Univision and Fusion’s expectation for 2016


Ramos has spoken highly of Fusion’s potential, telling CNN’s Brian Stelter in September that the media company was “a bridge to the future.”

“In 2016, no one is going to be able to make it to the White House without Fusion or Univision,” Ramos said last week, speaking to the networks´ reach to Latino audiences.

In the Time 100 piece about Ramos, the anchor received glowing words from fellow journalist Christiane Amanpour of CNN.

“He says he asks every question as if it’s his last, determined to get an answer or go down trying,” Amanpour wrote. “He knows he has a voice and is not afraid to use it.”

Ramos is considered by many in the media landscape to be one of the most influential journalists heading into the 2016 presidential election.

Univision and Fusion have worked hard to promote Ramos, and his inclusion in the Time 100 is a boost for both networks.

“With another presidential election coming up, if anyone can move this needle, Jorge Ramos can—and he must,” Amanpour added.

Today on The Atlantic

  • What Are Work Requirements For?: Politicians have long debated “the practical and moral utility of requiring people to work in order to receive government benefits.” Now, a last-minute provision added to the GOP health-care bill would impose these requirements on Medicaid enrollees. (Vann R. Newkirk II)
  • Facts Are Stubborn: In a new interview with Time, Donald Trump “flaunted his elastic relationship with truth,” writes Yoni Appelbaum. The president has the freedom to surround himself with people and information that support his beliefs, but “sooner or later, the truth catches up.”
  • Reconfiguring the Republicans: Trump wants to make the GOP a “worker’s party” for blue-collar Americans of all races. This goal, however, would require him to attract more support from working-class minority voters. Can he do that? (Ronald Brownstein)

Follow stories throughout the day with our Politics & Policy portal.


Police officers in Westminster hold flowers given to them by well-wishers the morning after an attack in London. Hannah McKay / Reuters

What We’re Reading

More on Trump and Russia: On Wednesday night, CNN reported that the FBI has information suggesting Trump associates “communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” On Thursday, the White House dismissed the story.

A President’s Self-Evaluation: In his Time interview, Trump brushed aside criticism that he doesn’t always adhere to facts and evidence: “I’m a very instinctual person, but my instinct turns out to be right.” (Michael Scherer)

When a ‘City’s Students Vanish’: On February 15, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided a section of Las Cruces, New Mexico, a city near the U.S.-Mexico border. The next day, 2,100 of the public school district’s students missed class. (Jonathan Blitzer, The New Yorker)

A Rock and a Hard Place: Rich Lowry offers a gloomy forecast for Republicans in Congress: If the new health-care bill becomes law, they’ll spend years working to fix it. But if it doesn’t, “the rest of President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda may sink with it.” (Politico)

The Real Immigration Issue: The Trump administration’s efforts to curb immigration with a border wall are “anachronistic,” according to several economists from the University of California, San Diego. Demographic trends already show slowed immigration, they argue, which will affect the future availability of low-skill labor. (Craig Torres, Bloomberg)

Trump’s Spokesman Reveals ‘easy way’ to Make Mexico Pay for the Wall


By Max Ehrenfreund, Washington Post

All Sean Spicer wanted to do was explain to reporters why it wouldn’t be all that hard to get Mexico to pay for President Trump’s wall along the southern border.

“There have been questions about how the president could pay for the wall,” the White House press secretary said Thursday. “We’ve been asked over and over again, ‘How could you possibly do this? There’s no way that Mexico will pay for it.’ Here’s one way. Boom. Done.”

It turns out, though, that the plan Spicer suggested is the economic equivalent of the U.S. government borrowing more money. Future generations of Americans would in effect be footing the bill, not Mexico.

“It really is a form of borrowing, disguised borrowing, by the government,” said Alan Viard, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

In trying to come up with what he called “an easy way” for Mexico to pay, Spicer might have inadvertently demonstrated the point that analysts, commentators and pundits have been making for months. There really is no obvious way for Trump to force Mexico to pay the tens of billions of dollars a wall along the border would likely cost.

Spicer’s confusion is understandable, though. The plan he was referring to is a complex proposal from Republicans in the House for a new kind of tax that does appear, at least superficially, to yield more money for the federal government. Here’s how it would work.

The GOP plan

The plan is part of a GOP proposal for reforming corporate taxes, which would subsidize exports while levying a new tax on imports.

Currently, corporations pay taxes on their profits — that is, their sales less the costs of doing business. Under the Republican plan, corporations would not have to include sales from any exports in calculating that income. Profits on exports would be completely free of taxation.

Meanwhile, firms that import goods or services from abroad would not be able to count the costs of those exports against their overall profits. In effect, corporations would be paying taxes on the value of anything they buy from abroad.

Republicans have suggested that this kind of system, known as a border adjustment, would be a boon for U.S. producers who compete with goods and services from overseas, although there is disagreement among economists about whether the system would really accomplish that goal.

Another reason for introducing a border adjustment is that in the short term at least, the scheme would generate a lot of money for the U.S. government. Since the United States imports more than it exports at the moment, the new taxes on imports would more than make up for the big break on exports. The plan would yield about $1.2 trillion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

That is the money that Spicer thinks could be used for building a wall along the border with Mexico. To be exact, Spicer suggested that the share of that money generated through trade with Mexico, which he said would be about $10 billion a year, would be dedicated to the wall.

The catch

Republicans cannot just spend that money free and clear, though. In the long term, a border adjustment does not make money for the federal government. Any cash the system yields in the short term from taxes on importers will be canceled out by future subsidies to exporters.

The United States probably will not go on importing more than it exports forever, as Viard explained. Right now, the United States is essentially borrowing from foreign countries, as Americans spend more on foreign goods and services than they take in through exports to the rest of the world. The I.O.U.’s take the form of hoards of U.S. dollars overseas, which foreigners are accumulating as Americans buy foreign currencies to make those purchases from abroad.

Eventually, foreign investors might want to cash in those I.O.U.’s, bringing those dollars back to the United States to buy goods and services made by Americans. When they do, the border adjustment will force the government to start paying out that subsidy to the exporters who serve those foreign customers.

It could be decades before the United States begins consistently exporting more than it imports again. All the same, the money the border adjustment yields this decade is, in principle, money that has to be paid back. If Trump uses it to build a wall along the Mexican border, he will effectively be doing so with borrowed cash. The effect on future taxpayers will be the same as if Trump borrowed the money for the wall outright, adding to the official tally of the national debt.

Your Editor Muses: Una cosa piensa el borracho y otra…..

El Rey Network Announces the Third Season of ‘LUCHA UNDERGROUND’ 



El Rey Network last week announced that the “Lucha Underground” will return for a third season. The chant starting, blood pumping, action-packed, character-driven series will begin production on the third season immediately in the Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles and will premiere on El Rey Network in early 2017.  Season Two debuted on El Rey Network on January 27th and airs on Wednesdays at 8:00pm ET/PT.

“‘Lucha Underground’ has caught fire by developing a loyal and passionate fan base,” said El Rey Network Chairman Robert Rodriguez.  “I am proud that its home is El Rey Network, and we’re excited to announce a season three return for even more no-holds-barred action.”

Ancient tradition, extraordinary athleticism, and a flare for theatrics combine in El Rey Network’s wrestling series, “Lucha Underground.”  The original introduces American audiences to the high-flying aerial maneuvers, slingshot moves, dramatic masks, intricate, rapid-fire combinations and distinctive wrestling techniques of lucha libre, one of Mexico’s most popular sports.

Fans have a ringside seat as masked villains and heroes face off to battle for wrestling supremacy.  The weekly series provides viewers with a visceral and explosive experience with a focus on the artistry, originality, intense action and over-the-top characters that have come to define this fan-favorite.  A celebration of lucha libre’s long-standing Mesoamerican heritage and culture dating back to 1863.

Block title