Unlike New Orleans after Katrina, the city is better-positioned to absorb the blow from what could be the most expensive U.S. storm ever
But unlike New Orleans, the greater Houston area economy is better equipped to absorb the blow because of its size, diversity and prominence as the nation’s energy hub.
.. Houston is the country’s fourth-largest city by population and economic output, with 2.3 million people and a gross domestic product of more than $503 billion
.. At the time of Katrina, New Orleans had a population of roughly 450,000 and an economy largely dependent on tourism.
.. Some 84% of Houston’s economy was dependent on the oil-and-gas industry during the 1980s, according to data from the Dallas Federal Reserve. But that had dropped to about 44% by 2016.
.. Houston boasts one of the largest medical centers in the world. Its health-care and education industries were the city’s largest employers as of 2014
.. Mr. Kamins of Moody’s predicts the real “economic tragedy” will be for homeowners. He predicts that most of the property damage—$30 to $40 billion in damage to homes and vehicles—will be residential and is unlikely to be covered by insurance.
.. construction would provide a short-term boost to the economy, but that there could be constraints on the available labor force for building projects if people leave and don’t return and President Donald Trump pursues tighter immigration policies.
.. you can’t rebuild Houston without Mexican labor.”
.. Nearly 40% of small businesses never reopen their doors following a flood disaster, in part because many are uninsured
‘This deal will make me look terrible’: Full transcripts of Trump’s calls with Mexico and Australia
The only thing I will ask you though is on the wall, you and I both have a political problem. My people stand up and say, “Mexico will pay for the wall” and your people probably say something in a similar but slightly different language. But the fact is we are both in a little bit of a political bind because I have to have Mexico pay for the wall – I have to. I have been talking about it for a two year period, and the reason I say they are going to pay for the wall is because Mexico has made a fortune out of the stupidity of U.S. trade representatives.
.. You have a very big mark on our back, Mr. President, regarding who pays for the wall. This is what I suggest, Mr. President – let us stop talking about the wall. I have recognized the right of any government to protect its borders as it deems necessary and convenient. But my position has been and will continue to be very firm saying that Mexico cannot pay for that wall.
But you cannot say that to the press. The press is going to go with that and I cannot live with that. You cannot say that to the press because I cannot negotiate under those circumstances.
.. I clearly understand what this issue constitutes for you in the United States. And for Mexico, it is also an issue that goes beyond the economic situation because this is an issue related to the dignity of Mexico and goes to the national pride of my country. Let us for now stop talking about the wall. Let us look for a creative way to solve this issue, for this to serve both are your government, my government, and both of our societies. Let us leave this topic – let us put it aside and let us find a creative way of looking into this issue. And let us move forward on other issues that I think are positive for both of our countries. That would be my position, Mr. President.
.. And we have to generate jobs, and we have to be stronger and we have to be growing. I share that position with you.
It is you and I against the world, Enrique, do not forget.
Transcripts Show How Contentious Trump’s Calls Were With Mexican and Australian Leaders
Mr. Trump too was conscious of his own position: “On the wall, you and I both have political problem. My people stand up and say, ‘Mexico will pay for the wall,’ and your people probably say something in a similar but slightly different language. But the fact is we are both in a little bit of a political bind because I have to have Mexico pay for the wall. I have to. I have been talking about it for a two-year period.”
.. Mr. Peña Nieto told Mr. Trump that he had put him in a bad position. “You have a very big mark on our back, Mr. President, regarding who pays for the wall,” he said. “This is what I suggest, Mr. President: Let us stop talking about the wall.”
He added that he understood that any country had the right to protect its border. “But my position has been and will continue to be very firm saying that Mexico cannot pay for that wall.”
.. “It is not because they are bad people,” Mr. Turnbull said. “It is because in order to stop people-smugglers, we have to deprive them of the product.” Australia by policy, he said, refuses to accept refugees who arrive by boat because it would encourage smugglers to keep charging desperate people to bring them there... “I will be honest with you, I hate taking these people,” Mr. Trump said. “I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people.”.. “Mr. President, I think this will make you look like a man who stands by the commitments of the United States.”Mr. Trump was not buying it. “O.K., this shows me to be a dope,” he said. “I am not like this but if I have to do it, I will do it, but I do not like this at all.”
He said that he worried that the terrorists like those who killed Americans in Boston, San Bernardino and New York could be admitted to the country: “I am going to get killed on this thing.”
“You will not,” Mr. Turnbull insisted.
“Yes, I will be seen as a weak and ineffective leader in my first week by these people. This is a killer.”
Yes, Trump can legally pardon himself or his family. No, he shouldn’t.
If he really did pardon his aides, his family or himself to head off Robert Mueller’s inquiry, the move probably would be constitutional but ultimately self-defeating for the president.
In using his power to pardon potential witnesses against him, Trump probably would convert a weak criminal investigation into a full-fledged impeachment effort. In 1833, Chief Justice John Marshall upheld a presidential pardon by Andrew Jackson by saying that a pardon is “an act of grace” by a president. A pardon in these circumstances would not be viewed as an act of grace, but a gratuity from an isolated president.
.. Even Nixon did not stoop to a self-pardon, although he did research it.
.. Pardoning his associates at this stage would clearly have a tactical benefit, but the historical and political costs of that would be immense. The most obvious reason for issuing pardons now would not be to protect any of the key people from jail but to limit Mueller’s leverage over witnesses. Mueller has selected a team of prosecutorial heavies, some of whom are known for flipping witnesses and using pressure to secure their cooperation. A pardon removes that option and reinforces the ability of close associates to take a hard line with investigators.
.. the use of the pardon power to protect the president’s political allies and family members would be legitimately decried as an abuse. It would not, however, be unprecedented.
.. Jefferson wanted Bollman to testify against Burr for alleged treason in plotting with the British to create a new country out of territory in the Southwest and Mexico.
.. The most recent abuse of pardon power was by Clinton. He waited until his last day in office to pardon billionaire Marc Rich, generally considered one of the least worthy recipients of a pardon in history. Jimmy Carter denounced the abuse of the pardon power for Rich as “disgraceful” and attributed Clinton’s decision to “his large gifts.” Worse yet, on the same day, Clinton pardoned his half-brother, Roger Clinton, in an open abuse of pardon power to benefit his family.
.. Indeed, with pardons, witnesses could lose protections against self-incrimination and could more easily be forced to testify. New crimes such as perjury could fall outside of the pardon, and such a pardon would not protect against state charges.
.. The existing claims of criminal conduct on Trump’s part are relatively weak and speculative. To move from the legal to the political forum is to leave strategic high ground for a quagmire.
.. Tactical pardons are like burning bridges to slow an investigation. That has rarely stopped a determined foe. Indeed, it tends to encourage and swell the ranks of opponents.