‘Sanctuary City’ NYC Buckles As Migrant Hotel, Intake Center Plans Fall Apart

‘Sanctuary City’ NYC Buckles As Migrant Hotel, Intake Center Plans Fall Apart

While New York City signaled plenty of virtue over their “sanctuary city” status, the Big Apple failed to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to actual resources, and are currently drowning amid a surge in illegal immigrants after Texas began sending busloads of border crossers.

NYC mayor seeks federal help as Texas buses migrants to city

Now, the Department of Homeless Services tells the NY Post that it’s abandoned a plan to operate an intake and processing center for the new arrivals, alongside a 600-room shelter at the ROW NYC hotel on 8th Ave. in Midtown – a yet-to-open facility that was supposed to be up and running two weeks ago.

DHS also admitted that it has yet to select and rent any of the 5,000 hotel rooms the agency said it is seeking to house migrants across the city.

Instead, officials are continuing to commingle migrants with New Yorkers in the city’s existing shelter system — which now includes 15 “emergency” hotel facilities to also help handle a summer population surge, according to the DSS on Friday.

City Hall has refused to say how much the city is spending on housing migrants in the homeless-system hotels, but a Post analysis found the cost could surpass $300 million. -NY Post

“We were already facing a crisis of homelessness in New York City when the flow of these migrant families started in earnest,” said homeless rights advocacy lawyer, Josh Goldfein with Legal Aid.

“We’ve always had asylum seekers in the New York City shelter system, so that is not new. But obviously, the volume increased.”

Migrants from Texas arrive at the Port Authority bus terminal in New York, on Aug. 17, 2022. (Jeenah Moon/Reuters)

North of 6,000 migrants have sought shelter in New York City since May, many of whom were bused in by Tex. Gov. Greg Abbott.

The influx of migrants led to NYC Mayor Eric Adams appealing to the White House for assistance – financial and otherwise – a call which has gone unanswered. According to an official with knowledge of the city’s efforts, Adams’ admin has also reached out to the US Conference of Mayors for help.

We assume he was met with extra-quiet crickets.

““If [Adams] can’t find a place for [the migrants] to go, it looks like he can’t manage. Throw it on top of the crime pile, and it looks like he can’t control the city,” political consultant Hank Sheinkopf told the Post on Sunday.

“If Adams has not resolved this by the late fall, he will have a big problem. A failure to resolve this as the weather changes is going to be a real problem for the mayor,” he added.

“It’s a public-relations disaster, and there’s no indication that Abbott is going to stop sending people here.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 08/30/2022 – 11:23

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/shUxZzF Tyler Durden

The Global Gas Crisis Is Spilling Into The United States

The Global Gas Crisis Is Spilling Into The United States

By Ag Metal Miner, via OilPrice.com

Both experts and everyday consumers remain at odds about the current state of the global natural gas market. The main point of contention is whether U.S. prices will drop significantly or rise further. With inflation hitting record highs this past year, nobody can blame consumers for being wary. Most experts agree that gas prices and demand will keep up their pace. The ongoing European energy crisis weighed into this heavily. EU countries continue to search for alternatives to Russian fuel. However, Europe’s energy problems will likely ripple into the entirety of the international energy market. In fact, it might be happening already.

LNG Crisis in Europe Spilling into the U.S.

The Nord Stream 1 pipeline running at low capacities could hit the U.S. harder than expected. With sky-high gas prices across Europe and dwindling reserves, the EU has been scouring the world for alternatives to Russian energy. Because of this, global gas competition recently experienced a sharp – and ongoing – rise.

Along with this, the winter months will prove the most strenuous on the average consumer’s wallet. After all, millions of American and European homes rely on natural gas for heat. With winter quickly approaching, the situation looks grim. While bills like the Inflation Reduction Act will likely take some of the pressure off of natural gas demand in the US, those initiatives will take time to implement and build. The real question remains; will they be ready in 3-4 months’ time?

On the positive side, Europe’s frantic search for solutions could pay off in the near future. Already, countries like Norway, the US, and the UK have stepped up to aid Germany and other central EU nations in getting alternative gas imports. However, whether or not these sources are enough to tide the EU over through winter remains up for debate.

Asia Watching Natural Gas Reserves Closely

With competition for natural gas hitting a fever pitch, many speculate gas prices will continue rising worldwide. Not only are natural gas supplies in the US being shipped to Europe to aid with the energy crisis, but record-setting heat waves mean more power consumption as American, and European homes are relying more and more on air conditioning.

Even Asia has started feeling the strain of the Western energy crisis these past few weeks. For instance, Japan has begun looking for alternative sources of natural gas in light of the war in Ukraine and gas shortages in Europe. As with the West, Northern Asia is firmly focused on making it through the coming winter.  

In the past couple of weeks, Russia started hinting that it might also limit gas supplies to Northern Asia. Russia halted a large shipment of natural gas bound for its southern neighbors.

Countries like South Korea and Japan, which have minimal natural gas reserves of their own, are heavily reliant on natural gas imports. This puts them in direct competition with European, which has its eye on LNG supplies shipped by sea. Though the battle to secure supplies just started, many experts expect it to intensify in the coming years.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 08/30/2022 – 11:06

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/hFOLsT7 Tyler Durden

Markets Are Turmoiling

Markets Are Turmoiling

A combination of macro reports and geopolitical headlines – along with a renewed anxiety over The Fed’s reaction function – has sparked serious turmoil in what are already super-illiquid markets this morning.

Fed rate-hike expectations have spiked this morning with Dec 2022 now at 3.75% – its highest during the cycle…

All the overnight gains in stocks are gone…

The Nasdaq is now down over 6% since Powell’s speech began…

The selling pressure has been relentless…

All the US majors have tumbled to or broken below critical technical support levels….

…And if you think it’s over… it’s not yet…

Initial safe-haven flows from the Taiwan-China troubles were quickly wiped away by ‘good’ news macro data which is now very much bad news for bonds and stocks in a hawkish-Powell world…

The dollar spiked on the hawkish-encouraging data (and again safe-haven flows)…

Bitcoin was smashed back below $20,000…

Gold is also losing steam…

And oil is getting clubbed like a baby seal (presumably on Iraq output reassurances)…

This is the ‘pain’ that Powell is waiting for.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 08/30/2022 – 10:56

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/FXBWefJ Tyler Durden

Job Openings Unexpectedly Surge To Two For Every Unemployed Worker, Crashing Fed’s Plans To Nuke The Job Market

Job Openings Unexpectedly Surge To Two For Every Unemployed Worker, Crashing Fed’s Plans To Nuke The Job Market

This was not supposed to happen.

After three months of rapidly declining job openings, which however were not declining fast enough to put a dent in surging wages or to tighten the labor force to a point where the unemployment rate jumps and forces the Fed to halt or reverse its rate hikes, moments ago the BLS reported that in July, contrary to the hopes and expectations of virtually everyone from the Fed to the Biden admin, the number of job openings actually jumped from 10.7 million (since revised to 11.04 million) to north of 11.2 million, smashing expectations of 10.375 million by over 800,000!

While job openings increase, the number of unemployed workers continued to decline, and in July it shrank to 5.670, the lowest since before the Covid pandemic. It means that there are now an almost record 5.569 more job openings than unemployed workers…

… or roughly 2 openings for every unemployed person.

In retrospect, perhaps the jump in openings should not have been a big surprise as it coincided with the month in which the BLS reported a surge in hiring when a whopping 528K jobs were added (according to the Establishment Survey if not Household Survey) even if it was largely the result of record multiple jobholders (as discussed previously).

Bizarrely, while job openings unexpectedly jumped indicating continued labor market strength, the number of actual hires shrank again, and dropped to the lowest level since August 2021! As shown in the chart below, there is a notable divergence emerging between the 12 month job change and the number of hires – 2 series which traditionally follow each other with an almost 1.000 correlation.

It wasn’t just hires which came in weak: the number of quits dropped to 4.179MM from 4.237MM, the lowest print since October 2021, as far fewer workers had the guts to quit their job in hopes of getting a better paying alternative.

Bottom line: after three months of much needed drops in job openings, July saw a bizarre, unexplained reversal, one which pushed the ratio of job openings to unemployed workers near the highest on record. Meanwhile, even as job openings increased, both Hires and Quits continued to deteriorate, extending the ongoing weakness in the labor market. Long story short, this is not the first time the DOL was forced to manipulate data – we caught them several years ago in a gaping disconnected between data series one which they were forced to subsequently admit was a mistake – and we expect that the BLS will do the same and completely revise both its JOLTS and labor market data once the political pressure to make the labor market appear stronger than it is, fades away.  Translation: expect normalcy to return after the midterms.

 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 08/30/2022 – 10:41

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/FHsdugD Tyler Durden

Now Everyone Is Afraid Of Jerome Powell

Now Everyone Is Afraid Of Jerome Powell

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

Back in January I wrote a piece called, “Who’s Afraid of Jerome Powell?” Then I discussed the incipient wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from those terrified of a hawkish Fed.

Our entire society has become so addicted to cheap dollars and easy credit that it created a “Ballers” mentality society wide.

Ballers is all about the corruption money brings to those few thousand people in the NFL and their organizations because of the millions of people who spend too much money on a passing fancy, entertainment.

The NFL, like all pro sports, is nothing but a money funnel with a Federal Reserve sized Hoover attached to it. It’s the ultimate corruption of e pluribus unum. From many to one.

Take a little bit from all of us, time and again to help us relieve the stress of the shitty world they’ve built. Give some of it to the rubes who play the game, who blow it on hookers, high end cars, and drugs, while the lion’s share gets sucked right back up into the same oligarch class that created it in the first place.

But it’s no different than you or me, buying shit we don’t need on credit, self-medicating with pro sports, alcohol, video games, day-trading cryptos on Robinhood, yelling at racists on Twitter or my personal favorite, a ridiculous board game collection.

We’re all ballers to one degree or another, spending easy money on distractions rather than facing the reality that the most unsustainable thing about our society is the money which makes it all happen.

Here we are eight months later and Powell has done exactly what I’d hoped he’d do, aggressively raise rates and begin shrinking the Fed’s balance sheet once his second term as FOMC chair was confirmed.

After July’s second 0.75% rate hike in as many meetings the talk was all about the ‘hints’ embedded in Powell’s demeanor and presser that the Fed was on the verge of pivoting and reversing rates. This talk has been going on since before the first 0.25% rate hike in March.

It reached a fever pitch after the July meeting because of a number of factors which have almost nothing to do with US domestic economic data or the needs of the US as a country. As I’ve discussed ad nauseum, the group most exposed to an aggressive Fed is not the US economy, which is what the headlines are now focusing on, but the European Union and the ECB.

I never expected Powell to indicate any kind of pivot talk at Jackson Hole last week. His nine-minute speech was the exact opposite of that. It was a complete dispelling of the illusion that the Fed has any mind to change course any time soon.

Powell explicitly addressed that this policy will lead to a prolonged recession. Moreover, he admitted that the current problem is a sincere mismatch between supply and demand. And, in the shock of all shocks, admitted what myself and a few others have been saying for months now, the Fed’s tools are not capable of dealing with the supply side of the economy, only demand.

In short, we have an oversupply of economic activity that supports the Baller lifestyle of the past and a deficit of things that support that lifestyle. All the Fed can do at this point is restore lost credibility with the markets and protect its future.

This, in my opinion, is exactly what they are doing.

The question is who is the Fed trying to protect itself from? It has been my contention for months that the Fed is no longer on board with coordinating Central Bank policy globally to suit the needs of foreign actors, in particular the European Union and the ECB.

By refusing to fold to the pressure earlier in the year and going forward with hiking farther and faster than anyone (including myself) thought they would or could the Fed has placed the ECB into a bind. Powell’s speech at Jackson Hole made tightened that bind to the breaking point.

Since most of our prominent politicians are on Team Davos the wailing will never stop. It took Elizabeth Warren all of twenty minutes to find a microphone to screech into:

“Do you know what’s worse than high prices and a strong economy? It’s high prices and millions of people out of work. I am very worried that the Fed is going to tip this economy into recession,” Warren told CNN on Sunday.

Yes, of course the Democrats are 1) still denying that we’re in a recession and 2) that it’s not their fault. But Warren, being the good destructionist she is, refuses to admit that there comes a point where you can no longer spend money to prop up an economy with these levels of imbalances.

This was precisely Powell’s point in his speech at Jackson Hole. And if Warren or any other so-called leader we have on Capitol Hill was willing to stop bitching and listen they would see what is clear to everyone.

The Baller Days are behind us.

The yacht’s trashed, the caterer left, the punch bowl empty and the credit cards maxed. Oh, and now there isn’t a new contract on the table. There’s no money left for trillions in giveaways to buy votes from people with no skin in America’s game.

But, since Lizzie works for those trying to destroy the US, of course she’s worried for the future. Where are her checks going to come from?

While the Fed has the magic money tree, even it, sometimes has to be watered and fertilized with something that looks like savings.

This is why everyone was afraid of Powell in January. They had rightly guessed that he was serious about the job of bringing back credibility to not just the Fed but the US as well.

The real pivot wasn’t the one that everyone wanted from Powell in some nebulous future. The real pivot occurred back in July when the ECB raised rates and announced their newest program to shuffle dec chairs, the TPI — Transmission Protection Instrument.

There ECB President Christine Lagarde announced she would defend internal European credit spreads to manage the risks within the EU as it now was being forced to raise interest rates.

But Lagarde never wanted to raise rates. But, as far behind the curve as Powell was in January, Lagarde was on a different track in July. This was her Mario “We will do whatever it takes” Draghi Moment and it fooled the markets for about a month.

And then the old trends reasserted themselves. The euro bounced to $1.04 and collapsed to a new low. German-US 10 year spreads blew out to 1.966% and has since contracted… hard.

So, while Lagarde is furiously trying to keep things under control in Europe, relative to the US it is losing ground now daily quickly. The US/German spread is a bet on the relative ‘safe haven’ status within each of these economic zones.

It doesn’t help that the EU is continuing to commit economic and political hara-kiri by engaging in idiotic energy policy across the continent in order to punish Russia for Europe’s crimes in Ukraine.

The WEF midwits put in charge of the EU to effect this policy refuse to change course.

I wrote when it happened that I thought Powell’s aggressive rate policy indirectly was responsible for the collapse of the Draghi government in Italy.

You know I believe the Fed is working to re-establish US primacy over its own monetary and fiscal policy, which tracks with the way Powell has raised rates and caused heart attacks within the Eurodollar system.

Moreover, when you look at the failures of the Biden administration to get any traction globally to isolate Russia you see a Davos agenda that is failing completely.

It then tracks that weak newcomers to the Italian Swamp, like those in M5S, may have finally been given enough assurance that the situation has changed. July’s 9.1% US CPI print was enough to really begin breaking things.

The Anti-Davos factions within the US are strong enough now for them to throw off the Davos yoke, as represented by Draghi, Mattarella and former PM Matteo Renzi, and begin Italy’s bid for independence.

The Fed responds to Davos taking out {The UK’s Boris} Johnson by taking out Draghi and putting the EU on a path to disintegration. The euro broke parity with the US dollar on this news. Now the ECB is staring at a vortex of higher rates as the Fed is clear to raise another 75-100 bps in two weeks.

Less than two weeks later, Draghi was gone, the ECB raised 50 bps and began crushing credit spreads while the Fed hiked another 75 bps.

But the ECB can never admit this or it destroys the idea of it being any kind of independent agent. Remember, central banking rests on the dubious idea that these people are apolitical and make their decisions only with respect to their domestic needs.

If Lagarde were to publicly attack Powell’s policy she would be admitting the ECB is subordinate to the whims of the Fed and that the only thing she’s good at is picking out neck scarves to wear at public speeches.

The pressure on the EU from their catastrophic energy policy now has them openly calling for an end to the Union’s political arrangement. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz just called for an end to single country veto power on fiscal and foreign policies. This is a naked power grab by Germany to enforce its will on the whole EU, ending any pretense of national sovereignty.

It’s not like this wasn’t expected. It’s always been the plan by Davos to consolidate power in Brussels under the direction of German Greens. The excuses of Climate Change and the need to punish Russia is now their twin casus belli against any opposition to their rule.

Where unanimity is required today, the risk of an individual country using its veto and preventing all the others from forging ahead increases with each additional member state,” the German chancellor said.

According to Scholz, “the principle of unanimity only works for as long as the pressure to act is low,” citing the example of Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine, which has challenged the way the EU approaches policymaking.

The German leader also wants the EU to switch to majority voting in areas such as taxation and foreign policy, adding that he knows “full well that this would also have repercussions for Germany.

This is a direct consequence of their losing multiple political battles here in the US and it is forcing them to go for the gold now versus in the future. Powell’s Fed is forcing this moment to its crisis point and the Eurocrats of Davos are not letting that crisis go to waste.

At the same conference they are now talking about price caps on energy the same way the G-7 did this summer. So, nothing has changed in Europe. They will go it alone if they have to in saving the world from Climate Change and Russians.

You rock on guys, winter is coming, after all. The only people who are against a hydrocarbon-fueled future are the ones without any significant reserves of hydrocarbon fuels. Let that sink and that should tell you what you need to know about European policy. The US is about power, but we have the natural resources to sustain our lifestyle.

Europe got so used to living a Baller lifestyle on cheap Russian gas, they thought they could do so forever and dictate terms to the world to subsidize it. It was so cheap Credit Suisse’s Zoltan Poszar calculated it as “$2 Trillion Of German Value Depends On $20 Billion Of Russian Gas.” And I guess they weren’t satisfied with that. It had to be more than 100x leverage, apparently.

They have to do this now because they are terrified of what Powell said on Friday. As is everyone else.

The virtuous cycle of infinite credit expansion is over.

I found this article at Zerohedge discussing the ECB’s shenanigans during Powell’s speech particularly illuminating. It seems Europe was trying to create a 1000 point drop in the Dow to ‘bad mouth’ Powell and manufacture consent that he’s the villain in this new psychodrama they have planned for us.

But it’s simply not going to work.

With each new headline out of Europe no matter how much they try to play the victim of US imperial ambitions the reality is that Europe did this to themselves.

You can’t virtue signal yourself out of a depression of your own making. Those with money will simply abandon you. And those who you thought were your friends were really just guys who wanted free chicken wings, beer and a nice place to crash. It certainly beat starving in Africa.

They had a clear choice, just as we had decades ago. They chose poorly.

And now we get to watch their quest for fire and material pursuit of power for its own sake come to naught. The orgy of debt is over. And the best part is that Misters Powell and Putin didn’t even have to ask the Germans to turn out the lights before they left, they did that themselves.

*  *  *

Join my Patreon if you like indoor lights

Tyler Durden
Tue, 08/30/2022 – 10:27

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/T3d0Q6y Tyler Durden

Alabama Cops Arrested Man Watering His Neighbor’s Plants Because He Wouldn’t Give Them His Full Name


Screenshots from body camera footage showing police arresting Michael Jennings

On May 22, Michael Jennings was watering his neighbor’s flowers. Minutes later, he had been arrested on obstruction charges, all because he refused to provide his full name to police officers. According to Al.com, Jennings, a pastor at a church in Sylacauga, Alabama, had agreed to water his neighbor’s plants while they were out of town. Sometime during the afternoon of May 22, one of Jennings’s neighbors called the police, citing concerns about a suspicious person and vehicle at a nearby house.

According to recently released body camera footage, Childersburg police approached the house and asked Jennings to identify himself. While Jennings told the officers his name was “Pastor Jennings,” he told them that he did not have to disclose his full name, saying “I’m not gonna give you no I.D., I ain’t did nothing wrong . . . I used to be a police officer.”

“Come on man, don’t do this to me. There’s a suspicious person in the yard, and if you’re not gonna identify yourself—” said an unnamed police officer, before being interrupted by Jennings, who said, “I don’t have to identify myself.”

As shown in the video, Jennings became frustrated with the officers. “Lock me up and see what happens, I want you to,” he told the officers, before walking away from them.

Jennings was then handcuffed by the officers. Shortly after he was handcuffed, one of Jennings’ neighbors approached the officers and identified herself as the woman who placed the original call to the police. The woman told officers that she had misidentified Jennings, and reported him as a suspicious person. “They are friends, and they went out of town today, so he may be watering their flowers, it’d be completely normal,” she said. “This is probably my fault.”

“The way y’all handled this situation was totally wrong,” said Jennings, still in handcuffs. “You racially profiled . . . I told ya’ll I was here watering the flowers . . . I had the water hose in my hand.”

According to CBS42, Jennings was booked into the Talladega County Jail, though he was later released and the charges dropped. However, Jennings and his lawyers are still not satisfied. Childersburg police officers “may think all they have to do is drop the charges and this all goes away,” Bethaney Embry Jones, one of Jennings’ attorneys told Al.com. “This was a crime, not a mistake. I would hope that the Childersburg Police Department would understand the difference.”

So would Jennings’ arrest hold up in court? “Every step of the way, there’s room for both sides to argue that this very close case cuts their way. It’s going to be a very close call in my estimation,” Clark Neily, senior vice president for Legal Studies at the Cato Institute, tells Reason. Neily notes that while Alabama statute requires individuals to provide their name, address, and an explanation of their actions to officers when there is a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, Jennings arguably provided officers with all three. Further, this state law only applies to public property, which a private home is not.

“Once you were told by the neighbor that she had messed up, the only possible reason you now have to continue holding him under arrest is that he violated that law requiring people to identify themselves, right? But you have two problems,” says Neily. “Problem one, this was not in public, this was on private property, so arguably the statute doesn’t apply and you actually didn’t have the authority. And second, he did identify himself.”

While it is unclear whether the officers who arrested Jennings broke the law, there is good reason to believe that they acted outside the bounds of a state statute allowing officers to demand individuals identify themselves under some circumstances. Whether a judge would agree remains to be seen.

“Last I checked, watering roses ain’t no crime,” Jennings told CBS42

The post Alabama Cops Arrested Man Watering His Neighbor's Plants Because He Wouldn't Give Them His Full Name appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/MINDLw3
via IFTTT

Conference Board Claims Americans’ Confidence Surged In August, Inflation Expectations Tumbled

Conference Board Claims Americans’ Confidence Surged In August, Inflation Expectations Tumbled

According to The Conference Board, US Consumers saw a resurgence in confidence in August with the headline printing 103.2 vs 98.0 expectations and 95.3 in July. This is the highest print since April. Both the present situation confidence (up to 145.4 vs. 139.7 last month), and consumer confidence expectations (up to 75.1 vs. 65.6 last month) rebounded notably.

Source: Bloomberg

Despite the rebound in confidence, the labor market ‘loosened’ to its ‘weakest’ since May 2021, based on the differential between “jobs plentiful” and “jobs hard to get”…

Source: Bloomberg

The Conference Board’s survey shows inflation expectations tumbled in August…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, we note that The Conference Board data remains notably decoupled from UMich sentiment data…

Source: Bloomberg

That ha snot ended well for the Conference Board data in the past.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 08/30/2022 – 10:07

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/CJdSPZx Tyler Durden

Biden’s Income-Driven Repayment Plan Will Make College Much More Expensive


Joe Biden delivers remarks

Last week, President Joe Biden announced that the federal government would forgive between $10,000 and $20,000 of student loan debt for qualifying borrowers who make less than $125,000 per year. But that wasn’t all: Biden also said that he would create a new income-driven repayment (IDR) system for college borrowers.

The IDR aspect of Biden’s plan attracted less scrutiny than the direct forgiveness aspect, which will cost at least $300 billion (and probably much, much more) in the immediate future. But in the long-term, this aggressive move toward an income-driven model of repaying college loans will probably have a bigger impact—and that impact will be catastrophic. In fact, unless the government does something to constrain colleges’ ability to set their own prices, IDR could break the entire higher education financing system and lead to skyrocketing costs for taxpayers.

There are some IDR programs available right now, but Biden’s approach would vastly expand this option. The existing plans require borrowers to pay 10, 15, or 20 percent of their income for two decades, at which point the rest of the loan is forgiven. Biden would make IDR much more appealing than it is currently; according to the Biden-Harris debt relief plan, borrowers will pay just 5 percent of their income (or 10 percent if they took out graduate student loans) for either 10 or 20 years depending on how much money they owe. The income threshold will be raised from 150 percent above the poverty line to 225 percent, and punitive interest rates will be eliminated.

All in all, this IDR model will be extremely appealing for a large number of borrowers, and we should expect the percentage of borrowers who are repaying via IDR to increase substantially in the coming years. But without further changes to the federal student loan program, this is going to be a huge problem.

That’s because both the borrowers and the universities will have increased incentive to bilk the people who actually make the loan: the taxpayers.

Under the current system, a prospective student needs a certain amount of money to pay for tuition at a university—say, $50,000—and borrows that sum from the government (i.e., the taxpayers). Later, the borrower pays it back, with interest. The university’s incentives are less than ideal; it might feel free to raise the price of tuition to $60,000, satisfied that the student really wants the degree, and will thus borrow more money, and deal with the consequences afterward. To the extent that the government loan program disguises upfront costs, it arguably contributes to rising tuition rates.

Under IDR, this situation gets much worse because the university and the borrowers have incentive to cooperate and screw the taxpayers. For the borrower, it doesn’t matter if tuition costs $50,000 or $5 million: The borrower will be repaying the same amount, 5 percent of income for 10 years, regardless of the size of the loan or the cost of tuition. Since it makes no difference to the borrower, the university might as well raise prices. This way, the university pockets more money, and the borrower doesn’t even have to pay it back.

Something close to this scheme already exists in law schools, which have Loan Repayment Assistance Programs (LRAPS). According to leftist writer Matt Bruenig, the arrangement is very likely to produce increased tuition as universities and students figure out that they can essentially cooperate in this game to beat the house:

Just as schools have new incentives to push debt loads higher in an IDR-dominant world, so do students. Above, I say that, for students planning to enroll in IDR, $15,000 of student debt is no different than $100,000 of student debt. But this is not quite right. A student planning to enroll in IDR actually benefits from taking out the maximum amount of debt possible.

Student loans are initially paid to schools to cover the tuition and fees. But what’s left after tuition and fees is disbursed as cash to the students, ostensibly to cover living expenses. In a conventional student loan, you have reason to live frugally and take out as little debt as possible. But if you are planning to go on IDR, then your incentives flip and you are leaving money on the table if you don’t take out the maximum loan possible.

Even if you don’t want to spend it living lavishly while in college, you could squirrel away the surplus into a savings account for later use, including for use in making your IDR payments after you graduate. Indeed, this is just a student-administered version of the LRAP scheme discussed above where student debt is used to pay off student debt.

Bruenig notes that Australia also uses IDR, but in Australia, the government prohibits universities from charging obscenely high tuition rates.

“If we are going to make the leap into an IDR-dominant college financing system, then we may need the government to also play a much bigger role in setting college prices, something it probably should have been doing even before the Biden policy change,” writes Bruenig. “Otherwise, we may very well see more unwanted cost bloat beyond what we already have.”

Bruenig approaches these issues from the left, but he’s not wrong that these policies make for a dreaded combination: 1) letting students get publicly subsidized loans, 2) allowing the borrowers to pay a percentage of their income instead of paying back the loan, and 3) permitting universities to charge whatever they want for tuition. The result is that tuition will be meaningless as a pricing signal, and institutions will have no reason whatsoever to keep costs down; on the contrary, they would be foolish not to jack up tuition prices, since the broken loan system would be functioning as a direct wealth transfer from taxpayers to university coffers.

One solution would be for the government, at a minimum, to set tuition prices for public, state universities—which, after all, are public and paid for by taxpayers. If the state is going to confiscate wealth from taxpayers in order to maintain public educational institutions, those institutions should be generally affordable to those same taxpayers.

Another idea would be to move to a system in which students don’t take out loans at all; instead of paying tuition, they agree to pay a percentage of their income to the university for some length of time after graduation. This would be like IDR, but it would cut out the government as the middleman, and thus get taxpayers off the hook. Purdue University President Mitch Daniels experimented with such a system, though it was paused earlier this year due to implementation difficulties.

By encouraging students to take on even more debt, and then never expecting them to repay it, the Biden administration is creating a system where everyone involved in higher education has incentive to fleece the American people.

The post Biden's Income-Driven Repayment Plan Will Make College Much More Expensive appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/zUEQG3S
via IFTTT

Orange County Settles With Woman Whose Baby Died After Authorities Stopped at Starbucks Before Hospital


pregnant woman in front of starbucks sign

Orange County jail sank to “lowest depths,” says lawyer. Sandra Quinones was jailed for a probation violation when she started going into early labor in March 2016. Instead of immediately helping her, Orange County authorities ignored her for two hours and then stopped at Starbucks on their way to the hospital, according to a federal lawsuit she filed after losing the baby.

Now, six years later, the Orange County Board of Supervisors has voted to settle the lawsuit. Quinones will receive a payment of $480,000 from the county.

Quinones’ complaint in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stated that she was six months pregnant and in custody at the Orange County Women’s jail when her water broke. “She pushed the call button in her cell with no response for two hours,” the suit says, noting that jail staff knew about Quinones’ pregnancy.

Jail staff “failed to call an ambulance and decided to transport Sandra Quinones to the hospital on a non-emergency basis,” her suit alleges. They “did not provide any medical treatment and, instead, stopped for Starbucks on the way to the hospital,” making Quinones “wait in the back of a van bleeding and in labor.”

At the hospital, the baby was born and then died shortly after, her suit says. It accuses Orange County authorities of denial of medical care, negligent treatment, “and other violations of Appellant Sandra Quinones’ and Baby Quinones’ rights.”

Quinones sued the county and various jail staff. In 2020, a U.S. District Court dismissed Quinones’ complaint, stating that the statute of limitations was up. But Quinones’ lawyer appealed, noting that she had been homeless, suffering from PTSD, and unable to get assistance for years after the incident. In December 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reinstated her case.

“The Orange County jail is capable of sinking to the lowest depths,” her lawyer, Richard Herman, told the Los Angeles Times. “Unfortunately this is not the only occasion.”

Orange County has demonstrated a pattern of “failing to provide medical treatment and/or ignoring basic care such that inmate and/or the baby died during or closely after labor,” states an amended complaint in Quinones lawsuit, citing six other infant or fetus deaths between 2012 and 2019.


FREE MINDS

“Kid’s Code” bill in California could mean creepy new privacy invasions online. A California proposal to “protect kids” could see websites scanning people’s faces and making them submit video “liveness tests” before they can look at content or make purchases. Mike Masnick dissects the disturbing details at Techdirt:

If you thought cookie pop-ups were an annoying nuisance, just wait until you have to scan your face for some third party to “verify your age” after California’s new design code becomes law.

On Friday, I wrote about the companies and organizations most likely to benefit from California’s AB 2273, the “Age Appropriate Design Code” bill that the California legislature seems eager to pass (and which they refer to as the “Kid’s Code” even though the details show it will impact everyone, and not just kids). The bill seemed to be getting very little attention, but after a few of my posts started to go viral, the backers of the bill ramped up their smear campaigns and lies — including telling me that I’m not covered by it (and when I dug in and pointed out how I am… they stopped responding). But, even if somehow Techdirt is not covered (which, frankly, would be a relief), I can still be quite concerned about how it will impact everyone else.

But, the craziest of all things is that the “Age Verification Providers Association” decided to show up in the comments to defend themselves and insist that their members can do age verification in a privacy-protective manner. You just have to let them scan your face with facial recognition technology.

In what seems like a very failed attempt to be reassuring, the Age Verification Providers Association explained that it may not need people’s “personal data” to verify their ages, just a scan of their IDs or faces.


FREE MARKETS

Brown University economist Emily Oster talks to Michael Horn, author of From Reopen to Reinvent: (Re)Creating School for Every Child, about American schooling. For the book, Horn set out to look at what went wrong with schools during the pandemic. “But part of the conclusion was schooling wasn’t just broken during COVID—it hasn’t been working [for] the majority of families for a long time,” he told Oster.

Emily: So let’s talk about that piece of it. Because while I sort of like this conceptually, and I see why for people with a lot of choice and a lot of options, it might be possible to think about crafting micro schools and learning pods. But when we think about this on a more nuts-and-bolts policy level, do you think this is even remotely feasible? Let me put it out there.

Michael: I love the question. It’s unclear at the moment, to be totally honest. And I think it’s one of the reasons we see so many families opting out of traditional district schools right now into micro schools and pods and charter schools and private schools, because they’re saying: I want that customization. And part of my argument, I think, is that if districts really want to hold on and be that common place where people come for their education, they’re going to have to figure out how to customize. And I think that there are lessons that they can learn about how to leverage micro schools and the advantages that they bring within a larger schoolhouse, for example. How to use online tutoring and online teachers to give access to certain options that certain children may want to have, but it doesn’t make sense to have a full-time teacher, say, in the school building, offering that particular class. Or plugging into community resources to offer the mental health supports that certain children we know really need right now. But it’s really hard — and others have written persuasively about: not sure if you want a teacher who hasn’t been trained for that set of services delivering mental health supports to your child. But you might really welcome someone from the community who has been trained in those things to plug into school and be able to offer those services.

It’s not saying that it’s the school’s core competency or that they need to do every element of this, but more that they become a hub for these different services so that children can customize what they need for them and when they need them. And there are some school districts around the country that have been doing some of this. So I think there’s some bright lights out there.

Read the whole interview here.


QUICK HITS

• Taylor Millard explores “the rising surveillance state in American cities.”

• Can jellyfish teach us the secrets of immortality?

• A bill that passed the California legislature on Monday would “create a government panel that would set wages for an estimated half-million fast food workers in the state,” reports the Wall Street Journal. “They would set hourly wages of up to $22 for fast food workers starting next year and can increase them annually by the same rate as the consumer-price index, up to a maximum of 3.5%.” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has until the end of September to decide whether he will sign the bill.

• “From January through June of this year, federal prosecutors made 883 applications to federal judges to authorize search warrants and issue subpoenas or a summons,” according to data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

• Tiffani Morgan Walton is suing after being stopped from recording a West Virginia Senate debate on a bill to ban abortions and kicked out of the debate. Citizens “have every right to record public officials during public proceedings,” said Nicholas Ward of the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, which is representing Walton.

• “President Joe Biden’s pick for an intelligence advisory post falsely claimed that Hunter Biden’s laptop was part of a Russian disinformation campaign and that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with the Kremlin,” reports The Washington Free Beacon.

• Police with the Lakewood Township, New Jersey “Quality of Life Unit” cut down trees in a local town square to stop homeless people from congregating there.

The post Orange County Settles With Woman Whose Baby Died After Authorities Stopped at Starbucks Before Hospital appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/LJfzA6u
via IFTTT

Biden’s Income-Driven Repayment Plan Will Make College Much More Expensive


Joe Biden delivers remarks

Last week, President Joe Biden announced that the federal government would forgive between $10,000 and $20,000 of student loan debt for qualifying borrowers who make less than $125,000 per year. But that wasn’t all: Biden also said that he would create a new income-driven repayment (IDR) system for college borrowers.

The IDR aspect of Biden’s plan attracted less scrutiny than the direct forgiveness aspect, which will cost at least $300 billion (and probably much, much more) in the immediate future. But in the long-term, this aggressive move toward an income-driven model of repaying college loans will probably have a bigger impact—and that impact will be catastrophic. In fact, unless the government does something to constrain colleges’ ability to set their own prices, IDR could break the entire higher education financing system and lead to skyrocketing costs for taxpayers.

There are some IDR programs available right now, but Biden’s approach would vastly expand this option. The existing plans require borrowers to pay 10, 15, or 20 percent of their income for two decades, at which point the rest of the loan is forgiven. Biden would make IDR much more appealing than it is currently; according to the Biden-Harris debt relief plan, borrowers will pay just 5 percent of their income (or 10 percent if they took out graduate student loans) for either 10 or 20 years depending on how much money they owe. The income threshold will be raised from 150 percent above the poverty line to 225 percent, and punitive interest rates will be eliminated.

All in all, this IDR model will be extremely appealing for a large number of borrowers, and we should expect the percentage of borrowers who are repaying via IDR to increase substantially in the coming years. But without further changes to the federal student loan program, this is going to be a huge problem.

That’s because both the borrowers and the universities will have increased incentive to bilk the people who actually make the loan: the taxpayers.

Under the current system, a prospective student needs a certain amount of money to pay for tuition at a university—say, $50,000—and borrows that sum from the government (i.e., the taxpayers). Later, the borrower pays it back, with interest. The university’s incentives are less than ideal; it might feel free to raise the price of tuition to $60,000, satisfied that the student really wants the degree, and will thus borrow more money, and deal with the consequences afterward. To the extent that the government loan program disguises upfront costs, it arguably contributes to rising tuition rates.

Under IDR, this situation gets much worse because the university and the borrowers have incentive to cooperate and screw the taxpayers. For the borrower, it doesn’t matter if tuition costs $50,000 or $5 million: The borrower will be repaying the same amount, 5 percent of income for 10 years, regardless of the size of the loan or the cost of tuition. Since it makes no difference to the borrower, the university might as well raise prices. This way, the university pockets more money, and the borrower doesn’t even have to pay it back.

Something close to this scheme already exists in law schools, which have Loan Repayment Assistance Programs (LRAPS). According to leftist writer Matt Bruenig, the arrangement is very likely to produce increased tuition as universities and students figure out that they can essentially cooperate in this game to beat the house:

Just as schools have new incentives to push debt loads higher in an IDR-dominant world, so do students. Above, I say that, for students planning to enroll in IDR, $15,000 of student debt is no different than $100,000 of student debt. But this is not quite right. A student planning to enroll in IDR actually benefits from taking out the maximum amount of debt possible.

Student loans are initially paid to schools to cover the tuition and fees. But what’s left after tuition and fees is disbursed as cash to the students, ostensibly to cover living expenses. In a conventional student loan, you have reason to live frugally and take out as little debt as possible. But if you are planning to go on IDR, then your incentives flip and you are leaving money on the table if you don’t take out the maximum loan possible.

Even if you don’t want to spend it living lavishly while in college, you could squirrel away the surplus into a savings account for later use, including for use in making your IDR payments after you graduate. Indeed, this is just a student-administered version of the LRAP scheme discussed above where student debt is used to pay off student debt.

Bruenig notes that Australia also uses IDR, but in Australia, the government prohibits universities from charging obscenely high tuition rates.

“If we are going to make the leap into an IDR-dominant college financing system, then we may need the government to also play a much bigger role in setting college prices, something it probably should have been doing even before the Biden policy change,” writes Bruenig. “Otherwise, we may very well see more unwanted cost bloat beyond what we already have.”

Bruenig approaches these issues from the left, but he’s not wrong that these policies make for a dreaded combination: 1) letting students get publicly subsidized loans, 2) allowing the borrowers to pay a percentage of their income instead of paying back the loan, and 3) permitting universities to charge whatever they want for tuition. The result is that tuition will be meaningless as a pricing signal, and institutions will have no reason whatsoever to keep costs down; on the contrary, they would be foolish not to jack up tuition prices, since the broken loan system would be functioning as a direct wealth transfer from taxpayers to university coffers.

One solution would be for the government, at a minimum, to set tuition prices for public, state universities—which, after all, are public and paid for by taxpayers. If the state is going to confiscate wealth from taxpayers in order to maintain public educational institutions, those institutions should be generally affordable to those same taxpayers.

Another idea would be to move to a system in which students don’t take out loans at all; instead of paying tuition, they agree to pay a percentage of their income to the university for some length of time after graduation. This would be like IDR, but it would cut out the government as the middleman, and thus get taxpayers off the hook. Purdue University President Mitch Daniels experimented with such a system, though it was paused earlier this year due to implementation difficulties.

By encouraging students to take on even more debt, and then never expecting them to repay it, the Biden administration is creating a system where everyone involved in higher education has incentive to fleece the American people.

The post Biden's Income-Driven Repayment Plan Will Make College Much More Expensive appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/zUEQG3S
via IFTTT