by Fiona Harrigan, RodeOctober 2, 2024.
Extract:
The bill did that involve a number of reforms, such as additional work-family visas, and work permits for family members of certain visa holders. It would have helped protect Documented dreamerswho were legally brought to the U.S. as children by parents on nonimmigrant visas and may have to deport themselves if they don’t have a green card before they turn 21. It also included protection for Afghans evacuated to the US after the August 2021 war. Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.
But it would also have devastated the asylum-seeking process – and that is certainly the case imperfect– and is likely to jeopardize due process and humanitarian protection for vulnerable migrants. The bill’s key provision would significantly limit access to asylum if border crossings exceed a certain threshold. It would have datum Immigration and Customs Enforcement billions to fund increased detention capacity and deportation flights. It would have made A hastily screening process and denied migrants the opportunity to appear before an immigration judge.
DRH Commentary: Fiona Harrigan is one of my favorite writers Rode. She consistently reports well on immigration issues.
by Kimberly Clausing and Maurice Obstfeld, Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 1, 2024.
Extract:
Cost of tariffs. Tariffs are a tax on imports and will raise prices for households and, crucially, for businesses that rely on imported raw materials to make their products. Not only will prices for imported products rise, but so will the prices of domestically produced goods that compete with imports. Simply put, protectionism reduces gains from trade; we choose to pay more than necessary for some goods (imports and their domestic substitutes) rather than focusing on the goods we produce more efficiently than foreigners.
One clarification: when they say “we choose to pay more than necessary for some goods,” what they really mean is that because our government imposes these taxes, called tariffs, we are indeed paying more. But “we” don’t choose the rates. It’s true that we choose to pay those higher prices when we buy, but I don’t think that’s what they mean. I think they write as if they think Americans and the government are one. It’s typically collectivist language that finds its way into an otherwise excellent analysis.
Obstfeld is co-author of the textbook together with Paul Krugman and Marc Melitz International economics: theory and policyone of the leading textbooks in international economics.
by JD Tuccille, RodeOctober 4, 2024
Extract:
“Government transfer income is the fastest growing component of Americans’ personal income,” said A September report of the bipartisan Economic Innovation Group (EIG). “Nationwide, Americans received $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 finds that “total spending on Medicaid expansion nationally has exceeded $1 trillion – $574 billion more than expected.”
Yet the EIG report emphasizes that “Medicaid expansion had only three-quarters the effect on annual transfer spending as a single percentage point increase in the share of the population aged 65 and older.” The share of seniors in the U.S. population is growing and benefiting from Social Security and Medicare, which is the main driver of dependence on government payments.
by Andrew P. Napolitano, antiwar.com, October 4, 2024.
Moreover, the Pentagon’s own team of prosecutors has warned against the public disclosure of “all” of the evidence in the case, saying the evidence of stomach-churning torture will expose war crimes for which there is no statute of limitations.
In other words, if this case is tried in the traditional manner, as opposed to a plea deal in which the defendants recant under oath their knowledge of the crimes, George W. Bush himself and others in his administration, at the CIA and in the military can be charged and tried abroad for war crimes.
by Michael R. Strain, in Strengthening American economic dynamismedited by Melissa S. Kearney and Luke Pardue. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Extract:
Much of the rise of protectionism is due to the view that free trade has led to substantial employment reductions. This conclusion is incorrect. Economic theory suggests that trade liberalization should have no effect on employment levels. And the evidence from the “China shock” as a whole suggests that trade with China had no impact on the overall number of jobs in the United States.
It is also based on the mistaken assumption of 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 taking advantage of comparative advantages, countries can specialize in their productive activities. Specialization makes their workers more productive, putting upward pressure on their wages and incomes. Specialization increases world production, increasing the level of consumption and the quality and variety of consumer goods and services.