Good morning. We hope you’ll tolerate a grab-bag edition of the newsletter today. I’ve been packing to move and have been trying to wrap up a project I’ve been working on since the start of the year. (Relatedly, I’ll likely be taking a bit of a hiatus from Uphill over the next couple weeks to finish writing that. Several of my colleagues have agreed to spearhead upcoming editions of the newsletter, and we’re excited to mix it up a little bit.)
Congress Approves Ukraine Aid
The Senate approved a $40 billion package Thursday to assist Ukraine amid Russia’s war of aggression.
Senators voted 86-11 to pass the legislation, which includes tens of billions in military aid, humanitarian programs, and funding for other American expenses related to the war. (For example, money for enforcing sanctions and seizing Russian assets and for replenishing the weapons America has already sent to Ukraine.)
All of the opposing votes to the bill came from Republicans, who raised concerns about fiscal responsibility and accountability of military spending. Democrats rejected those arguments, saying the bill’s language, which funds oversight from military and state department inspectors general, is enough. The legislation also requires a report within 45 days of enactment from the defense secretary and the secretary of state about efforts to ensure weapons and other equipment sent to Ukraine reach their intended recipients and are used for their intended purposes. It mandates a recurring monthly report to Congress describing the assistance the United States has given Ukraine since the war began in February.
(For a more detailed look at the breakdown of the funding items in the bill, the New York Times has some helpful graphics in this story.)
Democrats slammed the 11 Republicans for opposing the measure. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said it is “beyond troubling to see a growing circle of Senate Republicans proudly oppose Ukrainian funding.”
“It appears more and more MAGA Republicans are on the same soft-on-Putin playbook that we saw used by former President Trump,” he said. “Around the world, our enemies are watching what we do right now. What do you think they’ll conclude if they start seeing more and more U.S. Senators oppose aid to democracies under attack by authoritarianism? Our adversaries might conclude that we are divided.”
Lawmakers Approve Formula Access Bill
Congress moved quickly this week to make sure participants of the supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants, and Children can buy a wider range of baby formulas amid a national shortage.
The bill is aimed at preventing a lack of options in the future: According to Politico, the Women, Infants, and Children program “is by far the largest purchaser of formula in the U.S., with more than half of infant formula in the U.S. going through the program. And just two companies serve close to 90 percent of the infants who receive benefits through the program, in part because of the way WIC awards its contracts.”
Read more here.
Red Flag Laws
Stephen Gutowski is on the site today with an explainer about red flag laws in the aftermath of the deadly white supremacist shooting in Buffalo, New York, last weekend. The laws, which have been adopted by 19 states, allow people to request that a court block individuals from purchasing or owning guns if they represent a threat to themselves or others.
Gutowski writes these orders can be obtained quickly in emergencies, but more detailed proceedings are required if they are to last longer. He writes:
“In the case of the alleged Buffalo shooter, there were several parties who could have requested a red flag order based on his past behavior. The alleged shooter expressed a general desire in a school assignment to kill himself and others in June 2021. As a result, he was taken by police for a psychological evaluation and spent a day and a half in a mental hospital, according to NPR. However, he was released and no further action was taken.
If either the police, school administrators, or his parents had filed for an ERPO, the shooter likely would have been prohibited from buying the gun he used in his attack. The shooter’s clear willingness to break dozens of laws, including by illegally modifying his gun, implies he may have been willing to buy a gun illegally even if subject to an ERPO. But making his acquisition of a gun more difficult very well could have prevented the attack.”
Read the article here.
America’s Ridiculous Requirements for Disabled Assistance
Alan Cole at Full Stack Economics has an important piece this morning examining anti-family and onerous requirements for recipients of a Social Security Administration (SSA) program for people who have medical conditions that prevent them from working.
The Supplemental Security Income program, which sends $841 per month to recipients, mandates that they never accumulate more than $2,000 per individual or $3,000 for married couples in “resources”—or their benefits (including health insurance) could be at risk. The program doesn’t count certain assets such as homes the recipients own and live in, or their cars. But it does count cash, bank accounts, and stocks and bonds. Cole describes what this leads to as playing “hot potato” with money, with program participants attempting to divert their cash into a category the program does not count as resources. From his article:
“The asset test is so low, in fact, that $2,000 of COVID-19 relief checks around the beginning of 2021 ($600 from the budget deal signed by Donald Trump, and an additional $1,400 from the American Rescue Plan) put people over the limit, all by themselves. SSA clarified that these payments would not count as income, for the purposes of SSA’s calculations. But they would still count as “resources” after a 1-year exclusion period. This meant that at least in theory, recipients needed to keep track of how long ago it had been since each of the COVID-19 relief bills. But not even the SSA necessarily did this right, and some recipients allege that they were excluded improperly.
This month, Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rob Portman (R-OH) jointly proposed legislation to raise the asset cap to $10,000 (or $20,000 for a married couple).
‘We shouldn’t be punishing seniors and Ohioans with disabilities who do the right thing and save money for emergencies by taking away the money they rely on to live,’ Brown said.”
Read the whole piece here.
Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.
You are currently using a limited time guest pass and do not have access to commenting. Consider subscribing to join the conversation.
With your membership, you only have the ability to comment on The Morning Dispatch articles. Consider upgrading to join the conversation everywhere.