Nearly 40 Migrants Died in a Juarez Detention Center Fire. U.S. Border Policy Is Partially To Blame.

“a fire broke out at a migrant detention center in Ciudad Juarez, a Mexican city just across the border from El Paso, Texas. By the time the smoke cleared, nearly 40 migrants were dead.”

“The Biden administration announced new measures to toughen the border in January, including significant restrictions on the asylum process. It also launched an app, CBP One, which is now the only legal way for migrants to request humanitarian protection at the U.S.-Mexico border. “Daily appointments run out within minutes on the app, which has been prone to crashing and is unavailable in most languages,” according to the Los Angeles Times. Migrants have waited at the border for months due to the glitchy app and the continued renewal of the Title 42 order, a pandemic-era policy that allows U.S. border officials to immediately expel migrants who enter the country.
Waiting south of the border has long been dangerous. Under “Remain in Mexico,” a Trump and Biden administration policy that forces migrants to stay in Mexico as they await their American immigration court dates, asylum seekers have faced rampant violence. Human Rights First has recorded over 1,500 cases of kidnappings, murders, rapes, and other violent attacks against those relegated to Mexico.

Just as south-of-the-border tent cities ballooned under that policy, thousands of migrants are now living in encampments in Mexico. Mexican shelters are stretched far beyond their capacities. A Mexican federal official interviewed by the Los Angeles Times cited this as a “motive for the protest” in Juarez—”68 men were packed into a cell meant for no more than 50 people.”

Crowding may well get worse when the Biden administration imposes a new border rule in May, which will largely bar non-Mexican migrants from receiving asylum in the U.S. if they don’t apply for protection in countries they passed through on their way there. In effect, it “would presume asylum ineligibility for those who enter illegally,” per The Washington Post.

American border policies alone didn’t cause the deaths in Juarez, but the tragedy highlights the limitations of the “prevention through deterrence” approach. If the journey is made inconvenient enough and the penalties sufficiently severe, the logic goes, migrants will be discouraged. But they haven’t been—tens of thousands of people are still attempting the journey, which only grows deadlier as legal entry becomes more limited.”

These Members of Congress Have a Revolutionary Idea: Write and Pass a Budget the Old-Fashioned Way

“The bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus—made up of 31 Republicans and 32 Democrats—has reportedly crafted a debt limit proposal that calls for Congress to return to so-called regular order for the passage of annual budget bills. That means the dozen appropriation bills that make up the federal budget would go through the full congressional process, including committee hearings and individual votes for each, rather than being rolled together in the massive omnibus packages that Congress has relied upon in recent years.
According to a draft proposal from the caucus published Wednesday by Axios, a return to regular order would be one of several changes the lawmakers in the group would demand as part of a debt ceiling deal. They’re also asking for the creation of a new fiscal commission to make recommendations on stabilizing the federal government’s dangerously high levels of debt, and the adoption of budget controls (similar to those that were in place between 2011 and 2018) to limit future spending increases.

If those terms are agreed to, the group’s framework would raise the debt ceiling to a level that won’t be reached until after 2025—in other words, until after the next election.

On their own, those proposals won’t solve America’s serious fiscal challenges. But they would be a series of good first steps toward taking the mess seriously and would avert the potentially catastrophic debt default that looms over everything in Washington right now.”

Russia’s Wagner boss escalates rift with Putin’s military, threatens Bakhmut withdrawal due to a lack of thousands of artillery shells

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-wagner-boss-escalates-rift-143720041.html

Public Sector Unions Are Trampling Our Public Services

“The California Teachers’ Association is the most-powerful voice in education. Police and fire unions are the best-funded and most muscular political players at the local level. The prison guards’ union has an inordinate influence on corrections policy.
Unions aren’t entirely to blame for California’s myriad problems and crises, but they provide a heckler’s veto to any reform idea that could realistically improve public services. Consider how vociferously teachers’ unions opposed school reopenings. Lawmakers rarely propose any idea that would antagonize any of the state’s easily antagonized unions. Imagine running a business where the employees could immediately quash any proposal that might help consumers or reduce operating costs.

“Through their extensive political activity, these government workers’ unions help elect the very politicians who will act as ‘management’ in their contract negotiations—in effect handpicking those who will sit across the bargaining table from them,” noted Daniel DiSalvo in a 2010 article in National Affairs. No wonder California’s municipal firefighters earn on average more than $200,000 a year—even as the state complains about an inadequate number of firefighters.”

U.N. Climate Report Recommends Ending Fossil Fuel Subsidies

“There are two primary types of fossil fuel subsidies. Production subsidies offset the costs for companies involved in energy production. Consumption subsidies make the final product less expensive for consumers.”

“Fuel subsidies lower the cost of energy and incentivize consumption: When the price of fuel is artificially lowered, more people will drive and fewer will turn to carpooling and other commuting alternatives. After all, there’s a reason that demand for electric cars surges whenever oil prices spike.”

“A decade ago, a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimated that ending all fossil fuel subsidies would decrease global consumption by 29 billion gallons annually.
Last year’s Glasgow Climate Pact was the first time an international climate agreement included a call to revoke subsidies. Even then, it came after significant opposition from developing countries such as India and China.

The IPCC report notes that ending subsidies can hurt “the most economically vulnerable.” But the IEA noted that “subsidies are rarely well-targeted to protect vulnerable groups and tend to benefit better-off segments of the population.” It recommends prioritizing “structural changes” over short-term relief, while the IPCC report argues that if you want to help poor people pay for transportation, it may make more sense to redistribute the revenue you saved by cutting the subsidies.”

Social Security Will Be Insolvent by 2033

“If nothing changes, Social Security benefits will be subject to a 23 percent cut in a decade.”

“Since any changes to shore up Social Security’s bottom line will likely require huge tax increases or changes to how benefits are paid, policy makers are also running out of time to implement those changes in ways that don’t cause major disruptions to the economy and Americans’ retirement plans.”

“The most straightforward solution to Social Security’s problem is to raise the payroll taxes that fund the program to make up for the shortfall on the benefit side of the ledger. But that would only exacerbate the problem by placing a bigger burden on younger, generally poorer workers.

According to the report, Social Security could be kept afloat for the next 75 years by hiking the payroll tax by 4.15 percentage points in 2034 (or implementing a smaller increase sooner). The payroll tax is currently charged at a 16.5 percent rate, with employers and employees each covering half. That works out to a nearly 25 percent tax hike. Alternatively, the report says, benefits could be cut by about 25 percent.”

LC: We could also fund it by higher taxes on the wealthy.