East Lansing City Manager introduces ‘ELPD Realignment Plan’

East Lansing City Manager George Lehanas presented a realignment plan for the police department at a virtual council meeting on Tuesday night.

Recommended Stories

  • Where do Harry and Meghan live in California?

    The couple has given a tell-all interview to Oprah Winfrey, filmed at the home of a friend

  • Meghan reveals royal life left her suicidal during pregnancy and palace staff took her passport

    Harry admits he was ‘ashamed’ of talking about Meghan’s mental health struggles

  • Biden signs executive order to expand voting rights: ‘If you have the best ideas, you have nothing to hide’

    ‘Every eligible voter should be able to vote and have it counted’

  • Meghan has only ‘kind words’ to say about Kate in Oprah interview, sources say

    Conversation airing on Sunday is said to cover “wide-ranging” topics

  • Russian colonel asks women to send in their ex-boyfriend's details so they can be 'sorted out'

    A Russian colonel has asked women to send in their ex-boyfriends' details so they can be 'sorted out' in a video posted to mark International Women's Day. Yuri Khromov, a colonel of a local military commissariat in north-western Russia, posted a video on the official Instagram account of the Leningrad region, in which he urged Russian women to share social-media usernames of their exes in the comments below the post, so their former men could be sent to the army. Using March 8 as a hook for the recruitment drive, he packaged his statement as 'a gift for women,' implying that their ex-lovers would ‘be taken care of’. “Let me give you a little gift. Write the accounts of your exes, and we will meet them at recruiting points. And remember - a real man must have a military ID,” said Colonel Khromov. He emphasised that Russian women should always be surrounded by “real defenders, not only protecting the Motherland but you [as women] as well.” In Russia, the widespread problem with domestic violence has soared during the pandemic, activists say. A fifth of all women have been physically abused by a partner in the country. On Monday, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, stressed the importance of women's roles in preserving traditional family values in Russia. “These long-standing traditions assert the role of women in our life, by preserving the genuine values that have always been and will remain an inspiring moral guideline,” Mr Putin said in a statement. He also praised female medical workers because of their "healing spiritual support." "I thank all women-doctors, paramedics, nurses and nannies - everyone who rescues and takes care of patients in the ‘red zones,’ as part of ambulance crews, in hospitals and clinics. It has long been known that sensitivity, empathy, and an attentive, kind attitude are sometimes as much needed as medicine," Mr Putin added.

  • U.S. could send $1,400 COVID bill payments within days; child tax credit a bigger challenge

    With plenty of practice sending coronavirus relief payments to Americans, the federal government should be able to launch the delivery of $1,400 checks almost immediately once Congress finalizes the new aid bill and President Joe Biden signs it, tax experts say. Some Americans might see direct payments as soon as this week if the bill passes the House of Representatives on Tuesday as expected, compared with several weeks' lag in April 2020. Nearly 160 million households are expected to get payments, the White House estimates.

  • Thousands of people who visited a COVID-19 vaccination site in California received the wrong dose, report says. Officials say nobody needs a booster shot.

    An estimated 4,300 people at the Oakland Coliseum received a lesser dosage of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on March 1, KTVU reported.

  • Joe Manchin pledges to block Biden's infrastructure bill if Republicans aren't included

    Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), America's ultimate swing voter, told me on "Axios on HBO" that he'll insist Republicans have more of a voice on President Biden's next big package than they did on the COVID stimulus.The big picture: Manchin said he'll push for tax hikes to pay for Biden's upcoming infrastructure and climate proposal, and will use his Energy Committee chairmanship to force the GOP to confront climate reality.Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with Axios Markets. Subscribe for freeWhy it matters: My conversation yielded the most extensive preview yet of how Manchin — a Democrat from a Trump state, in a 50-50 Senate, who relishes standing up to a Democratic White House — will use his singular power. Manchin, 73, said Biden expects, and understands, the pushback: "He's the first president we've had to really, really understand the workings of the Senate since LBJ."Manchin said that with just a few concessions, it would have been possible to get some Republicans on the COVID relief package that passed the Senate this weekend on a party-line vote. And he said he'll block Biden's next big package — $2 trillion to $4 trillion for climate and infrastructure — if Republicans aren't included. "I'm not going to do it through reconciliation," which requires only a simple majority, like the COVID stimulus, Manchin said. "I am not going to get on a bill that cuts them out completely before we start trying."Asked if he believes it's possible to get 10 Republicans on the infrastructure package, which could yield the 60 votes needed under normal Senate rules, Manchin said: "I sure do."Manchin said the infrastructure bill can be big — as much as $4 trillion — as long as it's paid for with tax increases. He said he'll start his bargaining by requiring the package be 100% paid for.Manchin said that with all the debt we're piling up, he's worried about "a tremendous deep recession that could lead into a depression if we're not careful. ... We're just setting ourselves up."He talked up an array of tax increases, including raising the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to 25% "at least," and repealing "a lot of" the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy. Manchin, sitting down with HBO in the Energy Committee hearing room where he now holds the gavel, said he'll use his new position "to try and inject some reality" — starting with a hearing "on climate facts."Asked about Republican senators who won't say that humans have affected climate, Manchin said: "Well, I think I think they know it." Manchin warned fellow Democrats about ramming through legislation by simple majority: "I would say this to my friends. You've got power ... Don't abuse it. And that's exactly what you'll be doing if you throw the filibuster out."Watch a clip.Like this article? Get more from Axios and subscribe to Axios Markets for free.

  • How Canadian soldiers set 2 records for longest sniper kill during the first major battle in Afghanistan

    Operation Anaconda demonstrated the skill and bravery of US special-operations forces, their international partners, and local Afghan fighters.

  • Column: Newsom hits home run as the effort to recall him gets closer to making the ballot

    Helping to unlock baseball stadiums as season openers approach is guaranteed to be popular and bipartisan.

  • Sen. Joe Manchin, a key Democratic swing vote, is open to crafting a 'more painful' filibuster

    The House is expected to clear President Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19 stimulus bill on Tuesday, after the Senate narrowly passed it Saturday morning, following a lengthy negotiation with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) over unemployment benefits. The narrow Democratic majority is now discussing how to pass other legislative priorities, and Manchin said Sunday he's open to reforming the filibuster. "The filibuster should be painful, it really should be painful, and we've made it more comfortable over the years," Manchin said on Fox News Sunday. "Maybe it has to be more painful." One solution could be to require a "talking filibuster," where senators can block legislation temporarily through feats of endurance. "If you want to make it a little bit more painful, make him stand there and talk," Manchin said on NBC's Meet The Press. "I'm willing to look at any way we can, but I'm not willing to take away the involvement of the minority." Manchin repeated that he's "not going to change my mind" on ending the filibuster, but his comments were still greeted positively by filibuster opponents. The talking filibuster "preserves some ability for the minority to slow a bill as long as they physically hold the floor, but then allows an up-or-down vote once they give up," Demand Justice executive director Brian Fallon tweeted. "This is the Jimmy Stewart model." Manchin also expressed an openness to exploring other ways to sidestep blanket GOP opposition, suggesting that perhaps the budget reconciliation process could be used to pass voting-rights legislation — it can't — or other priorities. "But I'm not going to go there until my Republican friends have the ability to have their say also," he said. "I'm hoping they will get involved to the point where we have 10 of them that will work with 50 of us." "If we continue to see obstruction from our Republican colleagues — as we saw through this COVID relief package — I think the patience is going to wear thin, even on moderate Democrats," Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said Sunday on CNN. "But we'll see." More stories from theweek.comLindsey Graham says his revived friendship with Trump is an attempt to 'harness' his 'magic'7 spondiferously funny cartoons about the Dr. Seuss controversyBritain's tabloids, vilified by Harry and Meghan, are all agog over the 'devastating' Oprah interview

  • Claimed value of sleepy NY estate could come to haunt Trump

    It’s sleepy by Donald Trump’s standards, but the former president's century-old estate in New York's Westchester County could end up being one of his bigger legal nightmares. Seven Springs, a 213-acre swath of nature surrounding a Georgian-style mansion, is a subject of two state investigations: a criminal probe by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and a civil inquiry by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Both investigations focus on whether Trump manipulated the property's value to reap greater tax benefits from an environmental conservation arrangement he made at the end of 2015, while running for president.

  • Forget hiding behind the sofa, the Royal family needed a bullet-proof vest as Harry and Meghan let rip

    It was both everything we had come to expect - and not what we were expecting at all. We knew it was going to be blockbuster TV. But what we didn’t anticipate about the Duke and Duchess of Sussexes’ Oprah interview is how unvarnished their “truth” was actually going to be. From Meghan’s revelation that she was almost driven to suicide by being in the Royal family, to the astonishing claim that Harry was questioned about the potential colour of Archie’s skin, it’s fair to say this two-hour tell-all represented a worst-case scenario for what the couple kept referring to as The Firm. Talk of Royals “hiding behind the sofa” ahead of the primetime, no-holds-barred chat appeared to underestimate quite what the couple had in store. At first, it seemed as if Meghan casually letting slip that she and Harry were secretly “married” by the Archbishop of Canterbury three days before their actual wedding day in Windsor in May 2018 would be the biggest marmalade dropper of the morning. But viewers had only just settled into the cosy tete-a-tete in someone else’s Santa Barbara back yard when the blows quickly started raining down on the Duchess of Cambridge. Dressed in a black Armani dress with a distinctive white splodge and with her hair tied back in a matronly bun, the pregnant mother-of-one, 39, unleashed on her sister-in-law as the UK entered the second hour of International Women’s Day. Contrary to reports, which first surfaced in the Daily Telegraph in November 2018, that Meghan had made Kate cry during a bridesmaids’ dress fitting, the former actress insisted it was actually the other way round. Implying a distinct lack of sisterly support from the mother-of-three, even when “everything was going on with my Dad”, Meghan insisted: “I’m not sharing that in any way to be disparaging about her,” adding: “I would hope that she would want that to be corrected.”

  • Economists: Biden's $1,400 COVID-19 checks may be great politics, but it's questionable economics

    Most people used the first coronavirus check to pad their savings or pay down debt. AP Photo/Eric GayThe US$1,400 direct checks to people are the most expensive and perhaps most popular part of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package racing its way through Congress right now. The House is set to vote on a final version of the package narrowly passed by the Senate on March 6 before it moves on to President Joe Biden’s desk for his signature. Moderate Senate Democrats, who had voiced concerns about how many people would receive direct payments in the original proposal endorsed by the House, managed to make them more targeted at lower-income households, which means an estimated 17 million fewer people will get a check. The coronavirus package contains a lot of provisions that will help struggling Americans, and we understand why the checks are so popular – with 78% support among adults in a recent survey. No one turns down extra money, after all. But as economists, we also believe that these direct payments make little economic sense – even with the lower income threshold. And this is true whether you think the purpose of the checks is relief or stimulus. Relief needs to be targeted First let’s consider the checks as relief. The purpose of a measure primarily designed as relief during an economic crisis is to help those most affected. The latest jobs report shows about 10 million people are unemployed, including 4.1 million who have been without a job for at least 27 weeks. That’s not to mention the millions more who have left the labor force altogether because of the pandemic. These people – mostly workers in the hospitality and leisure industries, disproportionately low-income and people of color – are in desperate need of aid and support, without which destitution and homelessness are real possibilities. But for the vast majority of Americans, it’s like the pandemic never happened, financially speaking. These are mostly office workers and other professionals who have had to work from home for all or part of the pandemic but saw no change in their income. A recent Pew survey found that 79% of Americans reported their family’s financial situation is about the same as or better than a year ago. The most pain was unsurprisingly among lower-income households, 31% of whom said they were worse off than a year ago – but even among this group over two-thirds said their situation was the same or better. The House’s measure would have phased out completely at incomes of $100,000 for single people and $200,000 for couples. The Senate version phases out at $80,000 and $160,000, which would still benefit about 280 million people, including children, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonpartisan think tank. This is a pretty marginal change and still means that checks will go to a lot of people who don’t really need them. Stimulus needs to stimulate OK, then how about the checks as a stimulus? So even if a lot of people who aren’t in desperate need get a payment, at least they’ll spend it and help the economy recover from the COVID-19 shock, right? There are two problems with that. The first is that it’s not clear the economy needs much stimulus right now. While the jobs report showed millions of people remained unemployed, the February numbers came in a lot better than expected, adding to signs the U.S. economy is in fairly good shape. And there are also growing concerns about inflation, given the sharp rise in some market interest rates, which too much stimulus could accelerate. The other issue is that past coronavirus checks haven’t been all that stimulative. The government began cutting $1,200 “economic impact” checks for most Americans back in March and sent out another round of checks about half that size in December. Research conducted on the first round of checks found that the vast majority of Americans saved most of the money or used it to pay down debt. About 40% of the money went toward purchases supporting industries such as food, beauty and other nondurable consumer products that had already seen spikes in spending before the checks went out. In other words, the checks weren’t very stimulative. Moreover, a third of likely recipients of the next round of checks said they would save the money. A better use of the money So you might be wondering, what’s a better way to spend the several hundred billion dollars earmarked for checks? At a minimum, relief payments should be targeted, such as to people who lost jobs or are working fewer hours due to illness. But in our view, a better way would be to increase those supplemental unemployment checks from the $300 lawmakers agreed to to $600, as the first coronavirus relief measure included last March. Or take the U.K. approach and provide targeted but generous income replacement for workers affected by COVID-19. Another very helpful and focused measure would be to help people pay for their mortgages and rent – otherwise a massive housing crisis is looming on the post-pandemic horizon. We believe President Biden’s COVID-19 relief bill gets a lot right, such as significant aid to state and local governments, increased food stamp benefits and additional support for small businesses. Sending one-off $1,400 checks to people experiencing no economic hardship during the pandemic is not among them. [Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Robert H. Scott III, Monmouth University and Kenneth Mitchell, Monmouth University. Read more:Support for Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package may not be as broad as it seems – it’s all a matter of perspectiveRelief or stimulus: What’s the difference, and what it means for Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus package The authors 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.

  • US reaction: America's fury at Royal family over Duchess of Sussex's racism accusations

    America reacted with widespread anger at Buckingham Palace following the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey. Serena Williams, the US tennis star who co-hosted the Duchess's baby shower in 2019, said she was a victim of "systematic oppression". She said: "Meghan Markle, my selfless friend, lives her life - and leads by example - with empathy and compassion. "She teaches me every day what it means to be truly noble. Her words illustrate the pain and cruelty she's experienced." Ms Williams added: "I know first hand the sexism and racism institutions and the media use to vilify women and people of colour to minimise us."

  • Lindsey Graham says he deals with Trump's 'dark side' because he thinks he has a 'magic' other Republicans don't

    Graham told "Axios on HBO" that former President Donald Trump could make the party bigger, stronger, and more diverse but "also could destroy it."

  • 'The Walking Dead' made an unexpected choice concerning Daryl's romantic life after a decade

    "TWD" is stirring the pot with Daryl's sexuality after 10 seasons. Fans have been vocal on who they have wanted to see Daryl paired with, if anyone.

  • Oprah said Prince Harry told her the Queen and Prince Philip were not the ones who had 'concerns' about the skin color of his and Meghan's son

    Oprah Winfrey said that Prince Harry was keen to communicate that his grandparents were not behind the racist remark.

  • Britain's tabloids, vilified by Harry and Meghan, are all agog over the 'devastating' Oprah interview

    Oprah Winfrey's interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the duke and duchess of Sussex, aired in the wee small hours of Monday morning in Britain. But the British press, one of the two institutions that came out poorly — along with the British royal family — stayed awake for the tightly held interview. Their headlines steered away from the media criticism and focused on the allegations of dysfunction and, above all, racism at Buckingham Palace. Markle's revelation, backed up by her husband, that an unidentified member of the royal family expressed concern "about how dark" their soon-to-be born son's "skin might be" is "devastating," BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond wrote. "This is heading into 'worst-case scenario' territory for the palace." And Harry's description of his father and brother being "trapped" inside the cold, sclerotic royalty "is a velvet covered dagger into the institution he has left," Dymond adds. The Daily Mail, whose parent company recently lost a privacy lawsuit to Markle, and the Daily Mirror focused on the racism charge, while The Sun headlined her suicidal ideation amid a double blow of palace-ordered isolation and tabloid harassment. Monday’s Daily MAIL (3am edition): “How Dark Will Baby’s Skin Be?” #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/LHR04di1nP — Allie Hodgkins-Brown (@AllieHBNews) March 8, 2021 Monday’s Daily MIRROR (later edition): “ ‘They asked how dark Archie’s skin would be’ “ #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/jKvwEo9RDv — Allie Hodgkins-Brown (@AllieHBNews) March 8, 2021 Monday’s SUN (3am edition): “Meg: I Felt Suicidal” #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/LrfawLF8fr — Allie Hodgkins-Brown (@AllieHBNews) March 8, 2021 The Daily Express led with Markle upending tabloid gossip, while the Daily Star tried to snark off the whole thing. Monday’s Daily EXPRESS: (2am edition) “All Care Homes Must Open Up To Loved Ones” #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/9vkEMUAfmT — Allie Hodgkins-Brown (@AllieHBNews) March 8, 2021 Front-page of Monday’s Daily Star, they’re having some laugh with this story; savages! pic.twitter.com/fmQPc4FRmZ — Tommy Rooney (@TomasORuanaidh) March 7, 2021 The Daily Telegraph featured a column calling the couple "woke" but focused its top story on pre-interview comments by Queen Elizabeth II. The front page of tomorrow's Daily Telegraph: 'Harry and Meghan embody the woke generation'#TomorrowsPapersToday Sign up for the Front Page newsletterhttps://t.co/tlYMNUKPpj pic.twitter.com/4wXW399s14 — The Telegraph (@Telegraph) March 7, 2021 The "devastating interview" delivered "a body blow to the institution" of the royal family and "upended the narrative created by Britain's bestselling newspapers," Dymond writes. But "the newspapers that the couple so despise — will they change their tune? It is not in their nature." More stories from theweek.comLindsey Graham says his revived friendship with Trump is an attempt to 'harness' his 'magic'7 spondiferously funny cartoons about the Dr. Seuss controversyWhy the Dr. Seuss 'cancellation' is chilling

  • China turned on Chloé Zhao, the Beijing-born Golden Globe winner, and censored her film after people found old interviews where she slammed China

    Chloé Zhao - the first Asian woman to win a Golden Globe - said in 2013 China was "a place where there are lies everywhere."