Category: Business Insider

• Taylor J. Swift said in high school he was teased for having the same name as the famous pop singer.
• At his current job, in politics, he uses his name to stand out and make lighthearted conversations.
• Swift said he has to work to get people to take him seriously.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Taylor J. Swift, a 30-year-old at the POPVOX Foundation in Washington, DC. It has been edited for length and clarity.

I was 15 when I heard about the singer Taylor Swift for the first time. At first, I thought, no big deal, she's a singer with a hit song or two, this won't impact me — but I was wrong. As time continued, I started to find it frustrating.

I was just a kid trying to live my life, and I was now sharing a name with a big singer. Additionally, I had just moved back to Ohio to live with my dad, so I was the new kid at school, with the name Taylor Swift. To top it off, I had a Justin Bieber haircut, I had glasses, and I was on the debate team, it wasn't a fun time.

Similar to most kids, I was trying to figure out who I wanted to be, but a couple of high school bullies and a choir teacher who would make jokes about my name didn't help. When it came time to go to college, and I was getting ready for a fresh start, I knew I had two choices. I could change my name, or I could start fresh and embrace it.

It took a lot of self-realization, but after a while, I decided I'd run with Taylor Swift instead of choosing the name TJ, an abbreviation of my first and middle name. I remember thinking, I was given this name for a reason, and I'm going to grow, and become who I'm meant to become with it.

Even though my name comes up in every social interaction, including in my political career, I've decided to embrace it, have fun with it, and see it as an overall positive. I like my name and I think it has helped me more than it has hurt me, even at work.

My name helps me stand out at work

As someone who works in the congressional advocacy space, where I help advocate for things like better wages, pay benefits, and technology, it helps to have a name like mine because people usually remember it. When I introduce myself to new staffers, new constituents, new lawmakers, or interns, they'll remember me for weeks, and sometimes even months later. That's a good thing.

When you're in my line of work you meet a lot of people. At some point, it feels very transactional. So, it's good to have something that helps you stand out — for me, it's my name. When people remember my name they also remember the ball I'm trying to push forward, and that's what's important.

I use my name to make conversations more light-hearted

With my work, we host an event where we onboard our congressional interns in Congress. With this event, our main goal is to help reduce their anxiety when it comes to networking, and we try to show them their work as interns truly matters. At the event, when my name comes up on the big screen in front of roughly 350 interns, people in the crowd start to chuckle. Then they think, maybe I shouldn't laugh.

It's weird to laugh at someone's name — I get it. To make them feel less weird about it, I pause, grab the microphone, and say, "Yes, my name is Taylor Swift. Please feel free to make jokes, I'll just shake it off, later," a Taylor Swift reference. Then everybody laughs and they become more comfortable.

When at work, I'll use other song lyric references, like, "I know this project has been hard, but 'we're not out of the woods yet'" and "I know, this mistake was my fault. 'I'm the problem. It's me.'"

Political work can be stressful, so if making a joke about my name makes someone laugh, smile, or remember me, I do it.

Getting people to take me seriously takes work

At first, people may think, who is this person? How can I trust someone with the name Taylor Swift? With that said, I have to work to get people to take me seriously.

In the past, I think my name has thrown people off a bit. But, then as I engage in conversation with them, or if I'm briefing a member of Congress, or holding some sort of meeting, they see I'm serious about the work we're doing. I very much take pride in the work that we do, and after a minute, or two, people see how dedicated I am to the cause we're working on and my name doesn't take away from that.

I use my middle initial to help avoid confusion

When I do interviews with the press, I ask them to please quote me as Taylor J. Swift, so no one confuses me as the pop singer. This way, no one wonders why Taylor Swift (without the J) is speaking on congressional modernization and oversight. I also include the "J" on my business cards or when applying to jobs, to avoid confusion.

Even still, people do wonder. For example, just this past weekend, I booked a dinner reservation for two under the name Taylor Swift. I could tell the hostess seemed a bit disappointed when I showed up. Like normal, they joked about how I wasn't the real Taylor Swift, so I just laughed and said, I hear it all the time but I just shake it off.

I now think, that if my name is the biggest struggle I have in life, I'm doing OK. It feels trivial to believe otherwise.

If your name has an effect on your career or job and you want to share your story, please email Manseen Logan at mlogan@businessinsider.com

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/RNYZ2a4
via IFTTT

• 500 passengers on a Caribbean cruise were from Canada's East-coast province, reports said.
• The Celebrity Apex ship hosted a special party for the Newfoundlanders.
• One passenger said it was amusing to hear the distinct Newfoundland accent when walking around the ship.

Passengers aboard a Celebrity Apex cruise to the Caribbean this month were surprised when it turned out that 500 were all from Canada's easternmost province, said reports.

The cruise, which left Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on April 6 to sail around the Caribbean, hosted 3,000 guests of which 250 couples, came from Newfoundland, or were Newfoundlanders living in other parts of the world.

In pictures from the voyage, the contingent can be seen wearing t-shirts with the Newfoundland and Labrador flag on the front and draping the flag over their deck chairs.

Passenger Pam Pardy, told CBC News that she had been amused by how frequently she heard the distinct Newfoundland accent and local phrases when walking around the ship.

"You get your lounge chair and the girl next to us dropped her sunglasses, and she goes, 'Oh me glasses, I can't leave they' — everybody understood what everybody else was saying," Pardy said, per CBC.

She told CBC that she had booked the trip more than a year in advance, though she later learned from her travel agent that a large group of Newfoundlanders had also booked on to the same cruise.

"From what I understand, it was just a total fluke," Pardy said.

Pardy admitted that her first thought of vacationing on a ship with her fellow Newfoundlanders filled her with dread. "I was kind of like, 'Oh God, that's going to be horrible," she told BBC News.

But the sense of community between the guests, Pardy said, was special and unique. "There was something familiar and comforting, but at the same time exotic," she told the BBC, adding the weather in Newfoundland is "a real big drag."

On the last night of the voyage, the Newfoundlanders gathered on the deck to take a group picture and sing the Ode to Newfoundland, the province's official anthem.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/UQw9Xst
via IFTTT

• NYC restaurateur Keith McNally insulted Lauren Sánchez in an apparently unprompted Instagram post.
• Celebrities defended Sánchez, an Emmy-winning former news anchor and fiancée of Jeff Bezos.
• This is not McNally's first controversy. He's also insulted James Corden and Adele on Instagram.

Restaurateur Keith McNally, who's no stranger to controversial Instagram posts, has made a habit out of insulting celebrities. And his latest target is Lauren Sánchez, the fiancée of one of the most powerful people in the world, Jeff Bezos.

But with some major heavyweights in her corner, Sánchez has the upper hand.

McNally, who owns more than a dozen restaurants including NYC's famed Balthazar, wrote a seemingly out-of-the-blue Instagram post attacking Sánchez and Bezos on Monday.

"Does anybody else find Jeff Bezos' New wife — Lauren Sanchez — ABSOLUTELY REVOLTING?" he wrote in the original post, accompanied by a series of pictures of the couple, according to The Cut. "What an ugly and Fucking SMUG – LOOKING couple they make. Is this what having 1000 Billion dollars does to people?"

McNally's post was later edited, though, as of Friday, it read: "What a Bizarre-looking couple. Is this what having 1000 billion dollars does to people?"

But before McNally watered down his insults, Sánchez's reputation proved she was not to be trifled with.

Scores of celebrities rushed to defend Sanchez, also an actress, pilot, philanthropist, and founder of an aerial filming company. Her relationship with Bezos became public after Bezos' divorce from MacKenzie Scott in 2019. Since then, the two have been pictured in the throes of unabashed fun, often aboard Bezos' $500-million yacht, as Sánchez's reputation as a mover-and-shaker attracts a growing rank of diehard fans.

Chrissy Teigen commented on McNally's post, writing, "She's actually incredibly dynamic, accomplished and kind, and everyone who knows her would say the same."

Jessica Seinfeld, who's married to Jerry Seinfeld, wrote in a since-deleted post, "This post is a reflection of your twisted, pitiful, and hideous mind. Lauren has twice the character you do," according to The Cut.

And MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle commented that Sánchez is "accomplished, kind, smart and loved," adding that McNally's post was "mean for no reason," The Cut reported.

Though Sánchez herself has not directly reacted to McNally's insults, she did follow them with a few Instagram Stories calling for kindness.

In a Story posted on Tuesday, which is no longer viewable, Sánchez shared a quote that read, "People will love you. People will hate you. And none of it will have anything to do with you," according to The Independent.

Sánchez also shared a quote attributed to fashion designer Rachel Zoe. "Lead with kindness, root for other people, cheer for those you love. Just honestly wish everyone the best," it read, according to The Independent.

Representatives for McNally and Sánchez did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

If his edited-down post is any indication, McNally sure learned the hard way not to mess with Sánchez, or her famous friends.

But, this is not McNally's first rodeo — the restaurant owner has insulted other big names in recent years too, some more warranted than others.

In 2022, McNally had an infamous beef with TV personality and host of "The Late Late Show," James Corden.

McNally accused Corden of being abusive to his staff at Balthazar on two occasions, saying that during one visit to the SoHo hotspot Corden yelled "like crazy" at servers and in another visit, was "nasty" to the restaurant manager. McNally called Corden a "tiny Cretin of a man" on Instagram and said Corden was banned from the restaurant.

But, McNally said that after Corden had called and "apologized profusely," he would be allowed back.

However, the beef didn't stop there. Corden told The New York Times a few days later that he didn't do anything wrong, leading McNally to strike back. In another Instagram screed, McNally mocked Corden's acting skills, insulted his fanbase, and urged him to admit wrongdoing.

The issue appeared to die down after Corden later apologized on-air.

Megastar Adele has also been the subject of McNally's disdain, which in her case, appeared to be unprompted.

In 2023, McNally attacked the singer-songwriter on Instagram, calling her appearance on Corden's "Carpool Karaoke" segment "profoundly inauthentic," "sickening," and "HORSE SHIT."

He wrote that Adele's "make-up was so hideously overdone and fingernails so long she resembled a particularly scary Cruella de Vil."

Our advice to McNally? Maybe stay off Instagram.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/vgUOENI
via IFTTT

• I began working fully remote roles immediately after graduating college in the spring of 2020.
• While remote work is glorified for its flexibility, I found myself lonely and stuck inside.
• I quit my dream job to get out of the house more and integrate into my community.

In the spring of 2020, my life felt like it was squeezed between the palms of an arm wrestling match. With graduation approaching, messages from our professors and parents relayed like narratives: Time to go out into the world. But this world looked different than what they had experienced post-grad; it was shuttered amid a pandemic.

Cities were emptying, companies were folding, and the consensus was to do anything but go out. As I delved into an arduous job search, remote work began to seem like an attractive option — albeit my only one.

I finally landed my dream job, but that remote lifestyle became my downfall.

Remote work seemed like the perfect fit at first

My TikTok is often filled with videos depicting life after college: quiet commutes, mundane work days, monotonous routines, and lonely houses. In many ways, remote work seemed to circumvent that notorious corporate slog. No time wasted sitting on the freeway or train; no dress code, nor need to cover tattoos; no dog or human sitter; no fluorescent lights or cubicles.

When I landed my dream job at a high-profile magazine, I thought it was perfect. The job would allow me to live in a coastal town rather than move to the city. I could play my jazz records, take yoga breaks, and spread out all over the floor of my living room. Most importantly, it would allow me to visit my family freely and for as long as I liked.

The pandemic padded my transition to full-time remote work. Since nearly everyone else stayed home, too, it felt normal to be stuck inside from morning to night.

But things changed when the pandemic rules lessened

I quickly found myself growing restless. Before lockdown, I had spent all day every day out of the house. With a full-time remote role, I quickly became frustrated with staying indoors all day. These feelings only intensified as my job became increasingly more demanding, leaving me unable to get out before dark.

In 2022, I moved to San Francisco, a decision made possible by my fully remote role. While I was grateful for the freedom to live wherever I wanted, my job had never felt so controlling. With little opportunity to step away from my bedroom desk during work hours, my ability to get acquainted with my new home city was stunted. Even with several great roommates and a solid base of friends in the Bay, I felt entirely disconnected from the community.

My days were spent communicating with people through a screen. I was existing in a world largely immaterial; collaborating over Slack and Microsoft Teams and Airtable and Google Docs and Sprinklr — everything but a physical table.

I realized that as a remote worker, you lack both your second (work) and third (social) places. Social media and Microsoft Teams are not adequate replacements for these spaces — if anything, they exacerbate the need for them.

I eventually traded in my good-on-paper job for a better day-to-day life

I've always been ambitious and hardworking. But sometime last year, I felt that while I was excelling as a journalist, I was failing as a 25-year-old.

Ultimately, I left my remote job in pursuit of a freelance schedule that would give me the space to integrate myself into San Francisco. I wanted to bring more dimension and spontaneity to my life — to get a little lost, bump into people, and create a new routine based on my environment, not my inbox.

I'm very lucky to be in a position to do so. I'm a single person in a flexible living situation with no dependents, and my industry offers more possibilities for freelance work than most.

Now, while my career feels more precarious, my days are rounded and diverse. My work is a combination of in-person and remote. I can get outside, work in cafés, and connect with people during "work hours."

If you had told me a year ago that I'd be trading my role at a high-profile magazine to work part-time at a yoga studio and struggle as a freelance writer, I'd be afraid for the future. And I still am — but my anxiety about the future is insignificant compared to how anxious and discontent I was in my day-to-day life working remotely. I would rather be slightly rattled by "what now" than saddled with "what if."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/3Htwzn7
via IFTTT

• EV Charger Reviews evaluated the most electric vehicle-friendly states.
• They evaluated states based on factors including electricity costs and state tax credits.
• Maine was ranked the top state for EVs, followed by Colorado and Vermont.

Around 8% of all cars sold last year were electric vehicles. That's 1.2 million EVs sold in the US alone in 2023.

As more car owners make the switch to sustainable energy, the infrastructure around EV ownership becomes factored into decisions like choosing a place to live and buying a home.

The electric-vehicle resource website EV Charger Reviews determined the best states to own an electric vehicle by studying the same factors in each state: the number of registered EVs, electricity cost, the number of electric vehicles per charging port, tax credit amounts, annual gas savings, the ratio of a square mile per one charging port, and the number of electric vehicles per service center.

EV Charger Reviews used data from sources such as the US Department of Energy, the US Census Bureau, and the US Energy Information Administration to evaluate the EV factors in all 50 states. Each factor was assigned a numerical score and ranking, which helped determine the states' overall scores.

Here are the top 10 most EV-friendly states.

10. Rhode Island

EV Charger Reviews reported Rhode Island has 4,300 registered electric vehicles and a ratio of 14 EVs per charging port throughout the state. Rhode Island also offers electric vehicle owners a $2,500 tax incentive to encourage more residents to make the switch. However, Rhode Island's electricity is the fifth most expensive out of any state.

Rhode Island earned a total score of 64.56, ranking it 10th overall.

9. Delaware

Delaware's $2,500 EV tax rebate, numerous service centers, charging ports every 10 miles, and affordable electricity make it the ninth-best state for EV owners.

It earned a total score of 64.75 from EV Charger Reviews.

8. Massachusetts

Massachusetts has nearly 50,000 registered EVs with charging ports every 3 square miles, EV Charger Reviews found. Its $3,500 tax incentive also makes EV ownership appealing, even though service center and electricity costs are higher than average.

Massachusetts earned a total score of 65.94, ranking it eighth.

7. Kansas

In Kansas, charging ports are only available every 149 square miles. The annual tax incentive of $2,400 also comes with a registration fee of up to $100.

However, with a ratio of 14 EVs per charging port, EV Charger Reviews found that the state has "one of the best charging infrastructures in the US," earning a score of 66.21.

6. California

California has more registered EVs than any other state, which also means that charging ports can get a bit crowded. There are charging ports available every 10 miles, but the ratio remains high at 55 EVs per port.

While electricity costs are higher than average, EV owners in California save about $1,700 on gas each year.

California's score totaled 67.05, placing it sixth overall.

5. Connecticut

Buying an EV in Connecticut pays off with a generous $7,500 tax credit. Connecticut also has charging ports every 6 square miles — a ratio of 26 EVs per charging port — though service-center wait times tend to be higher.

EV Charger Reviews gave Connecticut a score of 71.24.

4. Oregon

Oregon features lower-than-average electricity prices and a $4,915 tax credit for EV owners, according to the study. Because of the popularity of EVs, charging ports are only available every 78 square miles, with a ratio of 37 EVs per port.

Oregon scored 71.66 in EV Charger Reviews' ranking.

3. Vermont

Charging stations appear every 25 miles in Vermont, and the lower EV ownership rate compared to other states means short wait times at charging ports. The state's annual $4,000 tax credit is also a strong incentive.

Electricity costs are higher than average, but EV owners still save around $1,200 on gas each year, leading to a score of 71.69 from EV Charger Reviews.

2. Colorado

There are around 6,000 registered EVs in Colorado. With charging ports every 48 square miles, that comes out to 27 electric vehicles per port.

EVs can save Colorado drivers around $ 1,400 per year, even though electricity prices are slightly higher than average. Colorado also offers a $5,000 tax credit to EV owners, minus the annual registration fee of around $50.

All of these benefits rank Colorado as the second-best state for electric vehicles with a score of 73.19.

1. Maine

With its $7,500 tax incentive, $1,200 annual savings on gas, and low wait times at charging ports and service centers, EV Charger Reviews found that Maine is the best state for EVs with a score of 77.71.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/rUBZXIP
via IFTTT

• Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy was forced to cut deals to win the speakership.
• McCarthy's agreements are now making Speaker Mike Johnson's life more difficult.
• In particular, McCarthy granted power to conservatives who frequently defy Johnson's wishes.

House Speaker Mike Johnson can blame his problems on his predecessor, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

Anyone may have struggled to wrangle this slim Republican majority. But it's the concessions that McCarthy made to achieve his long-held ambition that made it near impossible for Johnson, or likely anyone else, to be an effective speaker.

In January 2023, McCarthy and his allies were forced to cut a deal with the 20 holdouts that ground business in the chamber to a halt by refusing to accept the California Republican as their leader. To break the stalemate, McCarthy offered a series of concessions.

Two of the biggest carrots have since become powerful sticks for conservatives to swing against him and now Johnson. The House Freedom Caucus cares so much about protecting the power these agreements gave them that they have tapped a crack team, known as the Floor Action Response Team (FART), to monitor any potential changes.

The most noticeable was making it possible for any single lawmaker to file a motion to vacate, the formal process by which the House can rid itself of a speaker. McCarthy reportedly once viewed such a low threshold as a redline, but still agreed to the rules change. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, later made history by taking advantage of the rule to force McCarthy's ouster. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, has started the process to oust Johnson.

But congressional experts at the time were as worried about another part of McCarthy's deal. He offered three seats on the powerful House Rules Committee to more conservative members. It may not seem like much, but the panel, known as the Speaker's Committee, is how the speaker maintains control of the floor.

The speaker should be able to guarantee the outcome he or she wants because they get to pick the committee's members. The rules committee determines the procedures for how legislation reaches the floor, wielding power to limit potential poison-pill amendments and to limit debate. For those reasons, conservatives have clashed with the panel recently because they want more open debate. McCarthy, and just about every other recent speaker, has pledged more debate on the floor, but in practice, that can be a hard promise to keep.

The Rules Committee keeps the House moving, but Johnson has been forced to maneuver around it in the face of likely opposition to major bills. But the end around comes with a steep cost, the requirement that legislation receive two-thirds support instead of just a simple majority. As a result, Johnson has been forced to rely on House Democrats to avoid partial government shutdowns, fund the Pentagon, and pass a $79 billion bipartisan tax bill.

McCarthy wasn't trying to make his life harder. Rep. Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican who until recently chaired the Rules Committee, told Politico that the Californian wanted to know about potential problems earlier on.

"The reality is, I mean, this is McCarthy's idea is that if I'm going to have a problem, I want to see it in the Rules Committee and not on the floor," Cole said. "We've never had a problem in passing a rule."

Cole stressed that the problem was not with his panel but with what happened later on the floor. It is worth noting that Johnson has had to bypass the panel completely. And when the panel's work reaches the floor, the chaos deepens. Since Republicans took control in 2022, the GOP has failed seven times to pass the rule on the floor, which is an important legislative step as after passing the rule, debate on the actual legislation can begin. In comparison, the House went over two decades without such a failure, per CNN.

All of these headaches, and the need for McCarthy's deals in the first place, are exacerbated by the reality the House GOP has one of thinnest majorities in history. Republicans began the current Congress with a 221 to 218 majority. Since then, the GOP's numbers have been whittled down by former Rep. George Santos' expulsion and early resignations by members who have tired of the daily drama. Unlike the Senate, states cannot appoint someone to fill a vacant seat. Instead, states must hold special elections. It can take months for that process. And in the case of Santos, the GOP could also lose the seat. Johnson will soon only have a one-vote majority for any party-line legislation.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich summed up Johnson's reality rather grimly.

"Well, he has the narrowest majority in modern times, and it's not a true majority, because he's got six or eight narcissists — people who think that they individually get to screw up everything," Gingrich told Politico.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/IQMqTS5
via IFTTT

• The government's soaring debt balance poses problems for the US economy.
• Those include higher inflation, greater market volatility, and a lower quality of life for Americans.
• Slowing the pace of borrowing is critical for the future, economists told Business Insider.

The US is sitting on the biggest pile of public debt in its history, and economists are getting nervous about it. 

The federal debt balance hit $34 trillion this year, with the government on pace to rack up another $1 trillion in debt every 100 days, per an estimate from Bank of America. 

Why is that so worrying?

The mountain of debt is a breeding ground for economic problems, including higher inflation, lower quality of life, and — in the worst-case scenario — a destabilization of the wider financial system, according to Les Rubin, a markets veteran who has called the US debt situation one of the "greatest Ponzi schemes" in the world.

It's critical for the US to sell its debt to investors, which range from institutions, individuals, and other countries. But higher debt levels cast doubt on whether the US will be able to make good on its promises to keep paying it back, and the more people hesitate to buy the US debt securities, the more the economy is hurt, Rubin says. 

The US Treasury sold $22 trillion in government bonds last year, but Treasury auctions recently have seen weak demand, suggesting that investors could soon have difficulty absorbing the huge rush of new bond issuance.

The most recent auctions of 10 and 30-year bonds were met with low enthusiasm as investors see higher for longer interest rates and stick inflation. The US will hit the market again in May with a $385 billion sale of new bonds.  

"What would happen if we can't sell the debt is that we end up with an inability to function as an economy. The government survives on debt. If we literally could not sell our debt, we could not pay our bills," Rubin told Business Insider in an interview.

Debt itself is inherently inflationary, meaning consumers can expect higher prices if the government doesn't slow its borrowing.

That's because debt provides a measure of stimulus to the economy, which speeds up hiring and wage growth. If the economy is already at full employment, that means higher inflation as well, according to Jay Zagorsky, an economist at Boston University. 

Inflation has been at least a full percentage point above the Fed's 2% target for nearly the last two years. Prices accelerated 3.5% year-per-year in March, the third-straight month inflation came in hotter-than-expected.

A smaller budget

Higher debt could also lead to a poorer quality of life for Americans, Zagorsky added. That's because the more the debt grows, the more the government has to shell out in interest to service that debt — and the less money the US has to spend on other priorities like Social Security and other crucial parts of the social safety net. 

The US spent $429 billion last year on interest payments alone, according to Treasury data. That's 240% of what the government spent on transportation, commerce, and housing combined.

"Pretty soon one of the most important things the federal government's going to be spending money on is not defense, not on education. It won't be on housing, it'll be on interest," Zagorsky said.

Economic fallout

For investors to widely lose faith in US government debt as a safe haven would spark turmoil in financial markets, Rubin warned, thanks to the sheer amount of US debt held by institutions worldwide.

In the worst-case scenario, he sees markets melting down if debt levels get too high and people believe the US might not pay it back. 

"Trillions of dollars that are on the balance sheets around the world will become substantially reduced in value or worthless. Interest payments could be curtailed. It would be a devastating blow to the world economy that would lead to eventually, chaos. We can't let it get there," he said. 

There's little the government can do to stop those problems from brewing, other than to stop taking on so much new debt, Zagorsky and Rubin say. Technically, the government could print money to pay off its dues, but that would result in hyperinflation as the money supply skyrockets. 

Robust economic growth can make debt more sustainable, but the debt is growing way faster than the economy — the national debt balance rose 86% over the last decade, while GDP grew by 63%, according to Fed data.

Economists are uncertain of when exactly the national debt will become a true problem for the US. If the pace of borrowing doesn't slow, Rubin anticipates a crisis of some sort materializing within the next decade.

"It starts slowly and then it accelerates rapidly. Right now I don't think anything is imminent. I would say we have 10 years or less to fix this problem. I think that may be the optimistic scenario," Rubin said. 

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/89RTpxF
via IFTTT

• Veteran treatment courts provide comprehensive rehabilitations for convicted veterans.
• Adult drug treatment courts are struggling to provide comparable support due to lack of resources.
• The success of adult drug treatment courts depends on government funding and community integration.

Veteran Treatment Courts give convicted US military veterans a shot at rehab and comprehensive care, but similar treatment courts made for the public have more work to do to be of more help.

"We don't have a very robust treatment infrastructure in this country and there are many communities where adequate treatment is difficult to access," said Christopher Deutsch, the communications director of All Rise, a nonprofit focused on assisting drug court, veterans treatment court, and DWI court professionals.

Veteran treatment courts, which prioritize rehabilitation for convicted veterans, provide comprehensive care, but the public version of these courts fail to deliver comparable support.

Deutsch added that these public-facing treatment centers are lacking sufficient accessibility and medical care individuals need to properly provide effective treatment.

"Outside of treatment courts, we know that things like substance abuse counselors, mental health counselors, in general, there's a struggle for those positions to be filled," said Christina Lanier, the co-director of the National Treatment Court Resource Center.

"I would imagine that that trickles down to the treatment court world," she said.

There are other challenges as well. Counties receive federal funding to provide and pay for mental health and substance abuse services, but instead of establishing or assisting an existing a treatment court with more funds where it is needed, counties may decide to put the money elsewhere.

Lanier, who is also a sociology and criminology professor at UNC Wilmington, said issues with treatment courts having sufficient resources and providing proper care is often "location specific."

For example, there are very few treatment courts in Raleigh, North Carolina's capital city, compared to Wilmington, a city which is almost 130 miles away with a population that is four times smaller.

Landing in a treatment court

As of 2022, there were over 4,153 adult drug courts and 511 veteran treatment courts in the United States.

Based on a 2019 NTCRC survey, responsive veteran treatment courts had a graduation rate of 76.7% with 9,592 active participants at the time, and responsive adult drug courts had a graduation rate of 56.6% with 90,990 active participants at the time.

There are numerous ways a person who has been convicted can enter a drug treatment court.

"There are some people that enter the program, what we call 'pre-plea,' so they're gonna do the program and once they do the program, their charges are going to maybe be dismissed. There's people that come into the program, that are what we call 'post-plea,' so as part of their plea, they're pleading guilty, and doing the program is part of that," Lanier said.

While a person with a drug offense may be eligible to participate in drug treatment court, a person whose substance use has been determined to be an underlying cause of the criminal activity may also be eligible.

In addition to a substance abuse diagnosis, other criteria that makes an incarcerated individual eligible for drug court is their risk and need placement on the Risk-Need-Responsivity model.

The model displays contributing factors and characteristics that determine whether an incarcerated person is at risk of repeat offense or recidivism. The higher the level of risk and need, the more eligible they could be for drug court participation.

The veteran courts are modeled off of general treatment courts, which began 30 years ago as a way for those who were convicted of crimes and dealing with substance use to work with court staff and receive successful treatment to prevent them from becoming repeat offenders.

Deutsch explained to Business Insider that "the treatment court is a way to incentivize them to participate in treatment and the other social support that comes along with it with the idea that they can emerge from the program without a felony conviction and be able to be back with their families and in their communities and be productive."

Veteran treatment courts may have different criteria for veterans they can accept into their program. In addition to treatment, these courts can provide support in housing, employment, and more.

Veteran treatment courts are exclusive to veterans and there, they can interact with mentors who may have faced similar circumstances.

Depending on the institution funding an adult drug court, it may or may not be able receive violent offenders for treatment. The Bureau of Justice Assistance, a federal agency, prohibits its funds be used by drug treatment courts to take in violent offenders.

Many adult drug treatment courts are unable to admit violent offenders due to the BJA prohibition.

The veteran treatment courts, however, are not prohibited to admit violent offenders unless the individual court has its own prohibition.

"They are the only court that can get funding from BJA that can accept violent offenders into their program," Lanier said.

Hondo's story

"There's a lot of mentors that come in and different organizations, whether it be housing veteran groups for community outreach, things of that nature," recounted Hondo Underwood, a former marine who participated in a veteran treatment court to avoid extensive prison time after being convicted of car theft. "I was able to reach out to David's House, which is a sober living home."

Underwood was also using drugs while he was stealing cars, using the money he made from stealing cars to purchase drugs.

He describes his veteran treatment court experience as going through an "intense supervised probation" that gradually lessened. He was then placed in a rehab facility and was required to check in with his probation officer.

"I got a 12 to 18 year deferred sentence," he explained. "As long as I was able to accomplish veterans treatment court, which I successfully did once I graduated from Harbor Lights rehab facility, I still had the choice to stay there because I was a veteran."

Underwood had stolen hundreds of cars in Colorado prior to his arrest in 2017.

"Going through Veterans Treatment court, again, it gave me a sense of purpose, a sense of 'I can get out of the neighborhood and I can give people an option or somebody to look up to,'" he told BI's Ju Shardlow.

Veteran treatment courts are partnered with local Veterans Affairs branches and other veteran organizations which can provide help for veterans who may experience PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, and other conditions specific to veterans.

Deutsch said that the VA's inclusion in veteran treatment courts is an advantage because it "removes one of the major issues that any program that's working with people who need treatment is going to be confronted with, which is how to access that treatment and how does that treatment get paid for."

To get access to an adult drug court, an individual must undergo an assessment that demonstrates whether they have a substance use disorder. Oftentimes these individuals have gone through treatment before or have had long criminal histories.

Care out of reach

However, adult drug treatment courts as well as treatment facilities countrywide are in need of more trained professionals, open beds, and treatment availability to properly serve vulnerable individuals.

Many of these issues could be solved with adequate distribution of federal funds from local governments, but in addition to crucial funding, another key to a successful drug treatment court is how it interacts with the community it's established in.

"The screening and assessment can tell you what the person needs, but then whether or not it's out there for them is another challenge," Deutsch said. "The courts themselves need to understand who they're serving and make sure that their programs are adequately, culturally responsive."

The treatment court can be subjected to varying levels of skepticism and pushback from community members depending on where it's based, but treatment courts can map out local resources in order to provide even better accessible assistance to the participant.

One way to do this is for centers to survey their jurisdiction at the beginning of their establishment, what Deutsch called "community mapping."

Key factors like the demographics of those participating in the courts, as well as the scope and number of those needing treatment, play into the success of the treatment court at its inception.

"These programs should be reflective of their community," Deutsch added.

If programs reflect the wider community they're serving, the more effective they'll be in being able to take advantage of existing resources and serve the public's specific needs.

Some of these services might look like financial literacy and employment assistance programs.

Bringing different faces of the community together around this treatment court to provide services outside of criminal justice allows for the treatment court participants to not only connect with the community they reside in but to also help them get back on their feet.

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/fnRhMCt
via IFTTT

• Ukraine said it had shot down a Russian supersonic Tu-22M3 plane.
• It marks the first time Ukrainian forces have successfully taken down one of the bomber planes.
• Here's everything you need to know about the Tu-22M3 and how Ukraine says it shot it down.

Ukrainian intelligence said on Friday that it had shot down a feared Russian Tu-22M3 bomber plane for the first time as it launched a combat mission on Ukraine.

The Tu-22M3, which has the NATO codename "Backfire," is a "long-range supersonic missile carrier bomber," according to its manufacturer Tupolev's website.

The Soviet-era plane, made from alloys of aluminum, titanium, and magnesium, as well as "high-strength and heat-resistant steels," made its maiden flight in 1977, with the most up-to-date version entering service in 2018.

It is designed to take out sea- and ground-based targets using guided missiles and aerial bombs.

Tupolev describes the Tu-22M aircraft series as a "conventionally designed aircraft with a variable-swept low wing."

A weeklong ambush

Kyrylo Budanov, the head of the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine (HUR), told BBC Ukraine that the Tu-22M3 carries Kh-22 missiles, which he said "have perhaps brought the most destruction" to Odesa in southern Ukraine.

The Kh-22 missile was originally designed to target ships and is capable of carrying either a nuclear or a conventional warhead.

Budanov added that his forces had been ready for the bomber. "For a week we were, put it this way, lying in ambush. We were waiting for it to reach the right line," he said.

The HUR said the operation led to "the first successful destruction of a strategic bomber in the air during a combat mission during Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine."

A video circulating on social media appeared to show the bomber in flames and falling from the sky.

Despite Russia's claim that the bomber had crashed, the British Ministry of Defence said in an update on the Russia-Ukraine war on Saturday that "it is almost certain that reports of a S-200 missile (SA-5) being used are accurate and that this was another successful Ukrainian action against the Russian Air Force."

It added that it was "highly likely that Russia has now sustained at least 100 fixed-wing combat aircraft losses to date."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/JR6qOd0
via IFTTT

• An American sniper in Ukraine said his unit prefers  AK-74 rifles over Western ones.
• That's partly because they can get more bullets when they attack a Russian position.
• Ammunition and other supplies from the West have dried up, leaving Ukraine running short.

An American veteran fighting in Ukraine said soldiers in his unit prefer to use Soviet-era rifles over modern ones because it's easier to find ammunition, including by taking it from the Russians.

Jonathan Poquette is currently serving as a sniper in Ukraine, and he said that his unit prefers AK-74 rifles, which are chambered for 5.45×39mm rounds.

"The reason why our unit in particular preferred the AK-74 platforms is because that weapon system is plentiful for the Ukrainians and Russians."

He said that when you go to a Ukrainian position, they are more likely to have that type of bullet available as many Ukrainians fight with that rifle. Ukraine, once a part of the Soviet Union, fights with a lot of Soviet-era weaponry that has long been in the country.

There are, of course, other ways to get the necessary rifle ammo as well, Poquette said, noting that "if you go and you attack a Russian position and you need to resupply, the Russians are usually going to have 5.45."

Poquette is a member of Chosen Company, a unit of fighters within the Ukrainian army's 59th Motorized Brigade. The force is technically a reconnaissance unit, but it also executes both front-line assault operations and defensive actions. He was injured in January and has been in recovery and training in Kyiv, Ukraine' s capital city, since the incident.

He said that the prolific availability of older rifles among Ukraine's soldiers was also partly an issue with Ukraine's planning.

"The West has donated a lot of Western rifles that use 5.56," Poquette said, referring to the standard 5.56X45 mm NATO round, "but the problem is that the Ukrainians didn't necessarily consolidate those weapon platforms very good in certain areas."

Ukraine has used captured Russian tanks and weaponry for its forces to use them to fight back against Russia's invasion. This has also included ammunition from defeated Russian soldiers, or that fleeing Russians have left behind.

The Kalashnikov AK-74 was first designed in the 1970s, and an updated version, the AK-74M, was first adopted by the Russian army in 1991. Per the weapon's manufacturer, the latter is still widely used across the Russian military as a standard service rifle.

The problem with some of the weapons donated by Western countries is that they are often chambered in 5.56, Poquette said, and ammunition from the West has been in pretty short supply lately.

Ukraine's ammunition shortages

Ukraine is suffering from extensive shortages of ammunition and weaponry that have had serious ramifications all along the front lines. The US recently transferred thousands of small arms and about 500,000 rounds of Iranian ammunition taken from smugglers to Ukraine, but it's only a stop-gap measure.

Shortages have been exacerbated by Republicans in the US stalling further aid for the past six months. That's despite most of that money being funding that would go back into the US economy as so many American defense companies would get the work, particularly to replace systems sent to Ukraine.

Soldiers say this means that they have had to ration their ammunition and, in some cases, have had nothing to fire for a day, leaving them unable to hit Russian targets that they can reach. Sometimes when another team takes over a position, the incoming forces will ask for the departing team's ammunition and grenades.

Some of Ukraine's biggest shortages right now are in air defense and artillery, which are leaving cities defenseless and making front-line combat much tougher to sustain.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zekenskyy said this week that Russia has 10 times more artillery shells than Ukraine. He said that unless aid from the US resumes, "we will have no chance of winning." It's a stark warning, one that experts have echoed as well, such as Frederick Kagan, who said that if Ukraine loses, the US and its allies will face a Russia more easily able to invade NATO if it chooses to do so.

Letting targets go

Poquette said that his unit has had to get more and more selective with its targets, even holding fire with what were once game-changing weapons.

The Ukrainians, he said, aren't firing their US-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) like they used to. He said the unit had to stop hitting targets that they would have hit earlier in the war because of a shortage of rockets.

He also said that his unit has had to send infantry out to fight small groups of advancing Russian soldiers rather than use indirect fire to take them out, putting Ukraine's soldiers at greater risk.

Europe has been trying to increase Ukraine's ammunition supply, but many of its international partners say that there is not enough to spare on the continent and that not enough new ammo is being produced.

A Czech Republic-led initiative has been attempting to source ammunition from outside the EU. The country's president said this week that the first 180,000 rounds have been contracted and will be delivered to Ukraine's front lines "in the coming months."

Poquette said that Ukraine desperately needs artillery and ammunition more than it needs more advanced equipment like tanks from its partners. He said that what matters most right now is "ammunition, grenades, claymores, or other types of mines, rockets, various different rocket systems."

"What can one tank do?" he asked, rhetorically. "Not as much as 50,000 artillery shells, 5,000 mortar shells."

from All Content from Business Insider https://ift.tt/hBZcP6u
via IFTTT