NYC Mayor Eric Adams Hit With Historic Federal Indictment
New York City Mayor Eric Adams has been indicted on federal criminal charges, marking a historic first for the city as he becomes the first sitting mayor to face such charges. The specifics of the charges remain shrouded in secrecy due to a sealed indictment, the NY Times reports.
Adams, a retired NYC police captain, became the city’s 110th mayor nearly three years ago after campaigning on a promise to reduce crime and revitalize the city.
Last November, the feds seized Adams’ electronic devices just days after he searched the Brooklyn home of his chief fundraiser. His aides claim he’s been cooperating with authorities, while Adams himself maintains that he did nothing wrong.
Hours before the indictment, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called on Adams to resign over the “flood of resignations and vacancies” that “are threatening gov function.”
I do not see how Mayor Adams can continue governing New York City.
The flood of resignations and vacancies are threatening gov function. Nonstop investigations will make it impossible to recruit and retain a qualified administration.
Employment growth has been overestimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) over the past few years, garnering the attention of a chorus of prominent individuals, from former President Donald Trump to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.
As sizable revisions to previous months’ job data become more frequent, economic observers have presented various theories, such as poor data collection methods, to ascertain the reason behind this trend.
One of the causes might be the decline in response rates.
The federal statistics agency conducts a comprehensive approach to generating employment data every month.
The first is known as the Current Population Survey (CPS). Researchers contact approximately 60,000 households—by phone, video calls, emails, mail, and personal visits—to determine the employment status of individuals 15 and older.
They present a series of standard questions relating to work, employment activity, and job search. These findings are used to produce the unemployment rate.
The second is the Current Employment Statistics Survey (CES), which consists of interviews with 119,000 nonagricultural businesses and government agencies, representing approximately 619,000 individual worksites.
These surveys offer insights into vital industry data, such as employment, earnings, and hours for nonfarm payrolls.
These findings have been integral for decades for public policymakers, financial markets, and economists.
However, according to the BLS, fewer people respond to the survey.
For the CPS, the overall response rate was 90.3 percent in January 2013 and 70.5 percent in August 2024. For the CES, the overall response rate was 63 percent in July 2014 and 43 percent in June 2024, according to the BLS.
Officials say response rates substantially decreased at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and that the drop “accelerated during the pandemic.”
To ensure high-quality data, the federal agency pays close attention to the nonresponse “because it has a direct effect on data quality.”
“If the rate of nonresponse is high, it increases the chance that the final survey estimates may reflect bias,” the BLS stated.
“CPS estimates may reflect bias if the characteristics and labor force statuses of nonresponding households differ from those of responding households.”
There could be various reasons behind the nonresponse, such as privacy issues, unavailable respondents, and challenges contacting respondents.
“In recent years, it has become more difficult for Census interviewers to reach respondents, either in-person or by telephone,” the BLS stated.
In June, BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer suggested that budgetary constraints might force the agency to reduce the CPS sample size by 5,000.
“Budgets have not been keeping up with rising survey costs, and over the course of time, many actions have been taken to try and reduce survey costs in the field,” McEntarfer said at a Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee meeting.
She confirmed at the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS) quarterly meeting in late June that the sample size would be reduced and that the change would go into effect in 2025.
In a May letter to lawmakers, COPAFS recommended giving the BLS “no less than $812 million in FY 2025.”
While McEntarfer says the leadership is exploring different options, Peterson Institute for International Economics senior fellow David Wilcox said that there “is no fully articulated strategy” for substituting the CPS should the situation worsen.
“The CPS gathers information about aspects of the labor market that are difficult or impossible to measure using ‘big data’ or alternative sources,” Wilcox said.
“If the survey response rate were to implode—and the current plan to add an internet self-response mode were to encounter similar challenges—it’s not clear how the statistical agencies would proceed.”
Hit and Miss
So far this year, the BLS initially reported 1.84 million jobs. Following the first and second revisions, employment growth was adjusted lower by about 370,000 jobs.
In August, the Department of Labor’s annual benchmark revisions updated the payroll data, showing that the economy created 818,000—or 30 percent—fewer jobs from April 2023 to March 2024.
The update—Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW)—represented the most extensive downward revision to employment gains since the global financial crisis.
In the 12 months through March, the average monthly job gains were 174,000, down from the initial report of 242,000.
While it might seem like a new phenomenon, research by Education Advisors reveals that the BLS has overestimated job growth by, on average, 5.6 percent per year, “or about 9 million jobs.”
The federal government overestimated or underestimated growth by 20 percent or more for nearly half of all job categories, the study found.
“Due to unpredictability and uncontrollable factors that exist in economic forecasting, it could be said that landing a perfect job growth prediction is harder than landing a rocket on the moon—we should expect some wide margins of error,” the study authors wrote.
“However, job growth predictions that are grossly under or overestimated provide shocking evidence as to just how wildly wrong one of the highest U.S. economic authorities can sometimes be.”
Powell told reporters at a press conference after last week’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting that monetary policymakers considered, as part of their decision to cut interest rates by 50 basis points, that the latest batch of payroll numbers might be “artificially high” and could show further downward changes.
“We had the QCEW report, which suggests that the payroll report numbers that we’re getting may be artificially high and will be revised down,” Powell said.
Economists are debating whether the revisions have altered the portrait of the economic landscape.
Bill Adams, Comerica Bank’s chief economist, said last week that the “big downward revisions” to the job numbers “show the labor market is not doing as well as previously thought.”
“Considering the downward revisions in the August jobs report as well as the preliminary benchmark revision announced in mid-August, job growth in the last 12 months was just 157,000 per month, much slower than the 218,000 12-month average through June in the data available when the Fed met last on July 30 and 31,” Adams said in a note.
However, Dean Baker, a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has said that the downward adjustments do not imply a weaker labor market.
“What they tell us is that the economy is creating fewer jobs than we had previously believed,” Baker said. “But if we have high levels of employment with fewer jobs, what exactly is the problem?”
The September jobs report will be released on Oct. 4.
Early forecasts suggest that the economy created 130,000 new jobs and that unemployment ticked higher to 4.3 percent.
Texas Warns Venezuelan Prison Gang “Activity Happening Across State”
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg took to X on Tuesday. He wasn’t speaking about the need for racial equity in America’s highways or woke activism in the FAA, but he attempted to persuade the internet that “crime is down.”
What a ‘weird’ topic for Buttigieg to discuss with X users, given his job is ensuring America’s trains, planes, and automobiles operate smoothly. This might signal the Biden-Harris administration’s frustration with their propaganda blitz to convince Americans that ‘cities are safe’ is not sticking. We all know this is bullshit, as the administration points to ‘FBI crime statistics,’ essentially telling folks ‘don’t believe what yous see.’
Americans are wise enough to detect White House propaganda in leftist corporate media. Hence, Buttigieg’s X post was ratioed.
Given all of this, the latest indication America is quickly sleepwalking into a major disaster – and we’re not talking about the conflicts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or the potential war in the South China Sea – comes from Texas.
“Last week, DPS Special Agents assigned to the San Antonio TAG arrested not one, but two Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members during a traffic stop in San Antonio. The San Antonio Police Department and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) were also involved. The two men were detained at the request of HSI and eventually transported to a federal detention center,” the Texas Department of Public Safety wrote on X on Wednesday.
Texas DPS warned, “DPS is seeing TdA activity happening across the state. (The below shows just a small sampling of the activity that has been previously recorded.)”
Last week, DPS Special Agents assigned to the San Antonio TAG arrested not one, but two Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members during a traffic stop in San Antonio. The San Antonio Police Department and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) were also involved. The two men were… pic.twitter.com/JPitubX35L
TdA gang activity has become such a concern in the state that borders Mexico that Texas DPS has offered monetary rewards for the arrest of illegal alien gang members.
DPS reminds Texans that Governor @GregAbbott_TX Public Safety Office is now offering a $5,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest of a TdA member who has been or is involved in criminal activity.
☎️Call the Texas Crime Stoppers hotline at 1-800-252-TIPS (8477)…
The latest figures from the US Army in a leaked report show at least 5,000 TdA illegal aliens have invaded the nation in recent years during open border policies pushed by the Biden-Harris administration.
TdA is the same gang that poured into the northern Denver suburb of Aurora, gaining national attention in recent months after armed illegal aliens seized apartment buildings.
NEW: Aurora police admit arresting Tren de Aragua members after previously denying the gang was in the city
Aurora police have identified Tren de Aragua gang members arrested for their violent takeover of several apartment complexes
Given the US Army only provided an estimate of how many TdA members are in the US, the figure could be much higher since the Biden-Harris team rolled out the red carpet to ten-plus million illegal aliens.
Kamala Harris declared in Tuesday’s debate that a vote for her is a vote “to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy ’cause you don’t like the outcome.”
She was alluding to the 2021 Capitol riot, but she and her party are also attacking the foundations of our democracy: the Supreme Court and the freedom of speech.
Several candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination, including Ms. Harris, said they were open to the idea of packing the court by expanding the number of seats.
Mr. Biden opposed the idea, but a week after he exited the 2024 presidential race, he announced a “bold plan” to “reform” the high court. It would pack the court via term limits and also impose a “binding code of conduct,” aimed at conservative justices.
Ms. Harris quickly endorsed the proposal in a statement, citing a “clear crisis of confidence” in the court owing to “decision after decision overturning long-standing precedent.” She might as well have added “because you don’t like the outcome.” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) has already introduced ethics and term-limits legislation and said Ms. Harris’s campaign has told him “that your bills are precisely aligned with what we are talking about.”
The attacks on the court are part of a growing counterconstitutional movement that began in higher education and seems recently to have reached a critical mass in the media and politics.
The past few months have seen an explosion of books and articles laying out a new vision of “democracy” unconstrained by constitutional limits on majority power.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, is author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States,” published last month. In a 2021 Los Angeles Times op-ed, he described conservative justices as “partisan hacks.”
In the New York Times, book critic Jennifer Szalai scoffs at what she calls “Constitution worship.” She writes: “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.” She frets that by limiting the power of the majority, the Constitution “can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”
In a 2022 New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for liberals to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Others have railed against individual rights. In my new book on free speech, I discuss this movement against what many professors deride as “rights talk.” Barbara McQuade of the University of Michigan Law School has called free speech America’s “Achilles’ heel.”
In another Times op-ed, “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden White House aide, asserts that free speech “now mostly protects corporate interests” and threatens “essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.”
George Washington University Law’s Mary Ann Franks complains that the First Amendment (and also the Second) is too “aggressively individualistic” and endangers “domestic tranquility” and “general welfare.”
Mainstream Democrats are listening to radical voices. “How much does the current structure benefit us?” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) said in 2021, explaining her support for a court-packing bill. “I don’t think it does.” Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said at the Democratic National Committee’s “LGBTQ+ Kickoff” that “we’ve got to reimagine” democracy “in a way that is more revolutionary than . . . that little piece of paper.” Both AOC and Ms. Robinson later spoke to the convention itself.
The Nation’s Elie Mystal calls the Constitution “trash” and urges the abolition of the U.S. Senate. Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School complains that Americans are “slaves” to the Constitution.
Without countermajoritarian protections and institutions, politics would be reduced to raw power. That’s what some have in mind. In an October 2020 interview, Harvard law professor Michael Klarman laid out a plan for Democrats should they win the White House and both congressional chambers. They would enact “democracy-entrenching legislation,” which would ensure that “the Republican Party will never win another election” unless it moved to the left. The problem: “The Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described, and that’s something the Democrats need to fix.”
Trashing the Constitution gives professors and pundits a license to violate norms. The Washington Monthly reports that at a Georgetown conference, Prof. Josh Chafetz suggested that Congress retaliate against conservative justices by refusing to fund law clerks or “cutting off the Supreme Court’s air conditioning budget.” When the audience laughed, Harvard’s Mr. Doerfler snapped back: “It should not be a laugh line. This is a political contest, these are the tools of retaliation available, and they should be completely normalized.”
The cry for radical constitutional change is shortsighted. The constitutional system was designed for bad times, not only good times. It seeks to protect individual rights, minority factions and smaller states from the tyranny of the majority. The result is a system that forces compromise. It doesn’t protect us from political divisions any more than good medical care protects us from cancer. Rather it allows the body politic to survive political afflictions by pushing factions toward negotiation and moderation.
When Benjamin Franklin said the framers had created “a republic, if you can keep it,” he meant that we needed to keep faith in the Constitution. Law professors mistook their own crisis of faith for a constitutional crisis. They have become a sort of priesthood of atheists, keeping their frocks while doffing their faith. The true danger to the American democratic system lies with politicians who would follow their lead and destroy our institutions in pursuit of political advantage.
Musk Was Right… OpenAI Shuts-Down Non-Profit Control, CTO Exits
OpenAI’s Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati became the latest in a string of high-profile departures from the leading AI company this afternoon.
Ilya Sutskever, the company’s chief scientist, left in May. In August, co-founder Greg Brockman said he would go on leave until the end of the year and researcher John Schulman left for AI rival Anthropic. The departures leave only two members of OpenAI’s original founding team at the company: Altman and Wojciech Zaremba.
After six-and-a-half years at the company – including temporarily serving as its CEO after cofounder Sam Altman was briefly ousted, Murati told employees in a message Wednesday she had “made the difficult decision to leave.”
I have something to share with you. After much reflection, I have made the difficult decision to leave OpenAl.
My six-and-a-half years with the OpenAl team have been an extraordinary privilege. While I’ll express my gratitude to many individuals in the coming days, I want to start by thanking Sam and Greg for their trust in me to lead the technical organization and for their support throughout the years.
There’s never an ideal time to step away from a place one cherishes, yet this moment feels right. Our recent releases of speech-to-speech and OpenAl o1 mark the beginning of a new era in interaction and intelligence – achievements made possible by your ingenuity and craftsmanship. We didn’t merely build smarter models, we fundamentally changed how Al systems learn and reason through complex problems.
We brought safety research from the theoretical realm into practical applications, creating models that are more robust, aligned, and steerable than ever before. Our work has made cutting-edge Al research intuitive and accessible, developing technology that adapts and evolves based on everyone’s input. This success is a testament to our outstanding teamwork, and it is because of your brilliance, your dedication, and your commitment that OpenAl stands at the pinnacle of Al innovation.
I’m stepping away because I want to create the time and space to do my own exploration. For now, my primary focus is doing everything in my power to ensure a smooth transition, maintaining the momentum we’ve built.
I will forever be grateful for the opportunity to build and work alongside this remarkable team. Together, we’ve pushed the boundaries of scientific understanding in our quest to improve human well-being.
While I may no longer be in the trenches with you, I will still be rooting for you all.
With deep gratitude for the friendships forged, the triumphs achieved, and most importantly, the challenges overcome together.
Mira
Altman wrote on X that he had thanked Murati in a message to the company.
“It’s hard to overstate how much Mira has meant to OpenAI, our mission, and to us all personally,” Altman wrote.
“I feel tremendous gratitude towards her for what she has helped us build and accomplish, but I most of all feel personal gratitude towards her for the support and love during all the hard times. I am excited for what she’ll do next.”
Around an hour after her resignation letter hit social media,Reuters reported, according to people familiar with the matter, OpenAI is considering becoming a for-profit company and giving Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman equity in the artificial intelligence startup for the first time.
The OpenAI non-profit will continue to exist and own a minority stake in the for-profit company, these sources said.
“We remain focused on building AI that benefits everyone, and we’re working with our board to ensure that we’re best positioned to succeed in our mission. The non-profit is core to our mission and will continue to exist,” an OpenAI spokesperson said.
The details of the proposed corporate structure, first reported by Reuters, highlight significant governance changes happening behind the scenes at one of the most important AI companies. The plan is still being hashed out with lawyers and shareholders and the timeline for completing the restructuring remains uncertain, the sources said.
OpenAI was founded in 2015 as a nonprofit research organization with the goal of building artificial intelligence that would be safe and beneficial to humanity.
The company created a for-profit subsidiary in 2019 in order to help fund the high costs of AI model development, and has since drawn billions in outside investment from Microsoft Corp. and others.
The company’s unusual structure, which gives full control of the for-profit subsidiary to the OpenAI nonprofit, was originally set to ensure the mission of creating “safe AGI that is broadly beneficial,” referring to artificial general intelligence that is at or exceeding human intelligence.
This month, Bloomberg reported that OpenAI is currently working to raise $6.5 billion at a $150 billion valuation, making it one of the most valuable startups in the world.
The move to a for-profit entity comesjust a few weeks after Elon Musk reignited a legal battle against OpenAI and its co-founders, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, accusing the defendants of multiple counts, including fraud, breach of contract, and violations of federal civil racketeering laws.
Musk had originally sued in February before dropping the suit in June with no explanation given at the time.
Musk’s revived lawsuit includes several allegations against OpenAI, Altman, and Brockman—at the heart of which is a claim that Altman and Brockman “intentionally courted and deceived” Musk into co-founding OpenAI under false pretenses.
Musk asserted in the 81-page suit that he was misled into believing that OpenAI would be a nonprofit organization focused on developing artificial intelligence (AI) technologies “for the benefit of humanity,” operating as a counterbalance to for-profit tech giants.
According to the lawsuit, OpenAI’s co-founders allegedly manipulated Musk by making repeated promises and assurances that the organization would remain open-source and not driven by profit.
The suit defines “open source” as the practice of making AI technology and research freely accessible to the public, allowing for transparency and collaboration.
“Altman assured Musk that the non-profit structure guaranteed neutrality and a focus on safety and openness for the benefit of humanity, not shareholder value,” the suit claimed.
“But as it turns out, this was all hot-air philanthropy – the hook for Altman’s long con.”
Musk claims that these representations were part of a scheme to attract significant funding and expertise, which he provided, including “tens of millions of dollars” and the recruitment of top AI scientists.
The complaint further accuses Altman and Brockman of engaging in “rampant self-dealing” and transforming OpenAI into a for-profit entity in partnership with Microsoft, thereby abandoning its original mission.
Musk argued that OpenAI’s pivot to a for-profit model has resulted in substantial unjust enrichment for the defendants, which he contends was at the expense of the nonprofit’s mission.
This month, Bloomberg reported that OpenAI is currently working to raise $6.5 billion at a $150 billion valuation, making it one of the most valuable startups in the world.
The removal of non-profit control could make OpenAI operate more like a typical startup, a move generally welcomed by its investors who have poured billions into the company.
However, as Reuters concludes, it could also raise concerns from the AI safety community about whether the lab still has enough governance to hold itself accountable in its pursuit of AGI, as it has dissolved the superalignment team that focuses on the long-term risks of AI earlier this year.
Abbey Ballentine, a student from Ohio’s Cleveland area, selected nearby Notre Dame College because it had everything she was looking for. It was a small, friendly campus with competitive Division II soccer and it was close to home.
By late fall of 2023, just a few months into her freshman year, she heard rumors the school had financial problems.
The official closure announcement was made early into the spring semester and the college closed its doors in May.
Campus advisors and administrators helped students quickly find other schools within a reasonable distance that would honor their financial aid packages and accept academic credits. Ballentine chose Thiel College in western Pennsylvania.
She’s still warming up to her new environment. The soccer team is Division III, a lower level than her prior team but also an opportunity for more playing time. The campus is more spread out and further from home. The move also pushed Ballentine out of her comfort zone and challenged her to switch majors from nursing to exercise science, which she has enjoyed.
“I think it’s a good match for me, and I actually like being further away from home, so far,” Ballentine told The Epoch Times. “But it’s only been a month, and I kind of still miss everything about Notre Dame.”
The support provided to Notre Dame College students in such a short window is rare, according to Rachel Burns, senior policy analyst with the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), a research and policy organization.
Burns said 70 percent of private college students who attended institutions that closed abruptly in the past five years received no help in finding a place to continue their academic career.
Of the 500,000 students displaced by closures, less than half re-enrolled elsewhere, she said.
And by this time next year, U.S. high school students could be looking at even fewer college choices.
Leaders at many higher learning institutions may determine their school’s fate in a matter of weeks after all federal financial aid checks for students attending this academic year are accounted for, says Gary Stocker of College Viability, a data analytics company that specializes in higher education finances.
“Many of them will decide, ‘I’m not sure we can survive past May,’” Stocker told the Epoch Times. “There’s a trend in short notice closures.”
Ninety-nine degree-granting institutions closed in the past year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. That includes community colleges, four-year schools, and universities. Seventeen of the schools were four-year nonprofit private schools, some of which had operated for more than a century before encountering severe financial problems in recent years.
Particularly impacted are small, private residential liberal arts colleges, where a typical student is in their late teens or early 20s and attends full-time and in-person.
Stocker said he expects that at least another 99 schools will announce their closures in the coming months. He estimates there are more than 2 million unfilled student slots across U.S. colleges and universities.
“It’s not even close to equilibrium,” Stocker said.
He said many factors are playing a role in shrinking enrollment numbers at traditional higher learning institutions, including the steep cost of tuition, job market trends, a recent Supreme Court decision, and even a sustained period of decreased birthrates across the country.
Factors such as last year’s delayed Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) rollout add to an already stressed market. Prospective students fill out a FAFSA form to find out their eligibility for financial aid, including grants, work-study programs, and loans. It can determine whether they can afford to attend college or not.
Drop in Students
U.S. college and university enrollment decreased by 1 million students over the past decade, according to data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
A slight increase in students enrolled in higher education classes between 2022 and 2023, mainly due to the spike in online course offerings and high schools that allow students to complete college-level credits, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Stocker called college closures a regional problem that has so far disproportionately affected campuses in the northeast, but it’s approaching the tipping point as a national epidemic.
The flurry of closures in New York could be a sign of things to come, he said.
Kieran Weinstein enrolled at the College of St. Rose in Albany, New York, in the fall of 2022. He was recruited to play on its Division II soccer team.
A year later, the school announced its final class would graduate in May 2024.
The sophomore from New Paltz, New York, decided to transfer out as soon as possible because he found the school environment to be depressing, and a number of courses in which he was interested had already been cut.
“I had professors crying, saying they didn’t know what they were going to do, and nearly every student was panicking trying to find a new school,” Weinstein said in an email to The Epoch Times. “As the school’s imminent shutdown was leaked first and not communicated directly by administrators, there was very little notice on how a potential teach-out program would work or any additional help. So, essentially, I had just a few weeks to find a new school on my own.”
Weinstein transferred to State University of New York (SUNY) Oneonta this fall. Other than his former soccer teammates and a few friends and professors, he said, “There’s very little I miss about St. Rose” because of the demoralizing situation he encountered there.
“The biggest difference, I would say, is the school having greater enrollment and more money makes the [Oneonta] campus feel much livelier and more vibrant,” he said.
The list of other private schools that closed this year in New York includes Wells College, Medaille University, St. John’s University’s Staten Island campus, and Long Island Business Institute.
Cazenovia College, Alliance University, and Medaille University closed in 2023. Jamestown Business College is slated to close on Feb. 28, 2025, according to the New York State Education Department.
In other states, notable 2024 closings, aside from Notre Dame College in Ohio, include University of Saint Katherine in California, Birmingham-Southern College in Alabama, Lincoln Christian University in Illinois, and Hodges University in Florida.
In Pennsylvania, University of the Arts, Clarks Summit University, and Cabrini University all closed.
According to Emily Wadhwani, lead higher education analyst for Fitch Ratings credit rating agency, enrollments at most small private colleges and universities in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have decreased because there aren’t enough students in a saturated higher-ed market where schools continually discount tuition rates to stay competitive.
While this appears to be a regional trend, she said, less competitive schools of all types nationwide are feeling the pinch.
Public colleges and universities in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and Texas have cut or consolidated services to stay afloat, Wadhwani said.
She anticipates that regional campuses in Midwestern public university systems will usher in a new trend of financial problems and eventual closures for the same main reason: There are not enough students and tuition money to go around.
“These regional, directional campuses that are not the flagship schools have limited prospects of recovery,” Wadhwani said.
Looking Into Finances
The research Burns and SHEEO have conducted is based on surveys of 150,000 students across 500 private institutions in both the nonprofit and for-profit sectors.
She said more than 4,000 private schools or training programs closed between 2004 and 2020. Most of them were tuition-dependent and struggled with declining enrollments.
Although some schools communicate openly about the challenges they’re facing, “It’s tough to expect them to be transparent,” Burns said.
“States should do more to monitor them consistently” and push institutions to share their financial situation with prospective students and parents, she said.
Stocker, who builds data analysis apps for higher education consumers and institutions, said he’s bothered that schools don’t disclose their dire financial situations to prospective students and families who are preoccupied with price, location, major courses of study, and the campus environment.
“Most didn’t have the cultural and financial wherewithal to give their faculty, staff, and students enough notice,” Stocker said of the schools that closed earlier this year. “That’s really bothersome.”
He advises consumers to exercise due diligence, researching a school’s acceptance and graduation rates, enrollment numbers over a multi-year period, annual financial reports, staffing levels, and number of majors.
It’s also important to take a look at a school’s endowment, he said.
Endowments are used to lower sticker price tuition costs, fund capital projects, and assure the institution’s financial stability for more than one year at a time. When enrollment and subsequent tuition revenues decrease, schools have to dip into their endowments to cover operating costs. A sinking endowment may signal financial troubles.
Notre Dame College, which served about 1,400 students, had an endowment of $9.24 million in 2022, down by 31.6 percent from the prior year and not nearly enough to cover operating expenses for one year, according to Data USA’s school profile page.
Cazenovia College’s endowment was down to $3.84 million before school officials announced its closure. The College of St. Rose’s endowment was $40.1 million.
The college closure trend was exacerbated by last year’s delayed release of the FAFSA, said Wadhwani.
The revised FAFSA was expected to be released by October of 2023, but was delayed until December.
The delay affected $1.8 billion in student financial aid and particularly hurt small private schools that draw from low-income and minority student populations, Wadhwani said.
Some students awaiting aid delayed their enrollments or decided against college entirely, she said.
The ability for students to compare financial aid packages is crucial in the private school market, where the yearly cost of a higher education ranges from around $40,000 on the low end, to well over $80,000 on the high end.
Meanwhile, for the 2023–24 school year, the average cost of tuition at public colleges—which are funded by state tax dollars—was about $12,000 a year for in-state residents, and around $30,000 a year for out-of-state residents, according to the College Board.
A number of factors are hitting the private college market right now, Burns said. Among those, she cited tuition costs that are rising faster than financial aid amounts, and more young people who are unwilling to take on hefty student loans—particularly if those loans are high interest private loans rather than federal loans. In addition, she said, many high school graduates are going straight into the workforce or apprenticeships instead of college.
Nationwide, she added, the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action racial preferences in college admissions will cause minority enrollment at some schools to decline.
Moreover, starting Jan. 1, 2025. the U.S. Department of Labor will require employers to provide overtime wages to salaried employees paid less than $58,656 annually.
Increasing the overtime threshold again will potentially increase operating expenses across all types of higher education institutions that already struggle to make payroll.
Wadhwani said the change could affect adjunct professors, non-tenured instructors, and academic or athletic department office support staff—who are not considered hourly employees and often exceed 40 hours a week due to campus events on nights and weekends.
Nonetheless, many of the schools that have closed were financially underwater for years, Wadhwani told The Epoch Times.
Temporary campus closures and federal emergency aid during the COVID-19 pandemic masked their problems “before the Band-Aid was ripped off.”
The number of higher education bond impairments, or events where a school was unable to make a debt service payment, spiked from eight in 2009 to 17 last year, Fitch Ratings reported.
Small Colleges Adapt to Stay Afloat
In upstate New York, Colgate, Hamilton, and Vassar boast $1 billion-plus endowments, thanks to wealthy alumni donors and savvy investments.
But those elite institutions, which recruit nationally, are outnumbered by small, less competitive, cash-strapped liberal arts schools that compete for students who live within a half day’s drive from their campuses.
Some schools such as Hartwick College, located in Oneonta, New York, have adopted drastic measures to attract students.
Hartwick, with an acceptance rate of 69 percent and a graduation rate of 46 percent, saw its enrollment decline to 1,103 in 2022 from 1,503 a decade prior, according to NCES. Its endowment, meanwhile, was $65.1 million in 2022, a 16 percent decrease in 12 months, according to Data USA.
Earlier this month, school officials announced that in 2025-2026, the standard tuition rate will be dropped to $22,000, while room and board will cost $16,000, and students will be eligible for up to $10,000 in scholarships. By contrast, the school’s 2022 sticker price exceeded $50,000, though the “net price” calculated after financial aid awards came in at about $22,000, according to NCES.
In a Sept. 17 news release, Hartwick President James Mullen said the new pricing structure “provides clarity and transparency.”
“Our focus is on providing students with the tools they need to thrive academically, personally, and financially,” he said.
The Epoch Times reached out to Hartwick College.
Although some colleges have been criticized for keeping quiet about their financial troubles, others feel that being open is a more effective strategy.
Ithaca College, about 4 hours from New York City, has around 5,000 students and a 75 percent acceptance rate. The school has acknowledged its financial struggles in recent years. In a Sept. 4 news release, president La Jerne Terry Cornish said there will be no layoffs this year as school leaders manage a budget gap despite missing their enrollment target by about 200 first-year students.
The college intends to pursue an earlier and more intensive recruiting campaign this year, according to the release. In addition to the 200,000 high school upperclassmen who typically receive information about the college, Ithaca will reach out to 100,000 high school freshmen and sophomores, in order to build familiarity with the college “earlier in the high school journey.”
Ithaca broke even in 2023, and although it finished this past fiscal year with a $4 million deficit, that was nearly $10 million less than what administrators initially projected, Tim Downs, chief financial officer, said in the news release.
“As a campus, we’ve really held tight to what we needed to do, which is why we’ve been able to overachieve these deficits during these years,” he said. “And 2025 is no different.”
Energy Secretary Granholm Emphasizes Need For Small Modular Reactors To Power AI Data Centers
In an appearance on CNBC Tuesday morning, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm sure seemed to acknowledge that small modular reactors – one technology we have claimed will be the future of powering AI – are all but a full on “go” for the future.
Granholm was asked about how data centers would be powered in the future. David Faber asked: “At the same time, we’ve been trying to, obviously, replace typical energy sources with renewables. We now have this incredible potential uptick in the need for power because of data centers and the growth of generative AI.”
“How do you see it playing out?” he asked. “I mean, we talk a lot about nuclear power. We were talking about Three Mile Island coming back online, or one of the reactors, and any number of other nuclear sites being recommissioned, so to speak. How is it going to mix out, given our power needs could be 20% higher than right now in a handful of years?”
Granholm responded: “The estimates are 15% higher within ten years as a result of both AI, as well as all this new manufacturing activity, and electrifying the transportation sector.”
She continued: “We are going to need more power. I’m telling you, we are adding that power. We’re adding record amounts of clean power.”
“In addition, the hyperscalers for these big data centers all have commitments to clean energy too, and they don’t want to see themselves located in a community where their demand for power causes everybody else’s rates to go up.”
“They’re committed—telling us—to bringing that power with them, which is why the need for nuclear small modular reactors, colocating data centers with small reactors, or partnerships,” Granhom said.
“For example, with Constellation and Microsoft for Three Mile Island to turn on more power. We’ve got a ton of nuclear sites in this country that have been permitted for additional reactors that could be powering data centers as well. We’re working with those.”
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs just released a blistering 133-page report on the many failures of the Secret Service in the first assassination attempt on President Trump that took place on July 13, 2024. As Senator Rand Paul noted, “Our initial findings clearly show a series of multiple failures of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) and an inexcusable dereliction of duty. Not only did USSS fail to ensure the [American Glass Research] AGR roof was adequately covered, they were also aware of a suspicious individual with a rangefinder for at least 27 minutes and did not delay proceedings or remove former President Trump from the stage, even after being informed that the suspicious individual was on the roof of the AGR building.”
The most damning information from the Senate Report revealed that the Lead Advance Agent for the Secret Service was told in advance of the July 13th rally that “credible intelligence” existed of a threat against President Trump. The Lead Advance Agent told the committee that on July 9, 2024, “she received a call from the second supervisor of the Trump detail, telling her that USSS counter snipers would be assigned to the rally.” The Lead Advance Agent stated that “the second supervisor of the Trump detail informed her that the reason USSS was assigning counter snipers was because of “credible intel” that he could not discuss further with her”:
Lead Advance Agent: He said that there was credible intelligence that he could not speak about, and that we were going to get Secret Service counter sniper advance for that reason.
Question: And did he say why he couldn’t speak about it?
Lead Advance Agent: Because it was information that he wasn’t able to pass.
Question: Did he say it was classified?
Lead Advance Agent: He did not use the word “classified” on the phone, but from my general knowledge when you say that you cannot pass something on the phone, the understanding is that it’s classified and he can’t speak about it on the phone.
Despite this advance warning (and for reasons that remain unexplained) the Lead Advance Agent wrote in a security planning document that there was “no adverse intelligence” concerning Trump’s visit to Butler, PA. The Committee was told by numerous USSS personnel that “their expectation was that any credible threat or intelligence would appear in the planning document.” The Lead Advance Agent inexplicably also “did not inform her superiors or other USSS personnel involved with planning and securing the Butler rally that she was told of a threat.”
Moreover, on July 10, 2024, the USSS Pittsburgh Office sent a letter to the FBI requesting any intelligence related to former President Trump and the July 13 rally in Butler, PA. According to the Senate Report, the FBI did not respond to the Pittsburgh Office’s letter or share any intelligence information with the USSS in response to the letter. Then, on the morning of July 13th, another USSS Intelligence Agent called USSS headquarters and asked if any adverse intelligence had been developed concerning the visit. Despite the earlier warning that was given to the Lead Advance Agent, USSS headquarters told the intelligence agent that no information had been received.
Compounding these utterly inexplicable intelligence failures (failures so great that we find it hard to accept them as failures) was the fact that USSS Advance Agents had requested “additional resources” but were denied. It’s worth highlighting that the SS agents who were requesting the additional assets were totally unaware of the “credible intelligence” of a threat against President Trump.
Additionally, the USSS Lead Advance Agent (who WAS aware of the “credible intelligence” of a threat against President Trump) told the Committee that Trump’s USSS detail requested Counter Assault Team liaisons to help coordinate tactical assets in advance of the July 13 rally, but USSS denied this request. In spite of the denial, the Lead Advance Agent again failed to relay the “credible intelligence” to any members of Trump’s team – or to any other member of the USSS.
In addition to the significant intelligence failures preceding the July 13th Rally, there were numerous failures that transpired on the day of the assassination attempt on President Trump.
USSS personnel were notified of a suspicious person with a rangefinder (Thomas Matthew Crooks) around the AGR building nearly a full half-hour (approximately 27 minutes) before the shooting. This was relayed to the USSS Security Room at approximately 5:44 pm and to the USSS Counter Sniper Team Leader at 5:45 pm. For context, Crooks began firing on President Trump at 6:11 pm. Shortly after the initial reports, USSS personnel, including a Counter Sniper Response agent, engaged in an on-the-ground effort to locate the individual (Crooks).
However, the USSS Lead Advance Agent, Site Agent, and Site Counterpart all told the Committee they did not receive any of this crucial information and “therefore did not know local law enforcement had identified a suspicious person with a rangefinder – and that those local officers later lost track of this individual – until after shots were fired.” This complete lack of communication and coordination is repeated throughout the Senate Report.
Three full minutes before any shots were fired by Crooks, a local law enforcement officer sent out a radio alert that there was an individual on the AGR roof. This information was delayed for a full minute and didn’t reach the USSS Security Room until approximately two minutes before Crooks fired. More warnings were missed. Twenty-two seconds before Crooks fired, a local officer sent out a radio alert that the individual on the AGR roof was armed, but this information was again somehow not relayed to key USSS personnel.
At no point in time did anyone act to remove President Trump from the stage. This most basic of failures does not appear to be properly addressed or explained in the Senate Report.
Additionally, shortly before shots were fired, a “USSS counter sniper saw local law enforcement running toward the AGR building with their guns drawn, but he did not alert former President Trump’s protective detail to remove him from the stage.” According to the Senate Report, The USSS counter sniper told the Committee that while seeing officers with their guns drawn “elevated” the threat level, the thought to notify someone to get Trump off the stage “did not cross [his] mind.”
There are a number of other failures listed as well, including line-of-sight concerns and significant communications errors. We found it quite notable that “All of the local channels were recorded on July 13, but USSS radio transmissions were not.”
One bright spot (if you can call it that) was that Crooks was in the USSS counter sniper’s sights for “mere seconds” before he fired at Crooks. “The USSS partner of the USSS counter sniper who shot Crooks told the Committee he observed that “mere seconds” after his partner identified Crooks in his sights, the USSS counter sniper fired at Crooks.” One other item of note that has been the subject of many questions: “USSS counter snipers confirmed to the Committee that they did not require permission before they fired.”
Listed within the report are a summary of “Key Failures” by the Secret Service leading up to and including the events of that fateful day:
USSS failed to clearly define responsibilities for planning and security at the July 13th rally:
USSS personnel responsible for planning in advance of the July 13 rally denied that they were individually responsible for planning or security failures and deflected blame.
USSS Advance Agents told the Committee that planning and security decisions were made jointly, with no specific individual responsible for approval.
USSS failed to ensure the AGR Building was effectively covered:
USSS identified the AGR building as a concern due to the line-of-sight from the roof to the stage, but did not take steps to ensure sufficient security measures were in place.
USSS knew that local snipers planned to set up inside the AGR building and USSS did not express objections or concerns about that placement.
USSS personnel, including the USSS Counter Sniper Team Leader, did not enter the AGR building or go on the roof prior to the shooting.
One USSS Counter Sniper team, whose responsibility included scanning the area around the AGR building for threats, had an obstructed view of the AGR roof.
USSS failed to effectively coordinate with state and local law enforcement:
USSS did not give state or local partners specific instructions for covering the AGR building, including the positioning of local snipers.
USSS did not adequately consider state and local law enforcement operational plans.
Communications at the July 13 rally were siloed and USSS did not ensure it could share information with local law enforcement partners in real time.
USSS failed to provide resources for the July 13 rally that could have enhanced security:
USSS denied specific requests for additional Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) capabilities and a Counter Assault Team liaison.
A USSS Counter Surveillance Unit – which could have helped patrol the outer perimeter that included the AGR building – was not requested by USSS Advance Agents.
USSS failed to communicate information about the suspicious person to key personnel, and failed to take action to ensure the safety of former President Trump:
At approximately 5:45 pm, USSS personnel were notified that local law enforcement observed a suspicious person with a rangefinder near the AGR building. By 5:52 pm, at least eight USSS personnel had been informed.
Approximately two minutes before shots were fired, the USSS Security Room, located on the rally grounds, was told that there was an individual on the roof of the AGR building.
Shortly before shots were fired, a USSS Counter Sniper observed local officers running towards the AGR building with guns drawn.
The failures by the Secret Service are numerous – and compounding in their effect. The Lead Advance Agent’s failures appear to be so great as to be almost constant – including her unexplained failure to share the advance intelligence of a credible threat with the rest of the SS detail on July 13th.
The total lack of dissemination of the critical information regarding USSS headquarters’ knowledge of a credible threat to President Trump is both inexplicable and inexcusable. There needs to be a much greater level of explanation than is provided for in the Senate Report. Every single member of the USSS who was interviewed as part of the Senate Report told the Committee that this information was something they “absolutely” should have been aware of prior to the July 13 rally. Indeed, this was something that was being asked by SS agents immediately in the aftermath of the assassination attempt:
The FBI’s non-response to inquiries from the USSS Pittsburgh Office on July 10th – three days before the rally has also not been explained – despite the FBI’s July 12th arrest of Asif Merchant, “a Pakistan national with ties to Iran, [for] plotting to commit murder-for-hire” of U.S. government officials. Moreover, there has been no explanation for why USSS headquarters told the SS intelligence agent on the day of the rally that no adverse intelligence had been developed concerning the visit when the SS Lead Advance Agent had been told exactly the opposite on July 10th.
The level of incompetence by the USSS, the Advance Lead Agent along with the deafening silence from the FBI appears to be so great, so totally overwhelming, that it would appear that the only way it could actually be accomplished is through careful planning. This is a damning report – and one that we’re still wading through. We expect more damning revelations will be forthcoming.
Leaks Show Russia Has Secret Project To Develop Advanced Drones In China: Report
A new Reuters exclusive report is alleging that Russia is currently overseeing a secret program in China to produce long-range drones. These drones are expected to be used in Ukraine, and amid increasing NATO involvement in the war.
The report names IEMZ Kupol, a subsidiary of the Russian state-owned weapons company Almaz-Antey, as having set up shop in China and acting as a middle man for the classified defense tech program.
Reuters says it has reviewed leaked documents it obtained, and they show a new type of advanced drone in progress, called the Garpiya-3 (G3), which has had the assistance of local Chinese specialists.
The bombshell allegations are interesting and curious as far as timing, coming amid ratcheting Washington accusations against both countries and as their cooperation heightens. The US has already been sanctioning Chinese companies accused of supplying Russia’s defense sector.
The Garpiya-3 drone is said to be comparable to some US advanced drones, and can travel some 2,000km with a payload of 50kg, which is significant.
The Russia-China design and production program puts Moscow on track to be able to deploy something in the near future resembling a MQ9 Reaper drone over the skies of Ukraine.
Reuters further alleges, based on the documents it reviewed, that Kupol has already taken delivery of at least seven military drones made in China at its Izhevsk headquarters, in Western Russia. Some of the payments by Russia have reportedly been made in Chinese yuan.
The report references “two intelligence sources” who “said the delivery of the sample drones to Kupol was the first concrete evidence their agency had found of whole UAVs manufactured in China being delivered to Russia since the Ukraine war began in February 2022.”
While Russia’s defense ministry has not commented and is not expected to, Moscow has at every turn defended its ability to do business with any country it wants.
Hawkish pundits have of late gone after China, Russia, and Iran as being part of a new ‘axis of evil’ related to the war in Ukraine…
Reuters: Russia produces kamikaze drone with Chinese engine
China helps terror state Russia to build weaponry that is used explicitly against civilians.
China, however, has consistently denied that it is giving military supplies to Russia for use in the Ukraine war, stressing an official policy of neutrality. But Presidents Putin and Xi have also made no secret of their ‘no limits’ friendship and partnership. Of late, both militaries have conducted naval drills in the Pacific, which Japan has seen as a threat.
China has at the same time blasted Western nations for their “double standards on arms sales” to Ukraine, which Beijing has pointed out “added fuel to the flames of the Ukrainian crisis.” It has grown increasingly critical of NATO hegemony as well.
The common refrain among supporters of the Democratic Party’s open borders policy is that immigration helps the economy. A very recent example of this was published in MSNBC Daily last month, where the author, David Bier of the Cato Institute, claims that “The Congressional Budget Office finds that the surge will boost the economy by $7 trillion and reduce the federal debt by nearly $1 trillion by 2034.” That’s actually an unimpressive statistic since the cumulative GDP of the United States over the next decade will easily exceed $300 trillion, but Bier is probably not wrong in his assertion that immigration increases GDP.
So what?
What Bier and most libertarians fail to emphasize in their analysis is not merely the quantity of economic growth caused by immigration but the quality of that growth. We should not be surprised. Adhering to orthodox dogma at the expense of real-world consequences is just another trait libertarians share with socialists, who are their equally doctrinaire, equally out of touch supposed ideological antagonists.
For example, libertarians support free trade without recognizing that it is impossible for our manufacturers to compete against subsidized imports, manufactured in the absence of environmental and labor standards applicable in the United States. Libertarians support the abolition of residential zoning laws while doing nothing to stop the proliferating array of subsidies and tax incentives that artificially incentivize developers to demolish homes to build apartments. And libertarians only tepidly challenge urban containment policies that prevent new suburb developments on open land outside of existing cities. In what is perhaps some odd bid to find common ground with socialists, they have even claimed the infrastructure needed for urban expansion would “subsidize the car.”
When it comes to immigration, libertarians call for open borders without first insisting on a critical prerequisite: immigrants should not receive government subsidies or special benefits. They should be able to support themselves immediately through private employment. Immigration to America today, unlike any previous waves of immigration, offers new arrivals an array of taxpayer-funded benefits that often exceed what is available to the average American citizen. This creates incentives for mass migration that would not otherwise exist. But in the attempt to assess how immigration affects the health of the American economy, this is merely surface phenomena.
The economic process playing out across the U.S. in cities like Springfield, Ohio, has attracted an ecosystem of government contractors, tax-sheltered NGOs, and public agencies that is remarkably similar to what has been dubbed the Homeless Industrial Complex. In both cases, there is an incentive on the part of these multi-billion dollar players, protected by government regulations and snarfing down government subsidies, to make the cost of living unaffordable for America’s working families. California is ground zero for this corruption.
When people decry California’s inability to come up with an alternative to a homeless population that has now risen to an estimated 186,000, the highest ever, they have to understand that the root cause is a corrupt alliance between government and politically connected corporations. Critics of California’s failing homeless policies must understand that the growth of state regulations on home construction, excessive local permit fees, protracted and capricious building approval processes, myriad obstructionist government agencies at all levels, the failure to maintain or expand enabling infrastructure, and the near total ban on urban expansion have made it impossible for unsubsidized developers to build affordable homes. Voila, the “affordable housing” industry was born—a corrupt, obscenely expensive, entirely unnecessary invention.
The most visible symptom of this deeper problem is California’s 186,000 homeless, who ought to all be offered beds in group shelters. These facilities could be built for a fraction of the $24 billion of taxpayers’ dollars that California has spent just between 2019 and 2023 on “permanent supportive housing,” which, at over $500,000 per unit, hasn’t made a dent in the homeless population. But solving the problem would put an end to the scam.
There is a parallel corruption informing America’s immigration policy. The equilibrium between working-class household income and the cost of homes and rental housing remains almost manageable in most of America, even though that is changing fast. And the reason for the change is the policies that began in California, which are now rolling their way across the country. Restrictions on growth, excessive regulations, and increasingly elaborate building codes are increasing the cost of building homes. More government agencies to oversee the expanded regulatory environment are causing permit fees to go up.
Also going up—way up—are the “impact fees,” which transfer the burden of paying for new roads and other infrastructure from the cities and states to the homebuilders who have to pass those costs on to the home buyers. Connector roads, parks, schools, and utility conduits used to be funded out of government budgets. Now those funds are instead allocated to personnel costs, thanks to the growing power of government unions, who unironically demand more pay and benefits so the government workers can exempt themselves from the cost of living increases they play a large part in causing. And all of these regulations are justified in the name of protecting the planet.
Exacerbating this trend, whereby large corporations, hedge funds, NGOs, and government agencies expand and thrive as the cost of living is systematically put out of reach for more and more American families, is immigration. Dumping millions of people into the nation makes America’s housing shortage worse, driving prices up even more. Crippling, stifling regulations prevent the market from responding at a scale anywhere close to what is required to restore affordability.
This is the corrupt economics of immigration in America today. And it gets worse. Since working American families can no longer afford to purchase or rent a home, neither can unskilled immigrants from destitute nations. But when they come into a town and start to work, the system gears up to subsidize their expenses. The companies where they take jobs are now part of the corrupt scheme. They lower wages, knowing they now have a workforce that receives government-subsidized housing, healthcare, and food assistance. Meanwhile, the American workers who are displaced, along with everyone living in the town whether or not they are employed, have to deal with a housing market that has suddenly become more costly. Complicit, often remote landlords raise rents and favor the immigrants from whom they are guaranteed all or a portion of their rent collections by the government.
Immigration into a welfare state, where housing development is crippled by excessive regulations, is not happening by accident. This is a corrupt scheme that confers advantages to a powerful coalition of players—investors, corporations, developers, NGOs, government agencies, and environmentalists. It appeases socialists by virtue of the central role of government regulations and subsidies.
Libertarians, on the other hand, ought to know better. Half a solution is worse than no solution at all. Open borders are only possible when there is no welfare state awaiting new arrivals. More to the point, the underlying economics that surrounds immigration reflect a corrupt system that libertarians fail to acknowledge, much less fight with everything they’ve got. It is a massive transfer of wealth upwards from America’s lower-income and middle-class communities into the hands of an oligarchy. This is not a healthy version of capitalism.
This is also not healthy economic growth. That California politicians like Kamala Harris have succeeded in selling this betrayal to the American people as necessary to solve the twin crises of “climate” and “equity” is a con job for the ages.
