Daily Archives: March 31, 2022

(The Center Square) West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice ranked 33rd in a report that ranked every governor on his or her adherence to economic freedom and economic success, which places him in the bottom one-fourth of the country.

The report, conducted by the Americans Legislative Exchange Council, divided their ranking into three main categories: executive policy rank, economic performance rank and fiscal policy rank. Justice ranked 18th in the country for executive policies, but fell to 30th in fiscal policy and 47th in economic performance.

Gov. Justices below average ranking in the Governors Scorecard is due largely to West Virginias longtime position in trailing other states in economic performance in areas such as interstate migration and education quality, Jonathan Williams, ALECs chief economist and executive vice president of policy, told The Center Square.

Gov. Justices ranking is also brought down by the states welfare dependency -- a greater than average amount of state resources funding Medicaid and other welfare programs, Williams said. High per capita spending in West Virginia is another negative factor that brings Gov. Justice down in the rankings. However, Gov. Justice has made some impressive progress by signing a historic education freedom bill last year, which was championed in the legislature by Senator Patricia Rucker, and advocating for the elimination of a state income tax. We expect his ranking to improve in future years.

West Virginia ranked 47th for its unemployment rate, 44th in education quality, 35th in interstate migration and 34th in gross state product growth, which contributed to its low economic performance rating.

The state has high per-capita spending, ranking the seventh highest, and ranked the 20th highest for federal unemployment benefits. The state also ranked outside the top half for having a slightly higher than average personal income tax and corporate tax. However, the state had relatively low debt, ranking 16th lowest in this category. These factors contributed to the states fiscal policy ranking.

West Virginia also ranked as having the sixth highest welfare dependency, but had the sixth most education freedom and the least amount of union control, which led to its executive policy rank.

Garrett Ballengee, the executive director of the free-market Cardinal Institute, told The Center Square that West Virginia should pursue policies that increase economic freedom, which he said is the foundation of widespread prosperity.

West Virginia is not only in competition with neighboring states and its reputation for hostility to job creators but also the entire world -- we are but one small part in a global economy, Ballengee said. West Virginia should continue to look for ways to lower taxes, continue its drive towards cutting red tape and size of government, and ensure a level playing field for entrepreneurs and businesses looking to expand or locate in West Virginia. The record of history is quite clear that greater economic freedom equals a healthier, more prosperous society. West Virginia has made great strides in many of these areas in recent years, but it must double down."

The governors office did not respond to a request for comment.

See the rest here:

Gov. Justice ranks 33rd in economic freedom ranking - The Center Square

REE Automotive Inc

TEL AVIV, Israel, March 28, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- REE Automotive (REE) (Nasdaq: REE), an automotive technology leader and provider of electric vehicle (EV) platforms, today announced that it has filed its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC).

The report is available on the SECs website, at http://www.sec.gov and REEs Investor Relations website, at https://investors.ree.auto/.

Shareholders can obtain copies of REEs Annual Report on Form 20-F, free of charge, by making a request within a reasonable period of time to REEs Investor Relations Department at investors@ree.auto.

About REE Automotive

REE Automotive (Nasdaq: REE) is an automotive technology leader whose mission is to empower companies to build any size or shape of electric or autonomous vehicle from Class 1 through Class 6 for any application and any target market. REE aims to serve as the underpinning on top of which electric vehicles (EVs) and autonomous vehicles (AVs) will be built and envisions a future where EVs and AVs will be Powered by REE TM.

REEs revolutionary technology the REEcorner TM packs critical vehicle components (steering, braking, suspension, powertrain and control) into a single compact module positioned between the chassis and the wheel, enabling REE to build fully-flat EV platforms with more room for passengers, cargo and batteries. REE plans to use its proprietary X-By-Wire control technology to control each REEcornerTM of the vehicles with full drive-by-wire, brake-by-wire and steer-by-wire capabilities.

REEs EV platforms are designed to provide customers with complete freedom of design, enabling auto-manufacturers, OEMs, delivery & logistic fleets, Mobility-as-a-Service providers and new mobility players to design mission-specific EVs and AVs based on their exact business requirements and significantly reduce their time-to-market, lower total cost of ownership and comply with zero-carbon regulations.

Story continues

Headquartered in Glil Yam, Israel, REE has an Engineering Center in the UK, as well as subsidiaries in Japan and Germany, and plans to open its U.S. headquarters and first Integration Center in Austin, Texas. REEs unique CapEx-light manufacturing model leverages Tier-1 partners existing production lines; the companys extensive partner ecosystem encompasses leading names including Hino Motors (truck arm of Toyota), Magna International, JB Poindexter, Navya and American Axle & Manufacturing to provide a full turnkey solution.

REEs patented technology, together with its unique value proposition, position it to break new ground in e-Mobility. For more information visit https://www.ree.auto.

Contacts

Investor RelationsLimor GruberVP Investor Relations | REE Automotive+972-50-5239233investors@ree.auto

MediaCaroline HutchesonHead of Global Communications | REE Automotive+1-252-314-2028media@ree.auto

Caution About Forward-Looking Statements

This communication includes certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding REE or its management teams expectations, hopes, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. In addition, any statements that refer to projections, forecasts or other characterizations of future events or circumstances, including any underlying assumptions, are forward-looking statements. The words aim anticipate, appear, approximate, believe, continue, could, estimate, expect, foresee, intends, may, might, plan, possible, potential, predict, project, seek, should, would and similar expressions (or the negative version of such words or expressions) may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, may be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this communication may include, among other things, statements about REEs strategic and business plans, technology, relationships, objectives and expectations for our business, the impact of trends on and interest in our business, intellectual property or product and its future results, operations and financial performance and condition

These forward-looking statements are based on information available as of the date of this communication and current expectations, forecasts, and assumptions. Although REE believes that the expectations reflected in forward-looking statements are reasonable, such statements involve unknown number of risks, uncertainties, judgments, and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by forward-looking statements. These factors are difficult to predict accurately and may be beyond REEs control. Forward-looking statements in this communication speak only as of the date made and REE undertakes no obligation to update its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, should circumstances change, except as otherwise required by securities and other applicable laws. In light of these risks and uncertainties, investors should keep in mind that results, events or developments discussed in any forward-looking statement made in this communication may not occur.

Uncertainties and risk factors that could affect REEs future performance and could cause actual results to differ include, but are not limited to: REEs ability to commercialize its strategic plan; REEs ability to maintain and advance relationships with current Tier 1 suppliers and strategic partners; development of REEs advanced prototypes into marketable products; REEs ability to grow and scale manufacturing capacity through relationships with Tier 1 suppliers; REEs estimates of unit sales, expenses and profitability and underlying assumptions; REEs reliance on its UK Engineering Center of Excellence for the design, validation, verification, testing and homologation of its products; REEs limited operating history; risks associated with plans for REEs initial commercial production; REEs dependence on potential suppliers, some of which will be single or limited source; development of the market for commercial EVs; intense competition in the e-mobility space, including with competitors who have significantly more resources; risks related to the fact that REE is incorporated in Israel and governed by Israeli law; REEs ability to make continued investments in its platform; the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and any other worldwide health epidemics or outbreaks that may arise; and adverse global conditions, including macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty; the need to attract, train and retain highly-skilled technical workforce; changes in laws and regulations that impact REE; REEs ability to enforce, protect and maintain intellectual property rights; REEs ability to retain engineers and other highly qualified employees to further its goals; and other risks and uncertainties set forth in the sections entitled Risk Factors and Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements in REEs annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on March 28, 2022 and in subsequent filings with the SEC.

Read more:

REE Automotive Ltd. Files Annual Report on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021 - Yahoo Finance

Addressing lawmakers at his State of the State address in February, Gov. Chris Sununu pointed to one of the most pressing issues in the state: workforce housing. Then he presented a plan.

New Hampshire should take advantage of one-time pandemic relief funds and set aside $100 million to encourage housing development, Sununu said. His proposal to lawmakers included $30 million to incentivize towns to speed up approval processes, $60 million in grants for multifamily housing projects, and $10 million split between the demolition of outdated developments and zoning updates to encourage development.

These investments are critical to ensuring New Hampshire is the No. 1 destination in New England, Sununu said. This housing is for workers and families who work in our communities, go to our schools, and contribute to our economy.

A month later, housing advocates are zeroing in on a word not specifically mentioned in the governors plan: affordability. And as lawmakers prepare to receive the governors formal proposal expected to come before the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee in April advocates are urging the governor to center the program around that standard.

These multifamily housing developments need to be affordable to the workforce of the residents of New Hampshire, said Elissa Margolin, director of Housing Action New Hampshire, in an interview.

What would failure look like? she added. I think failure would look like if these resources went to build really expensive places to live that already served people who have choice in the marketplace.

Some are less than optimistic.

The lack of a mention of affordable housing is a glaring omission from the governors plan, wrote Lisa Beaudoin and Tim McKernan, the executive director and director of policy and advocacy, respectively, at ABLE NH, a disability rights group, in an op-ed in the Concord Monitor this month. We cant simply build our way out of this crisis thinking that increasing the supply of market-rate housing will help the market overall, the two wrote.

At a press conference this month, Sununu said the housing proposal is meant to meet lower-middle income families. But the program is still being hammered out, he said.

I dont have a specific number in mind, said Sununu, when asked how affordable the chosen developments might be. But it really is more the affordability factor for rental units and reasonably priced rental units. We would probably lean on certain studies, demographics, average rental rates, things of that nature, to make sure that were meeting the supply where the demand is the greatest and I think thats for lower-middle income families.

New Hampshire could take two possible approaches when using federal money for housing based on the rules set out for the federal assistance funds, which come from the American Rescue Plan Act that passed Congress last year. And the states choice could have implications for affordability.

If the state uses the funds for direct expenses, newly updated federal guidelines state that they must be used to help either impacted households those who earn less than 300% of the federal poverty level or disproportionately impacted households those households earning less than 185% of the level.

As long as the funds targeted either income demographic, the state could use them to support affordable housing projects, according to the rules.

That low-income targeted approach could benefit a broad number of towns and cities in the state. Analysis released last week by the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute found that 435,200 Granite Staters earn below 300% of the federal poverty guidelines or 33% of the state. Seventeen percent of state residents earn below 185% of the poverty level. This includes residents across the state, with Coos, Cheshire, and Grafton counties holding the highest proportions of lower-income residents. Rockingham and Merrimack counties hold the lowest.

But the state has another mechanism to spend the funds: revenue replacement. Under that approach, the state would not face those same income limitations, noted Phil Sletten, senior policy analyst at the Fiscal Policy Institute. As long as the funds are used to compensate for expenditures that qualify as government services, revenue replacement allows the state to fund initiatives with more freedom, Sletten said in an interview.

The revenue replacement dollars have more flexibility to be used for general government services than the dollars that are not revenue replacement, Sletten said. But the dollars would still have to be used for permissible purposes, and there are still requirements on the revenue replacement dollars as well.

State officials have indicated the state will take that second option.

We would be qualifying this program most likely under the revenue replacement categories, which would allow us to be able to have some level of flexibility in getting the funding into those types of projects, said Taylor Caswell, commissioner of the Department of Business and Economic Affairs, at the Fiscal Committee this month.

To Margolin, the exact mechanism the state uses to fund the housing is less important than its mission.

No matter what regulatory door the state decides to go to, I think its pretty clear that (the U.S.) Treasurys intent was that this money, in the housing space, be used for affordable options, she said.

The distinction is important, she said. Simply using the money to support housing might help the states meager housing supply but wouldnt be enough to make a difference on its own.

A conservative estimate is that were down 20,000 units, and you know, as much as $100 million is $100 million, its not going to get us 20,000 units. she said. In the end, thats not going to be solved and thats why affordability provisions are still needed.

Affordable housing could provide more targeted relief, Margolin said. The state should partner with existing nonprofit affordable housing organizations to help distribute the money, Margolin added, from NeighborWorks of Southern New Hampshire in Manchester to Lakes Region Community Developers in Laconia.

As the state moves forward with its $100 million proposal, officials say they are taking affordability concerns into account. The Business and Economic Affairs will be hiring three people to make up a small team of housing experts focused on developing and administering (American Rescue Plan Act) funded housing initiatives and generally supporting housing development in the state, after the Fiscal Committee approved a $1.5 million expense.

As for affordable housing, Caswell said the state will follow its own definition.

There are many different sorts of linguistic gymnastics that people perform when it comes to affordable housing, he told lawmakers. And I think our goal with this will be to accelerate and make more efficient the process of moving as many units as we can with this funding. The bulk of which we would want to see be in that middle income category.

For his part, Sununu stressed that the proposal was still in flux.

Were still kind of working out what the details are, he said at his press conference. Is it a six-month timeframe? Is that realistic? Maybe it has to be a little longer or can be a little shorter. What the dollar amounts are, the Legislature is going to have input on that.

Continued here:

Excited and wary of housing plan - Concord Monitor

QUINCY The Bring Events to Quincy, or BET on Q, Committee authorized $18,000 in grant funding for the 2022 Quincy Freedom Fest on Tuesday.

With this contribution, the committee has allocated all of its original $100,000 fund balance.

According to the Freedom Fest grant application, the money will be used to help fund three musical acts, as well as country music star Wade Hayes. Freedom Fest volunteers said the event also should have more vendors this year since it wont be competing with Tom Sawyer Days in Hannibal.

The BET on Q program had about $10,500 in funding available. The allocation of the remaining $8,000 would be contingent on the passage of a fiscal 2023 budget with additional BET on Q funding.

Community Development Planner Jason Parrott said last years Freedom Fest was awarded $5,000 in BET on Q funds. But because event organizers did not submit closeout surveys detailing the community impact of the event, they were ineligible to receive the remaining $1,250 of grant funding.

In September of 2021, the commission voted to not allow (Freedom Fest) to apply in the future because they had not presented that survey, Parrott said. We obviously received the application from the group, who brought it to the committee (and) the committee said as long as the survey is turned in now that (the committee) would review the survey.

The survey, which was received shortly after this, showed a $600 profit from Freedom Fest 2021 after all expenses but no estimate was made regarding hotel stays, Parrott added. Although the estimated attendance was 2,000, the event ended up pulling closer to 2,500 people.

The BET on Q committee has had multiple discussions about whether the program should be supporting the growth of local events or drawing in new events.

Quincy Mayor Mike Troup said he supports Freedom Fests efforts to grow by drawing in bigger musical acts.

Im thrilled that we have groups that are willing to do all this work and pull it together because theres nobody else thats stepped up, Troup said.

Link:

All BET on Q funds allocated with latest grant - Herald-Whig

KATHMANDU, MARCH 30

Minister of Communications and Information Technology Gyanendra Bahadur Karki has said the incumbent government is committed to press freedom and freedom of expression.

At a programme on 'Impact of COVID-19 on journalists and media' organised on the occasion of 67th anniversary of Federation of Nepali Journalists here today, Minister Karki said that democracy and press freedom were integral. Urging the media sector to play an active role to institutionalise democracy and strengthen it, he lauded the role played by the overall sector of journalism to establish democratic federal republic and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Also the spokesperson of the government, Minister Karki opined that the incumbent government was committed to ensuring press freedom and safety of journalists at a time when the constitution of Nepal had ensured press freedom and right to information as fundamental rights. He mentioned that the government had established Journalist Welfare Fund of Rs 53.2 million with the objective of helping senior journalists in their livelihood, adding that the arrangement of national journalism award of Rs 100,000 had also been made for six journalists and media.

"An arrangement has been made where two journalists will be honoured with Rs 200,000 and letter of felicitation every year as well as one per cent customs duty on papers imported by media houses to print news," he shared. Minister Karki further said the government was making preparation to carry out all the activities related to journalism and mass media through the medium of information technology from the upcoming fiscal year and discussion was under way to give final shape to a media related bill.

He also sought suggestions on different issues, including finalisation of the draft of national mass communication act, issues raised by stakeholders over recent amendment to national broadcasting regulations, free treatment to journalists, implementation of journalists welfare fund and establishment of mass communication academy.

On the occasion, FNJ President Bipul Pokharel said the issues of press freedom and working journalists were raised simultaneously, demanding to make media-friendly laws by holding enough discussion with stakeholders.

The FNJ organised morning rally, futsal competition, interactions on different issues related to media, blood donation and health camp on the occasion.

A version of this article appears in the print on March 31, 2022, of The Himalayan Times.

Read this article:

'Government committed to press freedom' - The Himalayan Times

President Joe Biden finally released his budget request for fiscal year 2023 on Monday, almost two months late.

Unsurprisingly, the Biden budget is bloated with excessive spending, harmful taxes, more regulations, and control over Americans lives, along with damaging policy proposals.

The budget matters because the power to tax and spend is the key to everything the federal government does.

If we are going to save America from the politicians, bureaucrats, and cultural elites empowered by expansive government spending, its necessary to reverse the growth of the size, scope, and reach of the government.

Congress should reject Bidens budget proposal and instead focus on solving the most important challenges facing the country, such as reversing government spending and inflation, promoting energy independence, empowering parents, and strengthening the rule of law and free enterprise so that the United States can outcompete any competitor, including Communist China.

There are five major problems with Bidens budget:

1) Reckless and Inflationary Spending

The administration laughably claims this budget values fiscal responsibility.

Government spending is alreadyunsustainable. Unfortunately, Biden would hit the gas pedal on government spending, pretending like there are no consequences.

American families are suffering under inflation levels not seen in four decades,hitting 7.9%last month. Thisinflationhas been fueled by irresponsible government spending and monetary policies, coupled with harmful labor, energy, food, housing, and trade laws that have pushed prices higher.

On top of the spending spree Biden and his allies in Congress went on last year, Bidens budget calls for $72.7 trillion in spending over the next decadeaveraging more than $1.4 trillion in higher annual spending than even this years extravagant budget.

Debt would skyrocket from $30.2 trillion today to more than $44.8 trillion over the next decade. Annual budget deficits would start at $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2023 and rise to $1.8 trillion by 2032.

Thats like an average family that is already $234,000 in debt spending between $9,300 and $14,000 more than it makes each year, with its total debt reaching $347,000 in just 10 years.

Ordinary households cant spend without restraint, and the federal government shouldnt be able to, either. Yet, Bidens budget represents a total rejection of the idea that the federal government is bound by any sort of constitutional limitations.

The Biden administrations policies are already eating away at households budgets through massive inflation, and this budget would further squeeze them through reckless spending and tax hikes.

2) Radical Policy Priorities

The Biden budget is a liberal wish list, comprising one outrageous policy proposal after another.

Despite a bipartisan rejection of the radical idea that taxpayers should ever fund abortion, it fails to include theHyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment has saved an estimated2.4 millionlives since 1976. Biden also proposed a 40% increase in Title X funding, dramatically expanding federal subsidies to entities that perform abortions.

Even with gas prices reaching more than$4 per gallon, the Biden budget doubles down on this administrations dubious Green New Deal agenda that would jeopardize Americas energy diversity andchoke our energy supply.

Sending billions of tax dollars to unproven energy sources politically preferred by liberal elites iscronyism. At a time when we are challenged with authoritarianism around the world, weshould insteadbe promoting energy freedom here at home.

Biden proposes an unprecedented level of federal fundingand control be bestowed on theeducation establishment,along with a huge increase in subsidies for college education, even though current subsidies are already inflating tuition pricesthrough the roof.

Even though the core subject of a budget document is the nations finances, the Biden budget still pays fealty to left-wing social causes throughout.

The main budget document uses the word equity 73 times, equitable 39 times, diverse or diversity 18 times, inclusion or inclusive 18 times, and the specific phrase transgender, queer, and intersex five times.

On defense, the Biden administration is touting once again investments in research and development, while reducing our military capacity via retirements of ships and aircraft at a faster rate than replacements.

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine shows, the military needs to be able to deterand if that fails, fighttonight, not five to 10 years from now.

Further, instead of investing in military capabilities and capacity, the Biden administration chooses to request billions of dollars for initiatives that would be better suited in a Green New Deal than in the Department of Defense. When it comes to defense, its a budget that does not take the threat of China seriously and allows inflation to erode defense dollars.

The budget would even allowMedicareto fall into insolvency in 2026 and theSocial Securitytrust fund to be depleted in 2033. Both programs are in need of reform to achieve better results for those who depend on them.

3) Harmful Tax Increases

The Biden budget proposes $2.5 trillion in harmful tax increases that will hit American families.

That doesnt even include across-the-board tax increases from ending the Trump tax cuts for individuals beginning in 2026. All Americans tax rates would increase under Bidens plan, and the standard deduction would be cut in half.

The tax increases would also be devastating for American businesses. A proposed 7 percentage point corporate tax rate hike would give the United States thehighestcorporate tax rate among the 38 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations.

Research shows that labor bears between75% and 100%of the burden of corporate tax increases in the form of lower real wages and reduced employment.

Under Bidens plan, business expensing for capital investments would start phasing out at the end of this year, making it more expensive to add manufacturing capacity or new equipment.

Thats exactly the wrong policy prescription, going into effect just as America needs more investment here at home in order to outcompete China.

Biden is even proposing a first-of-its-kindtax on unrealized capital gainsin an attempt to tax the assets of wealthy Americans. Falsely billed as a billionaire minimum income tax, this convoluted wealth tax proposalwould resultin less investment in America, reduced income for workers, and more power for bureaucrats, lawyers, and accountants.

All the new tax provisions mean more money for the IRS. The budget calls for an 18% boost in the agencys funding.

4) Loaded With Gimmicks

On top of the many problems with the spending, taxes, and policies in this budget, its also loaded up with gimmicks and rosy economic assumptionsincluding a reserve fund that could be used to sneak trillions of dollars of new big-government programs on top of whats directly proposed in this budget.

We know that the excessive government spending, burdensome taxes, and costly regulations called for under this budget are a recipe for economic stagnation. Despite that, the Biden administration imagines its budget will produce low inflation, steady growth, and low unemployment, when in reality, the opposite would be likely.

5) Irresponsibly Late

The president is required by law to submit his budget by the first Monday in February. Biden blew through that deadline and is filing his budget documents nearly two months after they were due.

At 49 days late, Bidens fiscal year 2023 budget is thesecond-latest presidential budgetin history (excluding presidential transition years), trailing only President Barack Obamas 65-day miss for fiscal year 2014.

This blatant disregard for the law and process is justanother exampleof the lack of discipline from Biden and his administration.

In summary, then, the Biden budget is irresponsible and would be harmful for American families in many ways.

Congress needs to turn the tide of federal overspending and inflation. The first step would be to reject Bidens budget request and efforts to revive the failed Build Back Betterbig-government socialist spending bill.

Instead, lawmakers should adopt aBudget Blueprintto roll back excessive government spending, prioritize taxpayer dollars, reform major entitlement programs, restore federalism, promote opportunity for all, and protect rights and our American values.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Visit link:

5 Big Problems With Biden's Big-Government Budget - Heritage.org

After several weeks of budget hearings on Capitol Hill, witnesses will finally have a budget to talk about.

The White House is expected to release its fiscal 2023 proposals on Monday, roughly a month later than is typical. Although the details have been kept under wraps for weeks, lawmakers have gone ahead with their annual oversight work anyway, inviting a number of combatant commanders to testify on their needs and wants for next year.

Lawmakers draw battle lines for FY23 defense spending ahead of White House budget release

With the official spending plan released, however, lawmakers will be able to dive into more specifics. That starts Tuesday, with the head of U.S. European Command and Transportation Command testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Congress is expected to begin drafting its own defense and Veterans Affairs spending plans in coming weeks, with the goal of passing a full-year budget before the November midterm elections. The new fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, but lawmakers have rarely met that deadline to finish their budget work.

Tuesday, March 29

Senate Armed Services 9:30 a.m. G-50 Dirksen European and Transportation commandsGen. Tod Wolters, head of European Command, and Gen. Jacqueline Van Ovost, head of Transportation Command, will testify on current missions and the fiscal 2023 budget request.

Senate Appropriations 10 a.m. 192 Dirksen Defense Health programLt. Gen. Ronald Place, director of the Defense Health Agency, and the surgeons general of the military services will testify on current operations and the fiscal 2023 budget request.

House Budget 10 a.m. 210 Cannon FY2023 budgetShalanda Young, director of the Office of Management and Budget, will testify on the fiscal 2023 budget request.

House Veterans' Affairs 2 p.m. Visitors Center H210 Pending legislationThe subcommittee on disability assistance will consider several pending bills.

Senate Veterans' Affairs 3:30 p.m. 418 Russell Military toxic exposureVA officials and outside advocates will testify on toxic exposure treatment and benefits issues.

Wednesday, March 30

House Armed Services 10 a.m. 2118 Rayburn European securityGen. Tod Wolters, head of European Command, and Celeste Wallander, assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, will testify on the strategic implications for the conflict in Ukraine.

House Homeland Security 10 a.m. 310 Cannon Russian cyber threatsAdministration officials will testify on the threat of Russian cyber attacks on American infrastructure.

Senate Budget 11 a.m. 608 Dirksen FY2023 budgetShalanda Young, director of the Office of Management and Budget, will testify on the fiscal 2023 budget request.

House Foreign Affairs 2 p.m. 2172 Rayburn Indo-Pacific policyState Department officials will testify on the implications of the Ukraine crisis for U.S. policy in the Indo-Pacific region.

House Armed Services 2 p.m. 2118 Rayburn Military health system Lt. Gen. Ronald Place, director of the Defense Health Agency, and the surgeons general of the military services will testify on current operations and the fiscal 2023 budget request.

House Veterans' Affairs 2 p.m. Visitors Center H210 Pending legislationThe subcommittee on oversight will consider several pending bills.

Senate Foreign Relations 2 p.m. 106 Dirksen Freedom of speech Outside experts will testify on government infringement on freedom of speech in Asian nations.

Thursday, March 31

House Armed Services 10 a.m. 2118 Rayburn Ammunition productionMilitary officials and outside defense business leaders will testify on efforts to modernize conventional ammunition production.

Senate Foreign Relations 2 p.m. 106 Dirksen Latin AmericaState Department officials will testify on Chinas influence in Latin America.

House Veterans' Affairs 10 a.m. Visitors Center H210 Veteran extremismVA officials and outside experts will testify on problems with extremist ideology in the veterans community.

House Homeland Security 10 a.m. 310 Cannon Unmanned aircraftAdministration officials will testify on the threat of unmanned aircraft on American infrastructure.

House Appropriations 10:30 a.m. online hearing Military privatized housing Service officials will testify on ongoing efforts to improve privatized housing for military families.

House Armed Services 2 p.m. 2118 Rayburn Transportation commandGen. Jacqueline Van Ovost, head of Transportation Command, will testify on current missions and the fiscal 2023 budget request.

House Foreign Affairs 2 p.m. online hearing COVID-19 in AfricaState Department officials will testify on policy and strategic concerns related to the spread of coronavirus in Africa.

Friday, April 1

House Armed Services 10 a.m. 2118 Rayburn Weapons of mass destruction Deborah Rosenblum, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Programs, will testify on department efforts to counter weapons of mass destruction.

Go here to read the rest:

This week in Congress: White Houses FY23 budget plan finally arrives on Capitol Hill - Yahoo News

If all you read were the op-Ed pages of Americas newspapers, you could be forgiven for thinking that the bloody and tragic invasion of Ukraine by Russia was actually a good thing.

From David Brooks in the New York Times explaining that the war demonstrates the superiority of the Western, liberal form of government to Jill Lawrence in USA Today celebrating a golden moment of bipartisanship, there have been numerous reminders since the war began, that, for all our faults, America remains a bulwark of freedom and democracy in the world.

After a long period of gloom about American decline and pessimism about the state of the world, Americans have reason to be proud of our united world leadership in response to Putins aggression. A bit of national self-congratulation is certainly justified.

And there is even reason to believe there will be other benefits from the invasion. Maybe Donald Trumps description of Vladimir Putin as a genius has finally ended his 2024 presidential campaign. Maybe cynical opportunists such as J.D. Vance, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, who said just before the invasion the he didnt really care what happens to Ukraine, will pay a political price.

Nevertheless, there are also reasons to temper these good feelings.

First, neither the sanctions imposed on Russia, nor the inspiring courage of the Ukrainian people in resisting the invasion have stopped Putin. The common assertion that Putin has already lost because the invasion has not been as easy as he expected, clashes with the reality that Russian military superiority and ruthlessness are gradually grinding down Ukraines defenses. If Putin is willing to pay the price, Russia will defeat Ukraine.

That is related to the second reason for caution. Its a dangerous world and regimes that wish us harm are not going to be deterred by the Western response to Putin. Iran, for example, may draw the conclusion that if a country possesses nuclear weapons, it need not fear a military response to anything it does.

Third, without in any way justifying Putins attack on Ukraine, an interview of George Keenan by Thomas Friedman in 1998, quoted in a recent New York Times column, reminds us that the eastward expansion of NATO following the breakup of the Soviet Union was probably a strategic blunder.

Ukrainians are fighting and dying to defend their homes. Could I do the same? | Bruce Ledewitz

Keenan told Friedman that Russia would inevitably react adversely to the presence of a hostile military alliance on its border. The goal in the 1990s should no longer have been containment of Russia, but integration of Russia into the European family of nations.

Nor, for all the references to freedom and democracy, has our response to the Ukrainian invasion really been about universal values. We have probably all heard by now the criticism that conflicts in Africa involving much more human suffering than is the case in Ukraine go almost without mention in the American media.

We can thank Putin for reintroducing a degree of realism to American public life. But the truth is, we have a long way to go before we return to rational politics.

Some of this difference is undoubtedly attributable to the kind of subliminal racism that often treats news about people of color with less attention than events involving white people. Partly the explanation for attention to Ukraine is historicalAmerica has a long history of involvement in European affairs.

Republicans denounce Putins war on facts, but are silent on the one at home | John L. Micek

But the fundamental reason for all the attention is that support for Ukraine is not really about freedom and democracy or even about human suffering. The American people are justifiably cautious about any such rhetoric, probably still feeling burned by the Freedom Agenda propounded by President George W. Bush in his second inaugural address in 2005.

American almost universally support stopping Putin, as opposed to involvement in other kinds of conflicts, because the invasion of Ukraine by Russia violates the very traditional international norm against military aggression by large countries against smaller ones. Everybody can see that without enforcement of that norm, the whole world will descend into chaos and war.

In contrast, many other conflicts in the world are more like civil wars.

Finally, the main reason to hesitate in our self-congratulation over our response to Ukraine is that American public life remains as unhealthy as it was before the invasion.

Its not just that we will go back to our extreme partisanship as soon as the shooting stops, though that is true. Worse, we are just as irresponsible in our support of Ukraine as we are about everything else.

The best example of this irresponsibility was the debate in the House in early March over an omnibus spending bill that would keep the government running through September. Congress had to pass a bill by March 11 to keep the government from shutting down. To maintain government operations while the Senate voted on the spending bill, the House voted to continue interim funding for the government until Tuesday, March 15.

This wrangling highlighted the absurdity that the federal government has been running for years based on stopgap funding billsin February, President Joe Biden signed a bill to keep the government open for three weeks. America is constantly on the verge of shutdown and default.

This is no way to conduct our national affairs.

The spending bill the House passed also contained an emergency authorization of nearly $14 billion for humanitarian and other aid for Ukraine. This spending had widespread support.

But at a time of large deficits and high inflation, there was no mention in the debate of the need to pay for this additional spending.

Granted, $14 billion is not a large amount in the overall scheme of things. The federal deficit in fiscal year 2021 was around $2.8 trillion.

But the point is, spending is not free. It is not much of a commitment to Ukraine if we are unwilling to pay for it. If it was too much to ask for a temporary tax increase to pay for this spending, why not a special no-interest bond issue for Ukrainea war bond? The American people would have been happy to pay for aid to Ukraine.

In many ways, we continue to live in a fantasy world. Climate change is not a problem. Vaccines are dangerous impositions on freedom. We need to keep masks on forever to reduce the coronavirus threat to zero. Spending is free. Cutting taxes pays for itself.

All nonsense.

We can thank Putin for reintroducing a degree of realism to American public life. But the truth is, we have a long way to go before we return to rational politics.

Opinion contributor Bruce Ledewitz teaches constitutional law at Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh. His work appears biweekly on the Capital-Stars Commentary Page. Listen to his podcast, Bends Toward Justicehere.His latest book, The Universe Is On Our Side: Restoring Faith in American Public Life, is out now. His opinions do not represent the position of Duquesne University Law School.

See more here:

There are limits to the American Renaissance over Ukraine | Bruce Ledewitz - Pennsylvania Capital-Star