Written by Fiona Harrigan reasonOctober 2, 2024.
excerpt:
The bill was include Several reforms such as additional employment and family-based visas and work permits for family members of certain visa holders. It would have helped protect recorded dreamerThey were brought to the United States legally as children by parents with nonimmigrant visas and could be subject to voluntary removal if they do not obtain a green card before turning 21. The bill also included protections for Afghans who sought refuge in the United States after the Afghanistan war in August 2021. Taliban occupation of Afghanistan.
But it would also destroy the asylum application process. defectiveAnd it would likely jeopardize due process and humanitarian protection for vulnerable migrants. The bill’s main provisions would significantly limit access to asylum if border crossings exceed certain thresholds. it would have been given Immigration and Customs Enforcement has spent billions of dollars to expand detention capacity and fund deportation flights. it would have been created be in a hurry It strengthened the vetting process and deprived immigrants of the opportunity to appear before immigration judges.
DRH Comment: Fiona Harrigan is one of my favorite authors. reason. She has consistently done a good job on immigration issues.
Kimberly Clausing and Maurice Obstfeld, Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 1, 2024.
excerpt:
Cost of fees. Tariffs are taxes levied on imported goods, raising prices for households and, most importantly, for businesses that rely on imported raw materials to make their products. Not only will the price of imported goods rise, but so will the price of domestically produced goods that compete with imported goods. Simply put, protectionism reduces the gains from trade. We choose to pay more for some goods (imported goods and their domestic substitutes) than we have to, rather than focusing on goods that we produce more efficiently than foreigners.
One clarification: When they say “we choose to pay more for some goods than we have to,” what they really mean is that our government pays taxes called tariffs. So we’re actually paying more. But “we” are not choosing tariffs. Sure, we choose to pay a higher price when we buy, but I don’t think that’s what they’re asking. I think you write as if you think Americans and the government are one. This is typical collectivist language, creeping into good analysis.
Incidentally, Obstfeld co-authored the textbook with Paul Krugman and Mark Merritts. International Economics: Theory and Policyone of the major textbooks in international economics.
Written by JD Tusiel; reasonOctober 4, 2024
excerpt:
“Income from government transfers is the fastest growing major component of Americans’ personal income,” one report states. September report From the bipartisan Economic Innovation Group (EIG). “Nationally, Americans will receive $3.8 trillion in government transfers in 2022, accounting for 18 percent of all personal income in the United States. That share has more than doubled since 1970. ”
and:
Separately, the Government Accountability Foundation find “Total spending on Medicaid expansion exceeded $1 trillion nationally, $574 billion more than expected.”
Still, the EIG report highlights that “with a 1 percent increase in the share of the population aged 65 and older, Medicaid expansion had only a three-quarters impact on annual transfer spending.” A growing proportion of the U.S. population relies on older adults to benefit from Social Security and Medicare, which is a major driver of dependence on government payments.
By Andrew P. Napolitano, antiwar.com, October 4, 2024.
What’s more, the Pentagon’s prosecution team has warned against releasing “all” evidence in the case to the public because the stomach-churning evidence of torture would expose war crimes with no statute of limitations.
Put another way, if this case were to be tried in the traditional manner, as opposed to entering into a plea bargain in which the defendant recited an oath of knowledge of the crime, George W. Bush himself, his administration, the CIA, and others believe that military personnel can be prosecuted and tried abroad for war crimes.
Written by Michael R. Strain, Strengthening America’s economic dynamismedited by Melissa S. Carney and Luke Perdue. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
excerpt:
Much of the rise in protectionism is due to the view that free trade has led to significant job losses. This conclusion is wrong. According to economic theory, trade liberalization should not affect employment levels. And the “China Shock” evidence, taken as a whole, suggests that trade with China had no impact on total U.S. employment.
It is also based on the mistaken assumption held by many elected officials and commentators that free trade is about jobs. But open trade is not about jobs. It’s about wages and consumption. By exploiting comparative advantage, nations can specialize in productive activities. Specialization increases employee productivity and puts upward pressure on wages and incomes. Specialization increases world production, increases consumption levels, and increases the quality and variety of consumer goods and services.
