Home Blog Page 1858

Cities Try to Lure Factories as U.S. Pushes to Fix Chip Shortage

17chips1 facebookJumbo

TAYLOR, Texas — The shortage of computer chips has zapped energy from the global economy, punishing industries as varied as automakers and medical device manufacturers and contributing to fears about high inflation.

But many states and cities in America are starting to see a silver lining: the possibility that efforts to sharply increase chip production in the United States will lead to a busy chip factory in their backyard. And they are racing to get a piece of the potential boom.

One of those towns is Taylor, a Texas city of about 17,000 about a 40-minute drive northeast of Austin. Leaders here are pulling out all the stops to get a $17 billion Samsung plant that the company plans to build in the United States starting early next year.

The city, its school district and the county plan to offer Samsung hundreds of millions of dollars in financial incentives, including tax rebates. The community also has arranged for water to be piped in from an adjacent county to be used by the plant.

But Taylor is not alone. Officials in Arizona and in Genesee County in upstate New York are also trying to woo the company. So, too, are politicians in nearby Travis County, home to Austin, where Samsung already has a plant. Locations in all three states “offered robust property tax abatement” and funds to build out infrastructure for the plant, Samsung said in a filing. Congress is considering whether to offer its own subsidies to chip makers that build in the United States.

Where Samsung’s plant will land remains anyone’s guess. The company says it is still weighing where to put it. A decision is expected to be announced any day.

The federal government has urged companies like Samsung, one of the world’s largest makers of the high-tech components, to build new plants in the United States, calling it an economic and national security imperative. Intel broke ground on two plants in Arizona in September and could announce the location for a planned manufacturing campus by the end of the year.

This could just be a warm-up act. The Senate passed a bill to provide chip makers $52 billion in subsidies this year, a plan supported by the Biden administration that would be Washington’s biggest investment in industrial policy in decades. The House has yet to consider it. Nine governors said in a letter to congressional leaders that the funding would “provide a new, powerful tool in our states’ economic development toolboxes.”

In Taylor, even the possibility of Samsung’s arrival is generating hope. Business owners say it would bring more patrons to the local brewery and to the quiet downtown. Parents think the factory’s cutting-edge assembly line would inspire the town’s high school students. Residents believe land prices would rise quickly — values have already edged up in recent months just on the possibility, one real estate agent said.

“Something like this can be a shot in the arm,” said Ian Davis, the chief executive of Texas Beer Company, which opened a taproom in downtown Taylor five years ago.

The vast majority of semiconductors — an industry that generated nearly $450 billion in revenue in 2020 — are made in Taiwan, South Korea and mainland China. The United States controls just 12 percent of global production.

Lawmakers say the chip shortages illuminate how America’s limited role in the industry puts the nation’s economy in a precarious position. Politicians also fear that China is taking steps to increase its control of global semiconductor supplies, potentially leaving the United States at a technological disadvantage against a geopolitical rival that would have national security implications.

But the cities’ attempts to lure the plants are raising questions about how far communities should go — and how much taxpayer money they should pay — to get a piece of the high-tech economy.

Chandler, Ariz., approved up to $30 million in water and road improvements to support an Intel plant that broke ground in September. Phoenix will spend roughly $200 million on infrastructure for a new factory by the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, another major chip maker. When the company announced the plant in 2020, it said subsidies were crucial to its plans.

Critics of corporate tax incentives say the money could be better spent on basic infrastructure and on public schools. They say cities might be spending taxpayer funds needlessly, because factors like the availability of talent and of natural resources are more important to chip makers than subsidies. And they argue that cities end up sacrificing the most important thing a big industrial project can contribute: tax revenue.

“There’s clearly benefits,” said Nathan Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who studies subsidy programs. “The problem is if you’re literally giving away a lot of those benefits to land the company.”

Many residents in Taylor said that was the price they needed to pay to supercharge the city’s revival.

Taylor — named for a railroad executive — was once a hub for shipping cattle and cotton. Louie Mueller Barbecue opened in 1949 and still draws carnivores with its brisket and beef ribs.

But in recent decades, residents said, Taylor’s downtown has lost some vitality.

They have tried to change that by luring newer small businesses to the city and by renovating an old building that now houses Mr. Davis’s taproom, converted lofts and a coffee shop that serves babka and chocolate-tahini brownies. Another group repurposed the town’s old high school to house small businesses including restaurants and a pinball bar. The city spruced up a downtown park.

“Bringing that in, something that’s going to be here indefinitely, the revenue that it brings for our city and for our schools, particularly, is going to be enormous,” said Susan Green, a Taylor resident who has children in its school system.

Steve Adler, the mayor of Austin, said subsidies that Austin gave to Samsung in the 1990s had had a positive effect on the city, which has seen rapid growth in recent years. Tesla and Oracle recently moved their corporate headquarters to Austin, and Facebook and Apple have large operations there. By one estimate, the city is the nation’s top site for commercial real estate investment.

Austin and its surrounding county have held their own talks with Samsung about the new factory the company has planned. Mr. Adler said he wanted the city to be a competitive site for the Samsung plant.

“It certainly paid a huge benefit to our city and our region, having them here,” Mr. Adler said about Samsung. But Pat Garofalo, the director of state and local policy for the American Economic Liberties Project, a liberal group that is critical of large tech companies, said the money would be better spent on projects that made a city attractive to a wide variety of businesses — like public schools — instead of on a single suitor.

He said the manufacturers sensed the “very real problem” of the semiconductor shortage and “are using it to capitalize on the tendency among state and local officials to pay a lot of taxpayer money for hosting one of these facilities.”

Vanessa Fuentes, a member of the Austin City Council, said residents of her district worried about being pushed out of their homes or seeing corner stores replaced by expensive grocery stores. She said the city had the “upper hand” in dealing with tech companies and should make sure that any deal it cut with tech companies did enough for existing residents.

“If it’s not good enough, then we don’t need to do it, quite frankly,” she said. “Because there’s too much at risk of what could happen with this type of growth, in terms of displacement specifically.”

In Taylor, Samsung’s boosters believe that they can manage those concerns if they get the project.

“Yes, it’ll be more traffic. Yes, there’ll be some rising property values,” Mr. Davis said. “But I think it will also help create jobs.”

To sweeten the deal, Mr. Davis recently made another offer to the chip maker at a public meeting: He’ll make a Samsung pale ale.

“I think having 5,000 daily construction workers patronize all these small businesses — pros will outweigh the cons by a mile,” he said.

What Apple’s New Repair Program Means for You (and Your iPhone)

17apple facebookJumbo

Apple delivered an early holiday gift on Wednesday to the eco-conscious and the do-it-yourselfers: It said it would soon begin selling the parts, tools and instructions for people to do their own iPhone repairs.

It was a major victory for the “right to repair” movement, which has demanded that tech manufacturers provide the necessary components and manuals for customers to fix their own smartphones, tablets and computers.

Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and others have long fought proposed legislation that would make such repair resources publicly available. But the movement gained momentum this summer when the Federal Trade Commission announced that it would ramp up law enforcement against tech companies that made it difficult to fix their gadgets.

For decades, the idea that people could maintain their own consumer electronics has been impractical. Genuine parts were difficult to obtain, and repairs could be expensive and intimidating. When phones and computers broke, buying new ones was the simplest option.

Now Apple’s self-repair program is a sign that the tech industry could finally be warming to making maintenance a part of the experience of owning a gadget.

“It’s a win for repair shops, it’s a win for consumers, and it’s a win for the planet,” said Nathan Proctor, a director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy organization that worked on the “right to repair” legislation.

Here’s what this means for you.

Starting early next year, Apple said, people can use an online store to order parts and tools to mend its newer products, including the iPhone 12 and 13 and recent Mac computers. Customers who send in their broken part to Apple will receive credit toward the purchase of a new part.

The program will focus on the most common items that need fixing, such as screens, batteries and cameras, before expanding to other types of components.

The company has not yet published a list of costs for parts, but said the prices for consumers would be what authorized repair shops paid. Currently, a replacement iPhone 12 screen costs an authorized shop about $234 after a broken screen is traded in. At an Apple store, repairing an out-of-warranty iPhone 12 screen costs about $280.

“Creating greater access to Apple genuine parts gives our customers even more choice if a repair is needed,” Jeff Williams, Apple’s chief operating officer, said in a statement.

In short, you will have more options to mend an iPhone, which can bring your costs down.

Previously, it was easiest to visit an Apple store to get an iPhone fixed. But just as taking your car to a dealer for servicing isn’t the cheapest option, going to an Apple store also wasn’t the most cost-effective.

The alternative was to take your iPhone to a third party for repair, potentially for a more competitive price. When I took a broken iPhone XS screen to an Apple store this year, I was quoted $280 for the repair, compared with $180 from an independent outlet.

Yet Apple has made iPhone repairs increasingly difficult for third-party shops, said Kyle Wiens, chief executive of iFixit, a company that sells parts and publishes instructions for consumers to repair their electronics.

Even when genuine parts were used, some repairs could be authenticated only with Apple’s software tools, which were not available to the public. Apple provided those software tools only to its staff and authorized repair shops that signed a contract and agreed to buy parts solely from the company. These authorized shops were then more likely to charge higher prices than unauthorized ones.

Apple’s new program opens more doors. You could try fixing your device yourself to save cash. Or you could buy the parts from Apple and take them to someone else to do the repair.

All of this may encourage people to maintain their products for longer and hold on to them, similar to doing regular maintenance on a car. That has implications for reducing technology waste and helping the environment.

Apple was historically one of the most vocal opponents to the “right to repair” movement. The company cited security risks — like a customer’s data being hijacked during an unauthorized repair — as a primary reason to keep parts and instructions out of public reach.

For non-Apple customers, this news is thus significant. If Apple, one of the world’s most valuable public companies, is setting a new standard with repairs, you can expect other tech manufacturers to follow — especially if they want to avoid fines from the federal government.

“This announcement marks significant progress toward securing our right to repair, and we’re proud of Apple for making this bold move,” Mr. Wiens said.

Biden accedes to another Chinese demand on media

biden us china 56438 c0 0 4908

The Biden administration has given in to a Chinese government demand, reversing curbs imposed on officials working for Chinese state-controlled media outlets in the United States that were put into place by the Trump administration.

A State Department spokesman confirmed Chinese state media reports that Beijing had agreed to issue visas once again to working U.S. reporters and that the U.S. government would reciprocate for Chinese outlets with reporters in the U.S.

In 2020, the State Department imposed restrictions on Chinese media outlets operating in the United States, designating them as foreign missions because of heavy government controls on the outlets and their employees. Many of them are known by U.S. officials to be intelligence operatives. China responded by expelling a number of American journalists working for major news outlets.

The deal on easing the visa restrictions was reached prior to the virtual summit between President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday. In the opening of the more than three hours of talks, Mr. Xi referred to Mr. Biden as “my old friend.”

The concession on Chinese media was on a list of 16 demands and 10 specific cases of concern presented by Chinese officials to Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman during a visit to China last summer.

The deal to loosen curbs on Chinese media outlets follows the agreement that led to the release from Canada of Huawei Technologies Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, who faced extradition to the United States on charges of illegal financial dealings with Iran. Ms. Meng’s release also was among the items on the list of Chinese demands.

A third concession was a promise by President Biden to end the U.S. policy of identifying the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as the illegitimate ruler of China, as distinct from the 1.4 billion Chinese people. The CCP was targeted under policies of the Trump administration in a bid to pressure the Marxist-Leninist regime, which has ruled China since 1949 with devastating consequences.

Historians have said the communist system resulted in the deaths of more than 60 million Chinese through policies of mass repression, government-produced famines and destructive social engineering.

Chinese state media reported that Mr. Biden promised Mr. Xi that the United States would “not seek to change China’s system.”

The White House made no mention of the promise in its readout of the virtual summit Monday night. 

A senior administration official declined to say whether the president promised Mr. Xi the United States would not undermine the Chinese system but said previous policies that sought to transform that system were “erroneous.”

“We are not trying to bring about a fundamental transformation of China itself,” the official said.

Prior to the summit, a U.S. official denied that the administration had taken any action on the 16 demands and 10 cases that China said needed to be resolved before closer U.S.-Chinese relations could be established.

The CCP-affiliated Global Times reported that Mr. Biden made three promises to Mr. Xi, including the promise regarding the Chinese system. Other promises reportedly made by the president were statements that stepped-up U.S. alliances in the region were not targeting China and that the United States is not seeking a conflict with China.

Second gaffe on Taiwan standoff

President Biden this week misspoke about Taiwan for a second time on an issue that has contributed to rising tensions between Washington and Beijing.

After his virtual meeting with Mr. Xi, Mr. Biden was asked by a reporter whether the two leaders made progress on the thorny issue of Chinese coercion of Taiwan, the island democracy 100 miles off the Chinese coast.

“Yes. We have made very clear we support the Taiwan act, and that’s it. It’s independent. It makes its own decisions,” Mr. Biden said.

It was the second time in recent weeks that the president flubbed comments about U.S. policy toward Taiwan.

Earlier, Mr. Biden said the United States would defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack. The policy had been left deliberately ambiguous since the United States switched diplomatic recognition to Beijing from Taipei in the 1970s.

China, which considers the island part of its sovereign territory, has said a formal declaration of independence by Taiwan, which broke with the mainland in 1949, is a “red line” for military intervention.

During the virtual summit, Mr. Xi told Mr. Biden that China is prepared for “decisive measures” if Taiwan makes any moves toward independence, according to Chinese state media.

In recent weeks, China’s military has stepped up provocative warplane flights near Taiwan, at one point sending more than 150 aircraft into the island’s defense identification zone.

Recognizing the latest gaffe on Tuesday, Mr. Biden backtracked by telling reporters in New Hampshire that he is not endorsing Taiwanese independence.

“We’re not going to change our policy at all,” he said. “I said that they have to decide — they — Taiwan. Not us. And we are not encouraging independence; we’re encouraging that they do exactly what the Taiwan act requires.”

The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act was passed by Congress in response to the downgrading of relations with Taiwan. The act calls on the United States to supply Taiwan with defensive arms but stops short of formally declaring that the United States would defend Taiwan militarily.

A report by the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission made public Wednesday said the situation across the Taiwan Strait is “dangerous” and that China’s military, for the first time, has the strength to retake the island.

Russian military hails satellite kill

Russia’s Defense Ministry this week marked the destruction of a defunct Russian satellite in orbit from a ground-based anti-satellite (ASAT) missile test, rejecting international protests and insisting that the test did not pose any danger.

Defense analysts say the field of thousands of pieces of potentially damaging debris from the space blast could threaten low-Earth orbit satellites and the International Space Station, which had to change its flight path this week to avoid being hit. The debris pieces are orbiting at very high speeds and can penetrate the shells of satellites.

The test comes amid tensions over potential military moves by Moscow against Ukraine, where thousands of Russian troops have repeatedly massed on the border. The test also appears timed as a geopolitical signal to the United States that Russia could target U.S. satellites if there is a military response by NATO to a Russian advance on Ukraine in support of pro-Moscow separatist forces.

Russian troops took over Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014, prompting U.S. and European sanctions on Moscow.

The Russian ministry said in a statement that the military on Nov. 15 “successfully conducted a test, in which the Russian defunct Tselina-D satellite in orbit since 1982 was struck.”

The statement said the test was conducted in the context of an American space strategy that seeks “to create an all-out military advantage in outer space and, therefore, the Russian Defense Ministry is carrying out planned measures to strengthen the country’s defense capability.”

The United States protested the ASAT test but so far has not taken any other action to punish Russia. The test was similar to China’s highly destructive 2007 ASAT missile test, which also generated a large debris field.

“The United States knows for certain that the emerging fragments at the time of the test and in terms of the orbit’s parameters did not and will not pose any threat to orbital stations, satellites and space activity,” the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement.

The ministry noted earlier space tests by the United States, China and India but made no mention of destructive space blasts carried out by the Soviet Union in the 1970s.

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said the space station crew took “emergency procedures for safety” inside the station to avoid the satellite debris. The station passes the debris field every 90 minutes.

“I’m outraged by this irresponsible and destabilizing action,” Mr. Nelson said, adding the Russian actions “are reckless and dangerous.”

• Contact Bill Gertz on Twitter at @Bill Gertz.

Contrary to popular belief, no great migration in pandemic

census pandemic migration 30497 c0 209 5026

Contrary to popular belief, there has been no great migration in the U.S. during the pandemic.

New figures released Wednesday by the U.S. Census Bureau show that the proportion of people who moved over the past year fell to its lowest level in the 73 years that it has been tracked, in contradiction to popular anecdotes that people left cities en masse to escape COVID-19 restrictions or in search of more bucolic lifestyles.

In 2021, more than 27 million people, or 8.4% of U.S. residents, reported having moved in the past year, according to the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

By comparison, 9.3% of U.S. residents moved from 2019 to 2020. Three decades ago, that figure was 17%.

Besides giving rise to shelter-in-place restrictions, the COVID-19 pandemic may have forced people to postpone life-cycle events such as marriages or having babies that often lead to moves. But the decline is part of a decadeslong migration decline in the U.S., said William Frey, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution.

“These numbers show a lot of people didn’t move or moved at a slower rate,” Frey said. “But it’s a longer-term trend.”

That’s not to say that nobody moved. The one uptick in mobility patterns last year took place in longer-distance moves, from state to state, compared to moves within a state or county. Those 4.3 million residents who moved to another state may have done so because of the pandemic, Frey said.

Other factors contributing to Americans staying put have been an aging population, since older people are less likely to move than younger ones; the ability to telecommute for work, which allowed some workers to change jobs without having to move; and rising home prices and rents that kept some would-be movers in place, demographers said.

“I think the boom in remote work because of COVID coupled with the economic shock is the big reason,” said Mary Craigle, bureau chief for Montana’s Research and Information Services.

Among those who moved in the past year, a little under half cited housing-related factors as the reason, almost three times those citing job-related reasons and almost double family-related reasons. Of the 12.3 million people citing housing reasons, more than a third wanted a bigger, better or newer house or apartment, according to the survey.

Those with a bachelor’s degree or graduate degree had higher mobility rates than those with no high school degree or only a high school education.

Among regions, the South had the largest net migration, 576,000 new residents, while the Northeast lost the most – 146 million people. There were flows of people moving from rural areas into metro areas, as well as people moving from principal cities to suburbs in the same metro areas, though not in numbers that varied from past years.

Mobility in the U.S. has been on a downward slide since 1985 when 20% of U.S. residents moved. That was an era when Baby Boomers were young adults, beginning careers, getting married and starting families. In comparison, millennials, who today are in the same age range as their Baby Boomer cohorts were in the mid-1980s, are stuck in place due to high housing costs and underemployment, according to an analysis Frey did last year.

The slowdown in American mobility is part of a recent stagnation in population dynamics in the U.S. The 2020 census shows that the U.S. grew by only 7.4% over the previous decade, the slowest rate since between 1930 and 1940. Earlier this week, the Census Bureau revealed that the population center of the U.S. moved only 11.8 miles (19 kilometers), the smallest shift in 100 years.

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC.

Health, The New York Today

Musk sells more shares than he needs to pay current tax bill

elon musk solarcity lawsuit 18075 c0 222 5332

DETROIT (AP) – Elon Musk is selling more Tesla shares than he needs to pay current tax obligations, and experts say he’s either converting part of his fortune from stock to cash, or he’s saving for bigger tax bills that will come due next year.

As of early Wednesday, Musk had sold roughly 8.2 million shares in the electric car and solar panel maker in the past nine days, worth a total of just over $8.8 billion.

Of those, Musk sold 2.8 million shares worth about $3 billion specifically to pay taxes on three tranches of stock options that he exercised this week, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. That means he has sold roughly $5 billion more in shares than he needs at present.

Under a compensation plan from 2012, Musk has options to buy 26.4 million shares. The options expire next year, and the tax bill will come due. Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives estimates the bill to be $10 billion to $15 billion, depending on the stock price. Musk’s options so far allowed him to buy shares at $6.24 each, and the stock is selling for around $1,080.

Erik Gordon, a University of Michigan business and law professor, questioned why Musk would sell that many shares now to pay obligations that come due next year. He said accruing for future tax liabilities makes sense only if Musk expects the stock price to drop.

“If you think the stock is going to go up, or if you think the stock is going to stay the same, you wouldn’t be selling extra shares,” he said.

On Nov. 6, Musk asked his 60 million Twitter followers if he should sell some of his Tesla stock. “Much is made lately of unrealized gains being a means of tax avoidance, so I propose selling 10% of my stock,” he wrote. According to Musk, 58% of those who responded said yes.

Musk also conceded his wealth is tied up in stock, tweeting that he doesn’t get a cash salary or bonus from anywhere. “I have only stock, thus the only way for me to pay taxes personally is to sell stock,” he wrote.

Musk started selling on Monday, and as of Wednesday, he had liquidated about 5% of his holdings. His federal tax obligations could be as high as 40% on proceeds from some of the sales, said Brad Badertscher, an accounting professor at the University of Notre Dame.

Musk could have cut his tax bill on the options in half if he had exercised the options and waited a year to sell the shares, Badertscher said. That’s because with an immediate sale, the gain is taxed as ordinary income. In a year, Musk would pay the much lower capital gains rate, he said.

Wedbush’s Ives said that while the Twitter poll is unorthodox, it telegraphed the sale to investors, preventing a huge selloff in Tesla stock. “If he didn’t do the Twitter poll and just started selling stock, the stock is probably 15% lower than it is today,” Ives said.

As of Tuesday, Tesla’s stock had fallen nearly 14% since Musk agreed to abide by the poll. On Wednesday, Tesla shares were up about 3% in mid-afternoon trading. Ives is confident that investors will see the stock’s value as the sales start to wane.

Musk historically has been adept at moving the price of Tesla stock through tweets, said Michigan’s Gordon. “He’s shown himself to be a master of influencing the price of Tesla stock,” Gordon said. “That’s the story over and over again.”

Messages were left seeking comment from Musk and Tesla, which has disbanded its media relations department.

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC.

Joe Manchin doubles down on opposition to paid leave: ‘I’ve been very clear’

congress budget 41349 c0 208 5000

Sen. Joe Manchin III, a key swing vote for the White House’s legislative agenda, reasserted his opposition on Wednesday to including paid leave in President Biden’s multitrillion-dollar social welfare bill.

Mr. Manchin, West Virginia Democrat, said his position on the topic was unchanged, despite intense lobbying from far-left Senate colleagues. 

“I’ve been very clear where I stand,” he said. 

Mr. Biden initially proposed a 12-week paid leave guarantee, but that provision was scrapped after opposition from Mr. Manchin

Since the social welfare bill will need to pass via a budget reconciliation, which allows some spending measures to avert the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold and pass by a simple majority, Mr. Biden opted to avoid the disunity. 

But many Democrats have refused to accept the proposal is dead. 

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Democrat, has been courting Mr. Manchin to drop his opposition. In private meetings, Mrs. Gillibrand has stressed alternative paid leave proposals and various ways to ensure they are fully funded. 

The arguments have failed to sway Mr. Manchin, who said he is increasingly worried that new entitlement programs and federal spending will drive up inflation. 

“I support it. … I just don’t support [unfunded] leave,” Mr. Manchin said recently. “That means getting more debt and basically putting more social programs that we can’t pay for, that we’re having problems [with] now. I want to support paid leave. I want to do it in a bipartisan way.” 

Unlike Mrs. Gillibrand, House Democrats are also maneuvering to include paid leave in the social welfare bill. They’re opting to ignore Mr. Manchin altogether, though. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, has included a four-week paid leave guarantee in her version of the bill. 

“We do this responsibly, fully paying for the means-tested program,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, Massachusetts Democrats. 

Despite the move by House Democrats, most expect paid leave to be stripped from the legislation by Mr. Manchin in the Senate.

USMCA looms over Biden summit with leaders from Mexico, Canada

trump argentina g20 summit 71272.jpg 2021.11.17 2021.%25i.1637193365.3 c0 36 2400

Former President Trump in 2020 promised that his newly-minted trade agreement with Canada and Mexico would pour cash and jobs in the U.S. But 16 months later, the double whammy of COVID-19 and supply chain chaos has blunted its impact.

The landmark deal, known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, was expected to add more than $67 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product and create 176,000 new jobs. The pact, however, went into effect on July 1, 2020, one of the deadliest months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the three countries began to emerge from a pandemic, the supply chain crisis hit, disrupting global trade.

The future of the USMCA will be among the topics discussed when President Biden meets with the leaders of Mexico and Canada on Thursday.

The economic turmoil has made it difficult to assess if the USMCA is a win for its participants. And experts say it’s still unclear how everything will shake out and if the deal is as significant in the post-COVID-19 world.

“We lost the first year because of COVID so it’s really hard to put the perspective on USMCA that would normally occur because of the economic dislocation caused by COVID,” said Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, a conservative group that advocated for the USMCA.

Mr. Biden isn’t expected to make any changes or tweak the deal, which earned overwhelming support from Democrats and was popular among labor leaders. The AFL-CIO, one of Mr. Biden’s biggest backers, supported the USMCA, saying it would keep jobs in the U.S.

Thursday’s meeting will be the first White House summit for the three leaders since 2016. Mr. Trump famously ditched the meetings, which began in 2005.

Instead, Mr. Trump forced Canada and Mexico to the negotiating table to rewrite the previous three-way pact, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which had proven least beneficial for the U.S.

On Thursday, Canada and Mexico are expected to press Mr. Biden about his proposed tax credit for American-made electric vehicles, which could take a bite out the auto-assembly business across the border. The tax credit is part of Mr. Biden’s ambitious $1.75 trillion social welfare and climate bill.

Both Canada and Mexico say the proposal gives an unfair advantage to U.S. manufacturers. It also runs afoul of the integrated manufacturing process that exists between the three countries.

The impact of COVID-19 on the USMCA extends beyond just business shutdowns that have slowed trade. It has also made it difficult to measure the impact of the agreement’s novel wage requirements in the auto industry.

Under the USMCA, 40% of a car must be manufactured in a plant where workers make at least $16 an hour to avoid U.S. import tariffs. The move was expected to raise wages for Mexican workers, who pull down the lowest wages among the three nations.

COVID-19 stalled hiring in Mexico, preventing workers from fully realizing the benefit.

“COVID-19 has also introduced a number of issues surrounding the treatment of workers, particularly migrant workers in the United States and organizing efforts and collective action in both countries, exacerbating some of the tensions,” said Desiree LeClercq, a professor of labor law at Cornell University.

Americans want ‘fair shake’ for faith-based groups, protection for vaccine refusers: survey

MICA204 68378.jpg db5b9 c0 200 4800

Most Americans say that religious groups providing community services should qualify for government funding alongside their secular counterparts, according to the 2021 Religious Freedom Index survey released Wednesday. 

The annual online survey, released by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, found that 71% of respondents held the view — up 6 percentage points over last year. 

“As Americans bounce back from a divisive year, we see an increased commitment to a wide range of religious freedom principles,” said Luke Goodrich, senior counsel at Becket and co-editor of the survey. “This across-the-board support shows a renewed confidence that protecting religious exercise and expression benefits American culture and civic life.” 

Sixty-two percent of respondents said people of faith should be free to voice their religiously based opinion in public, even on controversial matters, and 63% agreed with a statement that “parents are the primary educators of their children.” They said parents should have the final say in what their children are taught and support the right of parents to keep children out of “morally objectionable” public school content. 

Sixty-three percent said religious student groups should have a place on public university campuses in the same way as secular student organizations. 

Fifty-two percent said worship services are essential (62% for funerals) and the government should not ban such gatherings. 

The survey found significant support for religious exemptions to vaccine mandates: 46% said workers who decline a COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds shouldn’t be fired for doing so. Respondents who work with people of faith were much more likely to support such objections, the survey found. 

“After a period where we all have experienced restrictions on daily life at some level, Americans seem more averse to placing restrictions on their neighbors, coworkers and friends for their religious beliefs,” said Katie Geary, content manager at Becket and co-editor of the index. “As Americans work together to bridge partisan divides, this naturally extends to greater support for religious freedom.” 

The online survey is conducted each fall by the independent firm Heart and Mind Strategies. It uses a nationally representative sample of 1,000 adults who opt in for such polls. Becket said that probability sampling is not typically done for such online panels, but a hypothetical calculation of such a probability would show a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Health, The New York Today

They Love Crypto. They’re Trying to Buy the Constitution.

17roose copy facebookJumbo

“We’re going to stop it from going into more private hands and actually open-source it, make it a public good,” said Alice Ma, one of the organizers.

In truth, ConstitutionDAO is more a symbolic gesture to decentralization technology than a real-world demonstration of it. Some in the group had initially hoped to make participants fractional owners of the Constitution, but that plan fell apart, possibly because it could run afoul of securities laws. The current plan is to issue crypto tokens, called $PEOPLE, that will entitle participants to vote on certain decisions governing the Constitution’s use, but won’t confer any actual ownership.

In addition, since Sotheby’s accepts only government-issued currency and doesn’t allow DAOs to bid on auctions directly, the group plans to work with a crypto exchange that will convert its Ether to dollars before the bid, and a crypto nonprofit that will place the bid on the group’s behalf. According to the group’s FAQ document, a limited liability corporation will take control of the Constitution temporarily while the DAO figures out a long-term ownership structure.

Many DAOs are speculative in nature; investors buy in hoping that the assets the group acquires will be worth more later on. But ConstitutionDAO’s organizers say making money is not a goal.

“No one is talking about anything related to speculation,” said Will Papper, a San Francisco crypto entrepreneur who is helping to organize the bid. “Everyone’s talking about how we should steward the Constitution.”

Well, that and about a million other things. A spin through the group’s Discord server on Tuesday revealed a torrent of chaotic chatter, debates over fine print and a shocking number of memes involving Nicolas Cage. (Mr. Cage starred in a movie about a plot to steal the Declaration of Independence, which appears to be close enough to the Constitution for the group’s taste.)

There was an audio channel where a man read the entire Constitution, line by line, over a soundtrack of soothing hip-hop beats. There were channels filled with questions for the organizers, which ranged from boring (“Has the L.L.C. structure been run by a tax advisor?”) to intriguing (“Is there a safeguard to make sure the DAO doesn’t vote to eat the constitution? Or other method of destruction?”)

Texas abortion ban stays in force as justices mull outcome

supreme court abortion texas 55014 c0 245 5885

WASHINGTON (AP) – More than two weeks have passed since the Supreme Court‘s extraordinarily rushed arguments over Texas’ unique abortion law without any word from the justices.

They raised expectations of quick action by putting the case on a rarely used fast track. And yet, to date, the court‘s silence means that women cannot get an abortion in Texas, the second-largest state, after about six weeks of pregnancy.

That’s before some women know they’re pregnant and long before high court rulings dating to 1973 that allow states to ban abortion.

There has been no signal on when the court might act and no formal timetable for reaching a decision.

The law has been in effect since Sept. 1 and the court has been unable to muster five votes to stop it, said Mary Ziegler, a legal historian at Florida State University’s law school. “While there is some sense of urgency, some justices had more of a sense of urgency than others,” Ziegler said.

Meanwhile, the justices are two weeks away from hearing arguments in another abortion case with potentially huge implications for abortion rights in the United States.

The court will take up Mississippi’s call to overrule the two major Supreme Court rulings that, starting in 1973, have guaranteed a woman’s right to an abortion. The state law at issue bans abortions after 15 weeks, well before the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb.

Viability, typically around 24 weeks, has been the dividing line: Before it, states can regulate but not ban abortion.

Even before the justices decide what to do about Mississippi’s law and the fate of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Texas’ law has effectively changed the standard at least for the time being.

It bans abortion after cardiac activity is detected in the fetus, usually around six weeks, and deputizes ordinary citizens to enforce the law in place of state officials who normally would do so.

The law authorizes lawsuits against clinics, doctors and anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion that is not permitted by law.

It was designed to make federal court challenges difficult, if not impossible. Federal courts have had no trouble preventing other bans on abortion early in pregnancy from taking effect when they have relied on traditional enforcement.

The Texas law is doing what its authors intended. In its first month of operation, a study published by researchers at the University of Texas found that the number of abortions statewide fell by 50% compared with September 2020. The study was based on data from 19 of the state’s 24 abortion clinics, according to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project.

Texas residents who left the state seeking an abortion also have had to travel well beyond neighboring states, where clinics cannot keep up with the increase in patients from Texas, according to a separate study by the Guttmacher Institute.

The Supreme Court is weighing complex issues in two challenges brought by abortion providers in Texas and the Biden administration. Those issues include who, if anyone, can sue over the law in federal court, the typical route for challenges to abortion restrictions, and whom to target with a court order that ostensibly tries to block the law.

Under Supreme Court precedents, it’s not clear whether a federal court can restrain the actions of state court judges who would hear suits filed against abortion providers, court clerks who would be charged with accepting the filings or anyone who might someday want to sue.

People who sue typically have to target others who already have caused them harm, not those who might one day do so and not court officials who are just doing their jobs by docketing and adjudicating the cases.

The justices’ history with the Texas law goes back to early September when, by a 5-4 vote, they declined to stop it from taking effect.

At the time, five conservative justices, including the three appointees of President Donald Trump, voted to let the law take effect. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court‘s three liberals in dissent.

The abortion providers had brought the issue to the court on an emergency basis. After they were rebuffed, the Justice Department stepped in with a suit of its own.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman granted the Justice Department’s request for an order that put the law on hold. Pitman wrote in a 113-page ruling that the law denied women in Texas their constitutional right to an abortion and he rejected the state’s arguments that federal courts shouldn’t intervene.

But just two days later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overrode Pitman and allowed the law to go back into effect.

The Justice Department made its own emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. Rather than rule on that appeal, the court decided to hear the two suits just 10 days later and without the benefit of an appellate court decision.

At the arguments, two Trump appointees appeared to have doubts about the Texas law. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the law allowed people who are sued to air their constitutional claims in court and whether it would lead to a spate of copycat laws on abortion and other rights protected by the Constitution.

The court seemed particularly concerned about the “chilling effect” similar laws would produce on other constitutional rights, including speech, religion and gun possession, said Sarah Marshall Perry, a legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

The court’s intervention has few counterparts in recent history, and those include Bush v. Gore, the fight over publication of the government’s secret history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers, and Richard Nixon’s effort to keep from handing over the Watergate tapes that ultimately doomed his presidency.

The justices have never said why they opted to hear the Texas cases so quickly or how soon they might be decided.

The time since the arguments is less than a blink of an eye in high-court terms, where months typically elapse between arguments and a decision. But the justices themselves created the expectation that they would move quickly.

“This is obviously important, but there’s not a presidential election deadline looming,” Ziegler said. “Even by Thanksgiving would be extraordinarily fast.”

One possibility is that the court intends to issue a decision before the Mississippi abortion law arguments on Dec. 1.

But Perry said she thinks the court could hold off deciding the Texas case until after it hands down its abortion decision, probably in late June. That would leave the Texas ban in effect.

There’s much more that also might only become clear once a decision comes down.

If the court rules in favor of abortion providers or the Justice Department, will there be an accompanying order that blocks the law? That would be the quickest way to allow abortions after six weeks to resume. Justice Elena Kagan raised the prospect of an order during the arguments.

Will there be a majority opinion that speaks for at least five justices or will the court be fractured so that there are at least five for a particular outcome, but for varying reasons? Either side would be happy with five votes, but a majority opinion carries more force.

How many justices will write separate opinions, on either side? A proliferation of opinions can slow the process, as the justices circulate, comment on and revise opinions in their internal deliberations.

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC.

Health, The New York Today