Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Daily Wire: Teenage Literacy Is As Bad As It Was In The 1970s. What's Going On?
NEW YORK, June 17 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on June 16, 2026, by adjunct fellow Jennifer Weber to the Daily Wire:
* * *
Teenage Literacy Is As Bad As It Was In The 1970s. What's Going On?
Technology and COVID hurt, but they're not the main problem.
-
American 13-year-olds read no better than teenagers in 1971.
That is the conclusion of the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) long-term trend exam, the only national test the federal government has administered in the same form for more than half a century.
After decades of
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, June 17 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on June 16, 2026, by adjunct fellow Jennifer Weber to the Daily Wire:
* * *
Teenage Literacy Is As Bad As It Was In The 1970s. What's Going On?
Technology and COVID hurt, but they're not the main problem.
-
American 13-year-olds read no better than teenagers in 1971.
That is the conclusion of the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) long-term trend exam, the only national test the federal government has administered in the same form for more than half a century.
After decades ofreform efforts, new technologies, and a more-than-doubling of inflation-adjusted spending per student, our students are no better off.
Many will blame COVID-19. That was the dominant explanation when the last round of long-term trend results was released in 2022 and 2023. NAEP even saw fit to put it in the title: "Reading and mathematics scores decline during the COVID-19 pandemic."
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Daily Wire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/teenage-literacy-is-as-bad-as-it-was-in-the-1970s-whats-going-on?author=Jennifer+Weber&category=News&elementPosition=undefined&row=0&rowType=Vertical+List&title=Teenage+Literacy+Is+As+Bad+As+It+Was+In+The+1970s.+What%E2%80%99s+Going+On%3F)
* * *
Jennifer Weber is an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/teenage-literacy-is-as-bad-as-it-was-in-the-1970s-whats-going-on
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Washington Examiner: Russia's Missile Massacre: The West Must Flood Ukraine With Patriot Interceptors Before Winter
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on June 15, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to the Washington Examiner:
* * *
Russia's Missile Massacre: The West Must Flood Ukraine with Patriot Interceptors Before Winter
Last week, Russia launched the largest airstrikes of the war so far, using hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles to strike targets across Ukraine. Civilian targets seem to be Moscow's preference. Sometimes, Russians will even strike a residential
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on June 15, 2026, by senior fellow Luke Coffey to the Washington Examiner:
* * *
Russia's Missile Massacre: The West Must Flood Ukraine with Patriot Interceptors Before Winter
Last week, Russia launched the largest airstrikes of the war so far, using hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles to strike targets across Ukraine. Civilian targets seem to be Moscow's preference. Sometimes, Russians will even strike a residentialbuilding, wait a few hours for first responders to arrive, and then purposely strike the same location again.
This savage way of war, first perfected by Russia against the people of Grozny in the 1990s, and later refined with its atrocities in Bucha, is now being delivered from the skies against Ukrainian civilians.
Surprisingly, the large number of drones is not the main problem. Ukrainian innovation and creativity have allowed it to develop counter-drone systems unmatched globally. Even the U.S. military is now relying on Ukrainian technology to defend against Iranian drones in the Middle East. And when it comes to Russia's slower but still deadly cruise missiles, the F-16s provided by Ukraine's partners can get the job done.
The bigger threat comes from ballistic and hypersonic missiles, against which there is only one combat-proven defense: the PAC-3 interceptor missile fired from the MIM-104 Patriot air defense system.
I have just returned from Odesa, a city under daily attack. Speaking to me on the condition of anonymity, senior officials suggested that Ukraine's stockpiles of PAC-3 interceptors are critically low. Reading between the lines: Ukraine is out. This means Russia's stocks of ballistic, aeroballistic, and hypersonic missiles such as the Iskander-M, Kinzhal, and Zircon, respectively, can be used with impunity. If the situation seems bad now, wait until next winter when electrical grids and heating systems are under constant attack in freezing temperatures.
But the situation does not have to be this way. While there is an immediate need for these interceptors by the United States and its partners in the Persian Gulf to counter the Iranian threat, there are still meaningful steps that can be taken to help Ukraine.
First, Europe needs to empty its warehouses. There are multiple countries across Europe that face no immediate air threat and have different variants of PAC-3 interceptors collecting dust. These weapons are of no use to the overall security of the trans-Atlantic community sitting in storage. Instead, they should be transferred to Ukraine immediately.
For some countries, especially in Eastern Europe, such a move will be politically difficult. But for any country seriously worried about the air threat posed by Russia, surely the best place to counter it is over the skies of Ukraine now, not over Western European Skies later.
Second, some European countries have ordered PAC-3 interceptors and are waiting to take delivery. These countries should allow Ukraine to take their spot in the order queue. Spain is a good example. Considering the current threat environment, waiting a little longer for Patriot interceptors is a reasonable sacrifice for Madrid to make. With Ukrainians fighting for their survival now, they do not enjoy the same luxury of time.
Third, the U.S. and Europe need to work together to crack down on Western-made components that keep finding their way into the manufacturing of Russian ballistic missiles. It is estimated that Russia can produce three ballistic missiles a day, which helps explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin can carry out a large-scale attack about every seven to 10 days.
More than four years into this conflict, it is inexcusable that Russia can still evade sanctions and Western parts are still found in the debris of Russian missiles.
Finally, the U.S. should license Ukraine to manufacture the PAC-3 interceptor in-country. The Ukrainians asked the Biden administration for permission but were refused. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently asked the Trump administration for the same thing, and the president should say yes.
Today, the U.S. can only produce roughly 50 PAC-3 interceptors per month. That is nowhere near enough to meet the demands of America, Ukraine, and allies around the world.
Ukraine's defense industry has shown enormous capacity, even under wartime conditions. Allowing Ukrainians to manufacture these interceptors would scale up production, give Ukraine what it needs to defend its skies, and make more interceptors available to the U.S. and its allies.
For the first time in almost two years, Ukraine is on the front foot on the battlefield. Its long-range strikes are crippling Russia's oil production. Its medium-range strikes are crippling Russian logistics. Slowly but surely, Ukraine has been taking back territory. But in response, Russia is striking Ukraine where it is most vulnerable: its civilian population.
Now is the time for Ukraine's partners to be decisive and demonstrate political courage, creativity, and action. They can make a major difference -- and possibly even make history -- by giving Ukraine a critical capability it needs at one of the most crucial points in the conflict.
Read in the Washington Examiner (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/4606938/russia-missiles-ukraine-patriot-interceptors/).
* * *
At A Glance:
Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/missile-defense/russias-missile-massacre-west-must-flood-ukraine-patriot-interceptors-winter-luke-coffey
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Wall Street Journal: Trump, Cynicism, and the Deal
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on June 15, 2026, by Walter Russell Mead, Ravenel B. Curry III distinguished fellow in strategy and statesmanship, to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
Trump, Cynicism, and the Deal
The Iran negotiation demonstrates both his strengths and his weaknesses.
-
The great Iran deal is here, President Trump has declared.
Big if true, as they say on the internet. The agreement was announced and, according to Vice President JD Vance,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on June 15, 2026, by Walter Russell Mead, Ravenel B. Curry III distinguished fellow in strategy and statesmanship, to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
Trump, Cynicism, and the Deal
The Iran negotiation demonstrates both his strengths and his weaknesses.
-
The great Iran deal is here, President Trump has declared.
Big if true, as they say on the internet. The agreement was announced and, according to Vice President JD Vance,"digitally" signed on Sunday, but the formal signing is scheduled for Friday.
The text hasn't been released, and Iranian and American officials describe its contents differently. The underlying issue--Iran's drive for regional hegemony and the American determination to block it--remains unresolved.
If anything Tehran appears more eager than before to assert control over its neighbors and the flow of oil from the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, which has its own war proceeding in Lebanon, wasn't part of the negotiations.
The fate of Mr. Trump's latest attempt to contain the political and economic fallout from the Iran war without openly abandoning his key objectives will become clear with time.
Read the full article in the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-cynicism-and-the-deal-00cfce74).
* * *
At A Glance:
Walter Russell Mead is the Ravenel B. Curry III distinguished fellow in strategy and statesmanship at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/politics-government/trump-cynicism-deal-walter-russell-mead
[Category: ThinkTank]
Heritage Foundation Names Brian Phillips as Vice President of Communications
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on June 15, 2026:
* * *
The Heritage Foundation Names Brian Phillips as Vice President of Communications
The Heritage Foundation today announced that Brian Phillips will join the organization as Vice President of Communications, leading Heritage's media and public relations, digital content and production, marketing, and creative services.
Phillips brings significant experience helping policymakers, candidates, and public policy organizations communicate complex ideas to broad audiences. He is returning to Heritage
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The Heritage Foundation issued the following news release on June 15, 2026:
* * *
The Heritage Foundation Names Brian Phillips as Vice President of Communications
The Heritage Foundation today announced that Brian Phillips will join the organization as Vice President of Communications, leading Heritage's media and public relations, digital content and production, marketing, and creative services.
Phillips brings significant experience helping policymakers, candidates, and public policy organizations communicate complex ideas to broad audiences. He is returning to Heritageafter beginning his career on Heritage's Media Relations team more than 20 years ago.
Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts welcomed Phillips, stating:
"Brian is one of the most effective communicators in the conservative movement. He understands how to connect timeless conservative principles with the issues Americans care about most. Brian's experience and commitment to our mission will strengthen Heritage's ability to reach new audiences, elevate our scholars, and advance policies that expand freedom, opportunity, and prosperity. Having worked with Brian, I have seen his professional acumen firsthand, so I know that everyone at Heritage - and the conservative movement - will benefit from his expertise."
Phillips joins Heritage from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, where he served as Chief Communications Officer and helped elevate the organization's influence on major state and national policy debates. Prior to that, Phillips was Director of Rapid Response for Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential campaign and previously served as Communications Director for Sen. Mike Lee.
Brian Phillips remarked on his new role:
"The Heritage Foundation plays a defining role in shaping the conservative movement - as it has for more than five decades. Heading into a consequential year for the country, Heritage remains at the center of the policies and ideas that will shape America's future. I'm excited to join this talented team and help ensure Heritage's work reaches the audiences and decision-makers who can turn ideas into action."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.heritage.org/press/the-heritage-foundation-names-brian-phillips-vice-president-communications
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Analysis Justifying Trump Administration's Medicaid Work Requirement Rule Is Deeply Flawed
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following research note by Gideon Lukens, director of research and data analysis at the Health Policy Team:
* * *
Analysis Justifying Trump Administration's Medicaid Work Requirement Rule Is Deeply Flawed
The 2025 reconciliation law instituted a harmful policy taking Medicaid coverage away from people not meeting a harsh work requirement, and the Trump Administration recently finalized a rule that will make the policy even more harmful./[1] In particular, the new rule makes it harder for people to qualify for an exemption
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following research note by Gideon Lukens, director of research and data analysis at the Health Policy Team:
* * *
Analysis Justifying Trump Administration's Medicaid Work Requirement Rule Is Deeply Flawed
The 2025 reconciliation law instituted a harmful policy taking Medicaid coverage away from people not meeting a harsh work requirement, and the Trump Administration recently finalized a rule that will make the policy even more harmful./[1] In particular, the new rule makes it harder for people to qualify for an exemptionfrom the work requirement due to medical frailty, which includes: blindness or disability; substance use disorder; disabling mental disorder; physical, intellectual, or developmental disability that significantly impairs a person's ability to perform one or more activities of daily living; and serious or complex medication condition. As a result, people with these conditions will likely experience significantly more coverage loss./[2]
Major federal rules require a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) to help policymakers and the public understand the benefits and costs of the rule and determine whether the benefits are likely to justify the costs. The RIA for the Medicaid work requirement rule is deeply flawed: it greatly inflates the benefits of the rule while ignoring most of the costs.
The Analysis Ignores Impacts of Coverage Loss and Disregards Research and Evidence
Three peer-reviewed studies found that Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas had no impacts on employment or hours worked but led to large-scale disenrollment and increased uninsurance.
The RIA ignores societal costs of taking away Medicaid coverage. Without health coverage, people are more likely to die, be in poorer health, and accumulate medical debt./[3] Omitting the impacts of coverage loss, which are large and strongly supported by the research literature, is indefensible and runs counter to federal guidance for regulatory analysis./[4]
The RIA ignores all studies assessing the impact of Medicaid work requirements. There are three peer-reviewed studies analyzing the impacts of Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas, the only state to follow through with taking coverage away from people who didn't meet the harsh requirements, disenrolling 1 in 4 enrollees subject to them./[5] The studies found that Medicaid work requirements had no impacts on employment or hours worked but led to large-scale disenrollment and increased uninsurance. Rates of coverage loss were similar in other states that attempted Medicaid work requirement policies. New Hampshire halted its policy after being on the verge of disenrolling about 1 in 3 Medicaid expansion enrollees, implying an even higher rate of coverage loss than in Arkansas./[6] Similarly, Michigan was set to disenroll nearly 1 in 3 enrollees subject to its requirement before its program was blocked by a court ruling./[7] Instead of engaging with the evidence, the RIA states, "We have not relied on these previous demonstrations for data or assumptions used in this analysis." It's striking that an RIA for the Medicaid work requirement would ignore studies of Medicaid work requirements.
The RIA assumes the work requirement will increase employment and result in low disenrollment, contrary to evidence. The research on Medicaid work requirements finds no impact on employment and much higher rates of disenrollment than assumed in the RIA. The RIA's estimate of net Medicaid coverage loss of 3.3 million people in 2034 is far below the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of about 5.7 million, in large part because CBO incorporates the relevant research and data that the RIA ignores./[8]
Analytically Unsound Assumptions Drive RIA Results
In addition to the obvious flaws discussed above, the RIA relies on assumptions that are weakly supported, arbitrary, or unrealistic. These assumptions are complex and technical but important drivers of the RIA's results.
The RIA assigns implausibly large net social benefits to employment. The RIA assumes that the societal benefits and costs of the Medicaid work requirement derive overwhelmingly from the impact on employment and other forms of community engagement (e.g., volunteering, education). The RIA values the time benefit of work as the additional output of the work done by people subject to the requirement (the marginal product of labor), which it estimates by using their assumed pre-tax compensation of $25 per hour as a proxy.
But it values the time cost of the work requirement using a different approach: a person's net private return to working, or the wage a person requires to choose to work. The RIA approximates this amount using a Trump Administration estimate of the economy-wide average effective marginal tax rate/[9] and subtracts $12 per hour of purported taxes and transfers from its assumed $25 per hour rate of pre-tax compensation. The result is an estimated $13 per hour time cost of work, only about half of the $25 per hour estimated time benefit.
The RIA counts the entire $12 per hour gap between the two approaches as a net social benefit, an assumption that is inconsistent with federal guidelines and best practice for benefit-cost analysis, which call for careful examination of the affected population's employment decisions and market conditions./[10] Treating the full gap as a net social benefit is also an extreme assumption given economic research showing that such gaps can arise for many reasons./[11]
Even aside from the RIA's thin conceptual basis, the calculated gap is more than double what it should be, according to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates of population-specific effective marginal tax rates for a population similar to the one subject to the work requirement (i.e., low-income households, mostly without children)./[12]
The RIA is even weaker in its valuation of non-work activities such as volunteering and education. It assumes the same inflated net benefit of $12 per hour as it did for its valuation of work, even though the conceptual basis for such a valuation does not apply. For example, the value of volunteer time depends on the volunteer activities and whether the person derives satisfaction from them, while the value of education depends on the type of education and impacts on earnings./[13]
The RIA overestimates "human capital" benefits of employment, such as work knowledge and relationships, for former Medicaid enrollees who it assumes become employed and remain working after they are no longer enrolled. The RIA bases its estimate on a study of a 1990s Canadian policy that offered extra income for people who chose to take up full-time work, a policy that is poorly suited for understanding the Medicaid work requirement, which will block or take away health coverage from people not working (or participating in other qualified activities) at least 80 hours per month./[14]
The Canadian study itself stated that due to the policy's unusual design, a more fulsome model is needed to evaluate "even minor variants" of an income subsidy program (much less a completely different policy like the Medicaid work requirement). Moreover, the study showed benefits falling rapidly after 15 months and having "no lasting impact." But the RIA's assumptions imply that benefits persist well beyond what was found in the Canadian study. Finally, the RIA combines its overestimates of human capital benefits derived from the Canadian study with a largely arbitrary assumption about how many former Medicaid enrollees would benefit.
The RIA inflates budgetary savings by unrealistically assuming immediate, fully phased-in impacts. This assumption is inconsistent with the policy design of the work requirement and runs counter to state experience and research./[15] By assuming immediate, fully phased-in impacts, the RIA overestimates cumulative ten-year budgetary savings without increasing its maximum annual estimate of coverage loss.
* * *
Gideon Lukens is Senior Fellow and Director of Research and Data Analysis on the Health Policy team, where he works on Medicaid, health insurance exchanges, and other policy issues.
* * *
End Notes
[1] Interim final rule text available at Federal Register, "Medicaid Program: Community Engagement Requirement for Certain Individuals," Vol. 91, No. 106, June 3, 2026, https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2026-11094/medicaid-program-community-engagement-requirement-for-certain-individuals; Jennifer Wagner and Allison Orris, "Administration's Last-Minute Restrictions Likely to Worsen Impact of Medicaid Work Requirement," CBPP, June 3, 2026, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/administrations-last-minute-restrictions-likely-to-worsen-impact-of-medicaid-work.
[2] Wagner and Orris, 2026.
[3] Angela Wyse and Bruce Meyer, "Saved by Medicaid: New Evidence on Health Insurance and Mortality from the Universe of Low-Income Adults," NBER Working Paper 33719, May 2025, https://www.nber.org/papers/w33719; Sarah Miller, Norman Johnson, and Laura Wherry, "Medicaid and Mortality: New Evidence from Linked Survey and Administrative Data," Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 135, Issue 3, January 30, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab004; Melissa McInerney et al., "ACA Medicaid Expansion Associated With Increased Medicaid Participation and Improved Health Among Near-Elderly: Evidence From the Health and Retirement Study," Inquiry, July 28, 2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7388087/; Luojia Hu et al., "The Effect of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansions on Financial Wellbeing," Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 163, May 7, 2018, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6208351/.
[4] Office of Management and Budget (OMB), "Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis," September 17, 2003, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CircularA-4.pdf.
[5] Anuj Gangopadhyaya and Michael Karpman, "The Impact of Arkansas Medicaid Work Requirements on Coverage and Employment: Estimating Effects Using National Survey Data," Health Services Research, Vol. 60, Issue 5, October 2025, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14624; Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel, "States' Experience Confirm Harmful Effects of Medicaid Work Requirements," CBPP, updated November 18, 2020, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/states-experiences-confirm-harmful-effects-of-medicaid-work-requirements; Benjamin Sommers et al., "Medicaid Work Requirements In Arkansas: Two-Year Impacts On Coverage, Employment, and Affordability of Care," Health Affairs, Vol. 39, No. 9, September 8, 2020, https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00538; Benjamin Sommes et al., "Medicaid Work Requirements - Results from the First Year in Arkansas," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 381, No. 11, June 19, 2019, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1901772.
[6] Michael Karpman, Jennifer Haley, and Genevieve Kenney, "Assessing Potential Coverage Losses Among Medicaid Expansion Enrollees Under a Federal Medicaid Work Requirement," Urban Institute, March 17, 2025, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/assessing-potential-coverage-losses-among-medicaid-expansion-enrollees-under; Ian Hill, Emily Burroughs, and Gina Adams, "New Hampshire's Experience with Medicaid Work Requirements: New Strategies, Similar Results," Urban Institute, February 10, 2020, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/new-hampshires-experiences-medicaid-work-requirements-new-strategies-similar-results.
[7] Wagner and Schubel, 2020.
[8] CBO, 2025.
[9] The estimated effective marginal tax rate includes both taxes and government benefits that are forgone when income increases. White House Council of Economic Advisers, "Economic Report of the President," March 2019, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ERP-2019/pdf/ERP-2019.pdf.
[10] Robert Haveman and David Weimer, "Public Policy Induced Changes in Employment: Valuation Issues for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Vol. 6, Issue 1, April 22, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2015.5; OMB, 2003.
[11] Lini Zhang, "Credit Crunches, Individual Heterogeneity and the Labor Wedge," Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 56, June 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2018.01.002; Patrick Kehoe, Virgiliu Midrigan, and Elena Pastorino, "Debt Constraints and the Labor Wedge," American Economic Review, Vol 106, No. 5, May 2016, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20161088; Anton Cheremukhin and Paulina Restrepo-Echavarria, "The Labor Wedge as a Matching Friction," Vol. 68, May 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.02.008; Loukas Karabarbounis, "The Labor Wedge: MRS vs. MPN," Review of Economic Dynamics, Vol. 17, Issue 2, April 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2013.07.003.
[12] The Trump Administration estimate that underlies the RIA's effective marginal tax rate is a single economy-wide value. The HHS estimates, which are not used for the RIA, are more relevant because they are derived from a population similar to people who will be subject to the work requirement. Nina Chien and Suzanne Macartney, "What Happens When People Increase Their Earnings? Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low-Income Households," Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation (ASPE), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, March 2019, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/aspe-files/260661/brief2-overviewmtranalyses.pdf.
[13] Aidan Vining and David Weimer, "An Assessment of Important Issues Concerning the Application of Benefit-Cost Analysis to Social Policy," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Vol. 1, Issue 1, January 19, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2202/2152-2812.1013.
[14] David Card and Dean Hyslop, "Estimating the Effects of a Time-Limited Earnings Subsidy for Welfare-Leavers," Econometrica, Vol. 73, Issue 6, October 11, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00637.x.
[15] Matthew Fiedler, "How Would Implementing an Arkansas-Style Work Requirement Affect Medicaid Enrollment?" April 30, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-would-implementing-an-arkansas-style-work-requirement-affect-medicaid-enrollment/.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/analysis-justifying-trump-administrations-medicaid-work-requirement-rule-is-deeply
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues Commentary: Enemies of Energy - Fracking and Natural Gas
WASHINGTON, June 17 (TNSrpt) -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on June 16, 2026, by Managing Editor and Director of Content Ken Braun:
* * *
Enemies of Energy: Fracking and natural gas
The American transition from coal to natural gas in electricity production since 2000 has cancelled out the combined annual CO2 emissions from Germany and France, two of the planet's biggest economic engines.
Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from the "Myths and Misconceptions" section of Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center.
* *
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 17 (TNSrpt) -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on June 16, 2026, by Managing Editor and Director of Content Ken Braun:
* * *
Enemies of Energy: Fracking and natural gas
The American transition from coal to natural gas in electricity production since 2000 has cancelled out the combined annual CO2 emissions from Germany and France, two of the planet's biggest economic engines.
Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from the "Myths and Misconceptions" section of Enemies of Energy, a research report created for the Capital Research Center.
* **
The anti-energy NGOs all oppose the expansion of natural gas production and use. For example, a January 2024 news release from Greenpeace referred to the USA's liquified natural gas terminals as "climate Death Stars that will decimate both local communities and our planet."/[i]
The American left was not always so hostile to natural gas.
Ramparts, for example, was a stridently left-wing, often communist-sympathizing glossy magazine that was published from the early 1960s through 1975. But for the October 1973 issue, Ramparts environmental reporter James Ridgeway wrote the following: "In the late 1960s there was a particularly keen demand for the clean burning natural gas because of air pollution in big metropolitan areas." [emphasis added]/[ii]
Ridgeway was correct. Natural gas was then and remains today a far cleaner fuel than any other hydrocarbon.
A 2010 report in Scientific American stated that when natural gas is used to fuel a power plant it "emits about half of the carbon dioxide emissions as conventional coal plants." This assertion is confirmed by multiple reports from the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency (EIA). In June 2021 the EIA posted an analysis with this headline: "Electric power sector CO2 emissions drop as generation mix shifts from coal to natural gas."
/[iii]/[iv]/[v]
That's putting it mildly.
Since 2000, hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), combined with advanced geological mapping has turned the United States into the world's top natural gas producer. The International Energy Agency (IEA) credited the USA with more than 25 percent of the world's natural gas output in 2023. This was more than the combined gas production of second place Russia and third place Iran./[vi]
Of course, this also made America the undisputed top producer of CO2 emissions from natural gas. But remember the trade-off: replacing kilowatts from coal with cleaner-burning gas kilowatts means a dramatic cut in overall carbon dioxide emissions./[vii]
In 2000, natural gas was the clear third-place fuel for American electricity generation, contributing just 16.2 percent of the total. Coal was the undisputed champion, fueling 51.7 percent of total electricity production. By 2024, the two hydrocarbons had traded places: natural gas had been developed into the top fuel, at 42.6 percent of total electricity production, and coal had fallen to third place at 14.9 percent./[viii]
The impact on CO2 emissions was just as striking.
According to Our World in Data, USA carbon dioxide emissions in 2024 equaled 4.9 billion tonnes, a big drop from the 6.02 million tonnes of CO2 produced by the American economy in 2000. Because of the transition from coal to gas, CO2 emissions from gas in 2024 were 520 million tonnes higher, but coal emissions were 1.39 billion tonnes lower./[ix]
* * *
The net annual reduction from the coal-to-gas switch (867 million tonnes) accounted for more than 77 percent of the drop in CO2 emissions in 2024 as compared to 2000./[x]
To put that number in perspective, in 2024 Germany's total CO2 emissions amounted to only 572.32 million tonnes. Similarly, France's total 2024 CO2 emissions equaled 264.16 million tonnes. And that's not just gas and coal emissions (as in the American example) but gasoline, jet fuel, and everything else that drove the German and French economies in 2024./[xi]
Germany and France are the world's third and seventh largest economies. So, just the American transition from coal to natural gas in electricity production since 2000 has cancelled out the combined annual CO2 emissions from two of the planet's biggest economic engines.
And then there's the world's second largest economy--China.
Our World in Data statistics show CO2 emissions from Chinese coal burning jumped by 890 million annual tonnes between 2021 and 2024. This wiped out all of the CO2 emissions savings the Americans made from the coal-to-gas switch. And in January 2026 the Financial Times reported that China will open more than 100 new coal-fired power plants during the year./[xii]/[xiii]
* * *
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine.
* * *
Endnotes
[i] Nelson, Katie. "In a huge win for Gulf Coast communities, Biden administration delays approval of "Climate Death Star" LNG Facilities." Greenpeace. January 26, 2024. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/in-a-huge-win-for-gulf-coast-communities-biden-administration-delays-approval-of-climate-death-star-lng-facilities/
[ii] Ridgeway, James. "Notes on the Energy Crisis." Ramparts. October 1973.
[iii] Kirkland, Joel (ClimateWire). "Natural Gas Could Serve as 'Bridge' Fuel to Low-Carbon Future." Scientific American. June 25, 2010. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/natural-gas-could-serve-as-bridge-fuel-to-low-carbon-future/
[iv] "Environment: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients." Energy Information Agency | U.S. Department of Energy. September 18, 2024. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
[v] "Electric power sector CO2 emissions drop as generation mix shifts from coal to natural gas." Energy Information Agency | U.S. Department of Energy. June 9, 2021. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48296#
[vi] "World | Natural Gas Supply." International Energy Agency. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://www.iea.org/world/natural-gas
[vii] "World | Natural Gas Supply." International Energy Agency. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://www.iea.org/world/natural-gas
[viii] Ritchie, Hannah; and Pablo Rosado. "Electricity Mix." Our World in Data. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
[ix] Ritchie, Hannah; Pablo Rosado, and Max Roser. "CO2 emissions by fuel." Our World in Data. Accessed January 15, 2026. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-fuel
[x] Ritchie, Hannah; Pablo Rosado, and Max Roser. "CO2 emissions by fuel." Our World in Data. Accessed January 15, 2026. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-fuel
[xi] Ritchie, Hannah; Pablo Rosado, and Max Roser. "CO2 emissions by fuel." Our World in Data. Accessed January 15, 2026. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-fuel
[xii] Ritchie, Hannah; Pablo Rosado, and Max Roser. "CO2 emissions by fuel." Our World in Data. Accessed January 15, 2026. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-fuel
[xiii] Millard, Rachel. "China pushes coal-fired power projects alongside renewables." January 15, 2026. Accessed January 15, 2026. Accessed January 15, 2026. https://www.ft.com/content/103a731c-91cc-45bc-8769-ee4cadf3ce40
* * *
REPORT: https://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/FINAL-PDF_CRC_EnemiesofEnergy.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/enemies-of-energy-fracking-and-natural-gas/
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI-NM: LFC Report Shows State's SNAP Failures Could Cost Taxpayers Up to $173 Million a Year
WASHINGTON, June 17 (TNSxrep) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on June 16, 2026:
* * *
AFPI-NM: LFC Report Shows State's SNAP Failures Could Cost Taxpayers Up to $173 Million a Year
Santa Fe, NM -- The America First Policy Institute's (AFPI) New Mexico state chapter released the following statement from New Mexico Executive Director Vincent Torres after the Legislative Finance Committee released its program evaluation on the state's administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):
"Today's evaluation confirms that New Mexico's administration
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 17 (TNSxrep) -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on June 16, 2026:
* * *
AFPI-NM: LFC Report Shows State's SNAP Failures Could Cost Taxpayers Up to $173 Million a Year
Santa Fe, NM -- The America First Policy Institute's (AFPI) New Mexico state chapter released the following statement from New Mexico Executive Director Vincent Torres after the Legislative Finance Committee released its program evaluation on the state's administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):
"Today's evaluation confirms that New Mexico's administrationof SNAP is failing and can no longer go unaddressed. The state's payment error rate has climbed to 14.6 percent -- among the highest in the nation -- and now threatens to cost taxpayers up to $173 million a year, money that should go to education, public safety, and health care.
As the report makes clear, these errors come from the state's own processing mistakes and program administration choices, not from caseloads or underfunding.
AFPI-New Mexico supports commonsense reforms, as well as closing the Broad Based Categorical Eligibility loophole, to strengthen oversight, verify eligibility data, and protect both taxpayer dollars and the safety net for the New Mexicans who need it most."
Learn more about AFPI New Mexico here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/state-chapter/america-first-new-mexico).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpinm-lfc-report-shows-states-snap-failures-could-cost-taxpayers-up-to-173-million-a-year
[Category: ThinkTank]
