Tag Archives : Build House

Herrera Beutler’s loss underscores risk to GOP of crossing Trump

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler’s (Wash.) loss in the Republican primary in Washington’s 3rd Congressional District is the latest victory for former President Trump, who has proved in recent months that his hold on the party remains firm.

Her loss comes exactly a week after Rep. Peter Meijer (R) also lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger in Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District. 

But Herrera Beutler was one of the prominent faces of the movement in the House to impeach Trump, making her loss on Tuesday that much sweeter of a victory for the former president. 

“This is the trend we’ve seen with the Republicans who voted for impeachment,” said Jennifer Lim, the executive director of Republican Women for Progress, a group that has been critical of the Republican Party’s evolution under the former president. 

Herrera Beutler appeared to be leading last week after the state’s primary night. But by the time Tuesday evening came along, her main opponent Joe Kent was ahead of the incumbent congresswoman by 928 votes out of the 200,000 votes that were cast, according to the Seattle Times. 

Kent’s win also appears to have put Washington’s 3rd District on less solid ground for Republicans. After Herrera Beutler’s loss on Tuesday, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report moved the district from “solid Republican” to “lean Republican.” 

The congresswoman’s campaign, along with her allies, outspent Kent during the race. She was backed by various Republican groups including Winning for Women, Maggie’s List and other super PACs aligned with the Republican Party establishment. 

Still, strategists argue that Kent was particularly well-funded for a first-term primary challenger. 

“Republicans always viewed it as a very tough hill to climb for [Herrara Beutler] after the impeachment vote and also Kent being a strong challenger, stronger than a lot of these primary challengers to impeachers,” said one national Republican strategist. “He raised a lot of money. He had money to go on TV. He had a fully-fledged campaign apparatus behind him. 

While Herrera Beutler had raised a total of $3.5 million as of June 30 and had $1 million cash on hand, Kent was not far behind, with a total of $2.3 million raised and $353,000 cash on hand during the same period. 

Additionally, Kent has become a familiar face in the conservative mediasphere, regularly appearing on Fox News. 

“It had to be like the equivalent of millions of dollars worth of advertising because the base does in fact watch Fox News at a pretty reliable rate,” said Alex Hayes, a Washington State-based GOP consultant.

Washington State politicos also say Herrera Beutler has been a target of the far right for years before Trump’s foray into politics. 

“Herrera Beutler has always been opposed by the far right in Washington State, a far right that predates President Trump by about a decade,” Hayes said. “She’s essentially been under constant harassment from the Clark County Republican Party.” 

In January 2015, the Clark County Republican Party floated the idea of censuring Herrera Beutler, which led to the Washington State Republican Party backing the congresswoman. 

Kent has also embraced Trump’s platform, including questioning the 2020 presidential election results. 

“Everything Kent was speaking to really appeals to that far right,” Lim said. “All of those sorts of things just really excite the far right and they show up for primaries.” 

But Republicans say the final nail in the coffin for Herrera Beutler was her impeachment vote against Trump. 

“It was all the impeachment vote,” the national Republican strategist said. “There was no other factor at play. She wouldn’t have had a primary if it weren’t for that vote, and even if she did get a primary without the impeachment vote, she would have been fine.” 

“The impeachment vote has proven to be the single most damaging vote that a member could take from a primary perspective,” the strategist added. “If there’s enough money behind it, it’s basically a kill shot in a primary.” 

In June, Rep. Tom Rice (S.C.), who also voted to impeach Trump, was defeated by Trump-backed state Rep. Russell Fry in the state’s 7th Congressional District Republican primary. And last week, Meijer was defeated by Trump-backed primary challenger John Gibbs in Michigan. However, Republicans argue that Meijer was ultimately defeated by Democratic spending that boosted Gibbs in the race. 

But Herrera Beutler’s fellow Washington Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), who also voted to impeach Trump, survived his primary challenge against Trump-endorsed challenger Loren Culp. 

Hayes said that a lot of why Newhouse won and Herrera Beutler lost came down to how their primary opponents spent their campaign funds. 

“In Newhouse’s case, the Trump-endorsed candidate there essentially had his entire campaign budget go to the consultants,” Hayes said. 

“In Kent’s case, that did not happen,” he continued. “They limited their overhead spending.” 

“That’s one of the chief predictors for success is can you prevent your consultant from stealing your whole budget,” he said. 

Herrera Beutler’s defeat comes one week before Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), one of the most vocal Republican critics of the former president, faces Trump-backed primary challenger Harriet Hageman. 

While Cheney is considered a fixture in GOP politics and has an extremely well-funded campaign, her path to victory is extremely narrow. 

A Casper Star-Tribune poll released last week shows Hageman leading Cheney 52 percent to 30 percent among 1,100 registered Wyoming voters likely to participate in the primary. 

“All the signs aren’t looking good,” Lim said. “I think a lot of people are expecting [Cheney] to fall victim to what happened to Herrera Beutler, unfortunately.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Republican Lt. Gov. says he 'can't imagine' Trump doesn't like the attention after FBI raid

Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan (R) said he “can’t imagine” that former President Trump doesn’t like the attention surrounding him after the FBI conducted a search at his Mar-a-Lago residence. 

During an appearance on CNN’s “New Day,” host Brianna Keilar asked Duncan about his thoughts on prominent GOP figures lashing out at federal agencies over the raid of the former president’s resort.

“Well, I don’t think it’s helpful but at the end of the day, I can’t imagine Donald Trump or anybody around his team doesn’t like the attention they’re getting,” Duncan told Keilar.

In the wake of the search, McCarthy promised that Republicans will investigate the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Merrick Garland if they win back the House in November’s midterm elections, while GOP figures like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) have accused the Biden administration of going after political opponents.

Duncan also said that Trump felt like a “falling knife” in recent months as revelations stacked up of his actions before and during the Jan 6., 2021 attack at the Capitol. But the FBI search has shaken up the situation, he said.

“It feels like he’s being raised up to cult status again and you know there’s people that are that are disappointed in this and probably one of those is Ron DeSantis,” Duncan said. “You know his stock was rising, and now it appears to be falling.” 

The FBI carried out a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence on Monday, reportedly searching for classified documents Trump brought to his Florida residence after the end of his time in the White House.

The DOJ is also investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection and efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, however this week’s action is reportedly unrelated to that probe.

Duncan told to Keilar that the GOP’s focus should be on the midterms and 2024 elections, rather than the former president.

“I’m one of those Republicans that wishes we were sitting there talking about how bad Joe Biden is doing, how bad inflation is, how worrisome our national events are that are playing out across our country,” Duncan said. “But instead we’re talking about Donald Trump again.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Supreme Court faces new pressure to reconsider racist ‘Insular Cases’

The American Bar Association on Tuesday passed a unanimous resolution opposing the so-called ‘Insular Cases,” a series of Supreme Court decisions that decreed limits to the rights of U.S. citizens in territories based largely on their race. 

The lawyers’ guild’s action is significant as questions rise about whether the Supreme Court could consider the broad issue.  

It also adds pressure on the Biden administration to define its position in a lawsuit brought by American Samoans that could soon be taken up by the Supreme Court. 

The suit would overturn the cases, extending full constitutional protections for the 3.6 million Americans born in territories. The administration must decide by the end of the month whether to weigh in on the suit.  

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the administration’s position.  

Proponents of overturning the Insular Cases say the century-old resolutions are harmful both for their current effects and the overtly racist reasoning behind them. 

Fitisemanu v. United States, the suit at issue, was brought on by U.S. nationals from American Samoa who do not have full U.S. citizenship. 

American Samoans are U.S. nationals but not citizens, preventing them from voting in state and federal elections even when they become residents of a state. Natives of other territories are U.S. citizens who can exercise all constitutional rights provided they first move to a state. 

While it’s not certain the Fitisemanu case will be heard by the Supreme Court, at least two sitting justices have expressed their intent to hear a case against the Insular Cases. 

In a concurring opinion on an 8-1 ruling against the right of Puerto Ricans to receive Supplemental Security Income in May, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that “the Insular Cases have no foundation in the Constitution and rest instead on racial stereotypes. They deserve no place in our law.” 

And Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the lone vote against the court’s ruling in that case, known as United States v. Vaello-Madero, wrote in her dissent that the Insular Cases “were premised on beliefs both odious and wrong.” 

The Insular Cases essentially grant Congress the power to pick and choose which constitutional rights it confers to residents of the territories, in some cases including natives of the states or the District of Columbia who reside in a territory. 

Those limitations range from Samoa’s citizenship status to implementation of Supreme Court decisions — gay marriage, for example, is not valid in American Samoa despite the Obergefell v. Hodges decision – to limitations on federal social programs, like Medicaid. 

“Some of [the limitations] are concrete and real today, some are like a sword of Damocles hanging over your head,” said Neil Weare, president of Equally American, a civil rights organization that focuses on the rights of territorial residents. 

The cases first came up as the Supreme Court faced legal questions about conferring rights to people in territories acquired by the United States during the Spanish-American War and the partition of Samoa between the United States and Germany in 1899.  

The cases frequently relied on racist views to reach their conclusions.  

In the first of the cases, a 1901 dispute over whether tariffs should be imposed on Puerto Rican imports to New York, Justice Edward Douglass White in a concurring opinion wrote that Puerto Ricans were “an uncivilized race,” “a fierce, savage and restless people” and “absolutely unfit” for U.S. citizenship. 

The differences in which constitutional rights are recognized in each territory are generally based on each individual dependency’s history of U.S. takeover. 

American Samoa became a U.S. territory as a result of a territorial dispute between the United States and Germany in the South Pacific; Puerto Rico and Guam were ceded by Spain after the Spanish-American War; the U.S. Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark; and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands negotiated the conditions of its territorial status as part of the dissolution of the post-World War II Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. 

Because of those historical differences, some groups within the territories oppose elimination of the Insular Cases. 

An indigenous rights group in the Northern Mariana Islands, for instance, opposes repealing the Insular Cases because its members fear that change could end land ownership restrictions that favor natives of the territory, the Pacific Daily News reported. 

And opposition from the government of American Samoa was a key element in a 10th Circuit Court decision against the plaintiffs in the Fitisemanu case. 

“It is evident that the wishes of the territory’s democratically elected representatives, who remind us that their people have not formed a consensus in favor of American citizenship and urge us not to impose citizenship on an unwilling people from a courthouse thousands of miles away, have not been taken into adequate consideration,” wrote Judge Carlos Lucero, an appointee of former President Clinton, in the 10th Circuit decision. 

Still, the appeals court panel recognized the readily-apparent flaws in the reasoning behind the Insular Cases. 

“They are criticized as amounting to a license for further imperial expansion and having been based at least in part on racist ideology,” wrote Lucero, who called the purpose and reasoning of the Insular Cases “disreputable to modern eyes.” 

But Lucero added that the current implementation of the Insular Cases allows territories with distinct cultural practices to maintain a way of life otherwise incompatible with certain U.S. constitutional principles, and granting birthright citizenship to the plaintiffs would force that same citizenship on other American Samoans who may not desire to be full-fledged U.S. citizens. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Pelosi defends trip to Taiwan: ‘We will not allow China to isolate Taiwan’

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended her trip to Taiwan on Wednesday, saying that she led a congressional delegation to the self-governing island to show that the U.S. “will not allow China to isolate Taiwan.”

“Our purpose in going to Taiwan was to say that we have this strong relationship built on the status quo, which we support,” Pelosi told reporters at a press conference on Wednesday.

“We will not allow China to isolate Taiwan. They have kept Taiwan from participating in the World Health Organization, other things where Taiwan can make a very valued contribution. And they may keep them from going there, but they’re not keeping us from going to Taiwan. We will not allow them to… that was our purpose, to salute this thriving democracy” she added.

Pelosi touched down in Taiwan on Aug. 2, putting the pin on days of speculation regarding whether or not the speaker would visit the self-governing island during a trip to the Indo-Pacific region. She was joined by a group of Democratic lawmakers.

Pelosi and her office refused to confirm the trip to Taiwan prior to her arrival, emphasizing that they do not give travel information in advance for security reasons.

The stop in Taiwan, however, was the topic of much speculation, especially since President Biden told reporters in July that “the military thinks it’s not a good idea right now” when asked about the potential Pelosi trip. China also urged Pelosi against making the trip.

The delegation ultimately held bilateral meetings with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen and Foreign Minister Joseph Wu. The trip made Pelosi the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit the self-governing island since 1997, when then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) traveled to the territory. Pelosi has a history of confronting Chinese leaders.

The trip sparked new military activity in the Pacific, with China moving two of its aircraft carriers in the South China Sea and flying planes close to the median line between the Taiwan Strait and the sea. The U.S. Navy also positioned a number of warships in waters close to Taiwan, though the service said the move was part of routine operations.

China imposed sanctions on Pelosi and her immediate family members in response to her trip to Taiwan. In a statement announcing the penalties, a spokesperson for the foreign minister called the speaker’s visit an “egregious provocation,” and said it was “a gross interference in China’s internal affairs.”

Asked about those sanctions on Wednesday, Pelosi brushed them aside.

“There’s no reaction,” Pelosi said. “Who cares?”

“We didn’t go there to talk about China, we went there to praise Taiwan. We went there to show our friendship, to say China cannot isolate Taiwan, so that’s what it was about. That is incidental to me of no relevance whatsoever,” she added.

Pelosi also confirmed Wednesday that her son joined the congressional delegation on the trip to the Indo-Pacific region. She said he was serving as her “escort.”

“Usually, we invited spouses. Not all could come but I had him come and I was very proud he was there and I’m thrilled, it was nice for me,” she said.

When asked if he any business dealings in relation to the trip, Pelosi said “no he did not, of course he did not.”

Source: TEST FEED1

House administrators warn lawmakers against TikTok use

The House’s chief administration officer is warning lawmakers of security concerns tied to TikTok as campaign season fuels interest in the app.

While primarily known for viral dance videos and dishing up a lighter side of the internet, lawmakers have been flocking to the app, seeing an opportunity to reach new and different demographics – especially younger voters.

But as lawmakers increasingly jump at the chance to be content creators, the operational office for the House issued a stern warning with a new cyber advisory.

“The ‘TikTok’ mobile application has been deemed by the CAO Office of CyberSecurity to be a high-risk to users due to its lack of transparency in how it protects customer data, its requirement of excessive permissions, and the potential security risks involved with its use,” the office wrote in a memo released Tuesday.

“We do not recommend the download or use of this application due to these security and privacy concerns.” 

The memo was first reported by Politico.

The concern surrounding the Chinese company stems from fears the app’s access to a wide suite of data stored on user’s phones could be accessed by the country’s government.

The advisory comes with no shortage of ways the app could access personal information, including checking a location device once an hour and noting it “continually requests access” to a user’s contacts and external storage. 

“TikTok actively harvests content for identifiable data. TikTok ‘may collect biometric identifiers and biometric information as defined under US laws,’ including ‘faceprints’ and ‘voiceprints,’ from videos users upload to their platform,” the advisory states.

It also may be able to access the device phone number, wifi network names, SIM card serial numbers, GPS status information, and subscription information.

In response to security concerts, TikTok has pledged to move U.S. users’ data to third party Oracle servers located outside of China, a transition that is still in process.

But the warning to lawmakers comes after many themselves voted to bar use of the app on any federal device in the 2021 military policy bill.

Still, The Hill previously reported that many lawmakers that backed the provision have since started using the app.

“I use it because we try to communicate with constituents through every medium available. We do town halls, mailers, surveys, tele-town halls, Twitter spaces, Instagram, Facebook, door knocking, TikTok. If I thought people were going to look at smoke signals and decipher that we would have a smoke signal program,” Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.) told The Hill earlier this month.

Auchincloss’s videos primarily show him talking about legislation, though in one he’s seen writing a response to Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) office, complete with a timelapse video of him riding the Senate subway to hand deliver it.

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), a relative newcomer to TikTok, shows him speaking on the House floor in support of a bill that would defend same-sex marraige as well as another where his is affectionately petting a dog as Demi Lavato’s voice says, “I love this man. And I have to have him.”

And videos from Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) range from serious to silly, in some cases reacting to the Supreme Court’s reversal on abortion rights or speaking at various graduations, to the lighter side, showing the former educator participating in an egg drop competition with middle schoolers or petting goats.

Reached for comment Wednesday, Bowman’s office said it would suspend use of the app.

“TikTok has been a way to reach young and otherwise disengaged people, but now that we have more details about the security risks of having it on government devices, we will pause on usage until we feel safe and get further clarity,” a spokeswoman for Bowman said in a statement to The Hill.

Other lawmakers have previously acknowledged they did have some concerns about the app.

“We only just put something up for the first time. So it’s not something I have used extensively. I do have concerns about the company. At the same time, tens of millions of Americans are on the site. So, you know, we’re on Facebook, even though I think Facebook has probably done more damage to American democracy than any company anywhere in the world. So this is always a dilemma,” Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) said.

TikTok pushed back against the advisory in the statement to The Hill Wednesday.

“The allegations in the House CAO’s advisory about TikTok range from misleading to wrong. We have requested a meeting to discuss the multiple inaccuracies in the advisory, and we look forward to working with them so they can advise Members and staff on concrete steps they can take to keep their data secure and private when using any social platform to connect with constituents,” a TikTok spokesperson said by email.

But one Democratic staffer who has been advising against the use of the app said other offices would be wise to ensure their boss doesn’t log on.

“I think it’s enlightening that when you have a nonpartisan arbiter or a sort of objective third party making it very clear that the use of TikTok is discouraged. And I think that just further emphasizes the point that while there may be some cachet or appeal in being able to attract younger voters, it’s very likely that the potential risks seem to greatly outweigh the potential benefit,” they said.

“While I understand the appeal of doing this, I think that it’s probably in the best interest of national security to stay far away from TikTok.”

Source: TEST FEED1

How high energy prices are making things better this summer

In early January, a barrel of crude oil fetched $76.08 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. At the time, American consumers were hitting the road again after their COVID-19 confinement and the industrial economy was awakening from a tough disruption. Demand for energy was on the rise, as was the price of gasoline at the pump.

While analysts recognized the recovery of the energy economy, hardly anyone predicted that crude oil’s price would hit $118.87 in early June, up more than 50 percent in just six months — let alone that Russia would invade Ukraine and simultaneously disrupt petroleum and natural gas flows to the western world. In the United States, the average price of a gallon of regular gas rose from $3.16 in January to $4.87 in early June.

We may not have seen such a big price increase coming, but everyone, it seems, knew it when it happened. Politicians scrambled, fussed at oil companies and called for patience. Their voices certainly mattered but were weak compared to the clear signals being delivered straight to every consumer and producer by the always-badgering price system. Enough time has now passed to look at how effective our response has been.

The price system unrelentingly and continuously delivered a scarcity alert worldwide. Whether it was motorized-rickshaw operators in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Uber drivers in Baltimore, mothers picking up children after school in Savannah, Ga., operators of truck fleets and police departments or managers of large manufacturing plants, the signal was the same. It said to consumers, “Energy has gotten scarcer; it is time to conserve.” And to suppliers, it said, “This stuff has gotten a lot more profitable to produce; see if you can find ways to provide more.”

That’s why, though it may sound cruel, some have said that the cure for high prices is high prices. Has this made a difference? And how could it?

Let’s look at the latest prices. During the first week of August, the price of crude oil hovered at $88.54, higher than the $76.08 price in January, but a lot lower than June’s $118.87. The average price of a gallon of regular gas rested at $4.19. Yes, lower prices had arrived, at least for oil, but not so much for gasoline.

Consumers responded in almost countless ways to bring the demand for energy down somewhat. With price-pressured budgets across Europe, national governments made the decision to darken lighted national monuments. In France, all air-conditioned shops were ordered to keep their doors closed; air-conditioned sidewalk cafes were banned. In some countries, illuminated billboards were ordered to darken during late-night hours. As for individual consumers, common sense prevails. People reluctantly adjusted thermostats, started working more from home to eliminate commuting and generally reduced their driving.

What about the supply side of the story? These adjustments didn’t come as quickly, but some important things happened. Germany postponed a decision to close its few remaining nuclear power stations. The Netherlands and Germany announced a joint effort to produce natural gas from a newly found field in the North Sea. Qatar reported a large increase in liquefied natural gas production for world markets. The United States appropriated funding to accelerate nuclear power production, and some support for oil extraction was included in the final version of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Naturally, most readers are still wondering about that sticky gasoline price that just doesn’t want to fall very much. There are multiple issues to consider, but refining capacity is the big one. Refiners reduced capacity when COVID led to a sharp decline in travel. Shuttered plants cannot be reopened quickly. Federal actions favoring electric cars and a general anti-fossil fuel ethic have made it clear to carbon fuel producers that they should not necessarily replace and enlarge aging fuel production capacity. Reversing the actions they’ve taken cannot happen quickly, and given the volatility of the matter, perhaps would not make economic sense.

Are higher prices a solution to high prices? Yes, they surely help. Incentives like these get people to act, and prices communicate scarcity when it matters most.

Bruce Yandle is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and dean emeritus of the Clemson College of Business and Behavioral Sciences.

Source: TEST FEED1

New figures suggest inflation may be at a turning point

Inflation didn’t rise between June and July according to new figures from the Labor Department’s Consumer Price Index, the first numbers in some time that suggest rising prices may finally be at a turning point.

Prices aren’t actually going down.

In fact, the new figures, while unchanged from June, were 8.5 percent higher than they were a year ago. That’s still near a 40-year high, though it’s also a dip from the 9.1-percent increase that occurred from June of last year to June of this year, according to the Labor Department’s Consumer Price Index (CPI).

More importantly, core inflation, which doesn’t count price increases in the particularly volatile categories of energy and food, held constant at 5.9 percent annually and was only up 0.3 percent compared to last month. 

That’s pretty much in line with the month-to-month changes in core inflation that happen under more “normal” economic circumstances when annual inflation is closer to 2 or 3 percent.

As a result, there’s a sense that the new numbers could be pointing to a change, even if there’s not enough information yet to be more hopeful.

“We are at a major turning point in terms of inflation,” said Brian Bethune, an economist at Boston College, who in an interview with The Hill called the figures a “good sign.”

“It’s one month. One month does not make a trend – you’re going to hear that a thousand times, but I also project that the inflation rate will moderate in August, because we’re seeing further declines in gasoline prices. So it’s looking like we’ve turned a corner,” he said.

There are reasons to be cautious.

Inflation had already taken three dips as it rose from zero percent at the height of the pandemic in March 2020 to more than 9 percent on an annual basis in June 2022.

During some of those some of those dips, core inflation did reach 0.3 percent on a monthly basis, so the current drop is hardly a guarantee that rates are coming down over the long term.

But even those who have long sounded the alarm on inflation were sounding a positive note on Wednesday.

“Look, I think this was a pretty good number,” Larry Summers, the former Treasury secretary, said Wednesday on MSNBC. Summers took shots from fellow Democrats last year when he warned stimulus measures could lead to inflation.

“We knew gas prices were way down and that was going to have a large effect on headline [inflation]. The core number was a bit better than we expected, than people expected. That was largely driven by components like hotels, like airlines, like used cars that are volatile month-to-month, that are hard to seasonally adjust especially coming out of the pandemic, and that aren’t so easy to measure,” he said.

However, Summers cautioned that it would be a mistake for anyone to radically revise their view of the situation based on the July figures.

“This report is a lot like the report in March, which was followed by very discouraging reports afterwards, making the optimists from March look wrong,” he said.

Experts have made some bad predictions on inflation over the last year.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen were both criticized for their initial characterization of inflation as “transitory.” 

This view, which was widely repeated by economists, was rooted in the belief that prices had been rising because shutdowns in the global economy had temporarily misaligned supply and demand. Once the economy was reopened, they argued, supply and demand would quickly come back into sync with each other.

This proved not to be true.

The temporary shutdowns in production, compounded by a lot of stimulus and quantitative easing from the governments of advanced economies, resulted in deeper supply side disruptions, including a surging demand for workers and logistical bottlenecks that prohibited the delivery of goods to consumers. With high demand and a sputtering supply side, inflation soared.

Gerald Epstein, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, said in an interview that there’s reason to think prices will remain high. He noted that workers were getting more power, which could lead to higher wages, and that this could help labor “recoup some of the lost wages over the last several decades.”

He also said the continued issues revolving over shutdowns in China related to the pandemic and the Russia war in Ukraine would act as pressures to keep prices high.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to higher gas prices and food prices, while continued economic shutdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic have taken a toll on China’s economy while disrupting supply chains, raising prices.

But most economists are still sounding more optimistic about the current CPI despite the geopolitical headwinds.

“It does seem like these numbers show that inflation is starting to moderate,” Epstein said. “There are a number of forces that are lowering inflationary pressures, including the drop in oil prices and gasoline prices.”

“The fact that core inflation has held steady,” he added,” is encouraging because it suggests that supply and labor costs are certainly not adding to inflation. Wages went up 5.2 percent on average in July, and that’s still well below the inflation rate of 8.5 percent. So there’s less of a cost-push pressure than there has been. On the other side of that coin, it also means that real wages have been continuing to fall for most workers.”

Source: TEST FEED1

HHS launches community-level environmental justice hazard calculator

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Wednesday formally launched its Environmental Justice Index (EJI), which will assign communities numerical scores based on the health burdens of environmental conditions. 

The EJI is based on data from the individual census tract and assigns both an overall environmental score based on 36 factors. The tool also includes data for individual possible hazardous sites within a community, such as coal mines or lead mines, and planned and built environmental features that can alleviate environmental burden, such as walkability or houses built after 1980.  

For example, the EJI analysis for Flint, Mich., the site of an ongoing water crisis as a result of lead contamination in drinking water, shows that its individual neighborhoods have more severe cumulative environmental impacts than 85 percent of American communities.

Zooming in further, the county’s 26^th census tract, which has a population of 2,616, has an 0.93 percent total rank out of a possible 1, with a score of 0.98 for the presence of treatment, storage and disposal sites, and a score of 0.83 for water pollution.  

In St. James Parish, La., part of an area that has become known as Cancer Alley, Census Tract 403 has a 1.00 for cancer risk from air toxicity, the maximum possible score, and an 0.90 for walkability—in other words, residents have few options but to increase pollutants by driving.  

“Too many communities across our nation, particularly low-income communities and communities of color, continue to bear the brunt of pollution. Meeting the needs of these communities requires our focused attention and we will use the Environmental Justice Index to do just that,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement. 

The White House Council on Environmental Quality has separately launched a tool that uses geospatial mapping to determine areas at particular environmental disadvantages. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan has separately identified environmental justice as a major priority for the administration. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden signs historic health care bill addressing toxic burn pits. But what exactly are they? 

Story at a glance

• President Biden signed the PACT Act into law on Wednesday, expanding health care coverage for veterans exposed to burn pits.  

• Burn pits were a commonly used method of disposing waste on military bases during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything from uniforms to electronics to chemicals were thrown into massive pits and burned, emitting plumes of toxic smoke.  

• The Department of Defense estimates that as many as 3.5 million service members have been exposed to burn pits since the first invasion of Iraq in the early 90s.  

President Biden signed a major health care bill, known as the PACT Act, into law on Wednesday that expands health care coverage for veterans harmed by exposure to burn pits.  

The White House has described the bipartisan legislation as the most significant expansion of veteran health care in 30 years. And while the veteran community has been sounding the alarm to the dangers of burn pits for years, many Americans still do not know what they are or their history.  

What is a burn pit?  

A burn pit is essentially exactly what it sounds like — a dug-out area on a U.S. military base used for burning all kinds of waste of war, like rubber tires, electronics, human waste, toxic chemicals, plastic, wood and left-over food.  

The U.S. military commonly used burn pits overseas until the mid-2010s, primarily during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  

Why are veterans concerned over burn pits? 

The indiscriminate burning of waste at military bases caused huge amounts of harmful smoke containing toxic chemicals to be emitted into the air close to where soldiers slept and ate, often for prolonged periods of time.  

A nearly 10-acre burn pit emitted enough smoke to cover Joint Base Balad — one of the largest military bases in Iraq — for instance, according to the Military Times. 

Exposure to burn pits during military service has been linked to cancer, respiratory illnesses and cardiovascular conditions.  

About 3.5 million service members could have been exposed to burn pits since the first invasion of Iraq in 1991, according to the Department of Defense.  

Between 2007 and 2020, over 12,500 veterans issued health care claims stating they had conditions connected to burn pit exposure and the Department of Veteran Affairs only accept the claims of about 2,800 of those veterans, according to Chief of U.S. Veteran Affairs Laurine Carson.  

Since the military did not keep a clear record of everything burned in pits, the exact toxins emitted into the air are unknown.  

Does the U.S. military still use burn pits?  

Burn pits have not been formally banned but their use across U.S. military bases has decreased, according to reporting from the Military Times. And while the Pentagon admits to the dangers posed by burn pits there were at least nine open burn pits as of 2019, according to a Department of Defense report to Congress from that year.   

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA

RETIREES USING THE INTERNET GET A BOOST TO COGNITIVE FUNCTION

EATING MORE COLORFUL FOODS MAY REDUCE RISK OF COGNITIVE DECLINE

STUDY SUGGESTS THIS GAME COULD DELAY THE PROGRESSION OF DEMENTIA

EARNING A BACHELOR’S DEGREE COULD ADD AN AVERAGE OF THREE YEARS ONTO YOUR LIFE, STUDY FINDS

Source: TEST FEED1

Pelosi's Taiwan trip heightens the US-China perceptual dilemma

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently made world headlines arriving in Taiwan amid strong rebukes from the Chinese government. Pelosi is the highest-ranking U.S. government official to visit Taiwan since then-Speaker Newt Gingrich visited in 1997. 

Pelosi’s visit was meant to send an unmistakable signal: Taiwan is so important to the U.S. government that top officials are willing to visit despite stern warnings from Beijing. The logic behind the move is a straightforward case of diplomatic deterrence — by signaling strength, Pelosi aimed to deter China from exercising its influence over Taiwan. Her fear is that inaction would signal weakness, emboldening Beijing to act aggressively. But this is only part of the story.

Deterrence by the U.S. government might increase the chance of confrontation, which could be immediate and obvious. For instance, China responded to Pelosi’s visit by carrying out military exercises in the Taiwan Strait. Fortunately, these drills did not result in an unintentional escalation, a real risk with demonstrations of force.

But perhaps more important, Pelosi’s deterrence-driven visit might contribute to a longer-term “perceptual dilemma.” A perceptual dilemma exists when parties to a potential conflict would prefer to cooperate but believe the other side will take advantage of their mollifying actions. So, each side avoids appearing weak.  

The problem with deterrence is that it reinforces the other side’s fear that actions aimed at cooperation will be met with opportunism. The result is that conflict and confrontation are more likely as both sides display their might. Whether deterrence works or contributes to a conflict spiral is an open question. But it is something that must at least be considered in the case of Taiwan and beyond. 

The U.S. government has no legal obligation to defend Taiwan. In 1980 President Jimmy Carter annulled the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which had required the United States to defend Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands. The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 delineates U.S.-Taiwan relations but does not guarantee U.S. military protection against invasion. 

Perceptions are especially important because the U.S. government has long held a “one China” policy, which recognizes the People’s Republic of China as the sole government of China, while also engaging in “strategic ambiguity” regarding its commitment to defend Taiwan. Actions by Washington to signal strength — even if driven by benevolence — might increase the chance of conflict not just between China and Taiwan but also between China and the United States, both nuclear powers.

This also matters beyond Taiwan. The U.S. government maintains a global network of military bases, deploys special operations around the world and is the world’s largest arms dealer. It spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined, including China and Russia. The logic behind these expansive forces and activities is the supposed need for a global hegemon to create and maintain order and freedom around the world. Perhaps. But another outcome could be disorder and a greater chance of conflict by elevating force over peaceful cooperation. By signaling that force is the default strategy, the projection of power can make it harder for others to offer cooperative gestures.

None of this is to deny that there are real challenges in the world, as there always have been and always will be. Instead, it is to emphasize that the nature and magnitude of those challenges can be exacerbated by policies based on a negative sum view of the world akin to a global game of musical chairs. From this perspective, each nation gains only at the expense of others and therefore possible adversaries must be checked through deterrence. 

An alternative view is that many opportunities exist to work together to find solutions with other nations. Instead of signaling weakness, working towards nonviolent solutions to pressing challenges shows significant strength through self-control and a determination consistent with America’s purported values. That is a perception worth cultivating.

Christopher J. Coyne, Ph.D., is senior fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and professor of economics at George Mason University. He is the author of the forthcoming book “In Search of Monsters to Destroy: The Folly of American Empire and the Paths to Peace.”

Source: TEST FEED1