Protesters have gathered near the scene of an officer-involved shooting in El Cajon, California.
Source:: CNN US News
The company listed assets and liabilities of up to $50 million.
A family walks by a store specializing in phone calls and travel to Latin America on August 29 in New York City. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Local politicians who are skeptical of immigration often worry that newcomers will place a financial burden on city and state governments. These governments are responsible for major expenses related to immigrant families, especially education, and since immigrants tend to own less property and make less money, they also often pay less in taxes.
Figuring out just what immigrants mean for local governments’ finances is a challenge, though. The fiscal consequences vary widely from place to place, depending on the region’s economy, how taxes are collected, immigrants’ earnings and the number of children they have in school.
On average, state governments spend about $3,300 more on each household headed by immigrants than those households pay in taxes a year, according to a comprehensive new report published last week by the nonpartisan National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.
However, the report, which published last week, found that these families can yield benefits over the long term, as their children grow up, find well-paying jobs,and begin paying more taxes to their local governments.
“The main thing that is affecting the spending level, especially at the state and local level, is the number of school-age kids,” said Kim Rueben, one of the authors of the report and an economist at the Urban Institute. “These things are being looked at as costs, but in some ways, they’re our investment into the future.”
The cost of households headed by first-generation immigrants varies widely by state, however. In Minnesota, they cost the government about $10,000 on average, but in neighboring North Dakota, the state actually receives an average of nearly $5,000 more in taxes from first-generation households than it spends on them.
<img src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/09/230015.jpg" alt="2300" …read more
Tyson Foods is recalling 132,520 pounds of cooked, coated chicken nuggets because they may be contaminated with hard plastic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture says.
Container boxes are seen at the Yangshan Deep Water Port, part of the Shanghai Free Trade Zone, in Shanghai, China September 24, 2016. Picture taken September 24, 2016. REUTERS/Aly Song/File Photo
The steady march of globalization that powered the world economy for the past 30 years is stalling out at a time when leading political figures in the United States and elsewhere have become increasingly hostile to international trade.
The World Trade Organization said Tuesday that growth in global trade would fall to 1.7 percent this year, the slowest pace since the 2008 financial crisis and part of a vicious cycle that has dragged down broader economic growth. Formerly highflying countries such as China and Brazil are spending less on manufacturing equipment and railroads, while stalwarts such as Europe and Japan are fighting the perilous phenomenon of falling prices known as deflation — leaving nations with little appetite for trading with one another.
Economists say the slowdown in trade could carry significant risks for workers in the United States. Although advocates of trade barriers say they could protect more American jobs from going overseas, most economists say tariffs would raise costs for American manufacturers and consumers, imperiling an already fragile economy. Meanwhile, cutting off emerging markets could threaten the livelihoods of workers around the world. Globalization was instrumental in reducing the number of people who live in extreme poverty by half over roughly the past two decades, according to the World Bank.
The WTO report comes on the heels of the first presidential debate, in which Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton showed unusual agreement in sharply criticizing past trade deals and questioning the benefits of approving a new agreement with 11 countries along the Pacific Rim. Instead, Clinton called for “smart, fair trade deals.” Trump, who has made opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership a centerpiece …read more
You don’t have to make a ton of money to afford a decent home in some cities.
He showed in the first presidential debate how ignorant he is about the Fed and Janet Yellen’s role, says Jeff Reeves.
A bipartisan group of 51 U.S. representatives is asking the Obama administration to reconsider a unilateral move by the Drug Enforcement Administration to ban the drug kratom, a plant whose opiate-like effects are making it an increasingly popular alternative for treating pain and drug addiction.
The DEA recently decided to place the drug kratom into schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, the most restrictive regulatory category, “to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.” The ban is likely to go into effect on Friday.
“The DEA’s decision to place kratom as a Schedule I substance will put a halt on federally funded research and innovation surrounding the treatment of individuals suffering from opioid and other addictions — a significant public health threat,” the letter states. Mitigating the effects of the national opioid epidemic — which along with heroin killed close to 30,000 people in 2014 — has been a major goal of the Obama administration’s drug policy.
In the letter to the Obama administration, spearheaded by Mark Pocan (D.-Wi.) and Matt Salmon (R.-Az.), the representatives representatives urge the director of the Office of Management and Budget to use his authority to delay the DEA’s action.
Noting that the DEA did not take public comment from “consumers, researchers, and other stakeholders” before the decision, the representatives say that the DEA’s move “threatens the transparency of the scheduling process and its responsiveness to the input of both citizens and the scientific community.”
The letter notes that federal research grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, led to …read more
The Conference Board says its consumer confidence index rose to 104.1 in September.