancellor [00:03:32] You had a wave of this study in the field in the early months of 2020, so you kind of got like a real time look at what happened right around the middle of March. Gassman-Pines [00:03:44] That's right. So the way that our data collection works is we actually ask our participants to answer daily survey questions. The surveys each day are quite short, but they allow us to get real time information about whether parents work, what their work hours were, whether there were any unanticipated changes to their work schedule and reports about their own and their children's well-being each day. And we had just launched another wave of data collection starting in mid-February, where we were asking these parents to provide two weeks of 14 days or these daily survey reports. And as people were enrolling in that wave over time and those two weeks were starting, that was right when the COVID-19 pandemic kind of burst onto the scene. And what we could really see was almost in real time just how quickly parents lost access to work as restrictions were put into place and how immediately that affected their family well-being. Chancellor [00:04:52] I know for a lot of researchers when the pandemic hit and a lot of these quarantine restrictions kind of came into place, it kind of messed things up, I guess, in terms of study. But you were doing like a text message study, right? So this is in some ways, socially distant-friendly. Gassman-Pines [00:05:08] That's right. So this study was set up to use technology from the very beginning. We use text messages for sending and receiving all of our survey questions. And that is for a few reasons. One. Almost everyone has a basic mobile phone that is capable of simple text messaging at this point, so cell phones have really become ubiquitous. So there are way of reaching all different types of people. But by using text messages instead of a more standard phone survey, people can participate every day in a way that works for them and that allows them to continue to balance their own other work and family demands. So those surveys are sent out each night at seven p.m., but someone might not be able to answer until midnight, and that's totally fine. So we were set up to use this technology from the very beginning, even well before the pandemic and back in 2019. And we'd been communicating with our sample about the study, using phone and text all along. And so we were really in a strong position to continue that work through the pandemic without having to make any changes to the way that we were asking our participants to share information with us. Chancellor [00:06:24] So what sort of things were you asking these workers and these parents, especially as you shifted into, you know, pandemic mode? Gassman-Pines [00:06:35] So once the pandemic hit and we saw how quickly parents work lives were changing, we did pivot to field additional one time surveys to the sample over time. That allowed us to really get a lot more details from them about how they were experiencing the pandemic. So these included in addition to information about their job loss and changes to work. We also gathered information about. Loss of income, both income from earnings, but also income from other sources like government support. We continue to ask questions about parents' mental health. We have a lot of detailed information about access to social services, both kind of traditional programs that have existed for a long time, as well as programs that were put into place in response to the pandemic. And a lot of other questions about the challenges with balancing work and care in this moment. So, for example, in the fall wave that we fielded in fall of 2020, we asked about remote or in-person child care or school, how where children were and how often schooling or care had been disrupted because of the pandemic. Chancellor [00:07:57] Walk us through some of the results here. What were people telling you about? I think, Early on with the job loss, I know a lot of people lost their jobs in that last half of March of 2020. What did that look like for the people that you were talking to you? Gassman-Pines [00:08:12] Keeping in mind that our sample was folks who are all working in the service sector, which, as we know, has been really hard hit by the pandemic and we saw that in our sample too. So about 40 percent of our sample was laid off during those early months of the pandemic. And for those who were with who were laid off, they experienced substantial losses of income. So we ask a pretty simple question which is asking folks to think back and compare their income now to what it was pre-pandemic. And we ask them to not report the exact dollar figure because that's pretty hard to figure out, but we ask them to put that number into general buckets. Is it basically the same as it was before the pandemic? Maybe it's higher or was it less than before the pandemic? And if it was less, was it more than half of what you had before the pandemic? And so what we see for those who lost jobs is the most common thing is that their income has fallen by more than 50 percent. This is a large income loss for folks who were not making a lot of money to begin with. And the consequence of that has been a big increase in material hardship. So what we're seeing in our sample is big increases in food insecurity from pre-pandemic and also trouble with basic things like being able to pay rent or mortgage. Chancellor [00:09:47] And I'm curious about some of these mental health questions that you ask, because this is for this been hard for everybody, right? But for people who were experiencing large material hardships, that's going to be really hard, right? Gassman-Pines [00:10:01] Yes, that's right, so we have asked throughout the pandemic questions about parents mental health, both general anxiety and depression we use for each of those. Validated to question screeners that basically could give any practitioner, a researcher, health professional, a sense that this person is at pretty high risk for either generalized anxiety or depression. And what we found is that throughout the pandemic, half of the parents in our sample are screening positive for likely anxiety, depression or both. Chancellor [00:10:38] You had mentioned before looking at some of the government programs that folks may have been either trying to take up. How were those helping or were folks able to access things that made a difference? Gassman-Pines [00:10:51] So there's really two important takeaways from our findings around access to government support. So big takeaway number one is the CARES Act, and the government supports that were provided in response to the pandemic did help in stabilizing family income. At the same time, though, they relied on. Antiquated systems that were, in many cases, understaffed and underfunded pre-pandemic, with the implications being that not everyone who was eligible for benefits was able to get them. So taking unemployment insurance, for example, so unemployment insurance is our main safety net program for people who lose jobs. Access to unemployment was massively increased in response to the pandemic so that many, many more workers, nearly all workers, were eligible to receive unemployment insurance, and it was also made more generous to acknowledge the tremendous financial need during this time. But in our sample, nearly everyone who was laid off tried to apply for unemployment insurance, but many were not actually able to get their benefits. Some couldn't get through the process because it was too cumbersome or difficult, or they didn't have the right technology. But most of them simply just hadn't received benefits, even though they were able to apply and were eligible. The benefits just hadn't arrived yet. And unfortunately, there are racial disparities in the likelihood of that happening. So in our sample, the black families were much more likely to have gotten through the application process, but not yet received their unemployment insurance at the time of our survey. Then the white families in our sample, Chancellor [00:12:56] You study families with children and how sort of this precarity sometimes affects families and how do we kind of situate this in the longer term? I mean, is this just a symptom of kind of like a broader issue that a lot of lower income families have in our country? Gassman-Pines [00:13:15] That's a great question, and I do think that what we're seeing families struggling with now is really only a heightened version of what families were already struggling with before the pandemic. So, for example, in our sample in the fall of 2019, of all the days that we surveyed families, they told us that they had some kind of anticipated change to their work schedule, like having a shift canceled at the last minute, having a shift added on at the last minute, having their hours changed in some way that was happening on about 11 percent of all the days. So when you think about 11 percent of days, what that tells you is that one once out of every 10 days work is not going as planned, which means rearranging child care and other responsibilities. And you can imagine the kind of stress and strain that this was putting on parents under the best of circumstances in a strong economy before this pandemic. And so what the pandemic has really done is heightened all those stresses and strains and made much more visible to two more people. How precarious this balance is of trying to manage unstable work schedules and care responsibilities for young children. Chancellor [00:14:44] What are some of the other implications of this study? What are you looking at? Gassman-Pines [00:14:49] I think the big implication is that more supports for working families are needed. It could include thinking more about. How to smooth and streamline access to these programs and support supporting state and local governments in administering benefits and reducing hurdles for families. And additionally, we should be thinking about ways to strengthen our systems for addressing families mental health needs. Chancellor [00:15:25] Thanks again to Professor Anna Gassman-Pines for talking about her work with us. You can give her follow on Twitter at @AGPines. The Institute for Research on Poverty is the National Research Center on Poverty and Economic Mobility, funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. The positions expressed in this podcast are not necessarily those of the Institute for Research on Poverty or ASPE. You can learn more about IRP and the other resources we offer at irp.wisc.edu. Thanks for listening.

Daily News Brief
Daily News Brief for Friday, December 17, 2021

Daily News Brief

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 17, 2021 18:47


Trans revolution calls for communist revolution … and more on today's CrossPolitic Daily News Brief. This is Toby Sumpter. Today is Tuesday, December 14, 2021. Find all our shows at Crosspolitic.com and download the Fight Laugh Feast App at your favorite app store so you don't miss anything. And if you're not yet a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member, let me just encourage you to consider it today. We are seeking to build a Rowdy Christian Network -- news, sports, talk shows, even sitcoms that celebrate the good life and give liberals the proverbial whim-whams. If you'd like to help us do that, join the club. We love our sponsors, but the heartbeat of CrossPolitic is individual members supporting the work. Join today. Transgender Activists Discuss Their Work as Part of a new Communist Revolution Kay Gabriel, faculty member at New York University, asserts that trans activism is part of a larger effort to bring about a “Communist Revolution”. Play Audio Idaho Family Policy Center I wanted to let you all know about Idaho Family Policy Center. IFPC is currently the only explicitly Christian policy organization in Idaho politics. I serve on the board, and the president is Blaine Conzatti, a member of our sister CREC church, Kings Congregation down in Meridian. Blaine and IFPC have been leading the efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, end abortion in Idaho, and protect children from the transgender agenda. Basically, Blaine is a really strategic voice in Idaho politics, and he represents many of our biblical and constitutional concerns in Boise. IFPC is a brand new ministry and as such is in significant need of donations to help fund it. I know we all have many commitments to other good ministries, but if you are particularly concerned about Idaho politics, this is one way you can have a very direct impact. Go to www.idahofamily.org to learn more and make a donation. Senate Unanimously Passes Uyghur Forced Labor Bill https://dailycaller.com/2021/12/16/senate-passes-uyghur-forced-labor-bill-marco-rubio/ After a series of false starts and delays, the Senate passed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act by voice vote Thursday. The bill, sponsored by Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, targets slave labor in Xinjiang and surrounding provinces, where China is conducting a genocide of the Uyghur people. It passedthe House by voice vote Tuesday and is expected to be signed into law by President Joe Biden. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act creates a “rebuttable presumption” that goods produced in Xinjiang or by certain listed Chinese business entities are produced by the forced labor of Uyghurs or other ethnic minorities. Companies may continue to import products from Xinjiang if they provide “clear and convincing evidence” to the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection that their supply chains do not include forced labor. The bill's passage unlocks three votes to confirm Biden nominees to key State Department positions. Rubio and Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy agreed that the Republican would drop his objections to Nicholas Burns, nominated to be Ambassador to China, Ramin Toloui, nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State, and Rashad Hussain, nominated to be Ambassador for International Religious Freedom, in exchange for Murphy's lack of objection to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Glenn Loury Says America is Not White Supremacist Play audio: 0:00-1:02 Why are people flocking here from all over the world? Because it's so oppressive and white supremacist? Supreme Court Sends Texas Heartbeat Law Back to Appeals Court A U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday dealt another blow to the Texas abortion industry by sending its lawsuit against the state heartbeat law back to a federal appeals court that previously allowed the legislation to go into effect. The Associated Press reports the pro-abortion groups suing to overturn the pro-life law wanted the justices to send their lawsuit back to U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, who blocked the law in October. On Thursday, however, Justice Neil Gorsuch signed an order sending the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals instead, according to the report. Back in October, the Fifth Circuit rejected Pitman's ruling just a few days after he issued it and allowed the law to go into effect again. Pro-life leaders estimate that the heartbeat law, which bans abortions once an unborn baby's heartbeat is detectable, about six weeks of pregnancy, has saved thousands of babies' lives since it went into effect Sept. 1. The law includes a unique private enforcement mechanism that allows private individuals to sue abortionists and those who “aid and abet” in abortions in violation of the law. It is this provision that has been the main focus of the legal dispute thus far. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court threw out a lawsuit from President Joe Biden and rejected the Texas pro-abortion groups' request to temporarily block the law while their legal challenge continues through the courts. While the high court ruled that the Texas abortion businesses may continue with their lawsuit, it also watered down their case by allowing them to sue state licensing officials but not the state judges and clerks who are charged with handling lawsuits spurred by the law. Now, the Supreme Court is sending the case back to the Fifth Circuit for consideration, and abortion activists are losing hope — good news for the future of unborn babies in Texas. “The Supreme Court left only a small sliver of our case intact, and it's clear that this part of the case will not block vigilante lawsuits from being filed,” Marc Hearron, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the AP. “It's also clear that Texas is determined to stop the plaintiffs from getting any relief in even the sliver of the case that is left.” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said he also was “stunned” that the Supreme Court allowed the law to remain in effect even though it violates Roe v. Wade. “The court's refusal to block the blatantly unconstitutional Texas law is also a strong signal that it is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade,” Chemerinsky wrote this week at the Los Angeles Times. Texas abortion businesses are admitting a likely defeat as well. They essentially have no way to stop Texas citizens and pro-life groups from filing lawsuits against them, abortionists and abortion center staff who help abort unborn babies in violation the law. And if the law remains in effect much longer, many Texas abortion businesses may close. According to the Texas Tribune: Amy Hagstrom Miller, president of Whole Woman's Health, which operates four clinics in Texas and is the lead plaintiff in the providers' lawsuit, warned last week that the current volume of services is not enough to keep clinics open in the long term. “Staying open is not sustainable if this ban stays in effect much longer,” Hagstrom Miller said. “We are grateful for the donors and foundations and folks who have been supporting us in the interim … but the future looks bleak if we can't get some justice here.” Ultimately, the abortion businesses' legal challenge appears to be “doomed,” the report concluded. And that's great news for unborn babies. A new study found that, in just the first month of the law, abortions in Texas went down 50 percent. Since then, Texas abortion facility directors have reported even bigger drops in their abortion numbers, as high as 80 percent compared to the previous year, according to the Texas Tribune. The heartbeat law has the potential to save tens of thousands of unborn babies from abortion every year. In 2020, about 54,000 unborn babies were aborted in Texas, and about 85 percent happened after six weeks of pregnancy, according to state health statistics. Remaining missionaries kidnapped in Haiti by gang released https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/remaining-missionaries-kidnapped-haiti-gang-released-rcna9010?fbclid=IwAR0acBi61sVy19OtPu-G_kaiJdEj84zWLnILglQvByTNWRW3jF6WHLgd1kw A Haitian gang has released the remaining 12 hostages they had abducted — more than two months after their kidnapping, the Ohio-based religious group they work with announced Thursday. "We glorify God for answered prayer—the remaining twelve hostages are FREE! Join us in praising God that all seventeen of our loved ones are now safe," said a statement from Christian Aid Ministries. "Thank you for your fervent prayers throughout the past two months. We hope to provide more information as we are able." Haiti National Police Spokesman Gary Desrosiers also confirmed to NBC News that the hostages had been found safe, but would not say where they had been taken. Seventeen people working with the group were kidnapped in October by the 400 Mawozo gang, which controls the Ganthier commune in the suburb of Port-au-Prince where the missionaries were taken. Christian Aid Ministries had previously said that those who were kidnapped were sixteen U.S citizens and one Canadian citizen — six men, six women, and five children. The missionaries were returning from an orphanage, an hour and a half from Christian Aid Ministries Haiti base and often visited by their staff, when they were taken. The group, based in Millersburg, Ohio, repeatedly called for supporters to fast and pray for the safe release of the hostages, at one point earlier this month encouraging Christians to fast for three days. In November, two of the missionaries were released, and another three were freed earlier this month Fight Laugh Feast Magazine DNB Our Fight Laugh Feast Magazine is a quarterly issue that packs a punch like a 21 year Balvenie, no ice. We don't water down our theology, why would we water down our scotch? Order a yearly subscription for yourself and then send a couple yearly subscriptions to your friends who have been drinking luke-warm evangelical cool-aid. Every quarter we promise quality food for the soul, wine for the heart, and some Red Bull for turning over tables. Our magazine will include cultural commentary, a Psalm of the quarter, recipes for feasting, laughter sprinkled through out the glossy pages, and more. Two major airline CEOs question effectiveness of mask mandates on planes https://nypost.com/2021/12/16/two-airline-ceos-question-need-for-mask-mandates-on-planes/ ​​The chief executive officers of two major airlines have questioned the need for mask mandates on planes — insisting that face coverings “don't add much” to the safety of flying amid the pandemic. CEO of Southwest Airlines, Gary Kelly, Play Audio “I concur,” Doug Parker, the head of the country's largest airline, American Airlines, added. “An aircraft is the safest place you can be. It's true of all of our aircraft — they all have the same HEPA filters and airflow.” Both airline chiefs insisted that the high-quality air filters on their planes bring in new air and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Psalm of the Day: Mozart's Magnificat Play: 0:00-1:18 Magnificat: My soul magnifies the Lord! My spirit rejoices in God my Savior! For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden: for behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done great things; and holy is His name. Amen! Remember you can always find the links to our news stories and these psalms at crosspolitic dot com – just click on the daily news brief and follow the links. This is Toby Sumpter with Crosspolitic News. A reminder: Support Rowdy Christian media, and share this show or become a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member. For a limited time, we're offering a Christmas Man Box for new subscribers at the Silver level and above, and if you're already a club member, you can purchase the CrossPolitic Christmas Man Box for just $50 while supplies last. Remember if you didn't make it to the Fight Laugh Feast Conferences, club members have access to all the talks from Douglas Wilson, Joe Boot, Jeff Durbin, Glenn Sunshine, Nate Wilson, David Bahnsen, Voddie Baucham, Ben Merkle, and many more. Join today and have a great day.

Poverty Research & Policy
Amy Castro On Early Results From Guaranteed Income Programs

Poverty Research & Policy

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 15, 2021 34:50


For this episode of the Poverty Research and Policy Podcast, we hear from Professor Amy Castro about the concept of Basic Income, and what she and her team are learning from data coming in from pilot projects around the country.  Professor Castro is Founding Director of the Center for Guaranteed Income Research and an Assistant Professor of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. --- Transcript:  Judith Siers-Poisson: Hello, and thanks for joining us for the poverty research and policy podcast from the Institute for research on poverty at the university of Wisconsin-Madison. I'm Judith Siers-Poisson. For this episode we are going to be talking with Professor Amy Castro about the concept of Basic Income, and what she and her team are learning from data coming in from pilot projects around the country.  Professor Castro is Founding Director of the Center for Guaranteed Income Research and an Assistant Professor of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. Professor Castro, Thanks for joining us today. Amy Castro: Thanks for having me. Siers-Poisson: What do we mean when we talk about a guaranteed income? What is it and what is it not? Castro: Yeah, it's a great question because there's a lot of terms that are floating out there in the public imagination that also in the literature. So, there's three basic terms that pertain to this body of work. First is UBI or Universal Basic Income, and that's the one that people are probably the most familiar with given Andrew Yang's presidential run. UBI is exactly what it sounds like. It's universal. It's an unconditional amount of cash that goes to every single person in a city, a state, a town, a county, whatever that jurisdiction may be. We actually have not had a UBI experiment here in the United States because obviously universality know would apply to everybody. We have not had that yet. Second is basic income. Basic income is again an unconditional amount of cash that is given to a group of people, and it's enough to cover your basic needs. The third category, which is primarily what I study, is guaranteed income. It's not enough money to cover your basic needs but is a fixed amount of cash that's recurring, so you can rely on that money coming each month each week, whatever that cadence may be. And I think that's key about all three of these categories. A characteristic that carries across all is the unconditional nature of it, meaning you receive that cash because you're human, you don't receive that cash because you fit a means test criteria or because you are doing something like participating in a workforce force training program or a financial literacy program. You receive that cash because you are because you exist. And that's really the ethos behind guaranteed income or basic income. Siers-Poisson: And it seems like that point is what distinguishes it from, say, what people used to lump under the umbrella of welfare in the past. Castro: Exactly. And I think that that's why, you know, on the one hand, people are so excited about this idea. And then on the other hand, why there is so much backlash, right, is that we truly are talking about giving away money, no strings attached. And traditionally here in the United States, when we talk about the provision of cash or goods to people who are struggling to make ends meet, we layer it with all sorts of restrictions as to how that money can be spent and who can have access to it. And what's attached to those restrictions are social constructions ideas that are not rooted in reality, they're rooted in ideology most of the time around race, class, gender, marital status. And they're used as ways to shame and blame people who access these programs. And it really serves as a social deterrent for people to access them. In contrast, basic income or guaranteed income functions completely differently. If you're enrolled in one of these programs or pilots, you receive it because you're human. And the idea is that people know best what they need and what their households need. And secondly, if we think about need, right? So like financial scarcity or financial need, needs fluctuate from month to month and cash is the only benefit that's flexible. So if needs are flexible, we want to have something that's dynamic to match it. And cash is really the only thing that does that in comparison to something like food stamps or SNAP, which can only be used for restricted items such as food that fits a pre-set list that's set by a bureaucrat. Siers-Poisson: So you just explained that this goes to people because they're people, not because they qualify in some way, but then who was targeted for these guaranteed income programs? Castro: Yeah, it's a great question. So, you know, it's a fancy way of saying it would be what is the recruitment criteria, right? Because we're running experiments scientifically. So we are designing and studying these programs to see what happens when you provide people the money. So one of the big questions that we get any time we're running a new pilot—and right now we're running or at various stages of running twenty-eight pilots across the US at my center—is who gets the money right? And so that's a complicated process that for us happens across three different sets of stakeholders. First, we have our community-based stakeholders, which is what the community wants to set as far as eligibility criteria. Second, you know, elected officials who may or may not be working with us and that are really spearheading the program and helping to kind of get it off the ground. And then third, those of us within the research space trying to determine how do we best leverage this project to answer research questions so that we are informing policy with data. So that recruitment criteria really varies for us from state to state and from location to location. I would say the majority of the projects we're working on right now are focused on people who are struggling to make ends meet. Oftentimes, they have children in the household, and oftentimes there are people who have had some type of a pandemic-related incident with their work: their hours being cut, something to that effect. But that's a general statement of each pilot is slightly different. Siers-Poisson: I want to get into the nuts and bolts of how this works, but first, I want to touch on something that you just said and that's getting feedback from the communities that you are in. And I think that especially the communities that we're talking about are communities that have maybe historically been treated with less respect in the ways that they are given support or help, if they are at all. When you also layer on things like systemic racism and the history of understandable distrust of systems, how do you go in and build those relationships that are necessary to have any hope of being successful? Castro: That's such a great question. You know, first I'll own, before I say how, and sort of jump to say how we resolve that problem, or we try to resolve that problem, because I'm by no means saying that we fix it. The first thing I just want to own is that, you know, as a scientist and as somebody who has social work training, this is the hardest part of my job. You know, it's really easy as a scientist to stay in a position of control. And that's how we're trained, is that you hold your research design so tightly. You are the expert, you know, best it needs to happen. You determine the hypotheses, you determine the design and it is in your hands. And it is very comforting, right? You can lean back into your methods training, lean back into your degree, lean back into your institution or your brand, and label yourself as the expert and that feels very safe. But the more you involve the community in your design, the more you are letting go of really being in control. So when we think about the posture of science and the posture of how we engage with community stakeholders, it's crucial that we sort of hold our integrity as a scientist in one hand while on the other hand, being willing to relinquish control to some degree to involve community voice in the process. And when we look back through social science, we see, you know, decades of places where we've been unwilling to do this and we start measuring things, designing programs and policies, without the community input. And then we wonder why it doesn't work. This happened with TANF, or Welfare to Work as we designed this program, assuming it would work without bothering to think, “Hey, what happens if you expect the mom to work and take three busses to get to the other side of a city?” That literally makes absolutely no sense, right? So I will say that at the outset, it's the most rewarding part of what I do. It's also the most terrifying because it means I'm not in a position of control. As far as how we resolve it, there's no way to do it that's going to make everyone happy. I'll own that from the start. But a couple key steps. First is making certain that we are involving ourselves from the very beginning of a project with community-based stakeholders and organizations who know their community well. So this means doing that legwork of meeting with CBOs, nonprofits, and also the constituents themselves and the people who receive benefits from those programs to understand best how a program ought to be designed. So in some cases, we involve people in giving us feedback on how we design that recruitment criteria, or another way of putting it who gets the money, and getting that feedback. And then crucially, another way that we involve community stakeholders is in release of findings. So in Stockton, for instance, all of that data that's been released on spending that people can see, that is seen by a group of focus groups of community stakeholders that are not elected officials, that are not people in power. They're regular humans who get to see that data first and work with us to think about how we display this data to the public. Siers-Poisson: So let's get down to those nuts and bolts of how these programs work. First of all, how is the amount decided on? You did say that guaranteed income is not supposed to provide for all expenses, but even given that, it seems like the cost of living in different parts of the country or even parts of a state would need to be taken into consideration. So how do you find that that amount that is going to give you some kind of results that mean something? Castro: That's a great question, and it's one of our most vexing open research questions. So first, Stockton was set at $500 a month. The rationale behind that $500 a month is that the question of whether or not you can absorb a $400 unexpected shock or financial emergency is a standard question or threshold within economic mobility research and something that's standard in a lot of our large datasets. So it sort of made sense to start there. A lot of other cities who have built on the Stockton model have kind of just lifted that amount of money because that's what Stockton did. We have very limited control as to deciding the disbursement amount. And of course, those things are also restricted by the amount of funds that are available to a given pilot. However, some of our larger places and bigger cities with higher cost of living like, for instance, the L.A. area, we're talking about $1,000 a month. So it's really an open question for research and for policy as to how should we adjust unconditional cash based on cost of living. It's not something we have a good answer to yet, and I'm hoping that we will within the next three or four years because, yeah, cost of living is different from one state to the next, from one city to the next. And that's absolutely something that needs to be taken into consideration when we're talking about moving from pilot to policy. Siers-Poisson:  So Stockton, which is the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, or SEED, I believe, as you said, that was the first pilot of this specific type of guaranteed income program. How did it come about? Why Stockton? Castro: So it's incredibly interesting. So first, Mayor Michael Tubbs really spearheaded the launch of that project in partnership with Economic Security Project. So Economic Security Project or ESP, which is headed up by Chris Hughes, former cofounder of Facebook, and Natalie Foster, they had been sort of looking for a city that was interested in potentially testing this idea. Now everyone is kind of running to try find a basic income pilot but go back to 2017, 2018, people are like “you are crazy. You're going to give people money? No strings attached? That's absolutely nuts.” And here's Mayor Tubbs, who you know is, I believe the youngest, if not one of the youngest, who's 26 years old, elected as mayor in Stockton. You know, Stockton had nowhere to go but up. They had experienced the worst that capitalism has to offer. They were once the foreclosure capital of the United States, while also absorbing the cost of housing from the bay area. So it made it sort of an ideal spot to test this idea because one, you had a mayor who was interested and willing to try anything right, willing to take the risk. But second, it really is a bellwether location. And when we think about sort of the way that risky lending has really dismantled the middle class and resulted in tremendous losses in wealth, particularly for, you know, Black and Brown households, Stockton was an ideal place to test policy proof of concept because it really kind of fit that Venn diagram of all these, these different forces that are really contributed to the loss of wealth, the United States. Siers-Poisson: So you had, I think it's fair to say, a visionary young mayor who was interested in trying this. So where did the money come from? Castro: The money came from two kind of different categories. So first, you have the disbursement money, so the money that actually goes to the people. That funding came primarily from the Economic Security Project, along with a number of other philanthropists who donated, smaller family foundations, and also some individual donors. And then the science—this is crucial because this is a model that we, we maintain across all the things that we're working on—the funding for the science came from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. And so we really like to keep a strong firewall between those two sides. So there's not coercion. So, RWJF, you know, really to their credit, specifically, the evidence for action arm of RWJ, really took a chance on our project and funded the research side. So the evaluation dollars were coming from sort of that traditional form of funding. Siers-Poisson: And so how many people were enrolled, and do you think of them as people or as households? Castro: Oh, great question. Yeah. So we tend to talk about sort of the findings at a household level simply because that's how people live, right? They live in networks, they live in households, but the money is not going to specific household, it's going to a specific individual in the household. So we had 125 people in the treatment group, which is another way of saying the people who got the $500. And then we also had a control group who were taking all the same surveys, participating in the same interviews as the treatment group, but not getting the cash so we could compare one group to the other. Siers-Poisson: When did it start and how far along are you now? Castro: So the research ran for two years. Our last payment was in February of this year. So we had one full year of pre-pandemic data or disbursements and then one year of payments during the pandemic or after. We've only released the first-year findings. The second-year findings, that is the total findings, will be released to the public in late spring of 2022. Siers-Poisson: What were the key findings from that first year in Stockton? Castro: So we really saw changes in three key areas. First was income volatility. One of our driving research questions is can guaranteed income disrupt income volatility, which is your money going up and down each month, which really locks people out of financial instruments and being able to plan for the future. We saw less income volatility in those who were in the treatment group in comparison to control after one year. We saw that that sort of stabilization in family finances allowed families to plan for the future. So in the treatment group, after one year, we saw that monthly income volatility really dropped. And one of the ways that we look at that is asking this question: “Can you pay for unexpected $400 emergency expense with cash?” At the beginning of the experiment, in the treatment group, only 25% said that they could do that, along with the control. And after one year, those receiving the cash, 52% of them said they could absorb a $400 unexpected shock, while only 28% of those in control said that. Now this finding is really important because on the face of it sort of obvious, right? If you give people more money, they're going to have more money. But what's key to understand about this is two things. First, that liquidity in the household allowed people to both plan while also absorb the unexpected things that happen to all of us: the flat tire, the missed shift at work, the unexpected copay, which then tends to spill over in a household and cause strain elsewhere in the budget. Second, that liquidity was really pooled across fragile family networks, such that stabilizing those resources in one household actually had a spillover effect into other families where they normally would borrow money and food for those households, which is really key and interesting. And then the second area that we saw big shifts was in our second research question, which was ‘How do changes in income volatility impact health and well-being?” And what we found was that people receiving the cash were less anxious and depressed, both over time and compared to the control group. They reported improved emotional health and well-being, energy over fatigue, again, both over time compared to the control group. Now key, Judith, it's still staggering for me to even think that this is one of research findings is that at the beginning of the experiment, almost everyone in treatment control met the clinical criteria for either anxiety or depression, as measured by some pretty standard measures that we all use at the doctor's office. Most of us have taken these. And so what we saw was that after one year, we saw that treatment group move from meeting that clinical criteria for mild mental health disorder into the category of likely to be well, and that did not happen in the control group. And all we did was provide people with unconditional cash, which is fairly extraordinary. Then finally, our last question was “How is guaranteed income generate agency over one's future? Are we seeing people have greater control and self-determination?” And the biggest finding that we had here was around employment. So, you know, we've talked a lot about assumptions around poverty, and those are certainly very politically driven. And one of the criticisms we often get is “well if you give people cash, they're going to stop working and they'll just quit their jobs en masse,” which is kind of silly if you think about it, because you can't live off of $500 a month anywhere, let alone California. And what we saw in the treatment group was that at baseline, 28% of people in the treatment group were fully employed and after one year, 40% were fully employed, and we did not see that same shift in the control group. Literally the opposite of what politically we're told will happen if you give people cash. And again, when we leaned into our mixed methods design and followed up with qualitative data to understand, OK, how did this happen and why? It was really interesting. Two things that happened first was that the cash removed material barriers to seeking employment that people could not address prior. So in many instances, people who moved from knitting together multiple part-time jobs to one full-time job literally couldn't take a shift off of work to even apply for another job, and the cash allowed them to do that. So it removed some material barriers: cost of transportation, being able to skip work. So if you think about it, it takes time to apply for full-time jobs and you're not guaranteed that you're going to get it. And there's also that protracted period of going through H.R., resigning one position and starting another. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you literally don't have time to do that because financial scarcity generates time scarcity. And so really, removing those material barriers allowed people to apply for positions that they knew they were eligible for and just couldn't didn't have the time to do. Second was an increased capacity for risk taking. So what we saw was several months into that first year of treatment, as people's anxiety dropped, as their scarcity dropped, they had more bandwidth to breathe and really plan for the future. So being able to set certain goals for themselves and take risks knowing that they had the cash to fall back on. So those are both a material thing, you know, as well as a cognitive capacity thing and really sort of being able to reimagine what they wanted for their future. Siers-Poisson: You were able to see how people were using the money by tracking the purchases. And actually, we should say people received the funds on a monthly basis and a debit card, right? Castro: Correct. So in Stockton, the $500 was disbursed each month on a prepaid debit card. So that debit card was reloaded each month right in the middle of the month, and we chose that date. I think it's a crucial thing that gets lost oftentimes in kind of the excitement around guaranteed income is the timing of the money. So most social safety net programs, specifically SNAP benefits or food stamps, they run out by the second or third week of the month. And so what you see is food security at the front of the end of the month and by the end of the month, families are really scraping to get by and having to borrow from friends and family simply to feed their kids. So we intentionally chose the middle of the month, you know, we're really looking to disrupt income volatility, your finances going up and down consistently within the home. So that was kind of chosen to smooth that piece over. Siers-Poisson: So what have you learned from the format of this, that on a debit card, you can see exactly where money was being spent and how much? What are you seeing? Castro: First, I'll say, what's happening with the spending data or how people are using the money, is not one of our primary research questions. We don't really care. I have to be totally honest with you. I mean, how people spend the money is not a research focus of ours. We're far more interested in how spending the money impacts people's lives and impacts their health and well-being. However, again, we echo back to what I said prior. The community is certainly interested in how the money is spent. And when we talked with those focus groups, specifically a group of housing activists who live in Section 8  housing, they were insistent. I mean, absolutely insistent that we were release spending data. And when we asked them why, rather than saying it was because they thought it should be monitored, it was because they had such faith in how people who looked like them would spend it. They said, “No, we want the world to see exactly what it's like to struggle to make ends meet. And we know exactly how low-income moms and dads are going to spend this money,” which is why we took that step. So, you know, the thing around on the spending data first, you know, most of the money went to food. So approximately 40% of the money that's tracked each month on that debit card went directly toward food purchases. And then the next category after that, I believe, was big box stores. And we're talking about things like utilities. Now key, a large portion of the money was transferred off of the card each month into cash or into other bank accounts. And this is the beauty of a mixed-methods design is you can follow up with families to determine why they did that. So when we followed up with people to sort of figure out like, “Hey, what's this about transferring the money into cash,” it was really interesting. Several things first, like I said before, Stockton experienced the worst the capitalism has to offer. They were targeted consistently for risky lending schemes. They still are. Scams are really prevalent in the community, so they had no reason to trust us whatsoever. So the community is sitting there like “I'm constantly targeted with risky things. Why would I trust you?” So people would quickly move the money off the card into an account that they know and that they trust where it felt safer. And then also, you know, a lot of folks are still conducting their everyday lives in cash. So spreading cash around family networks, paying babysitters, things to that effect. Siers-Poisson: I wanted to go back to that focus group being adamant about releasing those results because I'm guessing that they, and other people who are living similar lives to theirs, are very aware of those critics. The people who say, you know, they can't be trusted, they're going to spend it on alcohol and drugs. Do you think that was part of it too? Not just that they were confident that their cohort was going to spend it responsibly, but they wanted to be able to show people like, “Look, this is who we are, not who you think we are.” Castro: Yeah, that's a beautiful way of putting it. I mean, without question, is that they really wanted people to see, you know, so less than 1% of the money on the card that's tracked each month, meaning sort of those merchant codes, these are the same codes that we all have on a normal debit card, you know, went to alcohol and cigarettes. Now, is it possible that people pulled the money out in cash and actually spent some money? Yeah, I'm sure they did. You know, like I bought wine last night, like, don't we all do this? This is a whole kind of point of giving money—that they can be human. But yeah, like they were adamant that they wanted people to see what it was like and they were really clear. And saying, “there are these stereotypes that people have about families who are struggling to make ends meet, and this is a chance for us to show the world really that what it's like to be me.” And I have to say, that group was not just that group, but there are several that we worked with. The challenge of relinquishing control and giving them a true voice in the process has been one of the best decisions we ever could have made as a research team because I wouldn't have chosen to do that. I'd have just chosen to leave it be, not talk about it, not step out into that space. And they really have the confidence and the boldness to say that that we had an ethical obligation to do so. And I think they were right. Siers-Poisson: Have you seen any negative effects in in the data? Have there been any unintended consequences that you, you wish hadn't happened? Castro: That's a great question. Some of that we'll be talking about more as we release the full report. I'd say the number one sort of unintended consequence that would definitely have a negative impact has been interaction with benefits. So this is not just been true in Stockton, this has been true across all the other pilots that we're working with is that within the United States, our social safety net is very punitive. We have something called a benefits cliff, which means that for every dollar that somebody receives, we pull back some of their benefits. So families constantly are in this horrific calculation. “If I take this, you know, I want to take this extra shift at work because I need the cash and because I don't want to lose my job. But if I do that, I might lose my benefits.” And so you're constantly making this calculation, which leaves over less cognitive capacity for other things like goal setting and well-being. That's one issue. But second, it means that families are constantly trapped or penalizing them for working more. So what this meant in Stockton and across all these unconditional cash experiments is that we sometimes have to tailor our recruitment criteria and design to make sure that people aren't losing benefits. So we in many instances where people were randomized into the treatment group to receive the $500 they showed up for the onboarding. They went through the informed consent process and realized, “I'm at way too high of a risk for losing my health insurance, or my housing voucher or my SSI,” and just felt like “I'm too vulnerable. I can't take the risk.” So that is an unintended consequence that we haven't resolved yet. We do our best, but it's one that we're consistently contending with, and it's incredibly frustrating. And what ends up happening is that all of our data is about the people who are willing to take that risk or who were able to take that risk versus those who were forced because of the benefits flip issue to not enroll in these experiments in the first place. Siers-Poisson: I have to say on a human level that I would assume that would be crushing to someone who thinks that they're going to be able to take part in this and then realize it's too much of a risk. Did you get any feedback on it? Castro: Oh man. Yeah. Yes and no. I mean, on one hand, yes, there's times it's crushing and right now my center is embarking on a huge clinical trial with low income cancer patients, and it's a far more vexing issue in that experiment than the other ones. So, yeah, like at times, it is totally crushing. I think what's even more sobering was that people weren't surprised. You know, those who had to decline or who didn't bother were like, “well, of course, the systems turned again. Why would this work in my favor? The world's not set up for me. I don't matter. Government doesn't see me.” It was like, “yeah, of course. Of course it went that way.” And so we had a little bit of both. Siers-Poisson:  One of the things that I was thinking about, especially when you said that the Stockton experiment dispersed its last round of funding earlier this year. Do we know what happens when a program ends and those people who for a couple of years have that regular influx of cash no longer has it? Castro:  Yeah, it's a great question. You know, it's something that we're still sort of obviously collecting data on for all the experiments that we run, we collect data for six months after and then in some cases, there's administrative data that goes on for many years. So I can't give sort of an empirical answer to that quite yet. What I will say is, from a values perspective, this was something that we had to resolve as a team when we were building out Stockton early on, and there really wasn't anything to go on and asking ourselves the question like, “what does it mean to extend hope to somebody and then pull it away?” Like, “How dare you?” Is that even just, is that ethical?” And when I felt caught on that and my team felt caught on that, we went to our Associate Dean of Research, Dr. Solomon, who's a brilliant social work researcher. And she kind of got in my face a little bit, honestly. And she said, “Amy, you are a social worker. What is wrong with you? If you trust people to spend the cash, and to be able to enroll in the experiment, programs are closing on folks all the time. You don't trust them to weather the end?” And it was one of the most profound things of mentorship that I could receive at that moment in time, because she really challenged my biases. Like, I had this bias like people couldn't handle it. And that's not to say that there's not harm that's caused when something ends. But, you know, what Dr. Solomon pointed out, was the poor constantly having things pulled out from underneath them. There's tremendous resilience there. How dare you assume that they'd be worse off? Why don't you wait and see what happens? So right now, we're waiting to see what happens. Siers-Poisson: You talked earlier about how much of a paradigm shift this is of giving people money, trusting them to spend it as they need. And to me, there's definitely an element of trying to restore some dignity to life for people who have, in many cases, had that taken away from them and respecting them and their choices. How do you see efforts like this working to change the narrative about people living in poverty? Castro: Oh, I mean, it's crucial. Right, so here's the thing scientists tell terrible stories, we're bad at it. If we were better at communicating with the public, people would be vaccinated and COVID would be a little less right now. Right. We're bad at telling stories, we're good at staying in our ivory towers and measuring things. To me, it is without question crucial that we that we deal with narrative. So when we look back throughout U.S. history, we know that when policy windows open and we design new poverty alleviation methods, or we design new policies that really move the needle, we have two things that happen. One, we have consensus on data. So we actually know how to design a good program based on what's happening. And that's colleague to colleague, data to data, right? But then second, we see a shift in public mood. And if you do not tackle that public narrative around deservedness, around shame, around blame and you don't deal with public mood, all you do is migrate shame, blame, and assumptions about race and class from one social program to the other. So one of my driving concerns right now, as guaranteed income programs and conversations take off across the country, is making certain that we are keeping our eye on that narrative change work and not assume that this is some sort of silver bullet that's going to get rid of hundreds of years of racism in the United States, because it's not going to. If we don't do that narrative change work, we're just going to migrate the myth of the welfare queen off of TANF and onto guaranteed income. How do we do that? We're still working on it. But what we do know is that privileging voice, privileging community voice in the process, definitely helps us with this, along with dealing with a lot of things like discourse analysis and leading into narratives and putting people's stories out there in the press and in measured ways where, you know, if you want to change the narrative, change the narrator. It doesn't need to be me being the one who's in front of the mic all the time telling those stories. Siers-Poisson: You said earlier that Stockton was the first pilot project, and there are so many more going on right now that you have a hard time keeping track of how many. So what does success look like as these programs are kind of mushrooming around the country? Castro: I mean, everybody sort of defines that a little bit differently. For us within the center, we define success as first of all, were we able to design and experiment with integrity? So were we able to answer the research questions that we set out to answer with the design that we implemented? That's first and foremost, success. Second, to answer on a values perspective, really, we're pretty clear about what we're trying to do. We want to see policies on unconditional cash. Now again, that is not a silver bullet. But what I think success would look like to us as a center is having policies and unconditional cash that are informed by science, informed by data, and not just informed by somebody's good idea. So for us, we really want to see this movement from pilot to policy, but that those policies are evidence based and that they're rooted in science and rooted in real people's lives. Siers-Poisson: Professor Castro, thanks so much for sharing your work with us, and we'll definitely be looking forward to talking about the results from that second year of Stockton. Castro: Yeah, happy to. Thanks for having me. Siers-Poisson: Thanks so much to Professor Amy Castro, Founding Director of the Center for Guaranteed Income Research and an Assistant Professor of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. If you would like to learn more about pilot programs around the country, check out the website for Mayors for a Guaranteed Income. That's at mayors for A-G-I dot org. The production of this podcast was supported in part by funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, but its contents don't necessarily represent the opinions or policies of that office, any other agency of the federal government, or the Institute for Research on Poverty. Music for the episode is by Poi Dog Pondering. Thanks for listening.  

Women on the Line
Solidarity & struggle for Tamil & refugee freedom

Women on the Line

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 12, 2021


Tamil people are fleeing violence in their homeland in Sri Lanka and facing border violence from the Australian government. This week we shed light on the Tamil struggle for freedom and the struggle to free refugees in Australia locked up by Australia's regime of border violence. First, we hear from Renuga Inpakumar, a spokesperson with the Tamil Refugee Council. Second, we hear from speeches given at pro-refugee rallies centred around the refugee detention Park hotel prison in Melbourne: including a speech by Lavanya Thavaraja, also a member of the Tamil Refugee Council;  Amanda Threlfall, Assistant Secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council and Federal Senator for the Greens, Lidia Thorpe.

American History Tellers
Philippine-American War | Into the Jaws of a Dragon | 1

American History Tellers

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 8, 2021 42:47


On February 4th, 1899, war broke out between the United States and the Philippines. The two nations had begun as allies against Spain the previous year, during the Spanish-American War. The Spanish had occupied the Philippines for three centuries, and the U.S. arrived promising to drive out the European colonial power. But after the Spanish left, the Americans stayed, in defiance of widespread calls for Philippine independence.America's bloody war in the Philippines was the nation's first major overseas conflict. It spanned the tumultuous early years of the 20th century and shaped the political destiny of Teddy Roosevelt, who began the war as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and ended it as President. And it marked the emergence of the United States as a true global power. But the war divided Americans and came at great cost to the people of the Philippines.Better Help- Why invest in everything else and not your mind? Listeners get 10% OFF their first month at betterhelp.com/tellers!Zip Recruiter- Sign up for free at ziprecruiter.com/easy and put Zip Recruiter to work for you!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jerusalem Studio
Growing threat of drone warfare in the Middle East – Jerusalem Studio 653

Jerusalem Studio

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 7, 2021 27:10


Iran's Air Force has not been able to sustain whatever level it had until the late 1970's, as under the Islamic Republic its planes are poorly-maintained and pilots have not demonstrated any proficiency. The solution is the ubiquitous Unmanned Aerial Systems operated by Iranians and proxies alike - from Iran itself, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. Used against stationary or slow-moving land and maritime targets, drones enabled the Iranian to deliver munitions from afar without losing aircrew and with them deniability. Last month Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz listed 16 such attacks over the last couple of years. How effective is this weapon, and how are Israel and its partners countering it? Panel: - Jonathan Hessen, Host. - Amir Oren, Editor at Large, Host of Watchmen Talk and Powers in Play. - Brig. Gen. (Ret) Relik Shafir, Former IAF Tel Nof Commander. - Brig. Gen. (Ret) Mark Kimmitt, Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs. Articles on the topic: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/gantz-reveals-irans-uav-terror-attempts/ https://www.tv7israelnews.com/gantz-iran-exporting-aerial-terrorism/ https://www.tv7israelnews.com/israel-intercepts-armed-iranian-drone/ You are welcome to join our audience and watch all of our programs - free of charge! TV7 Israel News: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/563/ Jerusalem Studio: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/18738/ TV7 Israel News Editor's Note: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76269/ TV7 Israel: Watchmen Talk: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76256/ Jerusalem Prays: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/135790/ TV7's Times Observer: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/97531/ TV7's Middle East Review: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/997755/ My Brother's Keeper: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/53719/ This week in 60 seconds: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/123456/ Those who wish can send prayer requests to TV7 Israel News in the following ways: Facebook Messenger: https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Email: israelnews@tv7.fi Please be sure to mention your first name and country of residence. Any attached videos should not exceed 20 seconds in duration. #IsraelNews #tv7israelnews #newsupdates Rally behind our vision - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/donate/ To purchase TV7 Israel News merchandise: https://teespring.com/stores/tv7-israel-news-store Live view of Jerusalem - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/jerusalem-live-feed/ Visit our website - http://www.tv7israelnews.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/tv7israelnews Like TV7 Israel News on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Follow TV7 Israel News on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/tv7israelnews/ Follow TV7 Israel News on Twitter - https://twitter.com/tv7israelnews

Notre Dame - Constitutional Studies Lectures

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the 2021 Tocqueville Lecture on September 16, 2021 at the DeBartolo Performing Arts Center at Notre Dame. Presented by the Notre Dame Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government. More information about the lecture can be found at constudies.nd.edu. About Justice Thomas Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, was born in the Pinpoint community near Savannah, Georgia on June 23, 1948. He attended Conception Seminary from 1967-1968 and received an A.B., cum laude, from College of the Holy Cross in 1971 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1974. He was admitted to law practice in Missouri in 1974, and served as an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, 1974-1977; an attorney with the Monsanto Company, 1977-1979; and Legislative Assistant to Senator John Danforth, 1979-1981. From 1981-1982 he served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, and as Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1982-1990. From 1990-1991, he served as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and he took his seat October 23, 1991. He married Virginia Lamp on May 30, 1987 and has one child, Jamal Adeen by a previous marriage.

PolicyCast
230 How can we invest public funds well when our debates about cost are so flawed?

PolicyCast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 2, 2021 44:00


Linda J. Bilmes, the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, is a leading expert on budgetary and public financial issues. Her research focuses on budgeting and public administration in the public, private and non-profit sectors. She is interested in how resources are allocated, particularly defense budgets, costs of war, veterans, sub-national budgeting and public lands. She is a full-time Harvard faculty member, teaching budgeting, cost accounting and public finance, and teaching workshops for newly-elected Mayors and Members of Congress. Since 2005, she has led the Greater Boston Applied Field Lab, an advanced academic program in which teams of student volunteers assist local communities in public finance and operations. She also leads field projects for the Bloomberg Cities program. Dr. Bilmes served as the Senate-confirmed  Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Department of Commerce under President Bill Clinton.  She currently serves as the sole United States member of the United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration (CEPA), and as Vice-chair of Economists for Peace and Security. She serves on the Board of Directors of the Institute for Veterans and Military Families at Syracuse University. She was a member of the National Parks Second Century Commission and served on the U.S. National Parks Service Advisory Board for eight years. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. She holds a BA and MBA from Harvard University and a D.Phil from Oxford University.PolicyCast is a production of Harvard Kennedy School and is hosted by Staff Writer and Producer Ralph RanalliPolicyCast is co-produced by Susan Hughes.For more information please visit our web page or contact us at PolicyCast@hks.harvard.edu.

Inside the Castle
Inside the Castle Talks with Mr. Jaime Pinkham

Inside the Castle

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 1, 2021


In this episode we get to know Mr. Jaime Pinkham, the Principal Deputy for Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

Cleaning Up. Leadership in an age of climate change.
Ep66: David Sandalow 'US China - strategic rivals, climate partners'

Cleaning Up. Leadership in an age of climate change.

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 1, 2021 61:12


David Sandalow is the Inaugural Fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy and co-Director of the Energy and Environment Concentration at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. He founded and directs the Center's U.S.-China Program.David is as a director at Fermata Energy and senior advisor to APL. He is a member of the Zayed Future Energy Prize Selection Committee, Global CO2 Initiative Advisory Board, Electric Drive Transport Association's “Hall of Fame” and Council on Foreign Relations.David held senior positions at the White House, State Department and U.S. Department of Energy. At DOE he served as Under Secretary of Energy (acting) and Assistant Secretary for Policy & International Affairs. Before joining DOE, David was a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Executive Vice President at WWF.David holds a B.A. from Yale University and J.D. from University of Michigan Law School.Official bio:https://www.sipa.columbia.edu/faculty-research/faculty-directory/david-sandalowGuide to Chinese Climate Policy (2019)https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Chinese-Climate-Policy-Sandalow/dp/1691490245/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=guide%20to%20chinese%20climate%20policy&qid=1568665817&sr=8-3Carbon Mineralization Roadmap (November 2021)https://www.icef.go.jp/pdf/summary/roadmap/icef2021_roadmap.pdf

On the Evidence
Advancing Racial Equity Through Fatherhood Programs | Episode 67

On the Evidence

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 1, 2021 45:00


The latest episode of On the Evidence focuses on the ways that racism and inequity within human services programs affect fathers and families, and how adopting a more inclusive father engagement strategy can benefit children, fathers, and their families. Today, federal and state governments, as well as foundations and nonprofits, are emphasizing the importance of understanding the role of racism in American institutions and policies. In partnership with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mathematica has been gathering information on what works in engaging fathers across a wide range of human services programs, with the goal of helping fathers and families thrive. On this episode, guests Alan-Michael Graves, Leonard Burton, Shaneen Moore, Jerry Tello, and Armando Yañez discuss how human services programs have historically treated fathers, particularly fathers of color, and strategies for improving the racial equity of these programs as it relates to father engagement. Graves is the senior director of teaching, capacity building, and systems change with the Good+Foundation, a national nonprofit that works to dismantle multi-generational poverty. Burton is a senior fellow at the Center for the Study of Social Policy, a national nonprofit policy organization that connects community action, public system reform, and policy change to create a fair and just society. Moore is the director of the Child Support Division within the Children and Family Services administration of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Tello is the founder of and director of training and capacity building at the Compadres Network, a national nonprofit that provides a voice for racial equity, healing, training, technical assistance, and systems change. Yañez is a research analyst at Mathematica. Find a full transcript of the episode here: mathematica.org/blogs/advancing-racial-equity-in-fatherhood-programs Learn more about the partnership between ASPE and Mathematica to identify the strategies human services programs use to engage fathers: https://aspe.hhs.gov/father-engagement

Poverty Research & Policy
Amelie Hecht on Universal Free School Meal Programs

Poverty Research & Policy

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 29, 2021 14:31


In this episode we hear from Dr. Amelie Hecht about universal free school meal programs and how the pandemic may have shifted the outlook for this kind of program. Dr. Hecht is a fellow in the IRP National Poverty Fellows Program where she is in residence at the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation at the federal Administration for Children and Families.  Transcript:  Dave Chancellor: Hello, and thanks for joining us for the Poverty Research and Policy podcast from the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. I'm Dave Chancellor for this episode. We're going to be talking to Dr Amelie Hecht about universal free school meals and how the pandemic may have shifted the outlook for this kind of program as we look ahead. Dr. Hecht is a fellow in the IRP National Poverty Fellows program, where she's in residence at the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation at the Federal Administration for Children and Families. She completed her Ph.D. in Health Policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in 2020. And we're just really grateful to be able to talk to her about this. Let's turn to my interview with Dr. Hecht. Chancellor: You wrote your dissertation on Universal Free School Meals, and this has become a big thing, especially kind of since the start of the pandemic. And just to make sure we're thinking about this in the right way, could you explain how a universal free school meal set up is different from what we might think of as a traditional school meal funding? Amelie Hecht: Yeah, absolutely. So traditionally, the school meal program is in part a means tested program. And what that means is that under the traditional school meal reimbursement model, families complete an annual application with information about their household income, and kids are then eligible to receive a free meal if their family's household income is below 130 percent of the federal poverty level. It's about an annual income of thirty-four thousand dollars for a family of four, and then a child can also receive a reduced price meal, which means they pay about 40 cents for lunch if their household income is between one hundred and thirty and one hundred and eighty five percent of the federal poverty level. And then, of course, any other student didn't qualify for free or reduced price. Meals can also buy a meal, which cost somewhere around a dollar, fifty for breakfast and 250 for lunch, so still relatively low cost. But a school that offers universal free meals offers free meals to all students, regardless of their household income. So those schools no longer collect individual household application forms. All students just get free meals, and in most schools in the U.S., they offer universal free meals through a federal provision called the Community Eligibility Provision. And that's a provision that's available to schools in high poverty areas. Chancellor: The timing of you finishing your dissertation coincided really closely with the start of the pandemic back in early 2020. And I guess out of necessity, this was kind of a sea change when it came to universal free school meals because they have this rate. Basically, the USDA gave school districts a waiver that allowed them to offer free breakfasts and lunches to all students. Is that right? Can you tell us about this? Hecht: Yeah, that's exactly right. So, prior to the pandemic, it was mostly just these schools in high poverty areas that were offering these universal free meals through that provision that I mentioned, for the most part, the community eligibility provision. But when the pandemic began, Congress recognized that schools needed more flexibility to ensure kids were getting fed and that the need for school meals was really increasing dramatically because people were losing their jobs and facing other economic hardship. Congress authorized the USDA, the US Department of Agriculture, to issue these nationwide waivers that allowed schools to serve universal free meals to all students. And that authority has been extended through the end of the current academic year, which is June of 2022. And that waiver has been really hugely helpful to schools and families. It's meant that schools most schools in the US have been serving free meals to all kids, which is really important at a time when families are facing hard economic times and also schools are facing hard economic times. Chancellor: As a parent, this program was actually really valuable to my family, especially during the months when my kids were doing remote schooling. Our district encouraged parents to sign up for lunch pickup, and honestly, it better lives measurably better. During that time, we were saving money. There was a steady supply of pretty healthy food coming into our house, and it was just a significant time savings for my wife and I as we were both working. Is this kind of what you've heard elsewhere? Hecht: Yeah, I think I think what you're saying is what we are hearing from families all across the country. We know that the free meals help kids in and families in all kinds of ways. It saves families money. It saves families time not having to pack those school meals. And we also know that school meals are on average healthier than the meals that kids pack at home and bring to school anyway. So, it makes sure that kids are eating relatively healthy meals for the most part. And it also really helps a lot of those families that are right on that line, the families who don't qualify necessarily for free or reduced-price meals, but still sometimes find it hard to afford groceries from week to week or may have lost jobs because of the pandemic. So, I think it's been hugely helpful to families across the country. Chancellor: But you've been studying Universal Free School meals since well before the pandemic. And you know, in your research, what are some of the areas you've looked at to understand, I guess, the impact of universal free school meals or just how these programs work? Hecht: Yeah, so I've done research, both looking at the implementation of universal preschool meal policies and their impacts on students and some of the research that I've done looking at impacts just looks across the sort of the whole body of literature that's been produced so far on universal free meals. And so, you know, looking across that body of literature in the U.S., we see that universal free meals have a lot of benefits for families, for students, for schools. You know, first, we know that universal free meals really achieve their primary goal, which is increasing meal participation rates. More kids are eating school meals. We also see improvements in academic performance, which is not really surprising because we know kids do better in school when they don't come to school, hungry when they're not hungry in class and during test times. And we also see some improvement in diet quality. And that's likely because school meals, as I said before, are healthier on average than the meals that kids pack at home and bring to school. And really importantly, we actually see benefits for kids who qualify for free and reduced-price meals before. But we also see improvements for kids who didn't qualify, who are above those income thresholds before, but are now participating in school meals. And then, in addition to helping kids, universal free meals have a lot of benefits for schools. They help reduce the administrative burden that schools face. Schools no longer need to process those meal application forms that I was talking about. They don't need to track families or kids down to make sure that they fill out those forms, and they also don't have to track student lunch charges or unpaid meal debt. And we know that was a really hot topic in the past few years. You know, it's the idea that when kids don't have enough money to afford the school meal, that the school will either provide them a cold cheese sandwich or they'll send them home with a letter that says that they need to pay their meal debts. And, you know, schools are no longer responsible for doing that because all the kids are getting their free meals. I did interviews with food service staff at schools offering universal free meals in Maryland, and they really highlighted for me how that change that elimination of school meal debt and meal training really improved staff morale among food service staff because they no longer needed to track kids down or not give kids the hot meal. They also talked about how it reduced financial stress for parents and it reduced student stigma because all the kids were now eating the school meal, not just not just the students who were singled out for being low income and needing to rely on that school meals. So, a lot of benefits across the board. Chancellor: So, you know, I mentioned earlier that we had received outreach from our kids' school district about this program, encouraging us to sign up, and they were kind of really direct in their messaging. They said, you know, please sign up even if you're not struggling to pay for meals. If more families sign up, our cost per meal will be lower and we can offer better quality food. And I think they're kind of a couple of things going on here. But you know, one, I know you've written about how messaging and communication with parents and students can be important in these programs. So, what can you tell us about that? Hecht: Yeah, I think getting parents on board with these programs is really important to their success. Schools that serve universal free meals want to encourage as many kids to participate as possible because it does reduce the cost of producing meals per student. A lot of their production costs are fixed costs, and so the more kids that participate, the lower per meal cost it is for the school. So, they really do want as many kids to participate as possible. And so, getting families and parents on board is important. I think some ways that schools have been successful in communicating to parents is sharing at back-to-school nights, sharing through letters to parents and sharing at school board meetings as well, and communicating the benefits to parents of participating in this formula. Sort of all the things I talked about earlier that improved academic performance, sometimes better attendance rates. Other on-time grade promotion. Other outcomes like that. So, I think that's been hugely helpful to families. And I think one important thing that we're dealing with right now is that a lot of schools are asking families to fill out what are called alternative income forms. These are forms where families share information on their household income, and they're really important because they give schools this critical data that that schools then use to apply for and receive funds. Is from the federal government, from the state government and also private foundations and other grant making bodies, and historically schools got it on household income from those free and reduced-price meal applications, and they used that date, as I said, to apply for different funding. But with universal free meal programs in place, they no longer collect those free and reduced-price meal applications. And they're now needing to ask families to fill out these alternative income forms. And it can be challenging for schools to get good data from those forms because parents have less incentive to fill out those forms because they aren't directly linked to whether or not their kids get a free meal. But those forms are really important for schools to get other kinds of funding to provide high quality education for students. So, schools are really working hard to communicate the importance of filling out those forms to parents. And I guess I'll also call to action to parents to please fill out those forms. If you're asked because those forms are so important for your families, for your kids to get high quality funding for her education program. Chancellor: It seems like there's been some traction for continued universal free school meals nationwide or at least across more districts beyond the expiration of the current USDA waivers. And you know, I know in the last few months a few states have passed their own Universal Free School meal programs, and New York City, if I'm right, has had a universal free school meals for a few years now. So, you know, what do you see going forward? What do you kind of looking at here? Hecht: Yeah, this is really exciting for me and for other researchers and advocates and policymakers in this space. The pandemic, I think, is really highlighted the importance of school meals for kids. And now that schools have been offering universal free meals for two years, it's going to be really hard for schools to go back at the end of the year and take that away from families at the state level. Yeah. Both Maine and California have passed laws authorizing universal free meals starting next school year. And at the federal level, there has been some discussion about national universal free meal programs or at least expanding the community eligibility provision. That provision that I mentioned earlier that authorizes universal free meals for schools in high poverty areas. And you have we're seeing a big policy shift here, this policy window to get these things passed, and I'm actually just starting a new policy analysis study where we're going to actually look very closely at Maine and California to try and understand what the critical ingredients were that allowed them to get those state policies passed. And we're going to try and tease out lessons that advocates and other policymakers in other states and maybe a federal level can use to pass similar legislation elsewhere. I think universal free milk programs are here to stay in some way or another because of what the pandemic has done in highlighting for us that the importance of school meals. Chancellor: I so appreciate you taking the time to talk to us about this. You know, I learned a lot and I'm just really grateful for this interview. Hecht: Thanks so much for the opportunity. It was great to discuss this. Chancellor: Thanks again to Amelie Hecht for taking the time to talk to us. The production of this podcast was supported in part by funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. But its contents don't necessarily represent the opinions or policies of that office, any other agency of the federal government or the Institute for Research on Poverty. Music for the episode is by Martin de Boer. Thanks for listening.

The Greek Current
US-Greece defense bill included in NDAA, Turkey's request to purchase F-16s, and more

The Greek Current

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 24, 2021 13:46


Last week the US-Greece Defense and Interparliamentary Partnership Act made headlines as it was included as an amendment to the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act, or the NDAA. This move comes at a time when Greece and the United States have seen their bilateral relationship reach new heights. US-Turkey relations were also in the spotlight. Assistant Secretary of State Karen Donfried traveled to Turkey recently, where she talked about the US deepening its cooperation with the country, and touched on Ankara's request to purchase US F-16s. Meanwhile, the State Department declined to put Turkey on its special watch list of religious freedom violators as was recommended by USCIRF. Endy Zemenides, HALC's Executive Director, joins The Greek Current to discuss these key developments.You can read the articles we discuss on our podcast here:Amendments Abound as Senate Starts Process of Passing 2022 NDAAWith ‘Friends' Like These ...Turkish lira crashes to ‘insane' historic low after President Erdogan sparks sell-offLira collapse leaves Turks bewildered, opposition angryHealth Minister: Fourth Covid wave will be the ‘toughest'Covid deaths in Europe to top 2 million by March, says WHO

Latin America Report | WLRN
U.S. diplomat helping Haiti rebuild its police: elites tied to gangs are 'on notice'

Latin America Report | WLRN

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 23, 2021 4:45


Assistant Secretary of State Todd Robinson has the daunting task of helping Haitians restore their collapsed security — so they can restore their collapsed country.

Teleforum
Litigation Update: Vaccination Mandates

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 22, 2021 57:18


The ongoing, high-decibel, public debate over vaccine mandates has entered its litigation phase. Please join us for a conversation with one of the country's leading vaccine and civil rights litigators, Aaron Siri of Siri|Glimstad. Mr. Siri will provide a litigation update and summarize the issues and strategic challenges facing litigators, their clients, and policy makers. Our host will be Robert Destro, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and Professor of Law at The Catholic University of America. Together, they will discuss the evidentiary and human rights issues facing lawyers who plan to challenge the public health regime.Featuring:-- Aaron Siri, Managing Partner, Siri Glimstad -- Moderator: Robert Destro, Professor of Law, Catholic University of America---To receive a copy of the documents referenced during this webinar, please email pg@fed-soc.org with the subject line "Vaccination Mandate Documents."

EconoFact Chats
Karen Dynan on What We've Learned from Recent Recessions

EconoFact Chats

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2021 23:57


In the wake of the economic crisis of the 1970s, and again, in the aftermath of 2008, macroeconomists have had to rethink their understanding of the drivers of recessions, as well as the most effective policy responses to them. This week on EconoFact Chats, Karen Dynan and Michael Klein discuss how past recessions have shaped today's fiscal and monetary policy, the role of inflation, and inflation expectations, and how policy makers can be better prepared for future crises. Karen is a Professor of Practice in the Department of Economics at Harvard University. She served as Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy and Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Treasury from 2014 to 2017.

The Aerospace Advantage
Episode 50 - Building the Next Gen Space Enterprise

The Aerospace Advantage

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 13, 2021 53:00


Episode 50 – Building the Next Gen Space Enterprise Episode Summary: In Episode 50 of the Aerospace Advantage podcast, Building the Next Gen Space Enterprise, host John “Slick” Baum speaks to a number of key leaders in the Space Force and industry to discuss how and why new actors are entering the space business.  Given all the recent activity in space—whether discussing the explosion of small satellites or new launch players like Space X, Virgin Galactic, or Blue Origin—it's hard to remember that the space industry was once one the realm of a select few companies. To put it bluntly, the barriers to entry were incredible and the notion that start-ups or outside companies could enter this realm seemed impossible. But then something happened. Several years ago, the government signaled they wanted to broaden the market for players in the launch sector as well as those who built the satellites. It wasn't long after that decision that we saw a tidal wave of activity. And it's fundamentally reshaped what it means to go to space, what we do when we have assets up there, and how we envision the domain. Today we are going to take a few steps back in history and talk to a number of key players who have lived through this journey—from both the government and industry vantage. We are going to explore what drove the government to begin pursuing this course and what motivated companies to want to engage. It's an incredible story. We are going to look back years from now and realize this was a key inflection point that fundamentally shaped how America and the world related to space. Links: The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies website: https://www.mitchelleaerospacepower.org The Mitchell Institute Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Mitchell.Institute.Aerospace The Mitchell Institute LinkedIn Page: https://linkedin.com/company/mitchellaerospacepower The Mitchell Institute Twitter: @MitchellStudies The Mitchell Institute Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/themitchellinstituteforaero/ @themitchellinstituteforaero Credits: Host: Lt Col (ret.) John “Slick” Baum, Senior Fellow, The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies Producer: Daniel C. Rice Executive Producer: Douglas Birkey Guest: Chuck Beames, Executive Chairman of York Space Systems and Chairman of the SmallSat Alliance Chuck Beames' Twitter handle: @chuckbeames Guest: Brig Gen Steven Whitney, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space Acquisition and Integration Guest: Bradley Cheetham, CEO and President, Advanced Space

Public Health On Call
396 - Special Guest: The Assistant Secretary For Health, Admiral Rachel Levine

Public Health On Call

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 12, 2021 16:15


Admiral Rachel Levine, MD, is the Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and Human Services—the “connective tissue” of all the divisions of HHS including the FDA and CDC—and a four-star admiral for the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. As assistant secretary, Dr. Levine focuses on coordinating the HHS response to priorities like COVID-19, health equity, mental health and substance abuse, and climate change. Dr. Levine is also the first transgender official to serve in this capacity.

FM Talk 1065 Podcasts
Fmr Assistant Secretary of the Army Casey Wardynski - The Jeff Poor Show - November 11 2021

FM Talk 1065 Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 11, 2021 16:53


AreWeHereYetPodcast
Where Issues & Solutions Mix

AreWeHereYetPodcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 11, 2021 69:31


Katie Stebbins represents much of what the ‘Are We Here Yet?' podcast likes to eat, sleep and drink every day. Katie is currently the Executive Director of the Food and Nutrition Institute, Gerald J and Dorothy R. Freidman School of Nutrition Science & Policy at Tufts University. Her career experience garnered over 20 years includes a long stint in environmental mitigation and economic development for the city of Springfield, MA and as Assistant Secretary of Tech, Innovation and Entrepreneurship for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Find out more about Katie Stebbins Our energy-filled conversation coalesced where issues and their solutions mix with technology, economics, local control, health and planning.

Indianz.Com
Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Press Call - Department of the Interior - November 10, 2021

Indianz.Com

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 10, 2021 14:48


The U.S. Department of the Interior holds a press call to discuss how the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal on November 10, 2021. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, also known as BID, makes historic investments in the resilience of America's physical and natural systems. As communities across the country continue to bear the brunt of the climate crisis, Interior leadership highlights the BID's funding for drought management, wildland fire mitigation, and the resilience of tribal communities. WHO: Liz Klein, Senior Counselor to the Secretary Tanya Trujillo, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Note: Q&A portion of media call is not uploaded here. Photo from U.S. Department of the Interior: https://twitter.com/SecDebHaaland/status/1457853070340206594

NALC’s Postal Record Audiobook
November Postal Record: Assistant Secretary-Treasurer

NALC’s Postal Record Audiobook

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 10, 2021 7:15


Administrative information for new officers   Read here

CEO Perspectives
Do We Have the Energy to be Energy Independent?

CEO Perspectives

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 9, 2021 28:51


The fragility of both the environment and the US energy grid are raising new, urgent questions about US energy policy. On a new episode of CEO Perspectives, President and CEO Steve Odland sits down with Vicky Bailey, former Assistant Secretary, US Department of Energy, for a wide-ranging conversation on the state and future of America's energy policies. Tune into this podcast for insights on: The changing US energy picture: Two decades ago, says Bailey, US leaders looked at energy policy from the vantage point of scarcity. After 9/11, their focus shifted to security. Today, due to hydraulic fracking technology, the US has energy abundance—but at what cost? The security of the energy grid: The grid, aging and vulnerable, now enables communication (and Teslas) as well as electric power. Capital-intensive, long-game investment in this infrastructure is needed, to prevent crises like the one in Texas last year. Reaching net zero carbon emissions: “I don't think you get there without nuclear,” says Bailey. But there are valid concerns about safety. And we need a plan for disposal of nuclear waste. Wind and solar power: These renewables comprise 15 percent of US energy sources. Can they become a bigger part of the energy picture, or does their weather dependency limit their efficacy?

Public Health Review Morning Edition
64: Vaccine Incentives Explained

Public Health Review Morning Edition

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 9, 2021 6:13


Kimberly Hood, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Health at the Louisiana Department of Health, explains why the state expanded its COVID-19 vaccine incentive program to include payments for kids who get the new pediatric vaccine; Sami Jo Freeman, Deputy Communications Director at the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, shares how the state's vaccination lottery led many residents to become vaccine advocates; ASTHO publishes a new blog article about lawsuits filed against COVID-19 vaccine requirements; and ASTHO teams with other organizations to present a webinar exploring strategies to enhance supply chain resilience. Louisiana Department of Health webpage: Shot for $100 vaccine incentive program extended to Nov. 30 Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services webpage: Be A MO VIP ASTHO Blog Article: The Shifting Legal Landscape of COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements Webinar webpage: Avoiding Catastrophe – Strategies for Enhancing Supply Chain Resilience

China Unscripted
#140 US Insider on FAILED US Policy Toward China | David Stilwell

China Unscripted

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 8, 2021 73:24


The way the US has treated China for decades has not led to the outcomes it hoped for. Now the US is meeting China where it is, not where the US wants it to be. The big question now is can the US disentangle itself from China in a way that doesn't hurt Americans, and does it have what it takes to stand up to China in all the arenas that China is challenging it in. Joining us in this episode of China Unscripted is David Stilwell, the former Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs during the Trump administration and the director of the China Strategic Focus Group at U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.

JeffMara Paranormal Podcast
Former NCIS Special Agent Investigates NDEs & The Afterlife!

JeffMara Paranormal Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 27, 2021 55:20


Podcast Guest 303 is Jeff Walton. Jeff has investigated the afterlife, near death experiences and more after retiring from 35 years of law enforcement. Jeff Walton, an award-winning author and communicator, is a US Navy Vietnam veteran and retired US Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) special agent who spent more than thirty-four years in federal law enforcement and national security work. His career assignments ranged from felony criminal investigations to counterintelligence and combating terrorism operations and investigations in the United States, the Far East, and Europe. He also served in senior management positions at NCIS Headquarters, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3I, the National Counterintelligence Center, and the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/jeffrey-s-reynolds/support

The Sean Hannity Show
How To Lose A Country - October 25th, Hour 3

The Sean Hannity Show

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 25, 2021 37:31


Joe Concha, Fox News Contributor and columnist for The Hill, is here to cover the latest in the news and all of the strange behaviors of those in the media; not the least of which is the social media blow up over Biden's physical antics during the CNN town hall. Joining him is Monica Crowley, Columnist and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who penned a wonderful piece today on how President Biden is giving a Master's Class on "how to lose a country in ten months." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

360 Size Up with Fireman Dan
Promoting the Importance of Safe Work Culture

360 Size Up with Fireman Dan

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 25, 2021 29:22


Current partner with law firm Fisher Phillips and former Assistant Secretary of Labor and Chairman of the Review Commission at OSHA, Ed Foulke is more than aware of the importance of safety on the job. Ed joins Fireman Dan to discuss the importance of a safe work culture environment, how leaders are using new risk-based strategies to emphasize safety, and how they are promoting these habits to keep their company engaged.

Public Health Review Morning Edition
50: Social Media Health Concerns

Public Health Review Morning Edition

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 20, 2021 6:01


Stephanie Smiley, former state health officer for Wisconsin, examines the impact of social media on young people; Community COVID Coalition members release new social media animations to educate people ages 18 to 24 about vaccine safety; ASTHO CEO Mike Fraser and Chuck Ingoglia, CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, commit to working together to promote the wellbeing of public health workers in a new blog article; ASTHO President Elect Dr. Anne Zink says leaders need to be intentional with positive reinforcement; former ASTHO members Dr. Rachel Levine and Dr. Joneigh Khaldun get new jobs; and ASTHO is hiring for key positions. Webpage: Community COVID Coalition Vaccine Social Media Assets Webpage: Community COVID Coalition Research on Vaccines ASTHO Blog Article: ASTHO and National Council for Mental Wellbeing Address Public Health Workers ASTHO Podcast: Gratitude Amid Struggle – Celebrating Wins in the COVID-19 Response Dr. Rachel Levine Sworn in as Assistant Secretary for Health Webpage: CVS Health Names Dr. Joneigh S. Khaldun as Vice President and Chief Health Equity Officer ASTHO Webpage: Careers

The John Steigerwald Show
The John Steigerwald Show - Tuesday October 19, 2021

The John Steigerwald Show

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2021 51:47


Is This a Great Country or What?            Today:  In just 9 short months, Dr. Rachel Levine has gone from PA Health Secretary to Assistant Secretary of Health & Human Services to a Four-Star Admiral.  John discusses the merits of this meteoric rise.  Then John considers an article in the Daily Signal that says the government, not COVID is to blame for the supply chain collapse.  Finally, Rich Holt of Project 21 Black Leadership Network addresses the NYC Council vote to remove an 1833 statue of Thomas Jefferson. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Indianz.Com
Swearing in of Witnesses

Indianz.Com

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2021 1:10


Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Full Committee Hearing to Consider Pending Nominations October 19, 2021 10:00 AM SD-366 Dirksen Senate Office Building The hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of: Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy and Carbon Management); and Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service. The Committee will follow guidelines developed in consultation with the Office of the Attending Physician and the Senate Rules Committee to protect the health of members, staff, and the public. Pursuant to this guidance, Senate office buildings are not open to the public other than official business visitors and credentialed press at this time. Accordingly, in-person visitors cannot be accommodated at this hearing. The hearing will be webcast live on the committee's website, and an archived video will be available shortly after the hearing concludes. Witness testimony will be available on the website at the start of the hearing. Opening Remarks Sen. Joe Manchin Chairman Sen. John Barrasso Ranking Member Witness Panel 1 Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/10/full-committee-hearing-to-consider-pending-nominations

Indianz.Com
Opening Remarks

Indianz.Com

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2021 8:39


Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Full Committee Hearing to Consider Pending Nominations October 19, 2021 10:00 AM SD-366 Dirksen Senate Office Building The hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of: Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy and Carbon Management); and Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service. The Committee will follow guidelines developed in consultation with the Office of the Attending Physician and the Senate Rules Committee to protect the health of members, staff, and the public. Pursuant to this guidance, Senate office buildings are not open to the public other than official business visitors and credentialed press at this time. Accordingly, in-person visitors cannot be accommodated at this hearing. The hearing will be webcast live on the committee's website, and an archived video will be available shortly after the hearing concludes. Witness testimony will be available on the website at the start of the hearing. Opening Remarks Sen. Joe Manchin Chairman Sen. John Barrasso Ranking Member Witness Panel 1 Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/10/full-committee-hearing-to-consider-pending-nominations

Indianz.Com
Introductions of witnesses

Indianz.Com

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2021 5:07


Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Full Committee Hearing to Consider Pending Nominations October 19, 2021 10:00 AM SD-366 Dirksen Senate Office Building The hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of: Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy and Carbon Management); and Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service. The Committee will follow guidelines developed in consultation with the Office of the Attending Physician and the Senate Rules Committee to protect the health of members, staff, and the public. Pursuant to this guidance, Senate office buildings are not open to the public other than official business visitors and credentialed press at this time. Accordingly, in-person visitors cannot be accommodated at this hearing. The hearing will be webcast live on the committee's website, and an archived video will be available shortly after the hearing concludes. Witness testimony will be available on the website at the start of the hearing. Opening Remarks Sen. Joe Manchin Chairman Sen. John Barrasso Ranking Member Witness Panel 1 Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/10/full-committee-hearing-to-consider-pending-nominations

Indianz.Com
Brad J. Crabtree

Indianz.Com

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2021 4:46


Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Full Committee Hearing to Consider Pending Nominations October 19, 2021 10:00 AM SD-366 Dirksen Senate Office Building The hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of: Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy and Carbon Management); and Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service. The Committee will follow guidelines developed in consultation with the Office of the Attending Physician and the Senate Rules Committee to protect the health of members, staff, and the public. Pursuant to this guidance, Senate office buildings are not open to the public other than official business visitors and credentialed press at this time. Accordingly, in-person visitors cannot be accommodated at this hearing. The hearing will be webcast live on the committee's website, and an archived video will be available shortly after the hearing concludes. Witness testimony will be available on the website at the start of the hearing. Opening Remarks Sen. Joe Manchin Chairman Sen. John Barrasso Ranking Member Witness Panel 1 Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/10/full-committee-hearing-to-consider-pending-nominations

Indianz.Com
Charles "Chuck" F. Sams III

Indianz.Com

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2021 4:57


Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Full Committee Hearing to Consider Pending Nominations October 19, 2021 10:00 AM SD-366 Dirksen Senate Office Building The hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of: Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy and Carbon Management); and Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service. The Committee will follow guidelines developed in consultation with the Office of the Attending Physician and the Senate Rules Committee to protect the health of members, staff, and the public. Pursuant to this guidance, Senate office buildings are not open to the public other than official business visitors and credentialed press at this time. Accordingly, in-person visitors cannot be accommodated at this hearing. The hearing will be webcast live on the committee's website, and an archived video will be available shortly after the hearing concludes. Witness testimony will be available on the website at the start of the hearing. Opening Remarks Sen. Joe Manchin Chairman Sen. John Barrasso Ranking Member Witness Panel 1 Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/10/full-committee-hearing-to-consider-pending-nominations

Indianz.Com
Willie L. Phillips, Jr.

Indianz.Com

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2021 5:02


Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Full Committee Hearing to Consider Pending Nominations October 19, 2021 10:00 AM SD-366 Dirksen Senate Office Building The hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of: Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy and Carbon Management); and Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service. The Committee will follow guidelines developed in consultation with the Office of the Attending Physician and the Senate Rules Committee to protect the health of members, staff, and the public. Pursuant to this guidance, Senate office buildings are not open to the public other than official business visitors and credentialed press at this time. Accordingly, in-person visitors cannot be accommodated at this hearing. The hearing will be webcast live on the committee's website, and an archived video will be available shortly after the hearing concludes. Witness testimony will be available on the website at the start of the hearing. Opening Remarks Sen. Joe Manchin Chairman Sen. John Barrasso Ranking Member Witness Panel 1 Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/10/full-committee-hearing-to-consider-pending-nominations

Indianz.Com
Q&A

Indianz.Com

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2021 86:04


Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Full Committee Hearing to Consider Pending Nominations October 19, 2021 10:00 AM SD-366 Dirksen Senate Office Building The hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of: Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy and Carbon Management); and Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service. The Committee will follow guidelines developed in consultation with the Office of the Attending Physician and the Senate Rules Committee to protect the health of members, staff, and the public. Pursuant to this guidance, Senate office buildings are not open to the public other than official business visitors and credentialed press at this time. Accordingly, in-person visitors cannot be accommodated at this hearing. The hearing will be webcast live on the committee's website, and an archived video will be available shortly after the hearing concludes. Witness testimony will be available on the website at the start of the hearing. Opening Remarks Sen. Joe Manchin Chairman Sen. John Barrasso Ranking Member Witness Panel 1 Mr. Willie L. Phillips, Jr. to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Mr. Brad J. Crabtree to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy Mr. Charles F. Sams III to be Director of the National Park Service Committee Notice: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/10/full-committee-hearing-to-consider-pending-nominations

NALC’s Postal Record Audiobook
October Postal Record: Assistant Secretary-Treasurer

NALC’s Postal Record Audiobook

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 18, 2021 7:10


Required language for bylaw changes   Read here

TopMedTalk
Kraig de Lanzac, Assistant Secretary of the ASA | TopMedTalk

TopMedTalk

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2021 25:04


  TopMedTalk's exclusive - as live - coverage of The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) annual general meeting; join Desiree Chappell, TopMedTalk's lead presenter, Monty Mythen TopMedTalk's Editor in Chief and Sol Aronson, tenured Professor Duke University, as they talk with their guest Kraig S. de Lanzac, Assistant Secretary of the ASA. For more on the ASA go here: https://www.asahq.org/  

TransLash Podcast with Imara Jones
A Conversation with Dr. Rachel Levine

TransLash Podcast with Imara Jones

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 30, 2021 25:25


Award-winning journalist Imara Jones sits down with Dr. Rachel Levine, the Assistant Secretary for Health at the US Department of Health and Human services, to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on trans and other marginalized communities. Dr. Levine also discusses what it is like to be the first-ever, transgender person to be confirmed to an Executive Branch post by the US Senate.You can connect with us on social media!Follow TransLash Media @translashmedia on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.Follow Imara Jones on Twitter (@imarajones) and Instagram (@imara_jones_)Follow our guests on social media!Dr. Rachel Levine: @secretarylevine (Twitter)Trans Lifeline: @translifeline (Instagram) translifeline (Twitter)Imara Jones' Self Actualization & Allyship WorkshopTranslash Team: Imara Jones, Oliver-Ash Kleine, Montana Thomas, and Yannick Eike Mirko. Our intern is Mirana Munson-Burke.Alexander Charles Adams does the sound editing for our show. Jaye McAuliffe helped produce this week's episode.Digital strategy by Daniela Capistrano.Music: Ben Draghi and also courtesy of ZZK records. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Bill Bennett Show
Afghanistan Moving Forward with Bing West

The Bill Bennett Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 1, 2021 55:19


Bill spoke with Bing West, A former Assistant Secretary of Defense and combat Marine, about his piece "Keeping the Pineapple Express Rolling: How to rescue more Afghans after Biden's deadline expires. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Chris Stigall Show
Did He Really Just Do That?

The Chris Stigall Show

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 25, 2021 51:44


*President Biden rolls out yesterday five hours late to update the country on Afghanistan…but before he said anything about that he wanted to update everyone on something more important.  Fox News' Jennifer Griffin exploded on this issue and you'll hear it here.  The GOP isn't making ads, but team Trump sure is.  Wait until you hear the audio of the latest ad that simply devastates the Biden administration.  Our weekly conversation with Emerald Robinson from NewsMax as well as a visit from Monic Crowley – the former Assistant Secretary for Public Affiars for the US Treasury provides a lot of color on the day's events as well.