Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation – USA – By SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor, Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Politics, University of Virginia

When the framers of what became the U.S. Constitution set out to draft the rules of our government on a hot, humid day in the summer of 1787, debates over details raged on.

But one thing the men agreed on was the power of a new, representative legislative branch. Article I – the first one, after all – details the awesome responsibilities of the House of Representatives and the Senate: power to levy taxes, fund the government, declare war, impeach justices and presidents, and approve treaties, among many, many others.

In comparison, Article II, detailing the responsibilities of the president, and Article III, detailing the Supreme Court, are rather brief – further deferring to the preferred branch, Congress, for actual policymaking.

At the helm of this new legislative centerpiece, there was only one leadership requirement: The House of Representatives must select a speaker of the House.

The position, modeled after parliamentary leaders in the British House of Commons, was meant to act as a nonpartisan moderator and referee. The framers famously disliked political parties, and they knew the importance of building coalitions to solve the young nation’s vast policy problems.

But this idealistic vision for leadership quickly dissolved.

The current speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, holds a position that has strayed dramatically from this nonpartisan vision. Today, the leadership role is far more than legislative manager – it is a powerful, party-centric position that controls nearly every aspect of House activity.

And while most speakers have used their tenure to strengthen the position and the power of Congress as a whole, Johnson’s choice to lead by following President Donald Trump drifts the position even further from the framers’ vision of congressional primacy.

Centralizing power

By the early 1800s, Speaker of the House Henry Clay, first elected speaker in 1810 as a member of the Whig Party, used the position to pursue personal policy goals, most notably entry into the War of 1812 against Great Britain.

Speaker Thomas Reed continued this trend by enacting powerful procedures in 1890 that allowed his Republican majority party to steamroll opposition in the legislative process.

In 1899, Speaker David Henderson created a Republican “cabinet” of new chamber positions that directly answered to – and owed their newly elevated positions to – him.

In the 20th century, in an attempt to further control the legislation Congress considered, reformers solidified the speaker’s power over procedure and party. Speaker Joseph Cannon, a Republican who ascended to the position in 1903, commandeered the powerful Rules Committee, which allowed speakers to control not only which legislation received a vote but even the amending and voting process.

At the other end of the 20th century was an effort to retool the position into a fully partisan role. After being elected speaker in 1995, Republican Newt Gingrich expanded the responsibilities of the office beyond handling legislation by centralizing resources in the office of the speaker. Gingrich grew the size of leadership staff – and prevented policy caucuses from hiring their own. He controlled the flow of information from committee chairs to rank-and-file members, and even directed access to congressional activity by C-SPAN, the public service broadcaster that provides coverage of Congress.

As a result, the modern speaker of the House now plays a powerful role in the development and passage of legislation – a dynamic that scholars refer to as the “centralization” of Congress.

Part of this is out of necessity: The House in particular, with 435 members, requires someone to, well, lead. And as America has grown in population, economic power and the size of government, the policy problems Congress tackles have become more complex, making this job all the more important.

But the position that began as coalition-building has evolved into controlling the floor schedule and flow of information and coordinating and commandeering committee work. My work on Congress has also documented how leaders invoke their power to dictate constituent communication for members of their party and use campaign finance donations to bolster party loyalty.

This centralization has cemented the responsibilities of the speaker within the chamber. More importantly, it has elevated the speaker to a national party figure.

Major legislation passed

Some successful leaders have been able to translate these advantages to pass major party priorities: Speaker Sam Rayburn, a Democrat from Texas, began his tenure in 1940 and was the longest-serving speaker of the House, ultimately working with eight different presidents.

Under Rayburn’s leadership, Congress passed incredible projects, including the Marshall Plan to fund recovery and reconstruction in postwar Western Europe, and legislation to develop and construct the Interstate Highway System.

In the modern era, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat and the first and only female speaker, began her tenure in 2007 and held together a diverse Democratic coalition to pass the Affordable Care Act into law.

But as the role of speaker has become one of proactive party leader, rather than passive chamber manager, not all speakers have been able to keep their party happy.

Protecting Congress’ power

John Boehner, a Republican who became speaker in 2011, was known for his procedural expertise and diplomatic skills. But he ultimately resigned after he relied on a bipartisan coalition to end a government shutdown in 2014 and avert financial crises, causing his support among his party to plummet.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted in 2023 from the position by his own Republican Party after working with Democratic members to fund the government and maintain Congress’ power of the purse.

Although these decisions angered the party, they symbolized the enduring nature of the position’s intention: the protector of Article I powers. Speakers have used their growing array of policy acumen, procedural advantages and congressional resources to navigate the chamber through immense policy challenges, reinforcing Article I responsibilities – from levying taxes to reforming major programs that affect every American – that other branches simply could not ignore.

In short, a strengthened party leader has often strengthened Congress as a whole.

Although Johnson, the current speaker, inherited one of the most well-resourced speaker offices in U.S. history, he faces a dilemma in his position: solving enormous national policy challenges while managing an unruly party bound by loyalty to a leader outside of the chamber.

Johnson’s recent decision to keep Congress out of session for eight weeks during the entirety of the government shutdown indicates a balance of deference tilted toward party over the responsibilities of a powerful Congress.

This eight-week absence severely weakened the chamber. Not being in session meant no committee meetings, and thus, no oversight; no appropriations bills passed, and thus, more deference to executive-branch funding decisions; and no policy debates or formal declarations of war, and thus, domestic and foreign policy alike being determined by unelected bureaucrats and appointed judges.

Unfortunately for frustrated House members and their constituents, beyond new leadership, there is little recourse.

While the gradual, powerful concentration of authority has made the speaker’s office more responsive to party and national demands alike, it has also left the chamber dependent on the speaker to safeguard the power of the People’s House.

SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Speaker Johnson’s choice to lead by following the president goes against 200 years of House speakers building up the office’s power – https://theconversation.com/speaker-johnsons-choice-to-lead-by-following-the-president-goes-against-200-years-of-house-speakers-building-up-the-offices-power-270440

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Wendy Z. Goldman, Professor of History, Carnegie Mellon University

Many Americans know of Josef Stalin’s Terror of the late 1930s, during which more than 1 million people were arrested for political crimes, and over 680,000 executed.

Fewer know about the repressions that began after World War II and ended with Stalin’s death in 1953. Much like the repressions of the 1930s, they involved fabricated plots, arrests, coerced confessions and purges. Unlike the Terror of the 1930s, they were accompanied by a wave of state-sponsored antisemitism – including the purge of Jews from multiple occupations and unwritten quotas that limited their professional and educational opportunities.

The abolition of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee on Nov. 20, 1948, and the arrest and execution of its members was central to this postwar assault. The committee’s elimination was accompanied by an “anti-cosmopolitan” campaign emphasizing Russian nationalism, Soviet patriotism and anti-Westernism. In certain ways, the campaign served as the mirror image of anti-communist and jingoistic propaganda in the United States at the time.

“Rootless cosmopolitan” became code for “Jewish,” and dismissals swept the arts, sciences and media. The Ministry of State Security arrested Jewish industrial leaders for sabotage and, in 1953, fabricated “the Doctor’s Plot,” which accused a group of predominately Jewish doctors who treated Kremlin officials of trying to assassinate Stalin and other party leaders.

The very idea of an antisemitic campaign following the massive Soviet losses in World War II presents an enigma. Of the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust, almost 2 million were murdered by the Nazis on Soviet soil. Why would Soviet leaders, who fought a bitter and costly war to defeat fascism, choose to attack the very group that the Nazis tried to annihilate?

My forthcoming book, “Stalin’s Final Terror: Antisemitism, Nationality Policy, and the Jewish Experience,” addresses this difficult question.

Clashing with the state

The Soviet state created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1942 to aid the war effort at home and abroad. Its chairman, Solomon Mikhoels, was a renowned Yiddish actor and director of the State Yiddish Theater – one of the many cultural and scientific luminaries who led the committee.

The committee made an enormous contribution to the war effort, sending thousands of articles about fascism, the Jewish war experience and the Red Army for publication in the foreign press. Mikhoels and writer Itsik Fefer toured the United States, Mexico, Canada and Great Britain, where they were welcomed by rapturous crowds and raised millions of dollars.

In 1943, as the Red Army began liberating Soviet territories from German occupation, the committee was inundated by letters from surviving and returning Jews. Committee leaders tried to help people reclaim their homes, to distribute foreign aid and to identify and commemorate sites of Nazi war crimes. They wrote to Stalin suggesting the creation of a Jewish national republic in Crimea to replace destroyed communities in Ukraine, Belorussia and Russia.

But the state deemed these unsanctioned activities expressions of “bourgeois Jewish nationalism.” Some Communist Party leaders even insinuated that the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was being used by spies, and advocated its elimination.

The minister of state security, V.S. Abakumov, convinced Stalin that Mikhoels was spying for Jewish organizations in the United States, but Mikhoels was too well known at home and abroad to be arrested. In January 1948, Mikhoels was lured to a house on the outskirts of Minsk, crushed by a truck and dumped on a deserted road.

The murder, disguised as an accident, signaled a turning point in the government’s policy toward Soviet Jews. In November 1948, the government abolished the committee as “a center of anti-Soviet propaganda.” Fifteen of its leaders were arrested over the following months. The state shuttered the Yiddish publishing house, press, theaters, literary journals and writers association, and arrested hundreds of Yiddish cultural figures.

Unbowed in court

The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee’s leaders were charged with bourgeois nationalism, treason and espionage. Tortured in prison and kept in cramped, freezing cells, they were forced to confess.

The Ministry of State Security hoped to stage a public show trial, but as soon as the physical coercion stopped, the defendants began to retract their confessions and write letters of protest. The evidence was based on these extracted confessions, and the state feared an international outcry.

After the group had already spent more than two years in prison, the case was reopened. M.D. Riumin, the new head of the investigatory unit, was intent on showing that the defendants directed Jewish nationalist organizations that infiltrated the government at every level. After new interrogations, an indictment was drawn up, sent to Stalin and approved by the Politburo.

A secret trial began in May 1952. Despite being physically broken, the defendants presented a powerful rebuttal.

Solomon Lozovskii, an old revolutionary and former deputy foreign minister, shredded the state’s accusations. Historian Iosif Iuzefovich retracted his confession and told the court that after numerous beatings, “I was ready to confess that I was the pope’s own nephew, acting on his direct personal orders.” Boris Shimeliovich, the director of a leading Moscow hospital, testified that he had received over 2,000 blows to his buttocks and heels. Even the chairman of the court began to doubt the charges.

Yet the defendants were convicted. Thirteen of the 15 were executed on Aug. 12, 1952. The executions were later commemorated as “The Night of the Murdered Poets, though only five of the victims were poets. Solomon Bregman, a labor leader, died in prison; Lina Shtern, a renowned scientist, was sentenced to exile.

After Stalin’s death, the defendants were exonerated. The case only became public, however, in 1988, when the country began a full reckoning with the Stalin era.

The final Terror

How do we explain this final Terror?

Jews had benefited enormously from the revolution in 1917, which eliminated czarist oppression, granted them equal rights and opened new educational and employment opportunities. They entered professions and held leading posts in the Communist Party. They were considered an official nationality, like Ukrainians, Uzbeks, Armenians and hundreds of other groups in the new Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Yet after the war, the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee’s efforts to help Jewish survivors and commemorate the Holocaust were not acceptable to the state, which minimized the singularity of Jewish wartime experiences. The government identified advocacy solely on behalf of Jews, either at home or abroad, as “bourgeois nationalism” or Zionism.

Amid the intensifying Cold War, the government sought to mobilize popular support by resurrecting Russian nationalism, once an anathema to socialist revolutionaries. It reestablished many czarist discriminatory policies, creating obstacles to Jewish advancement and education. Despite the government’s initial support for the new state of Israel, it blocked the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee from participating in Jewish international organizations, which it viewed as a conduit for Western spies and Jewish nationalism.

Some historians believe that Stalin was preparing a larger Terror, including the deportation of the Jewish population, but his plans were disrupted by his death in 1953. Others disagree, asserting a lack of evidence.

Yet one point is worth pondering: Using the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, Riumin aimed to build a larger case that would have targeted Jews in every institution for treason. He never succeeded, however, in staging a public trial or launching a wider hunt for enemies throughout the government.

The courage of the defendants thwarted Riumin’s venomous ambition. They testified bravely about their abuse and exposed the falsity of the charges. Revolutionaries committed to the struggle against fascism, they held firm to the end.

I have in the past received funding from the Guggenheim Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research, the ACLS, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. I am not currently receiving funding from any external organization.

– ref. Stalin’s postwar terror targeted Soviet Jews – in the name of ‘anti-cosmopolitanism’ – https://theconversation.com/stalins-postwar-terror-targeted-soviet-jews-in-the-name-of-anti-cosmopolitanism-265562

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ivano W. Aiello, Professor of Marine Geology, San José State University

When fire broke out at the world’s largest battery energy storage facility in January 2025, its thick smoke blanketed surrounding wetlands, farms and nearby communities on the central California coast.

Highways closed, residents evacuated and firefighters could do little but watch as debris and ash rained down. People living in the area reported headaches and respiratory problems, and some pets and livestock fell ill.

Two days later, officials announced that the air quality met federal safety standards. But the initial all-clear decision missed something important – heavy metal fallout on the ground.

When battery energy storage facilities burn, the makeup of the chemical fallout can be a mystery for surrounding communities. Yet, these batteries often contain metals that are toxic to humans and wildlife.

The smoke plume from the fire in Vistra’s battery energy storage facility at Moss Landing released not just hazardous gases such as hydrogen fluoride but also soot and charred fragments of burned batteries that landed for miles around.

I am a marine geologist who has been tracking soil changes in marshes adjacent to the Vistra facility for over a decade as part of a wetland-restoration project. In a new study published in the journal Scientific Reports, my colleagues and I were able to show through detailed before-and-after samples from the marshes what was in the battery fire’s debris and what happened to the heavy metals.

The batteries’ metal fragments, often too tiny to see with the naked eye, didn’t disappear. They continue to be remobilized in the environment today.

What’s inside the batteries

Moss Landing, at the edge of Monterey Bay, has long been shaped by industry – a mix of power generation and intensive agriculture on the edge of a delicate coastal ecosystem.

The Vistra battery storage facility rose on the site of an old Duke Energy and PG&E gas power plant, which was once filled with turbines and oil tanks. When Vistra announced it was converting the site into the world’s largest lithium-ion battery facility, the plan was hailed as a clean energy milestone. Phase 1 alone housed batteries with 300 megawatts of capacity, enough to power about 225,000 homes for four hours.

The energy in rechargeable batteries comes from the flow of electrons released by lithium atoms in the anode moving toward the cathode.

In the type of batteries at the Moss Landing facility, the cathode was rich in three metals: nickel, manganese and cobalt. These batteries are prized for their high energy density and relatively low cost, but they are also prone to thermal runaway.

Lab experiments have shown that burning batteries can eject metal particles like confetti.

Metals found in wetlands matched batteries

When my team and I returned to the marsh three days after the fire, ash and burned debris covered the ground. Weeks afterward, charred fragments still clung to the vegetation.

Our measurements with portable X-ray fluorescence showed sharp increases in nickel, manganese and cobalt compared with data from before the fire. As soon as we saw the numbers, we alerted officials in four counties about the risk.

We estimate that about 25 metric tons (55,000 pounds) of heavy metals were deposited across roughly half a square mile (1.2 square kilometers) of wetland around Elkorn Slough, and that was only part of the area that saw fallout.

To put this in perspective, the part of the Vistra battery facility that burned was hosting 300 megawatts of batteries, which equates to roughly 1,900 metric tons of cathode material. Estimates of the amount of batteries that burned range from 55% to 80%. Based on those estimates, roughly 1,000 to 1,400 metric tons of cathode material could have been carried into the smoke plume. What we found in the marsh represents about 2% of what may have been released.

We took samples at hundreds of locations and examined millimeter-thin soil slices with a scanning electron microscope. Those slices revealed metallic particles smaller than one-tenth the width of a human hair – small enough to travel long distances and lodge deep in the lungs.

The ratio of nickel to cobalt in these particles matched that of nickel, manganese and cobalt battery cathodes, clearly linking the contamination to the fire.

Over the following months, we found that surface concentrations of the metals dropped sharply after major rain and tidal events, but the metals did not disappear. They were remobilized. Some migrated to the main channel of the estuary and may have been flushed out into the ocean. Some of the metals that settled in the estuary could enter the food chain in this wildlife hot spot, often populated with sea otters, harbor seals, pelicans and herons.

Making battery storage safer as it expands

The fire at Moss Landing and its fallout hold lessons for other communities, first responders and the design of future lithium-ion battery systems, which are proliferating as utilities seek to balance renewable power and demand peaks.

When fires break out, emergency responders need to know what they’re dealing with. A California law passed after the fire helps address this by requiring strengthening containment and monitoring at large battery installations and meetings with local fire officials before new facilities open.

Newer lithium-ion batteries that use iron phosphate cathodes are also considered safer from fire risk. These are becoming more common for utility-scale energy storage than batteries with nickel, manganese and cobalt, though they store less energy.

How soil is tested is also important. At Moss Landing, some of the government’s sampling turned up low concentrations of the metals, likely because the samples came from broad, mixed layers that diluted the concentration of metals rather than the thin surface deposits where contaminants settled.

Continuing risks to marine life

Metals from the Moss Landing battery fire still linger in the region’s sediments and food webs.

These metals bioaccumulate, building up through the food chain: The metals in marsh soils can be taken up by worms and small invertebrates, which are eaten by fish, crabs or shorebirds, and eventually by top predators such as sea otters or harbor seals.

Our research group is now tracking the bioaccumulation in Elkhorn Slough’s shellfish, crabs and fish. Because uptake varies among species and seasons, the effect of the metals on ecosystems will take months or years to emerge.

Ivano Aiello receives funding from private donors.

– ref. When the world’s largest battery power plant caught fire, toxic metals rained down – wetlands captured the fallout – https://theconversation.com/when-the-worlds-largest-battery-power-plant-caught-fire-toxic-metals-rained-down-wetlands-captured-the-fallout-268848

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ali Mirchi, Associate Professor of Water Resources Engineering, Oklahoma State University

Fall marks the start of Iran’s rainy season, but large parts of the country have barely seen a drop as the nation faces one of its worst droughts in decades. Several key reservoirs are nearly dry, and Tehran, the nation’s capital, is facing an impending “Day Zero” – when the city runs out of water.

The situation is so dire, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has revived a long-debated plan to move the capital from this metro area of 15 million people.

Previous administrations have floated the idea of moving the capital but never implemented it. Tehran’s unbridled expansion has created a host of problems, ranging from chronic water stress and land subsidence to gridlocked traffic and severe air pollution, while also heightening concerns about the city’s vulnerability to major seismic hazards.

This time, Pezeshkian has framed relocation as a mandate, not a choice. He warned in November 2025 that if nothing changes, the city could become uninhabitable.

How Iran got to the point of water bankruptcy

Drought has been a concern in this part of the world for millennia. A prayer by the Persian King Darius the Great that was carved in stone more than 2,000 years ago asked his god to protect the land from invaders, famine and lies.

However, today, Iran’s escalating water and environmental problems are the predictable outcome of decades of treating the region’s finite water resources as if they were limitless.

Iran has relied heavily on water-intensive irrigation to grow food in dry landscapes and subsidized water and energy use, resulting in overpumping from aquifers and falling groundwater supplies. The concentration of economic activity and employment in major urban centers, particularly Tehran, has also catalyzed massive migration, further straining already overstretched water resources.

Those and other forces have driven Iran toward “water bankruptcy” – the point where water demand permanently exceeds the supply and nature can’t keep up.

Iran’s centralized, top-down approach to water governance has proven ineffective in ensuring the sustainability of its water resources and in maintaining a balance between renewable water supply and demand, a gap that has continued to widen.

Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has pursued an aggressive hydraulic mission, building dams and diverting rivers to support sprawling cities and expanding irrigated agriculture. Driven by ideological ambitions, the country’s focus on food self-sufficiency together with international sanctions and economic isolation, have taken a heavy toll on the nation’s environment, particularly its water resources. Drying lakes, groundwater depletion and rising salinity are now prevalent across Iran, reflecting dire water security risks throughout the country.

As water resource and environmental engineers and scientists, including a former deputy head of Iran’s Department of Environment, we have followed the county’s water challenges for years. We see viable solutions to its chronic water problems, though none is simple.

Falling water reserves leave Iran vulnerable

Experts have been warning for years that the lack of foresight to tackle Iran’s water bankruptcy problem leaves the country increasingly vulnerable to extreme climate conditions.

Iranians are again seeing those risks in this latest drought.

Precipitation has been well below normal in four of the water years since 2020. That has contributed to a sharp decline in reservoir levels. Fall 2025 has been the hottest and driest fall on record for Tehran since 1979, testing the resilience of its water system.

The city faces mounting stress on already diminished groundwater reserves, with little relief in sight without significant rainfall.

Shrinking snowpack and shifting rainfall patterns make it harder to predict how much water will flow in rivers and when. Rising temperatures make the problem worse by boosting demand and leaving less water in the rivers.

There is no quick fix to resolve Tehran’s water emergency. In the near term, only significantly more rainfall and a reduction in consumption can offer respite.

Panicky moves to increase interbasin water transfers, such as the Taleqan‑to‑Tehran water transfer to pump water from the Taleqan Dam, over 100 miles (166 km) away, are not only inadequate, they risk worsening the water supply and demand imbalance in the long run. Iran has already experimented with piping water between basins, and those transfers have in many cases fueled unsustainable growth rather than real conservation, worsening water problems both in the donor and recipient basins.

At its core, Tehran’s predicament stems from a chronic mismatch between supply and demand, driven by rapid population growth.

Whether relocating the political capital, as suggested by Pezeshkian, could meaningfully reduce the city’s population, and hence the water demand, is highly doubtful.

The sparsely populated Makran region in the country’s southeast, along the Gulf of Oman, has been mentioned as a potential option, touted as a “lost paradise,” though details on how much of the city or population would move remain unclear.

Meanwhile, other major Iranian cities are facing similar water stresses, highlighting the fact that this is a nationwide threat.

Water solutions for a dry country

The country needs to start to decouple its economy from water consumption by investing in sectors that generate value and employment opportunities with minimal water use.

Agricultural water consumption can be reduced by producing higher-value, less water-intensive crops, taking into account food security, labor market and cultural considerations. Any water savings could be used to replenish groundwater.

Becoming more open to global trade and importing water-intensive crops, rather than growing them, would also allow Iran to use its limited agricultural land and water to grow a smaller set of strategic staple crops that are critical for national food security.

That’s a transition that will be possible only if the country moves toward a more diversified economy that allows for reduced pressure on the country’s finite resources, an option that seems unrealistic under economic and international isolation.

Urban water demand could be reduced by strengthening public education on conservation, restricting high-consuming uses such as filling private swimming pools, and upgrading distribution infrastructure to minimize leaks.

Treated wastewater could be further recycled for both drinking and nonpotable purposes, including maintaining river flows, which are currently not prioritized.

Where feasible, other solutions such as flood management for aquifer recharge, and inland groundwater desalination, can be explored to supplement supplies while minimizing environmental harm.

Taken together, these measures require bold, coordinated action rather than piecemeal responses.

Renewed talk of relocating the capital signals how environmental stresses are adding to the complex puzzle of Iran’s national security concerns. However, without addressing the root causes of the nation’s water bankruptcy, we believe moving the capital to ease water problems will be futile.

Nothing to disclose.

Mojtaba Sadegh receives funding from the US National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Joint Fire Science Program.

Amir AghaKouchak and Kaveh Madani do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Iran’s president calls for moving its drought-stricken capital amid a worsening water crisis – how Tehran got into water bankruptcy – https://theconversation.com/irans-president-calls-for-moving-its-drought-stricken-capital-amid-a-worsening-water-crisis-how-tehran-got-into-water-bankruptcy-270456

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sheneka Williams, Professor of Educational Administration, Michigan State University

Many high school seniors are currently in the midst of the college application process or are already waiting to hear back from their selected schools.

For high school students in rural parts of the United States, the frantic pace of the college application process can look a bit different. For starters, some of these rural students might not have large numbers of elite universities and colleges coming to admissions fairs in their areas. They might not have all of the required high school courses to attend some of these schools, either, according to Sheneka Williams, a scholar of educational leadership and rural education who graduated from a small, rural high school in Alabama.

Amy Lieberman, the education editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Williams to understand the particular experiences of rural students – and what, exactly, coming from a rural background can mean as students think about college.

How are rural high school students’ experiences unique?

Nationally, nearly 10 million students – or 1 in 5 public school students in the U.S. – attended rural schools in the fall of 2022.

Research suggests that rural students finish or complete high school at a higher rate than urban students.

While approximately 90% of rural high school students graduated in 2020, 82% of urban high school students got their diplomas that year.

But rural students’ college entrance rate is lower than that of urban and suburban students.

Within four years of graduating high school, 71% of rural students attended college, compared to 73% of suburban and 71% of city students who also went to college, according to 2023 findings by the National Center for Education Statistics.

Why are rural students finishing high school at a higher rate than their suburban and urban peers but attending college at a lower rate?

First, we know that some colleges are not really recruiting students in rural areas. If these universities don’t know you exist, and if your parents haven’t gone to college and don’t know how the admission system works, you might not have help as you move closer to attending college. Some rural schools also do not have college counselors.

There are other reasons why some rural high school graduates are not going to college, I have personally seen. Some students are apprehensive about leaving home. They have close-knit families and communities, and they might be wondering where they fit in at a school in a large place that is much bigger than where they grew up.

Do any of these scenarios describe your own educational journey?

I grew up in a small town in Alabama and was different from some of the other Black students, since I came from a family of educators who had gone to college for two generations.

But when I did go to college, I went to a campus that was two times the size of my hometown, which has a population of just 12,000. It takes a confident student, as well as encouragement from parents or mentors, to believe that you can go to school away from home.

We had some college fairs in high school, but the visiting colleges were state universities and regional schools. You did not have selective schools coming to recruit.

Students today can learn about schools online, but there is still the issue that universities are not, on their own, connecting enough with rural students.

Do rural students fit into universities’ diversity goals?

Only recently have people begun to think and talk more about what rural really means. Some people use the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of rural, which is “all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.”

But that’s a somewhat surface definition. It’s hard for some scholars to agree on what counts as rural, including me. It feels like something you have to experience and know, and that is hard to define. Part of the issue is that rural has been defined by what urban is not, and that makes it seem it doesn’t deserve its own definition.

Universities are beginning to think about these rural students more and the particular challenges they experience in school. That includes not necessarily having stable access to high-speed internet, which approximately 22.3% of Americans in rural areas and 27.7% of Americans in tribal areas don’t have, compared to only 1.5% of Americans in urban areas.

Another issue is that even for rural students who want to go to college, they might not have the right qualifications, such as certain courses they have completed.

I am currently involved in research with sociologists Barbara Schneider and education scholars Joe Krajcik and Clausell Mathis about how some rural high schools in Alabama and Mississippi aren’t able to teach physics or chemistry. Physics and chemistry are both gateway courses to college, and if you want to be an engineer or STEM major, you have to complete these courses in order to have a shot at certain colleges.

Rural high schools tend to have a lack of resources, in terms of both budget and their staffing. Schools not being able to find teachers who are qualified or certified in certain subject areas, such as science courses, is a nationwide problem. But this issue is tougher in smaller, rural towns.

Schools will say they don’t have students interested in those subjects. But the states also aren’t requiring that these classes are offered.

This lack of science course offerings can create a whole block of students who are not going to college. And if we are talking about the South, in particular, and states that have a high population of Black students in rural areas, we are talking about a whole swath of students who don’t have this education and would find it a struggle to get into larger, splashier schools that are not near home.

What do you think are some of the solutions to these challenges?

There are many local efforts to offer tutoring and things of that nature for rural high school students. Some of those efforts have been blunted because schools are funded by property taxes, and some of them just don’t have the revenue to pay for these add-ons without federal support.

I think colleges need to do a better job of recruiting students at rural high schools. I also think that once these students make it to college, it would help if there were support or affinity groups.

Some colleges have not thought enough about rural students. I think the narrative around rural students and college needs to shift – these students may want to go to college, but nobody is looking for them. When you live in small, geographically isolated places, sometimes you only know what you see.

Sheneka Williams receives funding from the U.S. Department of Education.

– ref. Rural high school students are more likely than city kids to get their diplomas, but they remain less likely to go to college – https://theconversation.com/rural-high-school-students-are-more-likely-than-city-kids-to-get-their-diplomas-but-they-remain-less-likely-to-go-to-college-269246

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Cristobal Young, Associate Professor of Sociology, Cornell University

New York’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, campaigned on a promise to raise the city’s income tax on its richest residents from 3.9% to 5.9%. Combined with the state income tax, which is 10.9% for the top bracket, the increase would cement the city’s position as having the highest taxes on top earners in the country.

It set off a chorus of warnings about the tax flight of the city’s wealthiest residents.

Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman claimed that both the city’s businesses and wealthy residents “have already started making arrangements for the exits.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul echoed the concern, opposing the proposal “because we cannot have them leave the state.” Before the election, Mamdani’s opponent, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, joked that if Mamdani won, “even I will move to Florida.”

I research whether high earners actually move when their taxes go up. My colleagues and I have analyzed millionaire taxes in New Jersey and California, the migration of Forbes billionaires globally and decades of IRS data tracing where Americans with million-dollar incomes live.

Top earners are often thought of as “mobile millionaires” who are ever searching for lower-tax places to live. In reality, they’re often reluctant to leave the places where they built their careers and raised their families.

At the same time, there are grains of truth in the tax migration arguments, so it’s important to carefully parse the evidence.

A small fraction of a small fraction

The first fact is simple: Millionaires have low migration rates.

Mobility in America is highest among people who are still searching for their economic place in life. Workers who earn the lowest wages move across state lines at relatively high rates, about 4.5% per year, often in search of more affordable housing. People making $1 million-plus a year move only half as often: Just 2.4% of them pack up each year.

When millionaires do move, it rarely appears to be for tax reasons. For example, Florida is the top destination for New York movers in general. But among the richest 1% of New Yorkers, the top destination is Connecticut, followed by New Jersey and California, all three of which levy a millionaire tax.

Some millionaires certainly do favor lower-tax destinations. But many moves to low-tax states are offset by moves in the opposite direction to higher-tax states, and many other moves take place between states that have the same tax rate.

Overall, only about 15% of millionaires who move end up with a lower tax bill. That shows the rich are willing and able to move for tax reasons. But because only about 2.4% of millionaires move each year – and only a fraction of those moves reduce their taxes – overall tax migration ends up being a small fraction of a small fraction. Not never, but not often.

Some benefits don’t have a dollar sign

Migration is mostly a young person’s game.

The most mobile Americans are recent college graduates who are brimming with potential, searching for work and unburdened by major responsibilities. Their rate of migration from one state to another is over 12%, more than four times the rate of millionaires.

The typical adult mover is about 30 years old, while the highest income earners are typically about 50. People choose where to build their careers and families decades before they reach their peak earnings phase.

By the time someone earns enough to be taxed in the highest brackets, they’re usually late into their careers. They are almost always married, often have children at home, own their homes and, in many cases, own a business. Their social lives and their economic success are linked to local networks of colleagues, clients and connections built up over a long career. Moving away from those networks means giving up a great deal of social capital and starting over somewhere new.

Top earners know that some states have lower taxes, but for most, tax flight is simply a bad deal. The social and economic costs of uprooting are bigger than the tax savings.

When your social world collapses

Two recent events showed why the rich generally stay where they are – and what it takes to move them.

The first was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law in late 2017. The tax reform package capped the federal deduction for state and local taxes and raised taxes on high earners in states like New York, New Jersey and California. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “So Long, California. Sayonara, New York,” economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore predicted that 800,000 people a year would flee those states.

They didn’t. A colleague and I studied every millionaire tax return in the country for two years before and after the reform. Nothing happened. There was no increase in migration out of the states where tax burdens rose. The predicted exodus simply did not occur.

We were about to wrap up the study and call it case closed. Then something unexpected did happen: In early 2020, millionaires began leaving high-tax states in large numbers. Low-tax states saw no comparable outflows. The pattern matched those tax-flight predictions from just a few years earlier.

It was the COVID-19 pandemic, and it brought a profound shock to the social lives of city residents.

Offices emptied out, with entry swipes in major cities dropping by nearly 90%. Time spent at work fell sharply, local amenities were shuttered, and time spent alone grew as in-person contact became a health risk. K–12 schools closed, disrupting children’s relationships with teachers and classmates.

For many households, this was also a strange form of freedom, and a chance to rethink the geography of work and life, especially for top earners who could work remotely from anywhere. Disconnected from the bonds of place, top earners moved and clearly favored low-tax destinations.

The lesson is that social lives and economic policies are deeply intertwined. The 2017 tax reform had no effect on migration because the social cost of moving is high – especially for people at the peak of their careers who are enjoying the many social benefits of economic success. As long as those connections to others are strong, they outweigh the appeal of moving to lower-tax states.

When the pandemic broke apart so much of social life, the ledger shifted. If your office, school, friendships and daily routines no longer anchor you in place, what is keeping you in a high-tax place?

But by early 2023, as social and economic life returned to normal, we found that millionaire migration patterns mostly reverted to their prepandemic baselines.

In other words, the surge in tax flight was temporary.

If you want the rich, appeal to the young

There is a big lesson here for state and city policies.

Every place wants to attract high-income earners and the spending power and tax dollars that accompany their salaries. Many policymakers think that tax cuts will lure them in, but this is mostly a fool’s errand. In normal times, the rich are deeply rooted and not movable.

The real opportunity lies in attracting and retaining the next generation of top earners – young people who are unattached to place and looking for opportunities to build their careers and their lives. Places that draw young professionals build the pipeline of future top earners.

Those early-career folks are mobile, but they are not thinking about the top tax rate. Their salaries are low. They are trying to find good jobs, pay the rent, form relationships and start families. They hope to be successful enough to one day be paying Mamdani’s millionaire tax. For the time being, though, they need the basic costs of living to be manageable. Soon they will need affordable child care and good public schools for their kids.

If the city helps them that far along, many of them would gladly pay a millionaire tax when and if the time comes. In this light, the Mamdani plan is simply practical: Higher taxes at the top support the services and quality of life that keep the next generation in the city.

Cristobal Young received funding from the Russell Sage Foundation and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth in support of this research project.

– ref. New York’s wealthy warn of a tax exodus after Mamdani’s win – but the data says otherwise – https://theconversation.com/new-yorks-wealthy-warn-of-a-tax-exodus-after-mamdanis-win-but-the-data-says-otherwise-270415