Mediaboss Marketing

The Washington Post reports that many conservatives are ditching their free market orthodoxy due in large part to Chinese industrial subsidies that allegedly threaten critical parts of the American industrial base:

Since the Reagan years, Republicans have taken the opposite view that government should stay small and out of the way and not engage in what has been derisively referred to as picking winners and losers. But Chinas rise is forcing them to rethink that.

Chinas central and regional governments are investing heavily in hightech fields such as aircraft and electriccar manufacturing, semiconductors and robotics, by some estimates providing hundreds of billions of dollars to domestic companies through subsidies and other support.

As evidence of this shift, the Post cites to recent federal legislation, passed overwhelmingly by both chambers of Congress and praised by Republican industrial policy advocates, that provides billions of dollars in new subsidies to U.S. semiconductor manufacturers. As Inoted afew weeks ago in alengthy and skeptical blog post on the bill, the primary basis for these subsidies according to its sponsors and other supporters (and confirmed by the Post) was the aforementioned China threat, in this case the billions of dollars that the Chinese government is spending to develop agloballycompetitive semiconductor sector. To its credit, the Post briefly notes my skepticism before quoting many others at length who are supportive of the semiconductor plan and broader U.S. industrial policy efforts (one of whom rejects naive libertarian views about government involvement in the economy).

However, the Post unfortunately omits much of my argumentagainst the new U.S. subsidies, most notably the numerous reports (including alengthy U.S. International Trade Commission analysis in 2019) that Chinas semiconductor sector, despite all of those subsidies, was hardly athreat to the thriving and in many respects globally dominant American semiconductor industry. Today from the South China Morning Post comes further evidence of that fact:

At an idle construction site in western Wuhan, Chinas steep climb to semiconductor independence is clear for all to see.

The partiallybuilt factory, owned by Wuhan Hongxin Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (HSMC), was meant to be akey part of aUS$20 billion investment that turned the province into achip manufacturing hub.

But two years after it was started, construction has ground to ahalt, with little evidence of progress beyond afew cranes, workers dormitories and steel frames jutting into the air.

The project, which the local Dongxihu district government said in July had stalled due to underfunding, is the latest example of aChinese chip factory hitting the rocks because of poor planning or funding shortfalls.

Earlier this year, aUS$100 million manufacturing plant set up by US chip giant GlobalFoundries and the Chengdu city government ceased operations after remaining idle for almost two years. In the countrys east, aUS$3 billion governmentbacked chip plant owned by Tacoma Nanjing Semiconductor Technology went bankrupt in July after failing to attract investors.

Be sure to read the whole thing, which details the HSMC projects many (sometimes humorous) problems and again indicatesthat Chinas grand semiconductor plans and massive subsidies are not nearly as threatening as U.S. politicians and industry lobbyists make them out to be.

The semiconductor episode also permits two broader lessons. First, it shows that the mere presence of foreign government subsidies is rarely, if ever, agood reason for American ones especially when theyre going to aprofitable U.S. industry with billions in domestic capital expenditures (and billions more cash on hand). Second, it provides another good example of why some libertarians remain skeptical of U.S. industrial policy plans. All too often even (or especially) in the case of national security and China (or Japan before it) ideas that sound good and necessary on paper are revealed upon closer inspection to be corporatist giveaways that counter imaginary threats and end up doing more harm than good. Maybe the U.S. government can overcome these obstacles in the future, but both the semiconductor subsidies and numerous other examples indicate that its not the skeptical libertarians who are being naive here.

Read this article:
Conservative Industrial Policy and the "China Threat" - Cato Institute

A new studyfrom a libertarian think tankshows Ohio could get $2.9 billion dollars right now if it did something that former Gov. John Kasich wanted to do lease the Ohio Turnpike.In the end, the state issued bonds to repair and improve the turnpike and all of Ohios roads. But this study says leveraging the road now could provide the state with an infusion of cash when the state is trying to dig out of the economic problems associated with the pandemic.

The Reason Foundations studysays leasing the turnpike could yield almost $3 billion dollars.Author Robert Poole says other states are finding global companies and pension funds want to invest in them. He says that money couldhelpwhen the state cannot afford newinfrastructureand it couldensure stability for the turnpike itself.

That holds them to performance standards and has penalties if the pavement gets rough and they dont improve things properly. Typically, it has an annual limit on the toll rate increases.

The first company that leasedIndianasturnpike went bankrupt.But when it was leased again,thenew company paid far more, making everyone whole. Critics saythere could be problems ifcontrol of a valuable Ohio roadis givento an outside entity.

Go here to see the original:
New Study Raises Old Idea To Lease The Ohio Turnpike - WVXU

The district, which includes a stretch of Western Michigan ranging from the Grand Rapids area down to Battle Creek, has traditionally leaned Republican, but will be more competitive this year.

RepublicanPeter Meijerand DemocratHillary Scholtenare facing off in November in Michigan's third congressional district, which is currently held by retiringRep. Justin Amash.

Amash was first elected as a libertarian-style Republican in 2011, but became disillusioned with the GOP under President Donald Trump and left the party to become an independent in July 2019 and then affiliated himself with the Libertarian Party in 2020. Amash briefly flirted with running for president

Meijer, whose family owns the Meijer supermarket chain, is a US Army veteran, worked overseas at non-governmental, and now an urban developer. He defeated State Rep. Lynn Afendoulisfor the GOP nomination on August 4.

Scholten is an immigration attorney and advocate who formerly worked in the Department of Justice under the Obama administration. Both nominees are first-time candidates.

The district, which includes a stretch of Western Michigan ranging from the Grand Rapids area down to Battle Creek, has traditionally leaned Republican.

Trump carried the seat by 10 points in the 2016 election, and 2018 Republican Senate candidate John James carried it by four points in 2018.

The seat now being open without an incumbent presents a new opportunity for Democrats, particularly if Biden carries the state by large margins and is able to lift up down-ballot candidates on his coattails.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Scholten has raised $1 million, about a third less than her opponent, Meijer, who has raised $1.5 million. Meijer, however, has spent $1.1 million so far on his campaign, leaving him with $406,000 on hand $165,000 less than Scholten who has $572,000 to spend.

In the general election, The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, and Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politicsrate this race as "leans Republican."

Continue reading here:
Everything you need to know about Michigan's 3rd Congressional District Race - Business Insider - Business Insider

Michelle Obama called President Donald Trump the "wrong president for our country" during her speech at the Democratic National Convention. USA TODAY

The claim is illustrated in a Facebook meme that recently went viral. Former President Barack Obama's head was superimposed over the face of a person in a construction worker's outfit. "Obama" stands in front of crowds of fenced-in children who are supposedly migrants detained at the southern U.S. border.

The text above the image reads, "Michelle Obama: Trump is putting kids in cages. Guy who built the cages."

Barack Obama is implied as the "guy who built the cages."

Fact or fiction: We break down the rumors and send fact checks right to your inbox. Sign up here.

The meme was posted to the Facebook page Vintage Political Memes. The page is an extension of Being Libertarian LLC, a group that caters to"minarchists, classical liberals, anarchists, independents, Objectivists, capitalists, and right/left-leaning libertarians," according to itswebsite.

The picture in the meme minus the inserted Barack Obama of a crowded enclosure full of migrant children at a border facility in Texas was released by the Office of the Inspector General in 2019, according to a tweet by NBC News correspondent Gadi Schwartz. Schwartz saidasenior manager called the conditions at the facility, "a ticking time bomb."

USA TODAY reached out to Being Libertarian for comment.

During her keynote address at the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 19, the former first lady made a comment about the Trump administration's policies toward migrant children detained at the border.

"They watch in horror as children are torn from their families and thrown into cages," Mrs. Obama said, according to The Associated Press.

More: US government sued after report of detained migrant children at Hampton Inn hotels

Fact check: Melania Trump did not remove cherry trees, historic roses from Rose Garden

The entire statement can be found in atranscript posted to CNN.com on Aug. 18.

"They see our leaders labeling fellow citizens enemies of the state while emboldening torch-bearing white supremacists. They watch in horror as children are torn from their families and thrown into cages, and pepper spray and rubber bullets are used on peaceful (protesters) for a photo-op,"she said.

It is true that Trump administration immigration policies involved separating migrant children from their parents and detaining them in "cages," a practice halted by a federal judge in 2018, according to USA TODAY. During the speech, Obamadid not mention the holdingenclosures were built during her husband's administration.

Fact check: Joe Biden delivered his Democratic nomination acceptance speech live

In a 2019interview with nonpartisan think tank The Aspen Institute, Jeh Johnson, Barack Obama's Homeland Security secretary, told NPR's Mary Louise Kelly that the "cages" predate the Trump administration.

"Chain-link barriers, partitions, fences, cages, whatever you want to call them were not invented on January 20, 2017," Johnson said.

Kelly asked Johnson about a 2014 photograph of him touring an Arizona facility for migrants along with former Gov.Jan Brewer. The picture is archived on thewebsite for the Arizona Capitol Times.

Thatimage was also part of another social media meme accusing Michelle Obama of lying about "kids in cages" during her DNC speech. Facebook userEulalia Maria Jimenez posted it to her page on Aug. 18. Johnson is circled in red in the image.

Johnson explained the picture was taken during a spike in unaccompanied minors crossing the southern border of the country.

"The photograph you're referring to was a facility in Arizona I recognize the photograph because Gov. Brewer was with me and it was during the spike ... and we had a lot of unaccompanied kids, we had a lot of family units. And under the law, once they're apprehended by the border patrol, within 72 hours, we have to transfer unaccompanied children to (the Department of Health and Human Services). And HHS then puts them in a shelter, and they find placement for them somewhere in the United States." Johnson explained.

He said the construction of the 72-hour holding facilities was prompted by a sudden influx of migrants.

Local NBC affiliate KVEQ reported on the conversion of aMcAllen, Texas, warehouse into a holding facility for up to 1,000 migrant children in 2014.

"You can't just dump 7-year-old kids on the streets of McAllen or El Paso. And so, these facilities were erected ... they put those chain-link partitions up so you could segregate young women from young men, kids from adults, until they were either released or transferred to HHS. Was it ideal? Of course not," Johnson said.

In 2019, former Trump administration acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Thomas Homan confirmed the migrant holding facilities were builtduring the Obama administration during a panel hosted by The Center for Immigration Studies. The center isa "pro-immigrant, low-immigration" think tank, according to its website.

"The kids are being housed in the same facilities built under the Obama administration. If you want to call them cages, call them cages. But if the left wants to call them cages, and the Democrats want to call them cages, then they have to accept the fact that they were built and funded in FY 15, and I was there," Homan said, according to a transcript.

The Associated Press reportedin late 2019 that an unprecedented 69,550 migrant children were held in U.S. custody overthat year.

But Michelle Obama's assertion that the Trump administration torechildren from their families and threw them into cages alludes to "a frequent and distorted point made widely by Democrats," according to the AP. The facilities designed during the Obama administration to temporarily hold migrants were used for a similar purpose by President Trump, the AP also concluded.

Fact check: Meme is partly false about Republican National Convention speakers

We rate this claimTRUE, based on our research. The initial claim correctly attributes migrant holding facilities to the Obama administration. However, the meme doesn't elaborate on the intended purpose of the facilities:to hold migrantchildren for 72 hours before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services for further placement.

Contributing: Associated Press

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You cansubscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/27/fact-check-obama-administration-built-migrant-cages-meme-true/5649368002/

Visit link:
Fact check: Obama administration approved, built temporary holding enclosures at southern border - Courier Journal

On August 26, 1920, the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, giving women the right of the vote, was formally certified. In 1973 Congress designated August 26 as Womens Equality Day. Equal suffrage is one part of equality under the law, but by no means the only part. Visiting Pittsburgh afew years ago Icame across this historical marker:

Anyone who thinks Americans were free in some earlier period might want to ponder the message on the plaque, which celebrates the woman who persuaded the legislature in 1848 to allow married women to own and sell property. (Court decisions, however, limited these rights, including declaring that earnings were not property.) As Charles OBrien wrote in the American Law Register in 1901, in an article titled, The Growth in Pennsylvania of the Property Rights of Married Women,

Whether these criticisms are sound or not, the practical results were as stated, and in substance her property and contractual rights as asingle woman were almost entirely destroyed, her legal existence for most purposes suspended. and other legal disabilities not to be properly considered here added to her estate when she became amarried woman. Such legal servitude was incompatible with the spirit of the founders of the Commonwealth and their descendants.

Throughout the 19th century states began to change those laws, though other legal disabilities for women remained.

The cause of womens rights has always been bound up with the spread of classical liberalism. In England the liberal writer Mary Wollstonecraft responded to Edmund Burkes Reflections on the Revolution in France by writing AVindication of the Rights of Men, in which she argued that the birthright of man is such adegree of liberty, civil and religious, as is compatible with the liberty of every other individual with whom he is united in asocial compact. Just two years later she published AVindication of the Rights of Woman, which asked, Consider whether, when men contend for their freedom it be not inconsistent and unjust to subjugate women?

In the United States the ideas of the American Revolution life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness led logically to agitation for the extension of civil and political rights to those who had been excluded from liberty. Women involved in the abolitionist movement also took up the feminist banner, grounding their arguments in both cases in the idea of selfownership, the fundamental right of property in ones own person. Angelina Grimk based her work for abolition and womens rights explicitly on aLockean libertarian foundation: Human beings have rights, because they are moral beings: the rights of all men grow out of their moral nature; and as all men have the same moral nature, they have essentially the same rights. If rights are founded in the nature of our moral being, then the mere circumstance of sex does not give to man higher rights and responsibilities, than to women. Her sister, Sarah Grimk, also acampaigner for the rights of enslaved persons and women, criticized the AngloAmerican legal principle that awife was not responsible for acrime committed at the direction or even in the presence of her husband in aletter to the Boston Female AntiSlavery Society: It would be difficult to frame alaw better calculated to destroy the responsibility of woman as amoral being, or afree agent. In this argument she emphasized the fundamental individualist point that every individual must, and only an individual can, take responsibility for his or her actions.

The Declaration of Sentiments adopted at the historic Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 consciously echoed both the form and the Lockean naturalrights liberalism of the Declaration of Independence, expanding its claims to declare that all men and women are created equal, endowed with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The document notes that women are denied moral responsibility by their lack of legal standing and concludes that women have been deprived of their most sacred rights by unjust laws. Consider some of the specific grievances relating to the concerns commemorated in the Pittsburgh plaque:

He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.

He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

After depriving her of all rights as amarried woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support agovernment which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but ascanty remuneration.

He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself.

That classically liberal, individualist strain of feminist thought continued into the twentieth century, as feminists fought not just for the vote but for sexual freedom, access to birth control, and the right to own property and enter into contracts.

A libertarian must necessarily be afeminist, in the sense of being an advocate of equality under the law for all men and women.

The rest is here:
The Rights of Women | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute