Search the archive.

Speaking at Harvard’s commencement ceremony last week, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg became the latest titan of Silicon Valley to muse about the potential merits of a universal basic income program as a solution to hypothetical future joblessness induced by technology change. Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Andrew Ng, Sam Altman, and many others in the industry have also spoken favorably about the idea, which is essentially flat checks from the government that would go out to everyone.

It’s an interesting conversation. And it’s dangerously detached from today’s policy fights.

Greenstein 19, was Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture under President Carter, where he directed the agency that operates the federal food assistance programs, such as the food stamp and school lunch programs, and helped design the landmark Food Stamp Act of 1977, generally regarded as the Carter Administration’s principal anti-poverty achievement. He was appointed by President Clinton in 1994 to serve on the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform and headed the federal budget policy component of the transition team for President Obama. He is a graduate of Harvard College and has received honorary doctorates from Tufts University, Occidental College, and Haverford College (Rob, “Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, If It Occurred, Would Likelier Increase Poverty Than Reduce It,” CBPP, https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-opportunity/commentary-universal-basic-income-may-sound-attractive-but-if-it)//bb-dmr

At first blush, universal basic income (UBI) seems a very attractive idea, especially to a progressive. Yet it suffers from two serious problems. First, the odds are very high that an effort to secure UBI would prove quixotic. Second, and more disconcerting, any possibility of overcoming the formidable obstacles to UBI will almost certainly require a left-right coalition that has significant conservative support — and conservative support for UBI rests on an approach that would increase poverty, rather than reduce it.

As the pandemic-era safety net crumbles, congressional Republicans are looking to roll back Medicaid, SNAP, and other key programs even further with spending cuts and punitive work requirements. "Republican calls to cut government funding put everything from child care to opioid treatment and mental health services to nutrition assistance at risk for millions," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, warned earlier this week.

The potential for catastrophic impacts depends on the magnitude and rate of climate change, the damage inflicted on Earth and human systems, and the vulnerability and response of those affected systems. The extremes of these areas, such as high temperature rise and cascading impacts, are underexamined. As noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there have been few quantitative estimates of global aggregate impacts from warming of 3°C or above (1). Text mining of IPCC reports similarly found that coverage of temperature rises of 3°C or higher is underrepresented relative to their likelihood (2). Text-mining analysis also suggests that over time the coverage of IPCC reports has shifted towards temperature rise of 2 °C and below.

Research has focused on the impacts of 1.5 °C and 2 °C, and studies of how climate impacts could cascade or trigger larger crises are sparse. A thorough risk assessment would need to consider how risks spread, interact, amplify, and are aggravated by human responses (3), but even simpler “compound hazard” analyses of interacting climate hazards and drivers are underused. Yet this is how risk unfolds in the real world. For example, a cyclone destroys electrical infrastructure, leaving a population vulnerable to an ensuing deadly heat wave (4). Recently, we have seen compound hazards emerge between climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic (5). As the IPCC notes, climate risks are becoming more complex and difficult to manage, and are cascading across regions and sectors (6).

While it may be premature to draw strong inferences about a general softening of the U.S. state/local budget constraint, the recent experience of substantial federal assistance to state and local governments to backfill budgetary shortfalls does not bode well for the future of U.S. fiscal federalism. The availability of substantial federal relief during times of fiscal crisis softens the obligation that state and local governments face to keep their fiscal houses in order. The risk is that, despite state constitutional provisions requiring a balanced budget, states will pursue de facto deficit spending and simply offload the costs to the federal government during the next fiscal crisis. To date, most federal assistance to the states has not had an explicit “bailout” frame, proceeding instead under the guise of general fiscal relief. A more severe crisis, however, could easily prompt emergency federal intervention. As economist Kenneth Rogoff recently noted, “‘[i]f we ran into a situation where one state got into trouble, they’d be bailed out six ways from Tuesday.’”21 Other commentators have called for a more comprehensive federal “rescue” of the states in the form of advances that would be charged against future federal transfers.22 This type of action, though perhaps warranted in the short-term to avert catastrophe, must be evaluated against the risk of eroding the incentives for subnational fiscal discipline over the long run. An important object in the design of U.S. intergovernmental fiscal policy going forward should be to minimize the likelihood of future demands for state fiscal relief during economic downturns.

Third, fiscal crises compromise the ability of state and local governments to serve a useful countercyclical function during economic downturns. It is well recognized that service demands on state and local governments increase during a recession.23 For example, state Medicaid expenditures increased significantly during the most recent recession, with an additional 3.7 million seeking program benefits in 2009 alone.24 Yet the existence of a fiscal crisis necessarily impairs state and local governments’ ability to meet those service demands; in fact, fiscal crises may prompt the opposite strategy — i.e., a reduction in state and local services. In order to preserve the ability of state and local governments to play a constructive role in countercyclical policy, the federal government may wish to adopt certain policies design to minimize the likelihood of future fiscal crises.25 In other words, it is in the federal government’s interest to minimize, to the extent possible, having state and local governments in budget crisis mode during the next economic downturn.

Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that provides health insurance targeted to lower-income recipients. The program plays a significant role in the U.S. health system, providing medical care for about 26 percent of the population. As a key part of the safety net, Medicaid is designed to be countercyclical, meaning that it expands to meet rising needs during economic downturns when people lose their jobs and job-based health coverage. It also represents a major source of both revenues and expenditures in state budgets, since states receive a portion of funding for the program from the federal government. OVERVIEW OF MEDICAID FINANCING Each state’s Medicaid expenditures for healthcare services are matched by federal funds according to various formulas. The formula that governs the majority of government funding takes into account differences in per capita income among the states and is called the federal medical assistance percentages (FMAP). For 2023, the FMAP ranges from a minimum of 50 percent in wealthier states such as California to 77 percent in Mississippi. The matching structure provides states with resources that automatically adjust for demographic and economic shifts, healthcare costs, public health emergencies, and natural disasters. States receive varying levels of assistance from the federal government for Medicaid In addition to funds governed by the FMAP, the federal government provides enhanced matching rates for select services, providers, or groups of beneficiaries. The most prominent example stems from the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which expanded the Medicaid program to cover individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of the poverty level; the federal government covers nearly all the cost of coverage for the expansion population. Remaining Medicaid expenditures are referred to as the nonfederal share, and federal law requires that states finance at least 40 percent of their share of total Medicaid expenditures through state funds. The remaining 60 percent of the nonfederal share can come from “other state funds” including funding transferred from local governments or revenue collected from provider taxes and fees. However, in practice this is not the case. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, in fiscal year 2022 (which for most states is July 1–June 30) the program cost a total of $789 billion, about $249 billion of which was the nonfederal share. A majority of Medicaid funding comes from the federal government HOW DOES MEDICAID AFFECT STATE BUDGETS? Medicaid’s role in state budgets is unique, since the program acts as both an expenditure and the largest source of federal support in state budgets. In 2022, total Medicaid expenditures (including federal matching funds) made up 28 percent of state budgets, on average, making it the largest category of spending. When considering only nonfederal funds, it comprised 17 percent of general fund expenditures, making it the second largest category of state spending after primary and secondary education. Medicaid is typically the largest expenditure in state budgets Medicaid expenditures rose steadily from 2008 to 2018 as a percentage of total state spending, growing from 20.5 percent of state budgets to 29.3 percent. That growth reflects broader health spending trends and includes the effect of the ACA expansion in 2014. Nevertheless, Medicaid expenditures grew more slowly than other elements of state budgets — including education. Medicaid expenditures have increased as a percentage of state budgets States finance the nonfederal share of their Medicaid expenditures in large part through general revenues, which consist of revenue from sources including personal and corporate income taxes and sales taxes. States can also use funds raised from local governments and through taxes on healthcare providers to finance the nonfederal share of their Medicaid payments. Those sources of Medicaid funding have received increased attention because states have used them to create complex financing mechanisms designed to maximize the amount of federal Medicaid funds coming to the states, thereby drawing down federal Medicaid funds without expending much, if any, state general funds.

Today’s food systems must feed 7.8 billion people without compromising future productivity or the health of our planet. Yet they must also fairly reward and recognize the work of the millions of people at their base, in particular small-scale producers. What is the urgency? Hunger is both a result of conflict and a cause. It is bad for human health, economic growth, peace and development. Last year, 690 million people went hungry. Under-nutrition stunted the growth and future prospects of 144 million children. Climate change has affected our rivers and oceans and helped agricultural pests and disease multiply. This was before the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may push another 132 million people into hunger. Small-scale farmers and other rural people are disproportionately represented among the numbers of the poor and hungry. Demand for less variety and more processed foods are shaping Global food systems. There has been a 75% loss of plant genetic diversity on farms in the past 100 years. Just four crops - wheat, rice, maize and soybean - provide two-thirds of human caloric intake. With fewer species and varieties, our food systems are more vulnerable to pests and disease. Meanwhile, our current system of food production uses about 75% of the world’s accessible freshwater. It is responsible for 20% to 30% of all greenhouse gases. It is a primary contributor to biodiversity loss. And one million species are threatened with extinction – including pollinators, without which humans would be extinct. Emissions will take Earth’s temperature past a 1.5°C rise in the 2060s, unless we transform our food systems. © Science Magazine Why should we care about small farms? Small-scale farming systems already grow 50% of our food calories on 30% of the agricultural land. When access to inputs and conditions are equal, smaller farms tend to be more productive per hectare than much larger farms. Family farmers have a vested interest in protecting the fertility of their soil and the long-term productivity of their land. They are also more likely than larger farms to grow a wide variety of crops, contributing to agro-biodiversity. IFAD’s experience shows that when given the opportunity, small-scale food producers are quick to invest and grow their business. Even in situations as complex as the Sahel, these investments yield results. Last year, on a visit to Mali, I met a young farmer and entrepreneur named Nouhoum Sidibé. Nouhoum had been saving his money to migrate to Europe when he heard about an IFAD-supported project aimed at empowering young women and men in rural areas. With a loan and training, Nouhoum was able to start a poultry business. He began with just 10 chickens. Today he is raising 3,500 chicks five or six times a year and employs seven people. In a country where average salaries are $1,500, his annual income is more than $12,000. He is investing in his business and community instead of saving up to leave. Every year, IFAD-supported projects raise the production of 15 million small-scale producers and increase the value of sales of another 16 million, significantly raising the income of 20 million rural people. Creating a virtuous circle Rural and urban societies and economies alike benefit from prosperous and productive small farms. This creates jobs and wealth for their communities, reduces pressure on young people to migrate, and contributes to more stable and peaceful societies. When small-scale farmers earn more, they inject their incomes directly into the rural economy, creating growth and diversification. Almost every example of large-scale national poverty reduction was kick-started by rising incomes among small-scale farmers.

The country’s two largest nutrition assistance programs are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Under normal conditions, SNAP provides low-income people with a monthly “benefit” that they can only spend on food. The requirements vary from state to state but typically, people need to be near the federal poverty line to qualify. The amount of the benefit varies based on income and household size. WIC works a little differently, and provides pregnant women and mothers with young children vouchers to purchase specific eligible foods, mostly healthy staples like dairy, fruit, vegetables, and infant formula.

In an economic downturn, nutrition assistance programs play an obvious role in feeding the hungry: more unemployed people means that more people qualify for government assistance. However, SNAP and WIC are also an opportunity to help stimulate the economy, and lawmakers can tweak the programs to encourage this. Doing things like increasing the amount of money people can receive every month can have big impacts. First, people who recieve more money specifically for food can spend more of their own money on other things, which helps stimulate the rest of the economy. Second, the increased amount of money that recipients spend on food helps farmers and food retailers keep their sales up and stay in business.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is our nation’s most effective tool for combating hunger. It plays a critical role in reducing poverty, improving health and economic outcomes, supporting people who are paid low wages, and serving as the first line of defense against hunger during economic downturns. Access to SNAP provides families with the money they need to purchase groceries, freeing up their limited resources to spend more on other basic needs such as housing, utilities, and medical and child care. As the Senate Agriculture Committee prepares to hold a hearing on nutrition programs in the 2023 farm bill, there are a few important points to consider. SNAP is highly effective at reducing hunger and is a powerful anti-poverty tool, especially during times of economic downturn. SNAP reduces hunger by as much as 30 percent and is even more effective among children. Studies have shown that hunger among children fell by roughly one-third after their families received SNAP benefits for six months. Hunger was poised to soar early in the COVID-19 pandemic, but SNAP’s structure and policy changes made it easier for families to access SNAP during this period. Hunger stayed level in 2020 — unlike during the Great Recession, when hunger surged from 11.1 percent to 14.7 percent. SNAP also narrowed racial disparities during the pandemic: from late December 2020 through December 2021, the share of people who didn’t have enough to eat fell 7.8 percentage points for Black adults and 6 percentage points for Hispanic adults, compared to 3.1 percentage points for non-Hispanic white adults. SNAP helps a broad range of people with low incomes, including children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans. Children: SNAP helps nearly 1 in 4 children in the United States afford an adequate diet. Nearly two-thirds of SNAP benefits go to families with children. Older adults: SNAP helps nearly 6 million low-income older adults — many of whom are on fixed incomes — afford food, which helps to stretch their budgets to better cover other household expenses like medication. People with disabilities: SNAP helps nearly 4 million non-elderly adults who either receive disability benefits or have work-limiting health conditions. Individuals with disabilities are at higher risk of food insecurity, making SNAP particularly important for them. Veterans: SNAP helps more than 1 million low-income veterans who may struggle to find work, may be employed in low-paid jobs, or may have disabilities or chronic health conditions. SNAP is linked to improved outcomes for education, economic security, and self-sufficiency. When children are hungry, their performance at school suffers. SNAP is linked to improved educational attainment and higher rates of school completion. One study found that test scores among students in SNAP households are highest for those receiving benefits two to three weeks before the test. This suggests that SNAP can help students learn and prepare for tests — and that when benefits run out and families are struggling to afford groceries, children’s ability to learn is diminished. Similarly, children who received SNAP benefits when they were younger have improved labor market outcomes in adulthood. SNAP is associated with improved health outcomes and lower medical costs. SNAP helps families with low incomes afford healthier foods and is linked to improved health outcomes over the long term. SNAP participants are more likely to report excellent or very good health than low-income people who don’t participate in SNAP. SNAP is also linked to lower medical costs; some studies show an association between SNAP participation and a reduction in health care costs by as much as $5,000 per person per year. SNAP is an important support for workers. Finally, and key in some of the conversations happening now, SNAP is an important support (not a hindrance) for workers who are paid low wages and for those looking for work. No one can work when they are hungry. SNAP helps fill the gaps for workers with low and inconsistent pay, and it helps people afford food for themselves and their families during periods when they are looking for work. Most SNAP participants who can work do so. But many of the jobs most common among SNAP participants, such as service or sales jobs, often pay low wages and don’t offer regular work hours or benefits like paid sick leave. This makes it difficult for workers to earn sufficient income to provide for their families and may contribute to volatility due to high job turnover. SNAP supplements these workers’ low pay, helps smooth out income fluctuations due to irregular hours, and helps workers when they temporarily lose employment, enabling them to buy food and use their limited resources on other necessities. For millions of working people, work does not itself guarantee steady or sufficient income to provide for their families. SNAP responds by providing workers and their families with supplementary income to buy food. While there are some areas where we should make improvements to SNAP, we must remember that it is critical to protect — not weaken — the program while looking for opportunities to strengthen it in a bipartisan bill.

: of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action <going to its kennel> <a child proud of its first drawings> <its final enactment into law>

Whether a U.N. Security Council resolution imposes legal obligations on U.N. Member States depends on the nature of the provisions in the resolution.188 As a matter of international law, many observers189 agree that “decisions” of the Security Council are generally binding pursuant to Article 25 of the U.N. Charter,190 but the Security Council’s “recommendations,” in most cases, lack binding force.191 Whether a provision is understood as a nonbinding “recommendation” or a binding “decision” frequently depends on the precise language in the resolution.192 Commentators have noted that the Security Council’s use of certain affirmative language, such as “shall” as opposed to “should,” or “demand” as opposed to “recommend,” may indicate that a resolution is intended to establish legally binding duties upon U.N. Member States.193

Other legislated DA earmarks in the FY2005 appropriations bill are smaller and more targeted: plant biotechnology research and development ($25 million), the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program ($20 million), women’s leadership capacity ($15 million), the International Fertilizer Development Center ($2.3 million), and clean water treatment ($2 million). Interestingly, in the wording of the bill, Congress uses the term shall in connection with only two of these eight earmarks; the others say that USAID should make the prescribed amount available. The difference between shall and should may have legal significance—one is clearly mandatory while the other is a strong admonition—but it makes little practical difference in USAID’s need to comply with the congressional directive to the best of its ability.

The part that says “at present time” is NOT defining should…it’s defining the legal term ‘in praesenti

Literally should means ought

should    /ʃʊd/ Show Spelled[shood] Show IPA –auxiliary verb 1. pt. of shall. 2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased. 3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. 4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize. Use should in a Sentence See images of should Search should on the Web Origin: ME sholde, OE sc ( e ) olde; see shall —Can be confused:  could, should, would (see usage note at this entry ). —Synonyms 3. See must1 . —Usage note Rules similar to those for choosing between shall and will have long been advanced for should and would, but again the rules have had little effect on usage. In most constructions, would is the auxiliary chosen regardless of the person of the subject: If our allies would support the move, we would abandon any claim to sovereignty. You would be surprised at the complexity of the directions. Because the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity, etc. ( You should get your flu shot before winter comes ), its use for other purposes, as to form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: I should get my flu shot if I were you. Furthermore, should seems an affectation to many Americans when used in certain constructions quite common in British English: Had I been informed, I should (American would ) have called immediately. I should (American would ) really prefer a different arrangement. As with shall and will, most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between should and would. See also shall. Shall –auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person shall, 2nd shall or ( Archaic ) shalt, 3rd shall, present plural shall; past singular 1st person should, 2nd should or ( Archaic ) shouldst or should·est, 3rd should, past plural should; imperative, infinitive, and participles lacking. 1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.

For a policy to be useful, it must be clear. However, not all policies are the same; they differ in terms of expected results, commitment of resources, and indication of importance or urgency. Therefore, it is important to simplify the language used in the General Plan and understand the distinctions between the different levels of policy. The following definitions of terms provide guidance in interpreting the policy language of the General Plan:

Ÿ Shall: Policies containing the word “shall” indicate that an action must be taken in all cases. This represents absolute commitment to the policy, and the expectation is that the policy will always be carried out.

[Judge William, 950 F.2d 1129 (1992) “SAVE BARTON CREEK ASS'N v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN.,”, ., accessed 7/19/14, GNL]

The Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") has issued regulations defining "major Federal action." These regulations are entitled to substantial deference. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358, 99 S.Ct. 2335, 2341, 60 L.Ed.2d 943 (1979). The regulations provide that "major Federal action" encompasses not only actions by the federal government, but also actions by nonfederal actors "with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18 (1991) (emphasis added). The district court placed heavy reliance on this regulation in making its determination that the Austin Outer Loop is a "major Federal action."

Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on… If the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon represents the real business of the sentence, begin the clause after the colon with a capital letter.

We hold the severability of interests clause requires the exclusion to be interpreted narrowly and only applied to exclude bodily injuries of the insured claiming coverage and his resident family. See Sacharko v. Center Equities Limited Partnership, 2 Conn. App. 439, 479 A.2d 1219 (1984); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co., 60 Ill.2d 295, 327 N.E.2d 321 (1975). Several considerations support this conclusion. First, it is implied from the severability of interests clause. Bituminous, supra; Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. American General Insurance Co., 455 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. 1970). Second, there is a grammatical ambiguity in the exclusion itself that suggests an interpretation favoring the insured. In the opinion transferring the case to this Court, Judge Smith analyzed the ambiguity:

It is clear that one insured under a policy is subject to liability for injury to another insured. The exclusionary clause in the preceding cases standardly utilizes the phrase found in the policy before us -- 'the insureds.' The word 'insured' is the usual character of word which can be either singular or plural in meaning. The article 'the' is a word of specificity as contrasted to the articles 'a' and 'an' which are general in description encompassing any of the class. If the article 'the' is combined with the plural 'insured' it clearly would encompass all insured under the policy. If on the other hand it is combined with the singular 'insured' it speaks to a specific insured rather than all members of the class wherein the terms 'an insured' or 'any insured' are more properly utilized.

[**48]  Statutory Interpretation. While the CAA defines a "modification" as any physical or operational change that "increases" emissions, it is silent on how to calculate such "increases" in emissions. . According to government petitioners, the lack of a statutory definition does not render the term "increases" ambiguous, but merely compels the court to give the term its "ordinary meaning." See ; ; . Relying on two "real world" analogies, government petitioners contend that the ordinary meaning of "increases" requires the baseline to be calculated from a period immediately preceding the change. They maintain, for example, that in determining whether a high-pressure weather system "increases" the local temperature, the relevant baseline is the temperature immediately preceding the arrival of the weather system, not the temperature five or ten years ago. Similarly,  [**49]  in determining whether a new engine "increases" the value of a car, the relevant baseline is the value of the car immediately preceding the replacement of the engine, not the value of the car five or ten years ago when the engine was in perfect condition.

re·solve     /rɪˈzɒlv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-zolv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -solved, -solv·ing, noun

–verb (used with object)