Archives for December 2018

The United States is navigating uncharted economic waters. While a burgeoning economy fueled Republican campaigns during the 2018 midterms, their talking points concealed a daunting economic abnormality: the fiscal year 2018 budget deficit. While it is far from uncommon for the government to run budget deficits, some unusual characteristics of the FY2018 deficit have inspired concern amongst economists for the deficit’s long-term implications. It has the potential to back the US economy into a corner when the next recession hits, so it deserves special attention now to ensure that does not happen.

First, note some important background. The deficit is not the same as the debt. The deficit is measured annually and indicates the amount by which the US government’s spending exceeds its revenues over the course of a given fiscal year. Fiscal years in the US are 12-month periods, divided by quarters, beginning October 1st and ending September 30th. The debt is the cumulative value of all borrowed money the US government has yet to pay back. The budget deficit contributes to the national debt, while a budget surplus chips away at the debt.

Most economists consider deficits to be healthy (within reason) as they can bolster economic growth and catapult the economy over challenges like recessions and unemployment. However, the FY2018 deficit was $779 billion. The sheer size of this deficit makes it abnormal. However, what makes this deficit a truly outstanding case is the time at which it was produced. The FY2018 deficit is the largest since the Obama administration’s trillion-dollar deficits between 2009 and 2012. Those deficits were designed to see the US economy through the global financial crisis, widely considered to be the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. In the US, the crisis pushed unemployment over 9% and drove housing prices down by 31.8% (The Balance).

By contrast, the FY2018 deficit was produced during a time of economic prosperity. The US economy is projected to break its record for the longest economic expansion in US history in July 2019, surpassing the current 120 month record set between 1991 and 2001 (Washington Post). The economic expansion has produced some other positive indicators: in FY2018, wages grew at the fastest rate since 2008 and unemployment fell below 4% for the first time since 2000 (Wall Street Journal). Given the exceptional growth that took place, US economic precedent would have predicted that FY2018 would drive the deficit to near zero (or even into a surplus). Instead, the tax bill passed by Republicans drove down government revenues despite economic growth, and government spending was not pared to accommodate decreased revenues. The result was a deficit that grew with the economy, and a concerning interruption in what most economists considered an important precedent to maintain (NPR).

Driving up the deficit at the wrong time has the potential to back the US into an economic corner. The national debt is over $21 trillion dollars and continues to balloon with the deficit, which may impact the US’ ability to borrow money at competitive rates of return when the next global recession hits (a time when the US would need to borrow money and run a deficit to pay its way out of a recession) (Washington Post). Even if running up an intergovernmental tab is still a realistic option, the growing national debt erodes the political will to do so. Politicians are increasingly reluctant to borrow, spend, and further fuel the debt, closing off avenues toward economic recovery when they are most sorely needed (NPR). Moreover, baby boomers aging into Medicare and Social Security are set to deplete funds for both of these programs well before 2030, prompting questions of how and whether the US government will fund these large-scale entitlement programs (New York Times). Investment bank Morgan Stanley released a statement describing the US economy at present not as “morning in America” but as “happy hour in America,” which will inevitably lead to an “economic hangover” (Washington Post). Recessions are inevitable. Politicians must eventually address an economic downturn, but whether or not the tools to do so will still be there remains to be seen. To put the US in the best position to respond when the time comes, politicians need to focus on finding ways to get the deficit under control.

The Brett Kavanaugh hearings were a moment of cultural and political reckoning for the United States. While activists were discouraged by the hearings, they exemplified an outcome that should have been a predictable after decades of social change and increasing partisan polarization were catalyzed by two intense years of Time’s Up t-shirts and “witch hunts” claims: 43% of Americans now believe #MeToo has gone too far, and party affiliation is a far stronger predictor of this attitude than gender (NPR).

Many critics of #MeToo claim that America has lost sight of the principle “innocent until proven guilty,” which has served as the cornerstone of the US criminal justice system since its inception. However, refusing to believe sexual assault claims on this basis blurs the (important) lines between public discourse and legal processes. Furthermore, it betrays a lack of understanding of why rape is one of the most underreported and, in turn, under-prosecuted crimes in the United States.

1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in the United States experience rape in their lifetimes (CDC). Despite its prevalence, less than 40% of rapes are reported. (NVSRC). There are many reasons for these low reporting rates, but the circumstances of most rapes are perhaps the most salient and, often, the least well understood. 8 in 10 rapes are perpetrated by an individual known to the victim (NVSRC). “Force” in sexual assaults includes not only physical force, but also coercion through fear and engaging in sexual contact with a person who is unable to consent because they are incapacitated, asleep, or too intoxicated. It is common for victims to have incomplete memories of an assault because trauma affects the brain’s ability to create and store memory. Victims who experience the “freeze” response during an assault often dread the question, “Why not fight or flight?” (NBC).

Considering the circumstances outlined here, it makes sense that reporting rates are low. The US criminal justice system is designed to be defensive. It is a system that favors more guilty parties walking free in order to protect innocent parties from arbitrary conviction rather than more easily convicting guilty parties at the expense of more innocent parties being inappropriately convicted. If a survivor has incomplete memory of an assault and lacks physical evidence (which is common—most crime labs will only analyze DNA evidence collected within 72 hours of a sexual assault, and everything from using the restroom to combing hair can damage that evidence before the rape kit is administered), it is difficult at best to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold required for a criminal conviction (RAINN). These considerations are all purely pragmatic. On a more deeply personal level, retraumatization can occur from telling the story of an assault repeatedly and the stigma-rooted responses victims often face upon reporting, such as the belief that women falsely report rape for retaliation or attention (in fact, this myth is unfounded) (Pacific Standard).

With the rise of #MeToo, Americans are being challenged to rethink when, how, and why rape happens. However, the crux of our conflict is more complex than reorienting ourselves in these ways. We as a people are grappling with how to address a widespread injustice that is criminal in scope and that our legal system is ill-equipped to respond to. As the anti-violence movement becomes more popular and publicized, it also becomes more politicized. 20% of women experiencing rape is a moral issue. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to convict Harvey Weinstein of assault is a legal question. Caught in between the ethical and the procedural, what are we as everyday citizens to do when someone in the media—or someone we know—brings forward a sexual assault allegation?

We believe. Our words in the comments section do not constitute the US criminal justice system. In the face of an injustice as pervasive as sexual violence, building a more just society does not call us to build a society where every interaction and response is structured like a judicial proceeding. Rather, combating sexual violence requires us to respond to survivors’ claims with compassion and empathy, as well as some self-sought education on what rape is, why it is so prevalent, and what the survivor experience is like. Just as we should not structure our hearts like courtrooms, we should not respond to those who say they were assaulted with, “I have to believe the abuser you named is innocent until you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.” Instead, we believe.

Since October 12, 2018, a “caravan” of between 4,000 to 7,000 migrants and refugees from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico has been moving through the southwestern states of Mexico en route to the United States. President Trump considered this caravan both a threat to US national security and an opportunity to sway voters during this year’s midterm elections. On Monday, he announced plans to deploy at least 5,200 active-duty troops to the southern border, tweeting “Many Gang Members and some very bad people are mixed into the Caravan heading to our Southern Border… This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!” Notably, Trump has leveled criticism against Mexico’s outgoing President Peña Nieto for failing to better enforce its southern border to prevent Central Americans to enter through Guatemala. What President Trump and his supporters fail to acknowledge is that Mexico has actually been deporting, detaining, and extorting Central American migrants and refugees for years – and the US has paid them for it.

In 2014, American immigration enforcement noticed a steady increase in the number of unauthorized Central Americans passing through Mexico en route to the United States. Incoming migrants primarily matriculated from three countries: Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. This “Northern triangle” was left crippled by civil war in the 1980s and remains terrorized by government corruption, gang violence, narcotics trafficking, and weak rule of law. The region is widely known as one of the most violent in the world. In 2015, the number of Central American asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. by way of Mexico reached 110,000, an increase five-fold from 2012.

In early July 2014, President Obama asked Congress for as much as $3.7 billion in emergency funds to address the situation at the US southern border. On July 7, 2014, Mexican President Peña Nieto announced a “Southern Border Program” (Programa Frontera Sur) purportedly created with part of the money requested by Obama under the umbrella of the Mérida Initiative. A phone call between the two presidents less than two weeks later confirms their mutual interest in developing a “rational strategy” to address the surge of Central American migrants reaching the US. The aim of the program was to limit migration from Central America, improve Mexican border infrastructure, increase coordination between Mexican agencies and Central American governments, and protect migrants. The plan reinforced security at 12 ports of entry and along well-known migration routes at Mexico’s southern border. Almost immediately, the rate of Central American migration to the U.S. dropped as the rate of apprehensions in Mexico spiked. Specifically, during the Program’s first full year in operation apprehensions increased by 79 percent compared to the same period in the previous year.

Programa Frontera Sur (PFS) is controversial. In January 2018, Amnesty International published an article detailing the abuses suffered by Central American migrants in Mexico in the wake of Plan Sur’s installation. Their research found that 75 percent of those detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM) – Mexico’s migration authority – have not been informed of their right to seek asylum. PFS’s source of funding is also unknown. While the program is technically only a product of Mexico, there is considerable evidence that much (if not most) of its funding comes from the United States by way of the Mérida Initiative. As of February 2016, the State Department had delivered an estimated $20 million of assistance for Mexico’s southern border region. What that money is being allocated toward specifically is not known.

Even though both Mexico and the US both have new presidential administrations, the tradition of the US financially pressuring Mexico into doing it’s “dirty work” regarding Central Americans persists. On September 29, Canada, Mexico, and the US finally reached a deal on a revised version of NAFTA called the USMCA. He acquiesced to a deal that fell short of his initial aspirations. One reason for this may have been to obtain Mexican cooperation on security and immigration. After the USMCA announcement, he tweeted “…The assault on our country at our Southern Border, including the Criminal elements and DRUGS pouring in, is far more important to me, as President, than Trade or the USMCA. Hopefully, Mexico will stop this onslaught at their Northern Border.” Fascinatingly, twenty-six days after the USMCA agreement was signed, Peña Nieto announced a program to offer temporary identification papers and jobs to migrants who register for asylum in the country. This is a major policy shift considering Mexico denied a $20 million offer from the US to deport migrants in August, before USMCA agreements were reached.

As the caravan continues through Mexico, the pressure to prevent them from reaching the US grows. As it stands, the current arrangement is dangerous from Mexican, US, and Central American perspectives. If the US continues to hinge money on Mexican security expansion, trade negotiations suffer. As Mexico remains complicit in the US’s agenda, the incoming López Obrador administration risks losing legitimacy entirely in the eyes of the Mexican public and enduring heightened critique from the international community for human rights violations. Most importantly, Central Americans continue to suffer as plans are hastily constructed around them and both Mexico and the US continue to ignore their legitimate asylum claims. Mexico and the US must both design a response to the migration crisis that is both practical, effective, and humanitarian. Such a response must be untied from ongoing trade negotiations and prioritize addressing the root of the problem through aid to the Central American countries that most need it.