 |
|
|
|||||
Los Angeles County said Wednesday that it’s suing Southern California Edison, alleging the utilitys equipment sparked Januarys Eaton Fire, which destroyed more than 9,400 structures and killed 17 people in the Altadena area. The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and damages sustained from the blaze that damaged essential community infrastructure and massively impacted the Countys natural resources, harmed the environment and wildlife, and threatened public health,” LA County said in a statement. Additional costs have been incurred by county departments for ongoing support in assisting residents recovering from the fires destruction, according to the lawsuit. The Countys case is essential to the restoration and rebuilding process for the community, including residences and businesses, to recover from the devastation, the statement said. Edison was reviewing the lawsuit and will address it through the appropriate legal process, utility spokesperson Kathleen Dunleavy said Wednesday. The fires cause is still under investigation. The complaint alleges that witnesses, photos, and videos indicate the fire started directly under Edison transmission lines in Eaton Canyon. The county seeks to recoup costs and receive compensation for destroyed infrastructure, recreational areas, parks, road damage, cleanup and recovery efforts, flood and mudslide prevention, workers compensation claims, overtime for workers, lost taxes and more. Costs and damage estimates were expected to total hundreds of millions of dollars, the county said, adding that assessments were ongoing. We are committed to seeking justice for the Altadena community and the taxpayers of Los Angeles County, County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison said in a statement. The County, the County Flood Control District, and the Countys Consolidated Fire Protection District are the plaintiffs in the case. The cities of Pasadena and Sierra Madre are also filing suits against Edison for damages to taxpayer resources and public infrastructure incurred from the Eaton Fire, according to the county. Christopher Weber, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
For obvious reasons, most of the attention thats been paid to President Donald Trumps various tariff schemes has focused on the across-the-board tariffs hes imposed on our biggest trading partners, Canada, Mexico, and China. But Trump has another, even more elaborate, and more costly, tariff scheme that he plans to roll out next monthone he alluded to a few days ago in a Truth Social post he wrote to the Great Farmers of the United States. Trump told the farmers to get ready to start making a lot of agricultural product to be sold INSIDE of the United States because tariffs will go on external product on April 2nd. Trump was referring to his plan to put reciprocal tariffs in place on all U.S. imports, meaning that he will impose tariffs on other countries’ imports that are equal to the tariffs they impose on us. So, if a country has a 30% tariff on coffee, Trump will put a 30% tariff on all coffee imports from that country. Reciprocal tariffs may seem intuitively appealing, simply because theyre a tit-for-tat policywell do to other countries what theyre doing to us. But the reality is, theyre a disastrously bad idea, especially when it comes to agriculture. To begin with, reciprocal tariffs require us to inflict harm on American consumers and American businesses that rely on imported goods just because other countries are willing to inflict harms on their consumers and businesses in order to protect local industries. Thats a little like jumping off a bridge just because other kids are doing it. A reciprocal-tariff plan also effectively allows other countries to dictate our trade policy, which is not something the U.S. should let our trading partners do. Higher prices, zero payoff Reciprocal tariffs are particularly bad when it comes to the very thing Trump focused on in his post: farming. Thats because Trumps plan will result in raising tariffsand therefore consumer pricesnot just on food products that we could, theoretically, produce more of in the U.S., but also on food products that we dontand, in some cases, realistically cantmake at high volumes. As Trumps post suggests, he wants his tariffs to lead to American farmers growing more. But in many cases, all these reciprocal tariffs will do is make consumers pay more for food, without having any real impact on domestic production. Take, for instance, coffee and tea. At the moment, the U.S. has no tariffs on so-called green-bean coffee imports, while countries that we import coffee fromlike Brazil, Colombia, and Indonesiaoften have meaningful tariffs on coffee imports into their own countries. But since we export very little coffee, that doesn’t hurt the U.S. (The only coffee grown here is in Hawaii, and it’s a tiny amount relative to how much coffee we consume.) In other words, the tariffs those countries impose on coffee have no real impact on the U.S. economy. The same is true of tea. We import almost a half-billion dollars of tea a year because the U.S. has never been a tea-producing nation. (Almost all the tea we do produce is grown on small farms.) So the fact that tea-producing countries have tariffs on tea imports, again, has no meaningful impact on the U.S. economy. Their tariffs dont limit U.S. tea production or the number of tea-producing jobs. From our perspective, theyre more notional than real. The problem, though, is that Trump doesnt care. Even though these countries coffee and tea tariffs dont really matter to us, Trump is going to put equivalent tariffs on our imports of their coffee and tea. And that will matter quite a lot to U.S. coffee and tea drinkers, and to the businesses that sell coffee and tea, all of whom are now going to be paying much higher pricesfor no good economic reason. The same is true of many of our fruit and vegetable imports. The U.S., for instance, has a very small banana industry, in large part because our climate is not ideally suited to banana growing. (Most of the bananas we do produce are grown in Hawaii.) So we, of course, import almost all our bananas. Trumps plan will, again, make us pay more for bananas, without resulting in a big boom in U.S. banana production. We also import billions in fruits and vegetables year-round from places such as Mexico, not just because of cost, but because we’ve gotten used to being able to eat whatever produce we want whenever we want (rather than having to eat only the fruits and vegetables grown when they’re in season). Raising tariffs on strawberries is not going to lead to a huge boom in U.S. strawberry-harvesting in December. But it will lead to our having to pay higher prices on strawberries. Yes, we have no bananas At its core, what Trumps reciprocal-tariff plan ignores is the reality of what economists call comparative advantage; namely, that its economically beneficial for everyone if countries focus on what they do best, relatively speaking, rather than trying to do everything. Comparative advantage is especially important in agriculture, simply because of the realities of climate and soil. The U.S. is great at growing grains, raising livestock, and growing certain fruits and vegetables. But it makes more sense for Brazil and Colombia to grow coffee or Honduras to grow bananas, and for us to import themthan for the U.S. to try (futilely) to become a coffee- and banana-growing powerhouse. On top of all this, while the reciprocal-tariff plan is not going to do much to help American farmers, the myriad trade wars Trump has already started are very likely going to hurt American farmers, who, in 2023, exported $174 billion of agricultural products (including most notably, grain and feed, soybeans, nuts, livestock, and some fruits and vegetables). Thats because when we impose new tariffs, our trading partners don’t sit by quietly: They retaliate. Chinas finance ministry, for instance, announced that it will be imposing new 10% to 15% tariffs on imports of U.S. soybeans, chicken, pork, and beef. And Canada just imposed 25% tariffs on billions in U.S. goods, including orange juice, peanut butter, and wine, and will impose tariffs on beef, pork, dairy, and fruits and vegetables in three weeks if Trump hasnt lifted his tariffs by then. Retaliation is not a trivial problem. People have somehow forgotten this, but Trump’s trade war with China in his first term resulted in U.S. farm exports dropping by nearly $26 billion. Trump covered for it by redirecting Department of Agriculture funds to recompense the farmers, but all that meant was that U.S. taxpayers effectively paid the price for his love of tariffs. “Trade wars are good and easy to win,” Trump has famously said. But the reality, especially when it comes to agriculture, is that they are pointless conflicts in which just about everyone loses.
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trump’s claim that there is shocking levels of incompetence and probable fraud in the Social Security system during his State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday is just the latest in a series of attacks from the Republican administration, sparking concern over the program’s future. Meanwhile, Trump adviser Elon Musk has falsely called it a “Ponzi scheme,” and he’s even claimed on X that some 20 million dead Americans over the age of 100 were receiving payments which, of course, has been debunked. (Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said those claims are “an outrageous lie . . . intended to lay the groundwork” to cut benefits.) At the same time Musk’s Department Of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been caught trying to access private, personal taxpayer data at the Social Security Administration (SSA), leading the acting head of the SSA to reportedly resign. It comes on the heels of the SSA’s cuts to some 7,000 jobs as part of DOGE’s slashing of the federal workforce, which threaten to interrupt Social Security payments within the next “30 to 90 days,” according to former SSA commissioner Martin O’Malley. “Ultimately, you’re going to see the system collapse and an interruption of benefits,” O’Malley told CNBC. That threat has a lot of people “wondering what theyre gonna do when their social security checks start failing,” one Bluesky user noted. It also angered another user, who goes by Sandi Bachom, who posted, “I’m 80 years old. I decided to call #SocialSecurity . . . ‘If you are calling about a disability application due to staffing reductions, our average processing time for disability applications is 200 to 230 days. The estimated hold time is greater than 120 minutes.'” About 72.5 million people, including retirees, disabled people, and their families receive Social Security benefits; and many elderly Americans rely on the checks just to make ends meet. Several Democrats also took to social media to set the record straight, including Democratic Washington Senator Patty Murray, who explained on X, “Trump is LYING about Social Security right now . . . [He and Musk] are cutting staff drastically at Social Security to make it harder for seniors to get their benefits. These corrupt billionaires need to keep their HANDS OFF Social Security!” Senator Sanders added on X, “What is the goal of this disinformation campaign? To privatize the most successful government program in history and give it over to Wall Street.” According to the Brookings Institution, that would be difficult and has a “major financial hurdle,” because Social Security has accumulated “trillions of dollars in liabilities to workers who are already retired or who will retire soon.” To make room for a new private system, “policymakers would have to find funds to pay for these liabilities while still leaving young workers enough money to deposit in new private accounts,” which would lead to cutting benefits or increasing contributions from current workers.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||