Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

The free market economist Friedrich Hayek once described the difference between himself and arch-rival John Maynard Keynes as similar to that between the fox and the hedgehog in the Ancient Greek aphorism. The fox who knows many things crafts clever theories and policies to artificially kickstart an economy. Meanwhile, the hedgehog who knows one big thing clings modestly to the wisdom that state intervention eventually leads to trouble. Its intriguing that Hayek saw one of the most significant intellectual rifts in modern economics in these almost quaint terms. Perhaps its because he sensed that the split between the men was essentially non-ideological. Both Hayek and Keynes were liberals who believed in freedom. Where their schools of thought differed was on their levels of patience, and arrogance.

Now, this clash between impatient liberalism and its more cautious counterpart has returned with a vengeance, in the rift between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak over public spending. Both never liked lockdown. Both have at least paid lip service to the importance of economic freedom and individual responsibility. But our fox-like Prime Minister now seems to believe that he can abandon the Tory Party's one big thing fiscal prudence and commitment to free market economics. That he can splurge billions on infrastructure and green projects in a get-rich-quick scheme to revive growth and cement his hold over the Red Wall.

Warnings from his Thatcherite Chancellor that piling on debt at a time when the country may be one interest rate rise away from carnage appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

Johnsons attitude is, on one level, understandable. When fear of the virus is still rife and the costs of lockdown have barely been counted, it would take exceptional modesty and courage for a leader to step back and give the market space to painfully adjust to the new world of endemic Covid, while the Government re-exerts control over public spending.

Presumably, the PM thinks that his short-cut strategy is the easy way out. Unfortunately for the Conservative Party, the country, and Johnson himself, it is anything but. The PM is gambling everything on the idea that the big state jamboree doesnt need to end with Covid, but can continue seemingly indefinitely.

Is he so sure that its a bet he can win? The scale of the political risk that Johnson is taking is significant. In a pre-Covid world, his flirtation with centre-Left nostrums may have just about passed as a ruthless election strategy. His attachment to them as our indebted economy struggles to reawaken from its lockdown coma tips into delusional dogmatism. For one thing, it assumes that fiscal prudence is unpopular. Yet for a not inconsiderable proportion of voters including wealthy suburban Remainers and Brexit-supporting Thatcherites the Tory reputation for being sound guardians of the public finances is one of the last remaining reasons why they might still support the party.

It is not even clear that continuing the splurge, or a shift further Left on economics, will be popular among the Conservatives new voters. The idea that interventionism is always populist is risible. Keynesian bank bailouts during the financial crisis didnt exactly go down well with the public. Spending big on green and infrastructure projects today may well create short-term jobs and perhaps even drive longer-term renewal in a couple of lucky left-behind towns. But for the larger number of Red Wall voters who will not directly benefit, the combination of green profligacy on a government level and eco-austerity for consumers is already proving noxious.

Nor should the Prime Minister be so no naive as to think that he can get frugal, cynical Workington Man excited about the transport vanity projects coming their way. In working class towns that have seen their share of failed investment projects, an attitude often mistaken for Leftishness prevails that if cash one doesnt have is to be sprayed around, it should at least go on worthy causes like youth clubs and food banks.

Then there are the economic risks. History not least the doomed socialist experiments of the 1970s cautions against the idea that governments can spend their way out of trouble. The Covid crisis, however historically unprecedented, is surely no different.

In any case, to believe that there is a state-driven answer to a state-driven crisis is borderline insanity. To believe that there can be a tidy economic solution to a downturn of complicated non-economic origins is full-blown derangement. There is a view among Keynesians that you can restore an economy to full health by creating a positive aura around it, encouraging consumers to spend and businesses to expand. That is woefully inadequate in the context of a pandemic. It is fear of the virus and future variants which is keeping punters away from restaurants. It is a fantastic leap to think the government can artificially generate enough buzz to overpower middle-class revulsion towards returning to the office. Or that stimulating activity in trendy sectors can offset the pingdemic and Long Covid fears restraining animal spirits.

And this is all assuming the UK avoids Sunaks nightmare scenario of interest rates rising precipitously, pushing the country into a torturous cycle of austerity as the public debt pile becomes unsustainable. Or that the economy can avoid the multiple perils of net zero. Take the possibility of dangerous green bubbles inflated by massive eco-fiscal stimulus. Or the breath-taking risk the West is taking by pursuing decarbonisation in an international downturn unable to rely, as originally envisaged, on buoyant global growth driven ironically by Asian use of coal.

No doubt Boris Johnson knows all this, but he has wagered that any final unravelling may be a good few years away. That when the economy he has only pretended to free from the Covid doldrums finally collapses, and his disgraced party is cast into the wilderness, he will be long gone. Perhaps, having played the role of liberating Churchillian hero for a while, he intends to retire to write his Covid war memoirs. The Prime Minister shouldnt be so sure, however, that the final reckoning wont come sooner rather than later.

See the rest here:

Boris Johnson's big spending gamble could cast the Tories into political oblivion - Telegraph.co.uk

On July 21, the Idaho Governors office announced in a press release that the state had a record breaking budget surplus of almost $900 million for the fiscal year of 2020. For the first time in Idahos history, state revenue collections exceeded $5 billion, according to the release.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little claimed he and the Idaho legislature made strategic investments in Idahos transportation, education and other areas included in his Building Idahos Future plan, and will continue to do so moving forward with this new budget surplus.

Alex Adams, administrator in the Department of Financial Management, said the larger-than-normal surplus is due to the amount of federal funding that flooded the local economy.

So, if you or any of your fellow students got the stimulus checks, for example, the $1,400 stimulus checks that were mailed out earlier this year, my guess is many students went out and bought things with those, Adams said. Some might have bought books and others might have bought bicycles, and some might have used it for groceries or other things.

Over the past couple years Little grew K-12 education spending 29% in 2019 and 12% in 2020, Adams said. That may sound fantastic, but when you look at how much Idaho was spending per pupil in 2018 compared to other states, we ranked No. 51 in the nation.

According to Idaho Education News, Idaho spent $6,747 per pupil during the 2018-19 school year. This was only an $8 increase per pupil from the year before. The National Education Associations 2021 Ranking of the States report stated the national average for spending per student was $13,597 in 2020, while it was $12,693 in 2018.

With spending this low, Idahos education is suffering even with the increased spending Little has done in the past couple years, and the states ranking as lowest hasnt budged one bit.

These budget issues paired with the recent attacks on education from high-ranking politicians and powerful political groups seriously puts Idahos education at risk.

Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin and the education indoctrination task force she assembled in April are striking fear and spreading misinformation among Idahos parents, teachers and students. The task force is co-chaired by Rep. Priscilla Giddings, who is currently facing an ethics hearing after posting the name and face of an alleged rape victim on her social media.

McGeachin and Giddings are running for governor and lieutenant governor, respectively, in the 2022 elections.

The task forces meetings have focused on examining Critical Race Theory, Socialism, Communism and Marxism in Idahos public schools.

Those words are enough to put a little fear into almost every American because of the terrible connotations they have in our country, but apparently the public schools in Idaho are throwing them around and brainwashing children with them.

Boise schools and their equity-focused programs became the target of Giddings $100,000 records request, the only one she made in her search for indoctrination throughout Idaho according to Idaho Education News, in preparation for the June 24 meeting that focused on indoctrination in K-12 schools.

On July 29 the task force turned their blades toward higher education and, in the footsteps of the State Board of Education and Idaho School Boards Association, universities in Idaho refused to send a representative. Whether showing the task forces lack of legitimacy was these institutions intention or not, I cant help but think they were right for not putting in the effort.

Out of the three meetings held by the task force so far, none of them have accepted comments from the public. The August meeting will be where the public can voice their thoughts, according to McGeachin.

Meanwhile, Idahos K-12 federal relief plan, which included hundreds of millions to be spent on education, has been denied by the U.S. Department of Education and sent back to the state for revision. After the state failed to explain how they would meet the federal plan requirements, Idahos schools are forced to wait for the funds they need.

The Idaho Freedom Foundation, which has members on the indoctrination task force, seems to think Idahos spot as last in spending per student is undeserved, arguing there is plenty of money to educate Idahos students.

They argue because well under half the money Idaho spends per student is going toward educators, which says something in its own right, there is enough money.

The rest of the money is spent on other staff, which includes everything from counselors to administrators, physical therapists to IT professionals, the IFF article states. Additional funds are spent on buildings, supplies, transportation and foodservice.

Idaho is struggling to fund all of those areas, and all of those things are what students need to attend school. Positions and classes dealing with anything outside of what is needed to pass standard testing, such as art and home economics classes, are eradicated in order to reallocate that money to areas where it is needed more, like transportation, supplies, buildings and foodservice.

To many of the students attending Idahos public schools, myself included, this mess of politics and lack of funding looks like a failure. Education funding needs more attention, reform and, most importantly, more funds. Idaho is failing their students while bragging about budget surpluses in the meantime.

Read the original post:

OPINION: Idaho is bragging about the wrong things - Argonaut

Craven County residents rely on the areas 145 bridges every day, yet 25 of them need corrective action.

Car and truck traffic is expected to double on New Berns bridges in the next 20 years. Corrective repairs to the two largest and most traveled bridges-- the Neuse and Trent River bridges -- will be imperative.

Throughout this article, we take a deeper dive into our bridge inspection database found here:Craven County, North Carolina Bridge Inspections | newbernsj.com

Repairs are rated two ways… critical finds and priority maintenance, said Rhett Gerrald, bridge maintenance engineer for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Critical finds are urgent time-sensitive repairs needed, and priority maintenance is suggested to extend the lifespan of the structure.

There are 25 bridges that require priority maintenance, but noneare critical -- yet.

While inspection terms like need corrective action and structurally deficient" are alarming, they are not as concerningas residentsmight think, according to the NCDOT.

A bridge can live in the structurally deficient phase for a long time before its actually unsafe, said David Snoke, a project engineer in the NCDOT's structures management unit.

When a critical find is made, the NCDOT aims to have a plan in place within 10 days and make the repairs within 45 days, Snoke said.

For priority maintenance items, the goal is to have the repairs made before the next inspection cycle.

More: Do the Neuse River Bridge Run on your own terms, at your own pace this year

More: PHOTOS: Neuse River Bridge Run 2019

It is sometimes dependent on access to the bridge and material or labor being available, Snoke said. With priority maintenance repairs, that is also very dependent on priorities within the division.

On July 1, the NCDOT entered into its 2022 fiscal year and has a bridge preservation budget of just over $1.2 million. This number does not include preservation work that is contracted out.

Craven Countys Maple Cypress Bridge is one of the bridges that was deemed structurally deficient and has already begun to be replaced under budget savings, according to Gerrald. Construction got underway in early June and will not be completed for a couple of years.

Repairs to the existing structure will keep the maximum weight limits from dropping, he said.

Four of Craven Countys most traveled bridges were deemed structurally unfit. Though the bridges listed were not claimed to be critical finds requiring immediate repair.

"A bridge can live in the structurally deficient state for a long time before it is actually unsafe," Snoke said. "There is several tiers within the category structurally deficient."

The repairs needed were/are of priority maintenance.Priority maintenance is any repaire that requires more attention than just routine maintenance. It often occurs when structures are starting to decay, loosen or crack.

The repairs on Neuse River Bridge, constructed in1999, were inspected in September 2019. Inspections are done every two years.

By 2040, experts predicttraffic to double at 18,000 travelers across the bridge, compared to the current9,000 travelers that cross Neuse Riverdaily.

With traffic projected to increase, repairs such as deck geometry were stated "intolerable requiring high priority of replacement," according to the NCDOT data.

What is deck geometry?

"When a bridge is functionally obsolete, that means the design of the bridge does not meet current standards or does not meet the current traffic demand, Gerrald said.

For instance, he said if there is heavy traffic across a bridge, additional lanes may be a necessityfor travelers convenience.

Other minor repairs included bank protection, which claimed to have minor amounts of drift and a slight chance of flooding.

All the needed repairs over New Berns Neuse River Bridge have been fixed, according to Gerrald.

In December 2020, repairs were made to the Freedom Memorial Bridge, originally built in 1976 and reconstructed in 1998. The repair team mended a few of the bridge's joints and further repairs are scheduled for the end of this summer.

The cost to repair just the joints is around $30,000.

By 2040, the bridge is expected to have average daily traffic of 53,000, a considerable jump from its current 26,500.

When the Freedom Memorial Bridge was last inspected in September 2019, the bank protection needed minor repairs and the channel was susceptible to minor amounts of drift.

Then, work was proposed due to general structure deterioration. The maintenance responsibility for the bridge falls on the State Highway Agency.

Wilson Creek bridge in Trent Woods

Wilson Creek bridge was originally built in 1984 and was never reconstructed.

The repairs were similar to the other four focused bridges, but the condition is fair.Fair condition could mean minor section loss, cracking of the concrete surfaceor a hard cleaning to brighten the appearance of the bridge.

Other repairs on the bridge included deck geometry, bank protection to prevent erosionand the prevention ofany chances of flooding.

Traffic is lower but the bridge is important for Trent Woods residents. The Wilson Creek bridgeis still projected to double from 2,600 reported in 2017to 5,200 by 2040.

Gerrald said all repairs that were deemed needing repairs for Wilson Creek have been completed.

The Slocum Road bridge in Havelock was built in 1984 and its maintenance responsibility falls on the Navy/Marines.

After its last inspection in October 2018, the total cost of repairs needed is $75,000. Fixing the asphalt alone is a $40,000 job.

The deck geometry was considered intolerable and corrective action was marked high priority. The overall condition of the bridge was considered fair, with minor section loss and cracking.

The bridge's average daily traffic is 2,500 and is expected to be 3,000 by 2032.

How do experts inspect bridges and what do they do to fix them?

As of March 2021, 8.2%of bridges in North Carolina were considered in poor condition, meaning they are safe, but have deteriorating components. The cost to repair all of them is over $3.8 billion.

The Federal Highway Administrations bridge inspection process and standards are a result of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968.

The NCDOT inspects bridges every 2 years, or more if a certain bridge poses a potential threat. Underwater inspections occur every5 years.

A bridge gets a sufficiency rating, which is calculated from data by the National Bridge Inspection program, on structural condition, functional obsolescence, and how essential it is to public use

"So, if that sufficiency rating meets a certain score or drops down to a certain score, it gets labeled as structurally deficient," according to Gerrald.

We typically look at every part of the bridge when we do an inspection. That typically means putting our hands on the bridge, though that is not 100 percent of the time, Snoke said.

If a hands-off inspection is done and something is noticed, the team gets special access to do a hands-on inspection for that portion of the bridge with the issue.

A bridge is scored on the condition of three things: its deck, superstructure, and substructure.

The most common types of issues on the deck are potholes and joint damage. For superstructures, damage usually occurs where the steel or concrete touches water. The ends of steel stands will sometimes corrode or concrete ones will have some chunks fall off due to passing debris, Snoke said.

When we do our bridge inspections, maintenance items are flagged by a bridge inspector and an engineer will categorize those maintenance items into three categories: routine, priority and critical, Snoke said. Those are the indicators for how quickly those items get done.

The information then goes to the local bridge maintenance engineer who prioritizes the work.

Creeks, rivers, and inlets snake through much of eastern North Carolina, making bridges a necessity in the region. Carteret and New Hanover County both had a slightly higher percentage of bridges that need to be repaired, 21.82 and 20.18 percentrespectively. Onslow and Pitt had roughly 7 percent fewer bridges that need repairs, at 10.98 percent and 10.71 percent.

In NCDOT's division 2, which Craven falls under, three bridges are closed for repairs. Two are in Pitt County and one is in Beaufort.

Originally posted here:

New Bern's busiest bridges need 'corrective action' and millions to fix - New Bern Sun Journal

New U.S. citizens recite the Pledge of Allegiance during a naturalization ceremony on World Refugee Day, held in recognition of those who have come to the U.S. with refugee or asylum seeker status. The event took place at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 20, 2016. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

This summer marked the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 20th anniversary of World Refugee Day. Both came at a moment of unprecedented crisis. The UN Refugee Agency reports that as of the end of 2020, some 82.4 million peopleabout 1 in 95 people in the worldhave been forcibly displaced due to persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing public order. For decades after the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, the United States was a haven for those fleeing persecution and violence. Until 2018, it welcomed more refugees than any other country. Religious groups are and have been central in this process. Today, as Religion News Service reports, six of the nine agencies contracted by the U.S. government to resettle refugees are faith-based. These organizations and their supporters have a substantial interest in the direction of U.S. refugee policy and considerable political and moral power they can wield with lawmakers. Yet their religious affinities, coupled with the political orientation of their memberships, sometimes dictate which refugees they view as most worthy of their advocacy. This dynamic is not new, as history shows, but it can lead to preferential treatment for some groups over others, undermining the U.S. image as a beacon of hope for the worlds persecuted peoples.

On May 3, 2021, President Joe Biden announced that he had raised the national cap on the number of refugees that would be allowed into the United States. For this fiscal year, the limit is 62,500 admissions, up significantly from the historic low of 15,000 that the Trump administration set in late 2020. Religious groups had emerged as strong opponents of the Trump-era reduction in refugee admissions, including some connected with the politically conservative and predominantly white evangelical churches that had otherwise aligned themselves strongly with the then-president. Refugee policy represented a rare breach in their support for Trump. Biden stated that his new cap would reinforce efforts that are already underway to expand the United States capacity to admit refugees, and his ultimate goal would be 125,000 refugee admissions for the next fiscal year. Despite his assertion that U.S. refugee admissions reflected Americas commitment to protect the most vulnerable, and to stand as a beacon of liberty and refuge to the world, Bidens announcement came only after significant pressure from refugee advocacy groups, religious organizations, and Democratic leaders in Congress. An earlier Biden White House memorandum had left refugee admissions capped at 15,000, the same low level left by the Trump administration.

As individuals who are fleeing persecution in their home nations because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, refugees constitute a distinct group in U.S. and international law. They are different from migrants, who have chosen to move from their home countries but could return safely if they so chose, as well as from people seeking asylum, who have fled persecution but have not yet been formally recognized as refugees. Acrimonious debate about immigration policy in the United States tends to blur the distinctions among these groups in the popular imagination, however.

Political considerations also affect how the United States assigns those legal categories to people from different countries who are seeking asylum or entry into the country. In 2018, Trump administration officials moved to implement stricter standards for asylum seekers that would block claims from individuals fleeing domestic violence or persecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity in their countries. The policy reflected conservative rhetoric about illegal immigration as well as the conservative political aim of greatly reducing the number of Central Americans entering the United States. Liberal activists and immigrant rights organizations viewed the policy to deny gender-based violence claims as an attack on women and LGBTQ rights. Liberal groups also mobilized in response to Trumps ban on refugees from several Muslim-majority countries, decrying the policy as Islamophobic as well as counterproductive to the administrations purported national security aims. Even though advocacy on behalf of refugees exists across the political spectrum, the way that activist organizations and lawmakers discuss refugees reveals that broader debates about immigration cannot be easily separated from the countrys contentious political and cultural divides.

Religious organizations, many of which have positioned themselves as stalwart champions of refugees because of their faiths doctrines as well as their commitment to supporting persecuted co-religionists, are not immune from these political dynamics. Add to this mix the desire to protect core constitutional values such as religious freedom and to promote those values internationally through U.S. foreign relations, and refugee policy takes on extra ideological weight. Spiritual and national values notwithstanding, the nature of faith-based advocacy for refugees reflects the current political conflicts and ongoing culture wars in the United Statesand this is not a new phenomenon. In the 1970s and 1980s, politically liberal and conservative religious organizations alike dedicated particular attention to the cause of protecting and welcoming refugees, yet the individuals or groups that these organizations defined as refugees often differed based on their political commitments.

Although U.S. faith groups of all stripes have involved themselves in organized global humanitarian work since the nineteenth century, the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War brought renewed focus to refugees, religious persecution, and related human rights issues. In July 1951, the United Nations adopted its Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which offered a specific and inclusive definition of refugee based on the idea codified in the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights that all people have the right to seek asylum from persecution. The Cold War with the Soviet Union initially diverted U.S. attention from international human rights. By the 1970s, though, a confluence of factors including ideology (in particular the idea that the United States was at war with godless communism), ongoing religious persecution in the Soviet bloc, and the emergence of the international human rights movement empowered congressional action and religious activism on human rights. Alongside these developments, the proxy and covert wars of the Cold War contributed to an increased flow of refugees worldwide throughout the second half of the twentieth century. Refugees seeking to flee faith-based persecution in their home countries prompted special concern in the United States.

Jewish organizations and human rights advocates in the United States worked tirelessly to raise awareness about the plight of the Soviet Jewry, who faced legal discrimination, deeply rooted anti-Semitism, and restrictions that limited their ability to leave their country. In the 1970s, U.S. Jewish activists put pressure on the Nixon administration to address this religious persecution as part of its diplomacy with the Soviet Union. President Richard Nixon and his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger preferred backchannel discussions for such issues and generally disdained overt congressional human rights advocacy, but nonetheless did begin to address Jewish emigration restrictions with Soviet leaders. In addition, in November 1971, The Washington Post reported that the Nixon administration would admit without limit Soviet Jews seeking refuge from persecution in the Soviet Union. When the Kremlin imposed a new and onerous system of exit fees and diploma taxes aimed at further limiting the rights of Jews to leave the Soviet Union in 1972, Jewish organizations and members of Congress mobilized.

Senator Henry Scoop Jackson of Washington and Representative Charles Vanik of Ohio introduced an amendment to an international trade act that would make trading privileges with non-market countries contingent on those countries upholding the right of citizens to emigrate. The Jackson-Vanik Amendment passed Congress and became part of the Trade Act of 1974. When it did, it became a crucial tool in the arsenal that human rights advocates and sympathetic policy makers could use to influence U.S. foreign relations. In conjunction with congressional and interest group activism, the amendment ensured that restrictions on the freedom of religious minorities in the Soviet Union to emigrate or practice their faiths would remain a sticking point in U.S.-Soviet relations into the 1980s. Despite some improvements for religious minorities under Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the U.S. government continued to grant refugee status to almost all Soviet Jewish emigres. That said, the number of exit visas that the Soviet Union issued to Jews remained fairly low for much of the decade.

In 1989, the Soviet Union fully loosened emigration restrictions, in part because Soviet leaders hoped that the removal of Jackson-Vanik-imposed trade limitations would improve their countrys poor economic situation. This turnabout led to such an enormous increase in Soviet religious minorities seeking admission to the United States as refugees that the George H.W. Bush administration moved to impose new admission limits. Jewish organizations, along with evangelical Christian groups concerned about persecuted Soviet Baptists and Pentecostals, mounted a speedy response. A New York Times article on the new admissions cap noted that the debate over Soviet emigration demonstrates how United States refugee policy can be affected by domestic political pressures. Dozens of groups have prodded the Administration to keep the doors open to refugees from the Soviet Union and Indochina; there is much less debate in Congress about the plight of Africas four million refugees. Religious organizations in particular exercised tremendous political power through their activism on behalf of persecuted co-religionists.

Religious persecution and refugees also became a contentious factor in U.S. relations with Central America during the Reagan administration. A long history of U.S. interventionism and economic coercion throughout Latin America had contributed to political instability, poverty, and violence in many countries. During the Cold War, U.S. policymakers viewed the emergence of any left-leaning political parties in the region as evidence of attempted Soviet subversion. They responded by authorizing covert operations to remove from power leaders they perceived as unfavorable and replace them with friendly authoritarian leaders instead, such as in the 1954 CIA coup that ousted the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo rbenz, and installed the right wing dictator, Carlos Castillo Armas, in his place. Many of the right-wing military dictatorships that the United States supported committed gross human rights violations against their citizens in order to suppress political dissent. In addition to creating new flows of refugees, these abuses provoked the ire of human rights activists and members of Congress, who managed to impose at least some legislative restraints on the extension of U.S. aid to repressive authoritarian regimes in the 1970s and 1980s. When Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency in 1981, he resisted these efforts, seeking instead to revivify the Cold War and crush what he perceived as a rising communist threat in Central America.

Politically conservative white evangelical Christians became key allies in Reagans fight. In the Nicaraguan Contra War, where the Reagan administration backed the counterrevolutionary Contras in their fight to oust the Sandinista government, these evangelicals mobilized through Christian radio, television and other media to share White House messaging that claimed the Sandinistas threatened religious liberty in Nicaragua. Despite widely reported evidence (including from progressive evangelicals) that Contra forces were torturing, maiming, raping, and killing civilians, Reagan and his evangelical supporters contended that the Sandinistas were placing restrictions on churches and harassing and attacking religious believers. In addition, they lambasted the Sandinistas for forcibly relocating a large group of Miskito Indians, most of whom identified as Moravian Christians. With this messaging in hand, conservative evangelicals lobbied members of Congress to provide aid to the Contras. They also sought to evangelize Nicaraguan refugees who had fled to Honduras to escape the war and supported efforts to raise money for their support. At a fundraising dinner for the conservative Nicaraguan Refugee Fund, Reagan lamented the refugee situation and expressed great concern for the Nicaraguans who were fleeing what he described as a Sandinista police state.

This concern came in marked contrast to the stance the Reagan administration and its white evangelical allies took on refugees fleeing from brutal human rights abuses in El Salvador and Guatemala. Reagan contended that unlike in Nicaragua, with its totalitarian government, people living under military dictatorships in El Salvador and Guatemala were not being persecuted and should not be classified as refugees. Human rights organizations and many Catholic, mainline Protestant, and Jewish organizations disagreed, however. Despite the threat of fines and legal action, hundreds of U.S. churches and synagogues provided sanctuary to undocumented Central Americans who had escaped from the devastating political violence in the region. They also aided in resettlement efforts for those still living in refugee camps outside of their home countries. The religious organizations that led the Sanctuary Movement brought considerable attention to the plight of refugees and to the effects of the Reagan administrations foreign policies in Central America.

Clearly, many religious groups in the United States have long demonstrated their commitment to welcoming refugees, particularly those that share their faith. In recent years, they have mounted a strong defense against the efforts of the U.S. government to curtail refugee admissions. This is admirable and important work. Yet the same tendency to focus on co-religionists that has made these groups so effective as advocates means that not all are devoting their concern equally to refugees from outside of their faith tradition. While religious organizations of all varieties rallied against former president Trumps Muslim ban, many (though not all) white evangelicals espoused support for it, and some of those who opposed it did so on the grounds that it might limit their evangelistic reach. Similarly, in the 1970s and 1980s, advocacy for (or against) particular refugee groups tended to follow sectarian and political allegiances. Given the scale of the current refugee crisis, the severity of religious persecution worldwide, and our stated national commitment to promoting human rights and religious liberty, the United States must commit its efforts to fostering a truly inclusive policy for welcoming refugeeswhatever their religious (or non-religious) background.

Lauren Turek is associate professor of history at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. She is the author of To Bring the Good News to All Nations: Evangelical Influence on Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Relations. Follow her @laurenfturek on Twitter.

See the article here:

The Religious Activism Behind US Refugee Policy - Religion & Politics

India will celebrate 100 years of Independence in 2047. We have magnificently created the worlds largest democracy on the infertile soil of the worlds most hierarchical society. But can the next 25 years combine this vibrant democracy with mass prosperity? We make the case that this prosperity is possible and best accomplished by the goal of making the rupee a global reserve currency by India@100.

Picking goals for countries is complex. Overcoming the five giants of want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness needs education, health, infrastructure, low inflation, financial inclusion, high GDP per capita, etc, while navigating wicked trade-offs between current and future generations. In Obliquity, economist John Kay suggests that the best strategy for complex systems that change with engagement is accomplishing goals indirectly. Becoming a global reserve currency is a wholesome goal because it indirectly aligns fiscal, monetary, and economic policy. And its a legitimate goal because democracies like ours recognise success to be the outcome of fair voting; reserve currency status involves voting by impartial wallets.

Official foreign exchange reserves of about $12 trillion across 150 countries are currently stored in eight currencies: 55 per cent in US dollars, 30 per cent in euros, and 15 per cent in six other currencies. This concentration is inevitable given exploding trade, rising capital flows, and the less acknowledged motivation of protecting your reserves from your currencys volatility. A reserve currency has to serve as a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account. The main property of a reserve currency country is trust and the main upside is the exorbitant privilege of lower real interest rates.

Getting countries to store their reserves in the rupee needs luck and skill. Our luck arises from a multipolar world (America now accounts for less than 25 per cent of global GDP), the need for diversification (central bank reserves in dollars have fallen to 55 per cent from 71 per cent in 1999), new US thinking about indebtedness (in the last 13 years, their debt increased by $20 trillion equivalent to 90 per cent of GDP), central bank credibility (lower-for-longer creates a quantitative easing addiction), demographics (25 per cent of the worlds new workers in the next 10 years will be Indian), the UKs secular decline, a global shift of economic gravity to Asia, and the challenges of trusting China. Our economic skills have a strong opening balance: India has never defaulted and the 1991 reforms have been accelerated by big reforms like GST, IBC, inflation targeting, education, labour, and agriculture.

The base camp for this ambition is full capital account convertibility, as suggested by the Tarapore Committee in 1997. The rupee is substantially convertible for foreigners. A 2030 deadline for finishing the agenda could be a nice interim milestone. Dollar investors in the last decade not experiencing the usual big bite out of rupee returns is useful for advocating trading partners to start rupee invoicing, raising corporate rupee borrowing offshore and onshore, accelerating our CBDC (central bank digital bank currency) plans, and taking our UPI payment technology to the world (the dollar gets heft from global networks like Visa, MasterCard and Swift)

The policy agenda is clear. Fiscal policy must raise our tax to GDP ratio, raise the share of direct taxes in total taxes, and keep our public debt to GDP ratio under 100 per cent. Monetary policy must control inflation while moderating central bank balance sheet size. Economic policy must raise the productivity of our regions, sectors, firms, and individuals to reach goals in formalisation (400 million workplace social security payers), urbanisation (250 cities with more than a million people), financialisation (100 per cent credit to GDP ratio), industrialisation (less than 15 per cent farm employment), internationalisation (higher share of global trade) and skilling. These goals must be complemented by reinforcing institutions that signal rule of law; cooperative federalism, press freedom, civil service effectiveness, and judicial independence.

Being a reserve currency, like life, is a beauty contest to win you dont have to be perfect, just better than your competitors. Our competitor is China. The 2 per cent renminbi share in global reserves despite a 25 per cent increase last year doesnt reflect their status as the worlds second-largest economy and biggest trading nation. While India has no interest in becoming China, its useful to understand competitors and reflect on the three reasons why the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) last month got so much more global attention than the 100th anniversary of the Indian National Congress (INC) in 1985. First is the CCPs skill and need for propaganda. Second is the INC in 1985 it wasnt the original party, it was no longer a meritocracy, and its global soft power was damaged by the Emergency. But the most important reason is Chinas wealth and power per capita GDP rising 80 times in the last 40 years has lifted 800 million Chinese out of poverty.

But this astounding success seems to be making China overconfident. Recent policy border disputes with neighbours, asphyxiating Hong Kong, withdrawing the Ant IPO, and savaging the Didi IPO calls into question the long rope China has received since Henry Kissinger flew secretly to Beijing from Pakistan in 1971. US investors who have bought shares in the roughly 250 Chinese companies listed on US exchanges with a $2 trillion peak market capitalisation dont actually own equity. They own pieces of a Cayman variable interest entity, which has a contract with the parent company. Under Chinese law, foreigners cant own Chinese shares directly. Like most things in opaque China, its one of those things that works great until it doesnt.

Chinese overconfidence creates an opportunity for India. Prosperity for all Indians by India@100 a precondition for a country where the mind is without fear and the head is held high needs bold reforms in the next 25 years. These reforms are best measured by the wholesome and achievable goal of the rupee becoming a global reserve currency by 2047. The journey is the reward.

This column first appeared in the print edition on August 4, 2021 under the title A rupee wish for India@100. Sabharwal is co-founder, Teamlease Services and Vishwanathan is a former Central Banker.

See the rest here:

A goal for India@100: Reserve the rupee - The Indian Express

I generally am an optimist. Except when I'm not. Swinging between pessimism and the sunny side of the street doesn't make me a realist, either.

I suspect I'm not alone in lurching from one frame of mind to another these days. Such are the range of inputs we receive.

Take infrastructure, for example.

Should one be optimistic after a bipartisan group of United States senators five Democrats, five Republicans and another 10 or so similarly delineated colleagues agreed on the rough parameters of spending some $1.2 trillion on infrastructure? And after the White House signaled its apparent agreement? And after two-thirds of all senators twice voted to continue with the process?

Or should one be pessimistic after some of the more liberal Democrats in the House voiced their frustration that favored projects and initiatives particularly those regarding climate change were not in the bill? And that they might be ready to play the disruptive role for their party that the Freedom Caucus did for Republicans not so long ago? And that there is no shortage of House Republicans eager to foil any initiative favored by President Joe Biden? And that they and their GOP senatorial colleagues are being egged on in obstinacy by former President Donald Trump? And that some Republicans are mouthing concerns about fiscal restraint after four years of obliviousness?

Or should one be more of a realist, calm down, take note of the midterm elections looming next year, and realize that infrastructure projects are typically embraced by constituents? And that being able to take credit for delivering money and jobs is an easy sales pitch? And that Senate Minority Leader and chief obstructionist Mitch McConnell seems to have made the calculation that a solid infrastructure package could help him regain control of the Senate next year?

I dearly want to believe in this blush of bipartisanship. I want to believe that this could work like muscle memory, that having succeeded once will make it easier to repeat the action, that working together to bring home an infrastructure package could lead to some kind of comprehensive immigration reform and some common sense gun control legislation supported by the vast majority of Americans. I want to believe this could be the start of something and not merely a unicorn moment.

Go inside New York politics.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

But then I think about how one party is attempting to undermine a different kind of infrastructure the one girding our free and fair elections and how many of its members are still in thrall to a warped and fictional view of the last election and the events of Jan. 6, and about how so many people are still refusing to do the right thing in the fight against COVID-19, and I'm back to thinking that it will be a miracle of mutual benefit if this infrastructure bill makes it to the finish line.

A wise co-worker once remarked that one never knows what another person really thinks or believes, only what they say they think or believe, a maxim exceedingly apt for Washington. So we read the tea leaves and wonder, and hope.

At times like these, my grandfather used to look for a patch of brightness in a stormy sky, and he always seemed to find one. I see it, too.

Or do I?

Columnist Michael Dobie's opinions are his own.

Read the original here:

Dobie: Reading the tea leaves of infrastructure - Newsday

Regular readers know I recently enjoyed a family road trip to New Mexico, and what did we do there to celebrate our newfound freedom and respite from a long season of pandemic sheltering? Why, we went to the Museum of International Folk Art in Santa Fe to see the current exhibition on pandemic masks.

#mask: Creative Responses to the Global Pandemic is a remarkable demonstration of how the states artists, many of them Indigenous New Mexicans, have used art to explore history, public health equity, and politics, and to encourage individual mask use as a demonstration of humanitys hope and care for one another.

The exhibition reminds us that the first pandemic masks emerged in the mid-14th century with face coverings featuring elaborate, birdlike beaks that could be filled with herbs and greens thought to keep out the bubonic plague ravaging Europe. There are some great inspirations on exhibit for Da de los Muertos and Halloween if you happen to visit. The exhibit will be open until early 2023.

We were maskless the day my family, all of us fully vaccinated, toured the museum and its far-ranging collection of folk art. Alas, we are maskless no more. The latest guidelines published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for vaccinated people to wear masks in indoor public places where the coronavirus, especially the highly contagious delta variant, is spreading at substantial or high levels. Local officials agree we are again in a state of emergency.

So long as unvaccinated people behave as if they are somehow safe from infection or spreading it, we should err on the side of caution. That means taking an unwanted step back and agreeing to mask up once again. This pandemic, public health officials have been telling us all along, is not over.

I unmask if I am in a reasonably uncrowded indoor space, like the San Antonio Report offices, with people who are vaccinated, but otherwise I am masking up. Of course, even that might have to change if the variant continues to spread unchecked.

You should mask up in public indoor spaces or crowded outdoor spaces, too. Not because I am telling you to do so, or lecturing here. You should do it for yourself, your spouse, your children, your elders, your co-workers. If ever we needed a Love Thy Neighbor moment, it is now.

If enough of the unvaccinated population can be reasoned with and persuaded to reassess their vaccine hesitancy, their fears of unintended side effects, or their misguided political convictions, we can deal more quickly with this spike than past ones. If we fail to convince the minority to join the majority of protected San Antonians and Texans, we are in for troubled times that inevitably will interfere with social and economic recovery.

Gov. Greg Abbott, why not underscore the import of mask use and restore an emergency order requiring public indoor mask use? Personal responsibility is a noble thought, but 40% of the adult population is not listening.

The moment is key. Starting this month, hundreds of thousands of Bexar County students will return to school, and with the tens of thousands of adult educators. Many of those students are under 12 and not yet eligible for the vaccine. They are vulnerable, and they also are capable of spreading the virus. Yet Abbott has prohibited Texas schools from requiring masks. I dont get it.

Bexar County hospitals and intensive care units have filled up, yet again, with COVID-19 victims who are unvaccinated and now intensifying a public health crisis. Public health workers yet again are being asked to save the lives of people who acted selfishly and ignored the pandemic as not their problem.

Fiscal conservatives should note that the cost to taxpayers of the average hospitalized COVID-19 patient who is uninsured is $34,000 to $45,000, with out-of-network charges reaching as high as $73,000. That says nothing about the multitrillion-dollar government spending necessitated by the pandemic and economic shutdown.

Mask use, by comparison, seems like an affordable path back to pandemic recovery.

Here is the original post:

Love thy neighbor and mask up - San Antonio Report

The idea that sex trafficking is an urgent social problem is woven into American media stories, from reports of Republican U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetzs alleged trafficking of teenage girls to debunked QAnon conspiracy theories about a sexual slavery ring run through online retailer Wayfair.

The common perception of sex trafficking involves a young, passive woman captured by an aggressive trafficker. The woman is hidden and waiting to be rescued by law enforcement. She is probably white, because, as the legal scholar Jayashri Srikantiah writes, the iconic victim of trafficking usually is depicted this way.

This is essentially the plot of the Taken movies, in which teenage Americans are kidnapped abroad and sold into sexual slavery. Such concerns fuel viral posts and TikTok videos about alleged but unproven trafficking in IKEA parking lots, malls and pizza shops.

This is not how sex trafficking usually occurs.

Since 2013, I have researched human trafficking in the Midwest. In interviews with law enforcement, medical providers, case managers, victim advocates and immigration lawyers, I found that even these frontline workers inconsistently define and apply the label trafficking victim especially when it comes to sex trafficking. That makes it harder for these professionals to get trafficked people the help they request.

So here are the facts and the law.

The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 provides the official legal definition for sex and labor trafficking in the United States.

It makes trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age a federal crime.

In short, to legally qualify as sex trafficking, a sex act involving an adult must include force, fraud, and coercion. This could look like someone a family member, a romantic partner or a market facilitator colloquially described as a pimp or madam physically abusing or threatening another adult into sex for money or resources.

With minors, any and all sexual exchanges that is, trading sex for something of value like cash or food are considered sex trafficking.

Data on human trafficking is notoriously messy and difficult to measure. Survivors may be hesitant to disclose their exploitation out of fear of deportation, if they are undocumented, or arrest. That leads to underreporting.

One way to approximate how many people are being trafficked in the United States is to consult federal grant reports, as suggested by anti-trafficking nonprofit Freedom Network USA.

For example, the federal Office for Victims of Crime served 9,854 total clients some of whom identified as trafficked, others who showed strong indicators of trafficking victimization between July 2019 and June 2020. The Department of Health and Human Services Office on Trafficking in Persons served 2,398 trafficking survivors during the 2019 fiscal year.

Data from the same office also shows that 25,597 potential victims of sex and labor trafficking were identified through calls to the National Human Trafficking Hotline.

Again, this data is incomplete if survivors have not accessed these particular resources or called these specific hotlines, they are not represented here.

As with other sexual crimes, like rape, sex trafficking survivors often experience violence at the hands of someone they know, not a complete stranger.

A study from Covenant House New York, a nonprofit focused on homeless youth, found that 36% of the 22 trafficking survivors in their survey were trafficked by an immediate family member, like a parent. Only four reported being kidnapped and held against his or her will.

Often, trafficking victims are younger transgender people or teens experiencing homelessness who exchange sex with others to meet their basic needs: shelter, economic stability, food and health care. Trafficking frequently looks like vulnerable people struggling to survive in a violent, exploitative world.

They are creating sexual solutions to nonsexual problems, says San Francisco-based researcher Alexandra Lutnick.

Under U.S. law, these youths are trafficking victims, because of their age. But they may reject the label, preferring terms like survival sex work or prostitution to describe their experiences.

Trafficking victims engaged in survival sex may well be arrested rather than offered help like housing or health care. If they cannot prove force, fraud, or coercion, or if they refuse to comply in a criminal investigation, they risk shifting from victim to criminal in the eyes of law enforcement. That can mean prostitution charges, felony offenses or deportation.

Such punishments are most commonly used against Black, Indigenous, queer, trans and undocumented sex-trafficking survivors. Black youths are disproportionately arrested for prostitution offenses, for example, even though legally any underage commercial sex is sex trafficking.

Legally and in other meaningful ways, sex work and sex trafficking are different.

Sex work is consenting adults engaging in transactional sex. In almost all U.S. states, it is a criminal offense, punishable with fines and even jail sentences.

Sex trafficking is nonconsensual, and it is generally treated as a more severe crime.

Most sex workers groups acknowledge that sex work is not inherently sex trafficking but that sex workers can face force, fraud and coercion because they work in a criminalized, stigmatized profession. Sex workers whose experiences meet the legal standards of trafficking may nonetheless fear disclosing that to police and risking arrest for prostitution.

Conversely, sex workers can be mistakenly labeled by police and advocates as trafficked and find themselves in the custody of law enforcement or social service agencies.

Based on my research, reducing sex trafficking requires changes that might prevent it from occurring in the first place. That means rebuilding a stronger, supportive U.S. social safety net to buffer against poverty and housing insecurity.

In the meantime, trafficking victims would benefit from efforts by frontline workers to combat the racism, sexism and transphobia that stigmatizes and criminalizes victims who dont look as people expect and are struggling to survive.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Here is the original post:

Sex trafficking isn't what you think: 4 myths debunked, and 1 way to prevent exploitation - Kansas Reflector

[As Delivered]

28 July 2021

Mister President,

Members of the Security Council,

I brief you today as the UN and its partners are providing urgent assistance to Gaza in the wake of the recent round of hostilities.

Beyond the human tragedy for both Palestinians and Israelis, and the physical damage of eleven days of fighting, the economic impact of the escalation in May has further exacerbated the existing humanitarian crisis andseverely weakened Gazas economy.

On 6 July, the UN, the World Bank and the European Union released the Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA). According to this assessment, damages in Gaza are estimated at between USD 290 380 million, while economic losses may reach nearly USD 200 million. The social sector was hit hardest, significantly weakening the safety net of the most vulnerable. The immediate and short-term recovery and reconstruction needs are estimated between USD 345 485 million.

The same day, a technical meeting of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee was held to align donors efforts to help address both the aftermath of the May escalation and the significant fiscal crisis facing the Palestinian Authority.

Mister President,

International efforts coordinated by the United Nations to implement the humanitarian response and stabilize the situation on the ground in Gaza are well underway. Thus far, some 45 million dollars of a requested 95 million has been raised for the consolidated humanitarian flash appeal published by the UN in May.

I thank the donors for their generous support and urge additional contributions so that the numerous pressing needs can be addressed. The United Nations and its partners stand ready to implement urgently needed recovery and reconstruction initiatives in coordination with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities, Egypt, Qatar and other regional and international partners.

On 28 June, fuel deliveries for the Gaza Power Plant resumed through the Kerem Shalom crossing under the existing United Nations framework through UNOPS with support from Qatar. Electricity supply is now roughly 14 hours per day, critical for Gaza and its residents.

On 24 June, Israeli authorities expanded the Gaza fishing zone from six to nine nautical miles and then again on 12 July, to 12 nautical miles. Additional restrictions on the import and export of certain goods were also lifted. However, on 25 July, the fishing zone was restricted again to six nautical miles, following the launch of incendiary balloons from the Strip.

In this context, further steps are needed.

It is essential that Israel implement additional measures to allow unhindered entry of all humanitarian assistance, including materials to implement the 2021 Humanitarian Response Plan and the Flash Appeal.

Beyond the immediate humanitarian needs, without regular and predictable entry of goods into Gaza, the capacity of the UN and our partners to deliver critical interventions is at risk, as are the provision of basic services, the livelihoods of people and the wider Gaza economy. In this context, the trilateral Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism with the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations established in 2014 and operated by UNOPS remains best placed to enable the entry and accountable delivery of a wide range of essential imports from Israel.

Further, for any durable stability, movement and access in and out of Gaza must be improved. Taking into consideration its legitimate security concerns, Israel should ease restrictions on the movement of goods and people to and from Gaza, in line with UN Security Council resolution 1860 (2009), with the goal of ultimately lifting them. Hamas and other armed groups must stop the launching of incendiary devices, rockets and mortars and end the militant build up.

Looking ahead, and with additional donor support, existing UN humanitarian cash assistance or other programmes could quickly be scaled up to reach tens or hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza.

While urgent humanitarian interventions can provide crucial relief in the short-term, any sustainable future in Gaza requires political solutions. I again reiterate the need for the return of a legitimate Palestinian Government to the Strip.

Mister President,

The Palestinian Authoritys (PA) fiscal situation continues to be a source of significant concern. The budget gap is expected to be well over USD 1 billion for the current budget year and the Palestinian financial sector is exposed to serious liquidity risks.

Compounding the PAs financial situation, on 11 July, the Israeli Security Cabinet approved the freezing of some 600 million Israeli Shekels from the clearance revenues Israel collects on behalf of the PA. The funds will be deducted in monthly installments, in line with Israeli Knesset legislation from 2018, which authorizes the withholding of funds equal to the amount that Israeli authorities determine have been paid by the PA over the preceding year to security prisoners and detainees and to the families of Palestinians killed while carrying out attacks. Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh called the measures contrary to signed agreements and unjust.

To address these challenges, the PA must implement much needed reforms, including to the so-called prisoner payment system, and to strengthen the rule of law and accountability. Enhanced cooperation between Israel and the PA to address outstanding financial challenges on key fiscal and economic files will also be critical.

Mister President,

Violence continued across the Occupied Palestinian Territory throughout the reporting period.

In Gaza, while the cessation of hostilities reached between Israel and Hamas in May largely held, militants launched 13 incendiary balloons towards Israel, with several causing fires. In retaliation, Israeli Defense Forces fired 18 missiles against what it said were Hamas targets in the Strip, resulting in damage but no injuries.

On 22 July, a Palestinian was killed and some 14 others injured in an explosion in Az-Zawiya marketplace in Gaza City. The Israeli Security Forces (ISF) said the incident was an internal matter and that Israel had not been involved. Hamas has reportedly opened an investigation.

In the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, clashes, attacks, search and arrest operations, and other incidents resulted in the death of four Palestinians, including a child, and injuries to 638 Palestinians, including 46 children and seven women. Five Israeli security personnel were injured during these events.

On 25 June, Israeli forces shot, injured and detained a Palestinian who they said was planning to carry out a stabbing attack near the settlement of Yitzhar in the northern West Bank.

On 3 July, a Palestinian man was shot and killed by ISF in the village of Qusra near Nablus, following clashes between Israeli settlers and Palestinians. According to the ISF, the man was shot after throwing an object that exploded near Israeli soldiers.

On 14 July, a Palestinian man was shot and injured by ISF after reportedly trying to enter the settlement of Yitzhar with a knife.

On 18 July, clashes broke out between Palestinians and the ISF in and around the Holy Sites, ahead of visits by hundreds of Jewish visitors observing the commemoration of Tisha BAv. I reiterate that the status quo in Jerusalems Holy Sites must be upheld and fully respected, and call upon community, religious and political leaders on all sides to refrain from provocative action and rhetoric in the interest of peace and stability.

On 23 July, ISF shot and critically injured a 17-year-old Palestinian boy during clashes in the village of Nabi Saleh in the West Bank. The boy later died of his wounds. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the boy was shot in the stomach by an ISF foot patrol. ISF said a soldier had opened fire after stones had been thrown towards him, threatening his life, and that it would investigate the incident.

Also on 23 July, a Palestinian man was reportedly shot and killed by Hamas security forces while driving through a checkpoint in Gaza City.

Meanwhile, settlers and other Israeli civilians in the occupied West Bank perpetrated some 36 attacks against Palestinians, resulting in 13 injuries and damage to property. Palestinians perpetrated 47 attacks against Israeli settlers and other civilians, resulting in eight injuries and damage to property.

On 26 June, settlers attacked Palestinians in the village of al-Mughayyir, near Ramallah. Israeli forces intervened, resulting in the injury of 18 Palestinians.

I underscore that all perpetrators of violence must be held accountable and swiftly brought to justice.

I also call on Israeli security forces to ensure the protection of Palestinians, in line with Israels obligations under international humanitarian law.

Mister President,

Following the death of political activist Nizar Banat on 24 June, Palestinians held demonstrations across the occupied West Bank. In Ramallah, on 26 June and 5 July, Palestinian Security Forces beat protestors and indiscriminately fired tear gas and stun grenades. On 26 June, Palestinian Security Forces also failed to stop violent acts by groups of non-uniformed persons, reported to be associated to security personnel, resulting in violence targeting journalists and human rights monitors, including a UN staff member. Women present at the demonstrations reported sexual harassment and gender-based threats on social media afterwards.

I call on the Palestinian Authority to ensure that the death of Nizar Banat and all allegations of use of disproportionate force against protestors by Palestinian Security Forces are investigated in a thorough, transparent and independent manner and those responsible held to account. The Palestinian people must be able to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, opinion and peaceful assembly. Arbitrary and politically motivated arrests must cease.

Mister President,

On 2 July, Israeli settlers, comprising some 50 families, left the illegal outpost of Evyatar following an agreement reached with the Israeli Government that IDF troops would re-establish a presence at the site. According to the agreement, the Israeli Civil Administration will conduct an accelerated land survey to determine land status. Areas found not to be privately owned by Palestinians will be declared state land and subsequently made available for building a religious school and staff residence. Any existing structures found to be outside state land will be demolished.

Following the evacuation, near-daily clashes continued during the reporting period between Palestinian residents of the nearby village of Beita and Israeli settlers and security forces, resulting in the death of a Palestinian, injury to some 460 others and damage to structures.

I reiterate that all settlements are illegal under international law. Settlement-related activities must cease as they undermine the prospect of achieving a viable two-State solution in line with UN resolutions, international law and prior agreements.

Mister President,

Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes and other structures continued throughout the reporting period.

Overall, Israeli authorities demolished or seized 113 Palestinian-owned structures in Area C of the occupied West Bank and 16 in East Jerusalem, displacing 177 Palestinians, including 38 women and 102 children, and affecting 1,934 others. The demolitions were carried out due to the lack of Israeli-issued building permits, which are nearly impossible for Palestinians to obtain.

During the reporting period, Israeli authorities demolished 31 structures in the Bedouin community of Humsa al Bqaia in Area C of the occupied West Bank. Some 18 of the structures demolished or confiscated were provided by donors following previous demolitions in February 2021. As a result, seven Palestinian families, comprising 54 people, including 30 children, were again displaced. Despite repeated calls by the international community, Israeli authorities have continued to instruct the residents to move to a different location, citing the communitys presence in an Israeli-declared firing zone.

During the reporting period, Israeli forces confiscated at least 49 structures in another West Bank herding community, Ras al-Tin, resulting in the displacement of 84 Palestinians, including 53 children and 14 women.

I urge Israel to cease the demolition and seizure of Palestinian property throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in line with its obligations under international humanitarian law, and to allow Palestinians to develop their communities.

Mister President,

Turning to the region, on the occupied Golan, the ceasefire between Israel and Syria has been generally maintained despite the continued violations of the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement by the parties. On 1 June, the IDF said that they had carried out a retaliatory attack on a military outpost of the Syrian armed forces west of the ceasefire line. Early on 17 June, UN personnel observed an IDF tank on the Alpha side fire ten rounds towards al-Qahtaniyah in the area of separation. UNDOF continues to liaise with the parties to remind them of their obligations to respect the terms of the Disengagement Agreement and prevent escalation of the situation across the ceasefire line.

In Lebanon, and ahead of the first anniversary of the Beirut port explosion on 4 August, the United Nations reiterates the need for an impartial and transparent investigation into the explosion to ensure accountability. The United Nations looks forward to swift formation of a new Government able to address the countrys crisis following the appointment of Mr. Najib Miqati as Prime Minister-designate on 26 July. Meanwhile, the situation in the UNIFIL area of operations remains tense, as demonstrated by the rocket fire from Lebanon towards Israel and the artillery response by Israel on 20 July. UNIFIL continues to liaise with the parties to de-escalate tensions.

Mister President,

I remain concerned about the financial situation of UNRWA. As of today, the projected shortfall under its Programme Budget amounts to USD 100m. The Agency also faces an imminent cash flow crisis which risks impacting the smooth opening of the school year for half a million girls and boys in Gaza. The absence of a fully funded Programme Budget also undermines UNRWAs capacity to conduct much needed humanitarian and early recovery activities in Gaza. I appeal once again to all donors, including those from the Arab region, to sustain the funding levels of past years and advance disbursements of funds as much as possible to avoid a disruption of essential services and humanitarian aid.

Mister President,

Following the explosive violence across the OPT and Israel in May, on June 30th, some 200 Israeli and Palestinian womens organizations and activists released a joint statement calling for immediate action, based on the principles of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, to achieve long term solutions to the conflict.

Noting the particular importance of protecting women from all forms of violence, and ensuring womens representation in decision-making positions, they urged broader efforts towards a negotiated, long-term solution, and not just a temporary calm.

We in the international community should heed these important words.

Urgent efforts to improve the situation in Gaza must move forward swiftly, but let us not lose sight of the broader goal: resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ending the occupation and realizing a two-State solution on the basis of UN resolutions, international law and bilateral agreements.

The United Nations remains committed to continue supporting Palestinian and Israeli moves towards this political horizon. The United Nations will work with the parties and through the Quartet to pave the way forward to meaningful negotiations on all outstanding issues.

Thank you.

Read more:

Lynn Hastings Deputy special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator Briefing to the Security...

Inflation has been accelerating this year, and it isnt hard to see why.

Government spending has been so overwhelming that evenformerU.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, a Democrat,said recently:

We are printing money. We are creating government bonds. We are borrowing on unprecedented scales.

Those are things that surely create more of a risk of a sharp dollar decline than we had before. And sharp dollar declines are much more likely to translate themselves into inflation than they were historically.

Summers foresees the rise in inflation harming thepoorthe most. Others at risk include savers and people on fixed incomes.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which keeps track of inflation, reported July 13 that inflation was5.4% in June, the highest percentage jump since 2008.

Inflationhas been increasing on a seasonally adjusted month-over-month basis at an accelerating rate also, as the following graphic shows.

The Heritage FoundationsIndex of Economic Freedomcontains ample evidence from around the world that widening deficits and a growing debt burden erode a countrys economic vitality by stripping its people of their economic freedom and condemning them to the mercy of government edicts and orders that prevent them from using their own ingenuity to thrive.

The U.S. has fallen to 20thplace in the world in economic freedom, out of 178 countries rated. We are now in the middle rankings of the mostly free countries, our lowest ranking ever, and thats almost entirely due to our treacherous decline in fiscal health, which is calculated based on government debt and deficits.

The U.S. fiscal health score in the 2021 index is a very poor 34.9 out of 100. By contrast, the five countries making the cut as economically free have an average fiscal health score of 91.4.

Unsound government fiscal positions have often disturbed macroeconomic stability and induced economic uncertainty in countries around the world.

If fiscal health was the only consideration in ranking economic freedom, the U.S. would rank only 152ndin the world out of 178. The fiscal health score alone would put us in the economically repressed category.

The U.S. deficit in the 2020 fiscal year was arecord $3.13 trillion, 122% higher than the previous record of $1.41 trillion set in 2009. To make matters worse,spendingin the first nine months of fiscal year 2021 was5.8% more than the first nine months of fiscal 2020.

Trillions of dollars more in deficit spending is being sought by policymakers on nonessential items, such as the newly coined term human infrastructure, an abomination that treats humans as nothing more than a cog in a societal machine.

In addition, as Heritage Foundation President Kay C. Jameshas said:

This new definition of shovel-ready infrastructure includes massive amounts of corporate welfare, a huge expansion of Medicaid benefits, federal rules to undermine right-to-work laws across the country, a Civilian Climate Corps that would use billions of taxpayer dollars to fund legions of environmental activists, and billions in subsidies for buying electric vehicles.

But redefining language is nothing new for the left. When it cant win public opinion with the truth, it changes the meanings of words to trick the public into its way of thinking.

Its time the Biden administration stops pretending that inflation is not happening. Economic freedom is not automatic, nor a given, and government must limit its debt and deficits if we are to preserve our fundamental liberties.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

View post:

Inflation Something to Be Concerned About Now - Heritage.org