Author: admin

Beer Industry Blames Tariffs for 40,000 Job Losses

Brewers and bartenders are the latest groups of Americans found to be bearing the burden of the Trump administration’s trade war.

A new report from The Beer Institute, an industry trade group, blames the 10 percent aluminum tariffs enacted last year for the loss of about 40,000 beer industry jobs. The estimate casts a wide net, including not only beer-making jobs but also those indirectly created through retail and distribution, as well as so-called “induced jobs” that are the result of spending on behalf of beer industry employees and businesses.

According to the report, the beer industry directly employs 70,000 workers, with 437,000 workers in supporting industry jobs, 912,000 workers in retail jobs, along with workers across the economy buoyed by additional spending. In total, the beer industry generates roughly 2.1 million jobs.

The justification for import taxes is usually that they will protect American jobs from foreign competition. Tariffs on a specific good, like aluminum, might help workers in the industry which produces that good. However, workers in industries that use that good as an input suffer. 

“I have heard from brewers large and small from across the country who are seeing their aluminum costs drastically increase, even when they are using American aluminum,” Jim McGreevy, president and CEO of The Beer Institute, said in March, when the group released a separate report detailing $250 million in higher costs created by tariffs and tariff-associated price increases.

Tariffs loom large over the beer industry, but the most recent report says slower sales could also play a role in the industry’s recent job losses. As Reason reported in March 2018, The Beer Institute estimated that aluminum tariffs would cost the United States 20,300 jobs in the beer industry. If that original projection was accurate, the tariffs account for about half of total job losses. 

Either way, the economic slowdown is consistent with other studies showing the economic costs of the tariffs.

Tariffs increase input costs for companies and raise prices for consumers. In June 2018, Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax policy think tank, found that Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, and some Chinese imports would cost the United States over 45,000 jobs, reducing economic output by $11.8 billion. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimated the combination of higher input costs and more uncertainty reduced American capital investment by $35 billion in 2018, and a study from economists at Princeton, Columbia, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the trade war costs consumers roughly $1.4 billion a month.

For example, when the George W. Bush administration taxed imported steel in 2002, making foreign steel more expensive helped save 175,000 jobs in steel-producing industries in the United States. Yet at the same time, increasing the price of steel cost almost 200,000 jobs in industries that use steel in the production process. Tariffs are generally an expensive way to protect workers: according to economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, each job protected by these new tariffs costs U.S. consumers and businesses $900,000.

But there is good news. The Trump administration recently eliminated the steel and aluminum tariffs on metal imports from Canada and Mexico after Republicans in Congress made clear they would not approve the new United States-Mexico-Canada trade deal until those tariffs were lifted. But after a year of paying higher taxes on imported aluminum, it’s clear that American breweries—like many other industries—did not emerge as winners from Trump’s trade policies.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2HHy29j
via IFTTT

Man Sets Himself On Fire Near White House

While we had grown somewhat used to seeing horrific self-immolation scenes across various authoritarian regimes in Asia, the US Secret Service confirmed that a man has set himself on fire a short distance away from the White House today.

The horrific scene was caught by passers-by…

A Washington Fire Department (WFD) spokesperson said that they had “transported one patient with burns” and were assisting law enforcement.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2wrDtTg Tyler Durden

Beer Industry Blames Tariffs for 40,000 Job Losses

Brewers and bartenders are the latest groups of Americans found to be bearing the burden of the Trump administration’s trade war.

A new report from The Beer Institute, an industry trade group, blames the 10 percent aluminum tariffs enacted last year for the loss of about 40,000 beer industry jobs. The estimate casts a wide net, including not only beer-making jobs but also those indirectly created through retail and distribution, as well as so-called “induced jobs” that are the result of spending on behalf of beer industry employees and businesses.

According to the report, the beer industry directly employs 70,000 workers, with 437,000 workers in supporting industry jobs, 912,000 workers in retail jobs, along with workers across the economy buoyed by additional spending. In total, the beer industry generates roughly 2.1 million jobs.

The justification for import taxes is usually that they will protect American jobs from foreign competition. Tariffs on a specific good, like aluminum, might help workers in the industry which produces that good. However, workers in industries that use that good as an input suffer. 

“I have heard from brewers large and small from across the country who are seeing their aluminum costs drastically increase, even when they are using American aluminum,” Jim McGreevy, president and CEO of The Beer Institute, said in March, when the group released a separate report detailing $250 million in higher costs created by tariffs and tariff-associated price increases.

Tariffs loom large over the beer industry, but the most recent report says slower sales could also play a role in the industry’s recent job losses. As Reason reported in March 2018, The Beer Institute estimated that aluminum tariffs would cost the United States 20,300 jobs in the beer industry. If that original projection was accurate, the tariffs account for about half of total job losses. 

Either way, the economic slowdown is consistent with other studies showing the economic costs of the tariffs.

Tariffs increase input costs for companies and raise prices for consumers. In June 2018, Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax policy think tank, found that Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, and some Chinese imports would cost the United States over 45,000 jobs, reducing economic output by $11.8 billion. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimated the combination of higher input costs and more uncertainty reduced American capital investment by $35 billion in 2018, and a study from economists at Princeton, Columbia, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the trade war costs consumers roughly $1.4 billion a month.

For example, when the George W. Bush administration taxed imported steel in 2002, making foreign steel more expensive helped save 175,000 jobs in steel-producing industries in the United States. Yet at the same time, increasing the price of steel cost almost 200,000 jobs in industries that use steel in the production process. Tariffs are generally an expensive way to protect workers: according to economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, each job protected by these new tariffs costs U.S. consumers and businesses $900,000.

But there is good news. The Trump administration recently eliminated the steel and aluminum tariffs on metal imports from Canada and Mexico after Republicans in Congress made clear they would not approve the new United States-Mexico-Canada trade deal until those tariffs were lifted. But after a year of paying higher taxes on imported aluminum, it’s clear that American breweries—like many other industries—did not emerge as winners from Trump’s trade policies.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2HHy29j
via IFTTT

Libertarian Presidential Candidates, on a Possible Justin Amash Run: ‘That Would Be Amazing’

“Justin Amash for President,” reads the headline of a Daily Beast piece this morning from Matt Lewis. “A Change Conservatives Can Believe In.”

After his electric town hall last night in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the libertarian Republican congressman is having a bit of a bipartisan moment. Founding Editor Charles Sykes of the #NeverTrump Bulwark today wrote about “Why Justin Amash Matters.” Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) said during her own town hall last night on MSNBC that, “What he has done is what we need more people in the United States Congress to do, which is to put country before party.” National Review writer and former 2016 trial-ballooned #NeverTrump presidential candidate David French said, “If Trump’s the GOP nominee, I’d vote for @justinamash as the LP nominee in a heartbeat.”

Ideologically unmoored Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin suggests Amash “buy ad time for ‘Mueller Minutes’ in which he can highlight some of Trump’s egregious actions.” And W. James Antle III, writing in The Week, urges a primary challenge within the GOP rather than a Quixotic third-party run.

So what about that third party? Here was Amash’s answer last night to a question about running for president as a Libertarian in 2020:

Party leadership is openly courting Amash to enter the L.P. fray, which doesn’t get sorted until May 2020. (Michigan’s Republican primary is on March 10.) The lesser-known field of declared Libertarian presidential candidates, meanwhile, are—sometimes cheekily!—welcoming Amash into the fold.

Kim Ruff, a plastics/metals manufacturer and self-described “modern day ‘Rosie the Riveter'” running atop a ticket with vice presidential nominee John Phillips, says bring it on:

Adam Kokesh, the radical activist running on a platform of “dissolving the federal government in a peaceful, orderly manner,” posted a welcome video last week, saying “Those of us who have already announced and are actively running for the Libertarian Party nomination for president are running as a team: We really are working together and supporting each other, and I know from talking to at least most of them that they would also welcome you and support you, and they want you to run for the nomination, they want you to be part of the Libertarian Party; think that would be amazing.” Watch:

In a follow-up email to supporters, Kokesh expanded, albeit with a twist:

[T]here’s no question that Amash is aligned with our shared principles.  He is the most Libertarian member of Congress. Trained in Austrian Economics, his voting record supports his integrity on our issues.

Regarding the nomination, if he throws his hat in the ring, the media attention brought to the LP will be MASSIVE.

Amash would represent the “Never Trumpers” and be their best hope to beat Trump in 2020.

As the cameras roll, and the Trump-hating journalists wait with bated breath for our state chairs to count the ballots . . . they will be forced to announce the 2020 LP Presidential Candidate.

And with hard work and your support, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, New York Times and others will run with the headline, “Libertarians Refuse to be Pawns, Nominate Adam Kokesh as Presidential Nominee.”

Zing! (Emphases in original.)

I haven’t seen any fresh commentary from controversialist Arvin Vohra, though he did tell me two months ago that “Justin Amash is the best member of Congress, no question,” but “I don’t think he’s the person for a national level cultural war.”

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2YOIAt4
via IFTTT

Here is how your startup can access millions in investment funding

Five years ago, a company called Yo raised $1.5 million at a $10 million valuation.

What did investors and end-users get for this much money? An app that allowed users to send the message “Yo,” (and NOTHING else) to their friends.

It didn’t take long for the company to blow through all that cash in typical Silicon Valley manner, and let go of all its employees.

At the peak of investing hysteria, it was that easy to scoop up a couple million dollars to fund your company, no matter how worthless the idea.

With so much easy money from low interest rates and booming stocks, people were dumping money into anything with a pulse.

There’s still a lot of money out there today. But investors have tightened their purse strings and become more discriminating with where they put their money.

Last year’s venture capital was distributed to fewer businesses, and it went to more established companies over startups.

It hasn’t been this hard for early-stage companies to get venture capital investments since 2011. And the number of SaaS (Software as a Service) investments is also at a seven-year low.

With the stock market looking shaky, and investors starting to worry, people are focusing on removing risk, not diving into uncertain new businesses.

But anyone looking to start a company shouldn’t feel like the chance to get funding has passed. There is still one big pool of money that NEEDS to be invested.

We’ve talked about using Opportunity Zones as a way to save big on capital gains taxes. People are dumping their gains into Opportunity Funds to defer taxes after exiting asset classes at almost all-time highs.

In order to take advantage of the tax savings, those funds need to invest that capital inside one of almost 9,000 designated underdeveloped areas in the US called Opportunity Zones.

Right now there are billions of dollars sitting in Opportunity Funds… and the clock is ticking. Opportunity Funds have to deploy 90% of their capital in Opportunity Zones within 6-12 months of receiving the money from investors.

If you have ever wanted to start a business, but worried about having to raise a lot of money, or attract investment capital, this is your chance.

Starting a business in an Opportunity Zone is a way to tap into billions of dollars of capital.

Instead of paying a huge tax bill, investors can put their gains into equity in your company and defer paying capital gains tax until 2026 (plus get a 15% discount if they hold the investment for seven years).

In the meantime, all that money that would have gone to taxes will be growing your company instead.

And a huge plus to investors is that any growth they spur in your business will be tax-free if they hold the investment for ten years.

That means you and your investors can focus on long term growth– not cheap gimmicks that don’t last.

Plus the IRS guidance on Opportunity Zones keeps getting better.

The whole point of these Zones is to bring investment and jobs into neighborhoods that need it most. So the IRS says a business must be active (you can’t just sit on real estate without improving it), and must earn 50% of its income inside the Opportunity Zone.

But the IRS gave three different ways to satisfy the income requirement:

  1. Either your employees (and independent contractors) spend at least 50% of their work time within the Opportunity Zone.
  2. Or at least 50% of the wages of your employees (and contractors) come from performing services within an Opportunity Zone.
  3. Or at least 50% of the income of your business is generated by tangible property located in an Opportunity Zone, and the management or operational functions are performed within the Opportunity Zone.

This leaves the door open to all sorts of businesses.

A storefront business would easily apply, because all sales are in the OZ.

But even something like a landscaping company could work even if all of its clients are outside the Zone, as long as the physical equipment and business headquarters are located there.

Keep in mind that you don’t even have to employ anyone other than yourself.

And there is a wide range of business possibilities. For instance, many of these Opportunity Zones are in beautiful wilderness areas that would be perfect for nature tourism.

Bigger ideas can work too.

The Pearl Fund is a new Venture Capital Opportunity Fund looking for tech-startups with potential to grow at least 10x. Its ultimate goal is to fund “the next Apple or Google.”

But tech startups will have to be careful to deploy the capital properly to meet the requirement of doing business within the Opportunity Zone.

Still, it could be worth the extra effort to attract investors. If you go from an initial $1 million investment to a $100 million valuation in ten years, your investors will pay no capital gains on the $99 million growth.

But you do have to act quickly. A lot of the capital will flow into these funds by the end of the year, because after that, it will be too late to get the 15% discount on deferred capital gains.

And remember, these funds MUST invest their capital within a year of receiving it, which means they are hungry for good businesses to fund.

So this could be the perfect time to start your business.

Source

from Sovereign Man https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/here-is-how-your-startup-can-access-millions-in-investment-funding-25210/
via IFTTT

It’s Not Just Bonds That Are Flashing Red…

While most eyes are focused on the collapse of the US yield curve and its recessionary predictions, there are many other critical issues that are flashing red ‘recession-imminent’ flags…

To keep buying the dip, investors have to ignore…

Bonds… (yields at cycle lows, curve at decade flats/inverted)

Lumber… (one of the most important factors in construction is at its lowest level since April 2016)

Copper…(the commodity with the PhD in economics rolled over ahead of stocks)

Global economic data… (suffering the longest negative streak – 286 days – on record)

Hope… (soft survey data has not picked up the mantle of ‘hope’ that stocks have ridden on since the start of the year)

Money Supply… (the fuel for PPT/National Team pumpathons is starting to run dry again)

And finally, why – if everything is awesome – is the market screaming for almost 2 full rate cuts by the end of 2020?

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2MhU5rv Tyler Durden

Penn Profs Confirm Left’s Worst Fears: Racism Plummeted After Trump’s Election

Authored by Jeff Charles via LibertyNation.com,

Despite the propaganda, could the Trump era be the least prejudiced in American history?

The left isn’t going to like this one. A recent study on racism in America has revealed some truths that directly contradict one of the progressives’ most beloved narratives. The Democratic Party and its allies in the press have expended no small amount of effort over the past few decades to convince the American public that everyone who isn’t a rabid lefty is a hateful racist.

Of course, President Trump has become the left’s favorite target for race-baiting antics; many claim that the president’s rhetoric and policies have emboldened white supremacists and made America more racially bigoted. But according to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, that assertion is not quite accurate.

Racism Has Decreased Under Trump

Sociologists Daniel J. Hopkins and Samantha Washington conducted a study to analyze the impact of Trump’s election on prejudice against blacks and Hispanics. They used a panel of 2,500 Americans whose views on race and other matters had been documented since 2008. According to the report, the researchers expected to see an increase in racial prejudice in the Trump era. Yes, it might be difficult to believe that professors at a major university would immediately assume that the president singlehandedly made the country more racist, but it’s true.

And why did they make this assumption? Apparently, they formed their hypothesis based on the idea that people have deep-seated racism lying dormant within themselves, waiting to be awakened by a provocative event. The theory was that Trump’s election somehow pushed the magic “I’m totally a racist” button that lurks in the hearts of men – probably white men, specifically – and instantly transformed them into a legion of slobbering white supremacists bent on the utter destruction of minorities.

But the findings were surprising, and likely a bit disappointing, to the researchers and the media establishment. Instead of an increase in racism, the study revealed a marked decrease. Between 2012 and 2016, racist attitudes had decreased by a small degree, but after 2016, when Trump was elected, racism plummeted. The drop was equally present in Republican voters and Democrats.

Why The Change?

It is apparent that the findings of the study put the researchers and the press in quite a quandary. How could they spin the results in a way that doesn’t damage the narrative? Fortunately for them, being a progressive makes one highly proficient in the sport of mental gymnastics. Instead of acknowledging that America is not as racist as Al Sharpton wants us to think, the researchers posit that perhaps Trump’s racism has been so abhorrent, it made racist Americans want to be less bigoted.

It is possible that “Trump’s rhetoric clarified anti-racist norms… given that the declines in prejudice appear concentrated in the period after Trump’s election, it seems quite plausible that it was not simply Trump’s rhetoric but also his accession to the presidency that pushed public opinion in the opposite direction,” the sociologists wrote.

If this doesn’t quite make sense to you, congratulations! You’re a normal person. But some on the left had another idea. The Spectator suggested the reason racism declined was that it had risen to drastic heights when Obama was in office. It argues that, “maybe social science has got it the wrong way round: it was the sight of a mixed race man in the White House who brought out in the inner racist in Americans who are inclined towards those feelings, while the reassuring sight of white man back in the Oval Office has calmed them down.”

An Alternative Theory

Perhaps it is possible that both theories are wrong, and a wee bit of common sense might be appropriate. The reality is that the president does not have the power to make the country more or less racist. And yes, this also goes for Obama, who many conservatives blame for escalating racial tensions during his time in office. While neither president handles racial issues perfectly, American attitudes evolve on their own and are not subject to the whims of the person who happens to occupy the Oval Office.

This report showed that racial tensions were already decreasing under Obama, albeit at a slower pace. Perhaps some whites reaffirmed their opposition to racism when Trump was elected and the media tried to convince America that he was the Führer, who was going to bring back slavery and put Hispanics in catapults to launch them back over the southern border.

But it does not seem likely that these individuals account for the majority of the decrease. Maybe the truth is that America’s views on racial issues are continuing to evolve, and we are becoming gradually less racist every year, despite the far left’s attempts to foment division between whites and minorities through its favored propaganda outlets. As long as Americans continue to aspire towards the values on which the nation was founded, the country will move farther away from its racist past.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WdABsK Tyler Durden

Libertarian Presidential Candidates, on a Possible Justin Amash Run: ‘That Would Be Amazing’

“Justin Amash for President,” reads the headline of a Daily Beast piece this morning from Matt Lewis. “A Change Conservatives Can Believe In.”

After his electric town hall last night in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the libertarian Republican congressman is having a bit of a bipartisan moment. Founding Editor Charles Sykes of the #NeverTrump Bulwark today wrote about “Why Justin Amash Matters.” Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) said during her own town hall last night on MSNBC that, “What he has done is what we need more people in the United States Congress to do, which is to put country before party.” National Review writer and former 2016 trial-ballooned #NeverTrump presidential candidate David French said, “If Trump’s the GOP nominee, I’d vote for @justinamash as the LP nominee in a heartbeat.”

Ideologically unmoored Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin suggests Amash “buy ad time for ‘Mueller Minutes’ in which he can highlight some of Trump’s egregious actions.” And W. James Antle III, writing in The Week, urges a primary challenge within the GOP rather than a Quixotic third-party run.

So what about that third party? Here was Amash’s answer last night to a question about running for president as a Libertarian in 2020:

Party leadership is openly courting Amash to enter the L.P. fray, which doesn’t get sorted until May 2020. (Michigan’s Republican primary is on March 10.) The lesser-known field of declared Libertarian presidential candidates, meanwhile, are—sometimes cheekily!—welcoming Amash into the fold.

Kim Ruff, a plastics/metals manufacturer and self-described “modern day ‘Rosie the Riveter'” running atop a ticket with vice presidential nominee John Phillips, says bring it on:

Adam Kokesh, the radical activist running on a platform of “dissolving the federal government in a peaceful, orderly manner,” posted a welcome video last week, saying “Those of us who have already announced and are actively running for the Libertarian Party nomination for president are running as a team: We really are working together and supporting each other, and I know from talking to at least most of them that they would also welcome you and support you, and they want you to run for the nomination, they want you to be part of the Libertarian Party; think that would be amazing.” Watch:

In a follow-up email to supporters, Kokesh expanded, albeit with a twist:

[T]here’s no question that Amash is aligned with our shared principles.  He is the most Libertarian member of Congress. Trained in Austrian Economics, his voting record supports his integrity on our issues.

Regarding the nomination, if he throws his hat in the ring, the media attention brought to the LP will be MASSIVE.

Amash would represent the “Never Trumpers” and be their best hope to beat Trump in 2020.

As the cameras roll, and the Trump-hating journalists wait with bated breath for our state chairs to count the ballots . . . they will be forced to announce the 2020 LP Presidential Candidate.

And with hard work and your support, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, New York Times and others will run with the headline, “Libertarians Refuse to be Pawns, Nominate Adam Kokesh as Presidential Nominee.”

Zing! (Emphases in original.)

I haven’t seen any fresh commentary from controversialist Arvin Vohra, though he did tell me two months ago that “Justin Amash is the best member of Congress, no question,” but “I don’t think he’s the person for a national level cultural war.”

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2YOIAt4
via IFTTT

Thomas Massie Catches Bipartisan Flak for Suggesting Congress Actually Vote on $19 Billion in Disaster Funding

Libertarian-leaning Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) is catching flak from all sides of the partisan divide for insisting that Congress hold an actual vote before approving $19.1 billion in federal disaster aid.

On Tuesday, Massie objected to passing a massive disaster relief package by unanimous consent during a brief pro forma session being held while most members of Congress are out of town for a Memorial Day recess.

“If the Speaker of the House felt this was must-pass legislation, the Speaker of the House should have called a vote on this bill before sending every member of Congress on recess for ten days,” said Massie on the House floor, adding later on Twitter that “passing an unbudgeted $19 billion spending bill without a vote of Congress is legislative malpractice.”

Massie’s objection came a few days after Rep. Chip Roy (R–Texas) did the same thing, opposing the bill over both process concerns and its lack of $4.5 billion in border funding.

The delay had produced bipartisan irritation.

“The heartlessness of House Republicans knows no bounds,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) in a statement. “Just days after sabotaging a bipartisan and bicameral bill to provide urgently-needed relief to millions of American families reeling from natural disasters, House Republicans have repeated their stunning act of obstruction.”

“I just think that we can do a lot better by passing what’s good rather than vote ‘no’ waiting for the perfect,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R–N.D.), who voted for the disaster package in the Senate.

Congress has been trying to pass a disaster relief bill since January when the Democrat-controlled House approved a $14 billion aid package.

In early April, that bill failed in the Senate, as did a slightly more modest $13.5 billion Republican-backed bill—which included $600 million in food stamps for Puerto Rico, but omitted additional recovery funding Democrats also wanted for the island.

Holding things up, in part, was opposition from President Donald Trump, who objected to spending additional funds on Puerto Rico.

Shortly after those bills failed, and following floods and tornadoes in the South and Midwest, Senate Democrats introduced a new $17.2 billion disaster aid package. That bill also stalled for over a month after the White House demanded that it include $4.5 billion in spending on humanitarian aid and security operations on the southern border.

Finally, last week a compromise $19.1 billion disaster relief bill was agreed upon that excluded border funding.

According to a summary from the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill includes $900 million for Puerto Rico, including $600 million in food aid and $300 million in Community Development Block Grants for the island. Other major line items include $3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild damaged infrastructure, another $3 billion to repair damaged military and coast guard facilities, as well as $3 billion in farm support programs.

Also included is another $2.4 billion in general Community Development Block Grants, $1.65 billion for damaged highways, $720 million to the U.S. Forest Service to combat wildfires, and $600 million in economic assistance to storm-damaged communities.

Despite the claims of urgency, much of the funding in the bill comes in the form of these Community Development Block Grants which, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found, often take years to disperse. The $3 billion in aid to farmers to cover crop losses stemming from natural disasters is in addition to normal federal price support programs and subsidized crop insurance.

Demanding that individual members of Congress be in town to vote on spending these huge sums of money seems reasonable, particularly given the small role the federal government has played historically in disaster relief.

“The federal government never used to have much of a role in natural disasters,” Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards told Reason in April. “It was up to states and local governments and private charities to respond to natural disasters. That system worked pretty well.”

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2W9SI2F
via IFTTT

Thomas Massie Catches Bipartisan Flak for Suggesting Congress Actually Vote on $19 Billion in Disaster Funding

Libertarian-leaning Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) is catching flak from all sides of the partisan divide for insisting that Congress hold an actual vote before approving $19.1 billion in federal disaster aid.

On Tuesday, Massie objected to passing a massive disaster relief package by unanimous consent during a brief pro forma session being held while most members of Congress are out of town for a Memorial Day recess.

“If the Speaker of the House felt this was must-pass legislation, the Speaker of the House should have called a vote on this bill before sending every member of Congress on recess for ten days,” said Massie on the House floor, adding later on Twitter that “passing an unbudgeted $19 billion spending bill without a vote of Congress is legislative malpractice.”

Massie’s objection came a few days after Rep. Chip Roy (R–Texas) did the same thing, opposing the bill over both process concerns and its lack of $4.5 billion in border funding.

The delay had produced bipartisan irritation.

“The heartlessness of House Republicans knows no bounds,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) in a statement. “Just days after sabotaging a bipartisan and bicameral bill to provide urgently-needed relief to millions of American families reeling from natural disasters, House Republicans have repeated their stunning act of obstruction.”

“I just think that we can do a lot better by passing what’s good rather than vote ‘no’ waiting for the perfect,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R–N.D.), who voted for the disaster package in the Senate.

Congress has been trying to pass a disaster relief bill since January when the Democrat-controlled House approved a $14 billion aid package.

In early April, that bill failed in the Senate, as did a slightly more modest $13.5 billion Republican-backed bill—which included $600 million in food stamps for Puerto Rico, but omitted additional recovery funding Democrats also wanted for the island.

Holding things up, in part, was opposition from President Donald Trump, who objected to spending additional funds on Puerto Rico.

Shortly after those bills failed, and following floods and tornadoes in the South and Midwest, Senate Democrats introduced a new $17.2 billion disaster aid package. That bill also stalled for over a month after the White House demanded that it include $4.5 billion in spending on humanitarian aid and security operations on the southern border.

Finally, last week a compromise $19.1 billion disaster relief bill was agreed upon that excluded border funding.

According to a summary from the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill includes $900 million for Puerto Rico, including $600 million in food aid and $300 million in Community Development Block Grants for the island. Other major line items include $3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild damaged infrastructure, another $3 billion to repair damaged military and coast guard facilities, as well as $3 billion in farm support programs.

Also included is another $2.4 billion in general Community Development Block Grants, $1.65 billion for damaged highways, $720 million to the U.S. Forest Service to combat wildfires, and $600 million in economic assistance to storm-damaged communities.

Despite the claims of urgency, much of the funding in the bill comes in the form of these Community Development Block Grants which, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found, often take years to disperse. The $3 billion in aid to farmers to cover crop losses stemming from natural disasters is in addition to normal federal price support programs and subsidized crop insurance.

Demanding that individual members of Congress be in town to vote on spending these huge sums of money seems reasonable, particularly given the small role the federal government has played historically in disaster relief.

“The federal government never used to have much of a role in natural disasters,” Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards told Reason in April. “It was up to states and local governments and private charities to respond to natural disasters. That system worked pretty well.”

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2W9SI2F
via IFTTT