click a pic
⇩
Apr 16, 2025
Who's Got Next?
Well well well - it's going to be Jerome Powell.
Trump’s tariffs are ‘highly likely’ to push prices up, Fed chief warns
The top official at the Federal Reserve, Jerome H. Powell, ratcheted up a warning about the inflationary effects of President Donald Trump’s trade policies.
President Donald Trump’s tariffs are “highly likely” to spur a temporary rise in inflation, Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell said Wednesday, cautioning that those effects could end up being longer-lasting.
Get a curated selection of 10 of our best stories in your inbox every weekend.
In remarks before the Economic Club of Chicago, Powell said more persistent risks to inflation — and the Fed’s ability to avoid them — depend on how much tariffs end up affecting the economy and how long it takes trade policy to pass through to prices. Powell said many of the administration’s policies — on trade, immigration, fiscal matters and regulation — are still evolving. But higher inflation and slower growth are probably in store, he said.
“The level of the tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated,” Powell said. “The same is likely to be true of the economic effects.”
Powell also said that as the Fed sets interest rates, it could end up in a place where its two mandates — stable prices and maximum employment — are “in tension.”
Typically, the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to combat inflation by making it more expensive to get all types of loans. The Federal Reserve lowers interest rates if it fears the economy is slowing too much and needs a boost. That could prove difficult if inflation is rising in the midst of a broader downturn.
Prices aren’t rising significantly so far, and there aren’t widespread signs of a broader downturn. Small-scale job losses, or the anticipation that prices could go up soon, would not be enough to push the Fed to act.
Yet Powell’s warning comes as the economy and the Fed enter yet another uncertain chapter. After spiking to 40-year highs, inflation has been slowly easing toward a more normal 2 percent. Officials had been optimistic they were inching closer to the coveted “soft landing,” in which inflation returns to normal, the job market stays strong, and the economy keeps growing. But that path risks being thwarted by Trump’s trade war and looming uncertainty for businesses and financial markets alike.
At the same time, the financial markets have been in turmoil. By midday Wednesday, the Nasdaq was down more than 2 percent, and the S&P 500 had dropped more than 1 percent, extending losses of 14 percent for the year for the Nasdaq and 9 percent for the S&P. Plus, investors are fleeing Treasurys and the dollar, assets usually considered safer when volatility hits markets.
Fed officials routinely say their outlook depends on how Trump’s policies unfurl. Part of the difficulty also stems from policies that change in a matter of days. Last week, the White House paused many of the steep import taxes on most countries for 90 days, while further hoisting tariffs for China. It left in place a baseline 10 percent tariff on all imports from most countries and continued tariffs on imports of steel, aluminum and autos.
The shift prompted many forecasters to pare back their expectations for a recession. But that possibility is still on the table.
Earlier this week, Fed Governor Christopher Waller described new tariff policies as “one of the biggest shocks to affect the U.S. economy in many decades.” There’s plenty of uncertainty based on how large the tariffs are, for example. But Waller said it’s possible the effects on prices, while steep, won’t be permanent, so long as expectations around longer-term prices stay grounded. Still, aggressive tariff policy could slow growth to “a crawl” and push unemployment up, he said.
Fed officials ultimately having to parse short-term shifts — like a temporary rise in prices — from more lasting effects, like inflation or a broader slowdown. The distinction matters because officials set interest rate policy with the long-term health of the economy in mind, rather than reacting to blips or individual pieces of data. And they have been wrong before: when inflation started rising on the heels of the pandemic, central bankers thought those increases would be temporary. By the time they rushed to raise interest rates, high prices were already pulsing through American life.
“I can hear the howls already that this must be a mistake given what happened in 2021 and 2022,” Waller said in his Monday speech. “But just because it didn’t work out once does not mean you should never think that way again.”
Under other scenarios, Fed leaders would also be hesitant to raise interest rates if the economy is slowing too much. That isn’t happening right now. The job market has stayed strong through upheaval in the federal government, and the unemployment rate is at a low 4.2 percent. The Fed’s preferred inflation gauge was at 2.5 percent in February.
But there are other concerning markers on the Fed’s dashboard, too. Retail sales jumped in March, with economists attributing the rise to consumers panic buying before tariffs take hold. Industrial production fell for the first decline in four months in March. Stocks have also flashed red since Trump kicked off the trade war.
Trump has publicly pressured the Fed to lower interest rates to stimulate the economy. The Fed closely guards its independence from politics and takes pains not to get involved in fiscal policy. But Trump has historically ignored those norms, recently telling Powell to “stop playing politics!” in a post on X.
“He is always ‘late,’ but he could now change his image, and quickly,” Trump wrote earlier this month.
Trump's been leading up to it for a while, and now - probably - he'll test the boundaries again by insisting on firing the Fed Chief.
Which will give us the next big Oh Fuck moment, which will push the previous Oh Fuck moments out of the news cycle.
The top official at the Federal Reserve, Jerome H. Powell, ratcheted up a warning about the inflationary effects of President Donald Trump’s trade policies.
President Donald Trump’s tariffs are “highly likely” to spur a temporary rise in inflation, Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell said Wednesday, cautioning that those effects could end up being longer-lasting.
Get a curated selection of 10 of our best stories in your inbox every weekend.
In remarks before the Economic Club of Chicago, Powell said more persistent risks to inflation — and the Fed’s ability to avoid them — depend on how much tariffs end up affecting the economy and how long it takes trade policy to pass through to prices. Powell said many of the administration’s policies — on trade, immigration, fiscal matters and regulation — are still evolving. But higher inflation and slower growth are probably in store, he said.
“The level of the tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated,” Powell said. “The same is likely to be true of the economic effects.”
Powell also said that as the Fed sets interest rates, it could end up in a place where its two mandates — stable prices and maximum employment — are “in tension.”
Typically, the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to combat inflation by making it more expensive to get all types of loans. The Federal Reserve lowers interest rates if it fears the economy is slowing too much and needs a boost. That could prove difficult if inflation is rising in the midst of a broader downturn.
Prices aren’t rising significantly so far, and there aren’t widespread signs of a broader downturn. Small-scale job losses, or the anticipation that prices could go up soon, would not be enough to push the Fed to act.
Yet Powell’s warning comes as the economy and the Fed enter yet another uncertain chapter. After spiking to 40-year highs, inflation has been slowly easing toward a more normal 2 percent. Officials had been optimistic they were inching closer to the coveted “soft landing,” in which inflation returns to normal, the job market stays strong, and the economy keeps growing. But that path risks being thwarted by Trump’s trade war and looming uncertainty for businesses and financial markets alike.
At the same time, the financial markets have been in turmoil. By midday Wednesday, the Nasdaq was down more than 2 percent, and the S&P 500 had dropped more than 1 percent, extending losses of 14 percent for the year for the Nasdaq and 9 percent for the S&P. Plus, investors are fleeing Treasurys and the dollar, assets usually considered safer when volatility hits markets.
Fed officials routinely say their outlook depends on how Trump’s policies unfurl. Part of the difficulty also stems from policies that change in a matter of days. Last week, the White House paused many of the steep import taxes on most countries for 90 days, while further hoisting tariffs for China. It left in place a baseline 10 percent tariff on all imports from most countries and continued tariffs on imports of steel, aluminum and autos.
The shift prompted many forecasters to pare back their expectations for a recession. But that possibility is still on the table.
Earlier this week, Fed Governor Christopher Waller described new tariff policies as “one of the biggest shocks to affect the U.S. economy in many decades.” There’s plenty of uncertainty based on how large the tariffs are, for example. But Waller said it’s possible the effects on prices, while steep, won’t be permanent, so long as expectations around longer-term prices stay grounded. Still, aggressive tariff policy could slow growth to “a crawl” and push unemployment up, he said.
Fed officials ultimately having to parse short-term shifts — like a temporary rise in prices — from more lasting effects, like inflation or a broader slowdown. The distinction matters because officials set interest rate policy with the long-term health of the economy in mind, rather than reacting to blips or individual pieces of data. And they have been wrong before: when inflation started rising on the heels of the pandemic, central bankers thought those increases would be temporary. By the time they rushed to raise interest rates, high prices were already pulsing through American life.
“I can hear the howls already that this must be a mistake given what happened in 2021 and 2022,” Waller said in his Monday speech. “But just because it didn’t work out once does not mean you should never think that way again.”
Under other scenarios, Fed leaders would also be hesitant to raise interest rates if the economy is slowing too much. That isn’t happening right now. The job market has stayed strong through upheaval in the federal government, and the unemployment rate is at a low 4.2 percent. The Fed’s preferred inflation gauge was at 2.5 percent in February.
But there are other concerning markers on the Fed’s dashboard, too. Retail sales jumped in March, with economists attributing the rise to consumers panic buying before tariffs take hold. Industrial production fell for the first decline in four months in March. Stocks have also flashed red since Trump kicked off the trade war.
Trump has publicly pressured the Fed to lower interest rates to stimulate the economy. The Fed closely guards its independence from politics and takes pains not to get involved in fiscal policy. But Trump has historically ignored those norms, recently telling Powell to “stop playing politics!” in a post on X.
“He is always ‘late,’ but he could now change his image, and quickly,” Trump wrote earlier this month.
The Point
When Howard Lutnick railed about the American dream not being about buying cheap goods from China, that wasn't criticism or a call to greatness - that was him telling us what Republicans intend to do to American workers.
With the Trump administration implementing a blizzard of anti-worker initiatives on a near-daily basis, it’s difficult to imagine that these early assaults could be only the tip of the iceberg. But President Trump and billionaire Elon Musk may well have far worse plans to attack U.S. workers and labor relations.
One little-seen proposal from outside the White House has the potential to upend our entire system of labor relations. It comes from the “Coalition for a Democratic Workplace” (CDW)—an anti-union trade association of several hundred employers and employer associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers. The coalition sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi asking her to repudiate and invalidate more than a dozen major decisions issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) during the Biden administration, and to instruct all NLRB appointees and employees that they cannot treat these properly issued decisions as governing law.
The decisions in question address important issues like which workers have the right to form and join a union and what remedies are available to workers who are illegally fired in retaliation for exercising their rights in the workplace. Like all decisions issued by the NLRB—a multi-member body that acts as a court to adjudicate labor disputes—they were issued after full briefing and consideration of the issues and are treated as precedent governing subsequent cases.
Ordinarily, the way employers try to get the NLRB to change a decision they disagree with is to challenge the decision on appeal. Many of the decisions identified in the memo have been challenged, and those court proceedings are in progress. Employers also have the ability to argue to the Board in future cases that it should revisit its own precedent. The NLRB would then consider the issue and arguments and decide whether to change its earlier decision. This process comports with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires agencies to engage in “reasoned decision-making” when deciding cases. In other words, the agency has to explain itself when it changes course—it can’t just declare a new rule.
In what would be a radical—and clearly unlawful—departure from these well-established avenues for appeal, the employer coalition has asked Pam Bondi—who has no background or experience in labor relations—to unilaterally invalidate more than a dozen NLRB decisions with the stroke of a pen. While there is nothing in the National Labor Relations Act or any other federal law giving the attorney general any authority to overturn a NLRB decision, CDW cites President Trump’s executive order on independent agencies as authority for this action. That executive order purports to give the attorney general the authority to impose their own interpretation of any law onto independent agencies like the NLRB.
This dangerous suggestion is clearly unlawful in numerous respects. First, it completely undermines Congress’s directive that the NLRB functions as an independent agency, with labor disputes adjudicated by a panel of experts insulated from political influence. Second, if the agency did comply with this directive and revert to the law as it existed prior to the targeted decisions, any decisions following this earlier law would clearly run afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act, as the agency’s changed course would have no statutory explanation at all—the exact opposite of the “reasoned decision-making” that the APA requires.
Perhaps even more alarming is the damage this would do to our nation’s labor relations in the long term. One of the oft-cited criticisms of the NLRB is that the Board changes course and reverses itself too often, causing instability in the law. While reasonable minds can differ about how often is “too often” to revisit precedent, management and labor alike should be in agreement that abandoning the very concept of precedent altogether would be a huge step in the wrong direction.
Let’s play it out. If this scheme is successful and somehow withstands judicial review (a big if), the Trump administration could immediately undo all significant legal precedents issued by the NLRB during the Biden administration. Indeed, if an attorney general can unilaterally impose their own reading of the law on the agency without restriction, there is nothing to stop Attorney General Bondi from going further and directing the agency to abandon far longer-standing precedents with which she disagrees. Literally any aspect of labor law that has not been explicitly endorsed by the federal courts would be ripe for instantaneous revision at any time. And nothing would stop a future administration from doing the exact same thing—instantaneously revising all of labor law in a pro-worker direction and overturning any decision that favored management. Labor law would become so unpredictable and changeable as to be effectively useless. Workers and employers would bring cases before the NLRB at their peril—under the CDW’s view of things, any favorable ruling could be immediately erased by the attorney general.
Unfortunately, the lessons of history demonstrate all too well the danger to workers, employers, and the economy that can result—such as labor unrest and economic disruption—when there is no neutral entity that people can turn to in resolving disputes.
One would hope that is not the goal of any of the businesses and trade associations that comprise the CDW. Any reasonable employer should take prompt action to denounce this radical agenda and ensure it dies a quick and well-deserved death.
Wanna Know What's Crazy?
Ford offering a Shelby version pickup truck. That's fuckin' crazy.
Carroll Shelby would shove that thing up somebody's ass.
Today's Vic
In every time of major conflict - either a state-vs-state shootin' war, or an internal beef among various factions inside a government - there's always a belligerent jerk who's willing to push for his own ends at the expense of everything and everybody else.
And we always get to see who that jerk is when the quotable quotes pop out.
- The Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let's see him enforce it (Andy Jackson)
- How many divisions does the Pope have? (Joe Stalin)
- If you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow (Teddy Roosevelt)
The operative concept now is the Andrew Jackson quote, which of course, Trump has stolen because he can't do anything on his own.
Turnabout
"Conservatives" love to bitch:
Trump is spending billions on border security. Some residents living there lack basic resources.
The president has reportedly urged Congress to pass $175 billion for border security. But residents of Del Rio, Texas, and Douglas, Arizona, say basic needs — like safe drinking water and hospital access — aren’t being met.
Within hours of taking office, President Donald Trump declared an emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border, giving him authority to unilaterally spend billions on immigration enforcement and wall construction. He has since reportedly urged Congress to authorize an additional $175 billion for border security, far exceeding what was spent during his first term.
In the coming months, border towns in Texas and Arizona will receive more grants to fund and equip police patrols. New wall construction projects will fill border communities with workers who eat at restaurants, shop in stores and rent space in RV parks. And National Guard deployments will add to local economies.
But if the president asked Sandra Fuentes what the biggest need in her community on the Texas-Mexico border is, the answer would be safe drinking water, not more border security.
When Cierra Flores gives her daughter a bath at their home in Del Rio, she has to keep a close eye on the water level of the outdoor tank that supplies her house. Like any 6-year-old, her daughter likes to play in the running water. But Flores doesn’t have the luxury of leaving the tap open. When the tank runs dry, the household is out of water. That means not washing dishes, doing laundry or flushing the toilet until the trip can be made to get more water.
Flores lives on a ranch in Escondido Estates, a neighborhood where many residents have gone decades without running water. Flores’ family has a well on their property. But during the summer and prolonged droughts, as the region is now experiencing, their well runs dry.
At those times, the family relies on a neighbor who has a more dependable well and is willing to sell water. Flores’ husband makes hourlong trips twice on weekends to fill the family’s water tank. Their situation has felt even more tenuous lately, as her neighbor’s property was listed for sale, prompting worries about whether they’ll continue to have access to his well.
“I have no idea where we would go here if that well wasn’t there,” Flores said. “It’s frustrating that we don’t have basic resources, especially in a place where they know when the summer comes it doesn’t rain. It doesn’t rain, we don’t have water.”
Val Verde County, where Del Rio is located, is three times the size of Rhode Island and hours from a major city. About a fifth of its nearly 50,000 residents live in poverty, a rate nearly twice the national average. Some live in colonias — rural communities along the U.S.-Mexico border, including illegal subdivisions that lack access to water, sewers or adequate housing.
The county has worked for years to bring water to residents, piecing together state and federal grants. Yet about 2,000 people — more than 4% of the county’s population — still lack running water, according to a database kept by the Texas Office of the Attorney General. For those residents, it means showering at fitness centers and doing the dishes once a week with water from plastic jugs.
Some neighborhoods along the Mexican border on the outskirts of Del Rio, such as the area where Cierra Flores and her 6-year-old daughter, Olivia, live, still lack infrastructure like paved roads and access to safe drinking water.
In the early 1990s, then-Gov. Ann Richards, a Democrat, toured some of the state’s colonias along the border to assess the living conditions. After stepping into the mud on an unpaved street, she’s said to have been so moved by the scene that she told a staffer, “Whatever they want, give it to them.”
Fuentes, a community organizer, likes to tell that story because it drives home how long residents have fought for water and other improvements but been stymied by state and local politics and limited funds.
“It’s going to be an uphill battle, but we are going to keep on battling,” she said. “What else is there to do?”
Over the past 30 years, the state has provided more than $1 billion in grants and loans to bring drinking water and wastewater treatment to colonias and other economically distressed areas. Texas 2036, a nonpartisan public policy think tank, estimates Texas needs nearly $154 billion by 2050 to meet water demands across the state amid population growth, the ongoing drought and aging infrastructure.
Texas state leaders said they are committed to investing in water projects and infrastructure. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office said he is calling on the Legislature to dedicate $1 billion a year for 10 years and is looking forward to working with lawmakers “to ensure Texans have a safe, reliable water supply for the next 50 years.”
Kim Carmichael, a spokesperson for Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows, a Republican from Lubbock, said, “Texas is at a critical juncture with its water supply, and every lawmaker recognizes the need to act decisively and meaningfully invest to further secure our water future.” The Texas House’s base budget proposes $2.5 billion for water infrastructure.
One of the challenges — at the federal and state level — is that infrastructure needs often exceed available funds, said Olga Morales-Pate, chief executive officer of Rural Community Assistance Partnership, a national network of nonprofits that works with rural communities on access to safe drinking water and wastewater issues. “So it becomes a competitive process: Who gets there faster, who has a better application, who is shovel ready to get those funding opportunities out?” she said.
Daniel Scarpinato, Ducey’s former chief of staff, said border security is a significant issue for nearby communities and requires resources, “especially given the failures of the federal government.” He noted that the Ducey administration didn’t ignore other needs in the area, including spending to attract doctors to rural Arizona. “But we will make no apologies for prioritizing public safety and security at our border,” he said.
Grijalva, a Douglas native, was sworn in as mayor in December with a list of needs he is determined to make progress on: a community center, more food assistance for the growing number of hungry residents and a hospital. Money the state spent on the container wall would’ve been better used on those projects, he said. “I appreciate Doug Ducey trying that, but those resources could have gone into the community,” he said.
The median income in Douglas is $39,000, about half the state’s median income, and almost a third of the town’s residents live in poverty. A shrinking tax base makes it difficult for Douglas to provide basic services. The town doesn’t have enough money for street repairs, let alone to reopen a hospital. The backlog of repaving projects has climbed to $67 million, while Douglas nets only $400,000 a year for street improvements.
Money for wall construction or National Guard units gives a short-term boost to the economy, but those efforts can also interfere with the economic lifeblood of towns like Douglas: cross-border traffic.
Both Trump and Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, have deployed hundreds of guard members and active military personnel to the border. None have shown up in Douglas yet, Grijalva said. When they do, they’ll spend money. But a couple dozen troops don’t compare to the 3.6 million people who cross the border each year. The Walmart in Douglas, a stone’s throw from the port of entry, is packed daily with shoppers from Agua Prieta, Sonora, Grijalva said. More troops on both sides of the port bottleneck traffic and raise people’s fears of being detained, which may discourage them from crossing, even when they are doing so legally, he said.
Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, Grijalva declared a state of emergency, which could make the city eligible for federal aid if its economy takes a hit. “I know the executive orders didn’t do anything to stop the legal immigration, but it’s the perception,” Grijalva said. “If our economy dips in any way, they could give us some funding.”
Douglas’ new mayor, Jose Grijalva, declared a state of emergency in January over concerns that Trump’s executive orders on border security and immigration will harm the border town’s fragile economy.
Attracting a new hospital is a longer-term effort. Construction alone could cost upwards of $75 million. But then it would have to be staffed. In its final years, the hospital in Douglas suffered from the shortage of health care professionals plaguing much of rural America. The year it closed, it had no onsite physicians, said Dr. Dan Derksen, director of the Arizona Center for Rural Health. The state has programs to address that problem, including helping doctors in rural areas repay school loans. But the shortage has persisted. If a hospital were to open again in Douglas, it could cost as much as $775,000 to launch a residency program there, according to Derksen and Dr. Conrad Clemens, who heads graduate medical education for the University of Arizona.
“There’s policy strategies that you can do at the state level that help, but there’s no single strategy that is a cure-all,” Derksen said. “You have to do a variety of strategies.”
Border security funding, on the other hand, is easier to get.
Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels is known for his aggressive border enforcement activities. His office soaks up state and federal grants to help with drug interdiction, human trafficking and surveillance equipment on the border. The state also awarded him $20 million for a new jail and $5 million to open a border security operations center, a base for various agencies enforcing the border, in Sierra Vista, about an hour from Douglas.
At its grand opening in November, Dannels said all he had to do was ask for the money.
“I was speaking with Gov. Ducey and the governor asked me, ‘What do you guys need?’” Dannels said. “I said, ‘We need a collective center that drives actions.’” Shortly after, the plan came together, he said.
However, if Cochise Regional Hospital were still open, Dannels’ office would have one less security concern. The abandoned building, which is deteriorating in an isolated pocket of desert on the outskirts of Douglas, is a common waypoint for smugglers.
"Why are we spending all that money on [insert mindless outrage du jour here], when there are [insert the pathos-invoking downtrodden here] ?"
But they don't give one empty fuck about anything but their need to pimp the conflict - any conflict. Constant rage-tweaking keeps people divided and not thinking about how coin-operated politicians are fucking us all with our pants on.
Veterans and immigrants aren't each other's enemies. The enemies - everybody's enemies - are the cynically manipulative politicians and their "donors", and a corporate media cartel that can't bring itself to think beyond their fly-specked ledgers.
So turn it around:
"Why are we spending billions on a sketchy border crisis performance art when the Americans who live down there are struggling to get clean water and decent healthcare?"
Trump is spending billions on border security. Some residents living there lack basic resources.
The president has reportedly urged Congress to pass $175 billion for border security. But residents of Del Rio, Texas, and Douglas, Arizona, say basic needs — like safe drinking water and hospital access — aren’t being met.
Within hours of taking office, President Donald Trump declared an emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border, giving him authority to unilaterally spend billions on immigration enforcement and wall construction. He has since reportedly urged Congress to authorize an additional $175 billion for border security, far exceeding what was spent during his first term.
In the coming months, border towns in Texas and Arizona will receive more grants to fund and equip police patrols. New wall construction projects will fill border communities with workers who eat at restaurants, shop in stores and rent space in RV parks. And National Guard deployments will add to local economies.
But if the president asked Sandra Fuentes what the biggest need in her community on the Texas-Mexico border is, the answer would be safe drinking water, not more border security.
And if Trump put the same question to Jose Grijalva, the Arizona mayor would say a hospital for his border city, which has struggled without one for a decade.
Although billions of state and federal dollars flow into the majority-Latino communities along the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border, many remain among the poorest places in the nation. In many towns, unemployment is significantly higher and income much lower than their interior counterparts, with limited access to health care, underfunded infrastructure and lagging educational attainment. Security walls are erected next to neighborhoods without running water, and National Guard units deploy to towns without paved roads and hospitals.
By some estimates, about 30,000 border residents in Texas lack access to reliable drinking water, among more than a million statewide. For 205,000 people living along Arizona’s border with Mexico, the nearest full-service hospital is hours away.
Such struggles aren’t confined to the border. But the region offers perhaps the most striking disparity between the size of federal and state governments’ investment there and how little it’s reflected in the quality of life of residents.
“The border security issue takes up all the oxygen and a lot of the resources in the room,” said state Rep. Mary González, a Democrat from El Paso County who has sponsored bills to address water needs. “It leaves very little space for all the other priorities, specifically water and wastewater infrastructure, because most people don’t understand what it’s like turning your faucet and there’ll be no water.”
Here’s how residents in two border towns, Del Rio, Texas, and Douglas, Arizona, experience living in places where the government always seems ready to spend on border security while stubborn obstacles to their communities’ well-being remain.
Nearly a fifth of the nearly 50,000 residents in Val Verde County, Texas, live in poverty, compared with the state’s 14% average.
Although billions of state and federal dollars flow into the majority-Latino communities along the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border, many remain among the poorest places in the nation. In many towns, unemployment is significantly higher and income much lower than their interior counterparts, with limited access to health care, underfunded infrastructure and lagging educational attainment. Security walls are erected next to neighborhoods without running water, and National Guard units deploy to towns without paved roads and hospitals.
By some estimates, about 30,000 border residents in Texas lack access to reliable drinking water, among more than a million statewide. For 205,000 people living along Arizona’s border with Mexico, the nearest full-service hospital is hours away.
Such struggles aren’t confined to the border. But the region offers perhaps the most striking disparity between the size of federal and state governments’ investment there and how little it’s reflected in the quality of life of residents.
“The border security issue takes up all the oxygen and a lot of the resources in the room,” said state Rep. Mary González, a Democrat from El Paso County who has sponsored bills to address water needs. “It leaves very little space for all the other priorities, specifically water and wastewater infrastructure, because most people don’t understand what it’s like turning your faucet and there’ll be no water.”
Here’s how residents in two border towns, Del Rio, Texas, and Douglas, Arizona, experience living in places where the government always seems ready to spend on border security while stubborn obstacles to their communities’ well-being remain.
Nearly a fifth of the nearly 50,000 residents in Val Verde County, Texas, live in poverty, compared with the state’s 14% average.
When Cierra Flores gives her daughter a bath at their home in Del Rio, she has to keep a close eye on the water level of the outdoor tank that supplies her house. Like any 6-year-old, her daughter likes to play in the running water. But Flores doesn’t have the luxury of leaving the tap open. When the tank runs dry, the household is out of water. That means not washing dishes, doing laundry or flushing the toilet until the trip can be made to get more water.
Flores lives on a ranch in Escondido Estates, a neighborhood where many residents have gone decades without running water. Flores’ family has a well on their property. But during the summer and prolonged droughts, as the region is now experiencing, their well runs dry.
At those times, the family relies on a neighbor who has a more dependable well and is willing to sell water. Flores’ husband makes hourlong trips twice on weekends to fill the family’s water tank. Their situation has felt even more tenuous lately, as her neighbor’s property was listed for sale, prompting worries about whether they’ll continue to have access to his well.
“I have no idea where we would go here if that well wasn’t there,” Flores said. “It’s frustrating that we don’t have basic resources, especially in a place where they know when the summer comes it doesn’t rain. It doesn’t rain, we don’t have water.”
Val Verde County, where Del Rio is located, is three times the size of Rhode Island and hours from a major city. About a fifth of its nearly 50,000 residents live in poverty, a rate nearly twice the national average. Some live in colonias — rural communities along the U.S.-Mexico border, including illegal subdivisions that lack access to water, sewers or adequate housing.
The county has worked for years to bring water to residents, piecing together state and federal grants. Yet about 2,000 people — more than 4% of the county’s population — still lack running water, according to a database kept by the Texas Office of the Attorney General. For those residents, it means showering at fitness centers and doing the dishes once a week with water from plastic jugs.
Some neighborhoods along the Mexican border on the outskirts of Del Rio, such as the area where Cierra Flores and her 6-year-old daughter, Olivia, live, still lack infrastructure like paved roads and access to safe drinking water.
In the early 1990s, then-Gov. Ann Richards, a Democrat, toured some of the state’s colonias along the border to assess the living conditions. After stepping into the mud on an unpaved street, she’s said to have been so moved by the scene that she told a staffer, “Whatever they want, give it to them.”
Fuentes, a community organizer, likes to tell that story because it drives home how long residents have fought for water and other improvements but been stymied by state and local politics and limited funds.
“It’s going to be an uphill battle, but we are going to keep on battling,” she said. “What else is there to do?”
Over the past 30 years, the state has provided more than $1 billion in grants and loans to bring drinking water and wastewater treatment to colonias and other economically distressed areas. Texas 2036, a nonpartisan public policy think tank, estimates Texas needs nearly $154 billion by 2050 to meet water demands across the state amid population growth, the ongoing drought and aging infrastructure.
Texas state leaders said they are committed to investing in water projects and infrastructure. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office said he is calling on the Legislature to dedicate $1 billion a year for 10 years and is looking forward to working with lawmakers “to ensure Texans have a safe, reliable water supply for the next 50 years.”
Kim Carmichael, a spokesperson for Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows, a Republican from Lubbock, said, “Texas is at a critical juncture with its water supply, and every lawmaker recognizes the need to act decisively and meaningfully invest to further secure our water future.” The Texas House’s base budget proposes $2.5 billion for water infrastructure.
One of the challenges — at the federal and state level — is that infrastructure needs often exceed available funds, said Olga Morales-Pate, chief executive officer of Rural Community Assistance Partnership, a national network of nonprofits that works with rural communities on access to safe drinking water and wastewater issues. “So it becomes a competitive process: Who gets there faster, who has a better application, who is shovel ready to get those funding opportunities out?” she said.
The plight of people without water often gets overlooked, said Karen Gonzalez, an organizer who used to work with Fuentes. Even though she grew up in Del Rio, it wasn’t until she started to work with the community that she learned some county residents didn’t have water.
“Every person that I come across that I tell that we’re working this issue is like, ‘There’s people that don’t have water?’” she said. “It’s not something that is known.”
Unlike border security, which is constantly in the spotlight.
During his inauguration, Trump praised Abbott as a “leader of the pack” on border security. In 2021, Abbott launched Operation Lone Star, a multibillion-dollar effort aimed at curbing illegal immigration and drug trafficking. As part of the operation, the state has awarded Val Verde County and the city of Del Rio more than $10 million in grants, state data obtained by The Texas Tribune shows.
A state-funded border wall that has gone up in the county a short distance from the Rio Grande stretches in fits and starts, including next to a neighborhood without running water. As of November, about 5 miles of it had cost at least $162 million, according to the Tribune. The state Legislature’s proposed budget includes $6.5 billion to maintain “current border security operations.”
Meanwhile, organizers, elected officials and residents say state and federal programs to fund water infrastructure will continue to fall short of the need. Last year, the state fund created by lawmakers in 1989 to help underserved areas access drinking water had $200 million in applications for assistance and only $100 million in available funding.
When grants are awarded, water projects can take years to complete because of increasing costs and unforeseen construction difficulties — like hitting unexpected bedrock while laying pipe, said Val Verde County Judge Lewis Owens. Project delays — some of them, Owens acknowledged, the county’s fault — impede the ability to get future grants.
Organizers like Fuentes and Karen Gonzalez said their frustration with the slow progress on water has grown as they’ve watched the border wall go up and billions more dollars spent to deploy state troopers and the National Guard to aid federal border security officers.
“It’s just infuriating,” Karen Gonzalez said. She said she hopes elected officials “focus on what our actual border community needs are. And for us, I feel like it’s not border security.”
As paramedics loaded her 8-year-old son into a helicopter in the Arizona border town of Douglas, Nina Nelson did her best to reassure him. Days earlier, Jacob and his father had been riding ATVs on their ranch in far southeastern Arizona, along the U.S.-Mexico border. Dust irritated Jacob’s lungs, and over the next few days his breathing deteriorated until Nelson could see him fight for every breath.
He needed care that isn’t available in Douglas, a town of about 15,000. And he would have to make the trip without her.
“Buddy, you’re gonna be OK,” she recalled telling him. She knew it would take more than twice as long to drive the 120 miles to Tucson and the nearest hospital that could provide the care he needed. “I’m gonna be racing up there. I’ll be there. I’m gonna find you,” she said.
Douglas lost its hospital nearly a decade ago. Southeast Arizona Medical Center had struggled financially for years and by 2015 was staffed by out-of-state doctors. When it ran afoul of federal rules too many times, jeopardizing patient safety, the government pulled its ability to bill Medicare and Medicaid and it closed within a week.
As her son’s breathing took a turn for the worse, Nelson considered the variables everyone in Douglas confronts in a medical emergency. Should she go to the town’s stand-alone emergency room, which treats only the most basic maladies? Drive the half hour to Bisbee or an hour to Sierra Vista for slightly higher levels of care? Or could Jacob endure the two hours it takes to drive to Tucson?
“That is the kind of game you play: ‘How much time do I think I have?’” Nelson said.
Arizona hasn’t been as aggressive as Texas in funding border security. But when concerns about the border surge, money often follows.
In 2021, the state created the Border Security Fund and allocated $55 million to it. A year later, then-Gov. Doug Ducey asked state lawmakers for $50 million for border security. They gave him more than 10 times that amount, including $335 million for a border wall. The measure was proposed by Sen. David Gowan, a Republican who represents Douglas. In October 2022, crews began stacking shipping containers along the border in Cochise County, where Douglas is located. Gowan’s spokesperson said he wasn’t available for comment.
The container wall wasn’t effective. Migrants slipped through gaps between containers, and a section toppled over. When the federal government sued, claiming the construction was trespassing on federal land, Ducey had the container wall removed.
The cost of erecting, then disassembling the wall: $197 million. (The state recouped about $1.4 million by selling the containers.)
“Every person that I come across that I tell that we’re working this issue is like, ‘There’s people that don’t have water?’” she said. “It’s not something that is known.”
Unlike border security, which is constantly in the spotlight.
During his inauguration, Trump praised Abbott as a “leader of the pack” on border security. In 2021, Abbott launched Operation Lone Star, a multibillion-dollar effort aimed at curbing illegal immigration and drug trafficking. As part of the operation, the state has awarded Val Verde County and the city of Del Rio more than $10 million in grants, state data obtained by The Texas Tribune shows.
A state-funded border wall that has gone up in the county a short distance from the Rio Grande stretches in fits and starts, including next to a neighborhood without running water. As of November, about 5 miles of it had cost at least $162 million, according to the Tribune. The state Legislature’s proposed budget includes $6.5 billion to maintain “current border security operations.”
Meanwhile, organizers, elected officials and residents say state and federal programs to fund water infrastructure will continue to fall short of the need. Last year, the state fund created by lawmakers in 1989 to help underserved areas access drinking water had $200 million in applications for assistance and only $100 million in available funding.
When grants are awarded, water projects can take years to complete because of increasing costs and unforeseen construction difficulties — like hitting unexpected bedrock while laying pipe, said Val Verde County Judge Lewis Owens. Project delays — some of them, Owens acknowledged, the county’s fault — impede the ability to get future grants.
Organizers like Fuentes and Karen Gonzalez said their frustration with the slow progress on water has grown as they’ve watched the border wall go up and billions more dollars spent to deploy state troopers and the National Guard to aid federal border security officers.
“It’s just infuriating,” Karen Gonzalez said. She said she hopes elected officials “focus on what our actual border community needs are. And for us, I feel like it’s not border security.”
As paramedics loaded her 8-year-old son into a helicopter in the Arizona border town of Douglas, Nina Nelson did her best to reassure him. Days earlier, Jacob and his father had been riding ATVs on their ranch in far southeastern Arizona, along the U.S.-Mexico border. Dust irritated Jacob’s lungs, and over the next few days his breathing deteriorated until Nelson could see him fight for every breath.
He needed care that isn’t available in Douglas, a town of about 15,000. And he would have to make the trip without her.
“Buddy, you’re gonna be OK,” she recalled telling him. She knew it would take more than twice as long to drive the 120 miles to Tucson and the nearest hospital that could provide the care he needed. “I’m gonna be racing up there. I’ll be there. I’m gonna find you,” she said.
Douglas lost its hospital nearly a decade ago. Southeast Arizona Medical Center had struggled financially for years and by 2015 was staffed by out-of-state doctors. When it ran afoul of federal rules too many times, jeopardizing patient safety, the government pulled its ability to bill Medicare and Medicaid and it closed within a week.
As her son’s breathing took a turn for the worse, Nelson considered the variables everyone in Douglas confronts in a medical emergency. Should she go to the town’s stand-alone emergency room, which treats only the most basic maladies? Drive the half hour to Bisbee or an hour to Sierra Vista for slightly higher levels of care? Or could Jacob endure the two hours it takes to drive to Tucson?
“That is the kind of game you play: ‘How much time do I think I have?’” Nelson said.
Arizona hasn’t been as aggressive as Texas in funding border security. But when concerns about the border surge, money often follows.
In 2021, the state created the Border Security Fund and allocated $55 million to it. A year later, then-Gov. Doug Ducey asked state lawmakers for $50 million for border security. They gave him more than 10 times that amount, including $335 million for a border wall. The measure was proposed by Sen. David Gowan, a Republican who represents Douglas. In October 2022, crews began stacking shipping containers along the border in Cochise County, where Douglas is located. Gowan’s spokesperson said he wasn’t available for comment.
The container wall wasn’t effective. Migrants slipped through gaps between containers, and a section toppled over. When the federal government sued, claiming the construction was trespassing on federal land, Ducey had the container wall removed.
The cost of erecting, then disassembling the wall: $197 million. (The state recouped about $1.4 million by selling the containers.)
Grijalva, a Douglas native, was sworn in as mayor in December with a list of needs he is determined to make progress on: a community center, more food assistance for the growing number of hungry residents and a hospital. Money the state spent on the container wall would’ve been better used on those projects, he said. “I appreciate Doug Ducey trying that, but those resources could have gone into the community,” he said.
The median income in Douglas is $39,000, about half the state’s median income, and almost a third of the town’s residents live in poverty. A shrinking tax base makes it difficult for Douglas to provide basic services. The town doesn’t have enough money for street repairs, let alone to reopen a hospital. The backlog of repaving projects has climbed to $67 million, while Douglas nets only $400,000 a year for street improvements.
Money for wall construction or National Guard units gives a short-term boost to the economy, but those efforts can also interfere with the economic lifeblood of towns like Douglas: cross-border traffic.
Both Trump and Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, have deployed hundreds of guard members and active military personnel to the border. None have shown up in Douglas yet, Grijalva said. When they do, they’ll spend money. But a couple dozen troops don’t compare to the 3.6 million people who cross the border each year. The Walmart in Douglas, a stone’s throw from the port of entry, is packed daily with shoppers from Agua Prieta, Sonora, Grijalva said. More troops on both sides of the port bottleneck traffic and raise people’s fears of being detained, which may discourage them from crossing, even when they are doing so legally, he said.
Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, Grijalva declared a state of emergency, which could make the city eligible for federal aid if its economy takes a hit. “I know the executive orders didn’t do anything to stop the legal immigration, but it’s the perception,” Grijalva said. “If our economy dips in any way, they could give us some funding.”
Douglas’ new mayor, Jose Grijalva, declared a state of emergency in January over concerns that Trump’s executive orders on border security and immigration will harm the border town’s fragile economy.
Attracting a new hospital is a longer-term effort. Construction alone could cost upwards of $75 million. But then it would have to be staffed. In its final years, the hospital in Douglas suffered from the shortage of health care professionals plaguing much of rural America. The year it closed, it had no onsite physicians, said Dr. Dan Derksen, director of the Arizona Center for Rural Health. The state has programs to address that problem, including helping doctors in rural areas repay school loans. But the shortage has persisted. If a hospital were to open again in Douglas, it could cost as much as $775,000 to launch a residency program there, according to Derksen and Dr. Conrad Clemens, who heads graduate medical education for the University of Arizona.
“There’s policy strategies that you can do at the state level that help, but there’s no single strategy that is a cure-all,” Derksen said. “You have to do a variety of strategies.”
Border security funding, on the other hand, is easier to get.
Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels is known for his aggressive border enforcement activities. His office soaks up state and federal grants to help with drug interdiction, human trafficking and surveillance equipment on the border. The state also awarded him $20 million for a new jail and $5 million to open a border security operations center, a base for various agencies enforcing the border, in Sierra Vista, about an hour from Douglas.
At its grand opening in November, Dannels said all he had to do was ask for the money.
“I was speaking with Gov. Ducey and the governor asked me, ‘What do you guys need?’” Dannels said. “I said, ‘We need a collective center that drives actions.’” Shortly after, the plan came together, he said.
However, if Cochise Regional Hospital were still open, Dannels’ office would have one less security concern. The abandoned building, which is deteriorating in an isolated pocket of desert on the outskirts of Douglas, is a common waypoint for smugglers.
Apr 15, 2025
Krugman Speaks
One truly great point he makes: nobody's rushing to engage the US in tariff negotiations because nobody knows what the fuck Trump wants.
So the White House telling us there are 75 countries kissing Trump's ass right now is all but certainly bullshit? Huh - imagine that.
That Was No Pivot
... that was a cave-in - a capitulation - that was the entire Executive Branch admitting he's fucked it up - again.
For every problem that is complicated, and confusing, and vexing, there's a solution that is simple, and elegant, and wrong.
because everything
Trump touches
turns to shit
- there
- are
- no
- simple
- 10-word
- answers
- to
- the
- important
- questions
Apr 14, 2025
Today's Keith
Chris Krebs has said:
- I hereby deny that the 2020 election was rigged
- I worked for the Trump administration
- I was in charge of ensuring the 2020 election was legit in every way
By (improperly btw) directing the DOJ to open an investigation Trump is telling us the election that his administration was responsible for wasn't on the level.
Of course, he's asserting this bullshit claim as a means of continuing his poor-poor-pitiful-me whining about being betrayed by The Deep State and blah blah blah, but by making that assertion, he's admitting to his own shortcomings that he can be certain the MAGArubes will ignore - classic example of Mr Orwell's Newspeak.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)