https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ion-reverses-trump-changes-it-says-undermined Biden administration reverses Trump changes it says 'undermined' conservation program The Biden administration is reversing course on changes the Trump administration made to a conservation program called the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), arguing that the Trump changes "undermined" the program. Acting Interior Secretary Scott de la Vega in an order issued Thursday revoked an order by then-Secretary David Bernhardt that required a "written expression of support" for land acquired through the LWCF from both governors and local governments, effectively allowing these officials to veto any land purchases. De la Vega's order also reversed course on a separate action that shifted money away from an LWCF grant program that benefits urban areas, a move that critics said took resources from low-income communities and communities of color. "Interior's actions today affirm our support for one of America's most successful and popular conservation programs," Shannon Estenoz, the Interior Department's principal deputy assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, said in a statement on the new order.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/upshot/biden-medicaid-reversing-trump.html Biden Administration Moves to End Work Requirements in Medicaid It is a reversal of the Trump administration’s policy of allowing states to tether work to health insurance. The Biden administration is beginning to roll back a signature Trump administration health policy goal of requiring people to work to receive Medicaid coverage. In separate actions Friday, officials notified states with approved work requirements that the administration planned to withdraw the approvals, and it rescinded a Trump-era online guidance document inviting states to pursue new work requirement plans. President Biden signaled early that eliminating such restrictions was a priority, and he signed an executive order requesting a review of such rules during his first week in office. But Friday’s policy changes were made quietly, without a public announcement. Medicaid, a public health insurance partnership between the federal government and states, provides health coverage for 77 million Americans. The work requirements, a longstanding conservative goal, were a policy priority for Seema Verma, who ran the federal Medicaid program under President Trump. This was an about-face from the position of the Obama administration, which steadfastly opposed the idea of tethering public health benefits to work — something that had never happened in Medicaid’s nearly 60-year history. Obama administration officials repeatedly rejected states’ waiver requests, stating concerns that they “could undermine access” and that they did “not support the objectives of the Medicaid program.” But Ms. Verma’s Medicaid agency encouraged states to apply, arguing that the policy could help lift poor Americans out of poverty by encouraging them to to find jobs. The requirement was to apply only to childless, nondisabled adults, a group she described as able-bodied. In practice, the work requirements were barely enacted. Only one state — Arkansas — actually started such a program. Other state plans were either quickly halted by the courts, or placed on pause as state officials waited for litigation to play out. In Arkansas, about 18,000 adults lost health coverage because of their failure to document work hours, before a judge stopped the state from continuing the program. Evidence there suggested that few affected people knew the work requirement existed, and many who did struggled to complete the necessary paperwork. “Arkansas made a good-faith effort to tell people about the program; they sent out thousands of emails and set up a call center,” said Ian Hill, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, who has conducted focus groups with Medicaid enrollees affected by work requirements. “The complex message just didn’t get through to people, so they didn’t know what they were subject to.” In the letters to the states, the agency noted that the idea of conditioning health insurance on work was particularly inappropriate during the Covid-19 pandemic, when many poor Americans have gotten sick and needed health care, and when waves of layoffs have left millions unemployed. “C.M.S. has serious concerns about testing policies that create a risk of a substantial loss of health care coverage in the near term,” the letters say. The existing legal challenges, brought by Medicaid enrollees who would be subject to the requirements, are currently before the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear oral arguments next month. At issue is whether linking health coverage to work is allowed under Medicaid’s broad waiver authority, which allows states to experiment to further the objectives of the program. Several federal judges have ruled that a work requirement is at odds with Medicaid’s central goal: to provide medical assistance. Though the Biden administration opposes the policy, typically the Justice Department defends regulations even if they were issued by a previous administration, which could put the Biden administration in an awkward position if the case moves forward. The quick reversal of the policy could help Justice Department lawyers argue the case is now moot. Medicaid waivers are discretionary, and they can be easily withdrawn by the secretary of Health and Human Services. Under longstanding guidance, states that oppose such a move are entitled to ask for a single hearing before the decision is made final. “There’s an ability for either side, either the state or the feds, to walk away from the waiver,” said Cindy Mann, a partner at Manatt Health who ran Medicaid during the Obama administration. “My expectation is the administration is going to want to initiate discussions with states, in light of what we’ve learned about the impact on coverage.” In the letters, Medicaid informed states that they had 30 days to raise objections to the cancellation of their programs. In her last weeks in office, Ms. Verma sought to add further obstacles for the new administration: She invited states to sign a short contract offering them a more lengthy review process, and guaranteeing at least nine months of notice before a waiver could be withdrawn. “We want to make sure that people don’t come into office and on a political whim terminate waivers,” Ms. Verma said in an interview at the time. In a second letter to states Friday, the acting administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told them she was rescinding Ms. Verma’s offer, saying its new procedures did not provide the agency with enough “flexibility.” But the contract could provide grounds for states with work requirements to protest their elimination in court.
https://religionnews.com/2021/02/14...rder-reestablishing-white-house-faith-office/ Biden signs executive order reestablishing White House faith office The order reappoints Melissa Rogers, who headed the office under President Barack Obama. WASHINGTON (RNS) — President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Sunday (Feb. 14) reestablishing the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, undoing former President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape an agency that went largely unstaffed for most of his tenure. Besides fighting the pandemic and racism and assisting with economic recovery, the office will focus its efforts on helping disadvantaged communities, advancing global humanitarian work, strengthening pluralism and protecting “cherished guarantees of church-state separation and freedom for people of all faiths and none.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rhettb...ity-means-for-small-business/?sh=7f7520c71158 Three Things President Biden’s Executive Order On Racial Equity Means For Small Business 1. President Biden is taking issues of race and equity head on instead of pretending they do not exist. In fact, racial equity will be a significant driver of his agenda and the public conversation over the next four years. This order dissolves controversial steps taken by President Trump. The order revokes two divisive EOs issued last year by the Trump Administration, including the highly controversial one establishing the 1776 Commission, and makes achieving equity and removing systemic barriers a priority for all federal agencies. 2. This order sends a market signal for people who work with the federal government and corporate sector. This EO reinstates allowing diversity training in federal government agencies (something former President Trump also halted). Long a practice adopted by corporate America, achieving equity and diversity through staff education and training will be a goal for the federal government as well. By expanding this mission to federal agencies, this EO also prompts small businesses to think about how they can incorporate equity and diversity, which is important for future customer growth, staff retention, and market insight. Corporate America has already been headed this way. Small business owners who do business with corporations and the federal government should think about how to make race and equity a key component of their work. 3. More complete and better data may be on the way. This order establishes an Equitable Data Working Group, co-chaired by the Chief Statistician of the United States and the United States Chief Technology Officer with membership that includes several of the President’s top economic leaders. This could be good news for small business owners as we try to better understand how to help Main Street recover from the crisis and grow a more inclusive economy. Limitations in government data have made it hard to fully understand the current health and economic crisis. We know that the pandemic disproportionately impacted businesses of color and underserved communities, as 41% of Black-owned businesses closed compared to a 22% drop overall during the first wave of mandated shelter in place orders. In December, the largest survey focused on business owners of color commissioned by Reimagine Main Street in partnership with the Asian/Pacific Islander American Chamber of Commerce and Entrepreneurship (National ACE), the US Black Chambers, Inc. (USBC), and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC) found that one in 10 small businesses expect to close permanently in the next six months and 45% expect to lay off at least one employee because of Covid-19. The survey found that these worries are even higher among minority-owned businesses. Having the government and its data helping us better understand communities of color will lead to better policy solutions and outcomes that will lift the tide for all Americans.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/president-biden-issues-executive-order-2351672/ President Biden Issues Executive Order Directing HUD to Review Fair Housing Act Disparate Impact Rule In a memorandum issued on January 26, 2021, President Biden has ordered the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) to “as soon as practicable, take all steps necessary to examine the effects of” the final rule issued by HUD in September 2020 (“2020 Rule”) revising its 2013 Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) disparate impact standards (“2013 Rule”). President Biden has named Matt Ammon Acting HUD Secretary and has nominated Congresswoman Marcia Fudge to serve as HUD Secretary. In the memorandum, titled “Memorandum on Redressing Our Nation’s and the Federal Government’s History of Discriminatory Housing Practices and Policies,” President Biden declares that it is the policy of his Administration for the federal government to: work with communities to end housing discrimination, to provide redress to those who have experienced housing discrimination, to eliminate racial bias and other forms of discrimination in all stages of home-buying and renting, to lift barriers that restrict housing and neighborhood choice, to promote diverse and inclusive communities, to ensure sufficient physically accessible housing, and to secure equal access to housing opportunity for all. With regard to the 2020 Rule, the memorandum provides that: The effects of the 2020 Rule that the HUD Secretary must examine include “the effect that amending the [2013 Rule] has had on HUD’s statutory duty to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act.” Based on this examination, the Secretary must take any necessary steps, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to implement the FHA’s requirements that HUD administer in a manner that affirmatively further fair housing and HUD’s overall duty to administer the FHA including by preventing practices “with an unjustified discriminatory effect.” The 2020 Rule has been widely criticized by consumer advocates and HUD’s proposal of the 2020 Rule met with strong criticism from Democratic lawmakers. As a result, the 2020 Rule will likely face an uphill battle to remain intact when reviewed by new HUD leadership. Although set to become effective on October 26, 2020, the 2020 Rule’s effective date has been stayed pursuant to a preliminary injunction entered by a Massachusetts federal district court. As we have previously reported, the Massachusetts lawsuit is one of three lawsuits challenging the 2020 Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act that are currently pending in federal district court. The Massachusetts court’s order, entered on October 25, 2020, also enjoins HUD from enforcing the 2020 Rule and keeps the 2013 Rule in place until further order of the court. In Inclusive Communities, which was decided in 2015, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the FHA. Such claims allege that a policy or practice that is neutral on its face nevertheless violates the FHA because it has a discriminatory effect on a prohibited basis. The FHA prohibits discrimination based on characteristics such as race, sex, disability, and familial status, among others. Discrimination claims can be brought under the FHA against lenders, landlords, and others involved in residential real estate-related transactions. In their complaint, the Massachusetts plaintiffs contend that contrary to HUD’s assertion that the 2020 Rule “merely brings the 2013 Rule into alignment with the Supreme Court’s decision in Inclusive Communities,” the 2020 Rule “is directly contrary to Inclusive Communities; introduces novel pleading and proof requirements, and new defenses, which upset accepted practice and undermine enforcement of the FHA.” The two other lawsuits, one in California and the other in Connecticut, also call into question the premise that Inclusive Communities required the changes made by the 2020 Rule and allege that the 2020 Rule’s pleading and burden-shifting standard is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. President Biden’s memorandum does not establish a deadline by which HUD must complete its review of the 2020 Rule. However, HUD is likely to face pressure to take a position on how it intends to proceed from the plaintiff in the lawsuit currently pending in the D.C. federal district court challenging the 2013 Rule. Initially filed in 2013 by the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (“NAMIC”) and the American Insurance Association (“AIA”), the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in April 2016 in which they allege that the 2013 Rule is inconsistent with Inclusive Communities. In June 2016, the plaintiffs filed a summary judgment motion seeking to invalidate the 2013 Rule to the extent it applies to insurers’ ratemaking and underwriting decisions. Since June 2018, the lawsuit has been stayed in anticipation of HUD’s issuance of revisions to the 2013 Rule. (In March 2019, AIA was terminated as a plaintiff.) In the most recent joint status report filed with the court on December 14, 2020, NAMIC stated that if as of the next status report (due to be filed on February 12, 2021) the Biden Administration does not intend to defend the 2020 Rule, NAMIC will ask the court to set an argument date for its summary judgment motion at the court’s earliest convenience. The use of disparate impact analysis has also been a controversial issue for the CFPB. Under the leadership of former Director Cordray, the CFPB embraced the use of disparate impact analysis for establishing discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and Regulation B and brought several enforcement actions premised on the use of disparate impact analysis. However, under the leadership of former Acting Director Mulvany, the CFPB indicated that it planned to reexamine its use of disparate impact analysis in light of Inclusive Communities. In July 2020, under the leadership of former Director Kraninger, the CFPB issued a request for information (“RFI”) seeking public input on a number of issues relating to expanding credit access and discrimination in credit transactions. . Among the issues on which the CFPB sought comment in the RFI was its approach to disparate impact analysis under the ECOA and Regulation B. (The RFI’s extended comment period closed on December 1, 2020.) Given the Biden Administration’s goal of addressing racial economic inequality, rather than move away from the use of disparate impact analysis, the CFPB under the leadership of Rohit Chopra, President Biden’s nominee for CFPB Director, can be expected to renew its use of disparate impact analysis under the ECOA and Regulation B.
Josephus the merciful, long may be reign https://news.yahoo.com/biden-withdraws-trumps-restoration-un-233300332.html Biden withdraws Trump's restoration of UN sanctions on Iran https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/us/politics/biden-iran-nuclear.html Biden Administration Formally Offers to Restart Nuclear Talks With Iran President Biden campaigned on restoring an accord limiting Iran’s nuclear program. It remains unclear if Tehran, which is demanding that sanctions be lifted first, will accept the offer to talk.
This is the start of the countdown for the number of days until Iran and Israel are firing missiles at one another.
Don't be a war hawk GWB. "Death to Israel" is just an empty political slogan like "Make America Great Again"
Enjoy your kissing up to the Ayatollahs. The end result in the region is very clear. Unless the world takes forceful action to eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran and take their material away. Easing sanctions does not help the situation --- it merely accelerates the timeline until disaster occurs.
And yet the acceleration was exacerbated when Donnie imposed sanctions and scrapped the deal, while enrichment decelerated when the deal was valid and sanctions were not in place.