TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Payback
Dedicated to the Fools, Racists, and Ignorant
People who vote for the GOP and trump or don't vote because they claim it is not important
february 15, 2019
400 years and they have learned nothing
8 disturbing trends that reveal the South’s battered psyche
From Salon: Across red-state America, especially in the Deep South, the latest statistics show that the cycle of poverty, in its many manifestations, is unchanged and holding firm. Why is this? It’s easy to say this is how Republicans like to run states—cutting budgets, not raising the minimum wage, opposing labor unions. They let the poor and working class stew in their hardscrabble juices. Meanwhile, they distract voters by accusing liberals of waging war on the few sources of personal power in Southerners’ difficult lives: their religious beliefs and owning guns. But go back several decades when segregationist Democrats ruled; for the most part, they weren’t very different from today’s Republicans.
So what is it that perpetuates decades of poverty in the Deep South? What follows are eight bundles of statistics tracking this latest cycle of poverty. Could it be that people who historically have been treated badly, who have little money in their pockets but look to the sky and pray, expect less from others—including the public and private sector? Does that explain why red-staters cling to God, gun ownership and a “leave-me-alone” ferocity?
They expect politicians to defend their values and their pride and little more?
What’s going on here isn’t entirely political, even if it is used by red-state Republicans in their personal drive for power and influence. Look at what the following statistics reveal about red-staters trapped in deep cycles of poverty. What is the thread that connects lousy governance, bad health, evangelical religion and firearms fervor?
1. Southern states have the most poor people.
2. Deep South states have no minimum wage.
3. Deep South has lowest economic mobility.
4. South has lowest per capita spending by state government.
5. Forget about decent preventative healthcare.
6. One result: people self-medicate in response.
7. Forget the lottery, just pray to Jesus.
8. And hold onto that gun!
So what is it that perpetuates decades of poverty in the Deep South? What follows are eight bundles of statistics tracking this latest cycle of poverty. Could it be that people who historically have been treated badly, who have little money in their pockets but look to the sky and pray, expect less from others—including the public and private sector? Does that explain why red-staters cling to God, gun ownership and a “leave-me-alone” ferocity?
They expect politicians to defend their values and their pride and little more?
What’s going on here isn’t entirely political, even if it is used by red-state Republicans in their personal drive for power and influence. Look at what the following statistics reveal about red-staters trapped in deep cycles of poverty. What is the thread that connects lousy governance, bad health, evangelical religion and firearms fervor?
1. Southern states have the most poor people.
2. Deep South states have no minimum wage.
3. Deep South has lowest economic mobility.
4. South has lowest per capita spending by state government.
5. Forget about decent preventative healthcare.
6. One result: people self-medicate in response.
7. Forget the lottery, just pray to Jesus.
8. And hold onto that gun!
they vote for republicans in tennessee!!!
payback headlines - how you are screwed!!
*Midwest farmers going broke at record rates thanks to Trump's trade war
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Reeling from the shutdown and Trump’s tax law, Americans see 8.4% drop in average tax refunds
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump’s trade wars put farms on the brink of bankruptcy — and it could be ‘devastating’ for his 2020 campaign: report(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump’s tariffs completely wiped out Harley-Davidson profits last quarter
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*U.S. ON TRACK TO ADD $12 TRILLION TO NATIONAL DEBT BY 2029 UNLESS WASHINGTON CHANGES COURSE
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*84 days after residents voted for Medicaid expansion, Utah lawmakers want to repeal or cap it
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The Trump administration wants to tighten SNAP work requirements, bypassing Congress
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump tariffs force tough choices on auto suppliers
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump's war on science: how the US is putting politics above evidence
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump trade war causes stock to plummet and commodity prices to ‘crater’ for America’s largest meat processor(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Dear Media, Please Cut the Sob Stories About Trump Voters Hurt by Trump Policies
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*"It’s infuriating”: Trump-supporting parents turn on the president over lax EPA rules
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*WHITE HOUSE ADMITS TRUMP CLIMATE POLICIES WILL COST AMERICANS $500 BILLION A YEAR
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*‘Never seen things this bad’: Soy farmers fume as their crops rot in storage thanks to Trump’s trade wars
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PLOTS COSTLY PRIVATE-CARE EXPANSION FOR VETERANS
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*This is how much more expensive health care premiums will be in 2019 thanks to Trump
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*US firms face tariff-fueled price hikes, widespread labor shortages: Fed
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump trade war delivers farm boom in Brazil, gloom in Iowa
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*China slashes U.S. LPG imports amid trade war
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*One map shows why Trump's trade war with China could be a disaster for average Americans(ARTICLE BELOW)
PAYBACK FUNNIES(at the end)
GREEN PARTY FucK YOU! - THIS IS WHAT TRUMP HAS WROUGHT...SAME AS HILLARY
Cattledog - demo. underground
|
29 rules have been overturned
Flood building standards Proposed ban on a potentially harmful pesticide Freeze on new coal leases on public lands Methane reporting requirement Anti-dumping rule for coal companies Decision on Keystone XL pipeline Decision on Dakota Access pipeline Third-party settlement funds Offshore drilling ban in the Atlantic and Arctic Ban on seismic air gun testing in the Atlantic Northern Bering Sea climate resilience plan Royalty regulations for oil, gas and coal Inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews Permit-issuing process for new infrastructure projects Green Climate Fund contributions Mining restrictions in Bristol Bay, Alaska Endangered species listings Hunting ban on wolves and grizzly bears in Alaska Protections for whales and sea turtles Reusable water bottles rule for national parks National parks climate order Environmental mitigation for federal projects Calculation for “social cost” of carbon Planning rule for public lands Copper filter cake listing as hazardous waste Mine cleanup rule Sewage treatment pollution regulations Ban on use of lead ammunition on federal lands Restrictions on fishing |
24 rollbacks are in progress
Clean Power Plan Paris climate agreement Wetland and tributary protections Car and truck fuel-efficiency standards Status of 10 national monuments Status of 12 marine areas Limits on toxic discharge from power plants Coal ash discharge regulations Emissions standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants Emissions rules for power plant start-up and shutdown Sage grouse habitat protections Fracking regulations on public lands Regulations on oil and gas drilling in some national parks Oil rig safety regulations Regulations for offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge Hunting method regulations in Alaska Requirement for tracking emissions on federal highways Emissions standards for trailers and glider kits Limits on methane emissions on public lands Permitting process for air-polluting plants Offshore oil and gas leasing Use of birds in subsistence handicrafts Coal dust rule |
7 rollbacks are in limbo
Methane emission limits at new oil and gas wells
Limits on landfill emissions
Mercury emission limits for power plants
Hazardous chemical facility regulations
Groundwater protections for uranium mines
Efficiency standards for federal buildings
Rule helping consumers buy fuel-efficient tires
Source:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Methane emission limits at new oil and gas wells
Limits on landfill emissions
Mercury emission limits for power plants
Hazardous chemical facility regulations
Groundwater protections for uranium mines
Efficiency standards for federal buildings
Rule helping consumers buy fuel-efficient tires
Source:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
The True Cost of Voodoo Economics
The Reagan-Bush Debt is how much of the national debt of the United States is attributable to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and
the Republican fiscal policy of Borrow-And-Spend.
As of Monday, February 04, 2019 at 3:19:53PM CT,
The Current Reagan-Bush Debt is:
$13,690,606,854,414.60
which means that in a total of 20 years,
these three presidents have led to the creation of
91.81%
of the entire national debt
in only 8.2305% of the 243 years of the existence of the United States of America.
@ReaganBushDebt.org
Midwest farmers going broke at record rates thanks to Trump's trade war
Bankruptcies have doubled in the biggest farm states, with falling prices and the trade war largely to blame
IGOR DERYSH - salon
FEBRUARY 13, 2019 10:00AM (UTC)
Farmers in the Midwest are filing for bankruptcy at record rates as a result of President Trump’s trade war.
Bankruptcies in courts that cover the largest farm states in the country were nearly double in 2018 what they were in 2008, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers a region that includes Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, received twice as many bankruptcy filings in 2018 as it did in 2008, during the height of the Great Recession.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska and both Dakotas, saw a 96 percent increase in bankruptcy filings last year compared to 2008.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, saw 59 percent more farm bankruptcies last year than it did during the financial crisis a decade earlier.
Those states produce nearly half of all American farm sales and had already been hit hard by the sinking prices of corn and soybeans as well as increased competition from overseas.
The Wall Street Journal points to Trump’s trade war with countries like China and Mexico as a key driver in the rising rate of farm bankruptcies.
Soybean and hog prices fell after those countries imposed retaliatory tariffs on the United States in response to Trump’s steel and import tariffs, Bloomberg reported.
Dairy farmers have also been hit hard by the retaliatory tariffs China and Mexico imposed on U.S. cheese and tariffs on pork have led to a record buildup of meat and caused prices of beef and chicken to plummet.
Farmers say that after years of lowered profits, the trade war was more than many farmers could afford.
“I’ve been through several dips in 40 years,” Nebraska corn and soybean farmer Kirk Duensing told the Wall Street Journal after filing for bankruptcy with more than $1 million in debt. “This one here is gonna kick my butt.”
According to the Department of Agriculture, the median farm income was negative by $1,548 in 2018 while farm debt climbed to more than $400 billion, a rate not seen in the last four decades.
The spike in bankruptcies and plummeting farm profits could well put a damper on President Trump’s re-election hopes. Trump repeatedly vowed to help farmers on the 2016 campaign trail, and a Farm Journal Research survey reported that 70 percent of farmers voted for him over Hillary Clinton.
The group reports that just over half of farmers would vote for him again. Even Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has generally been a strong Trump ally, has railed against the trade war as “catastrophic.”
Trump appears undeterred and has repeatedly bragged that “billions of dollars are pouring into the coffers of the USA because of the tariffs being charged to China.”
This is not true. Those tariffs aren’t being "charged to China" at all. They are being charged to American importers who then pass on the costs to consumers.
Beyond that , an analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations found that the Trump administration will pay 115 percent of the money tariffs are estimated to generated in order to bail out farmers hit hard by the trade war.
“All of it and more is being paid out to American farmers as partial compensation for their losses from Chinese tariff retaliation,” according to CFR. “The U.S. government has already committed to paying out $1.2 billion more to angry American farmers than it will take in this year from angry American firms.”
Bankruptcies in courts that cover the largest farm states in the country were nearly double in 2018 what they were in 2008, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers a region that includes Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, received twice as many bankruptcy filings in 2018 as it did in 2008, during the height of the Great Recession.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska and both Dakotas, saw a 96 percent increase in bankruptcy filings last year compared to 2008.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, saw 59 percent more farm bankruptcies last year than it did during the financial crisis a decade earlier.
Those states produce nearly half of all American farm sales and had already been hit hard by the sinking prices of corn and soybeans as well as increased competition from overseas.
The Wall Street Journal points to Trump’s trade war with countries like China and Mexico as a key driver in the rising rate of farm bankruptcies.
Soybean and hog prices fell after those countries imposed retaliatory tariffs on the United States in response to Trump’s steel and import tariffs, Bloomberg reported.
Dairy farmers have also been hit hard by the retaliatory tariffs China and Mexico imposed on U.S. cheese and tariffs on pork have led to a record buildup of meat and caused prices of beef and chicken to plummet.
Farmers say that after years of lowered profits, the trade war was more than many farmers could afford.
“I’ve been through several dips in 40 years,” Nebraska corn and soybean farmer Kirk Duensing told the Wall Street Journal after filing for bankruptcy with more than $1 million in debt. “This one here is gonna kick my butt.”
According to the Department of Agriculture, the median farm income was negative by $1,548 in 2018 while farm debt climbed to more than $400 billion, a rate not seen in the last four decades.
The spike in bankruptcies and plummeting farm profits could well put a damper on President Trump’s re-election hopes. Trump repeatedly vowed to help farmers on the 2016 campaign trail, and a Farm Journal Research survey reported that 70 percent of farmers voted for him over Hillary Clinton.
The group reports that just over half of farmers would vote for him again. Even Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has generally been a strong Trump ally, has railed against the trade war as “catastrophic.”
Trump appears undeterred and has repeatedly bragged that “billions of dollars are pouring into the coffers of the USA because of the tariffs being charged to China.”
This is not true. Those tariffs aren’t being "charged to China" at all. They are being charged to American importers who then pass on the costs to consumers.
Beyond that , an analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations found that the Trump administration will pay 115 percent of the money tariffs are estimated to generated in order to bail out farmers hit hard by the trade war.
“All of it and more is being paid out to American farmers as partial compensation for their losses from Chinese tariff retaliation,” according to CFR. “The U.S. government has already committed to paying out $1.2 billion more to angry American farmers than it will take in this year from angry American firms.”
Reeling from the shutdown and Trump’s tax law, Americans see 8.4% drop in average tax refunds
And you can't exactly file them on "one card," either.
JESSICA M. GOLDSTEIN - thinkprogress
FEB 9, 2019, 11:54 AM
Last April, President Trump bragged that, under his new tax code, not only would “you save a lot of money,” but that the filing process would be so simple, you’d be able to file on “one page, one card.”
“You’ll have a nice, simple form next year,” Trump said last April. “This will be the last year. So take pictures of it and enjoy it. This is the last time you’ll have to file a very complex and big tax form. It will be much easier starting next April.”
In fact, Americans who were counting on hundreds of dollars in tax refunds last week found themselves coming up short.
Some 30 million Americans are going to end up owing the IRS money this year, which is three million more people than owed the IRS money before the Trump administration’s tax law went into effect.
The Internal Revenue Service reports that the average refunds last week were down 8.4 percent for the first week of the tax season. The average tax refund check paid out this year has been $1,865, down almost $200 from this same time last year. Changes to the tax code also complicated payroll withholding, meaning many employers did not withhold enough and their employees now owe more taxes.
In short, filing your taxes is as convoluted as ever, arguably moreso, in this first full year under the new tax law.
As HuffPost notes, “Low-income taxpayers often file early to pocket the money as soon as possible. Many taxpayers count on the refunds to make important payments, or spend the money on things like home repairs, a vacation or a car.”
This data is only from the first week of filing, though, in a process that will continue until April 15. The IRS has urged taxpayers to keep in mind how early the season is and to file online “as the quickest way to receive their refunds.”
Edward Karl, vice president of taxation for the American Institute of CPAs, told Politico, “There are going to be a lot of unhappy people over the next month. Taxpayers want a large refund.”
Karl also told Politico that “some 71 percent of taxpayers received refunds last year worth about $3,000 on average, which represents the single largest financial transaction for the bulk of those people in a given year.”
Meanwhile, the effects of the shutdown — the longest in U.S. history — are still lingering weeks after the government was finally reopened. The number of refunds sent out by the IRS was down approximately 24 percent; the IRS was still “struggl[ing] to get up to speed after the government shutdown,” HuffPost writes. The shutdown ended only three days before filing season began.
“You’ll have a nice, simple form next year,” Trump said last April. “This will be the last year. So take pictures of it and enjoy it. This is the last time you’ll have to file a very complex and big tax form. It will be much easier starting next April.”
In fact, Americans who were counting on hundreds of dollars in tax refunds last week found themselves coming up short.
Some 30 million Americans are going to end up owing the IRS money this year, which is three million more people than owed the IRS money before the Trump administration’s tax law went into effect.
The Internal Revenue Service reports that the average refunds last week were down 8.4 percent for the first week of the tax season. The average tax refund check paid out this year has been $1,865, down almost $200 from this same time last year. Changes to the tax code also complicated payroll withholding, meaning many employers did not withhold enough and their employees now owe more taxes.
In short, filing your taxes is as convoluted as ever, arguably moreso, in this first full year under the new tax law.
As HuffPost notes, “Low-income taxpayers often file early to pocket the money as soon as possible. Many taxpayers count on the refunds to make important payments, or spend the money on things like home repairs, a vacation or a car.”
This data is only from the first week of filing, though, in a process that will continue until April 15. The IRS has urged taxpayers to keep in mind how early the season is and to file online “as the quickest way to receive their refunds.”
Edward Karl, vice president of taxation for the American Institute of CPAs, told Politico, “There are going to be a lot of unhappy people over the next month. Taxpayers want a large refund.”
Karl also told Politico that “some 71 percent of taxpayers received refunds last year worth about $3,000 on average, which represents the single largest financial transaction for the bulk of those people in a given year.”
Meanwhile, the effects of the shutdown — the longest in U.S. history — are still lingering weeks after the government was finally reopened. The number of refunds sent out by the IRS was down approximately 24 percent; the IRS was still “struggl[ing] to get up to speed after the government shutdown,” HuffPost writes. The shutdown ended only three days before filing season began.
Trump’s trade wars put farms on the brink of bankruptcy — and it could be ‘devastating’ for his 2020 campaign: report
Brad Reed - raw story
06 FEB 2019 AT 14:12 ET
A new report from Politico shows that President Donald Trump’s trade war with China is still hammering farmers in the Midwest, and one political scientist predicts that it will cost him the 2020 election if he doesn’t fix it fast.
“The president’s trade policies have sent U.S. agricultural exports plunging, exacerbating already difficult economic conditions facing farmers,” Politico reports. “Average farm income has fallen to near 15-year lows under Trump, and in some areas of the country, farm bankruptcies are soaring.”
Farming lobbying groups are hitting Capitol Hill this week to lobby the president to wind down his trade war, and they’re describing the plight American farmers are facing thanks to Trump’s tariffs.
“You’ve had farms that have gone out of business, that have gone bankrupt because of this trade war,” Brian Kuehl, the executive director of Farmers for Free Trade, tells Politico. “There’s a lot of farmers going through tough conversations right now with their lenders.”
And Gregory Wawro, political science professor at Columbia University, tells Politico that Trump is shooting his own reelection campaign in the foot as his trade war drags on.
“If the farm economy continues to get worse in the run-up to 2020, my sense is that this will be devastating to Trump,” he said. “Although it is difficult to defeat a sitting president, it is hard to see how Trump wins a second term if things play out that way.”
“The president’s trade policies have sent U.S. agricultural exports plunging, exacerbating already difficult economic conditions facing farmers,” Politico reports. “Average farm income has fallen to near 15-year lows under Trump, and in some areas of the country, farm bankruptcies are soaring.”
Farming lobbying groups are hitting Capitol Hill this week to lobby the president to wind down his trade war, and they’re describing the plight American farmers are facing thanks to Trump’s tariffs.
“You’ve had farms that have gone out of business, that have gone bankrupt because of this trade war,” Brian Kuehl, the executive director of Farmers for Free Trade, tells Politico. “There’s a lot of farmers going through tough conversations right now with their lenders.”
And Gregory Wawro, political science professor at Columbia University, tells Politico that Trump is shooting his own reelection campaign in the foot as his trade war drags on.
“If the farm economy continues to get worse in the run-up to 2020, my sense is that this will be devastating to Trump,” he said. “Although it is difficult to defeat a sitting president, it is hard to see how Trump wins a second term if things play out that way.”
Trump’s tariffs completely wiped out Harley-Davidson profits last quarter
Brad Reed - raw story
29 JAN 2019 AT 11:18 ET
President Donald Trump’s tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum have taken a hammer to the financial bottom line of iconic American motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson.
Bloomberg reports that Harley-Davidson “barely broke even” in its fourth-quarter 2018 earnings report, as the president’s trade wars with China and other nations continued to take their toll.
Without the costs of the tariffs, the company would have posted earnings of $0.17 per share, which was a big miss compared to the consensus estimate of $0.29 per share. This was Harley-Davidson’s biggest miss of the consensus estimate since early 2009, when the entire country was reeling from the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis.
The bad financial report caused Harley-Davidson’s stock to plummet and share prices dropped by as much as 9 percent in the wake of the news.
Harley-Davidson last year announced it was laying off hundreds of workers while company CEO Matthew Levatich blamed Trump’s trade policies in part for its decision to give employees the ax.
The president has also gotten into Twitter feuds with the company after it announced over the summer that it would be moving some of its manufacturing operations overseas.
Bloomberg reports that Harley-Davidson “barely broke even” in its fourth-quarter 2018 earnings report, as the president’s trade wars with China and other nations continued to take their toll.
Without the costs of the tariffs, the company would have posted earnings of $0.17 per share, which was a big miss compared to the consensus estimate of $0.29 per share. This was Harley-Davidson’s biggest miss of the consensus estimate since early 2009, when the entire country was reeling from the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis.
The bad financial report caused Harley-Davidson’s stock to plummet and share prices dropped by as much as 9 percent in the wake of the news.
Harley-Davidson last year announced it was laying off hundreds of workers while company CEO Matthew Levatich blamed Trump’s trade policies in part for its decision to give employees the ax.
The president has also gotten into Twitter feuds with the company after it announced over the summer that it would be moving some of its manufacturing operations overseas.
prediction by the people who caused the problems!!!
U.S. on track to add $12 trillion to national debt by 2029 unless Washington changes course
marketwatch
Published: Jan 28, 2019 1:59 p.m. ET
Washington has been drowning in red ink for years and it’s only going to get a lot worse over the next decade, a fresh government estimate shows.
The U.S. is likely to add $12 trillion in public debt from 2020 to 2029 through a combination of higher government spending and slower economic growth, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s on top of the $16.6 trillion the government is expected to owe to the public at the end of 2019.
Unless the red fiscal tide is reversed, the percentage of the U.S. public debt relative to the size of the economy would climb to 93% by 2029 from 78% right now.
That’s a bit lower than the CBO’s prior forecast, but it would still be historic in a time of peace. The last time the U.S. debt was that big was shortly after the end of World War Two, a period when the government spent enormous sums to defeat the Nazi menace and Japanese militarism.
Expressed another way, the public debt would average 4.4% of gross domestic product from 2020 to 2029.
“Such deficits would be significantly larger than the 2.9% of GDP that deficits averaged over the past 50 years,” the CBO said.
What’s the problem? The CBO predicts a steady increase in federal spending based on current law, particularly to pay for health care and other expenses for the elderly.
Although tax receipts are likely to increase despite large tax cuts by the Trump White House, they won’t rise as fast as spending, the agency said.
At the same time, the U.S. economy is likely to decelerate from a projected 3.1% growth rate in 2018 to an annual average of 1.7% over the next decade, the CBO projects. Previously the agency had predicted the economy would grow slightly faster in the next 10 years.
The agency believes slow population growth is one of the chief reasons — along with higher interest rates by the Federal Reserve.
The CBO, of course, could be wrong. The economy could grow much faster than it expects, taxes could rise or spending could fall. Yet if the agency is right, the fiscal health of the U.S. will continue to deteriorate.
In 2019, the annual U.S. deficit is forecast to rise to $900 billion from $779 billion in 2018. The deficit is projected to top $1 trillion annually beginning in 2022 — two years later than the CBO originally forecast.
The U.S. is likely to add $12 trillion in public debt from 2020 to 2029 through a combination of higher government spending and slower economic growth, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s on top of the $16.6 trillion the government is expected to owe to the public at the end of 2019.
Unless the red fiscal tide is reversed, the percentage of the U.S. public debt relative to the size of the economy would climb to 93% by 2029 from 78% right now.
That’s a bit lower than the CBO’s prior forecast, but it would still be historic in a time of peace. The last time the U.S. debt was that big was shortly after the end of World War Two, a period when the government spent enormous sums to defeat the Nazi menace and Japanese militarism.
Expressed another way, the public debt would average 4.4% of gross domestic product from 2020 to 2029.
“Such deficits would be significantly larger than the 2.9% of GDP that deficits averaged over the past 50 years,” the CBO said.
What’s the problem? The CBO predicts a steady increase in federal spending based on current law, particularly to pay for health care and other expenses for the elderly.
Although tax receipts are likely to increase despite large tax cuts by the Trump White House, they won’t rise as fast as spending, the agency said.
At the same time, the U.S. economy is likely to decelerate from a projected 3.1% growth rate in 2018 to an annual average of 1.7% over the next decade, the CBO projects. Previously the agency had predicted the economy would grow slightly faster in the next 10 years.
The agency believes slow population growth is one of the chief reasons — along with higher interest rates by the Federal Reserve.
The CBO, of course, could be wrong. The economy could grow much faster than it expects, taxes could rise or spending could fall. Yet if the agency is right, the fiscal health of the U.S. will continue to deteriorate.
In 2019, the annual U.S. deficit is forecast to rise to $900 billion from $779 billion in 2018. The deficit is projected to top $1 trillion annually beginning in 2022 — two years later than the CBO originally forecast.
congratulations gop voters!!!
84 days after residents voted for Medicaid expansion, Utah lawmakers want to repeal or cap it
Utah state legislature returns Monday, and GOP lawmakers are considering expansion repeal, Medicaid caps, and work requirements.
AMANDA MICHELLE GOMEZ - thinkprogress
JAN 28, 2019, 9:03 AM
The Utah state legislature returns to work on Monday and GOP lawmakers are already proposing multiple bills that hobble a successful ballot measure to expand health care to more low-income residents.
Utah State Sen. Allen Christensen’s (R) bill would prevent the ballot initiative — “Proposition 3,” which was approved in November and allowed for a clean Medicaid expansion — from going into effect. It would do so if the federal government approves a waiver submitted by the state in July to impose a per capita cap on federal reimbursement for more enrollment restrictions.
---
Politico reported early this month that the Trump administration is currently exploring whether it can allow states to implement Medicaid block grants, a policy sought by conservatives to attempt to limit spending. When ThinkProgress asked Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) if he’s interested in the idea, his office replied, “Governor Herbert supports meaningful changes to Medicaid that bring the program into alignment with state demographics and budget constraints.”
Christensen’s bill would also condition eligibility on reported work. He said it would mirror the state’s work requirement for food assistance, calling it “a pretty weak requirement” and beneficiaries would just need to “think about going to work and you’ve accomplished it.”
“We are going to implement the expansion and we are going to do it in a financially responsible way,” said Christensen, by phone.
Meanwhile, State Sen. Jacob Anderegg’s (R) bill overtly repeals the ballot measure. This legislation also repeals a partial Medicaid expansion measure that was approved by lawmakers last year but was later discarded when voters demanded full expansion.
“I’ve done a fairly extensive head count and think that there are enough votes in the House and the Senate to pass it,” Anderegg told the Salt Lake Tribune.
“The first few pages of this new bill show that Senator Christensen’s plan strikes out huge swaths of Prop 3,” said Utah Health Policy Project Executive Director Matt Slonaker, in a statement. “This plan adds provisions that would indefinitely delay enrollment and risk legal challenge.”
“Utah voters are smart, they are informed, and they chose to support full Medicaid expansion without caps, red tape, or delays. These bills that would repeal Proposition 3 are harmful to Utahans and run contrary to the will of the people,” Slonaker added.
In November, Utah residents approved Prop 3 to implement the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion by April, extending health insurance to over 150,000 people who earn no more than 138 percent of the federal poverty level or just under $35,000 for a family of four. Medicaid expansion received bipartisan support, with the ballot winning in 59 percent of House and Senate districts, including Christensen’s, but not Anderegg’s.
Medicaid expansion funding primarily comes from the federal government, which pays the bulk share, at 93 percent of the associated costs in 2019 and 90 percent in 2020 thereafter. States pay for their portion in various ways, but Utah voted to cover more residents by increasing the state’s sales tax on non-food items by 0.15 percentage points (from 4.7 percent to 4.85 percent).
Earlier analysis from the governor’s office and the state legislature found that the revenue from the increase to the state sales tax rate would cover the state’s share. But a January 2019 memo circulating from Governor’s Office of Management and Budget said there’s a shortfall.
---
“It’s been one excuse after another for those who do not want to expand the Medicaid program,” said Joan Alker, the executive director of Georgetown’s Center for Children and Families.
“It still remains the best investment a state can make. What other program can a state put up one dollar and get nine dollars back from the federal government? If you can make that kind of investment in your personal life, would you take it? I think you would,” she added.
Furthermore, various studies show increased state savings, as more people gain insurance and utilize preventative care services instead of the emergency room.
Opponents of Medicaid expansion by ballot tried to block the policy in various ways. In Montana, Big Tobacco invested an unprecedented amount of money into defeating the referendum and, in Nebraska, lawmakers tried to block the ballot by suing. It took a new governor in Maine to finally expand Medicaid a year after voters approved it by ballot.
“Politicians are trampling on the most fundamental values of representative democracy,” said Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of The Fairness Project, a group that supported states that expanded Medicaid by ballot. “For months, Utahans discussed, debated, and learned about what Medicaid expansion would do for the state.”
“Then, a clear majority of Utahans voted to expand health care to people struggling to make ends meet and bring tax dollars home from Washington,” he said. “The voters have spoken. In any other job, if you disobeyed a direct order from your bosses you’d be fired the next day.”
Utah State Sen. Allen Christensen’s (R) bill would prevent the ballot initiative — “Proposition 3,” which was approved in November and allowed for a clean Medicaid expansion — from going into effect. It would do so if the federal government approves a waiver submitted by the state in July to impose a per capita cap on federal reimbursement for more enrollment restrictions.
---
Politico reported early this month that the Trump administration is currently exploring whether it can allow states to implement Medicaid block grants, a policy sought by conservatives to attempt to limit spending. When ThinkProgress asked Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) if he’s interested in the idea, his office replied, “Governor Herbert supports meaningful changes to Medicaid that bring the program into alignment with state demographics and budget constraints.”
Christensen’s bill would also condition eligibility on reported work. He said it would mirror the state’s work requirement for food assistance, calling it “a pretty weak requirement” and beneficiaries would just need to “think about going to work and you’ve accomplished it.”
“We are going to implement the expansion and we are going to do it in a financially responsible way,” said Christensen, by phone.
Meanwhile, State Sen. Jacob Anderegg’s (R) bill overtly repeals the ballot measure. This legislation also repeals a partial Medicaid expansion measure that was approved by lawmakers last year but was later discarded when voters demanded full expansion.
“I’ve done a fairly extensive head count and think that there are enough votes in the House and the Senate to pass it,” Anderegg told the Salt Lake Tribune.
“The first few pages of this new bill show that Senator Christensen’s plan strikes out huge swaths of Prop 3,” said Utah Health Policy Project Executive Director Matt Slonaker, in a statement. “This plan adds provisions that would indefinitely delay enrollment and risk legal challenge.”
“Utah voters are smart, they are informed, and they chose to support full Medicaid expansion without caps, red tape, or delays. These bills that would repeal Proposition 3 are harmful to Utahans and run contrary to the will of the people,” Slonaker added.
In November, Utah residents approved Prop 3 to implement the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion by April, extending health insurance to over 150,000 people who earn no more than 138 percent of the federal poverty level or just under $35,000 for a family of four. Medicaid expansion received bipartisan support, with the ballot winning in 59 percent of House and Senate districts, including Christensen’s, but not Anderegg’s.
Medicaid expansion funding primarily comes from the federal government, which pays the bulk share, at 93 percent of the associated costs in 2019 and 90 percent in 2020 thereafter. States pay for their portion in various ways, but Utah voted to cover more residents by increasing the state’s sales tax on non-food items by 0.15 percentage points (from 4.7 percent to 4.85 percent).
Earlier analysis from the governor’s office and the state legislature found that the revenue from the increase to the state sales tax rate would cover the state’s share. But a January 2019 memo circulating from Governor’s Office of Management and Budget said there’s a shortfall.
---
“It’s been one excuse after another for those who do not want to expand the Medicaid program,” said Joan Alker, the executive director of Georgetown’s Center for Children and Families.
“It still remains the best investment a state can make. What other program can a state put up one dollar and get nine dollars back from the federal government? If you can make that kind of investment in your personal life, would you take it? I think you would,” she added.
Furthermore, various studies show increased state savings, as more people gain insurance and utilize preventative care services instead of the emergency room.
Opponents of Medicaid expansion by ballot tried to block the policy in various ways. In Montana, Big Tobacco invested an unprecedented amount of money into defeating the referendum and, in Nebraska, lawmakers tried to block the ballot by suing. It took a new governor in Maine to finally expand Medicaid a year after voters approved it by ballot.
“Politicians are trampling on the most fundamental values of representative democracy,” said Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of The Fairness Project, a group that supported states that expanded Medicaid by ballot. “For months, Utahans discussed, debated, and learned about what Medicaid expansion would do for the state.”
“Then, a clear majority of Utahans voted to expand health care to people struggling to make ends meet and bring tax dollars home from Washington,” he said. “The voters have spoken. In any other job, if you disobeyed a direct order from your bosses you’d be fired the next day.”
The Trump administration wants to tighten SNAP work requirements, bypassing Congress
The Conversation - raw story
22 JAN 2019 AT 07:11 ET
The Trump administration wants to tighten even further longstanding restrictions on who is eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The farm bill, which gets updated every five years or so, spells out who can participate in SNAP, the assistance program previously known as food stamps. The most recent version of this legislation, which President Donald Trump signed into law on Dec. 20, 2018, left out new limits on the eligibility of adults without children. Those limits were part of the House version, but Congress dropped them prior to the bill’s passage.
But that same day, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed a rule that would restrict access anyway.
Having researched food assistance programs, I’ve seen that the consequences of having too little to eat are daunting. When people can’t afford food, they may skip meals, which leads to increased stress and poor nutrition. For people with chronic diseases like diabetes, meal-skipping can even make them more prone to hospitalization when their blood sugar gets too low.
Trying for decades
When President Bill Clinton and the Republican-led Congress overhauled the welfare system in 1996, they imposed some work requirements for SNAP participants.
To get these benefits, non-disabled adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without children are required to do paid work or be enrolled in a job training program for at least 20 hours a week. If they fail to find work or enroll in training, they can only participate in the program once every three years for up to three months.
Despite these rules, which block access to millions of adults, nearly 40 million poor Americans in roughly 20 million households rely on SNAP. Even though the average SNAP recipient just gets about US$1.40 per meal, research indicates that this program reduces food insecurity by nearly 30 percent.
Policymakers argue that these restrictions improve economic security by encouraging people to join the labor force. And most do join the labor force. A report the White House Council of Economic Advisers released during the Obama administration found that work rates among SNAP recipients had risen steadily since the 1990s.
However, does joining the labor force really improve economic security? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank, found that requiring safety net program recipients to work did not make them better off. In some cases, work requirements have plunged people deeper into poverty.
Additionally, researchers at Stanford and Johns Hopkins universities have observed that the jobs poor people take have remained largely low-paying. This means they still need SNAP because they don’t earn enough to keep food on the table.
Bypassing Congress
Although SNAP is federally funded, the states administer the program. Currently, state governments can request waivers for SNAP time limits on benefits for people with work requirements for multiple reasons, including if their local jobless rate is at least 20 percent above the national average for a recent 24-month period. Based on the current national unemployment rate, the proposed new rule would bar states from applying for this waiver unless their unemployment rate is at least 7 percent.
Among other changes, the federal government would limit the flexibility states now have to exercise a degree of discretion in exempting non-disabled adults without kids from the three-month time limit.
The public will get two months to comment on these new rules. If this rule were to go into effect as is, more than 750,000 people could lose SNAP benefits, according to the draft language. For now, people who rely on SNAP can still use their benefits – as long as the government shutdown doesn’t go past February. After then, unless Congress passes legislation specifically funding SNAP, the program’s fate is unknown.
This administrative route to bypassing congressional consensus is not how American democracy is supposed to work – nor is it the norm, as Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, explained when the USDA proposed this rule.
“Congress writes laws and the Administration is required to write rules based on the law,” she said, “not the other way around.”
This democracy works because of the checks and balances between the three branches of government. When one branch chooses to override this separation of powers, I believe democracy – just like SNAP participants’ benefits – is jeopardized.
The farm bill, which gets updated every five years or so, spells out who can participate in SNAP, the assistance program previously known as food stamps. The most recent version of this legislation, which President Donald Trump signed into law on Dec. 20, 2018, left out new limits on the eligibility of adults without children. Those limits were part of the House version, but Congress dropped them prior to the bill’s passage.
But that same day, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed a rule that would restrict access anyway.
Having researched food assistance programs, I’ve seen that the consequences of having too little to eat are daunting. When people can’t afford food, they may skip meals, which leads to increased stress and poor nutrition. For people with chronic diseases like diabetes, meal-skipping can even make them more prone to hospitalization when their blood sugar gets too low.
Trying for decades
When President Bill Clinton and the Republican-led Congress overhauled the welfare system in 1996, they imposed some work requirements for SNAP participants.
To get these benefits, non-disabled adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without children are required to do paid work or be enrolled in a job training program for at least 20 hours a week. If they fail to find work or enroll in training, they can only participate in the program once every three years for up to three months.
Despite these rules, which block access to millions of adults, nearly 40 million poor Americans in roughly 20 million households rely on SNAP. Even though the average SNAP recipient just gets about US$1.40 per meal, research indicates that this program reduces food insecurity by nearly 30 percent.
Policymakers argue that these restrictions improve economic security by encouraging people to join the labor force. And most do join the labor force. A report the White House Council of Economic Advisers released during the Obama administration found that work rates among SNAP recipients had risen steadily since the 1990s.
However, does joining the labor force really improve economic security? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank, found that requiring safety net program recipients to work did not make them better off. In some cases, work requirements have plunged people deeper into poverty.
Additionally, researchers at Stanford and Johns Hopkins universities have observed that the jobs poor people take have remained largely low-paying. This means they still need SNAP because they don’t earn enough to keep food on the table.
Bypassing Congress
Although SNAP is federally funded, the states administer the program. Currently, state governments can request waivers for SNAP time limits on benefits for people with work requirements for multiple reasons, including if their local jobless rate is at least 20 percent above the national average for a recent 24-month period. Based on the current national unemployment rate, the proposed new rule would bar states from applying for this waiver unless their unemployment rate is at least 7 percent.
Among other changes, the federal government would limit the flexibility states now have to exercise a degree of discretion in exempting non-disabled adults without kids from the three-month time limit.
The public will get two months to comment on these new rules. If this rule were to go into effect as is, more than 750,000 people could lose SNAP benefits, according to the draft language. For now, people who rely on SNAP can still use their benefits – as long as the government shutdown doesn’t go past February. After then, unless Congress passes legislation specifically funding SNAP, the program’s fate is unknown.
This administrative route to bypassing congressional consensus is not how American democracy is supposed to work – nor is it the norm, as Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, explained when the USDA proposed this rule.
“Congress writes laws and the Administration is required to write rules based on the law,” she said, “not the other way around.”
This democracy works because of the checks and balances between the three branches of government. When one branch chooses to override this separation of powers, I believe democracy – just like SNAP participants’ benefits – is jeopardized.
Trump tariffs force tough choices on auto suppliers
Reuters - raw story
17 JAN 2019 AT 06:24 ET
Bob Roth makes no bones about his feelings towards U.S. manufacturing.
The co-owner and chief executive of RoMan Manufacturing Inc, which makes transformers and glass-molding equipment for automakers and other industries, asks callers on his voicemail: “What have you done today to support U.S. manufacturing?”
His procurement team has been under long-standing orders to source all parts and materials as near as possible to his western Michigan factory, even with President Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum.
But with those tariffs dragging into a new year and steel comprising a quarter of RoMan’s fixed costs, Roth says his company has now begun the lengthy process of switching from its U.S. suppliers to an Israeli company for a key component for its products.
It is a strategic decision that RoMan and other auto suppliers have put off since the tariffs kicked in last spring. With tariffs firmly part of the landscape, some are now starting to shift their own supply chain to keep costs in check, according to more than a dozen interviews with U.S. auto suppliers and industry consultants.
The choice is stark for most suppliers: absorb the extra cost, pass them on to customers or find ways to slash material costs.
The transformers Roth’s 150 workers at RoMan produce require a magnetized steel core that is now more expensive as tariffs have allowed U.S. steel producers to raise prices. The Israeli supplier has access to cheaper steel and its cores qualify as finished products, so they are not subject to tariffs – making them a cheaper alternative.
“We don’t have the money to buy our way out problems like this,” Roth said of RoMan, which has annual revenue of around $35 million. “In the long run we can’t afford to absorb the extra cost of tariffs.”
Roth says he appreciates the sentiment behind Trump’s push to bring back American manufacturers jobs, but adds tariffs are “the wrong tool” because they hurt U.S. firms.
Trade consulting firm Trade Partnership Worldwide LLC estimated last summer metals tariffs could cost 5,000 jobs in the U.S. auto industry and 400,000 jobs overall – 16 jobs lost for every steel or aluminum worker hired. But so far there is little data available on how tariffs affect businesses such as RoMan because the process of switching suppliers is a long one and many manufacturers have muddled through so far.
Steven Wybo, a managing director at consultancy Conway MacKenzie, said “every single auto supplier we are working with has concerns around tariffs,” and he worries they come at an already challenging time for the sector.
Suppliers are gearing up for a large number of vehicle launches over the next three years, an expensive business, while also bracing for an expected decline in U.S. new vehicle sales. And some in the sector will bear the brunt of restructuring at Ford Motor Co General Motors Co, which are dropping less-popular sedan models.
Adding tariffs to the mix can require a creative approach.
RoMan, for instance, splits half of a 10 percent tariff with a Chinese customer on transformers subject to retaliatory measures against U.S. manufacturers. RoMan will raise some prices 2 percent this month to partially offset rising copper prices.
Warren, Michigan-based Eckhart Inc – which books about $100 million in annual sales by building robots and automated tools for GM, Volvo and Tesla Inc and other automakers – must absorb the tariffs or run the risk of losing out in competitive bids.
So Eckhart has focused on cutting costs, including rolling out a new U.S. purchasing system for raw materials, CEO Andrew Storm said.
“We have to fight for every single dollar of revenue that comes in the door,” Storm said. “So we find ways to eat the extra cost.”
That is why RoMan is seeking alternative suppliers to cut costs – and it takes a long time to ensure a new supplier is financially sound and can consistently hit industry standards. Months into that process, RoMan is only now validating test parts produced by its potential new Israeli supplier.
“You can’t turn your supply chain on a dime,” said Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor and economics at the Center for Automotive Research (CAR).
Dziczek said she gets calls “all the time” from suppliers wondering whether to overhaul their supply chain, and yet worrying that if they do, Trump may reverse policy overnight.
LOSING BUSINESS
The issue stretches up and down the supply chain for cars. Ford and GM have already warned metals tariffs will cost them $1 billion each in profits, setting in motion a complex dance over who foots the bill.
If automakers have to cover the cost, they typically raise vehicle prices to pass it onto consumers. Just this week, a Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) executive said industry wide tariffs have increased the average U.S. vehicle price by around $600.
Peter Bible, chief risk officer at tax advisory firm EisnerAmper and former chief accounting officer at GM, said suppliers making parts for less-popular vehicles will have trouble passing on higher costs. Automakers will resist price increases, but will be also be wary of pushing suppliers too hard, Bible said.
Problems at a single supplier can be disastrous, as Ford discovered last May when a fire at a supplier halted production of some highly-profitable pickup trucks.
Some suppliers have adapted quickly to cut costs.
They have cost Gentherm Inc, which makes climate control systems for vehicles and had revenue of close to $1 billion in 2017, a “few million” dollars, according to CEO Phil Eyler.
“We’ve worked really fast to change supplier locations in a couple cases,” he said.
Mark Wakefield, a managing director at consultancy AlixPartners, said suppliers providing more commoditized parts will find adjusting harder.
That’s the case for Grand Rapids, Michigan-based Pridgeon & Clay, which supplies stamped steel and stainless steel parts to automakers, with annual revenue of more than $350 million.
Third-generation owner Kevin Clay has lost business to low-cost overseas competitors in India who use cheaper tariff-free steel, and whose finished products are not subject to Trump’s U.S. tariffs.
Metal tariffs have shaved 25 percent off Clay’s pre-tax profit. Banks still wary of his sector following the Great Recession are growing reluctant to issue loans, and his company has mothballed some spending plans and cut staff more than usual for this time of year, according to Clay.
“These tariffs have cost me business,” said Clay, who describes himself as a moderate conservative who fervently believes in free trade. “If the aim is to get to a tariff-free world, this is a crappy way to get there.”
The co-owner and chief executive of RoMan Manufacturing Inc, which makes transformers and glass-molding equipment for automakers and other industries, asks callers on his voicemail: “What have you done today to support U.S. manufacturing?”
His procurement team has been under long-standing orders to source all parts and materials as near as possible to his western Michigan factory, even with President Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum.
But with those tariffs dragging into a new year and steel comprising a quarter of RoMan’s fixed costs, Roth says his company has now begun the lengthy process of switching from its U.S. suppliers to an Israeli company for a key component for its products.
It is a strategic decision that RoMan and other auto suppliers have put off since the tariffs kicked in last spring. With tariffs firmly part of the landscape, some are now starting to shift their own supply chain to keep costs in check, according to more than a dozen interviews with U.S. auto suppliers and industry consultants.
The choice is stark for most suppliers: absorb the extra cost, pass them on to customers or find ways to slash material costs.
The transformers Roth’s 150 workers at RoMan produce require a magnetized steel core that is now more expensive as tariffs have allowed U.S. steel producers to raise prices. The Israeli supplier has access to cheaper steel and its cores qualify as finished products, so they are not subject to tariffs – making them a cheaper alternative.
“We don’t have the money to buy our way out problems like this,” Roth said of RoMan, which has annual revenue of around $35 million. “In the long run we can’t afford to absorb the extra cost of tariffs.”
Roth says he appreciates the sentiment behind Trump’s push to bring back American manufacturers jobs, but adds tariffs are “the wrong tool” because they hurt U.S. firms.
Trade consulting firm Trade Partnership Worldwide LLC estimated last summer metals tariffs could cost 5,000 jobs in the U.S. auto industry and 400,000 jobs overall – 16 jobs lost for every steel or aluminum worker hired. But so far there is little data available on how tariffs affect businesses such as RoMan because the process of switching suppliers is a long one and many manufacturers have muddled through so far.
Steven Wybo, a managing director at consultancy Conway MacKenzie, said “every single auto supplier we are working with has concerns around tariffs,” and he worries they come at an already challenging time for the sector.
Suppliers are gearing up for a large number of vehicle launches over the next three years, an expensive business, while also bracing for an expected decline in U.S. new vehicle sales. And some in the sector will bear the brunt of restructuring at Ford Motor Co General Motors Co, which are dropping less-popular sedan models.
Adding tariffs to the mix can require a creative approach.
RoMan, for instance, splits half of a 10 percent tariff with a Chinese customer on transformers subject to retaliatory measures against U.S. manufacturers. RoMan will raise some prices 2 percent this month to partially offset rising copper prices.
Warren, Michigan-based Eckhart Inc – which books about $100 million in annual sales by building robots and automated tools for GM, Volvo and Tesla Inc and other automakers – must absorb the tariffs or run the risk of losing out in competitive bids.
So Eckhart has focused on cutting costs, including rolling out a new U.S. purchasing system for raw materials, CEO Andrew Storm said.
“We have to fight for every single dollar of revenue that comes in the door,” Storm said. “So we find ways to eat the extra cost.”
That is why RoMan is seeking alternative suppliers to cut costs – and it takes a long time to ensure a new supplier is financially sound and can consistently hit industry standards. Months into that process, RoMan is only now validating test parts produced by its potential new Israeli supplier.
“You can’t turn your supply chain on a dime,” said Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor and economics at the Center for Automotive Research (CAR).
Dziczek said she gets calls “all the time” from suppliers wondering whether to overhaul their supply chain, and yet worrying that if they do, Trump may reverse policy overnight.
LOSING BUSINESS
The issue stretches up and down the supply chain for cars. Ford and GM have already warned metals tariffs will cost them $1 billion each in profits, setting in motion a complex dance over who foots the bill.
If automakers have to cover the cost, they typically raise vehicle prices to pass it onto consumers. Just this week, a Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) executive said industry wide tariffs have increased the average U.S. vehicle price by around $600.
Peter Bible, chief risk officer at tax advisory firm EisnerAmper and former chief accounting officer at GM, said suppliers making parts for less-popular vehicles will have trouble passing on higher costs. Automakers will resist price increases, but will be also be wary of pushing suppliers too hard, Bible said.
Problems at a single supplier can be disastrous, as Ford discovered last May when a fire at a supplier halted production of some highly-profitable pickup trucks.
Some suppliers have adapted quickly to cut costs.
They have cost Gentherm Inc, which makes climate control systems for vehicles and had revenue of close to $1 billion in 2017, a “few million” dollars, according to CEO Phil Eyler.
“We’ve worked really fast to change supplier locations in a couple cases,” he said.
Mark Wakefield, a managing director at consultancy AlixPartners, said suppliers providing more commoditized parts will find adjusting harder.
That’s the case for Grand Rapids, Michigan-based Pridgeon & Clay, which supplies stamped steel and stainless steel parts to automakers, with annual revenue of more than $350 million.
Third-generation owner Kevin Clay has lost business to low-cost overseas competitors in India who use cheaper tariff-free steel, and whose finished products are not subject to Trump’s U.S. tariffs.
Metal tariffs have shaved 25 percent off Clay’s pre-tax profit. Banks still wary of his sector following the Great Recession are growing reluctant to issue loans, and his company has mothballed some spending plans and cut staff more than usual for this time of year, according to Clay.
“These tariffs have cost me business,” said Clay, who describes himself as a moderate conservative who fervently believes in free trade. “If the aim is to get to a tariff-free world, this is a crappy way to get there.”
Trump's war on science: how the US is putting politics above evidence
Experts say the administration is blatantly dismantling proven programs, and the consequences could be dire
Emily Holden in Washington
the guardian
Wed 16 Jan 2019 01.00 EST
Donald Trump’s administration is cutting programs scientists say are proven to protect Americans, from pollution safeguards to teen pregnancy prevention and healthier school lunches, with effects that could last for years.
Experts who have worked in the federal government under Republicans and Democrats say both have sometimes put politics ahead of science but none have done so as blatantly as Trump. And they warn the consequences could continue long into the future.
“It’s as egregious as I’ve ever seen it, starting from the very top with the president just denying the existence of science, manipulating the system on behalf of special interests,” said the former surgeon general Richard Carmona, who testified to Congress that the George W Bush administration pushed him to weaken or suppress public health findings.
Trump’s high-profile denial of manmade climate change has occasionally overshadowed the many other ways his agencies are contradicting established research.
The agriculture department last month rolled back standards for schools to serve more whole grains, less salt and non-fat flavored milk. Department officials claimed schools struggled with the programs because students wouldn’t eat healthier foods.
But research found the food changes didn’t deter students from getting lunch and didn’t cause more plate waste. And the healthier food requirements were projected to be effective: one study estimated they could prevent 1.8 million cases of childhood obesity over a decade.
“I do think it’s pretty clear that these standards are working and that given more time, they will work better,” said Karen Perry Stillerman, a food policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The Trump administration is also cutting short evidence-based grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs, favoring curriculum focused on abstinence instead, despite a large body of research that shows abstinence-only programs don’t work. A 2007 evaluation of four federal abstinence programs found that they had no impact on sexual activity or rates of unprotected sex among teens.
Sara Flowers, the vice-president of education for Planned Parenthood, said the majority of the programs previously funded demonstrated young people changed their behavior in at least one of five categories: delaying sex, reducing sexual partners, increasing contraceptive use, reducing rates of sexually transmitted infections or reducing rates of pregnancy.
“The administration is really not using science. The administration is really using ideology, and those are very different,” Flowers said.
"This [program] has been rigorously tested by experts and vetted and analyzed.”
The Trump administration has also erroneously questioned the effectiveness of contraceptives in rules expanding exemptions for employers that don’t want to cover them under insurance plans.
Climate change and environmental science have also been at the forefront of the battle between science and the Trump administration. Power plant and car standards are being rolled back, as are pesticide restrictions and wildlife protections.
The Trump administration has ignored climate scientists’ warnings that rising temperatures and more extreme weather will hurt the US economy and risk lives. The interior department initially sought to remove references to manmade climate change in a report about how sea-level rise might flood national parks.
“The notion of there being political appointees who try to impose their political agenda in a way that is contrary to scientific evidence is not a new thing, but it has reached an entirely new level in the Trump administration,” said the Obama science adviser John Holdren.
One of the first major decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was to forego a ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which is associated with developmental delays and health problems in children and has sickened farm workers. Judges ordered the EPA to bar the substance, citing the science that shows it is dangerous. The agency is appealing the case.
Agency officials have also made fundamental changes to how the federal government weighs environmental and health research.
The former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt barred scientists working with EPA grants from serving on the science advisory panels that help shape policies. Instead, industries and states now have more sway over those boards.
The agency also plans to limit what science it will consider, requiring any studies used in the regulatory process to publish confidential participant data.
A Democratic staffer for the House science committee, which plans to investigate the administration’s science cuts, said it’s been hard to even track all the agency changes.
John Bachmann, who advised the controversial Reagan-era EPA appointee Anne Gorsuch Burford on air pollution science, said she would listen to briefings on peer-reviewed data, even as she slashed budgets and eased enforcement.
“That was the most comparable period,” Bachmann said. “That was nothing compared to what we’re seeing now.”
Experts who have worked in the federal government under Republicans and Democrats say both have sometimes put politics ahead of science but none have done so as blatantly as Trump. And they warn the consequences could continue long into the future.
“It’s as egregious as I’ve ever seen it, starting from the very top with the president just denying the existence of science, manipulating the system on behalf of special interests,” said the former surgeon general Richard Carmona, who testified to Congress that the George W Bush administration pushed him to weaken or suppress public health findings.
Trump’s high-profile denial of manmade climate change has occasionally overshadowed the many other ways his agencies are contradicting established research.
The agriculture department last month rolled back standards for schools to serve more whole grains, less salt and non-fat flavored milk. Department officials claimed schools struggled with the programs because students wouldn’t eat healthier foods.
But research found the food changes didn’t deter students from getting lunch and didn’t cause more plate waste. And the healthier food requirements were projected to be effective: one study estimated they could prevent 1.8 million cases of childhood obesity over a decade.
“I do think it’s pretty clear that these standards are working and that given more time, they will work better,” said Karen Perry Stillerman, a food policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The Trump administration is also cutting short evidence-based grants for teen pregnancy prevention programs, favoring curriculum focused on abstinence instead, despite a large body of research that shows abstinence-only programs don’t work. A 2007 evaluation of four federal abstinence programs found that they had no impact on sexual activity or rates of unprotected sex among teens.
Sara Flowers, the vice-president of education for Planned Parenthood, said the majority of the programs previously funded demonstrated young people changed their behavior in at least one of five categories: delaying sex, reducing sexual partners, increasing contraceptive use, reducing rates of sexually transmitted infections or reducing rates of pregnancy.
“The administration is really not using science. The administration is really using ideology, and those are very different,” Flowers said.
"This [program] has been rigorously tested by experts and vetted and analyzed.”
The Trump administration has also erroneously questioned the effectiveness of contraceptives in rules expanding exemptions for employers that don’t want to cover them under insurance plans.
Climate change and environmental science have also been at the forefront of the battle between science and the Trump administration. Power plant and car standards are being rolled back, as are pesticide restrictions and wildlife protections.
The Trump administration has ignored climate scientists’ warnings that rising temperatures and more extreme weather will hurt the US economy and risk lives. The interior department initially sought to remove references to manmade climate change in a report about how sea-level rise might flood national parks.
“The notion of there being political appointees who try to impose their political agenda in a way that is contrary to scientific evidence is not a new thing, but it has reached an entirely new level in the Trump administration,” said the Obama science adviser John Holdren.
One of the first major decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was to forego a ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which is associated with developmental delays and health problems in children and has sickened farm workers. Judges ordered the EPA to bar the substance, citing the science that shows it is dangerous. The agency is appealing the case.
Agency officials have also made fundamental changes to how the federal government weighs environmental and health research.
The former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt barred scientists working with EPA grants from serving on the science advisory panels that help shape policies. Instead, industries and states now have more sway over those boards.
The agency also plans to limit what science it will consider, requiring any studies used in the regulatory process to publish confidential participant data.
A Democratic staffer for the House science committee, which plans to investigate the administration’s science cuts, said it’s been hard to even track all the agency changes.
John Bachmann, who advised the controversial Reagan-era EPA appointee Anne Gorsuch Burford on air pollution science, said she would listen to briefings on peer-reviewed data, even as she slashed budgets and eased enforcement.
“That was the most comparable period,” Bachmann said. “That was nothing compared to what we’re seeing now.”
Trump trade war causes stock to plummet and commodity prices to ‘crater’ for America’s largest meat processor
Martin Cizmar - raw story
15 JAN 2019 AT 09:32 ET
Pissident Donald Trump’s trade war has caused some pain at Tyson Foods, the largest meat processor in the world which is based in Arkansas.
China and Mexico both put retaliatory tariffs on beef, chicken and pork imports after Trump pulled out of the old trade agreements and began hardline negotiations with the world’s second-largest economy and our neighbors to the north and south.
Axios writes that Trump’s trade policies have caused meat prices to “crater” as the “uncertainty” of tariffs and its reliance on both Mexico and Canada in its operations has hit its brands, which include Hillshire Farms, Jimmy Dean and Ball Park.
Tyson’s stock has plummeted 25% in the past year and 18% since Election Day 2016.
Tyson’s CFO, Stewart Glendinning, is not expecting things to change soon.
“There will be more pressure on chicken and pork,” he said.
Read the report here.
China and Mexico both put retaliatory tariffs on beef, chicken and pork imports after Trump pulled out of the old trade agreements and began hardline negotiations with the world’s second-largest economy and our neighbors to the north and south.
Axios writes that Trump’s trade policies have caused meat prices to “crater” as the “uncertainty” of tariffs and its reliance on both Mexico and Canada in its operations has hit its brands, which include Hillshire Farms, Jimmy Dean and Ball Park.
Tyson’s stock has plummeted 25% in the past year and 18% since Election Day 2016.
Tyson’s CFO, Stewart Glendinning, is not expecting things to change soon.
“There will be more pressure on chicken and pork,” he said.
Read the report here.
Dear Media, Please Cut the Sob Stories About Trump Voters Hurt by Trump Policies
It’s time to focus on the people who’ve been fighting to stop him all along.
By Elie Mystal - the nation
JANUARY 8, 2019
Your favorite media outlets—you know, the ones that insist that there are “good people on both sides”—have spent the better part of two years trying to understand the Trump voter. We’ve all been subjected to the results: dozens, even hundreds, of articles detailing the lives and thoughts of the poor, aggrieved white people who’ve allegedly been “left behind” by forces such as “globalization” and “Democrats.”
Now that Donald Trump’s policies are starting to ravage the very core of his base, we’re starting to see the follow-up to these experiments in aggrievement normalization. From The New York Times to CNN, we’re being treated to deep dives on the white people who voted for Trump, found it hasn’t paid off, and are now questioning their choices.
I am here for none of it. If it took missing a check due to the government shutdown for you to realize that voting for a bigoted conman was unwise, I have no sympathy. If your business is being hurt by the tariffs ordered by the know-nothing “Tariff Man” you happily voted for, my deepest wish is that your business fails, thereby creating a market opportunity for a hardworking immigrant your president disparages.
The shutdown is going to accelerate the number of Trumper’s-remorse articles we see. Last night, The New York Times unleashed a doozy: the sob story of a Florida town that got battered by Hurricane Michael and is struggling to keep its economy, based on government prison jobs and farm subsidies, afloat. It’s the kind of town Mitt Romney would say was full of “takers” if the town was predominately black. But it’s predominantly white, so, of course, most of the town votes Republican.
The Times wants us to know that Trump’s shutdown is hurting these people and they’re confused as to how their dear leader could be doing this to them:
The shutdown on top of the hurricane has caused [Crystal] Minton to rethink a lot of things.
“I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” she said of Mr. Trump. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
That’s what Trump voters sound like when they say the quiet part out loud.
All of the “economically aggrieved” Trump voters made the same immoral bargain. They calculated that allowing Trump to harass and terrorize “other” people—nonwhites, women, gays, children, whatever—would result in more money in their pocket. Now they want me to be sad when the racist offset-check they were counting on doesn’t clear? You must not know about me.
Where’s the story about all the people living in Florida who also got battered by hurricanes, and are missing paychecks because of the shutdown, who didn’t vote for Trump? Where are the stories about the innocent victims of Trump’s policies, instead of stories about his enablers? I’ve read a lot of stories about how much Donald Trump and Ann Coulter want the Wall. I’ve heard a lot of commentary about how the “American people” want “compromise.” I think the media is willfully missing the strength and dedication of the opposition to Trump’s policies. Where’s the story about the people who are missing checks and remain uncompromising in their resistance to Trump’s bigoted vanity slats?
Once again, we’re being told that a small minority of white people who voted for Trump hold all the power in deciding what gets done or built in this country. It’s not just about the shutdown. The media are obsessed with telling the stories of these selfish, antisocial people who caused this monstrosity, instead of the stories about the people who are rising to stop him. Here’s The New York Times again, explaining why we all should care about this “betrayed” Trump voter:
“It’s killing us,” said the chairman of the company, Pat LeBlanc, 63, a Republican who voted for Mr. Trump. He now expects the president’s tariffs will chop his 2019 profits in half. “I just feel so betrayed. If we fail because the company is being harmed by the government, that just makes me sick.”
Across the industrial United States, including in the crucial political battleground state of Michigan, such complaints are intensifying as the trade war disrupts factory operations that depend on imported parts.
And remember “butterfly man,”the guy who voted for Trump and his wall until the wall threatened his butterfly sanctuary?
I’m a lifelong Republican who voted for Donald Trump for president in 2016. I want our immigration laws to be enforced, and I don’t want open borders. But Mission is not a dangerous place. I’ve lived here all my life. Here at the National Butterfly Center, 6,000 schoolchildren visit each year. Girl Scouts come here when they camp overnight just a mile or so from the Rio Grande. When the president says there’s a crisis at the border that requires an action as drastic as building a massive concrete wall, he either knows that it’s not true or he’s living in an alternate reality.
Before this controversy, I voted, and sometimes I expressed my political views on Facebook, but this issue got me involved in activism for the first time…. If Donald Trump runs for a second term, he will not get my vote.
Trump is out there authorizing the use of tear gas against toddlers, but this man didn’t get “involved” until Trump threatened … insects of color? He doesn’t even care about “butterflies,” he only cares about his butterflies, and you know that because no butterfly conservationist would vote for an avowed climate denier who doesn’t believe in science. This man needs to flap his way out of my face before I find a swatter.
Part of the obsession with these people comes from the grand media mea culpa over 2016. They “missed” the Trump voter in the run-up to the last election, so now we all must suffer their woebegone tales until the media feels they’ve set things right.
But in their journalistic rush of self-flagellation, they’ve created a faux balance. The Trump voter is a minority faction in this country, predominately white and insular. A relentless focus on their concerns shifts the conversation towards people who—explicitly now—just want the government to hurt the “right” people. And that’s not where the national conversation is.
The Wall is broadly unpopular. Immigration is broadly popular. The tariffs are broadly unpopular. Appointing a Supreme Court justice that had been accused of drunken attempted rape made him the most unpopular Supreme Court nominee in recent history. “Balanced” coverage would reflect that most people dislike what Trump is doing, and the people who do support him are part of a cultural minority with extreme viewpoints.
I’m sick of being told that I have to ask Crystal Minton if I can have nice things. There is no possibility for compromise between me and the white lady who voted for Trump so he could hurt the people he is supposed to be hurting. There is no compromise between me and the guy who only cares about the right kind of butterflies.
These people had their chance to set the national agenda. They’ve had their chance to be the de facto assignment editors of legacy-media publications.
Twenty twenty is going to be about the people who are stepping up to stop them.
Now that Donald Trump’s policies are starting to ravage the very core of his base, we’re starting to see the follow-up to these experiments in aggrievement normalization. From The New York Times to CNN, we’re being treated to deep dives on the white people who voted for Trump, found it hasn’t paid off, and are now questioning their choices.
I am here for none of it. If it took missing a check due to the government shutdown for you to realize that voting for a bigoted conman was unwise, I have no sympathy. If your business is being hurt by the tariffs ordered by the know-nothing “Tariff Man” you happily voted for, my deepest wish is that your business fails, thereby creating a market opportunity for a hardworking immigrant your president disparages.
The shutdown is going to accelerate the number of Trumper’s-remorse articles we see. Last night, The New York Times unleashed a doozy: the sob story of a Florida town that got battered by Hurricane Michael and is struggling to keep its economy, based on government prison jobs and farm subsidies, afloat. It’s the kind of town Mitt Romney would say was full of “takers” if the town was predominately black. But it’s predominantly white, so, of course, most of the town votes Republican.
The Times wants us to know that Trump’s shutdown is hurting these people and they’re confused as to how their dear leader could be doing this to them:
The shutdown on top of the hurricane has caused [Crystal] Minton to rethink a lot of things.
“I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” she said of Mr. Trump. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
That’s what Trump voters sound like when they say the quiet part out loud.
All of the “economically aggrieved” Trump voters made the same immoral bargain. They calculated that allowing Trump to harass and terrorize “other” people—nonwhites, women, gays, children, whatever—would result in more money in their pocket. Now they want me to be sad when the racist offset-check they were counting on doesn’t clear? You must not know about me.
Where’s the story about all the people living in Florida who also got battered by hurricanes, and are missing paychecks because of the shutdown, who didn’t vote for Trump? Where are the stories about the innocent victims of Trump’s policies, instead of stories about his enablers? I’ve read a lot of stories about how much Donald Trump and Ann Coulter want the Wall. I’ve heard a lot of commentary about how the “American people” want “compromise.” I think the media is willfully missing the strength and dedication of the opposition to Trump’s policies. Where’s the story about the people who are missing checks and remain uncompromising in their resistance to Trump’s bigoted vanity slats?
Once again, we’re being told that a small minority of white people who voted for Trump hold all the power in deciding what gets done or built in this country. It’s not just about the shutdown. The media are obsessed with telling the stories of these selfish, antisocial people who caused this monstrosity, instead of the stories about the people who are rising to stop him. Here’s The New York Times again, explaining why we all should care about this “betrayed” Trump voter:
“It’s killing us,” said the chairman of the company, Pat LeBlanc, 63, a Republican who voted for Mr. Trump. He now expects the president’s tariffs will chop his 2019 profits in half. “I just feel so betrayed. If we fail because the company is being harmed by the government, that just makes me sick.”
Across the industrial United States, including in the crucial political battleground state of Michigan, such complaints are intensifying as the trade war disrupts factory operations that depend on imported parts.
And remember “butterfly man,”the guy who voted for Trump and his wall until the wall threatened his butterfly sanctuary?
I’m a lifelong Republican who voted for Donald Trump for president in 2016. I want our immigration laws to be enforced, and I don’t want open borders. But Mission is not a dangerous place. I’ve lived here all my life. Here at the National Butterfly Center, 6,000 schoolchildren visit each year. Girl Scouts come here when they camp overnight just a mile or so from the Rio Grande. When the president says there’s a crisis at the border that requires an action as drastic as building a massive concrete wall, he either knows that it’s not true or he’s living in an alternate reality.
Before this controversy, I voted, and sometimes I expressed my political views on Facebook, but this issue got me involved in activism for the first time…. If Donald Trump runs for a second term, he will not get my vote.
Trump is out there authorizing the use of tear gas against toddlers, but this man didn’t get “involved” until Trump threatened … insects of color? He doesn’t even care about “butterflies,” he only cares about his butterflies, and you know that because no butterfly conservationist would vote for an avowed climate denier who doesn’t believe in science. This man needs to flap his way out of my face before I find a swatter.
Part of the obsession with these people comes from the grand media mea culpa over 2016. They “missed” the Trump voter in the run-up to the last election, so now we all must suffer their woebegone tales until the media feels they’ve set things right.
But in their journalistic rush of self-flagellation, they’ve created a faux balance. The Trump voter is a minority faction in this country, predominately white and insular. A relentless focus on their concerns shifts the conversation towards people who—explicitly now—just want the government to hurt the “right” people. And that’s not where the national conversation is.
The Wall is broadly unpopular. Immigration is broadly popular. The tariffs are broadly unpopular. Appointing a Supreme Court justice that had been accused of drunken attempted rape made him the most unpopular Supreme Court nominee in recent history. “Balanced” coverage would reflect that most people dislike what Trump is doing, and the people who do support him are part of a cultural minority with extreme viewpoints.
I’m sick of being told that I have to ask Crystal Minton if I can have nice things. There is no possibility for compromise between me and the white lady who voted for Trump so he could hurt the people he is supposed to be hurting. There is no compromise between me and the guy who only cares about the right kind of butterflies.
These people had their chance to set the national agenda. They’ve had their chance to be the de facto assignment editors of legacy-media publications.
Twenty twenty is going to be about the people who are stepping up to stop them.
pence and trump are killing their kids but they voted for them!!!
"It’s infuriating”: Trump-supporting parents turn on the president over lax EPA rules
Trump voters in Indiana fear the administration’s drive to weaken restrictions is hurting children with cancer
MATTHEW ROZSA - salon
JANUARY 8, 2019 11:00AM (UTC)
President Donald Trump may be losing support in at least one county that he won during the 2016 presidential election — and it's all because of his administration's anti-environmental agenda.
Dozens of parents of children in Indiana's Johnson County called for a federal investigation into why a toxic plume of trichloroethylene, or TCE, continues to exist underground due to an old industrial site in the county seat of Franklin and is allowed to contaminate residents' homes, according to The New York Times. This is in spite of the fact that Trump has long emphasized his disdain for the Environmental Protection Agency, a policy that he emphasized when he hired anti-environmentalists Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler to lead the organization. Trump's slashing of environmental regulations has even prompted many career EPA employees to resign in protest, with one former employee claiming that to Trump "kids are disposable," and Trump has suppressed work like his own administration's climate change report when it contradicts his pro-business agenda.
While the TCE problems in Johnson County precede the Trump administration itself, its anti-environmentalist approach to pollution has stood in the way of matters being effectively addressed. The New York Times report offered a harrowing description of the human consequences of that type of anti-environmentalism:
The children fell ill, one by one, with cancers that few families in this suburban Indianapolis community had ever heard of. An avid swimmer struck down by glioblastoma, which grew a tumor in her brain. Four children with Ewing’s sarcoma, a rare bone cancer. Fifteen children with acute lymphocytic leukemia, including three casesdiagnosed in the past year.
The piece also elaborated on the difference between Trump's EPA and the agency's approach to this issue under his predecessor, President Barack Obama.
Declaring TCE “carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure,” the Obama administration had sought to restrict two of its riskiest uses, as a stain remover and as a degreaser, and had marked it for further review, potentially to ban the chemical altogether. It had also moved to strengthen cleanup rules for hundreds of sites nationwide believed to be contaminated.
But at the urging of industry groups, the Trump administration has stalled some of those moves. In 2017 it indefinitely postponed the proposed bans on risky uses, leaving as many as 178,000 workers potentially exposed. It also scaled back a broad review of TCE and other chemicals so that it would exclude from its calculations possible exposure from groundwater and other forms of contamination — the problems present in Franklin.
Stacie Davidson, a Trump voter whose stepson is in remission for a rare form of leukemia, became so fed up of Trump's "loosening of E.P.A. regulations" that she joined with someone who did not vote for the president in a county that overwhelming went for Trump in 2016 to form an advocacy group that is now calling for a federal investigation by the EPA’s Office of Inspector General.
“We should not have to fight Republicans or Democrats to save our children. It’s not a political fight for us,” Davidson told the Times.
"It’s infuriating,” she continued. “We’re ruining the environment for money.”
"This Administration would have the public believe that pollution is good and government life-saving regulations are bad. Nothing could be further from the truth," Mike Mikulka, President of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 704, told Salon in October when discussing Trump's decimation of the EPA. "The bulk of the American public supports the mission of the EPA and the life-saving regulations that have been put in place. The current direction seems to have veered off the tracks and seems bent on supporting corporate interests over public interests."
He added, "In spite of opinions to the contrary, corporations are not persons and are beholden to their shareholders for profits, not environmental protection. That is the mission of the EPA: to protect human health and the environment. So, to make EPA more responsible to the environment and the American people, return to the mission that the Agency was established to perform. Get back on that track. If a regulation does not protect human health and the environment, don't propose it under a deceptive name to try and fool the public into believing it is something that is good for Americans. That's not good government."
Dozens of parents of children in Indiana's Johnson County called for a federal investigation into why a toxic plume of trichloroethylene, or TCE, continues to exist underground due to an old industrial site in the county seat of Franklin and is allowed to contaminate residents' homes, according to The New York Times. This is in spite of the fact that Trump has long emphasized his disdain for the Environmental Protection Agency, a policy that he emphasized when he hired anti-environmentalists Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler to lead the organization. Trump's slashing of environmental regulations has even prompted many career EPA employees to resign in protest, with one former employee claiming that to Trump "kids are disposable," and Trump has suppressed work like his own administration's climate change report when it contradicts his pro-business agenda.
While the TCE problems in Johnson County precede the Trump administration itself, its anti-environmentalist approach to pollution has stood in the way of matters being effectively addressed. The New York Times report offered a harrowing description of the human consequences of that type of anti-environmentalism:
The children fell ill, one by one, with cancers that few families in this suburban Indianapolis community had ever heard of. An avid swimmer struck down by glioblastoma, which grew a tumor in her brain. Four children with Ewing’s sarcoma, a rare bone cancer. Fifteen children with acute lymphocytic leukemia, including three casesdiagnosed in the past year.
The piece also elaborated on the difference between Trump's EPA and the agency's approach to this issue under his predecessor, President Barack Obama.
Declaring TCE “carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure,” the Obama administration had sought to restrict two of its riskiest uses, as a stain remover and as a degreaser, and had marked it for further review, potentially to ban the chemical altogether. It had also moved to strengthen cleanup rules for hundreds of sites nationwide believed to be contaminated.
But at the urging of industry groups, the Trump administration has stalled some of those moves. In 2017 it indefinitely postponed the proposed bans on risky uses, leaving as many as 178,000 workers potentially exposed. It also scaled back a broad review of TCE and other chemicals so that it would exclude from its calculations possible exposure from groundwater and other forms of contamination — the problems present in Franklin.
Stacie Davidson, a Trump voter whose stepson is in remission for a rare form of leukemia, became so fed up of Trump's "loosening of E.P.A. regulations" that she joined with someone who did not vote for the president in a county that overwhelming went for Trump in 2016 to form an advocacy group that is now calling for a federal investigation by the EPA’s Office of Inspector General.
“We should not have to fight Republicans or Democrats to save our children. It’s not a political fight for us,” Davidson told the Times.
"It’s infuriating,” she continued. “We’re ruining the environment for money.”
"This Administration would have the public believe that pollution is good and government life-saving regulations are bad. Nothing could be further from the truth," Mike Mikulka, President of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 704, told Salon in October when discussing Trump's decimation of the EPA. "The bulk of the American public supports the mission of the EPA and the life-saving regulations that have been put in place. The current direction seems to have veered off the tracks and seems bent on supporting corporate interests over public interests."
He added, "In spite of opinions to the contrary, corporations are not persons and are beholden to their shareholders for profits, not environmental protection. That is the mission of the EPA: to protect human health and the environment. So, to make EPA more responsible to the environment and the American people, return to the mission that the Agency was established to perform. Get back on that track. If a regulation does not protect human health and the environment, don't propose it under a deceptive name to try and fool the public into believing it is something that is good for Americans. That's not good government."
White House admits Trump climate policies will cost Americans $500 billion a year
Trump team approves -- but tries to bury -- report finding inaction on climate policies will devastate the country.
JOE ROMM - thinkprogress
NOV 24, 2018, 12:26 PM
PROJECTED CHANGES IN ANNUAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURES (2071–2100) WITH STRONG CLIMATE POLICIES (LEFT) AND WITH CURRENT POLICIES (RIGHT). CREDIT: NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT.
|
THE TOTAL AREA OF EACH CIRCLE REPRESENTS THE PROJECTED ANNUAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES (IN 2015 DOLLARS) UNDER A HIGHER SCENARIO (RCP8.5) IN 2090 RELATIVE TO A NO-CHANGE SCENARIO. THE DECREASE IN DAMAGES UNDER A LOWER SCENARIO (RCP4.5) COMPARED TO RCP8.5 IS SHOWN IN THE LIGHTER-SHADED AREA OF EACH CIRCLE. CREDIT:NCA.
|
The 1,000-page climate report released by the White House Friday quantifies the staggering cost of President Trump’s climate science denial.
The congressionally-mandated National Climate Assessment (NCA) by hundreds of the country’s top scientists warns that a do-nothing climate policy will end up costing Americans more than a half-trillion dollars per year in increased sickness and death, coastal property damages, loss of worker productivity, and other damages.
Building on a 600-page analysis of climate science from 2017, the NCA details just how dangerous Trump administration’s policy of climate inaction is to Americans.
The White House oversaw the report’s review and clearance process — and tried to bury the findings by releasing it at 2 p.m. on the Friday after Thanksgiving.
But the reality of climate change cannot be buried. Indeed the report concludes that “the evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country, and that climate-related threats to Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being are rising.”
The NCA projects a devastated America on our current path of unrestricted carbon pollution—widespread Dust-Bowlification and 7°F to 8°F warming over the entire inland portion of the country, even as coastal America is slammed by sea levels rising a foot per decade, resulting in ever-worsening storm surges.
The report concludes that if governments meet their Paris targets, and then go beyond them, overall damage can be limited (the RCP4.5 scenario, in which temperatures rise some 4°F by century’s end). But the NCA makes clear that with policies that undercut the Paris targets — such as Trump’s pledge to withdraw from Paris and boost domestic carbon pollution from fossil fuels — catastrophic impacts would be inevitable (the RCP8.5 scenario, where temperatures rise by 7°F or more).
One final point: The report warns ominously, “It is very likely that some physical and ecological impacts will be irreversible for thousands of years, while others will be permanent.”
The choices we make today won’t just determine the degree of harm we do to our children and grandchildren, but to the next 50 generations and beyond. The immorality of Trump’s climate policies simply cannot be quantified.
The congressionally-mandated National Climate Assessment (NCA) by hundreds of the country’s top scientists warns that a do-nothing climate policy will end up costing Americans more than a half-trillion dollars per year in increased sickness and death, coastal property damages, loss of worker productivity, and other damages.
Building on a 600-page analysis of climate science from 2017, the NCA details just how dangerous Trump administration’s policy of climate inaction is to Americans.
The White House oversaw the report’s review and clearance process — and tried to bury the findings by releasing it at 2 p.m. on the Friday after Thanksgiving.
But the reality of climate change cannot be buried. Indeed the report concludes that “the evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country, and that climate-related threats to Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being are rising.”
The NCA projects a devastated America on our current path of unrestricted carbon pollution—widespread Dust-Bowlification and 7°F to 8°F warming over the entire inland portion of the country, even as coastal America is slammed by sea levels rising a foot per decade, resulting in ever-worsening storm surges.
The report concludes that if governments meet their Paris targets, and then go beyond them, overall damage can be limited (the RCP4.5 scenario, in which temperatures rise some 4°F by century’s end). But the NCA makes clear that with policies that undercut the Paris targets — such as Trump’s pledge to withdraw from Paris and boost domestic carbon pollution from fossil fuels — catastrophic impacts would be inevitable (the RCP8.5 scenario, where temperatures rise by 7°F or more).
One final point: The report warns ominously, “It is very likely that some physical and ecological impacts will be irreversible for thousands of years, while others will be permanent.”
The choices we make today won’t just determine the degree of harm we do to our children and grandchildren, but to the next 50 generations and beyond. The immorality of Trump’s climate policies simply cannot be quantified.
‘Never seen things this bad’: Soy farmers fume as their crops rot in storage thanks to Trump’s trade wars
Reuters - raw story
21 NOV 2018 AT 06:36 ET
U.S. farmers finishing their harvests are facing a big problem – where to put the mountain of grain they cannot sell to Chinese buyers.
For Louisiana farmer Richard Fontenot and his neighbors, the solution was a costly one: Let the crops rot.
Fontenot plowed under 1,000 of his 1,700 soybean acres this fall, chopping plants into the dirt instead of harvesting more than $300,000 worth of beans.
His beans were damaged by bad weather, made worse by a wet harvest. Normally, he could sell them anyway to a local elevator – giant silos usually run by international grains merchants that store grain.
But this year they aren’t buying as much damaged grain. The elevators are already chock full.
“No one wants them,” Fontenot said in a telephone interview. As he spoke, he drove his tractor across a soybean field, tilling under his crop. “I don’t know what else to do.”
Across the United States, grain farmers are plowing under crops, leaving them to rot or piling them on the ground, in hopes of better prices next year, according to interviews with more than two dozen farmers, academic researchers and farm lenders. It’s one of the results, they say, of a U.S. trade war with China that has sharply hurt export demand and swamped storage facilities with excess grain.
In Louisiana, up to 15 percent of the oilseed crop is being plowed under or is too damaged to market, according to data analyzed by Louisiana State University staff. Crops are going to waste in parts of Mississippi and Arkansas. Grain piles, dusted by snow, sit on the ground in North and South Dakota. And in Illinois and Indiana, some farmers are struggling to protect silo bags stuffed with crops from animals.
U.S. farmers planted 89.1 million acres of soybeans this year, the second most ever, expecting China’s rising demand to give them better returns than other bulk crops.
But Beijing slapped a 25 percent tariff on U.S. soybeans in retaliation for duties imposed by Washington on Chinese exports. That effectively shut down U.S. soybean exports to China, worth around $12 billion last year. China typically takes around 60 percent of U.S. supplies.
The U.S. government rolled out an aid program of around the same size – $12 billion – to help farmers absorb the cost of the trade war. As of mid-November, $837.8 million had been paid out.
Some of that money will pass from farmers to grain merchants such as Archer Daniels Midland Co and Bunge Ltd, who are charging farmers more to store crops at elevators where there is limited space. Bunge and ADM did not respond to requests for comment on storage fees.
The storage crunch and higher fees have boosted revenues at grain elevator Andersons [ANDE.O], Chief Executive Officer Pat Bowe said in an interview.
“It’s paying a grain handler to store – it’s the old-fashioned way to make money,” Bowe said.
These are also boom times for John Wierenga, president of grain storage bag retailer Neeralta. Sales of their bags – white tubes up to 300 feet now littering Midwest fields – are up 30 percent from a year ago.
“The demand has been huge,” Wierenga said. “We are sold out.”
HIGHER FEES.
Farmers are feeling the pinch. Those in central Illinois could pay up to 40 percent more than in previous years to store crops over the coming weeks, agricultural consultant Matt Bennett estimated.
That amounts to between 3 cents to 6 cents a bushel, Bennett said, a painful expense for a crop that was already expected to deliver little income to farmers.
Storage rates are swinging wildly, depending on the elevator location. Grain dealers at rivers typically charge more than their inland counterparts because they are more dependent on export markets.
At some Midwest river terminals, farmers were paying 60 cents a bushel to store soybeans until the end of the year – more than twice as much as a year ago. Some commercial terminals are charging farmers to just drop off their soybeans.
The trade war has only exacerbated the strain on storage, which has been a persistent problem in recent years due largely to a worldwide oversupply of grains.
Even before this fall’s harvest, around 20 percent of total grain storage available in the U.S. was full with corn, soybeans and wheat from previous harvests, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That was the highest in 12 years for this time of year.
Some grain merchants are also charging additional fees for farmers who deliver less-than-perfect soybeans, said Russell Altom, a soybean farmer and senior vice president of agricultural lending at Relyance Bank in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
“I’ve never seen things this bad,” Altom said. “I know several farmers who hired lawyers, to see if they can sue over the pricing and fees issues.”
Eric Maupin, a farmer in Newbern, Tennessee, said he was facing so-called dockage rates of between 60 cents at $1.20 per bushels at Bunge Elevators in his area – more than three times as high as a year ago.
“Damage can be anything – a split bean, one that’s too small, one that’s too big – whatever,” Maupin said.
Some farmers are pulling farm equipment out of barns to make room for the overflow of grains.
After packing nearly half a million bushels of corn and soybeans in their usual steel bins, Terry Honselman and his family found some additional space in 35-year-old shed on their Casey, Illinois, farm.
Most years, the building protects farm equipment and bags of seed. Now, it is stuffed with 75,000 bushels of corn.
Like others, Honselman is banking on a resolution to the trade war before this spring – when he says he will need the space back for his planting supplies.
RELATED: U.S. crops rot as trade war spikes storage costs
Across the United States, grain farmers are plowing under crops, leaving them to rot or piling them on the ground, in hopes of better prices next year. It’s one of the results, they say, of trade war with China.
For Louisiana farmer Richard Fontenot and his neighbors, the solution was a costly one: Let the crops rot.
Fontenot plowed under 1,000 of his 1,700 soybean acres this fall, chopping plants into the dirt instead of harvesting more than $300,000 worth of beans.
His beans were damaged by bad weather, made worse by a wet harvest. Normally, he could sell them anyway to a local elevator – giant silos usually run by international grains merchants that store grain.
But this year they aren’t buying as much damaged grain. The elevators are already chock full.
“No one wants them,” Fontenot said in a telephone interview. As he spoke, he drove his tractor across a soybean field, tilling under his crop. “I don’t know what else to do.”
Across the United States, grain farmers are plowing under crops, leaving them to rot or piling them on the ground, in hopes of better prices next year, according to interviews with more than two dozen farmers, academic researchers and farm lenders. It’s one of the results, they say, of a U.S. trade war with China that has sharply hurt export demand and swamped storage facilities with excess grain.
In Louisiana, up to 15 percent of the oilseed crop is being plowed under or is too damaged to market, according to data analyzed by Louisiana State University staff. Crops are going to waste in parts of Mississippi and Arkansas. Grain piles, dusted by snow, sit on the ground in North and South Dakota. And in Illinois and Indiana, some farmers are struggling to protect silo bags stuffed with crops from animals.
U.S. farmers planted 89.1 million acres of soybeans this year, the second most ever, expecting China’s rising demand to give them better returns than other bulk crops.
But Beijing slapped a 25 percent tariff on U.S. soybeans in retaliation for duties imposed by Washington on Chinese exports. That effectively shut down U.S. soybean exports to China, worth around $12 billion last year. China typically takes around 60 percent of U.S. supplies.
The U.S. government rolled out an aid program of around the same size – $12 billion – to help farmers absorb the cost of the trade war. As of mid-November, $837.8 million had been paid out.
Some of that money will pass from farmers to grain merchants such as Archer Daniels Midland Co and Bunge Ltd, who are charging farmers more to store crops at elevators where there is limited space. Bunge and ADM did not respond to requests for comment on storage fees.
The storage crunch and higher fees have boosted revenues at grain elevator Andersons [ANDE.O], Chief Executive Officer Pat Bowe said in an interview.
“It’s paying a grain handler to store – it’s the old-fashioned way to make money,” Bowe said.
These are also boom times for John Wierenga, president of grain storage bag retailer Neeralta. Sales of their bags – white tubes up to 300 feet now littering Midwest fields – are up 30 percent from a year ago.
“The demand has been huge,” Wierenga said. “We are sold out.”
HIGHER FEES.
Farmers are feeling the pinch. Those in central Illinois could pay up to 40 percent more than in previous years to store crops over the coming weeks, agricultural consultant Matt Bennett estimated.
That amounts to between 3 cents to 6 cents a bushel, Bennett said, a painful expense for a crop that was already expected to deliver little income to farmers.
Storage rates are swinging wildly, depending on the elevator location. Grain dealers at rivers typically charge more than their inland counterparts because they are more dependent on export markets.
At some Midwest river terminals, farmers were paying 60 cents a bushel to store soybeans until the end of the year – more than twice as much as a year ago. Some commercial terminals are charging farmers to just drop off their soybeans.
The trade war has only exacerbated the strain on storage, which has been a persistent problem in recent years due largely to a worldwide oversupply of grains.
Even before this fall’s harvest, around 20 percent of total grain storage available in the U.S. was full with corn, soybeans and wheat from previous harvests, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That was the highest in 12 years for this time of year.
Some grain merchants are also charging additional fees for farmers who deliver less-than-perfect soybeans, said Russell Altom, a soybean farmer and senior vice president of agricultural lending at Relyance Bank in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
“I’ve never seen things this bad,” Altom said. “I know several farmers who hired lawyers, to see if they can sue over the pricing and fees issues.”
Eric Maupin, a farmer in Newbern, Tennessee, said he was facing so-called dockage rates of between 60 cents at $1.20 per bushels at Bunge Elevators in his area – more than three times as high as a year ago.
“Damage can be anything – a split bean, one that’s too small, one that’s too big – whatever,” Maupin said.
Some farmers are pulling farm equipment out of barns to make room for the overflow of grains.
After packing nearly half a million bushels of corn and soybeans in their usual steel bins, Terry Honselman and his family found some additional space in 35-year-old shed on their Casey, Illinois, farm.
Most years, the building protects farm equipment and bags of seed. Now, it is stuffed with 75,000 bushels of corn.
Like others, Honselman is banking on a resolution to the trade war before this spring – when he says he will need the space back for his planting supplies.
RELATED: U.S. crops rot as trade war spikes storage costs
Across the United States, grain farmers are plowing under crops, leaving them to rot or piling them on the ground, in hopes of better prices next year. It’s one of the results, they say, of trade war with China.
Trump Administration Plots Costly Private-Care Expansion for Veterans
The plan sets up a clash with Democrats, who say the administration is thwarting congressional intent and will starve the VA health system to pay for private care.
by Isaac Arnsdorf - pro publica
Nov. 15, 10:32 a.m. EST
Last June, President Donald Trump signed a landmark law on veterans’ health care after months of tense negotiations. At the ceremony in the Rose Garden, Trump said the bill would deliver on his campaign promise to let veterans see private doctors instead of using the Department of Veterans Affairs’ government-run health service: “I’m going to sign legislation that will make veterans’ choice permanent,” he said.
Standing behind him, the leaders of major veterans groups looked around uncomfortably. What Trump called “choice” these veterans groups called “privatization,” and they’d been warning for years that it would cost taxpayers more money and deliver worse care for veterans. The veterans groups had endorsed the bill, but Trump’s description of it was not what they thought they were there to support.
The moment left no doubt that the Trump administration is determined to use the new law to expand the private sector’s role in veterans’ health care. The administration is working on a plan to shift millions more veterans to private doctors and is aiming to unveil the proposal during Trump’s State of Union address in January, according to four people briefed on the proposal. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose information about the administration’s plans.
The cost of expanding private care is hard to predict, but VA officials have told Congress and veterans groups that it will range from $13.9 billion to $32.1 billion over five years, the four people said. Since the administration opposes lifting overall government spending, Democrats say the increased cost of private care will come at the expense of the VA’s own health system. Some lawmakers said the administration’s plan defies the purpose of the law they passed.
Trump’s first VA secretary said he was forced out by ideologues determined to privatize the department, which he called, in a New York Times op-ed, “a political issue aimed at rewarding select people and companies with profits, even if it undermines care for veterans.” The new secretary has repeatedly denied that privatization is the administration’s goal. But the fact is that Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do: The share of VA care delivered in the private sector has grown to 36 percent from 22 percent in 2014, and the administration is weighing policy changes that would move up to 55 percent of veterans to private providers, according to the people briefed on the deliberations.
VA spokesman Curt Cashour wouldn’t comment on those figures. He said the new policies are still under development but “will ensure that VA delivers veterans the best and most timely care possible with maximum continuity — whether it’s at VA or in the community.”
As a candidate, Trump spoke often about improving veterans’ care, and as president, he has returned often to that rhetoric. At his post-midterm press conference, he said, “I’ve done more for the vets than any president has done, certainly in many, many decades, with choice and with other things.” But he has plunged the VA leadership into turmoil and stirred anxiety over privatization, which many veterans oppose. And just this week, he was criticized for not participating in any public events on Veterans Day.
The White House declined to comment.
Democrats are eager to use their new House majority to stymie the Trump administration’s plans for the VA. “I am deeply concerned about efforts to profiteer off of veterans by undermining VA-administered care and expanding VA’s reliance on private care,” Rep. Mark Takano, a California Democrat who’s hoping to chair the House veterans committee, said in a statement. “It will be extremely important for the new Congress to conduct effective and frequent oversight of VA leadership so that this legislation is implemented properly.”
(Read more)
Standing behind him, the leaders of major veterans groups looked around uncomfortably. What Trump called “choice” these veterans groups called “privatization,” and they’d been warning for years that it would cost taxpayers more money and deliver worse care for veterans. The veterans groups had endorsed the bill, but Trump’s description of it was not what they thought they were there to support.
The moment left no doubt that the Trump administration is determined to use the new law to expand the private sector’s role in veterans’ health care. The administration is working on a plan to shift millions more veterans to private doctors and is aiming to unveil the proposal during Trump’s State of Union address in January, according to four people briefed on the proposal. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose information about the administration’s plans.
The cost of expanding private care is hard to predict, but VA officials have told Congress and veterans groups that it will range from $13.9 billion to $32.1 billion over five years, the four people said. Since the administration opposes lifting overall government spending, Democrats say the increased cost of private care will come at the expense of the VA’s own health system. Some lawmakers said the administration’s plan defies the purpose of the law they passed.
Trump’s first VA secretary said he was forced out by ideologues determined to privatize the department, which he called, in a New York Times op-ed, “a political issue aimed at rewarding select people and companies with profits, even if it undermines care for veterans.” The new secretary has repeatedly denied that privatization is the administration’s goal. But the fact is that Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do: The share of VA care delivered in the private sector has grown to 36 percent from 22 percent in 2014, and the administration is weighing policy changes that would move up to 55 percent of veterans to private providers, according to the people briefed on the deliberations.
VA spokesman Curt Cashour wouldn’t comment on those figures. He said the new policies are still under development but “will ensure that VA delivers veterans the best and most timely care possible with maximum continuity — whether it’s at VA or in the community.”
As a candidate, Trump spoke often about improving veterans’ care, and as president, he has returned often to that rhetoric. At his post-midterm press conference, he said, “I’ve done more for the vets than any president has done, certainly in many, many decades, with choice and with other things.” But he has plunged the VA leadership into turmoil and stirred anxiety over privatization, which many veterans oppose. And just this week, he was criticized for not participating in any public events on Veterans Day.
The White House declined to comment.
Democrats are eager to use their new House majority to stymie the Trump administration’s plans for the VA. “I am deeply concerned about efforts to profiteer off of veterans by undermining VA-administered care and expanding VA’s reliance on private care,” Rep. Mark Takano, a California Democrat who’s hoping to chair the House veterans committee, said in a statement. “It will be extremely important for the new Congress to conduct effective and frequent oversight of VA leadership so that this legislation is implemented properly.”
(Read more)
This is how much more expensive health care premiums will be in 2019 thanks to Trump
Trump’s decision to repeal the individual mandate and expand skimpy short-term health plans is making coverage more costly.
ELHAM KHATAMI - thinkprogress
OCT 26, 2018, 12:35 PM
Health care premiums will be up to 16 percent higher in 2019 than they would have been had the Trump administration not worked so hard to chip away at the Affordable Care Act.
A new study released Friday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the Trump administration’s decision to repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate and expand skimpy short-term health plans have made premiums across the board — whether on the Obamacare marketplace or not — an average of 6 percent higher in 2019 than they otherwise would have been. The study was based on data from insurers that publicly report the effect of those policy changes in their filings to state insurance commissioners.
When considering the added impact from the Trump administration’s decision to stop cost-sharing reduction payments, KFF found that premiums for the ACA’s middle tier silver plans will be about 16 percent higher in 2019 than they could have been. Silver plans are the most popular ACA plans, and the only ones that offer cost-sharing reductions to low-income enrollees, giving them extra savings.
The study provides insight into insurer motivations for increasing prices, with many citing the Trump administration’s policies. Similarly, in 2017, insurers cited uncertainty about the future of the ACA when announcing the increases in premium rates for 2018.
“In setting rates for 2018, some insurers assumed either repeal, reduced enforcement, or public perception of reduced enforcement of the individual mandate would lead to a sicker risk pool in 2018 and priced accordingly,” the analysis stated.
Another KFF study from this month found that 2019 premiums are remaining stable or decreasing in some areas of the country, largely because insurers overestimated the effect of Trump’s policies in those areas. Still, Friday’s analysis found that 2019 premiums would see even greater decreases if the individual mandate were still law.
The study comes less than two weeks before the midterm elections, as Republicans continue to campaign on protecting health care, despite a majority of them backing President Trump in eliminating protections for people with pre-existing conditions and gutting the Affordable Care Act. A ThinkProgress review of the websites of key Republican Senate candidates found that more than a third had removed their stances on the disastrous American Health Care Act, which would have stripped an estimated 23 million people of health care. Thirty-two Republicans have voted to repeal the ACA at least once, while also claiming they will defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
A new study released Friday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the Trump administration’s decision to repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate and expand skimpy short-term health plans have made premiums across the board — whether on the Obamacare marketplace or not — an average of 6 percent higher in 2019 than they otherwise would have been. The study was based on data from insurers that publicly report the effect of those policy changes in their filings to state insurance commissioners.
When considering the added impact from the Trump administration’s decision to stop cost-sharing reduction payments, KFF found that premiums for the ACA’s middle tier silver plans will be about 16 percent higher in 2019 than they could have been. Silver plans are the most popular ACA plans, and the only ones that offer cost-sharing reductions to low-income enrollees, giving them extra savings.
The study provides insight into insurer motivations for increasing prices, with many citing the Trump administration’s policies. Similarly, in 2017, insurers cited uncertainty about the future of the ACA when announcing the increases in premium rates for 2018.
“In setting rates for 2018, some insurers assumed either repeal, reduced enforcement, or public perception of reduced enforcement of the individual mandate would lead to a sicker risk pool in 2018 and priced accordingly,” the analysis stated.
Another KFF study from this month found that 2019 premiums are remaining stable or decreasing in some areas of the country, largely because insurers overestimated the effect of Trump’s policies in those areas. Still, Friday’s analysis found that 2019 premiums would see even greater decreases if the individual mandate were still law.
The study comes less than two weeks before the midterm elections, as Republicans continue to campaign on protecting health care, despite a majority of them backing President Trump in eliminating protections for people with pre-existing conditions and gutting the Affordable Care Act. A ThinkProgress review of the websites of key Republican Senate candidates found that more than a third had removed their stances on the disastrous American Health Care Act, which would have stripped an estimated 23 million people of health care. Thirty-two Republicans have voted to repeal the ACA at least once, while also claiming they will defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
US firms face tariff-fueled price hikes, widespread labor shortages: Fed
Agence France-Presse - raw story
24 OCT 2018 AT 16:47 ET
US firms nationwide complain trade disputes with China and others are boosting the prices of key inputs, while they continue to face widespread labor shortages, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday.
The ongoing difficulty in filling open positions at all skill levels and in every region is delaying projects in some cases, and pressuring firms to raise wages or benefits, or even employ robots to ramp up production, according to the Fed’s latest “beige book” survey of the economy.
While the reports from the Fed’s regional banks reflected a healthy US economy, with “modest to moderate growth,” President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy, which has drawn retaliation from trading partners, is potentially adding fuel to inflation.
The central bank is watching price pressures closely to gauge how fast and how far to raise the benchmark lending rate, to allow the economy to continue to grow without an acceleration of inflation.
The Fed has raised the key interest rate three times this year and is widely expected to increase by another 0.25 percentage points in December.
“Manufacturers reported raising prices of finished goods out of necessity as costs of raw materials such as metals rose, which they attributed to tariffs,” the Fed report said.
Some companies are not able to pass on cost increases to customers, and in Philadelphia, firms reported “difficulty meeting the prices of foreign competitors who are not exposed to tariffs on the primary input commodities of their products.”
Trump has imposed steep tariffs on steel, aluminum and about $250 billion in imported goods from China, which has struck back with tariffs of its own on US goods.
– Widespread labor shortages –
Inflation has increased about two percent this year, in line with the Fed’s target, but economists fear growing demand, combined with the tariffs and a labor shortage could ignite price increases.
The Fed said wages are only rose “modestly or moderately” in most of the country — the San Francisco region was a notable exception — but the increases were widespread throughout the United States.
One staffing firm in Philadelphia noted that “resistance to raising starting wages softened further among their clients after years of holding wages steady.”
And companies also have used non-salary options to attract and retain qualified workers, including signing bonuses, flexible hours and more vacation.
The report included anecdotes of companies unable to expand or boost production because of a lack of workers at all levels.
One had a project delayed by six weeks because it could not find an elevator technician, while another company is another firm plans to add “cobots (or collaborative robots)” to increase production.
In Atlanta, “tightening labor markets, particularly among low-skill/ hourly jobs, were restraining business activity,” but many regions cited lack of mid-level and highly skilled employees as well.
With stocks already lower for the day, Wall Street took the news badly, sending the major indices down sharply following the Fed report’s release.
The ongoing difficulty in filling open positions at all skill levels and in every region is delaying projects in some cases, and pressuring firms to raise wages or benefits, or even employ robots to ramp up production, according to the Fed’s latest “beige book” survey of the economy.
While the reports from the Fed’s regional banks reflected a healthy US economy, with “modest to moderate growth,” President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy, which has drawn retaliation from trading partners, is potentially adding fuel to inflation.
The central bank is watching price pressures closely to gauge how fast and how far to raise the benchmark lending rate, to allow the economy to continue to grow without an acceleration of inflation.
The Fed has raised the key interest rate three times this year and is widely expected to increase by another 0.25 percentage points in December.
“Manufacturers reported raising prices of finished goods out of necessity as costs of raw materials such as metals rose, which they attributed to tariffs,” the Fed report said.
Some companies are not able to pass on cost increases to customers, and in Philadelphia, firms reported “difficulty meeting the prices of foreign competitors who are not exposed to tariffs on the primary input commodities of their products.”
Trump has imposed steep tariffs on steel, aluminum and about $250 billion in imported goods from China, which has struck back with tariffs of its own on US goods.
– Widespread labor shortages –
Inflation has increased about two percent this year, in line with the Fed’s target, but economists fear growing demand, combined with the tariffs and a labor shortage could ignite price increases.
The Fed said wages are only rose “modestly or moderately” in most of the country — the San Francisco region was a notable exception — but the increases were widespread throughout the United States.
One staffing firm in Philadelphia noted that “resistance to raising starting wages softened further among their clients after years of holding wages steady.”
And companies also have used non-salary options to attract and retain qualified workers, including signing bonuses, flexible hours and more vacation.
The report included anecdotes of companies unable to expand or boost production because of a lack of workers at all levels.
One had a project delayed by six weeks because it could not find an elevator technician, while another company is another firm plans to add “cobots (or collaborative robots)” to increase production.
In Atlanta, “tightening labor markets, particularly among low-skill/ hourly jobs, were restraining business activity,” but many regions cited lack of mid-level and highly skilled employees as well.
With stocks already lower for the day, Wall Street took the news badly, sending the major indices down sharply following the Fed report’s release.
Trump trade war delivers farm boom in Brazil, gloom in Iowa
Reuters - raw story
11 OCT 2018 AT 09:15 ET
The Bella Vita luxury condominium tower rises 20 stories over the boomtown of Luís Eduardo Magalhães in northeastern Brazil. Its private movie theater and helipad are symbols of how far this dusty farming community has come since it was founded just 18 years ago.
Local soybean producers shell out upwards of a half-million U.S. dollars to live in the complex. Nearby farm equipment sellers, car dealerships and construction supply stores are bustling too.
Meanwhile, nearly 5,000 miles to the north in Boone, Iowa, farmers are hunkering down. At a recent agriculture trade show here, Iowa corn and soybean grower Steve Sheppard reflected the cautious mood.
“I’m not buying any machinery, I’m not spending any money,” Sheppard said.
Two countries. Same business. Two very different fates. The reason: China.
A growing trade war between the United States and China is re-ordering the global grains business. In response to Trump administration tariffs on Chinese goods, Beijing this year imposed levies on U.S. agricultural products. Among them was a 25 percent tariff on soybeans, the single most valuable U.S. farm export. U.S. growers sold $12 billion worth to China last year alone.
The fallout has been quick. China, the world’s largest importer of soybeans, has scaled back purchases of U.S. grain to feed its massive hog herd.
It is turning instead to Brazil, which has ridden the wave of Chinese demand for two decades to become a global agricultural powerhouse. Brazilian soybean exports to the Asian country jumped 22 percent by value between January and September, compared to the same period a year ago.
Brazilian producers are not only selling more grain, their soy is fetching $2.83 more per bushel than beans from the United States, up from a premium of just $0.60 a year ago, thanks to stepped up Chinese purchases.
Prices for U.S. soybeans, meanwhile, recently sunk to decade lows that farmers say are below the cost of production. The slump has made the agricultural sector a drag on an otherwise healthy U.S. economy. The Trump administration said in July it would spend up to $12 billion in taxpayer funds to help U.S. farmers offset trade-related losses, although the aid package could shrink.
Many American farmers, overwhelmingly conservative voters who helped propel Donald Trump to the presidency, are standing by their man. They believe he will eventually negotiate a better trade deal with China, whose appetite for soybeans is so vast that it cannot completely wean itself off U.S. grain.
But for the time being, Trump trade policies are handing precious market share, money and momentum to Brazil, the United States’ most formidable agricultural competitor. Some fear the lost ground will be hard to reclaim.
“Bad news on tariffs in the U.S. is good news for them,” Robert Crain, general manager for the Americas for equipment dealer AGCO Corp, said about Brazilian farmers in an interview at the Iowa show.
BOON TO BRAZIL
Like their U.S. counterparts, Brazil’s farmers produce much more grain than is needed at home. Foreign customers are responsible for the country’s agricultural boom. Nearly 80 percent of Brazil’s soy exports now head to China.
The city of Luís Eduardo Magalhães is a testament to the importance of this international trade. Located in the state of Bahia, with farms stretching in every direction, the formerly unincorporated rural area in less than two decades has swelled to 85,000 people. That is bigger than Sioux City, Iowa’s fourth-largest city.
Major employers in Luís Eduardo, as most locals call the city, include fertilizer factories, seed producers and processors of soy and cotton. The area “relies 100 percent on agriculture,” said Carminha Maria Missio, a farmer and president of the local growers union.
While Brazil’s overall economy is stuck in a ditch, the nation’s farm sector rolled to 13 percent growth last year. The John Deere dealership in Luís Eduardo saw its sales rise 15 percent in 2017 and is expecting double-digit growth again this year, managing partner Chico Flores Oliveira said.
The local real estate market is surging too. Another new luxury condo tower is slated to open next year. Single-family homes are sprouting throughout the city. Prices for prime farmland are up 37 percent since 2012, according to consultancy Informa Economics IEG FNP.
Brazil’s total soy area is expected to expand to a record 36.28 million hectares this season due to robust Chinese demand, according to a Reuters poll of analysts.
Farmers here also are bullish on this month’s presidential election in Brazil. Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who is leading in the polls, favors rolling back fines for farmers who deforest illegally or break other environmental laws. Like Trump, Bolsonaro, is wary of China. But producers here trust him not to blow it on trade.
“Rural producers support Bolsonaro emphatically,” said Congresswoman Tereza Cristina, head of the powerful agriculture voting bloc in Brazil’s Congress. “We have access to him…and I am certain that he is smart and sensible.”
U.S. FARM BELT PINCHED The outlook is much gloomier in Iowa, the long-established heart of U.S. agriculture.
It is the nation’s top corn-producing state and the No. 2 producer of soybeans. But its access to some global markets has suffered under Trump.
The president walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would have opened valuable markets such as Japan to more American ag products. His renegotiation of the NAFTA accord had Mexico, the largest importer of U.S. corn, exploring other suppliers, including Brazil. Now the Chinese are pulling back.
Boone lays smack in the state’s center, surrounded by miles of row crops, hogs and poultry. Farmland values here fell 12 percent from 2012 to 2017, according to Iowa State University. Worries about the U.S.-China trade war loomed over the recent Farm Progress show, which comes to town every other year.
Equipment dealer Lee Randall jotted down prices at an auction of used tractors and implements at the show. Prices have dropped on trade tensions and low crop prices, he said, shaking his head as a green and yellow Deere & Co combine sold for $118,000 and another fetched $82,000.
“Five years ago you could have added 30 percent to every one of these pieces,” said Randall, whose business, Randall Brothers, is based in Ohio.
Nearby, Brett Begemann, chief operating officer for Bayer Crop Science said farmers were likewise scrutinizing purchases of seeds and chemicals. The trade dispute is making it difficult for Bayer to predict 2019 earnings for its agriculture unit.
A two-hour drive north of Boone in Algona, Iowa, a town of about 5,500 people, farm doldrums are crimping business at the local Deere and Harley-Davidson Inc dealerships, the operators said.
“Ultimately this area lives and dies by the farmer,” said Jim Wilcox, an owner of the Harley store.
Farmers’ woes are showing up on bank balance sheets as well. The proportion of the region’s agricultural loans reported as having repayment problems was up in the second quarter, reaching mid-year levels not seen since 2002, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Rodney Jensen, who farms near Algona, regrets not making deals to sell soybeans from his autumn harvest when prices were higher. Like many, he is storing his crop, waiting for better times.
He worries China will not buy as much U.S. soy as it used to, even if the two nations patch things up.
“It’s been pretty pessimistic around here,” Jensen said.
Local soybean producers shell out upwards of a half-million U.S. dollars to live in the complex. Nearby farm equipment sellers, car dealerships and construction supply stores are bustling too.
Meanwhile, nearly 5,000 miles to the north in Boone, Iowa, farmers are hunkering down. At a recent agriculture trade show here, Iowa corn and soybean grower Steve Sheppard reflected the cautious mood.
“I’m not buying any machinery, I’m not spending any money,” Sheppard said.
Two countries. Same business. Two very different fates. The reason: China.
A growing trade war between the United States and China is re-ordering the global grains business. In response to Trump administration tariffs on Chinese goods, Beijing this year imposed levies on U.S. agricultural products. Among them was a 25 percent tariff on soybeans, the single most valuable U.S. farm export. U.S. growers sold $12 billion worth to China last year alone.
The fallout has been quick. China, the world’s largest importer of soybeans, has scaled back purchases of U.S. grain to feed its massive hog herd.
It is turning instead to Brazil, which has ridden the wave of Chinese demand for two decades to become a global agricultural powerhouse. Brazilian soybean exports to the Asian country jumped 22 percent by value between January and September, compared to the same period a year ago.
Brazilian producers are not only selling more grain, their soy is fetching $2.83 more per bushel than beans from the United States, up from a premium of just $0.60 a year ago, thanks to stepped up Chinese purchases.
Prices for U.S. soybeans, meanwhile, recently sunk to decade lows that farmers say are below the cost of production. The slump has made the agricultural sector a drag on an otherwise healthy U.S. economy. The Trump administration said in July it would spend up to $12 billion in taxpayer funds to help U.S. farmers offset trade-related losses, although the aid package could shrink.
Many American farmers, overwhelmingly conservative voters who helped propel Donald Trump to the presidency, are standing by their man. They believe he will eventually negotiate a better trade deal with China, whose appetite for soybeans is so vast that it cannot completely wean itself off U.S. grain.
But for the time being, Trump trade policies are handing precious market share, money and momentum to Brazil, the United States’ most formidable agricultural competitor. Some fear the lost ground will be hard to reclaim.
“Bad news on tariffs in the U.S. is good news for them,” Robert Crain, general manager for the Americas for equipment dealer AGCO Corp, said about Brazilian farmers in an interview at the Iowa show.
BOON TO BRAZIL
Like their U.S. counterparts, Brazil’s farmers produce much more grain than is needed at home. Foreign customers are responsible for the country’s agricultural boom. Nearly 80 percent of Brazil’s soy exports now head to China.
The city of Luís Eduardo Magalhães is a testament to the importance of this international trade. Located in the state of Bahia, with farms stretching in every direction, the formerly unincorporated rural area in less than two decades has swelled to 85,000 people. That is bigger than Sioux City, Iowa’s fourth-largest city.
Major employers in Luís Eduardo, as most locals call the city, include fertilizer factories, seed producers and processors of soy and cotton. The area “relies 100 percent on agriculture,” said Carminha Maria Missio, a farmer and president of the local growers union.
While Brazil’s overall economy is stuck in a ditch, the nation’s farm sector rolled to 13 percent growth last year. The John Deere dealership in Luís Eduardo saw its sales rise 15 percent in 2017 and is expecting double-digit growth again this year, managing partner Chico Flores Oliveira said.
The local real estate market is surging too. Another new luxury condo tower is slated to open next year. Single-family homes are sprouting throughout the city. Prices for prime farmland are up 37 percent since 2012, according to consultancy Informa Economics IEG FNP.
Brazil’s total soy area is expected to expand to a record 36.28 million hectares this season due to robust Chinese demand, according to a Reuters poll of analysts.
Farmers here also are bullish on this month’s presidential election in Brazil. Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who is leading in the polls, favors rolling back fines for farmers who deforest illegally or break other environmental laws. Like Trump, Bolsonaro, is wary of China. But producers here trust him not to blow it on trade.
“Rural producers support Bolsonaro emphatically,” said Congresswoman Tereza Cristina, head of the powerful agriculture voting bloc in Brazil’s Congress. “We have access to him…and I am certain that he is smart and sensible.”
U.S. FARM BELT PINCHED The outlook is much gloomier in Iowa, the long-established heart of U.S. agriculture.
It is the nation’s top corn-producing state and the No. 2 producer of soybeans. But its access to some global markets has suffered under Trump.
The president walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would have opened valuable markets such as Japan to more American ag products. His renegotiation of the NAFTA accord had Mexico, the largest importer of U.S. corn, exploring other suppliers, including Brazil. Now the Chinese are pulling back.
Boone lays smack in the state’s center, surrounded by miles of row crops, hogs and poultry. Farmland values here fell 12 percent from 2012 to 2017, according to Iowa State University. Worries about the U.S.-China trade war loomed over the recent Farm Progress show, which comes to town every other year.
Equipment dealer Lee Randall jotted down prices at an auction of used tractors and implements at the show. Prices have dropped on trade tensions and low crop prices, he said, shaking his head as a green and yellow Deere & Co combine sold for $118,000 and another fetched $82,000.
“Five years ago you could have added 30 percent to every one of these pieces,” said Randall, whose business, Randall Brothers, is based in Ohio.
Nearby, Brett Begemann, chief operating officer for Bayer Crop Science said farmers were likewise scrutinizing purchases of seeds and chemicals. The trade dispute is making it difficult for Bayer to predict 2019 earnings for its agriculture unit.
A two-hour drive north of Boone in Algona, Iowa, a town of about 5,500 people, farm doldrums are crimping business at the local Deere and Harley-Davidson Inc dealerships, the operators said.
“Ultimately this area lives and dies by the farmer,” said Jim Wilcox, an owner of the Harley store.
Farmers’ woes are showing up on bank balance sheets as well. The proportion of the region’s agricultural loans reported as having repayment problems was up in the second quarter, reaching mid-year levels not seen since 2002, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Rodney Jensen, who farms near Algona, regrets not making deals to sell soybeans from his autumn harvest when prices were higher. Like many, he is storing his crop, waiting for better times.
He worries China will not buy as much U.S. soy as it used to, even if the two nations patch things up.
“It’s been pretty pessimistic around here,” Jensen said.
China slashes U.S. LPG imports amid trade war
Seng Li Peng - reuters
OCTOBER 9, 2018
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - China has choked back on imports of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from the United States, traders and analysts said, turning to the Middle East for extra supplies amid the two countries’ trade dispute.
China bought nearly 3.6 million tonnes of U.S. LPG in 2017, making the United States the country’s second-largest supplier of the fuel used in petrochemicals, as well as for cooking, transport and heating.
However, U.S. imports have come off dramatically over the course of 2018, before stalling completely in late August when China imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on over 300 U.S. goods, including LPG, in retaliation for U.S. tariffs.
Consultancy IHS Markit estimates U.S. imports fell to barely 1 million tonnes during the first eight months of 2018, down from about 2.1 million tonnes for the same period last year, said He Yanyu, Executive Director for Natural Gas Liquids.
The fall came as Chinese buyers wound back U.S. purchases of LPG amid uncertainty about the impact of buying product from the United States, said a trader who tracks the fuel.
No U.S. LPG cargoes have landed in China since tariffs were imposed in late August, said Ong Han Wee at consultancy FGE.
“China has stopped shipping in U.S. LPG cargoes as they are now too expensive,” added a second trader who tracks LPG cargoes.
The United States last year accounted for about 20 percent of China’s total LPG imports, which are currently running at about $1 billion a month, based on Thomson Reuters calculation.
The U.S. gap is being filled largely by Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, analysts said.
The change comes as prices for the fuel, often a mix of propane and butane, spike in line with higher oil prices.
State-owned Saudi Aramco, whose contract prices are used as benchmarks in Asia, fixed its propane and butane contract prices for October at $655 a tonne, the highest since 2014.
U.S. prices are also rising. The propane price at the Texan Mont Belvieu hub hit its highest since 2014 on Sept. 28 at around 108 cents per gallon before easing to around 104 cents on Oct. 9.
This works out to about $542 a tonne, based on Reuters calculations, but is above the Saudi Aramco price after taking into account freight and terminal charges and the additional 25 percent tariff.
China’s LPG imports rose about 15 percent to nearly 18.3 million tonnes in 2017, driven partly by new petrochemicals plants which use the propane dehydrogenation method to produce the raw material for plastics..
IHS’s He said LPG prices were likely to stay firm in November and December due to higher oil prices and winter demand.
China bought nearly 3.6 million tonnes of U.S. LPG in 2017, making the United States the country’s second-largest supplier of the fuel used in petrochemicals, as well as for cooking, transport and heating.
However, U.S. imports have come off dramatically over the course of 2018, before stalling completely in late August when China imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on over 300 U.S. goods, including LPG, in retaliation for U.S. tariffs.
Consultancy IHS Markit estimates U.S. imports fell to barely 1 million tonnes during the first eight months of 2018, down from about 2.1 million tonnes for the same period last year, said He Yanyu, Executive Director for Natural Gas Liquids.
The fall came as Chinese buyers wound back U.S. purchases of LPG amid uncertainty about the impact of buying product from the United States, said a trader who tracks the fuel.
No U.S. LPG cargoes have landed in China since tariffs were imposed in late August, said Ong Han Wee at consultancy FGE.
“China has stopped shipping in U.S. LPG cargoes as they are now too expensive,” added a second trader who tracks LPG cargoes.
The United States last year accounted for about 20 percent of China’s total LPG imports, which are currently running at about $1 billion a month, based on Thomson Reuters calculation.
The U.S. gap is being filled largely by Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, analysts said.
The change comes as prices for the fuel, often a mix of propane and butane, spike in line with higher oil prices.
State-owned Saudi Aramco, whose contract prices are used as benchmarks in Asia, fixed its propane and butane contract prices for October at $655 a tonne, the highest since 2014.
U.S. prices are also rising. The propane price at the Texan Mont Belvieu hub hit its highest since 2014 on Sept. 28 at around 108 cents per gallon before easing to around 104 cents on Oct. 9.
This works out to about $542 a tonne, based on Reuters calculations, but is above the Saudi Aramco price after taking into account freight and terminal charges and the additional 25 percent tariff.
China’s LPG imports rose about 15 percent to nearly 18.3 million tonnes in 2017, driven partly by new petrochemicals plants which use the propane dehydrogenation method to produce the raw material for plastics..
IHS’s He said LPG prices were likely to stay firm in November and December due to higher oil prices and winter demand.
One map shows why Trump's trade war with China could be a disaster for average Americans
Bob Bryan - business insider
Aug 9, 2018, 9:31 AM ET
- President Donald Trump's trade war with China is ongoing, with tariffs flying back and forth.
- While US tariffs currently apply to $34 billion worth of Chinese goods coming into the US, Trump has threatened to apply tariffs to every import from China.
- The trade war could have significant economic consequences, as China is the largest source of imports for 23 states and among the top five sources for 47.
- It could also have political consequences, as 15 of the 23 states that count China as their top import source voted for Trump in 2016.
The Trump administration on Tuesday announced a 25% tariff on $16 billion worth of Chinese exports to the US, adding to the $34 billion worth of Chinese goods already subject to tariffs. Trump has also begun to move forward with tariffs on another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, and he has effectively threatened that every item from the country could eventually be subject to tariffs.
Tariffs act as a tax on goods coming into the country, meaning goods coming into the US from China would be hit with an additional 25% duty. That makes those goods more expensive, which, in theory, would drive US companies to buy non-Chinese products.
Given that Chinese goods represented just over 21% of all imports coming into the US in 2017, an escalation of the trade war could push up prices for many goods. While the disruptions are likely to be widespread, some states may face more problems than others.
According to data from the US Census Bureau, China is a key source of imports for many states:
- For 23 states, China is the top source of imports.
- For 45 states, China is in the top three.
- China is among the top five import sources for 47 states. (North Dakota, Louisiana, and Delaware are the only exceptions.)
- Of the 23 states that count China as their largest source of imports, Trump won 15 in the 2016 presidential election.
payback funnies
|
|
what you see is what you get!!!
your share, idiot!!!!
