The National Interest

Stephen Silver

Colonial Pipeline,

"I think you're going to hear some good news in the next 24 hours,” Biden said Wednesday afternoon, of the pipeline issue. “I think we’ll be getting back on under control.”

Last Friday, the Colonial Pipeline, one of the most important in the country, suffered a ransomware cyberattack, which caused the pipeline itself to shut down. This has caused shortages, higher prices, and even closed gas stations in some parts of the Southeastern United States. The Russian ransomware group known as Darkside has claimed responsibility for the attack, and the FBI agrees that they are responsible.

What is the Biden Administration doing to deal with the crisis?

"I think you're going to hear some good news in the next 24 hours,” Biden said Wednesday afternoon, of the pipeline issue. “I think we’ll be getting back on under control.” He added that he has been in close contact with the owners of the Colonial Pipeline, and that “I think we have to make a greater investment in education as it relates to being able to train and graduate more people proficient in cybersecurity.”

The president had earlier in the day announced a new lifting of restrictions on the transportation of fuel.

Biden had addressed the issue in a briefing earlier this week, which was ostensibly about discussing economic policy.

“I’d like to start by saying a few words about the ransomware cyberattack currently impacting Colonial Pipeline.  This is something that my administration — our administration have been tracking extremely carefully.  And I have been perfectly — personally briefed every day,” the president said, per a White House transcript.

“The Department of Energy is working directly with Colonial to get the pipelines back online and operating at full capacity as quickly and safely as possible. The FBI also is engaged to assess the — and address this attack.  The agencies across the government have attacked [quickly] — quickly to mitigate any impact on our fuel supply.”

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson on Tuesday alleged on his show that the Biden Administration “approves of” the pipeline shutdown, because of the administration’s policies that support a transition to clean energy. However, it’s very clear that the pipeline attack is a major political headache for the administration, which hopes to resolve the crisis as soon as possible.

The Biden Administration has come out in support of transitioning long-term into greener energy, but it has not advocated for immediately shutting down gas stations or fuel pipelines.

The pipeline disaster has helped lead the average price of gasoline over $3 for the first time in seven years. However, GasBuddy predicted that gas prices are unlikely to hit record levels this summer, and are probably mostly a result of rising demand for gasoline as the coronavirus pandemic recedes. One reason why gas prices are so much higher than they were this time last year is because gas prices were at historical lows in the early months of the coronavirus pandemic.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Rachel Bucchino

Gas Crisis,

Panic-buying has emptied gas stations and has triggered intense fuel shortages across the Southeast, as the shutdown of the major gasoline and jet fuel pipeline entered its sixth day and prompted several governors to declare states of emergency.

Panic-buying has emptied gas stations and has triggered intense fuel shortages across the Southeast, as the shutdown of the major gasoline and jet fuel pipeline entered its sixth day and prompted several governors to declare states of emergency.

A ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline disabled computer systems that were responsible for fuel production from Texas to the Northeast, and now a number of states are running out of gas supply. In some cases, some drivers can’t even access a gas-pump that has fuel readily available.

About 65 percent of North Carolina’s gas stations have emptied as of Wednesday, and 43 percent of the stations in South Carolina were dry, according to GasBuddy. Georgia and Virginia stations are also experiencing shortages, at 43 percent and 44 percent, respectively. Other states as far as West Virginia and Kentucky are also seeing instances of panic-buying.

Major metropolitan areas have also seen vast gas shortages, including Charlotte, Raleigh and Greenville, as well as in Norfolk and Atlanta, according to Patrick De Haan, GasBuddy’s head oil analyst.

The overall panic has also prompted the price of gas to jump.

“We've already seen higher gas prices,” Tiffany Wright, a spokeswoman for AAA in the Carolinas, said on Tuesday.

“They have gone up as high from anywhere from 3 to 10 cents overnight,” she added.

The governors in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia have declared states of emergency as of Wednesday, and have moved to ease gas transportation guidance. For example, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) temporarily cut the gas tax in his state, while also suspending any weight restrictions on trucks that would be moving fuel. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) issued an executive order that indicates that he would call on the National Guard if needed.

But with another crisis brewing—labor shortage—gas stations have bumped into logistical hurdles in getting fuel, as there is a massive scarcity of truck drivers.

The White House said that federal agencies are working to swiftly respond to the fuel disaster, urging drivers to only get gas if they need it. Some consumers, however, are panic-buying and hoarding gas in the event that fuel grows completely depleted.

But the Biden administration confirmed that the pipeline will be operating normally soon.

“Our top priority right now is getting the fuel [to] the communities that need it, and we will continue doing everything that we can to meet that goal in the coming days,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told reporters.

“We're working around the clock with our federal, state, local and industry partners to respond to the Colonial Pipeline cybersecurity incident,” Deputy Energy Secretary Dave Turk said in a video statement on Tuesday.

The Department of Energy said that officials will transport fuel by train or ship if necessary.

Experts noted that pipeline production and operations should return to full capacity by the end of the week. Gas prices, however, may continue to surge as consumers turn to driving during the summer months.

Rachel Bucchino is a reporter at the National Interest. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and The Hill.

Michael Peck

Nuclear War, Europe

If nuclear weapons won't do it what will?

Here's What You Need To Remember: Russian forces would likely conduct a well-dispersed, fast-moving advance into the Baltic States, which would mean NATO tactical nuclear weapons wouldn’t hit concentrated troop formations, but would instead land on the civilian populations the alliance is supposed to be defending.

Even if NATO resorts to tactical nuclear weapons, it still can’t save the Baltic States from a Russian invasion.

One reason? The Warsaw Pact—the Eastern European satellites of the Soviet empire—can’t be held hostage anymore.

That’s the conclusion of a wargame by the RAND Corporation. In RAND’s view, NATO’s nukes are not a deterrent to Russia because Europe would have far more to lose from a tactical nuclear exchange than Russia.

“The biggest takeaway from the wargame exercise is that NATO lacks escalation dominance, and Russia has the benefit of it,” the study found. “In contemplating war in the Baltic states, once nuclear attacks commence, NATO would have much stronger military incentives to terminate nuclear operations, if not all of its operations, than Russia would.”

Indeed, the NATO players grappled with the utility of using nukes in the first place. “In our wargame exercise, NATO commanders knew that they would be rapidly overwhelmed by the Russian forces and considered early first use of NSNW [non-strategic nuclear weapons] to prevent that outcome,” noted the report. “But, the commanders wondered, what would NATO target?”

Russian forces would likely conduct a well-dispersed, fast-moving advance into the Baltic States, which would mean NATO tactical nuclear weapons wouldn’t hit concentrated troop formations, but would instead land on the civilian populations the alliance is supposed to be defending. Or, they could attack Russian units forming up in Russia, which would risk a strategic nuclear exchange. The NATO players ultimately chose to send a signal to Russia by dropping five tactical nukes on a Russian mobile air defense missile battery just inside the Latvian border.

Unfortunately, the wargame estimated that the most likely Russian response would be a tit-for-tat that dropped tactical nuclear weapons on five NATO airbases. “NATO’s infrastructure is vulnerable, and damage to it caused by even limited numbers of nuclear attacks can substantially degrade NATO’s military capabilities; meanwhile, Russia is able to withstand comparable levels of nuclear strikes against its forces.”

The study focused on whether non-strategic nuclear weapons or NSNW, could deter a Russian attack on Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. It also illustrated how the strategic picture has changed since the Cold War. Back then, NATO could muster fairly large conventional forces, backed by tactical nuclear weapons and ultimately American strategic nuclear forces. But times have changed. “A NATO and U.S. threat to escalate to general nuclear war over a Russian invasion of the Baltic states has doubtful credibility,” RAND notes.

Ironically, while the breakup of the Warsaw Pact was a victory for NATO, it also makes dealing with today’s Russia more complicated. During the Cold War, if NATO wanted to send a signal to Russia to back off, it could—in theory—drop a nuke on a Warsaw Pact nation without attacking Russian territory and thus triggering a strategic nuclear war. That bargaining chip is gone. “Targets attacked by NATO using non-strategic nuclear weapons would, from the outset of the war, be either in Russia proper or in NATO countries (i.e., the Baltic states),” RAND noted. “During the Cold War, NATO could (if it chose) conduct limited nuclear attacks against lucrative military targets in Warsaw Pact countries other than Russia throughout the conflict.”

Ultimately, NATO will need to muster sufficient conventional forces because tactical nuclear weapons are not a credible deterrent, RAND concluded. “Even if it chose not to escalate to general war or conduct a wider attack on targets throughout Europe, Russia could continue limited attacks on lucrative NATO military targets. The problem, then, is that NATO lacks the conventional forces required to slow or stop the rapid Russian advance. NSNW forces alone cannot substitute for NATO’s lack of those conventional forces.”

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Reuters.

Eli Fuhrman

Stimulus Payment,

If a bill calling for a fourth-round of stimulus payments does come to fruition, either as part of the Biden administration’s current proposals or included in a future piece of legislation, it will come as welcome relief for many Americans.

The campaign to distribute the third-round of federal stimulus payments appears to be coming to an end, with the most recent batch of payments distributed by the IRS now meaning that 85 percent of the funds earmarked for use in stimulus payments has been used up. This most recent batch was also the smallest so far, and indicated that the IRS is now focusing on sending payments to those Americans whose stimulus money was dependent on information contained in their 2020 tax returns.

There are currently no definitive plans in place to follow up the third stimulus payments with a further round of payments, even as the current distribution has proven incredibly important for generating an economic revival across the country. The Biden administration is instead focusing its efforts on generating support for its two proposed tax and spending bills which, while not including direct stimulus payments, it argues will support long-term economic revival and growth, and the White House has indicated that any additional payments will be up to Congress. Support for future payments does exist in Congress, with a growing number of Congressional Democrats calling for such a measure, though it would likely not generate sufficient support from Republicans.

If a bill calling for a fourth-round of stimulus payments does come to fruition, either as part of the Biden administration’s current proposals or included in a future piece of legislation, it will come as welcome relief for many Americans. Over two million people have now signed a number of online petitions calling for further rounds of stimulus payments.

If future stimulus payments do come to pass, it will be important that they are designed in such a way that they provide the maximum benefit to Americans who need it the most. While nearly two thirds of respondent to a recent Bankrate survey indicated that their stimulus payments would not support their financial well-being for more than three months, the data further indicated that women, minorities, and low-income workers were particularly likely to respond that they were reliant on stimulus payments.

Other data has indicated that the number of Black-owned and Latinx businesses fell during the pandemic, with unemployment also particularly high among these communities. They were also not able to benefit fully from COVID-relief measures, with fewer eligible Black and Latinx adults receiving their initial stimulus checks because their income levels did not require them to file tax returns. A recovery rebate credit has allowed those who did not claim earlier stimulus money to do so by filing their 2020 tax returns, but the delay in receiving money would still have been a serious problem for many people. 

Future rounds of stimulus payments should also keep in mind that Black and Latinx Americans on average hold larger consumer debt burdens. The third-round of stimulus payments were not protected from garnishments, meaning they could be claimed by debt collectors. Additional payments in the future should include language preventing this from happening.

Eli Fuhrman is a contributing writer for The National Interest.

Peter Suciu

Tax Refund Problems,

U.S. law provides most taxpayers with a three-year window of opportunity to claim a tax refund.

Here's What You Need to Remember: By failing to file a tax return, the IRS warns that people stand to lose more than just their refund of taxes withheld or paid during 2017.

Currently, the Internal Revenue Service has tax refunds for an estimated 1.3 million taxpayers who did not file a 2017 Form 1040 federal income tax return – worth more than $1.3 billion, or an average of $865 per person. U.S. law provides most taxpayers with a three-year window of opportunity to claim a tax refund. However, American taxpayers now only have until "Tax Day," May 17, 2021 to file a claim.

After that, the money will become the property of the United States Treasury.

"The IRS wants to help taxpayers who are due refunds but haven't filed their 2017 tax returns yet," said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig via a statement. "Time is quickly running out for these taxpayers. There's only a three-year window to claim these refunds, and the window closes on May 17. We want to help people get these refunds, but they will need to quickly file a 2017 tax return."

However, there are a few catches for those who think they're owed some of that money.

The only way to actually know if the IRS is holding a refund is to file a return for the year, and while the agency can estimate the dollar amount of unreported tax returns, it is unable to determine if an individual taxpayer is due a refund until they actually file a tax return.

The IRS reminds any taxpayers seeking a 2017 tax refund that their checks could still be held if they have not filed tax returns for 2018 and/or 2019. Additionally, the refund will be applied to any amounts still owed to the IRS or state agency, while the money could also be used to offset unpaid child support or past due federal debts, including student loans.

For those who plan to file, it is important to have the paperwork in order, and if you're missing a W-2, 1098, 1099 or 5498 from 2017, the IRS recommended that you request a copy from your employer and/or bank. Moreover, you can file Form 4506-T to request a free wage and income transcript from the IRS and then use that information on the transcript to file your tax return. To receive an income transcript you'll need to provide your Social Security number (SSN), date of birth, filing status and mailing address from the latest tax return.

By failing to file a tax return, the IRS warns that people stand to lose more than just their refund of taxes withheld or paid during 2017. "Many low- and moderate-income workers may be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)," the IRS noted. "For 2017, the credit was worth as much as $6,318. The EITC helps individuals and families whose incomes are below certain thresholds."

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

Doreen Horschig

History, Middle East

Joby Warrick argues in his new book Red Line the international effort to remove Syria’s chemical weapons was unprecedented and a story of multilateral success.

The Syrian regime attacked the town of Ghouta in southwestern Syria with sarin, a nerve agent, that killed hundreds of civilians on August 21, 2013. With that, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad crossed a red line set by President Barack Obama, accelerating an effort to eliminate Assad’s stockpile of chemical weapons. 

Joby Warrick, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, recently discussed this historic undertaking to deprive Assad of the bulk of his nerve agents and production equipment. He joined Press the Button, a podcast from the Ploughshares Fund, to talk about his newest book Red Line: The Unraveling of Syria and America's Race to Destroy the Most Dangerous Arsenal in the World.

In his book, Warrick reflects on America’s mission to find and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons and keep them out of the hands of the Islamic State.  

While the United States and others had already been working to respond to the limited use of chemical weapons before that moment, after the large attack in Ghouta, the United States was faced with a choice of whether to pursue military action. Interestingly, a Russian initiative paved the way for a diplomatic resolution instead. In September 2013, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2118 that required Syria to destroy all chemical weapons until mid-2014. Warrick highlights that it was the first time in history that a stockpile was removed in the middle of a war.  

In his book, he reconstructs the history of the Syrian chemical weapons program, as well as key decision points to avoid a catastrophic leakage of deadly nerve agents to Syrian combatants and terrorist groups. Warrick was struck by how close Al Nusra, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, or the Islamic State, came to gaining hold of Syria’s chemical weapons and material.  

He further explained how challenging it was to remove the material. Syrian citizens had been risking their lives to bring evidence of the use of chemical agents to the outside world, according to Warrick. Further, “the Pentagon, the people who put together the plan to get the chemicals out and destroy them, they took part in what was for some of them, the most important mission of their lives and it happened in a flash in historical terms,” Warrick said.  

Despite the success to remove some chemical weapons during the war, the Syrian regime preserved a part of its arsenal and conducted several more large-scale attacks, including those in Khan Shaykhun in April 2017 and Douma in April 2018. It has been challenging to find justice. Warrick argued that Assad “wasn't really held accountable. To this day he’s never had to admit to using chemical weapons against his own people. He always denies it. Russia supports them at the UN. Any action that's meaningful is always blocked by Russia.” 

Warrick suggested that more needs to be done. “The evidence is continuing to mount, and one can envision a day—and it might not be this year or next, but someday—when Syria will be held accountable in some way before the world court or before the UN,” he said.

This delayed accountability is not new in international conflict. Warrick reminded the listeners of the Balkan conflict in the 1990s where it took twenty years until justice was served. “It’s important not to give up, not to think that, just because time has passed that it's not relevant anymore, but to keep pushing that boulder up the hill to hopefully one day see that Syrian victims have their moment of justice,” he said. 

Despite all the challenges, Warrick succeeded in recapturing the story of the Syrian regime crossing the red line and subsequent international action. Removing thirteen hundred tons of the chemical weapons stockpile and manufacturing equipment is a story of an unprecedented international effort. Albeit imperfect—as Assad’s intentions weren’t changed and he used the chemical agents again—the diplomatic path and consequent removal of some of the weapons showed what multilateral success can look like.  

The entire interview with Joby Warrick is available here on Press the Button.  

Doreen Horschig is the current Roger L. Hale Fellow at the Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation. She received her PhD in security studies from the University of Central Florida and studies nuclear policy, specifically public opinion and counter-proliferation, as well as norms of nuclear and chemical weapons. You can follow her on Twitter @doreen__h. 

Ethen Kim Lieser

Stimulus Payments,

ongress has already approved the delivery of three stimulus cash payments to most Americans—a $1,200 check in April 2020, $600 in December, and the current $1,400 payments under President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Dozens of Democratic senators have pressed the president for much of the year to quickly green-light recurring stimulus payments. In one particular letter, they pointed to polling data that revealed that a majority of Americans strongly support recurring checks.

As the disbursement of third round of coronavirus stimulus checks begins to wind down, there appears to be more chatter in Washington regarding more direct payments to assist financially struggling Americans amid the ongoing pandemic.

Keep in mind that to date, Congress has already approved the delivery of three stimulus cash payments to most Americans—a $1,200 check in April 2020, $600 in December, and the current $1,400 payments under President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.

One such individual pushing for $2,000 monthly stimulus payments is Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman.

“I always think that we ought not overthink getting people out of poverty. It’s vitally important. It helps put food on the table. It helps stave off the prospect of losing your housing,” she recently told NJ.com.

“I think there certainly can be a case made for it. It gave people some breathing room and it gave people a sense of some stability, something that they could count on. This has been a very frightening period for people. They lost jobs or lost the hours. Women had to leave the workforce to take care of children. This has been devastating so we need to recognize what this means for struggling families.”

Watson Coleman’s comments are consistent with Rep. Ilhan Omar’s statement back in January: “A one-time payment of $2,000 is simply not enough. The American people are counting on us to deliver transformative change, and we need to meet the moment by delivering monthly payments of $2,000.” 

Moreover, dozens of Democratic senators have pressed the president for much of the year to quickly green-light recurring stimulus payments. In one particular letter, they pointed to polling data that revealed that a majority of Americans strongly support recurring checks.

“Polling shows 65 percent of Americans support recurring cash payments ‘for the duration of the pandemic.’ This includes support from 54 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents. Economists support the idea too,” the letter said. 

The senators continued: “A single direct payment will not last long for most families. … This crisis is far from over, and families deserve certainty that they can put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.”

More recently, about two million people already have signed a Change.org petition that calls for $2,000 recurring monthly stimulus checks.

“I’m calling on Congress to support families with a $2,000 payment for adults and a $1,000 payment for kids immediately, and continuing regular checks for the duration of the crisis,” the petition wrote.

According to a recent TransUnion research, roughly four in ten Americans are still continuing to experience income loss compared to before the start of the pandemic.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Stimulus Payments,

The Internal Revenue Service recently announced that tax refunds on 2020 unemployment benefits are expected to start landing in eligible U.S. bank accounts this month.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Take note that the IRS has given notice that there is a high likelihood that the processing of tax returns and the associated refund deliveries will be delayed for both individuals and married couples. The average wait time for a tax refund this year has ranged from six weeks to eight weeks—far longer than the typical wait time of three weeks or less.

For many cash-strapped Americans struggling to keep their heads above water amid the ongoing pandemic, it now appears that the $1,400 coronavirus stimulus checks aren’t the only monetary assistance that they can look forward to receiving.

The Internal Revenue Service recently announced that tax refunds on 2020 unemployment benefits are expected to start landing in eligible U.S. bank accounts this month. These newest sizeable payments are part of President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which was able to waive federal tax on up to $10,200 of unemployment benefits—or $20,400 for married couples filing jointly—that were collected last year.

According to the IRS, unemployment benefits are typically treated as taxable income.

The agency added that the refunds will be issued automatically to all eligible U.S. taxpayers. Keep in mind that many of those unemployed individuals who are eligible for the tax break had already filed their tax returns by the time Biden signed the legislation. Due to this, the IRS is taking the time to recalculate tax liabilities for each taxpayer.

“Because the change occurred after some people filed their taxes, the IRS will take steps in the spring and summer to make the appropriate change to their return, which may result in a refund. The first refunds are expected to be made in May and will continue into the summer,” the IRS said.

“Any resulting overpayment of tax will be either refunded or applied to other outstanding taxes owed,” the agency added.

The IRS has also acknowledged that there is no need to file an amended return, but it did admit that some early filers may still need to—especially if their recalculated income qualifies them for additional credits and deductions.

Adding another wrinkle is the fact that married couples who file a joint tax return may have to wait longer than individual taxpayers to bag that refund on unemployment benefits. According to IRS officials, this is largely due to the higher complexity of calculating their refunds.

The agency is slated to issue refunds in two phases—and it appears that most married couples who filed jointly will be part of the second phase. There has been no official announcement on when the second phase will start.

Also, take note that the IRS has given notice that there is a high likelihood that the processing of tax returns and the associated refund deliveries will be delayed for both individuals and married couples. The average wait time for a tax refund this year has ranged from six weeks to eight weeks—far longer than the typical wait time of three weeks or less.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Stimulus Payment,

Before moving, most people already know that they should inform the USPS of their new address so that they can have their mail forwarded. But what is less well known is that one should also tell the Internal Revenue Service.

Before moving, most people already know that they should inform the USPS of their new address so that they can have their mail forwarded.

But what is less well known is that one should also tell the Internal Revenue Service, as that will make sure that eligible Americans can still smoothly receive their coronavirus stimulus checks, tax refunds, and credits.

“Changes of address through the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) may update your address of record on file with us based on what they retain in their National Change of Address (NCOA) database,” the IRS website says.

“However, even when you notify the USPS, not all post offices forward government checks, so you should still notify us,” it added.

Here are the ways to inform the IRS about the move: oral notification via telephone at 800-829-1040, filling out an appropriate IRS form, completing tax return (use new address when filing), or sending off a written statement that includes full name, old address, new address, and social security number, ITIN, or EIN.

Do take note, though, that it can take four to six weeks for the change of address to be processed by the agency.

As for the types of payments that one can expect to receive at the new address, here are some examples.

In what already has been called as essentially a “fourth” stimulus check, know that beginning in July, millions of eligible parents will be able to receive $250 or $300 payment each month under the expanded child tax credit.

Furthermore, thousands of “plus-up” or supplemental checks are still heading out to eligible Americans. According to the IRS, these funds are “for people who earlier in March received payments based on their 2019 tax returns but are eligible for a new or larger payment based on their recently processed 2020 tax returns.”

For example, it “could include a situation where a person’s income dropped in 2020 compared to 2019, or a person had a new child or dependent on their 2020 tax return, and other situations,” the agency added.

Another notable cash payment many Americans are in line to receive is from the 2020 unemployment benefits, which are slated to be sent out this month. President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan was able to waive federal tax on up to $10,200 of unemployment benefits, or $20,400 for married couples filing jointly, that were collected last year.

A recent Treasury report stated that about 7.3 million tax returns processed by the IRS appear to qualify for these tax refunds. Those returns reported a total of $87 billion in unemployment benefits.

The IRS has confirmed that it will issue the refunds automatically to taxpayers who qualify.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.

Stephen Silver

Stimulus for Homes,

The bill proposes $25,000 for some first-time homebuyers, but only those who are first-generation homebuyers, and are economically disadvantaged.

Here's What You Need to Remember: To be eligible, the homebuyers must have either never owned a home before, have parents or guardians who never owned a home in the buyer’s lifetime, or had parents or guardians who had a home but lost it to foreclosure.

President Joe Biden has proposed a piece of legislation called the Downpayment Toward Equity Act of 2021. The bill proposes $25,000 for some first-time homebuyers, but only those who are first-generation homebuyers, and are economically disadvantaged.

According to an overview of the legislation by the National Council of State Housing Agencies, the Downpayment Toward Equity Act takes the form of a grant program for states, while it’s not been determined exactly how much funding the program will receive. The program, if the bill is passed, would be administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

To become eligible for the aid the buyers “must have an income at or below 120 percent of area median income (AMI) for either the area where the home being purchased is located or the area where the home buyer’s place of residence is located.”

Also to be eligible, the homebuyers must have either never owned a home before, have parents or guardians who never owned a home in the buyer’s lifetime, or had parents or guardians who had a home but lost it to foreclosure. Buyers will also qualify if they were raised in foster care.

Buyers can receive up to $20,000, a number that rises to $25,000 if the person in question is a “socially and economically disadvantaged individual.” The former is defined as “those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities.”

The money is not a tax credit, but the money is available at closing.

Not everyone thinks the proposed legislation is a good idea.

RealTrends argued last month that the proposal runs the risk of failing to learn some of the lessons of the housing crash of 2008.

“There’s a forest fire burning, so let’s pour gasoline on it,” Steve Murray, a RealTrends real estate expert, said. “Demand is not the problem right now. Access to capital is not the problem right now. There are numerous low-downpayment programs from the U.S. Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and other entities offered to anyone who qualifies based on income.”

“The federal government is missing the most important thing, which is, instead of pouring billions of dollars into a first-time homebuyer program, what they ought to be doing is finding a way to focus that money on affordable first-time houses,” he added.

It’s not clear how likely the bill, which is currently under consideration by the House Financial Services Committee, is to pass through Congress. Reuters reported that some social media posts had falsely claimed the bill had already passed into law.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Stimulus Payments,

Not surprisingly, the anxiety levels of millions of financially strapped Americans are ticking up daily, pushing them to quickly find solutions on how to pay for groceries, the mortgage, and rent in the coming months.

Here's What You Need to Remember: If Biden’s highly ambitious $1.8 trillion American Families Plan—which aims to increase funding by the billions for education, child care, and paid family leave—eventually gets passed, it will further extend the child tax credit.

Know that it could be only weeks away when the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department send out the final batch of $1,400 coronavirus stimulus checks under the American Rescue Plan.

And not surprisingly, the anxiety levels of millions of financially strapped Americans are ticking up daily, pushing them to quickly find solutions on how to pay for groceries, the mortgage, and rent in the coming months.

Last week, many of these Americans were certainly disappointed to hear that President Joe Biden, in addressing a joint session of Congress, did not directly press for a fourth or even a fifth round of stimulus checks. However, he did take time to note that the latest $1,400 stimulus checks have provided critical and timely support to struggling American families.

“A single mom in Texas who wrote me, she said she couldn’t work,” Biden said. “She said the relief check put food on the table and saved her and her son from eviction from their apartment.”

He added: “We kept our commitment, and we are sending $1,400 rescue checks to 85 percent of all American households. We’ve already sent more than one hundred sixty million checks out the door. It’s making a difference. For many people, it’s making all the difference in the world.”

But there are those in Washington who are mostly unenthusiastic about offering more monetary assistance to Americans, as they have pointed out that Congress has already approved the delivery of three stimulus cash payments—a $1,200 check in April 2020, $600 in December, and the current $1,400 payments under Biden’s $1.9 trillion legislation.

Earlier this week during a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki appeared to be noncommittal regarding future stimulus payments. When asked if there would indeed be another round to assist Americans, she responded: “We’ll see what members of Congress propose, but those are not free.”

Psaki, though, did touch upon the potential benefits of the expanded child tax credit, which will give millions of cash-strapped parents a $250 or $300 payment each month. These payments—seen by some as essentially “fourth” stimulus checks—are slated to head out beginning in July, the IRS has confirmed.

Also, if Biden’s highly ambitious $1.8 trillion American Families Plan—which aims to increase funding by the billions for education, child care, and paid family leave—eventually gets passed, it will further extend the child tax credit.

Under the legislation, the enhanced credit will potentially give parents and legal guardians a total of up to $16,200 of cash per child. And those with children living at their residence could be the beneficiaries of a monthly $300 check per each child for about four more years—through the year 2025.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

Rachel Bucchino

Forebarance,

The measure of loans in forbearance in servicer portfolios dropped to 4.36 percent for the week ending May 2, an 11-point basis point decrease from the 4.47 percent reported the week prior, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA).

The number of U.S. homeowners in forbearance shrunk during the last week of April, sustaining a 10-week trend of borrowers who enrolled in a forbearance program due to the financial turmoil caused by the coronavirus pandemic exiting at a faster rate than expected.

The measure of loans in forbearance in servicer portfolios dropped to 4.36 percent for the week ending May 2, an 11-point basis point decrease from the 4.47 percent reported the week prior, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA).

Nearly all “investor types” saw a drop in forbearance for the week ending May 2, as Ginnie Mae loans fell by 20 basis points to 5.82 percent, while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans decreased another 10 basis points, reaching 2.32 percent.

Independent mortgage bank servicers also experienced a decline in forbearance, hitting 4.58 percent, but private label securities and portfolio loans stayed at 8.55 percent. Depositories, however, saw a 15-point basis decrease with only a 4.47 percent share of loans in forbearance.

“This 10th week of decreases reflected a faster rate of exits and a steady, low level of new requests,” Mike Fratantoni, MBA’s senior vice president and chief economist, said. “Homeowners who have exited forbearance and been able to take up their original payment again are performing at almost the same rate as the overall mortgage servicing portfolio.”

Roughly 25.3 percent number of forbearance exits from June 1, 2020 through May 2, 2021 represent borrowers who still made monthly mortgage payments during the forbearance period. But the majority of forbearance exits, or 26.9 percent, represent homeowners who need some form of loan deferral or partial claim.

Another 14.8 percent of borrowers who exited forbearance programs are still unable to make monthly payments on time.

The association estimated that 2.2 million American homeowners are still enrolled in some form of a forbearance program, suggesting that there is a heated urgency for additional relief.

“More than 47 percent of borrowers in forbearance extensions are past the 12-month mark as of the end of April,” said Fratantoni. “Many homeowners continue to struggle and are falling farther behind on their obligations each month.”

The MBA’s report comes as the White House set aside $10 billion from President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion rescue bill for homeowners to help with housing-related payments like mortgage, taxes, utilities, insurance and homeowners association dues, which was incorporated into the same law that sent eligible Americans $1,400 stimulus payments and unemployed workers $300 weekly benefits.

The Biden administration reported that one in five renters are behind on rent, while more than 10 million homeowners are struggling to make mortgage payments.

Rachel Bucchino is a reporter at the National Interest. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and The Hill.

Stephen Silver

Jobs Report,

Another news report this week looked at another possible effect of the jobs report: Companies seem to be raising wages, and they may end up raising them even further.

The jobs report issued last week was widely seen as disappointing, as the economy added 266,000 jobs in April. Per Reuters, the report was expected to add as many as 1 million due to the effects of the American Rescue Plan. Another government report this week found that job openings had reached a new record total of 8.1 million.

“The April report instead raised a broad set of questions about the complicated interplay among peoples' decisions about whether to work during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, constraints stemming from the lack of child care and closed schools, the slowing pace of COVID-19 vaccinations, global supply bottlenecks for critical goods like semiconductors, and the enhanced federal unemployment benefits that may be encouraging some potential workers to stay home,” the Reuters analysis said.

Another news report this week looked at another possible effect of the jobs report: Companies seem to be raising wages, and they may end up raising them even further.

According to Business Insider, some large companies have begun to raise hourly pay in order to incentivize people to return to work. Chipotle recently announced that it will raise worker pay by $2 an hour, joining other companies like Amazon and Walmart. And since the crunch appears to be affecting the food industry greatly, some restaurants have begun offering greater incentives, including everything from “signing bonuses to leadership conferences to 401(k) matching,” Business Insider said.

“My expectation is that, as our economy comes back, these companies will provide fair wages and safe work environments," the president said this week at the White House. "And if they do, they'll find plenty of workers and we're all going to come out of this together better than before.”

The extended unemployment benefits, passed as part of the American Rescue Plan, are scheduled to run out in September.

Whether it’s the unemployment benefits that are directly causing the labor shortage is a matter of some dispute, with some arguing that other factors — including the fast reopening, and accompanying quick rise in demand — are at play. In addition, some workers are skittish about returning to work in an environment where the pandemic is still not entirely over, especially in the food service industry.

“In the absence of the benefits there would probably be a little bit more applications and hiring would be a little bit easier, but the main drive of the recent change in sentiment is that hiring is accelerating,” University of Pennsylvania economist Ioana Marinescu told the Guardian in a report this week.

“You had a tight enough labor market which led to broad-based wage growth of the sort we hadn’t really seen since maybe the 70s,” University of Massachusetts Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube told the Guardian. “And that was unusual and yes, employers had a hard time filling vacancies and they had to raise wages a lot and that’s OK.”

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Stimulus Check Petition,

“I’m calling on Congress to support families with a $2,000 payment for adults and a $1,000 payment for kids immediately, and continuing regular checks for the duration of the crisis,” the petition stated.

For the past couple of months, under President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, more than one hundred sixty million coronavirus stimulus checks have been sent out to assist Americans who have been financially hurt due to the ongoing pandemic.

But according to one particular Change.org petition, the third round of stimulus checks should only be the beginning of such payments and that they should be disbursed on a monthly basis until the pandemic ends.

And it appears to be enjoying overwhelming support. In fact, nearly 2.2 million people already have signed the petition—which was started by Colorado restaurant owner Stephanie Bonin—that calls for $2,000 recurring monthly stimulus checks. The goal is to ultimately hit three million signatures.

“I’m calling on Congress to support families with a $2,000 payment for adults and a $1,000 payment for kids immediately, and continuing regular checks for the duration of the crisis,” the petition stated.

“Our country is still deeply struggling. The recovery hasn’t reached many Americans—the true unemployment rate for low-wage workers is estimated at over 20 percent and many people face large debts from last year for things like utilities, rent and child care. These are all reasons that checks need to be targeted to people who are still struggling and that Congress needs to learn from this past year,” it added.

Congress, to date, has approved the delivery of three direct cash payments—a $1,200 check in the spring of 2020, $600 in December, and the current $1,400 payments under the American Rescue Plan.

Bonin, though, used the petition to criticize the amount of time it has taken Washington lawmakers to come to an agreement on the stimulus checks.  

“Another single check won’t solve our problems—people are just too far behind,” she wrote.

“Like we’ve been saying from the beginning of this pandemic, people need to know when the next check is coming. And the best thing our government can do right now is send emergency money to the people on a monthly basis,” she added.

Notable lawmakers calling for monthly stimulus payments include Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, and Rep. Ilhan Omar.

“I always think that we ought not overthink getting people out of poverty. It’s vitally important. It helps put food on the table. It helps stave off the prospect of losing your housing,” Watson Coleman recently told NJ.com.

“I think there certainly can be a case made for it. It gave people some breathing room and it gave people a sense of some stability, something that they could count on. This has been a very frightening period for people. They lost jobs or lost the hours. Women had to leave the workforce to take care of children. This has been devastating so we need to recognize what this means for struggling families,” she added.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.

Michael Peck

Military History,

But what good is capturing an oil field when you wreck your country in the process?

Here's What You Need To Remember: For the American leaders, and plenty of others throughout history, the price of oil indeed proved to be higher than any could imagine.

For the last hundred years, oil has been a frequent reason for war. Nations have fought wars, or shaped their military strategy during a war, to conquer oil fields or prevent rivals from controlling the commodity that is the lifeblood of industrial economies and modern militaries.

But what good is capturing an oil field when you wreck your country in the process? Several nations have learned the hard way that the price for capturing oil can be much greater than its value.

Consider the outcome of these oil wars.

The Pacific War

Japan's decision to go to war with America in December 1941 had many causes, from Japanese militarism to disputes over control of a weak China, to the ultimate question of who would be the dominant Pacific power. But the immediate catalyst was the August 1941 U.S. and European embargo on oil, spurred by Japan's war in China as well as its occupation of French Indochina. Japan lacked domestic oil production, but it did have an industrial economy and a large, powerful navy and air force that needed petroleum.

Japanese leaders felt trapped between two choices: back down in the face of the embargo and forego their imperial ambitions, or take advantage of Hitler's conquest of Western Europe to seize the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies and British Southeast Asia (which the Europeans had taken from the natives in the first place). However, while the Europeans were too weak to defend their possessions, the United States had a powerful Pacific fleet that could intervene unless neutralized.

Destroying the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor did not solve Japan's oil problem. Capturing the Asian oil fields was easy, but shipping the oil back to Japan was not. By 1945, the U.S. submarine blockade, as well as aerial mining of Japanese waters, had so decimated Japan's tanker fleet that the Japanese cut down forests to make crude aviation fuel. Attacking America was supposed to guarantee Japan unlimited oil, but instead it led to the destruction of the empire.

Stalingrad

If any leader was obsessed with oil, it was Hitler, who complained that "my generals know nothing about the economic aspects of war." But unlike their Führer, they would have known better than to send their panzers off on a mad dash to capture oil.

The German attempt to defeat the Soviet Union in a single blitzkrieg campaign had failed in the summer of 1941. By June 1942, the depleted German armies were only strong enough to mount an offensive in just one sector of the vast Russian front. Hitler concentrated his best divisions in south Russia, to drive on the rich oilfields of the Caucasus. Though Operation Blue started well and almost reached Stalingrad by August, the Germans soon faced a dilemma: mass their forces and turn south to capture the oil or continue driving west to capture Stalingrad as a bulwark against Soviet forces assembling in the interior of Russia.

Hitler characteristically tried to have it all. The German armies split, with one prong advancing toward the Caucasus and the other driving toward Stalingrad. Both prongs came close to success, but neither had sufficient troops or supplies to accomplish their mission. The Nazis could not capture the oil centers of Grozny and Baku, though they could boast of planting their flag on Mount Elbrus, the highest mountain in the Caucasus. Meanwhile, to the north, the Soviets quietly massed their forces for a counterblow at Stalingrad. Within six months, the German Caucasus expedition was in full retreat, while more than 100,000 Germans surrendered at Stalingrad, marking a turning point in World War II. Dreams of oil ended with Hitler's Iron Dream shattered.

The Iran-Iraq Tanker War

The Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 dragged on for eight bloody years and dragged down both of the combatants. Frustrated by the stalemate on the ground, both sides sought to strike at their enemy through oil. Iraq began the Tanker War in 1984 by attacking Iranian oil facilities and vessels trading with Iran. Iran struck back with air and naval attacks against Iraqi ships and oil sites and, more importantly, laid naval mines in the Persian Gulf. Despite attacks on some 450 ships, neither side was able to devastate the other or to compel surrender. But the Tanker War did have one major outcome: it led the United States into direct hostilities with Iran after American warships began escorting Persian Gulf merchant traffic. After Iranian mines and missiles damaged civilian traffic and an American destroyer, U.S. warships, aircraft, and SEAL commandos destroyed Iranian ships and naval facilities.

Saddam Hussein's Invasion of Kuwait

In 1991, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait over disputes about Iraqi war debts, Kuwaiti oil overproduction, Iraqi claims that Kuwait was rightfully a part of Iraq and probably a desire to seize Kuwait's oil reserves. The Iraqi Army had little trouble disposing of its little neighbor, but the invasion quickly put it at loggerheads with the United States, which had actually supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Despite a UN ultimatum to withdraw from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein refused to budge. The result was 500,000 U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the American-led blitzkrieg of Desert Storm and the devastation of Iraqi military power. Iraq had previously been one of the major powers in the Arab world; Saddam Hussein's quest for oil left it broken and isolated.

The U.S. Wars in Iraq

Whether—or rather, to what degree—the U.S. wars with Iraq in 1991 and 2003 were motivated by oil will debated for years. Yet even to what extent there were other reasons for massive military intervention in the Persian Gulf, it is hard to believe that America would have dispatched a half-million troops if Nigeria had invaded Cameroon. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia helped spur the rise of Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and ultimately 9/11. The full cost of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 will be paid for by American taxpayers for decades.

For the American leaders, and plenty of others throughout history, the price of oil indeed proved to be higher than any could imagine.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Tyler Cullis, Amir Handjani

Iran, Middle East

The notion that “enormous leverage” was handed over to President Biden by the Trump administration is a fiction.

While the United States and Iran engage in shuttle diplomacy to resurrect the 2015 nuclear deal, a fight is brewing in Washington over re-litigating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the nuclear agreement between the United States, other major world powers, and Iran—and the Trump administration’s disavowal of that deal in favor of “maximum pressure.” Unless President Joe Biden takes the offensive in the fight, we’ll spoil our chances to restore the JCPOA and risk sidelining his ambitious domestic agenda.

Already, Senate Republicans are honing their lines of attack. In a letter timed to coincide with the launch of negotiations in Vienna, they argued that Trump’s sanctions on Iran have provided “an enormous amount of leverage over the Iranian regime . . . [that] should be used as a tool to address all aspects of Iran’s destabilizing behavior.” They warned the Biden administration “not [to] relinquish its leverage over the Iranian regime just to return to the JCPOA,” and they threatened to undo the nuclear deal once again if given the opportunity in the future.

This knives-out approach should be met in kind by the Biden administration. No effort should be spared pointing out that the net result of President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the nuclear deal expanded the Iranian nuclear program; made Iranian proxies in the Middle East more aggressive; and ultimately led to an Iranian missile strike on U.S. military forces in Iraq.

Indeed, Biden’s team should first note that—if the Trump administration had accumulated so much “leverage” over Iran—then why did President Trump fail to cash in on this leverage? Far from eliciting new concessions from Iran with respect to its ballistic missile program or its support for international terrorism, President Trump could not even convince Iran to sit down at the negotiating table with him.

This was not for lack of trying. During his time in office, President Trump did not merely re-impose those sanctions that had been lifted under the nuclear deal but erected an effective international boycott of Iran—isolating, on a global scale, all productive sectors of Iran’s economy, including its oil and financial sectors. By the time his term ended, President Trump had “maxed out” on “maximum pressure,” as there remain few, if any, targets in Iran left to sanction—certainly, none that would cause Iran to capitulate.

The Trump administration’s efforts were not limited to sanctions, either. President Trump sought to block Iranian officials’ travel to the United Nations headquarters in New York and sanctioned the two most senior government officials responsible for negotiating on Iran’s nuclear program—its foreign minister, Javad Zarif, and the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi.

Such efforts to undermine Iranian diplomacy, however, paled in comparison to President Trump’s decision to assassinate Iran’s most senior military commander, Qassem Soleimani. That decision provided a clear indication that the Trump administration was willing to risk—if not keen on starting—a war with Iran.

Subjected to devastating economic pressure and the credible threat of military force, what was Iran’s response? Instead of agreeing to more intensive restrictions on its nuclear program, Iran took measures that limited its compliance with the JCPOA, in direct response to the U.S. withdrawal from the deal. Such measures included developing advanced centrifuges and increasing its production and stock of enriched uranium. From having its nuclear program boxed in by President Barack Obama, Iran started to accelerate its nuclear development under President Trump.

Far from cowering in response to the assassination of General Soleimani, Iran engaged in a large-scale missile attack on American forces in Iraq—the first time Iran had ever initiated military action against the United States. While Iran’s attack did not kill any Americans, it did permit Iran to showcase its ballistic missile force to the United States and the wider region, providing Iran an aura of credibility that its missiles did not otherwise have.

At the same time, Iran showed the extent and influence of its proxies in the region. Rocket attacks on U.S. compounds in Iraq became a regular occurrence—one that led the Trump administration to consider withdrawing all U.S. personnel from the country. Indeed, Iran’s regional activities under President Trump became more aggressive—not less—as Iran launched a daring attack on Aramco facilities in Saudi Arabia and periodically targeted shipping vessels in the Straits of Hormuz.

To sum it up: Under President Trump, Iran’s nuclear program expanded considerably; its regional behavior became less constrained; and its economy started to immunize itself from U.S. sanctions. The notion that “enormous leverage” was handed over to President Biden by the Trump administration is a fiction. In fact, the U.S. negotiating position is weaker now than it was four years ago as many of the instruments of U.S. power, short of war, have been “maxed” out. The best Biden can do at this point is to put Iran back in the nuclear box through a resurrection of the nuclear agreement.

In doing so, however, the Biden administration must be prepared for a political fight. To weather the storm, it will need to make this simple case: The United States was in a better position with respect to Iran when President Obama left office than it is today. 

Tyler Cullis is a sanctions and compliance lawyer at Ferrari & Associates in Washington D.C. 

Amir Handjani is a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute and a security fellow with the Truman National Security Project.

Image: Reuters.

Rachel Bucchino

California Stimulus,

Eligible recipients of the proposed $600 payment must be earning up to $75,000 in adjusted gross income.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Newsom approved of the first package to offer a stronger financial ledge for low-income families in the state as Congress was still negotiating President Joe Biden’s relief bill, which was approved in March.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) introduced legislation on Monday that would send eligible California residents a second round of $600 state stimulus payments, with hopes of carving a smooth path toward economic recovery in the state as the bill expands direct payment eligibility to also include middle-class individuals and families.

Newsom also proposed that $5 billion go toward rental assistance for residents who have missed monthly payments, as well as nearly $2 million in direct payments for utility bills, initiatives that were chimed by legislative leaders on Monday.

“Direct stimulus checks going into people’s pockets and direct relief—that’s meaningful,” Newsom said during a visit in Oakland, Calif.

The governor’s proposal sets aside $8 billion in direct payments for millions of eligible Californians from his nearly $100 billion stimulus plan that formed after a massive tax revenue bonanza, a surplus of nearly $75.7 billion.

Eligible recipients of the proposed $600 payment must be earning up to $75,000 in adjusted gross income. State officials noted that the expansion of the program, along with the first round of direct payments, would offer financial aid for 66 percent of Californians. Recipients, however, qualify if they did not receive a payment during the first round of state relief this year.

Newsom has also pushed for an additional $500 check for families with children, as well as $500 direct payments to immigrant families who don’t have legal status.

“We recognize the acuity of stress associated with back rent and we recognize the acuity of stress as it relates to gas, electric and water bills,” Newsom said. “We can keep people housed. We can keep people warm and safe, and make sure that they are getting the kind of resources that they deserve during this very challenging period of time.”

The bill, which still needs approval from the Legislature, is dubbed the California Comeback Plan, an effort that largely deflects the Republican-dominated push to recall him from office.

It also follows the governor’s first state stimulus initiative in February that provided low-income California residents with nearly $2.3 billion in stimulus payments. Those eligible for the first round of state aid were families that earned less than $30,000 last year and received California’s earned income tax credit for 2020. Also seeing the direct payments were households with individual tax identification numbers and an income below $75,000, households in the CalWORKs program—a program that provides cash aid and services to eligible families with children—recipients of Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) and recipients of aid through the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants.

And undocumented immigrant families who did not qualify for federal aid from the previous rescue packages received checks of up to $1,200 if they met the earned income tax credit qualifications.

Newsom approved of the first package to offer a stronger financial ledge for low-income families in the state as Congress was still negotiating President Joe Biden’s relief bill, which was approved in March. The first-term governor was also under seething pressure amid state-level relief negotiations, largely due to his handling of the coronavirus and the impact the pandemic had on small businesses.

“The backbone of our economy is small business. We recognize the stress, the strain that so many small business[es] have been under,” Newsom said in February. “And we recognize as well our responsibility to do more and to do better to help support these small businesses through this very difficult and trying time.”

Rachel Bucchino is a reporter at the National Interest. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and The Hill. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

Omar H. Rahman

Israel, Palestine, Middle East

While Israeli leaders may think their subjugation of Palestinians is sustainable, the unrest in Jerusalem and its escalation beyond the city limits shows it is not.

In December 2017, Donald Trump lent American recognition to Israel’s claims of exclusive sovereignty over Jerusalem. It was a high-point in a decades-long effort by Israel, beginning in 1967, to make the city its “undivided, eternal capital.” Yet for the 40 percent of the city’s residents who are Palestinian, and who have been crushed under the weight of that enterprise, there is only frustration with the denial and dispossession that accompanies it.

In recent weeks, unrest in Jerusalem has spread far and wide. What began as nightly protests by Palestinian youths facing violent repression from Israeli security forces is now on the verge of engulfing the entire country. It is a stark reminder that claims of sovereignty mean little when so many under it lack basic rights, and it is indicative of the emerging one-state reality in Israel-Palestine.

On Monday, in harrowing scenes reminiscent of the early days of the Second Intifada, Israeli security forces raided the holiest place in the city for Muslims and Jews—the Haram al-Sharif or Temple Mount—dispersing thousands of Muslim worshipers and pinning some inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque as they fired tear gas, stun grenades, and rubber-coated bullet. Hundreds of people were injured.

Over the past few days, large-scale demonstrations have broken out in cities throughout the occupied Palestinian Territories and inside Israel, where there have been unprecedented displays of Palestinian nationalism among Israel’s Arab citizens. Thousands of additional Israeli troops have been deployed to the West Bank in anticipation of further escalation. Gaza has come under a major aerial bombardment after militant groups began firing missiles into Israel, some reaching as far as the outskirts of Jerusalem, and killing three people. Israeli airstrikes on Gaza have leveled an entire fifteen-story building and damaged others, killing fifty-three people including fourteen children.

The causes of the latest unrest peel back like an onion. At the outer layer is what has unfolded over the past four weeks. On April 13, at the start of the month of Ramadan, the Jerusalem municipality decided to barricade the entrance of Damascus Gate, one of the few open spaces for Palestinian Jerusalemites to gather, and a popular meeting place among young people looking to socialize after a long day of fasting.

In defiance of the arbitrary restrictions, hundreds of Palestinian youths gathered at Damascus Gate. Israeli police and security forces responded violently, using brutal riot control measures, beatings, and arrests. As the protests and repression were repeated night after night, others were drawn in, including Palestinian citizens of Israel and ultra-right-wing Jewish groups and politicians hoping to fan the flames of ethnic and religious tension. On April 22, a Jewish supremacist group called Lehava rallied a huge mob of right-wing Jewish youths who marched through the streets chanting “death to Arabs” and “burn their villages” and assaulting vulnerable Palestinians. Finally, on April 25, the authorities decided to remove the barriers at Damascus Gate, giving the youth protesters a taste of victory.

While the demonstrations may have ended there, elsewhere in Jerusalem several Palestinian families were facing imminent, forcible expulsion from their homes in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. For decades, Palestinian families who were settled in the neighborhood by the United Nations and Jordanian government in the 1950s—after losing their homes inside what became Israel during the War of 1948—have been the target of settler groups seeking to displace them. Under a discriminatory Israeli legal framework designed to facilitate the displacement of Palestinians, courts began ordering the “evictions” of families in the 2000s. This week six more families were expecting Israel’s High Court to uphold orders against them.

Sheikh Jarrah has been a fixture of local activism in Jerusalem for years, occasionally garnering outside attention. This time, however, the coinciding of the events around Damascus Gate, the month of Ramadan, and the looming court order allowed the Sheikh Jarrah families to take advantage by hosting events and activities outside their homes to attract supporters. Each night, hundreds have gathered in solidarity and many more have been barred by Israeli police from joining. Once again, security forces cracked down on the gatherings with brute force, throwing stun grenades, spraying protesters with “skunk water,” and charging crowds on mounted horseback.

The Israeli government has tried to frame the issue as a “real-estate dispute” working its way through the courts. Fundamentally, however, Israel applies its own system of laws in East Jerusalem in contravention of international law, which considers East Jerusalem occupied territory. Still, the legal pretense and gradual pace have been key components of the state’s approach to evading significant international opprobrium for its actions. If there is major opposition today, why not wait a week, a month, a year until it blows over and then proceed?

On May 10, the day the High Court was expected to rule on the evictions, Israel’s attorney general stepped in and asked for a delay of up to thirty days while he reviewed the case—in what was likely an attempt to take the air out of the protests.

Peel back the onion further, however, and the broader policy of demographic engineering in Jerusalem becomes apparent. Since occupying the eastern part of the city in 1967, Israeli authorities have pursued urban planning through an ethno-nationalist lens in order to remake the city to justify their claims of exclusive sovereignty over the entirety of Jerusalem. According to Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, Israel has “been working systematically to drive [Palestinians] out” of Jerusalem by utilizing policies that include the expropriation of private property, limitations on zoning and building permits, the demolition of homes, forcible displacements, and stripping almost 15,000 Palestinians of their residency status. Palestinian residents also pay taxes in the city without receiving adequate investment in their communities.

Today, only 8.5 percent of Jerusalem is zoned for Palestinian residential use, although Palestinians make up 40 percent of the population. The density of Palestinian neighborhoods is almost double their Jewish counterparts. Only half the population has legal access to the water grid, and three-quarters of Palestinian Jerusalemites live below the poverty line.

At the same time, Jerusalem residents are isolated from their compatriots in the West Bank and elsewhere, who are restricted from reaching the city by a matrix of checkpoints, settlements, a barrier wall, and a permit regime.

Despite it all, Israel has failed to curtail the growth of the Palestinian population in Jerusalem. But it has succeeded in creating overcrowded ghettos lacking in jobs and infrastructure. Jerusalem, today, is a city of deep inequity, discrimination, and injustice, which makes it also a wellspring of resentment, frustration, and anger.

It is unsurprising then that an arbitrary measure like closing off a public space, or adding metal detectors at Al-Aqsa mosque—as was done in 2017—can set off a wave of popular protest or spread rapidly throughout the country.

As in Jerusalem, Israel is tightening its grip over the West Bank in a bid to extend its sovereignty over the territory through annexation. If it succeeds, it will mean the permanent disenfranchisement of millions of Palestinians. This has led Israeli and international human rights organizations—most recently Human Rights Watch—to join Palestinians in declaring Israel guilty of apartheid. While Israeli leaders may believe this regime, and the attendant subjugation of Palestinians, is sustainable, the unrest in Jerusalem and its escalation beyond the city limits shows it is not. The basic rights of Palestinians cannot be denied to them indefinitely without producing indefinite conflict.

At the onion’s core is the continuum of Palestinian dispossession across time and space, stretching over a century and throughout historic Palestine. It is not only the dispossession of homes and of lands, but of public spaces, like Damascus Gate, and of a sense of ownership over places that mark the cultural identity of a people. That is why Jerusalem—the center of Palestinians’ and Israelis’ spiritual and political world—is such a flashpoint.

How this current conflagration will develop is uncertain. Ramadan draws to a close this week. The fires could flicker and fade, or they could rage on. Frustration is high and the ground is like a tinder box. On May 15, Palestinians everywhere memorialize Nakba Day, in commemoration of the defining moment of their collective dispossession in 1948. In the current climate, in which the ongoing nature of that dispossession is on full display, there is no telling what could happen.

Omar H. Rahman is a writer, political analyst, and visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Doha Center, where he is authoring a book on Palestinian fragmentation. His writing has appeared in The Washington Post, Foreign Policy, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Lawfare, VICE, Quartz, PBS NewsHour, Al-Jazeera English, and The National, among other publications.

Image: Reuters.

Trevor Filseth

Stimulus Fraud,

If there is a moral to this story, it seems to be that, while egregious abuse of federal small business loans – often referred to as Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP – has been a sadly common occurrence, it is not consequence-free. Instead, it has often resulted in capture and prosecution.

Last week, David Staveley, 53, of Andover, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and failure to appear in court – as part of a plea deal that involved dropping five other charges, including bank fraud, identity theft, and making false statements to federal officials.

This sequence of events came about after Staveley and David Butziger, 52, of Warwick, Rhode Island, attempted to defraud the CARES Act’s Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). According to prosecutors, the two men, co-owners of the Remington House restaurant in Warwick fraudulently attempted to obtain around $500,000 in business loans from the SBA.

Staveley and Butziger claimed in their loan applications that they collectively employed dozens of employees between three restaurants – two in Warwick and one in Berlin, Massachusetts. For this, the two claimed $438,500 in federal loans.

Fortunately, no loans were ultimately paid. Federal investigators determined that two of the three restaurants in question had been closed before the start of the pandemic, and the third had no connection to the two men.

Because he made false statements to the SBA – and separately impersonated his brother in a real-estate deal – Staveley was indicted on three counts of bank fraud and a count of aggravated identity theft. Released on bail with a GPS tracker, in June 2020, he cut it and faked his suicide, then fled; one month later, he was captured in Georgia and returned to Rhode Island – and a charge of failure to appear in court was added to his previous woes.

If there is a moral to this story, it seems to be that, while egregious abuse of federal small business loans – often referred to as Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP – has been a sadly common occurrence, it is not consequence-free. Instead, it has often resulted in capture and prosecution.

Although the administrations of President Donald Trump and Joe Biden have differed in many respects, under both leaders, the Justice Department has vigorously gone after fraudulent applications for federal aid – with the result that many fraudsters, including Staveley and Butziger, have been arrested and charged. Others have been apprehended after spending their PPP loans – intended for assistance with paying employees – on luxury cars and houses.

For the Justice Department (and for concerned observers), the real dilemma concerns unscrupulous business owners who are smart enough not to claim to own a fictitious restaurant – or to use the PPP loan to purchase a Lamborghini – but to use most of the funds genuinely and take a smaller cut for themselves. This fraud is much harder to detect, and the comparative lack of prosecutions of lower-profile fraudsters seems to suggest that many of them are quietly succeeding.

Trevor Filseth is a news reporter and writer for the National Interest.

Stephen Silver

Gas Prices,

The onset of spring, the easing of the pandemic, and the Colonial Pipeline disruption in the Southeast have combined to bring the average price of gas in the United States to over $3 for the first time in seven years.

The onset of spring, the easing of the pandemic, and the Colonial Pipeline disruption in the Southeast have combined to bring the average price of gas in the United States to over $3 for the first time in seven years.

According to GasBuddy, the average price has hit that milestone for the first time since 2014. And there’s a big reason why, which has little to do with politics or any other controversial subject.

“While many Americans are pointing fingers, they should be pointing at the same factor GasBuddy mentioned months ago: COVID-19 related recovery is pushing things back to normal and leading to rising gasoline demand,” GasBuddy said.

Indeed, gas prices reached historic lows in the spring of 2020, with state-at-home orders in place in the early months of the pandemic bringing demand to extremely low levels. Since then, those conditions have subsided.

“While this is not a milestone anyone wants to celebrate, it’s a sign that things are slowly returning to normal,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a blog post.

“In this case, rising gas prices are a sign Americans are getting back out into the world — attending baseball games, going to concerts, taking a road trip — basically staying anywhere but at home. This summer may see some blockbuster demand for fuel as well, as Americans find it very challenging to travel internationally, leading many to stay in the confines of U.S. borders, boosting some weeks to potentially record gasoline demand.”

De Haan, however, went on to predict that gas prices this summer are unlikely to break records.

“They will settle down to levels more similar to 2018: the national average briefly rising above $3/gallon but eventually falling back under and remaining in the upper $2 to low $3 per gallon range,” he wrote. “Should any major refinery issues develop in the midst of the summer travel season, gas prices could become impacted in a large way, especially if the economy continues to see solid recovery and demand for fuels increases.”

Each of the last five years, gas prices have peaked at under $3. In 2020, the highest it got was $2.60 a gallon in January, prior to the start of the pandemic in the U.S. The closest to $3 the average got in that period was $2.97, on May 27, 2018.

Meanwhile, following the news of the pipeline attack and subsequent disruption, the Twitter account of the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission has had to issue an unusual warning.

“Do not fill plastic bags with gasoline,” the series of tweets said. “Use only containers approved for fuel… Follow the gas canister manufacturer instructions for storing and transporting gasoline.”

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.