New Jersey Slaps Criminal Penalties on Gun Manufacturing Instructions: New at Reason

A federal lawsuit that Defense Distributed and Second Amendment groups filed late Tuesday is challenging New Jersey’s attempt to rid the internet of information about how to make 3D-printable firearms.

The First Amendment lawsuit is a response to New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal’s ongoing campaign to restrict firearm-related manufacturing instructions, which escalated to a threat of criminal prosecution on February 2. A new state law, which Grewal hailed as a win for “public safety,” makes it a crime for “a person to distribute by any means, including the Internet… digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code or instructions… that may be used to program a three-dimensional printer to manufacture or produce a firearm, firearm receiver, magazine, or firearm component.”

This is a remarkably broad prohibition: it goes beyond banning the manufacturing of firearms and instead criminalizes information about how to manufacture firearms, writes Declan McCullagh for Reason.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2MPGd4g
via IFTTT

Florida Sanctions Airbnb for Removing West Bank Properties

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis voted last week to place economic sanctions on Airbnb after the company stopped listing properties in the West Bank, which was perceived by some as a pro-Palestine stance.

“It was a dumb policy,” said DeSantis. “I think they made a mistake. Sometimes you have to look in the mirror and admit you made a mistake and move on.”

But it would seem the company isn’t necessarily pro-Palestine—or at least isn’t anti-Israel. A quick search on their website returns listings for Israeli properties all across the country: Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Yafo, and more.

“There are over 20,000 Airbnb hosts in Israel who open their doors and showcase the best of Israeli hospitality to guests from around the world, which boosts local families, businesses and communities,” wrote Robert Chestnut, Airbnb’s general counsel, in a letter to the State Board of Administration. “Our community of hosts in Israel has already welcomed more than 1 million guests and we will continue to invest in Israel.”

Airbnb says it removed its West Bank properties in November because both Israel and Palestine claim ownership over the contested territory. It’s the same reason the company doesn’t have a presence in Crimea, which is disputed territory between Ukraine and Russia.

Even if Airbnb did harbor some internal anti-Israel sentiment, it would seem fairly obvious that it is not part of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, an effort to hold the country accountable for mistreating Palestinians. But why should it matter if they’re BDSers in the first place? Businesses often vote with their dollars, investing in causes that resonate with them and snubbing those that don’t. Consumers do the same. BDS, however, strikes a chord with many lawmakers nationwide.

Half of all states have passed laws that prohibit public agencies from doing business with companies or individuals who openly associate with BDS. What’s more, the Senate approved a measure this week—pushed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)—that would restrict Israel boycotts on a federal level. The bill, which now heads to the House, is largely supported by Republicans but has divided top Democrats.

“While I do not support the BDS movement, we must defend every American’s constitutional right to engage in political activity,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement last week. “It is clear to me that this bill would violate Americans’ First Amendment rights.”

Whether the boycott is actually effective is another question entirely—its impact is likely negligible. But that makes the national crackdown all the more puzzling, as it draws more attention to BDS.

In any case, Gov. DeSantis has made promises to live up to after wooing the Jewish community during his campaign. “If we’re not the most pro-Israel state in the country, we will be on January 8,” he said at the Israeli American Council National Conference, referencing his inauguration date. But the governor also promised to defend First Amendment rights, which should apply across the board—regardless of political persuasion.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2Geqw6t
via IFTTT

Rep. Justin Amash Highlights ‘Two Outstanding Lines’ From Trump’s SOTU

Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) reacted today to Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, praising the president in some areas but criticizing him in others.

In an early morning Twitter thread, Amash first noted that “there were two outstanding lines in” the president’s address. One was: “America was founded on liberty and independence—not government coercion, domination, and control.” The other: “Great nations do not fight endless wars.”

Both were indeed highlights of Trump’s address. The first line came as he discussed the dangers of socialism. “Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,” Trump said. “We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.” Trump’s words seemed to have brought a frown to the face of democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), as I pointed out last night.

The other line Amash mentioned, about “great nations” not fighting “endless wars,” was also a whopper. As Reason‘s Christian Britschgi noted yesterday, that line came more than a month after Trump ordered the sudden withdrawal of 4,000 U.S. troops fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria. “As we work with our allies to destroy the remnants of ISIS, it is time to give our brave warriors in Syria a warm welcome home,” Trump said last night.

The president has also said he will pull 7,000 U.S. troops out of Afghanistan, where the administration is holding peace talks with the Taliban. “As we make progress in these negotiations, we will be able to reduce our troop presence and focus on counterterrorism,” Trump said in his address. “We do know that after two decades of war, the hour has come to at least try for peace.”

Trump’s sentiment in that area was also praised by Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), who on Monday criticized bipartisan support for a Senate bill condemning Trump’s plans to withdraw troops from both Middle Eastern countries. “I applaud @realdonaldtrump for delivering an America First vision which included getting out of Afghanistan after almost two decades of being at war,” Paul tweeted last night. “We must stop our endless wars and focus on rebuilding at home.”

Amash wasn’t completely happy with Trump’s speech, claiming he was “hit or miss” when it came to foreign policy. But on the whole, Amash was pleased Trump recognized the need “to bring our forces home from Syria and Afghanistan.”

“One war was never authorized, and the other has gone on for far too long,” Amash said.

Outside of foreign policy, Amash did credit Trump for denouncing “the destructive politics of partisanship,” though he explained that Trump has “been anything but nonpartisan”:

The Michigan representative didn’t have a whole lot to say about Trump’s remarks on trade (The president defended his decision to place tariffs on Chinese goods and asked Congress to pass a bill that would increase his authority to implement more tariffs.) Amash did, however, recommend that Trump read the works of economists Henry Hazlitt and Frédéric Bastiat:

Amash also criticized Trump for failing to “mention the massive national debt—overwhelmingly the result of reckless spending.” It’s a fair point. As Reason‘s Eric Boehm wrote last night, Trump said nothing about the need to rein in federal spending. This despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says the federal budget deficit will surpass $1 trillion in 2020. The national debt, meanwhile, hit $22 trillion at the end of 2018. The sort of spending that led to this massive debt “is unsustainable and threatens the prosperity of Americans,” Amash wrote.

Finally, Amash praised Trump’s words on criminal justice reform, particularly regarding the FIRST STEP Act. “My administration worked closely with members of both parties to sign the FIRST STEP Act into law,” Trump said. “This legislation reformed sentencing laws that have wrongly and disproportionately harmed the African American community. The FIRST STEP Act gives non-violent offenders the chance to re-enter society as productive, law-abiding citizens.”

While Amash was “pleased” Trump “highlighted” this issue, he noted there’s a lot more to be done “to reform the system at both the federal and state levels of government.”

For more Reason State of the Union coverage, you can click here.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2Ge8lO1
via IFTTT

No Evidence to Back Trump’s SOTU Sex-Trafficking Claims: Reason Roundup

During last night’s State of the Union address, President Donald Trump said that “human traffickers and sex traffickers take advantage of the wide open areas between our ports of entry to smuggle thousands of young girls and women into the United States and to sell them into prostitution and modern-day slavery.”

As you might expect, no evidence backs up such a claim.

Outlandish tales of depraved immigrants preying on innocent girls is one of the oldest tricks, however, when it comes to stirring up sex-trafficking fears in service of political ends. And in Trump’s case, that’s things like building a big border wall, preventing refugees from seeking asylum here, and portraying himself as the savior of an America overrun by people who don’t belong, many of them criminals.

The sincerity of Trump’s concern for migrant women and girls is belied by his actual policies. His administration has made it harder for people to seek refuge here on humanitarian grounds; tried to specifically prohibit anyone coming here from war-torn countries where these crimes are actually prevalent; and pushes border policies that drive desperate people into the arms of smugglers, where women in particular are more likely to face exploitation or abuse.

There’s evidence to support Trump’s claim that many migrant women will face sexual assault—not the “one in three” he cites, but still too many—and yet the reason these people can’t come through safer means is a direct result of U.S. immigration policy. On the flip side, undocumented immigrants or legal immigrants doing sex work within the U.S. are also at greater risk in a climate where courthouses, hospitals, and police stations are increasingly stalked by immigration agents.

In New York City, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were known to hang around the city’s “human trafficking intervention court”—a court meant for those deemed victims, not traffickers—and pick up women there on prostitution or unlicensed massage charges. Around 91 percent of unlicensed massage arrests in NYC are of non-citizens, according to Kate Mogulescu of Legal Aid.

It’s unclear if these women were counted among the 1,500 human traffickers that Trump’s SOTU speech cited as having been “put behind bars” by ICE last year. The number seems to come from a recent White House press release, which says that ICE and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) “made 1588 Human Trafficking arrests” in fiscal-year 2018. (Though it’s also possible Trump is referring to a favorite Pizzagate/QAnon theory.)

While I can’t definitely say that the human-trafficking arrest claim isn’t true, I’ll point out that federal agencies generally put out statements about any sex-trafficking cases they’re prosecuting, and those numbers don’t nearly match the number of arrests the White House suggests. The ICE website shows nine press releases mentioning sex trafficking in the past year, and two mentioning human trafficking (neither of the latter about criminal cases). Adding general Homeland Security, FBI, and Justice Department press releases still doesn’t get us anywhere near 1,500.

My suspicion is that the White House is counting anyone arrested in “human trafficking operations,” not those arrested and indicted for human trafficking. This is an important distinction, since many of those arrested under these operations have nothing to do with human trafficking, labor violations, prostitution, or assault at all. But most of the time, ICE, the FBI, and politicians will use linguistic maneuvering to make it sound as if all the arrests were for sex crimes. (See also: “Trump’s mythical crackdown on sex trafficking.”)

If you actually read beyond the headlines about federal “anti-trafficking” initiates touting big results, you’ll see that these almost never involve human trafficking charges and if they do, it’s a small fraction of the total arrests. Instead, these stings and raids are used to check people’s papers and arrest anyone they can for immigration violations, prostitution, drug possession, or other low-level offenses of the sort that can still get legal immigrants deported.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is right that President Donald Trump “tries to use” the issue of sex trafficking “to justify his wall.” But Kristof somehow still thinks that empowering the Justice Department to “prosecute pimps more aggressively” will fall fairly on serious criminals and not also be used as a pretense to target disfavored groups. Under a Trump administration, that will inevitably fall on communities where federal agents think they may find people running afoul of immigration laws.

FREE MINDS

Financial deplatforming continues.

FREE MARKETS

A new nanny-state target for New York City.

QUICK HITS

• Read the whole State of the Union speech here if you’re a masochist.

• Here’s more on Trump’s false crusade against trafficking, from The New Yorker.

• And more Reason State of the Union Coverage:

• Good morning from Twitter:

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2t90rgw
via IFTTT

Trump Said He Wants Legal Immigrants To Come ‘in the Largest Numbers Ever.’ Really?

President Donald Trump reiterated his usual calls for crackdowns on illegal immigration and an increase in border security during the State of the Union address last night. But there was a small surprise in the immigration section of his speech: His statement that he wants immigrants to enter the country legally and in “the largest numbers ever.”

That would be excellent news. More legal immigration is a far more effective cure for illegal border flows than physical barriers. Why? Because if people can come to the country legally to work, they would have no need to do so illegally, especially since working without proper authorization brings a 17 percent wage penalty.

Sadly, however, there are at least three reasons why one shouldn’t get too excited about Trump’s statement:

One: He was ad libbing. The official transcript of the speech circulated in advance merely said: “I want people to come into our country, but they have to come in legally.” So the POTUS was off-script. Clearly, the phrase hadn’t been vetted by Stephen Miller, the ultra-restrictionist White House aide who is the architect of his immigration policy.

Two: Washington Post’s Robert Costa reminds us that Trump made similar declarations when he launched his presidential bid in 2015 only to back off when Miller and Steven Bannon called him out. There was a time when the Republican base made a distinction between legal and illegal immigration—favoring the first while opposing the second. Those days are gone. It is not a coincidence that during the government shutdown last January, Trump demanded a 40 percent cut in legal immigration by scrapping the diversity visa program and scaling back family-based immigration in exchange for legalizing Dreamers (folks who have grown up in this country as Americans after being brought here without authorization as minors).

Three: Trump’s record to date does not indicate he is any friend of legal immigration. Indeed, he has used every regulatory and administrative tool at his disposal to reduce every single category of legal immigration.

Here is a non-comprehensive list:

  • He has outlawed asylum for those fleeing gang violence. Meanwhile, he has made it difficult for Central American migrants to present themselves at official ports of entry and request asylum by engaging in a practice called metering—meaning forcing them to wait for days and weeks on the other side of the border—while making it a criminal offense if they try and seek asylum between ports of entry.
  • He has nearly wiped out America’s refugee program. His administration cut the refugee cap from 110,000 to 45,000 and is not even close to filling even that limit.
  • He couldn’t convince Congress to cut back family-based immigration. However, he has used his travel ban for that purpose. He has barred Americans from sponsoring family members from any of the five Muslim countries listed on the ban. In theory, the State Department is supposed to hand waivers from the ban to close family members—spouses and children—on a case-by-case basis. But in the first few months after the ban, it had approved a measly 430 waivers out of 6,555 eligible applicants.
  • He has not even spared high-skilled immigrants who virtually everyone thinks are good for the country, including hard-to-please folks at the National Review such as Reihan Salam. He has smothered the H-1B high-skilled guest worker program in so much red tape as to make it virtually unusable. His administration is issuing more “requests for evidence” from employers sponsoring foreign workers. This means that companies have to submit even more paperwork to prove to the government that they really need the immigrant’s services and couldn’t find a qualified American to do the job. Worse, even as his administration is requiring employers to jump through more hoops, it is denying more H-1B requests. Nor is it allowing H-1Bs to renew their visas every three years as a matter of routine, which has been the case to date. It is forcing the visa holder and the sponsoring employer to re-file all the paperwork, as if they were applying for the first time. And, in direct contradiction to his lofty declaration in his SOTU that more women working is a good thing, he is on track to scrap work authorization for the spouses of H-1B holders, most of whom tend to be highly qualified. Given that greencard wait times for those from India and China spans decades, without this authorization, they will essentially be frozen out of the labor market permanently and become involuntary housewives, as I noted in this New York Times piece.

As I wrote in a recently in The New York Times, contrary to current mythology, America is a low-immigration nation. America’s share of the foreign born ranks 34th among 50 countries with a per capita GDP of $20,000. And if it doesn’t admit 2 million immigrants every year—more than twice its current rate—between now and 2050 to offset the country’s plummeting birth rates and aging population, it will face a massive economic slowdown in a decade because of a shortage of workers.

If Trump is serious about allowing more legal immigration, he might want to consider a market-based system where immigrants are able to obtain visas in exchange for a fee large enough to offset any negative fiscal impact or negative externalities that they might impose. Immigrants, on balance, are a net positive for the economy as even an immigration skeptic like Harvard University’s George Borjas admits. But if immigrants have to pay a fee to address the perception that they impose costs, then so be it. That’s still better than simply slamming the door—both for them and the United States.

President Trump likes to win. This would be a win-win.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2DeAPU8
via IFTTT

One Deadly Drug Raid and Two Red Herrings: New at Reason

After a drug raid killed a middle-aged couple and injured five narcotics officers in Houston last week, the head of the local police union blamed people who criticize cops, while the police chief blamed politicians who fail to support the gun control policies he favors. The real cause, Jacob Sullum says, was a fundamentally immoral war on drugs that routinely requires violence in response to peaceful activities.

Hours after the deadly attack on the home of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas, Joe Gamaldi, president of the Houston Police Officers Union, condemned “the ones that are out there spreading the rhetoric that police officers are the enemy.” He warned that “we’re going to be keeping track of all y’all,” and “we’re going to be holding you accountable every time you stir the pot on our police officers.”

Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo later rebuked Gamaldi for his “over-the-top” remarks, saying, “This had nothing to do with any of the stuff that he was talking about.” Yet Acevedo could not resist tossing out his own red herring by criticizing “elected officials” who fail to address the “proliferation of firearms in the hands of people that have no business having guns.”

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2DVW1zO
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Every Breath You Take

Police investigatorAn Australian police officer has been sentenced to six months in jail for illegally using police databases to snoop on potential dates. Adrian Trevor Moore looked up information on 92 women he met on dating websites. His attorney says he was trying to do “due diligence” before deciding whether to meet the women in person. But Moore accessed information on several of the women multiple times over a number of years.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2MYoQP7
via IFTTT

The State of the Union Is Rockets, Socialism, Alliteration, and Nazis: Podcast

Immediately after President Donald Trump stepped down from the dias at his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Reason editors Katherine Mangu-Ward and Peter Suderman grabbed their podcasting mics to talk rockets, socialism, American greatness, alliteration, uteruses, and Nazis.

We give props to some high points in the speech (“Great nations do not fight endless wars.”) We note some encouraging hints about Trump’s possible legacy as a criminal justice reformer (“Alice’s story underscores the disparities and unfairness that can exist in criminal sentencing—and the need to remedy this injustice.”) We also ponder the possibility of a massive new entitlement (“I am also proud to be the first president to include in my budget a plan for nationwide paid family leave—so that every new parent has the chance to bond with their newborn child.”) And we ultimately fret about a vision of national greatness that relies on illegal immigrants and nations who want to sell us cheap stuff as the enemies that will bind us together.

Body Language by Asthmatic Astronaut is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Audio production by Mark McDaniel

Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Don’t miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at Apple Podcasts.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2RHJgfD
via IFTTT

The Rhetorical and Substantive Limits of Trump’s American Greatness

Give President Donald Trump his due. His State of the Union Address employed a positive rhetoric almost always lacking from his major addresses and he rightly touted some of his administration’s accomplishments, including the passage of the FIRST STEP Act, cutting regulations, and improving many aspects of the tax code. Halfway through his first term, only his most deranged critics can continue to claim that his election still represents an “extinction-level threat” to the American experiment.

Yet simply because he’s not the unmitigated disaster his worst detractors fear and has delivered an uplifting speech doesn’t mean his policy agenda is perfect. Far from it. The vast majority of us—72 percent, according to Gallup—are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and Trump’s presidency is both an effect and cause of this long-term trend.

To his credit, Trump recognizes that the 21st century demands new approaches to policy challenges. We must, he said,

step boldly and bravely into the next chapter of this great American adventure. We must create a new standard of living for the 21st century. An amazing quality of life for all of our citizens is within reach. We can make our communities safer, our families stronger, our culture richer, our faith deeper, and our middle class bigger and more prosperous than ever before.

Toward the end of his speech, he again returned to the need to look forward:

What will we do with this moment? How will we be remembered? This is the time to reignite the American imagination.

It’s disappointing, then, that Trump offered virtually no new solutions to major problems. Yes, he is easily the best president to date on the issue of school choice, but it’s also true that the federal government cannot the major driver on that issue. And it is nothing less than thrilling to hear any president, but especially one in 2019, after 18 years of failure, say bluntly, “Great nations do not fight endless wars.”

But on virtually every other issue, Trump is pushing old-school, 20th-century-or-older policies that have little to do with shrinking the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. Indeed, among his biggest impacts has been to increase spending and explode an already historically high debt. He is every bit as locked into a model that would centralize and aggregate power in the hands of the few.

Unsuprisingly, he pushed for his border wall, which addresses the nonexistent problem of crossings in the middle of nowhere (apprehensions on the border with Mexico started dropping in 2000). The fixation on illegal immigration comes at a time when the number of illegals is at its lowest total in a decade. Illegals and asylum seekers have not proven to be any sort of terrorist threat. The one comforting element of Trump’s discussion of immigration is that he said, “I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.” That’s a major change in rhetoric, one at odds with the predilection of leading GOP senators such as Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) and Sonny Perdue (R–Ga.) and his own adviser Stephen Miller, all of whom are pushing to cut legal immigration by 50 percent.

The president’s defense of trade protectionism and his attack on NAFTA is similarly old-fashioned. He can claim that NAFTA is the worst trade deal ever, but there is zero evidence for such a charge. Most analyses of the deal found it to have a modest and positive impact on the U.S. economy, increasing GDP by 0.2 to 0.3 percent, or $50 billion, annually. No one except the president is under the misimpression that the deal he negotiated to replace NAFTA, the USMCA, is anything but a mostly cosmetic update. While Trump can talk tough about China, there’s little doubt that his trade war has, to date, hurt Americans. The Tax Foundation found that, by the end of 2018, “we had already paid $42 billion in higher taxes due to tariffs.”

It wasn’t so long ago—not more than two or three years, really—that it was unthinkable that a Republican president would be pushing for paid family leave. Yet there was Trump, arguing for such a mandate. We can assume that Republicans were against the policy because they recognize it is a great example of unintended consequences, that it is both unnecessary and harmful to the women it is supposed to help. As Veronique de Rugy wrote for Reason last year, the private sector has already been expanding paid leave for first-time mothers. In the 1960s, she wrote, only about 16 percent of women had access to it; now, it’s over 50 percent. “As much as we would love for everyone to get paid leave,” de Rugy concludes, “a government-provided solution to the issue won’t result in the proverbial free lunch that supporters hope for. It’s likely to have minimal effect, as the new benefit will be offset over time by lower wages. It could also give an incentive to employers to discriminate against childbearing-age workers for the benefits of older workers.”

“We have not yet begun to dream,” the president intoned in the final section of his speech, reaching for a lofty, future-oriented rhetoric that’s a welcome change from his routinely dystopian invocations of “American carnage.” But most of his policy solutions are relics of the past that have been tried and failed (such as protectionism) and even his choices of topics seem stuck in the 20th century. Deaths from AIDS, for instance, peaked in the 1990s and the disease is now seen more as a manageable, chronic condition that a public-health emergency. His emphasis on World War II—among other flourishes, he acknowledged three soldiers who participated in D-Day—was as emotionally manipulative as it was intellectually lazy. There is no question that World War II marked a turning point in the nation’s history, but it also marked the end of the “America First” movement and mentality that Trump is trying to revive.

You can’t drive boldly into the future with your eyes glued to the rear-view mirror. But in all too many ways, that’s exactly what President Trump seems to be doing.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2tglDBr
via IFTTT

Trump Praises America’s Oil and Natural Gas Production in State of the Union Address

AmericanOilMihail39Dreamstime“We have unleashed a revolution in American energy—the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world,” declared President Donald Trump in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. While Trump’s paean to our country’s robust oil and gas industry will incense Keep It in the Ground activists, even the Green New Deal Congressional resolution currently being crafted recognizes that banning fossil fuels is not feasible.

Oil and natural gas production in the U.S. is indeed soaring. According to the latest Energy Information Administration report, U.S. crude oil production stands at 11.9 million barrels per day. That’s just shy of 24 percent more than the 1970 peak of 9.6 million barrels per day. So much for Hubbert’s Peak!

And the U.S. is certainly number one: Saudi Arabia and Russia produce about 10.8 and 11 million barrels per day, respectively.

The U.S. is also now the world’s biggest producer of natural gas, at about 853 billion cubic meters in the last 12 months. The next biggest producers in 2017 were Russia and Iran at 694 and 209 billion cubic meters correspondingly.

Trump also claimed that “for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy.” He is evidently referring to oil exports and imports. This is a bit more complicated.

As Forbes energy commentator Robert Rapier noted in December, the U.S. consumes the equivalent of 20 million barrels of oil per day. That implies a shortfall of about 8 million barrels of oil per day. That gap is filled with a mixture of natural gas liquids, ethanol, and finished product exports and imports.

Even taking these other fuels into account, Rapier finds that the U.S. still consumes 2 million barrels per day more of petroleum products than we produce. Still, it is a remarkable achievement that daily U.S. imports have steeply fallen from a peak of 10.5 million barrels per day in 2004.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2DcKISh
via IFTTT