Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Solarwinds, Orion Platform, a scalable infrastructure monitoring and management platform designed to ... [+] simplify IT adminstration recently fell victim to Russian Hackers. STAR MAX File Photo: A Solarwinds Logo shot off an iPhone. Photo by: STRF/STAR MAX/IPx 2020 12/24/20

Afghanistan was not the USs longest war. Not even close.Weve been at cyberwar for half a century and were losing.Globally,the US is losing, and the homeland is far from safe.Hell, why not just hack a municipality for a few hundred k?Its easy.Theres no cybersecurity strategy good enough to win a cyberwar. Sure, everyone talks a good game, but the very structure of American (and other businesses around the globe) makes it nearly impossible to, for example, deliberately and significantly reduce EBITDA to prepare for cyber warfare.

Its Sometimes Horrible to Be Right

I predicted this:

The number of severity of cyberattacks will explode in 2020.Cyberwarfare has now leveled the playing field in industry, in government, and in national defense:why spend ten or fifteen billion dollars on an aircraft carrier when you can disable it digitally?Why spend billions on new product R&D when you can hack into your competitions strategic plans?Why not just phish around municipalities for a quick $100K?Cyberwarfare is a cost-effective solution to all sorts of problems and opportunities:cyberwarfare is a revenue stream, a new business model, digital transformation with its own unique flavor but regardless of inexplicably unheeded warnings, (its) much worse than its ever been.Why?Simply because its the cheapest, easiest, fastest and most effective form of warfare weve ever seen, and because cyberwarfare defenses are more vulnerable than theyve ever been.

Tom Steinkopf, writing here,offered more predictions:

Hello, Is Anyone There?

So why do long lists of valid threats go unheeded and under-funded?As Ive reported here frequently, years ago, I assessed a huge enterprises vulnerability to cyberattacks.When my team finished its assessment, the results were downright scary.When I took the results to the CFO (to which technology weirdly reported), his only question was,whats all this going to cost me?,which of course was the wrong question.

Cyberwarfare is also inevitable because governments are reluctant to police themselves.Listen to what Andy Greenberg, writing inWired Magazinein 2019 said about why governments have been unwilling to deal with cyberthreats:

More fundamentally, governments haven't been willing to sign on to cyberwar limitation agreements because they don't want to limit their own freedom to launch cyberattacks at their enemies.America may be vulnerable to crippling cyberattacks carried out by its foes, but US leaders are still hesitant to hamstring Americas own NSA and Cyber Command, who are likely the most talented and well-resourced hackers in the world.

As usual, the US is the best, but in this case, it isnt.First,as Nicole Perlroth suggests, theres the hubris:

The hubris of American exceptionalism a myth of global superiority laid bare in Americas pandemic death toll is what got us here.We thought we could outsmart our enemies.More hacking, more offense, not better defense, was our answer to an increasingly virtual world order, even as we made ourselves more vulnerable, hooking up water treatment facilities, railways, thermostats and insulin pumps to the web, at a rate of 127 new devices per second.

But way back in 2016,Paul D. Shinkman suggested that America Is Losing the Cyber War:

Russia, China, Iran and North Korea routinely launch cyberattacks on civilian areas, hacking private companies or undermining foreign militaries, using online tools to manipulate information or digital propaganda to shape others' opinions, and employing digital mercenaries to do the work.

The Chinese military stole U.S. plans to the technically sophisticated F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, allowing Beijing to create the copycat J-31.Hackers with connect-ions to the Iranian government were charged earlier this year for attacks on U.S. banks and a dam in New York.North Korean operatives released a trove of damaging emails from Sony as the entertainment company planned to release a comedy with an unflattering portrayal of the country's leader.And Russia is widely suspected in a hack of the Democratic National Committee that could amount to a bid to undermine the integrity of the upcoming U.S. election the U.S., as of right now, is not fully prepared to match incidents like these.

John Donnelly and Gopal Ratnam, reporting forCQ-Roll Call, believe the US is Woefully Unprepared for Cyber-Warfare:

This inadequate attention is manifest in how infrequently U.S. leaders talk about cyber issues.On congressional defense committees, cyber is essentially an afterthought compared to weapons hardware and military pay and benefits.In the Senate Armed Services press release in May on its fiscal 2020 authorization bill, cyber was barely mentioned at the end.

Likewise, Bayer and his team found a dearth of cyber references in Navy leaders' speeches and a scarcity of cyber-related events on their calendars.

"You wouldn't even know that cyber is a Top 20 problem," he says.

Measured in dollars, cyber also does not stack up. Unclassified cyber spending across the federal government in fiscal 2020 budget request totals just over $17 billion, considerably more than it was a few short years ago, but that is only a bit more than 2% of the roughly $750 billion annual national defense budget.

Is Cyber Warfare the Last Competitive Advantage & Risk?

You bet it is.Theres not a government or company on the planet that can ignore cyberwarfare and cybersecurity.Everyone must developboth offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. Competitiveness depends upon digital security on every level.Without security, governments and companies cannot operate.Public companies are especially vulnerable because they have shareholders and (sometimes) responsible Boards of Directors looking after the shareholders. Not to mention the entire US infrastructure which whenever a break occurs its treated like a Black Swan event, not a pattern or a predictor of things to come. No, just an isolated event to which a response is uniquely crafted.

Even60 Minutesthinks SolarWinds was a big deal.On Sunday, July 4, 2021,60 Minutes examined the SolarWinds breach of government systems.The segment felt like a voice crying in the wilderness.As a professional in the field of business technology, I was stunned to hear descriptions of how the attack occurred and how trusted systems management software was used to breach and infect thousands of computers and the networks on which they run.But what stunned me the most was when one of the experts said the only way to guarantee that the virus is completelygone is to replaceallof the computers it touched.I was immediately reminded of the CFOs question:whats this all going to cost me?But then I remembered another axiom:pay me now or pay me later.Common sense?Obviously.Commonly shared sense?Not even close.If the SolarWinds breach is not enough to see massive increases in cybersecurity spending and fundamental changes in preparation and response protocols, theres nothing that will move CFOs to open their wallets or C-Suiters to about face in spite of how many times they assure their shareholders and customers that everything is under control (when its clearly not).

Whats It Going to Take?

Cyber warfare and cybersecurity are human challenges.Not in the traditional definition of human, but in the human inability toproactivelydeal with most anything.Individuals abuse their health even though they know that will pay later.Companies underinvest in infrastructure even though they know eventually they will have to pay later.How many times do floods occur in exactly the same place? Or why public transportation isnt there?Or why hospital beds, ventilators, masks and toilet paper cant be found when we need them most?Or why crisis management is an oxymoron?I wrote about that too:

How many companiespreparefor cyberbreaches, infrastructure failures, terrorist events, environment problems, sexual harassment lawsuits, product safety recalls, social media attacks, regulatory surprises and talent shortages, among lots of other events that everyone knows will occur.Yes, this costs money, but its cheaper to prepare than react in a state of chaos.Everyone knows that, right? Then why do so few companies invest in the inevitable?Companies should work from anticipatory playbooks, not reactionary debates over Zoom, Webex, Skype and Teams.But do they?Hardly any.

Way back in 2003by Mitroff and Alpaslan described a 20-year study about crisis preparedness:

For most of the two decades, crisis-prepared companies were in a small minority:between 5% and 25% of theFortune500 companies at most.In other words, at best, 75% of companies are not equipped to manage an unfamiliar crisis.At worst, 95% are unprepared, which, of course, is extremely worrying.

Much more recently, Butler, Menkes and Michel suggest:

Whether the original crisis is self-inflicted or caused by external events, lack of preparation almost always makes the outcome much worse.And only one in 10 companies is prepared only one in five companies had ever simulated what a crisis might look like, four in 10 had no plan at all, and 53 percent of companies struck by crisis did not regain their previous share price.

Worse:

Many executives at even well-managed companies secretly believe that they can work their way out of a crisis when the time comes without having a plan beforehand.As a result, they treat crisis preparation as a less-than-useful scenario-planning exercise that, if it must, can be conducted sporadically.

All this suggests theres no cybersecurity strategy good enough to win a cyberwar.Sure, everyone talks a good game, but the very structure of American (and other businesses around the globe) makes it nearly impossible to, for example, deliberately and significantly reduce EBITDA to prepare for cyber warfare.Only Congress can spend money trillions of dollars to prepare for wars the country will never fight.Thats because the government has no shareholders or Boards of Directors, just lobbyists. Companies simply cannot even if they actually have the money invest heavily preparing for crises whose occurrence are uncertain and infrequent, even if the crises are crippling.Once crises occur, of course, theres always money to fight the competition, the government and hackers, Russian and otherwise.CEOs love to talk about how effective theyre managing the crisis at hand, while shockingly no one ever asks why they didnt avoid the crisis in the first place or prepare adequately for the crisis before it arrived.

Another reason why60 Minutesstories like SolarWinds are only interesting, is because individual leaders almost always seek immediate tactical gratification, seldom long-term strategic success.Thats because corporate leaders too often optimize personal gratification over long-term corporate health since in all likelihood the leader will be gone in the long-term. Its the same reason why newly public company C-Suiters dump stock shortly after their IPO lockups expire.Personal rewards within the control of corporate leaders are usually maximized over long-term corporate rewards (which may have something to do withGordon Gekkos famous greed is good advice).

If, on the other hand, corporate boardsandshareholdersinsistthat management invest in cybersecurity and cyber warfare regardless of the impact on profitability or prices thingscould change,but only if the insistence is both positively and negatively incentivized:boards would have to pay C-Suiters to do the right thing or remove them if they failed to do what they ask.Thats the wakeup call they would take.Until then, we can expect more devastating cyberwars, more denials about whos to blame and more grandstanding about how well the wars are being managed.All that is also all too predictable.

See the article here:

Cyber Warfare Is The Last Competitive Advantage No One Sees & Why SolarWinds Is The Wakeup Call No One Heard. - Forbes

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

As a child, I was a fan of the books of Jan Terlouw.

I dreamt about the hero, Stach, who slew a dragon and escaped by jumping from the tallest church tower into a pile of pillows created by the cooperating townsfolk.

Today, I dream of a different kind of cooperation: EU-topia. A federal Europe where everyone has equal opportunities to realise their unique potential. Where we pursue the highest standards of human, social, environmental, and technological development together. A Europe that protects democracy and the rule of law.

Only Europeans that work together can overcome the challenges of the 21st century. That cooperation, however, is not yet possible because our European society is paralysed by the stranglehold of national politics.

The various measures that followed the COVID-19 crisis are exemplary of the Pavlovian reaction of nation-states in times of crisis: everyone for themselves. Instead of coordinating the response to a threat that by definition does not know borders, borders were closed unilaterally, export bans on medical goods were established, and European citizens had to deal with absurd variations in public health measures.

Although Europe has learned a lot in terms of fighting the pandemic in the last year, and there were some great examples of solidarity, later on, it reveals a pattern that was overly dominant in recent decades. When faced with complex challenges, nation-states think first and foremost of themselves.

Such was the case in the refugee crisis. Instead of replacing the existing inadequate European asylum policy with a system that would distribute the pressure among Member States, a number of EU countries closed their borders.

While some took responsibility, others refused out of xenophobia or a fear of losing votes. National politics dominates the solutions - or non-solutions - of international problems.

Jan Terlouw, who as well as writing children's adventure books is a former Dutch minister of economic affairs, put the problem aptly: "I hope (...) that these times will make us realise that we have to look more internationally. The problems are becoming more global, while politics does not go along with that at all".

Across Europe, history is taught in schools from a national perspective. Such a perspective focuses on 'our heroic nations past and forges an "us" versus "them" thinking that is incomplete and short-sighted. It does not teach that the nation-state is a relatively new construct, spurred on by the nationalism of the 19th and early 20th century.

It is assumed that the nation-state has gradually learned from its history and has decided in all its wisdom to slowly but surely cede more sovereignty to the European Union. A misconception has therefore crept into the collective memory: The European Union exists by the grace of the nation-states.

But recent European history reveals a different story. After the catastrophe of the Second World War, European leaders realised that they had to work towards a transnational Europe, not only to secure peace within Europe but also for geopolitical reasons. The fall of the Iron Curtain brought independence for eastern European states eager to shelter under the umbrella of the EU.

Across the continent European integration served to protect the nation-states, and it did so very effectively.

By allowing for local differences, shaping common bonds through cooperation and common arenas for political debates, the EU and its predecessors achieved a prolonged phase of peace and prosperity. So it is actually the other way round: the nation-state exists by the grace of the European Union.

Angela Merkel said when discussing the Franco-German proposal for a 500 billion EU recovery fund that the nation-state alone has no future, but, as shown repeatedly in recent years, there is no longer a shared idea about where Europe should go. European integration has stalled and the European Union is limping along.

Competences are divided and shared between the EU and nation-states in a way that utterly paralyses the European project. There is a European currency union, but no fiscal union and no European competence to levy taxes, leading to the accumulation of fiscal imbalances and inequality across member states.

There is freedom of services, but no equal social policy. There is freedom of movement, but your rights to vote do not move along with you across borders. There is a transnational European Parliament, but its parties are national.

The inconsequential nature of the EU makes Brussels an easy scapegoat and leads to irritation and misunderstanding. To move forward, however, Europe does not only need to be consequential in terms of fiscal integration and social policy, the EU needs a new story - a story of a pan-European democracy.

A pan-European democracy cannot exist without pan-European parties. The current set-up of the European Parliament is just as logical as a national democracy that only has local parties.

This is where Volt, a pan-European political party with members in every EU member state, comes in. Volt presented itself as a European party in the last European elections. Under the same name and with the same electoral programme, Volt participated in elections in eight EU countries.

Volt's ambition is to participate in local, regional and national elections in Europe. We already have local representatives in Germany, Italy and Bulgaria, members of the national parliament in the Netherlands, and one seat in the European Parliament. Volt wants to go beyond the "us and them" mentality and the limited national perspective, to put the collective European well-being first.

The lack of a European perspective in the national debate often causes people to blindly follow their government's position within Europe. How often do Dutch people hear that, in the eyes of Italians, they are stealing their tax money?

How often do Italians hear that their budget deficit could be largely reduced by addressing their black-market economy? How often do Austrians hear that their country is amongst the biggest net beneficiaries of the single market?

Every time, the answer is: almost never. Yet todays challenges have a European dimension that needs to be acknowledged in national discourse. The times where a Dutch Prime Minister says Italy is "geographically unlucky" to have to deal with the influx of refugees must come to an end.

De facto, Italy and the Netherlands along with all the other Member States of the EU share the responsibility of dealing with the challenges of the 21st century. That is why a European perspective in national debates is important.

When asked whether we are capable of change, Jan Terlouw, referring back to the comment that politics must become more global, replied:

"As a politician, I say that it remains to be seen whether politics will have the courage to seize the opportunity."

The greatest changes take place in the context of crises. The world is getting smaller, the problems are cross-border and the solutions must be sought together, in Europe and beyond.

National politics is a dead end. We need more European parties. Therefore, my appeal to the reader is to join or start a pan-European party, or encourage your political party to truly merge with like minded parties in other countries.

A political European space needs a variety of European parties representing all visions and ideas for a common European democracy that are present in our societies, let it be socioliberal, conservative, more leftist, or ecologist visions.

Only then can we free ourselves from the stranglehold of national politics. Only then can we say goodbye to the flaws in the current EU that gives ammunition to the - sometimes very justified - criticism of Eurosceptics. Only then, we can find in true democratic competition the right solutions for the challenges on our continent.

I am sure there are countless obstacles. A thousand reasons not to do it, but things always seem impossible until they're done.

Do you, like Stach on the edge of the tallest church tower, have the courage to take the plunge?

See original here:

Pan-European politics: The EU 'needs a new story' to help solve its problems - Euronews

Youthrelocatefrom intolerant situations for summer of work, play, community

Summer of Sass participant Stacy Starr, 21, sings at Spiritus Pizza in Provincetown, Mass.

Stacy Starr, 21, sings Ed Sheerans The A Team outside of Spiritus Pizza in Provincetown, Massachusetts. Starr is in the Summer of Sass program.

Wicked Local

PROVINCETOWN "It gets better."

The decade-old messageaims topreventsuicide among LGBTQyouthby havingadults who have been on the receivingside ofbullyingandstigmatell stories of a beautiful and hopeful life ahead.

The Summer of Sass work program is meant to take the message one step further.

It'swhat "better" looks like,founder Kristen Becker said.

Stacy Starrcalmlystrumsherukulele while sitting on thestoopofSpiritus Pizza. It's been just a few weeks since she arrived atthe LGBTQ and artists "safe haven,"known asProvincetown, Massachusetts.

In between songs, people walkingby stopto chat, complimentingher performance.

"I found my confidence, the21-year-oldsaid.

Starr, wearing silver star-shaped earringsand pink star sunglasses, has let the transphobiashesbeen met with throughout her young life movepast her.

People really hate trans people, Starr said.Shewas nearly jumped on the street and chased down by a car when she moved to Buffalo, New York. She moved to Buffalo after her parents kicked her out of thehouse, she said.

Growing up in Farmville, Virginia, "Ispent so much time worrying about a lot of the things I wasnt allowed to do," she said.

The Summer of Sassprogram invites LGBTQ young adults, usually between the agesof18 to 20,torelocatefrom oppressive areas in the United States for a summer of work and play, community and independence.

Another "sasser," 18-year-old EthanJackson, grew up in a religious environment in Defiance, Ohio. His first night in Provincetown, he had the realizationhehadnever seen two people of the same sex hold hands in public.

Ive seen that in movies,pictures and stuff,but never in person.Butyou see that everyday around here. That is the norm. Its great,Jacksonsaidbefore smiling.Even now, Im seeingsomeone,and we walked down the street holding hands.

Leaving Spiritus Pizza after a long workday at Gale Force Bikes, Jackson stops to compliment a street performer outside, saying that he appreciates when he sees others chase their dreams.

Jackson himself likes to sketch and sing. He's thinking about being a storyteller and possibly going to college.

Becker, a comedian,founded the programin 2016, following her 20thhigh school reunionin Shreveport, Louisiana.

While there, she read a story in the local paper about a gay teenager who had to graduate high school early because he was bullied so much.

I was just like 20 years have gone by and its still the same thing. That was my motivation for starting the program, she said.

When Becker left Louisiana herself to pursue acomedy career, she realized that the worldwas notloaded with shame everywhere and that there were places "queer people can be themselves.

The teenager she read aboutin the newspaper,TeddyLowery, became the first participant of the program the following summer.

"Everyone told me I was crazy, and I didnt know what I was doing, and they were 100% correct, Becker said.

Despite her doubts,she pushed on: raising money for housingand travel, connecting withactivistorganizationsin the Southand talking with local businesses that often face worker shortages during the busy summer season.

This year marks the fourthSummer of Sass group to come to town. Groups usually range from three to six participants.Noone came last year due to the COVID-19 virus threat.

Each season, Beckercatersthe programs to the needs of the youthparticipating, learning as she goes, she said.Weekly group outings will include anything fromgoing on a whale watch to counseling.

In thefirst few years of the program, Provincetown Compacta local non-profit working to advance the year-round communitywas the program's fiscal sponsor. In 2020, the program became its own registered non-profit with a board of directors.

Participants often learn about the program from connections Becker has made with advocacy organizations throughout the South. Youth across the countrycan also apply on the Summer of Sass website. Becker hasonly ever had to turn two people away because there wasn't enoughspace, she said.

"Normally, they come to me when I need them," she said. "I always seem to have enough. I don't have to work too hard for that part because there's an abundance of kids living in bad areas for being gay."

Participantsin the program pay rent weekly, but its subsidized, Beckersaid.

I make up the difference for what a youngqueercan afford and what it costs to be here, she said. So,there is a sense of responsibility and I think thats really important. Its not a free ride.

About twenty years ago, Provincetown attracted many young queer people, Becker said.But with a rising real estate market, it has become a lot less feasible for a group of queer friends to rent a place for the summer, she said.

Its very clear that were getting priced out, she said.Local businesseslike Sals Place restaurant, Provincetown Brewing Company andGreg SalvatoriGalleryhave been a big help with fundraising efforts, she said.

'Sass'growth

We have a huge social media campaign were going to launch this summer, she said.

The number one priority is obtaining a permanent house, Becker said. That way agroup of eight to ten peoplecan come to town and some who would stay year-round.

Ideally,the nonprofitcould raise $1 million for a town propertythat can bebought and paid off, Becker said.

"I don't know how to sustain this, truthfully, without it," she said.

It has been rewarding to see the growth of the program's participants throughout the years, Becker said. A group ofsassers, now a few years older,recently moved to New Orleans together. Anotherfirst-yearparticipant, KhloeMitchell, got a nursing certificate and is a performer in town.

It's been a lot of growth. They really do thrive, Becker said.

The program opens up LGBTQ youth to see their own potential, wherethere's a whole community of queer peopleliving in million dollar houses, Becker said.

Its a visibility theyve never had before," she said. "It changes what you believe about yourself and it changes what everyone has told you about yourself."

For Jackson, sitting at an outside table at Spiritus Pizza, he compares the isolation he felt as one of the onlyqueer people in his Ohio hometownto the freedom he feels now.

Its refreshing to know theres a whole community of us," Jackson said. While moving to somewhere he's never been before was frightening and took abig leap of faith, it was necessary for his personal growth, he said.

Ive also learnedtonot be soafraid," Jackson said.

Outside the popular pizza shop, Starr smiles beforesingingher original song entitled "Tripped Wire." The song reflectswhatshe's learned as she's become a young adult.

Im living on a tripped wire. Im walking on a line. I cannot be defined for who I am. Im not a good actress. I do not know my lines," she sings. "I do not tell the lies that you want to hear,wannahear. Cause if we live on eggshells, can we ever be ourselves?Were cracking from the pressures of the lectures forced on us.

INFORMATION

Learn more about Summer of Sass:https://www.summerofsass.org.

Here is the original post:

Summer of Sass: Where LGBTQ youth find summer jobs, safe haven - Wicked Local

STAFF: Good afternoon and thank you for coming. I'd like to remind everyone that today's briefing is on the Department of Defense's fiscal year '22 budget request. Speaking with you today are performing the duties of Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller Chief Financial Office, Anne McAndrew. And Director of Force Structure, Resources and Assessment with the Joint Staff, Vice Admiral Boxall.

We will have 25 minutes for the budget overview presentation followed by 10 minutes for questions. Attribution is on the record. Prior to asking your question, please state your name and you affiliation. I ask that you limit yourselves to one question and one follow-up question so that everyone has an opportunity in the room and on the phone to ask a question.

I will let you know when we're nearing the end and there's time for one last question. With that it's my pleasure to introduce Ms. Anne McAndrew and Vice Admiral Boxall.

PTDO USD ANNE MCANDREW: Thank you, Chris. Thank you all for coming here today. Vice Admiral Boxall and I will give you an overview of our budget request and then we will take questions after our presentation.

The Fiscal Year '22 defense budget reflects the President's national security values and priorities. It's a strategy-based budget aligned with President's interim national security strategic guidance, which emphasizes the solemn obligation to protect the security of the American people, enduring interests and expanding economic prosperity and opportunity, and a commitment to realizing and defending the democratic values at the heart of the American way of life.

To meet the goals illustrated here, the budget request takes a broader approach to national security to address threats such as climate change, COVID-19 and extremism, makes smart and disciplined choices regarding our national defense, particularly by aligning our resources to evolving threats, and addresses strategic competition with China through calculated defense investments.

Fiscal Year '22 budget is further informed by the Secretary's message to the force, which builds on the interim guidance and outlines the defense priorities. The message to the force has three overarching priorities to drive our Fiscal Year '22 investments. They are defend the nation, take care of our people and succeed through teamwork.

The budget prioritizes the China threat as the department's pacing challenge. We will continue to modernize our forces' global posture and operational concepts to ensure our military is capable of deterring and defending against aggression in the Indopacific that would undermine the security of both the United States and our allies.

The budget also ensures that the department is capable of managing other advanced and persistent threats, including those stemming from Russia, Iran and North Korea, and violent extremist organizations. Addressing the range of threats facing the nation will require the department to work in close partnership with our interagency and international partners.

The budget also invests in innovative technologies that would deliver new warfighting advantages to our forces, including artificial intelligence, hypersonic technology and cyber capabilities, among others. To facilitate our investments in innovation, the budget shifts resources away from older platforms and systems that are ill-suited to the current and future threat environment.

Finally, the budget invests in DOD's greatest advantage - its workforce. Taking care of our people and their physical, mental and emotional health is among the department's highest priorities and DOD's budget invests in the growth and development of our total workforce, both military and civilian.

By investing in America's enduring advantages, including our people, the Fiscal Year '22 budget ensures the department can meet today's challenges and be prepared for future challenges from a position of strength and in support of the administration's agenda to build back better.

The Fiscal Year '22 budget request for the Department of Defense is $715 billion, an increase of 1.6 percent from the Fiscal Year '21 enacted level. The request reflects a shift in resources to match our current priorities.

Specifically, the department's focus on China requires additional investments for the Navy and Air Force, and the reduction for the Army reflects the President's decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the beginning of Fiscal Year '22.

We nevertheless retained funds for an over-the-horizon capability outside Afghanistan and to deter Iran. As we prioritize the Indopacific, we must also ensure that the components have sufficient resources to transition out of Afghanistan responsibly.

For the first time since 9/11, the direct war and enduring operations costs are included within the base budget request vice in a separate Overseas Contingency Operations, OCO, request. Overall, these requirements total $42.1 billion, a 22 percent decrease from the Fiscal Year '21 level.

Under our first priority of defending the nation, we will commit to supporting the federal government's efforts to defeat COVID-19 for as long as the pandemic remains a threat. So far, we have made tremendous strides towards defeating the virus. Fiscal Year '22 request includes over $500 million for COVID-19 and pandemic preparedness activities.

Now, to China. To address China's growing influence, this budget focuses on developing the right operational concepts, capabilities and plans to deter and maintain our competitive advantage against China. Specifically, the department leveraged the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, PDI, to highlight investments in support of our efforts while also focusing our resources appropriately.

The budget also addresses the need to confront regional nation-state threats while disrupting transnational and non-state actor threats. To meet these challenges, the department must innovate and modernize at speed and scale.

The budget advances technology in key operational areas while making needed divestments of capabilities no longer optimized for the current or future environment. Finally, the budget makes smart investments in the military resilience for climate change. Climate must remain a national security priority and we will integrate climate concerns into our policy, strategy and partner engagements.

In our shift towards the Indopacific, we are making targeted posture investments in the western Pacific, totaling $5.1 billion in the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. The PDI was established to highlight select DOD investments and activities across the Joint Force that bolster deterrence and maintain our competitive advantage in the Indopacific region.

The PDI is not a separate fund but a subset of the department's budget request for investments is especially important to developing the robust capability required to maintain Pacific deterrence. In addition to what is featured in the PDI, the department's budget includes other critical investments in the Indopacific region for Fiscal Year '22. As this year's - represents the first ever PDI presentation, the department expects modifications to the PDI display in the future budget as we work with Congress to make refinements.

As Secretary Austin and the President have emphasized, we must make climate change a priority. It affects all of us, and the entire federal government and the nation must work together to tackle this present and growing challenge.

Our budget requests $617 million of new investments to make our installations more resilient and the department better prepared to address this vital challenge. We're requesting $263 million to strengthen our installations, $186 million for science and technology investments, $153 million in investments to mitigate the department's climate impacts and capitalize on DOD's buying power, and $15 million for climate contingency and preparedness, to incorporate climate risks into war games, exercises and other planning tools to ensure we understand the impacts of climate change on the missions and are prepared to respond.

Planning for today and into the future is our business and we wouldn't be doing our jobs if we weren't thinking about how climate change affects what we do. We need to ensure DOD facilities and equipment are energy efficient and can operate without disruption.

I will turn it over to, now, Admiral Boxall.

NAVY VICE ADMIRAL RON BOXALL: Thank you, Ms. McAndrew. Good afternoon. Strategic deterrence is foundational to every mission the U.S., our allies and partners execute. Equally important, a strong nuclear deterrent enables U.S. diplomacy, reassures allies, deters adversaries and leads to a peaceful resolution of international disputes.

Today's triad is safe, secure and effective. However, key systems are beyond their original design lives. This budget invests over $27 billion to recapitalize Cold War era systems in all three legs of the nuclear triad. The budget continues Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine production for 2028 delivery. It also funds the ground based strategic deterrent, GBSD, and the B-21 bomber to replace aging ICBMs and bombers in the 2020s.

Ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missile technology proliferation elevates the threat of strategic attack from a growing number of potential adversaries. Our FY 22 missile defeat and defense request of $20.4 billion continues to develop a next-generation interceptor to defend the nation from missile attack.

Our budget also strengthens regional missile defense by fielding improved Patriot missiles, developing a new Terminal High Altitude Area Defense -- THAAD -- interceptor, and deploying four U.S. Army Short Range Air Defense battalions in fiscal year 2023.

China and Russia are fielding conventional long-range and hypersonic weapons with the capability to threaten our allies, partners, and U.S. forces from extended standoff ranges. This budget enables $6.6 billion to develop multi-domain long-range fires that will allow U.S. forces to hold their adversaries at risk at operationally relevant ranges.

The FY 22 budget will field hypersonic weapons on air, land, and sea platforms. We begin production with the Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW. And we will deliver this hypersonic missile from an air platform in 2022.

In 2023, the Army will field Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, LRHW, from land batteries. And in 2025, the Navy will field the conventional prompt strike hypersonic weapon onboard the DDG-1000 warship.

The FY 22 budget request also procures and modernizes subsonic offensive missiles, increasing the procurement quantity of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range, JASSM-ER, and Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, LRASM.

Finally, we continue to modernize and procure Tomahawk cruise missiles with increased survivability and expanded target sets. Our budget integrates this capable cost-effective weapon into Army and Marine Corps missile batteries beginning in 2023.

Ms. McAndrew will now discuss our investments in science, technology, and advanced capability enablers.

MS. MCANDREW: In order to modernize and innovate and keep up with the revolution in technology that is already underway, the budget makes the largest investment ever in RDT&E, $112 billion, increasing by more than more than 5 percent over the fiscal year '21 requested level, while science and technology increases by 4.1 percent over the fiscal year '21 request.

Guided by a new innovation steering group, the department is addressing ways we can transform, organize, and resource and sustain our technological military edge while best leveraging the U.S. technology and innovation sector.

The request prioritizes technology that we categorize as advanced capability enablers, innovations that vastly increase our military capabilities, in some cases uprooting established technologies in ways that render prior technologies or capabilities obsolete.

There are more advanced capability enablers than we have time to address. But I have highlighted a few here such as microelectronics, artificial intelligence and 5G, in addition to hypersonics capability discussed previously by Admiral Boxall.

ADM. BOXALL: The FY 22 budget develops, procures and modernizes air, naval, and ground forces that will project greater power at longer ranges and with higher speed.

First, we invest over $52 billion to develop and field lethal air forces. In tactical aviation we continue to field a mix of fourth- and fifth-generation fighter aircraft by procuring 12 F-15EX fighters, 85 new F-35s, and modernizing the exiting F-35 fleet. The department also invests $1.5 billion to develop next-generation air dominance capabilities. We are also modernizing our mobile air forces by procuring 14 new KC-46 tankers to replace the aging tanker fleet.

The FY 22 budget invests $34.6 billion to modernize our naval forces with a balanced fleet of manned and unmanned platforms and maintains a healthy shipbuilding industrial base. The department invests $22.6 billion for shipbuilding to procure 8 battle force ships, including one destroyer, one frigate, two Virginia submarines.

We also invest over $6 billion to develop the future expeditionary Marine force. And with congressional support we will revitalize our sealift fleet by purchasing five used vessels.

Finally, the FY 22 budget invests $12.3 billion to provide our soldiers with greater firepower and more reliable systems. The Army is procuring 110 precision-strike missiles that will increase volume and speed of fires. At the soldier level, we are developing next-generation combat vehicles and will deliver next-generation squad weapons to the first units in FY 22.

China and Russia are challenging the U.S. advantage in space by fielding weapons to deny or destroy our space capabilities. Lasers, electronic warfare, grappling systems and direct action projectiles are a few technologies our adversaries have fielded or are developing to blind, jam, or destroy U.S. space systems.

The FY 22 budget invests $20.6 billion to strengthen U.S. capability in space to deter conflict and prevail in a global all-domain fight. Our budget improves missile warning by investing $2.6 billion to develop the Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared satellite. We also invest $1.8 billion for two GPS follow-on satellites and to harden precision, navigation, and timing signals that will enable GPS-degraded operations.

Finally, the department funds five space-launched vehicles to provide assured access to space and invests in proliferated low-Earth orbit, data transport and missile warning solutions.

As in space, U.S. prosperity and military success depend on defending our networks while defending our networks while holding our adversaries and non-state actors at risk with offensive cyber capability. The SolarWinds event demonstrates the need for robust, modern and ready cyber force.

The FY 22 budget requests over $10 billion to improve operations and capability in cyberspace. Our investments improve the technology that will assure next-generation weapons systems are protected from intrusion and attack. We are also embedding zero-trust architectures into defense networks for more selective user credential verification.

We invest in cyberspace operations to improve offensive and defensive cyber effects. Our cyberspace investments will fund four additional cyber mission force teams to hold targets at risk and defend against malicious actors. We are also investing to improve readiness of the nation's cyber forces by funding cyber ranges to enable training and exercises in the cyber domain.

MS. MCANDREW: In order to innovate and modernize at the speed and scale appropriate to meet our challenges, we need to divest from older and less capable platforms and programs. These programs no longer meet our mission and our security needs and we believe these freed-up resources are needed to fund higher-priority programs.

The budget will propose $2.8 billion in divestments, mainly from the decommissioning of ships including the LCS and aircraft such as the A-10. Making the decision to divest from these programs, big or small, was not easy and was not taken lightly. I understand the importance of these programs to many communities across the country. And we will need to partner with Congress to see how we can work together on this.

ADM. BOXALL: We must ensure that the joint force is the best maintained and our service men and women remain the best trained and best equipped in the world. The FY 22 budget request of $122.1 billion continues the trend to build military readiness. From ranges to flying hours, the Department is looking at readiness differently then in past years. For example, the budget improves maintenance data analytics and parts availability which will enable military and civilian maintainers to repair ships, aircraft, and brigades in shipyard, hangers, and depots with greater agility.

As discussed by Ms. McAndrew, we will continue to work with Congress to divest legacy platforms that overburden readiness account. Without divestments, we cannot afford to modernize to the evolving threat environment. Last, the budget reflects the President's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. In addition to fiscal savings, reposturing will enable responsive and flexible global allocation of the joint force.

MS. MCANDREW: In his message to the force, the Secretary identified taking care of our people as one of his top priorities. To do this, the Department is committed to providing a competitive compensation package for those individuals willing to voluntarily serve their country, including a 2.7 percent pay raise for both military and civilian personnel.

This commitment is built into the fiscal year '22 budget request and is demonstrated by the number of initiatives and programs that support professional development and Service members in the family rampant the packet included a $8.6 billion, for about 21 and at that level for family support on that programs that support professional development and to take care of service members and their families.

For instance, the budget includes over $8.6 billion, which is almost 3 percent above the '21 enacted levels for family support and quality of life programs that are important at attracting and maintain a quality force. Also ensuring participation of a diverse workforce requires investment and access to childcare and support to families with dependents with special educational or medical needs. Taking care of our people also means providing a safe environment for our people to work, grow, and advance.

The request includes funds for sexual assault prevention and response, including funding to establish the Defense Center for Excellence for Sexual Assault Prevention, Response, Education, and Training. Another way in which the budget request emphasizes the need to take care of our people relates to the facilities that we provide for our service members, families, and workforce. For facilities, the budget invests nearly $10 billion for military construction and family housing and another $15 billion for facility's restorations, sustainment restoration and modernization.

This growth includes a construction project that was previously deferred to fund border wall project. We will fund those projects that are still needed in fiscal year '21 with the funds that will be returned to the component and the '22 budget also includes almost $700 million to fund those projects that are executable in fiscal year '22. Our facility investment builds on previous budget requests and Congressional investments in environmental cleanup activities and ensures that all executable activity for the remediation of polyfluoroalkyl substances are fully funded in fiscal year '22.

Importantly the budget request reaffirms the Department's commitment to ensuring that both advertised and government and housing is safe, high quality, and well maintained. To that end, the budget continues the same funding of over $50 million higher than the amount requested two years ago. Under the theme of succeeding through teamwork, we've prioritized the rebuilding of our relationships worldwide to ensure that the U.S. maintains a competitive edge.

The Department recognizes that we must work through our allies and partners to advance shared interests, deter key threats, and help allies and partners effectively defend theid sovereignty, based on a foundation of mutual respect and accountability. The budget also supports Build Back Better initiatives here in the United States by investing in critical supply chains, U.S. manufacturing workforce, small businesses and military families. The budget emphasizes this in several ways.

For instance, the budget includes $3.3 billion for the Afghan security forces funds and $3.7 billion for the European deterrence initiatives to name just a few. The DOD understands it can not address the many complex security challenges confronting the U.S. alone.

Congress, other federal agencies, private industry and the American people are all indispensible stakeholders and partners in our efforts to secure the nation's defense.

Personnel and military end strength in particular provide the backbone for all of the department's operations. The department's request for end strength in fiscal '22 is $2.146 million, a slight decrease from fiscal year '21 projected levels. The shift across the services represent the trade-offs made and aligning our end strength with our priorities.

The department end strength is not growing based on the department's shift and focus toward the pace and challenge of China and the Indo-Pacific region. The Navy's reduction is driven by the decommissioning of several ships including four LCSs and an (inaudible).

The Marine Corps is continuing their progression toward their force design 2030. A set of larger reform initiatives aimed at internally generating resources through divestitures.

For the Air Force, the fiscal year '22 decline is driven by decreases to legacy force structure requirements such as C-130H and F-16 modernization as well as a realignment of U.S. Space Force mission transfers.

The Space Force increase reflects the continuing realignment of the Space Force missions from other services. The fiscal year '22 growth is primarily driven by Air Force to Space Force realignments of various national intelligence program personnel.

Next, the next three slides provide additional quantity and funding details on some of our major investments across the department, many of which Admiral Boxall has already touched on. This slide highlights the major investments in nuclear deterrence and missile defeat and defense.

This chart displays the funding and quantities for aircraft and ship building programs. For instance, the aircraft as Admiral Boxall indicated, 85 F-35s which is six more than last year's request. And for ship building the budget requests eight battle force ships in fiscal year '22 the same number as the fiscal year '21 request.

And this chart displays the funding quantities for various space, ground and munitions programs, launch vehicles, global positioning systems enterprise, space based, overhead persistence and fair systems that Admiral Boxall already touched on.

And finally, this is a look at our fiscal year '22 budget request as compared to the fiscal year '21 enacted budget by appropriation title. The budget supports the President's interim national security strategic guidance, follows the Secretary's priorities and promotes security for the nation while meeting the needs of our most important resource, our people.

At this time I'd like to turn it over to Chris. Admiral Boxall and I will welcome your questions.

STAFF: OK, thank you. We'll go over to Lara .

Q: I just wanted to ask about (inaudible) down the funding for Afghanistan this year for us? What exactly is that going to? What is the full number?

MS. MCANDREW: So the Afghanistan funding primarily includes-- the biggest piece is the ASFF which is the Afghan Security Special - Afghan Security Forces Fund. That's about $3.3 billion. It also includes funds for equipment reset, it also includes classified programs. Those are the few that is included in the $8.9 billion for Operation Freedom's Sentinel direct war costs in fiscal year '22.

Q: And so why - why the 3.3 why is that an increase from last year? There was $3 billion in last years from the documents.

MS. MCANDREW: So we believe that given that we are pulling out of Afghanistan we need to provide some additional security support for the ASFF - for the forces there.

STAFF: All right, we're going to go ahead to the phone lines. If I can go over to Tony Bertuca, Inside Defense.

Q: Yes, thank you very much. I wanted to come to the proposed divestitures. Congress traditionally doesn't grant a lot of these and I was wondering what kind of political capital the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon are prepared to spend to get these divestitures? How important are they and how seriously is the Pentagon taking them?

MS. MCANDREW: On - in order for us to - given the focus on the pacing challenge of China and the other challenge that we have in the department we must divest from our older, less capable, vulnerable, underperforming systems in order to invest in the capabilities that we need most for the future. So the Secretary is -- has indicated that he is - he wants to work with Congress to ensure that we can divest so that we can all - so that we can divest to invest in the future capabilities.

Such as hypersonics, more capable warships, such as the SSNs with (inaudible) module that has the improved deep strike capabilities, just to name a few.

ADM. BOXALL: Yes, if I could just add - I mean if you look at - it's key for us to look at the - we have to spend some money on readiness, we have to spend some money on modernization, we have to spend some money on procurement; finding that balance is really the challenge in almost any budget. As we look forward to the direction - the clear direction in the interim national security strategy clearly that direction is to go to China as it was in the 2018 NDS.

So we look and we say well what are the forces that we've had, what are they doing, and what are the forces we need, what do they look like. And that's really what guided us. So you'll see in here, again, as you talk about going to Congress, we have a lot work to do to ensure that they understand exactly what we're trying to do here. A-10s, for example, we are going to divest a 42 A-10s but also invest in - we keep around 239 A-10s as well. We'll need those in the future to keep capacity but we also need capability.

And some of those we talked about - hypersonics, 5G, A.I. all those types of investments. Everything we - from everything we fail to divest adequately in we have to find those funds in either our ability to operate the force or in how fast we modernize. And we feel that we need to kind of get after modernization and chairman's been very clear on that.

STAFF: OK, we have time for only one more question, please. And over to Steve.

Q: Steve Trimble with Aviation Week. Just to drill down on the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, there's about $400 million added to what INDOPACOM requested, so I was wondering if you could provide the delta of what was changed. And then within the PDI, is there funding -- or, how much funding is -- is there for space-based persistent radar?

MS. MCANDREW: (inaudible)...

ADM. BOXALL: So, well, again, for while she's looking up those numbers, just from a general perspective, I mean, the whole department is kind of shifting its focus on China, and therefore by extension, the -- the Pacific. So trying to figure out exactly how much capability goes specifically to one combatant commander when we're investing in things like joint all-domain command-and-control when we think about, you know, space-based ISR, missile warning, a lot of those other technologies. So you know, how -- that's why this is an initial cut at the PDI. We'll continue to have a dialogue on it.

One of the things, for example, was in there was $118- to figure out what we do about protection on Guam. That was one of the priorities for -- for -- the CENTCOM -- or, the INDOPACOM commander.

So as we look towards trying to solve those challenges, you know, some are global challenges that -- but -- but we did -- do want to kind of highlight those that are specifically in an initiative in the Pacific, kind of like we have an initiative in Europe.

MS. MCANDREW: So on -- since you seem to know, already know, the $400 million is for -- for things within this PDI. They -- they identified $4.8 billion and $3.7- with those. $4.8 billion, I think, and then we funded...

ADM. BOXALL: (inaudible).

MS. MCANDREW: No, I'm talking about for INDOPACOM (inaudible) identified. Yeah, they identified -- the department has resourced $2.6 billion with the $4.8 billion that INDOPACOM identified in their 1251 report that they sent to Congress. So $400- of that is in a PDI.

Q: OK.

MS. MCANDREW: And then -- so, does that answer your question?

STAFF: I'm sorry. We -- we do have a hard stop at this point, and that's -- all the time we have at this time. If you have any further questions, reach out to me. You know where I sit. Anyone online as well, or on the phone, please reach out to me if you have any further questions. Thank you for you time. That ends our briefing. Thank you.

Continued here:

Department of Defense Press Briefing on the President's Fiscal Year 2022 Defense Budget > US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Transcript - Department of...

Osaka As the number of teachers fired due to charges over indecent sexual acts committed against students continues to rise, a lawmaker-sponsored bill that cleared the Diet on Friday aims to make it more difficult for them to be rehired.

In fiscal 2019, 273 teachers at public high schools, junior high schools and elementary schools were dismissed over sexual acts involving children, a 30% increase compared with five years ago, according to the education ministry.

While ruling and opposition lawmakers were on the same page this time believing that teachers who conduct such acts, including having sex with children and possessing pornographic images of them, should face stricter scrutiny should they attempt to resume teaching introducing further legislative measures to establish criteria for rehiring could spark debates and differences between the parties.

What will the law change?

The new law aims to make it more difficult for educators who lost their teaching licenses after being dismissed for disciplinary reasons, including committing acts of sexual violence, to work again.

In the current system, teachers who have been dismissed for sexual acts against students and lose their teaching licenses, can have their licenses reissued after three years, allowing them to work elsewhere.

Under the new legislation passed Friday, a prefectural board of education would consult a panel of experts on whether it should reissue the license, essentially giving them the right to veto it. The panel would make the judgment considering various factors, including why the applicant was originally dismissed and whether they have been rehabilitated.

Details of the criteria on which decisions to reissue licenses should be based will be the subject of further discussions.

Based on the bill, we will draft a basic guideline for comprehensively and effectively promoting measures related to the prevention of sexual violence, and a ministerial ordinance regarding prefectural expert panels on reissuing teachers licenses, education minister Koichi Hagiuda said Wednesday.

The law will also see the creation of a government database on teachers who have been dismissed over sexual acts involving students, which could be accessed by prefectural education boards and private schools when hiring teachers for kindergarten through high school.

The U.K. has a similar database called the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) that allows employers to check potential employees for criminal records.

What were the concerns over the legislation?

One of the concerns was whether it followed the Constitution, which guarantees a persons freedom to choose a profession to the extent that it does not interfere with public welfare. But the bill had already been deemed appropriate to ensure public welfare namely the safety of children.

Another concern is that it goes against government policy that criminal offenders should be given a second chance after they rehabilitate.

We need to make sure that the nation doesnt deny people who have made mistakes the opportunity to be given another chance, Hagiuda said in February.

The education ministry had been considering drafting the bill itself, but due to such considerations the ministry decided it was better for it to be drafted by lawmakers rather than the government.

As a result, a ruling Liberal Democratic Party-Komeito team began discussing the bill in March. After consultation with opposition lawmakers, it was unanimously approved in both chambers.

Sexual violence by educators is unacceptable. When we think about the feelings of the children, stronger measures are needed so such teachers dont return to the podium, said Komeito member Tomoko Ukishima at the Lower House education committee session on May 21.

What have opposition parties proposed?

The Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan had been seeking language broader in scope, and stronger measures for all occupations when it comes to acts that harm children. As a general rule, the party suggested in April that someone with a history of obscene acts against children should not be allowed to work with them again.

The opposition Democratic Party for the People, which also agreed to the current bill, had submitted a separate bill earlier this month calling for those who commit sexual acts against children to be barred from becoming day care and school teachers for up to 10 years. The concerns of both the CDP and the DPP are expected to come up in future Diet debates.

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

PHOTO GALLERY (CLICK TO ENLARGE)

KEYWORDS

Read this article:

Bill on rehiring teachers fired for sexual acts with children clears Diet - The Japan Times

When in May 2011, the then President, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, assented to the Freedom of Information Bill, the Fourth Estate of the Realm was celebrated its passage with a lot of expectations. Many stakeholders anticipated the positive impact the bill would have on the country.

The journey was fraught with challenges. The bill had been pushed from 1999 to 2011 when it was finally signed into law.The general notion was that it would promote good governance and better welfare for all residents in Nigeria, drawing inspiration from climes where FOI Act made meaningful impact in the polity and well being of the people.

With that excitement, President Goodluck Jonathan was applauded for taking the bold step of signing the bill into law. The commendation was also based on the fact that the several attempts to enact the Act were met with brick walls from those who should be working to promote good governance.

It would be recalled that many who were working on the need to pass the bill by President Jonathan almost lost hope considering that the bill was only signed a day to the expiration of the tenure of Jonathans administration.

The bill was first introduced to the National Assembly in 1999 and was not passed into a law by the administration of Olusegun Obasanjo that terminated in 2007. The House of Representatives and Senate passed Freedom of Information Bill in August 2004 and November 2006 respectively with a harmonised version sent to Obasanjo for assent but he did not sign till he left office in 2007.

This did not deter those promoting the FoI bill, they kept pushing and started the process all over again, before it landed in President Jonathans table again in 2011 and luckily it got signed. It should also be noted that the introduction of the bill in 1999 was a fall out of the conceived Freedom of Information Law for Nigeria by three different organisations, Media Rights Agenda (MRA), Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) and Civil Liberty Organisation (CLO). These bodies, especially MRA, were also at the forefront of the passage of the bill and worked tirelessly until President Goodluck Jonathan passed it.

The Act was 10 years old on May 28. And so far, nothing much has happened in terms of its usage as conceived, especially at the state level. This is so because the state governments have shown little or no willingness to domesticate the law passed by the Federal Government aside being slow in coming with a state version of the Act. The state governments often argue that the federal legislation is not applicable to the states.

Only two states, Ekiti and Imo have passed its own version of the FOI Act, while the other 34 states are not willing to adopt that of the Federal Government neither are they willing to pass the state version of the law. Ironically, Lagos State, where the eggheads that pushed for the passage of the bill started the process of having FoI Bill passed into law is yet to successfully do so.

Martins Oloja, Editor-in-Chief, The Guardian, believes that the Act has not helped anything, not because it is not useful, but reporters generally are not serious about using it.

We always talk about frustration with the system but we havent tried enough. After you see a few media development organisation and some non governmental organisations (NGO) that have tried and have recorded some successes but we practitioners have not been serious with invoking the powers in the law. We recognise the fact that the last but one Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke tried to confuse people when he said that states might need to enact their own law and that is domestication of the national law. That is not a good development because states did not domesticate anti corruption law.

Why cant we apply FOIA just to get information? What is extra ordinary about it?As long as we do not change our attitude towards using FOIA, which is to complement Fiscal Responsibility Act and Public Procurement Act for the purpose of transparency in public service, we will not record any success and I think the burden is on us. We need to discharge this burden. We are not serious about using that instrument to report corruption in Nigeria, he says.

Oloja says that reporters who are supposed to cover crime, police and civil service have not been serious. You may say what have the editors done? Well, the editors can only encourage reporters; they cannot go to the field. Reporters should show interest. What we notice as editors is that most of the reporters are helping to cover up instead of covering.

These challenges, Oloja notes, can be tackled to bring about effective implementation of the Act. According to him, Editorial policies in various media orgnisations should favour these things because corruption is the reason we are underdeveloped in Nigeria. And the editors should note that. I also noticed that editors have challenges with independence because of commercial interest.

Most of the people who place advert in newspapers are from public sector organisations unlike the developed countries where the economy is robust enough to support independence. In entrepreneurial nations like the US, UK and other European countries, the private sector in those countries are strong enough to support independence of the media by advertising in any medium they like. But here, it is not like that. There is so much poverty in the system to the extent that most media organizations cannot even pay salaries for a very long time and it will be very difficult for organisations that cannot pay salaries to practice robust journalism. Good journalism matters but we do not have capacity to practice good journalism because of poor capitalization and this is one of the constraints that we face.

For Gbenga Adefaye, General Manager/Editor-in-Chief, Vanguard Newspapers, the daily challenge of competition, producing news does not give time for medium and long term planning, which is what the Act is all about. FOI is something you should use methodically in a way to make impact. You need time to really focus on your target to write about that. To summarise, there is a twin problem of capacity issues, knowing what to ask for and I as an editor to really engage so its a two-way thing.

Adefaye highlights what it requires to bring about the effective implementation of the FOI: I think the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN), Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) can come together and say, on the Magu issue for instance, we can ask the CBN to disclose how much Magu has remitted in the last five years and if they decline, we could go to court to compel, that can help but I think it is more impactful when there is collaboration. So there is need for synergy among NUJ, NGE, NPAN because at the end of the day, you cannot talk about good governance without talking about FOI.

The Managing Director (MD)/Editor-in-Chief (E-in-C)of Nigerian Tribune, Edward Dickson, also feels that the media has not been able to get the kind of benefits that it desired. He says, For us, at the Tribune House, of course, we had reasons to request for it. But whether at the federal level or at the state level,especially at the state level, our own contention is that in as much as it has become an Act, there should be nothing that will preclude us fromusing the latitude we have to access information here.

So,much of what we have been able to do so far, weve been able to use our own ingenuity and resourcefulness to get information. But quite so often, such information when we publish them, they are fraught with litigation. No wonder that intwo or three instances we ended up in the law court, defending ourselves against what is purportedly called libelous publication, Dickson says.

He continues, Aside from that, we also have situations where people will begin to intimidate you and begin to threaten that should you publish such information, you risk being taken to court. Or they begin to use people in critical places to mount pressure on younot to publish. You find subtle ordirect threat in some situations. When they know that you are pursuing a particular type of story, the next thing you get is a letter from a lawyer purporting to be acting on behalf of somebody you are investigating and threateningyou that,should you still go ahead with whatever investigation you are working on, that you risk litigation. So,at the end of the day, youre faced with either going ahead or backing off.

Dickson is bothered that in some of these situations, those people that would have given information, when the chips are down, they wont be able to come out to defend the information they had given.We had such situation like that when we got stories from our sources and those stories ended up being litigated. When you ask to come and give you more information or to come and defend the information, they will shy away from that. Of course,youre left in the lurch. Tackling some of the issues arising from this boils down to leadership, the Tribune Newspaper boss says. If leadership is right,then everything will fall in place. So,it is the leadership that dictates what exactly we operate.If the leadership is not right and the leadership pays lip service to democracy,of course,there is no much we can do.

He adds, If the leadership is right, everything will fall in place.Until we get it right in this country, the media will continue to be in the trenches.It has always been like that.Im sure that the mediais used to fighting from the trenches and I dont seethe journalists in this part of the worldbeing weary.So, like the Latin maxim, Aluta Continua.

Hajia Zainab Okina, Editor-in-Chief, Blueprint, is also of the opinion that the FOIA has not been fully explored to the maximum by most media outfits.

While saying that the media houses ought to be extra nosy in the course of carrying out investigative assignments, Okina notes the system is still suspicious of the media ferreting for information for the public consumption. There is the need for attitudinal change on the part of information givers at all levels of government,she admits

However, she says, there should be a proper enlightenment of the information givers and the need for them to appreciate the fact that journalists as members of the Fourth Estate of Realm have the responsibility to hold them accountable at all times.

Simon Kolawole, The Cables publisher, has a different experience. To him, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has improved transparency and accountability. The Act has provided what would appear to be yet another official channel of holding government accountable although the responses to such requests have not been as forthcoming as expected, he says, adding, the existence of the Act has seemingly improved the level of transparency as required of government institutions, in application, the results cannot be said to be as impressive as expected. In many cases, information given in response to FoI-related requests are, in some cases, a brief summary of what should be a detailed breakdown. On other such requests, its strict non-disclosure feedback, under the claim that the request violates the provision on confidentiality, as contained in Section 15 of the Act.

Ojo Ayodele, of New Telegraph until recently, expressed the belief that there is need for more awareness on the part of journalists on the Act.

To him, The unwillingness of the focal government or agency to release the required information is also another issue. Non-domestication of the Act in some states also affects its operationalisation. Also some government agencies are not cooperative enough.

On the challenges that have been experienced in the process of utilising the Act to access information, Alabi Williams, Editor, The Guardian, says: The duty is to break those barriers we are not breaking. Government institutions are not willing to release any information. Even the little we do in Lagos through Gbenga Salau, they come back to blackmail us. Gbenga was the first to blow whistle on Obasa. The following morning we got a call that said what is all these? That was the beginning of Obasas trouble before Sahara Reporters escalated it. There are institutional bottlenecks but we will keep trying.

Eze Anaba, Editor (Daily), Vanguard, is not impressed that the countrys media has not applied the Freedom of Information Act well enough. His words: I think most of the newspapers are dependent on traditional means of getting their information, without necessarily invoking the Act, sometimes they succeed, but I dont recall where we have to revoke the Act.

Anaba feels that if media practice is more data driven and investigative, perhaps, It could have made a difference. But the way we operate is like aHerd Journalism A story breaks, everybody feasts on it, on the surface, peripheral and we move on. If you look at the structures of our press, it is largely political. Too much of politics, less examination of policies, that is what I mean by being data driven and being more scientific. The Nigerian media seems to be missing the era of news magazine that do great investigation.

While lamenting his newspapers experience, Hamza Idris, Daily Trust Editor, says that despite the FIO act, sometimes when you write to agencies of government or private organisations, asking them to give you some information that will be helpful in writing your story, they have different ways of circumventing the process. Many of them do not get back to us after receiving our request, especially when they dont want us to know certain things. Also, because they know you have the right to take them to court if they refuse you, they would give you information that is not relevant to what you asked and at the end of the day, the reporter ends up frustrated. However, in some cases,we do push further. We have some stories that take up to one year to finish them, some six, three and even a week. We just dont write stories in Daily Trust but to impact and change the lives of people.

Adeniyi Adesina, Editor, The Nation, angered by what is happening to FOI as a law, said it is not adding any value. On a few occasion that media houses have had cause to write and request for information, they have virtually been turned down. When they were making attempt to bring the law, all of us felt that when we have it, it will be easy for us to ask for this and that, but there is also the official secret act, which prevents the media from having access to some documents.

According to Adesina, When you know that it was difficult to get information through the Act, people have started losing interest in the law. The law is there with nobody bothering to use it. I have seen some human right groups like SERAP using it, in many cases they were denied.

For the implementation of FOIA to be effective, he said, the code of conduct act should be amended in many areas, for example in the area of asset declaration form should be made available. Then the official secret act has outlived its usefulness, it is a colonial law and we are still keeping it. Though there is need for some secrecy when you are planning some government activities but when the policy is in place, there should be access to information on the financial commitment. Most times, they do not tell you how much they spend on a project. Unless all these things are done, the law will not be effective.We have written once or twice and met roadblocks and we felt there was no point continuing with it. So whatever we can investigate without going through them, we investigate. Whatever information we can collect from civil rights groups and others bodies or what we could source from others we make do with that. We do not bother about FOI.

Mr.Debo Abdulai, Editor (Daily) Tribune says, The FOIA is supposed to enhance the media access to information but look at the process, it is an albatross. The information you seek is not something that you just walk in and get. You have to write and wait butnews doesnt wait for you. Despite FOIA, you dont just walk in to a government agency and get the information you seek. You have to write and wait for the response of the agency involved and by that time, more often than not, as they say in law, the res isalready destroyed. News doesnt wait for anybody and if you dont get it, then it goes. The authorities have to understand the peculiarity of the media industry.

Abdulrahman Abdulrauf, Editor, Blueprint, says, The bureaucratic bottlenecks experienced greatly slow down the process of sourcing information via the FOIA. Furthermore, the resort to court to compel the concerned institution is yet to make the right impact.

He believes that enforcement of the rulings of the court will demonstrate governments readiness to allow the Act work.Speaking on the major challenges journalists have utilising the Act, Ademola Oni, Editor, The Punch, notes that the lack of willingness on the part of government officials to release information; the impression that the FoI Act applies only at the federal level and must be domesticated at the state level to make it binding on the states; the culture of corruption that makes it imperative to hoard information, especially those relating to finances; the lack of a groundbreaking judgment (in favour of FoI) to lay a solid foundation for its strong implementation; the unwillingness of media houses to keep on pushing for the implementation of the Act as a result of the frustration encountered in sourcing information through the instrumentality of the law; Funds to embark on serious advocacy and legal option (on the part of practitioners) to enforce the Act and the poor state of the economy has limited the resources available to the media houses.

He says the media must be determined to keep on the fight to enforce the law, not submitting to the frustration that will discourage them from seeking classified information through the FoI, while media owners or stakeholders must approach the National Assembly to ensure the domestication of the Act at the state level and stakeholders must equally approach the Supreme Court to seek clarification on the implementation of the law.

Programme Director, Mr Ayode Longe, notes that though Nigeria has a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, its implementation is far from satisfactory as compliance with the provisions of the law across government has been poor.

This is why we are asking government to put mechanisms in place for the effective implementation of the Act to enhance the ability of citizens to access information, which is definitely a public good, Longe says.

He explains that such mechanisms should be aimed at improving the level of compliance by public institutions with the provisions of the Act in different critical areas, including their responsiveness to requests for information from members of the public; their publication of information that they are required to proactively disclose; their submission of annual reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation; as well as the speedy adjudication and resolution of cases arising under the Act.

Longe argues that if the FOI Act will make real impact in bringing about transparent and accountable governance in Nigeria, its implementation across different levels of government also need to be assured.

According to him, despite the insistence by many states over the last 10 years that the FOI Act does not apply to them, it is ironic and quite disappointing that only two states Ekiti and Imo have so far passed FOI laws for their states and even so, the level of implementation of those laws remains unimpressive.

He observes that the only conclusion that can be drawn from the situation is that the other 34 states have no intention of being transparent or accountable to their residents but are merely using the excuse of non-applicability of the law to their states to foster secrecy in governance, thereby depriving citizens of the possibility of participation in governance at the state level.

Longe stresses that citizens need reliable, accurate and timely information about government, its policies and activities and only an effective implementation of the FOI Act can ensure that genuine information about the government gets to the people, which can in turn engender trust in government by the people.

A lack of access to information gives rise to and fuels the spread of rumours and fake news. Only timely access to accurate information can cure this.

X-raying the implementation of the FoI Act in Nigeria, 10 years after the passage of the law, the Manager, Social Mobilisation, ActionAid Nigeria, Adewale Adeduntan rated the implementation far below the average, because the awareness level of public agencies and institutions on the implementation of FoIA is still low.

Secondly, there are avoidable constraints in accessing information in agencies and institutions of government resulting in poor implementation of the provisions of the Act. The Freedom of Information Act has not practically given the citizens the right to access information from government institutions and agencies. As it is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government, the rating in our assessment is appalling because access to information today is still quite challenging.

Adeduntan says the implementation of the FoI Act in the last 10 years after its passage is more like a flash in the pan.

There will be significant change in Nigerias development outcomes if governments businesses are transparent at all levels. This will significantly make all the efforts of MDAs to translate to improved socio-economic status of the masses. As things stand today, our public finances fuels poverty if you benchmark public expenditure against the well-being of the masses.

Secondly, though some civil or public officers are aware of the FoI Act, but have not or their institutions have not complied with the required provisions of the Act; and that secrecy, bureaucracy, poor record keeping, inadequate knowledge of the provisions of the Act, corruption, and lack of enforcement are some of the inhibiting factors to the implementation of FoI Act. There is also the challenge of poor public attitude towards openness, transparency, and accountability due to narrow mindsets in doing government business under confidentiality. All these have negatively impacted on the potentials of the Act.

With only two states, Ekiti and Imo, passing or domesticating the FoI Act, what does it say of governance at the state level, Adeduntan noted that it is obvious most states governments in Nigeria are reluctant to adopt and domesticate the FoI Act. According to him, this shows that most public officers, particularly state governors are not in support of the FOI Act and actively take steps to frustrate the implementation of the Act.

This is contrary to the principles of democracy anywhere globally since democracy is all about open and transparent participatory government. Poor access to information feeds corruption. Secrecy allows back-room deals to determine public spending in the interest of the few, rather than the many. Lack of information impedes citizens ability to assess the decisions of their leaders and even to make informed choices about the individuals they elect to serve as their representatives.

ON why stakeholders should work to make states across Nigeria pass the FoI Act, he said all existing laws, such as Official Secrets Act, Penal Code, Criminal Code, Public Complaints Commission Act, and other extant laws that affect the effective implementation of the FoI Act should be repealed or amended to avoid conflict with the FoI Act.

Even though sections 27 and 28 of the FoI Act also overrides the provisions of the Criminal Code, the Penal code, the Official Secrets Act or any other such enactment with respect to disclosure of any record, they ought to be repealed because they are adversative to the FoI Act.

Technical and tricky concepts in the Act must be simplified or clarified. This will aid prevention of conflicting judgments by the courts in the implementation of the FoI Act. More importantly, the National Assembly should also state clearly that the FoI Act applies to all states of the Federation to remove the issue of domestication and non-domestication of the Act by the States. The National Assembly should take steps to address the gaps in the law with a view to strengthening it. There must also be a general consultation of stakeholders to find out alternative ways the provisions of the Act could be better implemented for easy access to information.

It took a long time for the FOI Act to come to life as it suffers many set backs during its passage. Despite it has been passed, the usage is still said to be low. So what can be done to make more Nigerians, including the media, to use the FOI Act to seek for Information from government, Adeduntan recommended mass enlightenment for public knowledge and understanding of FoIA beyond mere awareness, good record keeping and adoption of modern information management system.

Training and re-training of journalists, students, pressure groups, and even religious organisations on the usage of the Act is very important. A simplified or abridged version of the FoI Act should be produced to enable the citizens understand the provisions of the Act and increase its usage. The publications should be written in several local languages in Nigeria to make it easy for people to understand the provisions of the FoI Act. Moreover, Institutions such as the National Orientation Agency, the Nigeria Bar Association, the media houses, and Civil Society Organisations should assist in the responsibility of educating Nigerians of the existence of the FoI Act and their rights and obligations under it.

Read more here:

No cheers for Freedom Of Information Act, 10 years on - Guardian

As the Biden administrations senior officials move into position and map out their initial objectives, the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be wise to build on the significant gains made by the previous administration in supporting those who have served their country.

While much was accomplished in the last four years, more is always possible. If, however, the administration opts to pursue a social justice agenda versus placing veterans at the center of the veterans affairs mission, then the men and women who have selflessly served our country will pay a heavy price.

The Department of Veterans Affairs was born from the Second Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln. In what he considered the most important speech he ever deliveredFrederick Douglass called it the sacred effortan exhausted president, surveying the carnage of Americas most pestilential war; called upon his nation to repent and to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Forty-one million Americans have put on the uniform since 1775, and more than one million have given their lives on what Lincoln called, the altar of freedom. Today the Department of Veterans Affairs is the second-largest department in government, serving 9.5 million veterans in 154 hospitals and 1,200 clinics.

Four years ago, the Trump administration inherited a department with an approval rating of 37 percent according to CNN. Department leaders were caught misrepresenting veterans access to health care. Morale within the department was low and it was hemorrhaging employees. Tragically, veterans were dying in the halls of VA hospitals.

The direction from the Trump White House was clear: It would confront the status quo. It would treat veterans as soldiers who earned the support of their government and refuse to treat them as victims with grievances. It would veto the naysayers who consistently oppose modernization or change and serve veterans, not the Beltway. Also, it would put people in charge who spoke the language of service and understood the culture.

With that guidance, Veterans Affairs was reborn in four years. The leadership took Lincolns charge seriously and put veterans at the center of their own care. A change came by leadership listening to employees and veterans. Every state and all but one territory was visited. Officials talked to veterans without the filters of political Washington. Morale soared.

When the Trump administration left town, the Department of Veterans Affairs approval rating for health care stood at 90 percent. Also, among the fastest-growing populationwomenthe department had an 86 percent approval rating. Now, the department provides a full range of services for women veterans and has a military sexual trauma coordinator at each of its medical centers. Over 60 percent of the workforce is women.

Department of Veterans Affairs leadership understood that veterans had been demanding options outside of department care for years, and as a result, delivered real, permanent choice to them through the MISSION Act. Now, millions of veterans are getting care right in their communities. Choice can exist and flourish within a government agencyand the Department of Veterans Affairs is proof of that truth.

Veterans liked what they saw and started voting with their feet. The department completed a record number of appointments in the fiscal year 201959 millionthe same year the MISSION Act took effect. Giving veterans choice did not mean the end of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Instead, it made the department more accountable and empowered its staff to once more live up to the legacy of the department. Using regulations already in place, the department dismissed over eight thousand employees. This is unheard of in government.

From 2014 to 2016, the Department of Veterans Affairs was near the bottom of federal agencies in the non-partisan Partnership for Public Service survey of best places to work in the government. Now it is ranked sixth and is expected to climb higher up the list this year. Forbes listed it as the top employer in seventeen states.

The department achieved what all the experts in Washington said was impossible by rolling out a modernized electronic health record that will make it easier than ever for health professionals to access veterans medical history. The Obama administration said it could not field the health record and gave up. But the Trump administration broke out of fossilized government thinking. Instead of throwing in the towel because the bureaucracy could not find a solution, the Department of Veterans Affairs went to the market and found a proven off-the-shelf computer program.

It worked. No longer will veterans have to lug boxes of paper records around, as my father did after his wounding in Vietnam. VA can now share information with the Defense Department without exchanging paper, and we have a complete picture of that veterans health from boot camp to retirement. We finally closed the last circle left open from the Vietnam War by offering caregivers like my mother, who take care of Vietnam veterans at home, the financial, supply and personal support they have been lacking.

By the time the coronavirus pandemic hit, the Department of Veterans Affairs was a different organization than the one most people read about in 2016. While the virus was a serious threat to many non-department nursing homes, early actions to protect the departments most vulnerable patients resulted in far fewer infections at the homes it managed. The department expanded telehealth to keep in touch with patients in a time of social-distancing.

The performance by theDepartment of Veterans Affairsduring the crisis was so strong that one thousand department staff members deployed on more than thirty-seven hundred missions to assist non-VA health networks, including those that serve Native Americans. By the end of the Trump administration, the VA had tested more than 1.3 million people for the virus and treated more than 125,000 veterans while administering vaccines to tens of thousands of veterans and employees.

During the crisis, the department hired over forty thousand people, proving that professionalizing hiring and human-resource systems can change the trajectory of an organization. Bringing off-the-shelf systems and people from the Pentagon allowed the department to finally dispose of years-long backlogs of congressional mail that soured relations. Appeals backlogs, years in the making, were almost eliminated by modernizing systems and processes.

Under the Trump administration, the department tackled some of the most chronic problems facing veterans with renewed energy. It worked with states to reduce veterans use of harmful opioidswhich fell 48 percent over the past four yearsand began the first nationwide effort to prevent the tragedy of veterans suicide.

In four years, VA underwent the most transformational change seen since the end of World War II and emerged from that process with renewed strength. Before January 2017, VA was falling short of Lincolns promise.

The danger for veterans, however, is that the success over the past four years will be ephemeral. Legislation has been introduced in both houses of Congress to erase Lincolns charge emblazoned on department buildings and veterans cemeteries. It is ironic that the same people who argue that Lincolns words are non-inclusive and sexist are the same people who were silent as the Obama-Biden administration left the Department of Veterans Affairs in tatters.

The Biden administrations priority for the department seems to be to restore union prerogative. This is the same government union that opposed employee accountability, had rent-free offices across the Department of Veterans Affairs, and even fought a directive to end smoking on medical campuses. The social-justice mandate that is the hallmark of the new administration is reaching the department. The irony is that the diversity agenda ignores the basic principle of military life: service has been and will always be the great leveler in American society. The uniform brings together Americans from every corner and social stratum in the country.

The department cannot treat veterans as pawns in an activist agenda. The Americansveterans and familieswalking through its doors are warriors, not numbers.

Veterans are the priority, not the woke. Be on guard for a retreat from choice, accountability, and modernization. Giving unions, lobbyists and those who perpetuate the picture of veterans as victims a veto over the decisions and direction of the department ensures that veterans will come in second. We owe our defendersand Lincolnmuch better.

A former secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Robert L. Wilkie is a visiting fellow in The Heritage Foundations Center for National Defense.

Image: Reuters

Continued here:

Will the Biden Administration Squander the Veterans Affairs Reforms Made By Trump? - The National Interest

A famous Supreme Court quip is that the U.S. Constitution isnt a suicide pact, but what about the Illinois constitution? After years of fiscal recklessness, the states credit ratings are a notch above junk. Yet the politicians in Springfield now want to add collective bargaining to the Illinois bill of rights, putting union power on the same footing as due process and religious freedom.

The House passed the idea Wednesday after the Senate approved it last week. The proposed constitutional amendment would guarantee a fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively, including for better wages, hours, working conditions and a vague catchall of economic welfare. The amendment says that no law would be allowed to block labor agreements from requiring membership in an organization as a condition of employment.

This is meant to head off the right-to-work movement, which has found success in Illinoiss neighborhood. Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Kentucky all have banned coerced unionization during the past decade. Its a bad idea to lock Illinois into an uncompetitive policy for private workers. Whats worse is that the amendment could make it impossible for the state to tweak the public labor rules that are driving its unsustainable finances.

Illinois law is very favorable to government unions. Teachers are able to go on strike, unlike in many other states. The Legislature is also weighing a bill to let Chicagos school principals unionize and strike. Collective bargaining in Illinois isnt tightly limited. Next door in Wisconsin, former Governor Scott Walkers Act 10 law, passed in 2011, generally says that public workers may bargain only over their wages.

Illinois desperately needs that kind of structural reform, but it soon might be unconstitutional if the amendments backers get their way. In that case the states long-term fiscal problems could become essentially unfixable. Public unions would push for higher spending, as they always do, with no possible legal brake. The constitutional amendment Illinois truly needs is one that allows the state to change the public-worker pensions that are bankrupting it.

Visit link:

Illinoiss Big Labor Bill of Rights - The Wall Street Journal

We keep getting closer to the long overdue return of the cruising industry. Royal Caribbean (NYSE:RCL) announced on Tuesday afternoon that its Freedom of the Seas ship has been approved to begin test sailings out of Miami by late June. It's the first of the country's three major cruise lines to announce a test sailing.

Earlier in the week it was Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings (NYSE:NCLH) getting the green light to begin Alaskan cruises out of Seattle in early August. Royal Caribbean and Carnival(NYSE:CCL) (NYSE:CUK) announced a July restart to their sea voyages to Alaska late last week. Yes, it's finally happening. If you've been waiting for more than a year to get on a cruise ship again the gangplank is going to be there for you soon. If you're just following the news because you're an investor in one of the three major cruise lines you might want to pare back your expectations. The cruise industry is coming back, but this summer -- for all practical purposes -- is essentially shot.

Image source: Getty Images.

It may seem shocking, but all three cruise line stocks are now trading at higher enterprise values than they were 15 months ago when Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian Cruise Line were operating at full strength. The sticker prices on the stocks may not be as high as they were when it was smooth sailing for the cruising industry, but between fresh debt and stock sales the enterprise values have ballooned since the lull.

There was hope that the cruise lines would be generating meaningful revenue during the peak summer travel season, but that's not in the cards anymore. Cruises sail year-round, but it's always summer when families with kids in school jump into the mix to bump up demand -- and fares.

How important is summer? Let's take Carnival on for size, as it operates on a November fiscal year, offering us a perfect snapshot of how critical June, July, and August is to the world's largest cruise line. It generated $6.5 billion of the $20.8 billion it reported for fiscal 2019 -- or more than 31% -- in the fiscal third quarter. More importantly for bottom-line watchers, the $1.78 billion it delivered in net income that quarter was nearly 60% of the entire fiscal year's profit.

We may give Royal Caribbean a golf clap when it comps a cruise ship at a little more than 10% capacity on a test sailing in a few weeks, but by the time it's cleared for revenue-generating sailings it will be too late to make a difference. Folks will have booked more reliable getaways. Cruise ships are a lot of fun and an unheralded form of travel, but after seeing all three cruise lines cancel cruises month-after-month for more than a year it's hard to take any restarting line seriously. By the time Alaskan cruises start happening in August the summer travel season will be nearing a close. The summer season that is so pivotal for the success in the industry will consist of a handful of revenue sailings. There's no way that anyone turns a profit during the most profitable period for the industry.

This summer will matter from a historical perspective. It will be the moment when the last segment of the travel and tourism sector to resume operations finally got going. It will be a small step, but how quickly the industry returns to form -- and justifies its elevated valuations -- are the real questions that will take time to answer.

This article represents the opinion of the writer, who may disagree with the official recommendation position of a Motley Fool premium advisory service. Were motley! Questioning an investing thesis -- even one of our own -- helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.

Visit link:

Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian Race Against the Summer - Motley Fool

Midland County Clerk Ann Manary announced this week that 6,000 Midland County residents will be receiving a Juror Qualification Questionnaire in the mail.

Individuals were randomly selected by computer from an index of all Midland County residents holding a Michigan driver's license or Michigan personal ID card.

Receipt of this questionnaire means one is being considered as a potential juror for Midland County for the fiscal year of Oct. 1, 2021 through Sept. 30, 2022.

Those who receive the questionnaire are required by state law to fill it out and return it to the County Clerk no later than 10 days from the date they receive it.

Receipt of the questionnaire does not necessarily mean one will be selected to serve as a juror. Out of the 6,000 recipients, only about half will be summoned to serve.

The right and privilege to receive a trial by a jury of one's peers is a basic freedom and a constitutional right. Annually, Midland County selects jurors in order to protect this freedom.

The questionnaires will be reviewed by the Midland County Jury Board, which consists of three individuals appointed by the Midland Board of Commissioners upon recommendation of the local circuit court judges. These individuals are appointed for six-year terms and must include a minimum of one person each from both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

In several weeks, the Midland Jury Board will meet to begin the evaluation process of the questionnaires. At that time, they remove individuals who have cause for exemption. You are exempt if you are not a United States citizen, if you do not speak or understand English, if you have served as a juror during the past 12 months, if you have been convicted of a felony, or if you have a physical or mental disability that would affect your jury service.

Persons 70 years of age and older may exempt themselves. If an exemption is not claimed on the questionnaire because of age, the questionnaire will be processed accordingly.

Only the Midland Jury Board has access to the information on the questionnaire. Once one is selected to serve on a jury panel, only the prosecutor and the attorneys involved in a trial have access to the second side of the questionnaire.

Once the jury board determines the eligible questionnaires, names may be selected via computer to serve on a jury panel for circuit, district or probate court.

Jurors will be sent a summons from the court notifying them that they have been selected to serve for a specific month well in advance for planning personal and business activities. Panels are on call to serve for a period of one month.

The normal length of a jury trial in Midland County is several days to one week. Sequestration of a jury would be an extreme rarity, having only occurred once in the past decade for the deliberation portion of the trial only.

Jurors are paid $15 for the first half-day and up to $45 for each full day thereafter. Mileage is paid at a rate of 30 cents per mile for one round trip per day from one's home to the Midland County Courthouse.

Visit link:

Check the mail: Juror questionnaires mailed to thousands of Midlanders - Midland Daily News