Latest news with #ManhattanInstitute
USA Today
2 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump is right: DC has a crime problem. But he's not the one to fix it.
Trump is right on one thing: America deserves a safe capital. And Washington, DC, is far from being a safe city. President Donald Trump says he will take new actions to curb the crime problems in Washington, DC. Trump and other officials have announced plans for him to take control of the Metropolitan Police Department, deploy National Guard troops and ramp up federal law enforcement in the nation's capital. While I understand the public concern about Trump expanding his power beyond Washington, the District of Columbia is distinct from other cities governed by states, and the federal government has a unique role to play in its governance. And I'm inclined to agree with Trump's broader points about crime and safety in Washington. Trump is right on one thing: America deserves a safe capital. Although it's improving in terms of its crime problem, it is still far from being a safe city. While crime in the district is falling from its post-pandemic peak, and violent crime is even at a 30-year low, the violent crime rate in Washington remains relatively high compared with other states, and the homicide rate is atypically high. Tell us: In the wake of Trump's federal DC takeover, are you worried about crime? | Opinion Forum Americans deserve a safe capital city. DC could be safer. Part of the problem is that many crimes are less often prosecuted in Washington. Even crimes involving weapons are charged at a rate substantially below those of other major cities. Similarly, the district has become less likely to prosecute minors and young adults, according to the Manhattan Institute, a right-wing think tank. Still, Trump is definitely exaggerating the crime problem to give a pretext for his latest actions, and he will likely end up taking credit for declining crime rates that have already begun to take effect. But that doesn't mean his idea of a crime-free Washington is wrong. I don't think the Trump administration is all that much more capable of running the nation's capital than the city leadership is, but I don't find it offensive that White House officials would try their hand at it. Opinion: Supreme Court could end race-based voting districts. Good. They're antiquated. Nor is Washington just another city. It does mean something to be the nation's capital, and representatives of foreign nations who visit are not seeing America's best when they come there. The home of our federal government has no business being among the most dangerous cities in the nation. Trump's push is more about optics than safety While Trump's message is right, his push to ramp up federal law enforcement in Washington is more about optics than meaningfully reducing crime. Having uniformed Drug Enforcement Administration agents patrolling the National Mall and flooding the streets with 800 National Guard personnel sounds great in theory, but Washington's violent crime is concentrated in areas away from the Mall. It's all for show. Trump can also only take control of the local police force for up to 30 days before needing congressional approval. What he can actually accomplish over the course of a month remains to be seen, but I am skeptical of his ability to enact any lasting change in the coming weeks. Temporary supplements from federal law enforcement and the National Guard could even help in the short term, but the problem of more than 800 police officer positions needing to be filled will remain even after those 30 days are up. And what about filling the 15 vacancies on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which handles the city's criminal cases? In the end, Trump's increased control over Washington is likely to blow over as a typical optics play, with little show in terms of results. He's overstating the problem of crimes and trying to take credit for declines that have already been happening without his intervention. It's just more smoke and mirrors. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
New York Post
11 hours ago
- General
- New York Post
NYC students make gains in standardized tests — but 40% still failed reading and math
More than 40% of grammar school students in the city failed the state's standardized math and reading texts this year — but officials praised some gains in the results released Monday. More city public school in grades 3-8 passed the proficiency tests this year for English Language Arts and math than they did last year though critics contended those are small victories as the Big Apple's school spending tops $41 billion and the state's $36,293 per pupil tab is the highest in the nation. Some 56.3% of students met the proficiency standards for ELA, up 7.2-percentage points from the 49.1% who passed in 2024, according to the data. 3 More than 40% of New York City public elementary school students in grades 308 failed teh state's standardized math and reading tests this year. mehmet – Students making the grade in math bumped up 3.5-percentage points since 2024, from 53.4% to 56.9%, according to the figures. Both pass percentages outpaced the state average while city reading and math scores increased across all grades. The largest gains were in Grade 3, which saw ELA increase by 12.9 percentage points, and Grade 6, which jumped 15 points, the figures showed. 'It's a positive that everything got better,' said Danyela Souza, an education research fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a policy think tank. 'It seems there's real progress in reading, particularly in grades 3 and 5. That's huge gains we're seeing, She praised the phonics-knowledge based NYC Reads curriculum. But Souza said it's hard to tell if students have recovered from learning loss during the COVID-19 pandemic because the cut-off scores to pass have been lowered. 'It's easier now to pass than five years ago,' she said. 3 Mayor Adams said the progress is a result of the 'NYC Reads' and 'NYC Solves' programs. Stephen Yang for the New York Post The city's gains mirror the ELA proficiency pass rate for all grade 3-to-8 students statewide, which jumped from 46% to 53% over the past year. The pass rate for math increased from 52% to 55%, according to the numbers. Mayor Eric Adams, who is running for re-election this fall applauded the results, claiming the new phonics-based 'NYC Reads' programs and 'NYC Solves' math curriculum instituted during their tenure have contributed to student gains. 'These academic gains in English Language Arts and math are a testament to what's possible when we invest in our young people and believe in their potential, and we are proud of our students, teachers, and the entire school community,' Adams said. Schools Chancellor Aviles-Ramos said the results showed 'kids rise to the occasion' when administrators set high expectations and provide educators the proper tools. 'We are closing gaps, raising achievement in every borough, and making sure more students than ever are on track for long-term success,' Aviles-Ramos said. 'This is what happens when we stay focused on evidence-based instruction and never lose sight of what's possible for our young people.' But yawning racial/ethnic disparities in academic results persist. For example, 75% of Asian and 73% of white students were proficient in English, compared to 47% of black students and 43.5% of Hispanic students, according to the numbers. 3 NYC Schools Chancellor Melissa Aviles-Ramos said the results show that more students are on track for 'long-term success.' James Messerschmidt In math, 80.8% of Asian students and 75% of white students were proficient compared to 43% of both black and Hispanic students. Critics have also said it's difficult to determine where New York students stand compared to kids elsewhere. A better indicator may be results of the 'Nation's Report Card' — National Assessment of Educational Progress — which includes scores from students from all over the country. New York students performed dismally on those exams, with results released earlier this year showing two-thirds of fourth graders in the city weren't proficient in math or reading. A state Education Department spokesperson insisted 'no test is harder or easier to pass from year to year' and that the scaling method used is based on the difficulty of questions on a particular test.
New York Post
4 days ago
- New York Post
Teenage victims and criminals have increased since ‘raise the age' law passed
This year, New York City residents have been benefiting from historic declines in shootings and homicides, and from less-sharp, but still meaningful, decreases in other crime categories. However, Gotham's youth crime problem has stubbornly resisted the trend. Earlier this year, NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch told reporters that between 2018 and 2024, the number of juvenile shooters spiked by nearly 200% while the number of juvenile shooting victims jumped by more than 80%. Advertisement This week's fatal stabbing of 14-year-old Angel Mendoza provided yet another gruesome reminder of this difficult challenge. The ninth grader was brutally assaulted in a Bronx park by at least four teenage thugs, two of them minors, who allegedly pistol-whipped, beat, and then stabbed Mendoza to death — all of it recorded on video. The fatal stabbing, as with other recent incidents of fatal teen-on-teen violence leaves us asking why youth violence is on the rise during a citywide crime decline. Advertisement One possible answer lies in New York's 2017 'Raise The Age' law — signed by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who also closed multiple juvenile detention facilities during his tenure. The law drastically reduced the likelihood that 16- and 17-year-old offenders would face meaningful terms of incarceration for even serious crimes by sharply increasing the rate at which their cases are diverted to Family Court. A 2023 Manhattan Institute study found that as of September of 2022, 83% of felonies involving 16- and 17-year-old offenders ended up in family court, including 75% of non-drug-related Class A felonies — the most serious crime category. In 2021, the New York City Criminal Justice Agency found that in the first year after the law took effect, the Big Apple saw a significant spike in rearrests among juvenile beneficiaries. Advertisement Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Yet state lawmakers have refused to reexamine the law. One of the decarcerationists' favorite points to make in the law's defense is that youthfulness should always be viewed as a mitigating factor. Our brains are not fully developed until well after we reach the age of maturity, the argument goes, therefore it is unjust to hold teenagers fully responsible for their crimes. Advertisement But the vast majority of America's teens aren't knifing one another to death in parks, carjacking soccer moms or popping handguns off in the streets — making that argument much less persuasive. It's a statistical reality as well that younger offenders reoffend at higher rates than older ones do. And what about the incentive for gangs to recruit younger and younger kids into their ranks — kids they can convince to do their dirty work in part because they won't face the same consequences they would have less than 10 years ago? As has been the case with so many criminal justice reform initiatives, the available data indicate that the population Raise the Age meant to benefit — teenagers — are worse off in the law's wake. The Manhattan Institute's 2023 report found that juveniles were 'the victims of gun crime about three times as often as they were five years [prior].' One wonders whether those who defend these policies would tolerate teens who supposedly lack the mental capacity to resist brutally violent impulses walking the streets of their own neighborhoods. If not, then why are they willing to allow it in the Bronx? Rafael A. Mangual is the Nick Ohnell fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a contributing editor of City Journal, and author of the 2022 book 'Criminal (In)Justice.'
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Illinois gov JB Pritzker lambasted for new ‘disastrous policy' requiring mental health screenings for kids
A new Illinois law requiring annual mental health screenings for public school students is drawing backlash from parents, policy experts and lawmakers who warn the policy may overstep boundaries and wrongly label children. Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the measure on July 31, making Illinois the first state in the country to mandate mental health screenings for students in grades three through 12. The law, set to take effect in the 2027–2028 school year, directs schools to provide self-conducted screenings each year using digital or paper forms. Parents will have the ability to opt their children out. Supporters say the initiative will help schools identify early signs of depression, anxiety or trauma — before they develop into crises. But critics argue the plan could create more problems than it solves. "I want to be on-the-record and crystal clear. This is a disastrous policy that will do vastly more harm than good," Abigail Shrier, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, wrote on X. "Watch as tens of thousands of Illinois kids get shoved into the mental health funnel and convinced they are sick. Many or most of which will be false positives." Katherine Boyle, a partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, also raised concerns about government overreach and what she called the "mental health industrial complex." Read On The Fox News App Oklahoma Requires 'America First' Certification Test For Teachers Fleeing Blue States "If a school nurse or a state-mandated mental health test tells you you're sick, you're going to believe them," Boyle wrote. "This is why so many families are opting out of primary school completely — the overreach is astounding." Illinois education officials say the screenings will not be diagnostic and are designed to flag students who may benefit from further evaluation. The Illinois State Board of Education will develop the screening tools and guidelines by September 2026, and school districts will be responsible for implementing them. "Mental health is essential to academic readiness and lifelong success," State Superintendent Tony Sanders said in a statement. "Too often, we only recognize a student's distress when it becomes a crisis. With universal screening, we shift from reaction to prevention." Dem Governor Expected To Defend State's Controversial Sanctuary Policies During Gop-led Hearing Dana Weiner, chief officer of the governor's Children's Behavioral Health Transformation Initiative, said the screenings will be optional for families and conducted privately. State Sen. Laura Fine, a Democrat and lead sponsor of the bill, said the effort aims to normalize mental health care for children and teens. "The screenings will be designed to catch the early signs of anxiety, depression or trauma before it becomes a crisis or, in some cases, sometimes too late," she said. Republican lawmakers in the state have also voiced opposition. Rep. Steve Reick (R‑Woodstock) warned the law could have unintended consequences for families dealing with insurance companies. "Universal mental health screenings are going to get us nothing except possibly finding things, finding reasons for denial of coverage of insurance," Reick said. Rep. Adam Niemerg (R‑Dieterich) called the law "a very dangerous piece of legislation that removes parental rights."Fox News Digital reached out to Pritzker's office for comment and has not yet received a article source: Illinois gov JB Pritzker lambasted for new 'disastrous policy' requiring mental health screenings for kids Solve the daily Crossword
Reuters
4 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
Trump's Fed pick wanted to upend its protection from politics
WASHINGTON, Aug 8 (Reuters) - Having railed against the "revolving door" between the executive branch and the U.S. Federal Reserve, Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran may now be walking through it after President Donald Trump nominated him to the Board of Governors of an institution Miran would like to radically overhaul. In a report last year co-authored by Miran for the Manhattan Institute, the economist proposed harsh medicine for a series of ills he felt had infected the central bank, from "groupthink" on monetary policy, to regulatory overreach, to poor accountability and a loss of focus on its core mission of fighting inflation. It was one of two big-think ideas Miran floated last year, along with the so-called Mar-a-Lago accord for devaluing the dollar and restructuring U.S. debt, a proposal that quickly fell into disfavor and was criticized as putting the dollar's global reserve status at risk. His views on the Fed might also be a hard sell. He has argued that the Fed's touted independence has left it unaccountable and ineffective and that it would be better served by a new system where presidents could fire the seven members of the Washington-based Board of Governors at will. To counter that presidential power, authority over monetary policy would shift to the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, whose leaders would all vote on monetary policy and thus be able to outvote the Board, and whose oversight would come under the control of state governors. Instead of a system insulated from politics it would be a system fully infused with it, but in a form of "monetary federalism" Miran argues would increase accountability. Whether that flies with U.S. Senators who have to confirm Miran's selection and who are already on edge about Trump's attacks on the Fed, remains an open question, as does the verdict of global bond markets concerned about the ability of a politically captive central bank to control inflation. Long-term Treasury yields and the interest rate on inflation-protected bonds rose slightly in the hours after Miran's nomination was announced. Expectations of a quarter-point cut at the Fed's September and December meetings changed little. To Miran, the current set-up at the Fed has merely excused what he regards as poor performance. "Accountability has been policy decisions do not necessarily result in consequences for Fed leadership," Miran wrote with co-author Dan Katz, currently the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, citing episodes including the recent outbreak of inflation, the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, and the asset purchases first conducted more than a decade ago under former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke. A response to a deep global financial crisis and the fact that the economy was ailing despite interest rates cut to near zero, Miran said the bond buying, meant to hold down long-term interest rates and now a staple tool among global central banks for certain crisis conditions, was wrong because it "distorted the allocation of credit." Trump nominated Miran on Thursday to fill a seat vacated unexpectedly by Adriana Kugler, who leaves the Fed on Friday to return to a teaching post at Georgetown University. The most fundamental changes Miran proposed would take an act of Congress, and are considered unlikely. The current system, solidified in the 1930s, was meant to limit White House influence over interest rates, and some key Republicans have spoken up for that principle in the face of Trump's attacks on current Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Even for internal budgeting or staffing reforms, Miran for the moment would be just a single voice on a seven-member board and, for interest rate decisions, a single voice on a 12-vote policy committee that includes five voting members from among the Reserve Bank presidents. But with the potential to be appointed to a full 14-year term next year, or even be elevated to the chair, Miran, if confirmed by the Senate, also becomes the most direct line into the Fed for the current Trump administration, which has been pressing for steep rate cuts and pressuring Powell to resign before his term as the top policymaker ends in May. His views on presidential authority over the Fed could therefore take on new importance, particularly if others among the current board members, including three Biden-era appointees, resign and give Trump more openings to fill. Powell's seat would be a fourth, unless he opts to remain on the board until 2028 after his term as chair ends in May. If the aim is to acquire four seats on the board and put reforms into place "it is skiing further down that slope" of the Fed losing its independence from the executive branch, said Ellen Meade, a former top adviser to the Fed's board and now a research professor at Duke University. "They want a mouthpiece. They want to stir things up. And that is concerning." Miran's report touches on issues familiar in conservative critiques of the central bank, and in some cases are being addressed already by the Fed itself. A new framework for managing inflation adopted in 2020, criticized by Miran for its "hubris," quickly became passe when inflation rose during the pandemic and is likely to be discarded in an upcoming strategy revision. Fed Governor Christopher Waller, also in the running as a possible next chair, has been internally critical of Reserve Bank presidents straying into political and social commentary, and worked with Powell on plans to curb staffing, which is due to fall 10%. But all of that stops short of what Miran envisions, including stripping the Fed of its autonomous budget authority and making that part of the congressional appropriations process. And while lamenting "highly political personnel" moving freely between the White House and the Fed's Eccles Building in a journey he is now poised to take, Miran wrote there was no point pretending there were no politics at the Fed. "Political motivations will always exist," he said. The key is "to provide mechanisms to block them from unduly affecting policy."
