United Airlines reached an out-of-court settlement Thursday with a doctor who was dragged off one of its flights after he refused to give up his seat.

The airline and Dr. David Dao’s lawyers agreed not to disclose the amount of money he will receive.

United put out a brief statement saying it reached an “amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident.”

United changes policy

The airline said earlier Thursday that from now on, no passenger would be forced to give up his seat except in cases of safety and security.

Those who volunteer to surrender their seats when a flight is overbooked would get up to $10,000 in compensation.

“Every customer deserves to be treated with the highest levels of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect,” United chief Oscar Munoz said. “Two weeks ago, we failed to meet that standard and we profoundly apologize.”

Chicago aviation police dragged Dao up the aisle of the packed plane when United needed to make room for airline employees.

Three other passengers volunteered to give up their seats, but Dao was picked out at random and refused to leave, saying he had to get home to treat patients.

Congress gets involved

His nose was broken, some teeth were knocked out, and he suffered a concussion. Cellphone video captured the scene. Dao, with blood streaming down his face, could be heard screaming with other shocked passengers.

The incident prompted calls in Congress  to bring back government airline regulation.

Some lawmakers demanded outlawing the practice of overbooking flights, in which airlines sell more seats than are available to ensure a full plane.
…

Ghana’s finance minister says investors were optimistic in meetings with senior government officials who accompanied Vice President Mahamudu Bawumia to the World Bank spring meetings in Washington.

In an interview with VOA, Ken Ofori-Atta said investors detected a new energy, and a sense of hope in a team that is focused on getting Ghana out of its current predicament. He also said that with a new government in place, the world is ready to see Ghana shine again in a much more stable West Africa.

“We came in on a platform of change and real hope that we will revitalize the economy and create jobs and there would be growth,” Ofori-Atta said. “But we met some pretty difficult challenges with regards to fiscal deficit close to 9 percent, lots of unemployment, growth of 3.4 percent, which was very low, and the discovery of some 7 billion Cedis [$1.3 billion] arrears that we all did not know about. Foreign exchange was low, and you also had the exchange rate in a pretty difficult situation. So we had to contend with all of that since we came [to power].”

But opposition groups say the new administration should get to work rather than complain about the state of affairs. They contend that Ghanaians displayed confidence in them by rejecting the previous government for failing to improve the lives of its citizens.

Ofori-Atta said that in just over 100 days, the government outlined its plans to jump-start the economy in a budget, which was presented to parliament. The aim, he said, is to create millions of jobs as the ruling party, led by President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, promised ahead of the December elections.

“We decided to create a budget that is both leading to a fiscal consolidation in a real way and also not compromising growth,” Ofori-Atta said. “So we brought down the deficit as a target from 8.7 percent to 6.5. We squeaked out a primary balance surplus. We’re reducing our debt-to-GDP ratio from 72.5 to 70.9 percent, and then increase revenue by 34 percent. So, quite dramatic contraction in a sense. However, we also were clear that we needed to spur growth.”

One means to achieve their goals: abolishing some taxes.

“One of the most dramatic things was to abolish about 14 taxes, which the senior minister [Yaw Osafo Marfo] termed to be nuisance taxes,” Ofori-Atta said. “Taxes that were kind of suppressive and created a sense of cohesion by the state. As a center-right party, we have to revitalize the economy, we have to give stimulus, we have to encourage people to use their creative energies.”

Ofori-Atta also said abolishing the taxes will free Ghanaian businesses, and entrepreneurs will help to “bring Ghana back” into a working mode.

Another measure the administration plans to implement is the revitalization of the rural economy. This, he said, includes establishing a factory in each of the country’s districts, as well as sending $1 million to each constituency as a resource to support the policy of one district, one factory, which was promised by the president in the run-up to the polls.

Critics, however, say the one district, one factory promise was overly ambitious. They contend that with the dramatic reduction of taxes, government revenue would be sharply reduced, thereby handicapping the ability of the administration to raise the necessary funds it needs to keep the promises to Ghanaians. They also say the reduction of taxes was just a ploy to score political points.

But supporters of the ruling party reject the criticisms as unfounded.
…

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s referendum victory to extend his powers was bittersweet.  

For the first time he lost in Turkey’s main cities, including Istanbul, which has been his electoral power base since 1994.  In the aftermath of his narrow win he has ordered a party investigation into the vote.  The drop in support coincides with an economic slowdown, an ominous sign given the president is facing crucial polls in two years.

Erdogan’s unprecedented electoral successes were largely achieved in a period of economic boom, but those halcyon days appear to be waning.  

“Currently, inflation rate is at 11.3 percent and is expected to increase further to around 12 percent in the coming months,” observes Inan Demir, an economist for Nomura Bank, “It would constitute the highest inflation rate since before the global financial crisis in 2009.  Also, unemployment is at multi-year highs.  So we are talking about a significant jump in the inflation and unemployment rate.”

The impact of the economic slowdown has been felt the most in western Turkey, where more than 70 percent of the country’s economic production is located, and most closely linked to European markets.  The same region saw some of the biggest drops in support for the president in the referendum vote.  While the Turkish economy is predicted to grow faster than that of Europe, it is still below the rate needed to absorb new entrants into the labor market.

Disaffected youth

A striking development of the referendum was the youth vote, overwhelmingly voting no, bucking its traditionally stalwart support for Erdogan.  

“Youth unemployment is affecting the first-time vote.  The youth unemployment ratio was 25 percent, according to the last data, notes Atilla Yesilada, a political consultant with Global Source Partners, “Fifty-eight percent of first-time voters voted “No.” (citing IPSOS research).  According to OECD research, Turkish students are the unhappiest in the world with 72 percent saying they are very unhappy with conditions.  So given Turkey’s very high rate of young population, up to six percent of the voters in the next election cycle, which starts in March 2019, will be first-time voters, which in my view is slipping from their [Erdogan government’s] grasp”.

 2019 is scheduled for an unprecedented three polls – of local, general and presidential elections.

Erdogan’s success in the referendum was due in part to the overwhelmingly support he received in the rural heartland of the country, known as Anatolia, a region that has particularly benefited from the expansion of social security benefits under Erdogan’s AK Party rule.

“I detect that certain voters are becoming clients of AKP, these people can’t survive in the globalized economy of Turkey,” claims consultant Yesilada, “they are largely existing on account of the welfare state and also  AKP has been very successful in imposing the view entitlements are coming form the party, rather than the state.  So a dependency has been created between the poor in Anatolia and AKP, and these are people are so afraid if AKP ever loses they will lose their entitlements.”

In the run-up to the referendum, the government again turned to state intervention, launching major programs of cheap loans for businesses, job creation schemes, and massive public works projects.

Early elections?

Economists predict that with individuals and private companies racked with debt, more state intervention is likely, ”Turkey will find it difficult to sustain that debt-fueled growth, that’s why the public sector will play an increasing role in supporting economic activity going forward.  Personally, I expect elections to be held earlier than the current schedule.  I would not be surprised to see elections by this time next year.  So I think it can be sustained until that time.”

The pressure to call early elections will deepen worries about how the government will fund it’s growing economic and financial programs.  “So [numbers] are simple,” warns Yesilada, “we cant borrow abroad, because it very costly or foreign lenders are no longer willing, and Turkish deposits have been completely converted into loans.  I don’t know how this can go forwards.”  

Given that the bedrock of Erdogan’s electoral success has been built on economic prosperity, the continuation and trajectory of those programs ultimately could determine his fate.

 
…

President Donald Trump says phone conversations Wednesday with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau persuaded him not to imminently withdraw the United States from their countries’ three-way trade pact.

“They asked me to renegotiate. I will,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “I decided rather than terminating NAFTA, which would be a pretty big shock to the system, we will renegotiate.”

Trump, sitting Thursday alongside Argentinian President Mauricio Macri, said, “I was going to terminate NAFTA as of two to three days from now.” But, he added, “If I’m unable to make a fair deal … for our workers and our companies, we will terminate NAFTA.”

He reiterated his long-standing assertion that the 1994 trade agreement has been “very good for Canada. It has been very good for Mexico. But it has been horrible for the United States.”

The U.S. president’s softening tone on what is perceived as America’s most crucial trade pact is being well-received.

“I am relieved,” said Notre Dame University professor of finance Jeffrey Bergstrand, who notes trade agreements “not only lower tariffs, but create stability in the global value chain.”

Trump has already withdrawn the United States from the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement negotiated by his predecessor, Barack Obama, although that deal had not been ratified by Congress.

A Mexican government statement on Wednesday’s phone call between Trump and Pena Nieto stated the leaders agreed on the convenience of maintaining NAFTA and working with Canada to bring about successful negotiations.

A Canadian foreign ministry spokesman said Ottawa is “ready to come to the table at any time.”

Trump targeted Canada this week for what he said was unfair trade practices and he ordered a new 20 percent tariff on Canadian lumber imports, which could add to the cost of buying new houses in the United States.

Trump’s consent to keep the United States in NAFTA, at least for a while, “probably reflects increasing voices from the business community that these trade policies have been good,” Professor Bergstrand at the Mendoza College of Business told VOA.

Many Mexican officials have called NAFTA a disappointment, saying it has brought slow economic growth despite increased investment in factories and industry.
…

Lawmakers are nearing agreement on sweeping spending legislation to keep the lights on in government, after the White House backed off a threat to withhold payments that help lower-income Americans pay their medical bills.

It was the latest concession by the White House, which had earlier dropped a demand for money for President Donald Trump’s border wall. Even with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress and the White House, the Trump administration is learning that Democrats retain significant leverage when their votes are needed on must-pass legislation.

A temporary funding bill expires Friday at midnight, and GOP leaders late Wednesday unveiled another short-term spending bill to prevent a government shutdown this weekend, something Republicans are determined to avoid.

There appears little chance of that as lawmakers worked to resolve final stumbling blocks on issues like the environment, though a short-term extension of existing funding levels is likely.

“The fundamental issue is keeping the government open, that’s our focus,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., a top member of the vote-counting team in the House.

At the same time, House Republicans had a breakthrough on their moribund health care legislation as a key group of conservatives, the House Freedom Caucus, announced it would support a revised version of the bill. Freedom Caucus opposition was a key ingredient in the legislation’s collapse a month ago, a humiliating episode for Republicans that called into question their ability to govern given that they’ve been promising for seven years to repeal and replace former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Yet whether the Freedom Caucus support would be enough remained uncertain. One key moderate, GOP Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, dismissed the Freedom Caucus about-face as “a matter of blame-shifting and face-saving” for a bill going nowhere. Even if the legislation passes the House it will face major hurdles in the Senate and is certain to be extensively revised if it survives at all.

The changes in the bill would let states escape requirements under Obama’s health care law that insurers charge healthy and seriously ill customers the same rates, and cover a list of specified services like maternity care. Conservatives embraced the revisions as a way to lower people’s health care expenses, but moderates saw them as diminishing coverage.

Despite some optimism among House leaders for a quick vote on the health bill, the outcome was difficult to predict. The White House has been exerting intense pressure on House GOP leaders to deliver any tangible legislative accomplishments ahead of Trump’s 100-day mark, something that has yet to occur aside from Senate confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The massive spending measure, which would wrap together 11 unfinished spending bills into a single “omnibus” bill, represents the first real bipartisan legislation of Trump’s presidency.

Democratic votes are needed to pass the measure over tea party opposition in the House and to provide enough support to clear a filibuster hurdle in the Senate, which has led negotiators to strip away controversial policy riders and ignore an $18 billion roster of unpopular spending cuts submitted by White House budget director Mick Mulvaney.

The outlines of a potential agreement remained fuzzy, but aides familiar with the talks said Trump would emerge with border security funding that’s unrelated to the wall and a $15 billion down payment for military readiness accounts on top of $578 billion in already-negotiated Pentagon funding. Democrats won funding for medical research, Pell Grants and foreign aid.

But negotiators rejected Trump’s demands for $1 billion to begin construction of his promised wall along the length of the 2,000-mile (3218.54-kilometer) U.S.-Mexico border. And after a dispute between Mulvaney and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the administration agreed to keep funding cost-sharing payments under Obamacare that go to reimburse health insurers for reducing deductibles and co-payments for lower-income people.

___

Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor and Alan Fram contributed to this report.

AP-WF-04-27-17 0724GMT

 
…

After reports that President Donald Trump was considering an executive order to withdraw the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement, the White House said Wednesday that Trump agreed not to take such action after phone calls with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Since launching his bid for president, Trump has repeatedly criticized the nation’s trade deals, especially NAFTA, saying the agreement signed in 1994 has been a “disaster” and allowed many U.S. jobs to shift to Mexico.

“President Trump agreed to not terminate NAFTA at this time, and the leaders agreed to proceed swiftly, according to their required internal procedures, to enable renegotiation of the NAFTA deal to the benefit of all three countries,” the White House said.

The statement further said Trump is honored to work with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, and that he believes the renegotiation process will make the three countries stronger.

A Mexican government statement confirmed the phone call between Trump and Peña Nieto, saying the leaders agreed on the convenience of maintaining NAFTA and working with Canada to bring about successful negotiations for the benefit of the three nations.

Earlier Wednesday, a Canadian foreign ministry spokesman said Canada is “ready to come to the table at any time.”

Trump targeted Canada this week for what he said was unfair trade practices, and ordered a new 20 percent tariff on Canadian lumber exports.

Many Mexican officials have called NAFTA a disappointment, saying it has brought slow economic growth despite increased investment in factories and industry.

 
…

President Donald Trump’s plan to slash business and household taxes could shift the U.S. economy into higher gear, but it may have one effect the White House would not welcome — interest rates ratcheted higher than expected by a wary central bank.

The Trump administration says hundreds of billions of dollars fed into the economy via deep cuts in business taxes and more generous exemptions for individuals will unleash a wave of investment and make the U.S. economy more competitive than ever.

But the plan, if approved in the form Trump officials outlined on Wednesday, could add inflationary fuel to an economy already running near full capacity, a risk Federal Reserve officials have been warning about since Trump got elected.

Confronted with the prospect of massive cuts that would slash the corporate tax rate to 15 percent from 35 percent and overhaul the personal tax code, Fed officials will need to start debating if they can maintain a measured pace of rate hikes or they might need to move faster, say analysts and economists who follow the U.S. central bank.

Fed’s inflation goal is 2 percent

The Fed aims to hold inflation at around 2 percent, and is close to that threshold, with its target short term rate expected to rise two more times, to about 1.5 percentage points, by the end of the year.

Trump has said he hopes low rates will continue, a potential source of friction with the Fed if officials do decide they need to move faster because of his policies.

An estimated up to $700 billion a year in tax cuts could threaten to derail such a scenario, especially if not all of that money finds its way into productive investments, or drives price and wage hikes.

“The premise is that all the tax savings get plowed into high-return investments to generate growth. But if they don’t and they just get churned around into M&A and other financial engineering things, it’s even worse because you’re raising risks elsewhere in the economy,” said Mark Mazur, former U.S. treasury assistant secretary for tax policy during the Obama administration, now head of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.

Uncertainty as to whether and in what shape the plan will get implemented adds to other challenges the Fed faces in trying to chart its course over the next several months.

Looming threats

The threat of a government shutdown and renewed debate over the federal debt ceiling late this summer or early in the fall will test both the new administration and the Fed’s ability to set its policy course. Republican and Democratic lawmakers need to pass a series of bills to keep the government running, but are sparring over issues such as whether to fund a border wall with Mexico.

Government closures, forced budget cuts, and a tense 2013 debt ceiling debate have thrown the Fed off course before, dragging down economic growth and idling hundreds of thousands of workers.

Taken together, the coming discussions will be critical for the Fed and for world markets looking for proof Trump can oversee a functioning government, said David Stockton, a former Fed research director now with the Peterson Institute of International Economics.

“If you have a shutdown followed by a serious flirtation with default … some of the optimism built into household and business confidence could deflate and deflate pretty quickly,” Stockton said. “If all of a sudden it begins to look like even with one party in control nothing seems to be happening, it could be a shock.”

For the Fed, those would be self-inflicted wounds in an otherwise calm economic environment. From healthy corporate profits to strong consumer confidence and geopolitical developments like the recent French election results, events have been breaking in favor of steady U.S. growth and job gains — and a gradual pace of Fed rate increases.

Policymakers are hesitant

Policymakers currently foresee two more rate increases this year, a view investors largely accept in how they have priced different securities.

So far, policymakers have been hesitant to mold their thinking too much around speculation about what Trump might do because details have been scant and Congress’ reaction uncertain.

With the scope of the tax plan now revealed and fiscal deadlines on the horizon, that is now likely to change — for better or worse.

Though the Republicans now control both the White House and the Congress, there is no guarantee they will easily reach agreement on either spending or tax plans, or on the debt ceiling. Divisions in the GOP doomed Trump’s first stab at healthcare overhaul, and some Republican lawmakers are likely to oppose either raising the debt limit or cutting taxes too much because of the larger deficits that would produce.

“The next few months are going to be make or break. They are going to have to show they are going to get something done,” said IHS Markit economist Chris Christopher.
…

Ivanka Trump has been involved in discussions with the World Bank about establishing a funding operation to support female entrepreneurs, bank and administration officials said Wednesday.

The officials stressed that nothing has been set up yet and that talks are ongoing about how this would be structured.

They said it could be a World Bank-run “facility,” which accepts contributions from governments and private donors and then provides funding and support to women in developing countries.

According to a senior administration official, Trump recently pitched the idea to World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim.

The administration official, who sought anonymity because the project is in its early stages, said Trump would have no official authority over the fund and would not solicit contributions, but would be a “strong advocate.”
…

President Donald Trump “has no intention” of releasing his tax returns to the public, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said Wednesday, asserting Americans have “plenty of information” about the president’s financial matters.

For decades, presidents have released their tax returns. But Trump has so far refused, suggesting he would share the tax documents only after the Internal Revenue Service completes an “audit” of them. He’s never disclosed proof of an audit.

Mnuchin appeared to close the door completely Wednesday.

“The president has no intention. The president has released plenty of information and I think has given more financial disclosure than anybody else. I think the American population has plenty of information,” he said, inaccurately characterizing the president’s disclosures.

The comment came as the secretary briefed reporters on the president’s new proposal to overhaul taxes. Democrats have sought to use the tax debate to pressure Trump to release his returns, arguing the information is necessary to evaluate how Trump’s tax proposals would affect his personal wealth and his business’ bottom line.

Mnuchin declined to comment on how Trump would benefit from his proposals. He and other administration officials left the room as reporters shouted questions about how the plan would affect the Trump family.

Trump, a billionaire, owns a global real estate, marketing and property management company, which at the start of his presidency he placed in a trust that he can revoke at any time. His daughter and son-in-law, White House advisers, are also holding onto significant business assets. And Trump’s adult sons run his Trump Organization.

Trump officials have offered varying explanations for why the president does not disclosure his returns.

White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway said in a television interview in January that the fact that he won the election without putting out the information shows that “people didn’t care” about it.

Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. have made similar points in various interviews.

There’s evidence the president has been thinking about the issue in recent weeks. He asked his friend and Las Vegas business partner Phil Ruffin, a fellow billionaire, whether he should put out the returns, Ruffin said.

“I advised him not to,” Ruffin said. “It’s a waste of time, and he’ll spend years explaining them and never get to accomplishing any of his goals.”

Ruffin said he told the president that Democrats would hire “armies of accountants” to pore over the documents and “make an issue out of any and everything.”

Even with Mnuchin’s seemingly definitive answer, the issue of Trump’s tax returns isn’t likely to go away. Democrats have threatened to hold up his tax proposals until they see the returns.

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, called Trump’s tax plan “unprincipled” — and one that “will result in cuts for the one percent, conflicts for the president, crippling debt for America and crumbs for the working people.”

Democrats also have been pushing for a vote on a bill that would require the president and all major-party nominees to publicly disclose their previous three years of tax returns with the Office of Government Ethics or the Federal Election Commission.

The Democrats have initiated a petition process that would lead to a House vote if they can get a majority of lawmakers to sign it — an unlikely prospect, but one that gives Democrats a chance to highlight which Republicans declined to help with their effort.
…

The president’s desire to cut refugees is also costing U.S. jobs.

A reduction in refugee resettlement that began after an executive order by President Donald Trump in late January has led to at least 300 layoffs in the U.S. nonprofit sector and nearly 500 positions abroad, according to data collected by VOA. In some cases, the jobs slashed were held by resettled refugees.

A review of news releases, media reports, and information obtained from a survey sent by VOA to the nine primary resettlement agencies shows that seven of those organizations contracted by the government to coordinate refugees’ first months and years of living in the United States have had layoffs at their headquarters and local offices around the country, or at affiliate and partner organizations.

VOA documented more than 300 part-time and full-time positions cut in the United States, including:

Sources: World Relief; Church World Service (CWS); Exodus; Catholic Charities of Tennessee; Community Refugee and Immigration Services; Catholic Charities-San Antonio; US Together; Catholic Charities of Southeast Michigan; Refugee Empowerment Center in Omaha; Catholic Charities in Cleveland

Additional organizations reported cutting employees’ hours and not filling vacancies to trim budgets.

“Our budget as a refugee resettlement agency was heavily dependent on the government funding and the suspension and reduction of U.S. admissions for 2017 as well as [the] same dim prospect for 2018 has caused a huge negative impact on agencies like ours,” Aklilu Adeye, Executive Director of the Ethiopian Community Association of Chicago, told VOA in an email. The organization recently cut five positions.

The tally is not exhaustive: Two of the nine primary resettlement organizations — Episcopal Migration Ministries and International Rescue Committee — did not respond to VOA’s request for information or make that figure otherwise public; the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — historically one of the most active resettlement agencies — declined to provide data or comment about layoffs.

After the first executive order in January that would have stopped refugee arrivals for four months and cut the overall number for the fiscal year to 50,000, Sister Donna Markham, President and CEO of Catholic Charities USA, said that the program’s suspension would affect about 700 employees of Catholic Charities agencies nationwide, “with layoffs expected for nearly all of the workers.”

“If we’re talking about American jobs, this is laying off people in these public-private partnerships,” she told the National Catholic Reporter in February.

Overseas, Church World Service has laid off almost all 600 staff members at its Resettlement Support Center Africa, which coordinates with the State Department under a separate part of the refugee process from U.S.-based affiliates: 484 in Kenya, 27 in South Africa, and 19 in Tanzania.

“The decision to reduce our staff was a direct result of these executive orders, which sabotage our ability to offer vital services, support and counsel to families seeking to rebuild their lives in safety,” CWS President and CEO Reverend John L. McCullough said in a statement in March.

The contracts between the government and the nonprofit organizations — some of which have resettled refugees for decades — are based per capita on how many refugees are resettled by the agencies. They receive about $900 for each refugee to cover the administrative costs of helping the newcomers in their first 90 days in the country, from picking them up at the airport, setting up their first home and enrolling children in school, to hosting English classes and advising on job searches. Another $1,125 goes directly to each refugee for initial costs of setting up their lives in the United States, such as rent and furniture.

Fewer arrivals mean less funding, and that jeopardizes jobs — including some held by refugees themselves, who often are hired to interpret for members of their community or find other positions in the resettlement field.

In some cases, the nonprofit organizations are planning to receive thousands fewer refugees than anticipated by the end of the fiscal year.

From high hopes to layoffs

The fiscal year started with a surge ordered by then-President Barack Obama: The United States would take 110,000 refugees — more than it had in decades.

But those plans came to a screeching halt in late January, when one of Trump’s initial executive orders trimmed that number to 50,000; a revised order in March upheld the president’s call for that 55 percent reduction.

Despite federal lawsuits and injunctions rolling back those orders, the president maintains broad power over the ultimate number of refugees that will be allowed into the country. Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in significantly lower arrivals, leaning on what he says is a lack of confidence in the screening process for admitted refugees — although refugees are among the most rigorously vetted immigrants to the U.S.

Many resettlement organizations signed amicus briefs in support of lawsuits that challenged the refugee-related executive order, stating in one case that “faith-based refugee organizations’ ability to maintain operations and services moving forward has been devastated.”

The nonprofits have tried to rally financial support from the public in recent months, but several indicated in phone and email interviews that donations would not make up for any reduction in funding from the government.

The government’s Office of Refugee Resettlement operated on a budget of $1.67 billion in fiscal year 2016. That includes more than services for refugee resettlement, however. The bureau handles other programs, such as anti-trafficking efforts, and unaccompanied children. ORR asked for $2.18 billion for FY2017.

Refugee admissions in flux

So far this fiscal year, the U.S. has resettled about 42,000 refugees, but there has been no final word from the executive branch about how many more will be allowed in. The administration could halt the process abruptly at 50,000. At the current rate of arrivals — 800 to 900 individuals a week — that cap would be reached around the end of June or early July. (Last year, the country admitted 84,995.)

Fluctuations in the weekly refugee arrival numbers since Trump’s inauguration Jan. 20 reflect a system rattled by uncertainty, though in recent weeks that number has stabilized to align with a State Department comment to Huffington Post, indicating a goal of about 900 arrivals a week.

Trump promised to dramatically change not only the number of refugees admitted but the composition of where they come from and what religions they are, initially pledging to block Syrians and increase the number of Christians. However, the demographics remain nearly identical to those from before Trump took office.

A VOA analysis of refugee arrival data from Oct. 1 to Jan. 20 — the part of the fiscal year under Obama — compared with data from the beginning of Trump’s term until the end of March, shows the top 10 origin countries remain the same (DRC, Syria, Somalia, Burma, Iraq, Ukraine, Bhutan, Iran, Eritrea and Afghanistan). At the beginning of the fiscal year, about 48 percent of arriving refugees were Muslim. That figure is now 46 percent. Forty-three percent were Christian, which remained the same under Trump.

Lavinia Limon, head of USCRI, emphasizes that while U.S. refugee policy may leave some people out of work now, she believes the greater toll is on refugees awaiting resettlement. Even as the United States reduces its intake, the need for finding permanent new home-countries for some refugees remains the same.

“USCRI has been around for 104 years, and we have seen a lot of different politicians and politics surrounding the issues related to refugees and immigrants come and go,” Limon said. “I believe the focus needs to be on those thousands of refugees who will not be rescued and who will continue to suffer and might lose their lives because of politics in their homeland and politics in America.

“Whatever financial strain we may experience pales in comparison to their plights,” she added.

***

Have you or your resettlement organization been affected by staffing reductions? We want to hear from you. Email the reporter at vmacchi@voanews.com
…

Some 200 taxis and buses have parked outside the government offices in Romania’s capital, Bucharest, demanding that Uber and other online taxi services be outlawed in the country. 

Transport in the already crowded city was disrupted Wednesday morning as the protest, scheduled to last until the evening, got underway.

Drivers arrived early and parked their yellow taxis and blew vuvuzela horns in protest. Some met Premier Sorin Grindeanu to present their demands.

Bogdan Dinca, a transport union leader, told The Associated Press that they want the government to approve an emergency ordinance “to eradicate the piracy” they accuse Uber of. The ordinance awaits final approval by the prime minister. 

The Confederation of Licensed Transport Operators says it wants “online technology platforms that provide unauthorized taxi services to be outlawed,” to protect licensed carriers. 

Uber says it is a ride-sharing service with transparent costs and its drivers pay taxes. It says some 250,000 clients have used its services in the Romanian capital and other major cities in the past two years.
…