#they’re already voting on the mandate in new york TODAY !!!
Text
Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
来源：华盛顿邮报报道《Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades》
链接：https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/18/congress-stocks-insider-trading-ban/
0 notes
Text
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
0 notes
Text
Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
0 notes
Text
Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
来源：华盛顿邮报报道《Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades》
链接：https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/18/congress-stocks-insider-trading-ban/
0 notes
Text
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
0 notes
Text
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
0 notes
Text
Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
0 notes
Text
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
0 notes
Text
just bc someone is anti-tr*mp it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re pro-biden 🥴
#i mean#i think we can all agree both options sucked#and a lot of people only voted biden to get trump out of office#bc trump has shown us these past 4 years that he’s an arrogant asshole#and voting republican means voting against women/lgbt/poc/etc rights#which is why i get so mad when people/my family is okay with wholeheartedly supporting him#and a lot of tr*mp supporters are fueled by hate which is why i’m so against it#but voting democrat also sucks for different reasons#it already gets me scared thinking about how they’re about to mandate this stupid covid vaccine#dems are so ‘pro choice’ when it comes to having a right over your own body EXCEPT when it comes to vaccinations#as someone who already has had a severe reaction to one and has watched my sisters life be ruined by one.. idk wtf i’d even do if#we’re all FORCED to get one 🥴#what happened to.. my body my choice lol#they’re already voting on the mandate in new york TODAY !!!#like this shit is bound to happen#and it’s hella scary#that’s why either way whoever won this election we’d be fucked just in dif ways#this is why i didn’t even vote bc i couldn’t morally choose one candidate#when both sides would hurt me and people i love#maybe if this pandemic wasn’t even a thing then i woulda been 100% for biden bc none of this would be an issue#it makes me feel like this was all part of the plan tbh#don’t forget that other countries got covid under control without a vaccine#and it is unnecessary for a virus with a 99% recovery rate#thank u for coming to my ted talk
2 notes
·
View notes
Link
LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN
September 9, 2021
Heather Cox Richardson
After weeks of pleading with Americans to get vaccinated as Republican governors opposed mask mandates, ICUs filled up, and people died, today President Joe Biden went on the offensive.
Saying, “My job as President is to protect all Americans,” he announced that he was imposing new vaccination or testing requirements on the unvaccinated. The U.S. government will require all federal employees, as well as any federal contractors, to be vaccinated. The government already requires that all nursing home workers who treat patients on Medicare and Medicaid have to be vaccinated; Biden is expanding that to cover hospital workers, home healthcare aides, and those who work in other medical facilities. “If you’re seeking care at a health facility, you should be able to know that the people treating you are vaccinated.”
Using the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Biden will also make employers with 100 or more employees require that their employees either be vaccinated or show a negative coronavirus test at least once a week. He pointed out that big companies already are doing this, including United Airlines, Disney… and the Fox News Channel.
Together, the new vaccine requirements will affect about 100 million Americans, making up two thirds of all U.S. workers.
Biden also urged those who run large entertainment venues to require vaccines or show a recent negative test for entry. He has already required teachers at the schools run by the Defense Department to get vaccinated, and today he announced that the government will require teachers in the Head Start program, which is federally funded, to be vaccinated. He called on governors to require that all teachers and staff be vaccinated for coronavirus, as their states already require a wide range of vaccinations for other diseases.
Calling out those like Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who has taken a stand against mask mandates and is threatening to withhold the salaries of school officials who defy him, Biden said that “if these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as President to get them out of the way.”
He is using the Defense Production Act to increase production of rapid tests and has worked with major retailers to sell those tests at cost for the next three months. The government has also expanded free testing at 10,000 pharmacies and will spend $2 billion to distribute nearly 300 million rapid tests to community health centers, food banks, and schools. He has ordered the Transportation Safety Administration to double the fines on travelers that refuse to mask.
After deploying nearly 1000 healthcare workers to address this summer’s surges in 18 states, the president is now sending in military health teams from the Defense Department. Meanwhile, he said, the U.S. continues to donate vaccines to the rest of the world, “nearly 140 million vaccines over 90 countries so far, more than all other countries combined, including Europe, China, and Russia.... That’s American leadership on a global stage, and that’s just the beginning.” The U.S. is now shipping 500 million more Pfizer vaccines to 100 lower-income countries.
“Many of us are frustrated with the nearly 80 million Americans who are still not vaccinated, even though the vaccine is safe, effective, and free,” Biden said. More than 175 million Americans are fully vaccinated, and for the past three months we have created 700,000 new jobs a month. But while nearly three quarters of those eligible have gotten at least one shot, the highly contagious Delta variant has ripped through the unvaccinated, who are overcrowding our hospitals, threatening the health of our children, and weakening our economic recovery.
“[D]espite America having an unprecedented and successful vaccination program, despite the fact that for almost five months free vaccines have been available in 80,000 different locations, we still have nearly 80 million Americans who have failed to get the shot…. And to make matters worse, there are elected officials actively working to undermine the fight against COVID-19,” Biden said. “Instead of encouraging people to get vaccinated and mask up, they’re ordering mobile morgues for the unvaccinated dying from COVID in their communities. This is totally unacceptable.”
“[W]e have the tools to combat COVID-19, and a distinct minority of Americans—supported by a distinct minority of elected officials—are keeping us from turning the corner…. We cannot allow these actions to stand in the way of protecting the large majority of Americans who have done their part and want to get back to life as normal.”
“We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us,” he said. “So, please, do the right thing.”
The Biden administration is pushing back, too, on Texas’s Senate Bill 8, which prohibits abortion after 6 weeks and thus outlaws 85% of abortions in the state. Today, the United States of America sued the state of Texas for acting “in open defiance of the Constitution” when it passed S. B. 8 and deprived “individuals of their constitutional rights.” The United States has a “profound sovereign interest” in making sure that individuals’ constitutional rights can be protected by the federal government, the lawsuit declares. "The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said.
What is at stake in this case is the ability of the federal government to defend Americans’ constitutional rights against local vigilantes, a power Americans gave to the federal government in 1868 by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution after white former Confederates in southern states refused to accept the idea that their Black neighbors should have rights.
Since the 1950s, the Supreme Court has used federal power to protect the rights of minorities and women when state laws discriminated against them. S. B. 8 would strip the government of that power, leaving individuals at the mercy of their neighbors’ prejudices. The government has asked the U.S. district court for the western district of Texas to declare the law “invalid, null, and void,” and to stop the state from enforcing it.
This issue of federal supremacy is not limited to Texas. Glenn Thrush of the New York Times today called out that in June, Missouri governor Mike Parson signed the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which declares federal laws—including taxes—that govern the use of firearms “invalid in this state.” Like the Texas abortion law, the Second Amendment Preservation Act allows individuals to sue state officials who work with federal officials to deprive Missourians of what they consider to be their Second Amendment rights. “Obviously, it’s about far more than simply gun rights,” one of the chief proponents of the bill, far-right activist Aaron Dorr, said to Thrush about his involvement.
There were other wins today for the Biden administration. Today was the deadline for federal agencies to produce a wide range of records surrounding the events of January 6 to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and according to the committee’s Twitter feed, those records have, in fact, been forthcoming.
And Taliban officials did allow a plane carrying about 115 Americans and other nationals to leave Afghanistan.
Biden’s new approach to the pandemic is, as Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo points out, good politics as well as good for public health. About 65% of the voting age population is already vaccinated, and older people are both more likely to be vaccinated and more likely to vote. With most Americans vaccinated and increasingly frustrated with those who refuse, there is little political risk to requiring vaccines, while Republicans standing in the way of public health measures are increasingly unpopular. Florida, where deaths from coronavirus soared to more than 300 a day in late August, has begun to limit the information about deaths it releases.
If Biden’s new vaccine requirements slow or halt the spread of the coronavirus, the economic recovery that had been taking off before the Delta variant hit will resume its speed, strengthening his popularity. Those Republican lawmakers furious at the new vaccine requirements are possibly less worried that they won’t work than that they will.
Notes:
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/lawsuit-doj.pdf
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/09/politics/biden-administration-texas-abortion-law/index.html
https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-committee-issues-sweeping-demand-executive-branch-records
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/09/09/business/economy-stock-market-news
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b3CD2rFn105IQ7ziTfcTT5m8bzv1gBXE5-RXEV0phMM/edit
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/us/politics/missouri-gun-law.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-news-taliban-to-let-americans-evacuate-flights-from-kabul-airport/
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/as-covid-deaths-soar-florida-curtails-public-records-on-which-counties-hit-hardest/2547538/
Josh Marshall @joshtpmThe vax mandate is good public health. It’s also good politics. A big majority of the voting age population is already vaxed. About 65%. Propensity to vote and likelihood of being vaxed both rise with age. The vaxed are losing patience w the voluntarily unvaxed who …
288 Retweets1,742 Likes
September 10th 2021
LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
#vaccine mandate#COVID-19#public health#vaccination#Federal Government#The US Constitution#political#Heather Cox Richardson#Letters From An American
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
来源：华盛顿邮报报道《Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades》
链接：https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/18/congress-stocks-insider-trading-ban/
0 notes
Text
Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
0 notes
Text
Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
0 notes
Text
Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
来源：华盛顿邮报报道《Congress might finally ban members from conducting sketchy stock trades》
链接：
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/18/congress-stocks-insider-trading-ban/
0 notes
Text
Congress tends to oversee others more zealously than it oversees itself, which is why a burgeoning effort to prevent lawmakers from conducting insider trading is as welcome as it is overdue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced last week that she believes a floor vote is possible this month on legislation that would ban members of Congress and their family members from dealing in individual stocks while those lawmakers are in office. Plenty of representatives have already introduced similar bills, but Democratic leaders have set their sights on a compromise proposal likely to emerge soon from negotiations led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her recommendations are expected to include restrictions that would apply to senior officials in all three branches, limiting the financial activities they can engage in as well as enhancing the penalties they face for failing to disclose what they do buy and sell.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
A recent New York Times analysis found that at least 97 current members of Congress or their families bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that overlapped with the lawmakers’ work. A continuing Insider investigation has discovered that 72 members have neglected to report trades as required by the 2012 Stock Act — which isn’t surprising, given the penalty for such lapses is usually a mere $200. Examples abound of behavior that at the least bears the appearance of corruption, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) dumping more than $1 million worth of shares a week before the 2020 coronavirus market crash to Ms. Pelosi’s husband pouring tens of millions of dollars into high-profile technology companies regularly scrutinized by the body his wife leads; to the four children of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) all becoming minority owners of a Major League Soccer team even as MLS lobbied on an immigration proposal.
Those examples show why it’s important that any congressional stock-trading ban apply to spouses and children. The inclusion of senior congressional staff makes sense, too, because top aides can have access to the same market-moving secrets as their bosses, and, even though they’re not the ones voting on bills, they’re often the ones writing them.
The question of what officials should do with stocks they already own is trickier, but Ms. Lofgren’s proposal might point in the right direction: Lawmakers should either divest or start a blind trust — which could be made blinder still with a mandate that its manager gradually sell off the original assets.
While allowing officials to invest in diversified assets, such as mutual and exchange-traded funds, still leaves some room for malfeasance, a prohibition on trading individual stocks would eliminate the easiest and most egregious modes of exploiting one’s position. That’s a big change, and it’s likely the best Congress can do today. Tougher and more tailored strictures regarding disclosure would also help.
The bill’s success is not guaranteed. Opposition could form around certain parts of the plan Ms. Lofgren proposes; in particular, the expansion of a stock-trading ban to the judicial branch. That shouldn’t get in the way of passing the rest of the legislation. Good government is as important in the courts as in Congress, but the priority for legislators should be cleaning up their own act.
0 notes
Link
Cybercrime Hits the Pump Hackers take down a major fuel pipeline One of the U.S.’s biggest pipeline operators, Colonial Pipeline, disclosed late last week that it was forced to shut down after it was hit by ransomware. It’s a sobering reminder that cybercrime is one of the most serious threats that companies face. Colonial acknowledged that its corporate computer network had been hit, crippling the company that supplies 45 percent of the East Coast’s fuel. (A criminal gang known as DarkSide was identified as the perpetrator.) While the shutdown, now in its third day, hasn’t yet had a major impact on the markets for gasoline, diesel or jet fuel, analysts warned prolonged downtime could lead to higher gas prices as demand rises when the economy fully reopens. Colonial declined to say when it would restart operations. Cybercrime is on the rise. U.S. officials note that the frequency and sophistication of ransomware attacks has soared in recent months, targeting police departments, hospitals and manufacturers. Companies are often reluctant to reveal much information about these attacks, making the scope of hacks difficult to gauge; last year, a ransomware attack took an unnamed natural gas facility offline for two days, according to a vague statement from the government at the time. The attack on Colonial comes months after news of the hacking of the network services provider SolarWinds, which Russia has been accused of orchestrating. The Biden administration is weighing how to respond. The White House had already been planning an executive order to create new digital safety standards for federal agencies and contractors, as well as new disclosure rules. Government officials have conceded that the order as currently planned wouldn’t stop the most skilled hackers from infiltrating computer networks, though they say it might have helped prevent hacks like the Colonial incident. In the meantime, the Department of Transportation passed an emergency order yesterday relaxing rules on transporting fuel via road in some states. This latest attack highlights the vulnerability of infrastructure to cyber attacks. President Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure spending plan doesn’t have a lot to say about cybersecurity specifically, so how to protect these projects from attacks could become yet another point of contention in the already heated debate over the bill. HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING New warnings about how the coronavirus spreads. U.S. officials acknowledged that the virus is airborne and can reach people more than six feet away, raising questions about how employers can redesign offices to reduce the spread. Still, Dr. Anthony Fauci said he was open to relaxing indoor mask mandates — so long as Americans continue to get vaccinated. 1MDB sues JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank. The failed Malaysian sovereign fund sued 25 individuals and nine entities, a list that includes the two Western lenders, Bloomberg reports. It’s the latest fallout from a bribery scandal in which Goldman Sachs admitted last year to a role in abetting crimes. The fight over unemployment benefits heats up. Friday’s disappointing jobs report stoked debate over whether the Biden administration’s policies are working. Republicans (and some Democrats) argue that the $300 weekly supplement is discouraging people from finding work; others say any clogs in the labor market are temporary. Investors rebel against executive pay. Shareholder votes in favor of U.S. executives’ compensation have fallen to their lowest level — an average of 88 percent — since 2011, the year that “say on pay” votes became mandatory, The Financial Times reports. So far this year, six S&P 500 companies have failed to win a majority of support for pay packages. An online cheating scandal is roiling Dartmouth. The school accused 17 medical students of cheating on remote exams. The allegations have caused an uproar at the university — several students say the software was at fault — and highlighted issues around the tracking of students without their consent. Dogecoin: Who is the joke on? In this year of crypto craziness, the funniest money of all is Dogecoin. The token that started as a joke, riffing off a popular internet meme, has generated scarcely believable returns and distracted from more serious discussions about the future of cryptocurrency (see the separate item below for more on that). Is Elon Musk really taking Dogecoin to the moon? That’s what the Tesla C.E.O. has been pledging to do, literally and figuratively. Yesterday, he tweeted that one of his other companies, SpaceX, is “launching satellite Doge-1 to the moon next year — Mission paid for in Doge.” The announcement came the morning after he dropped a few Dogecoin references as host of “Saturday Night Live,” at one point calling the token “a hustle.” Dogecoin fell by nearly a third in price on the night of the show. It was such an eventful night for the cryptocurrency that the Robinhood trading app couldn’t keep up. SpaceX and Geometric Energy Corporation are indeed teaming up to carry a 90-pound satellite on a Falcon 9 moon mission, paid for with Dogecoin, according to a statement yesterday. “Having officially transacted with DOGE for a deal of this magnitude, Geometric Energy Corporation and SpaceX have solidified DOGE as a unit of account for lunar business,” said G.E.C.’s chief executive, Samuel Reid. Dogecoin is only disconcerting if you don’t get it? “It’s cheap, fun, viral and has a great potential for return,” Marcos Brakenridge, an undergraduate business student at the University of Kansas, told DealBook. Brakenridge, the treasurer of the student investment club, bet big on Dogecoin in February, when it was around a tenth of its current price, to make money for a down payment on real estate. Tens of thousands of dollars in returns later, he’s confident its value will keep going up because Musk — and the rest of us — keep making a fuss about it. Today in Business Updated May 10, 2021, 7:48 a.m. ET “People just seemed shocked. They’re speechless. They’re really blindsided.” — A former executive of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on the couple’s divorce. The split makes personal a shift that confidants say was underway in their philanthropic roles, The Times reports. Ms. French Gates had consulted with divorce lawyers in 2019, The Wall Street Journal reports. Crypto goes to K Street Away from the memes and manias, the cryptocurrency industry is maturing, as shown by its growing contingent of lobbyists in Washington and a recent hiring spree of former regulators. The burst in activity comes amid growing enthusiasm from mainstream investors and increased concern from regulators, The Times’s Eric Lipton reports. Clarity on how to regulate digital assets is likely years away, Eric told DealBook. This month, the House passed a bill backed by crypto lobbyists to create a working group to examine frameworks for regulating digital assets. “The bill the House passed is a sign of how far they are from doing anything substantive in Congress,” Eric said. “There is no consensus on how to go forward and there are serious rivalries in the industry.” Congress usually acts in response to disaster, said Stephen Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts, at the House vote, noting that the F.D.I.C. was created after the Great Depression, and the C.F.P.B. came after the 2008 financial crisis. The bill, he noted, was a chance “to act proactively toward financial innovation rather than to address gaps in our regulatory framework after the fact.” The bill is now with the Senate Banking Committee. “Financial regulators have been slow when it comes to protecting consumers from private-sector digital assets that add more risks to our financial system,” Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the committee chair, told DealBook in a statement. He declined to provide a timeline for advancing the legislation. Until there are rules, it’s all about enforcement. In December, the S.E.C. sued Ripple Labs, creator of a popular crypto platform, saying its token, XRP, is an unregistered security. The company argues that XRP is a commodity, like Bitcoin, and has enlisted lobbyists, lawyers and other well-connected advocates to make its case. The lawsuit has persuaded other industry players to get more involved in crafting rules “because right now it is like the Wild, Wild West,” said John E. Deaton, a lawyer who moved to intervene in the enforcement action against Ripple. On work and vaccines On Friday, we wrote about one of the most vexing issues facing boardrooms: Should companies mandate that employees get vaccinated before returning to the workplace? We asked for your thoughts, and many of you shared opinions, personal experiences and suggestions for handling this complex issue. Here is a small selection, edited for clarity: “The way we’re doing it at our company is, if you submit a reason from your doctor or you have a religious belief or some other valid reason not to get the vaccination yet, you are required to be tested weekly and submit the results to H.R.” — Patricia Ripley, New York City “We don’t know the long-term dangers of these vaccines. They may be bad or good. No one knows. Our employers should not be able to simply ignore any of our worries and concerns.” — Brandon Atchison, Verbena, Ala. “I strongly support employer mandates. A few well-publicized firings will end the ‘hesitancy,’ but the firings must be backed up by classifying them as ‘for cause.’ That means no severance for executives and no unemployment for staff who refuse.” — Paul Levy, Carolina Beach, N.C. “Individual rights are the cornerstone of American democracy — trampling them for the vaccine rollout is a dangerous precedent. People seem to forget that these ‘temporary changes’ end up as permanent, with the result that your employer can now compel greater access to your personal decision-making.” — Anonymous “An unvaccinated person exposes everyone in the office, including visiting customers and clients, to the virus. Why should everyone else be jeopardized because of one person? Simply let unvaccinated people continue to work at home and suffer any consequences to their career paths that may result.” — Joseph Carlucci, White Plains, N.Y. THE SPEED READ Deals More than 30 tech start-ups received taxpayer-funded rescue loans — and then went public via SPACs less than a year later. (WSJ) Simon Property Group and Authentic Brands agreed to buy Eddie Bauer, adding to their stable of clothing brands. (Reuters) Politics and policy Norwegian Cruise Line threatened to keep its ships out of Florida ports after the state barred businesses from requiring proof of vaccination. (NYT) “Policymakers Used to Ignore Child Care. Then Came the Pandemic.” (NYT) Maya Angelou and Sally Ride will feature on a series of quarters to be issued by the U.S. Mint. (NYT) Tech Jeff Bezos sold $5 billion worth of Amazon stock days after the company disclosed stellar earnings. (Bloomberg) Clubhouse is finally available on Android, but the audio chat app’s popularity on iOS continues to decline. (Insider) Best of the rest U.S. and European banks are split on how quickly workers should be brought back to the office. (FT) Netflix said it won’t work with the group behind the Golden Globes until it improves diversity within its ranks. (Deadline) An internal Walmart memo bluntly laid out the challenges the retail giant faces to maintain its dominance. (Recode) We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to [email protected]. Source link Orbem News #Cybercrime #hits #pump
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
twohorizonsart
christina on tumblr
hbk012
Untitled
levelupuniverse
∆fight for your dreams∆
jileyfeels
and there in your eyes i saw true love;
thekembayau
The Kembayau