Bahamas Bans American Tourists As Florida Becomes Epicenter Of Pandemic 

Bahamas Bans American Tourists As Florida Becomes Epicenter Of Pandemic 

Tyler Durden

Tue, 07/21/2020 – 09:05

The US has recorded more than 3,809,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases since the pandemic began. Another grim statistic is that the death toll stands at around 138,000. The reemergence of the virus pandemic has resulted in the Bahamas Prime Minister Hubert Minni banning American tourists from entry. 

Minni announced the ban over the weekend and also declared flights to the US would be halted. 

He said the virus pandemic in the Bahamas has worsened “at an exponential rate” since the country, located within the Lucayan Archipelago of the West Indies in the Caribbean, reopened its international border in early July. 

“International commercial flights and commercial vessels carrying passengers will not be permitted to enter our borders, except for commercial flights from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union,” Minnis said in a National Address on Sunday.

He said, “Bahamasair will cease outgoing flights to the United States of America, effective immediately.”

Minnis’ decision to close the international border with the US follows recent developments of Florida becoming the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic. 

He said, “As a country, we have to do what is right and necessary. If we do not take these measures now, we will pay a higher and deadlier price later. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we acted early to prevent widespread sickness and death.” 

Closing the international border with the US will only amplify the recession in the Bahamas, considering the tourism industry is more than half the country’s GDP. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32Mca7w Tyler Durden

Trump Has To Spend $1.8 Trillion In The Next Three Months

Trump Has To Spend $1.8 Trillion In The Next Three Months

Tyler Durden

Tue, 07/21/2020 – 08:45

Authored by Michael Every of Rabobank

Light at the end of the tunnel

Yesterday had its fair share of positive developments. Foremost was news that the Oxford Covid-19 vaccine appears to show good potential in human trials. Yes, it might need two doses to work, which markets didn’t like so much, but frankly it was always going to be a slow, laborious, and hugely expensive challenge to develop, and then physically produce, and then practically roll out an effective vaccine to most of mankind. “Here’s a genie in a magic lamp – but you have to rub it twice to release it.” “Oh, that’s rather inefficient! Haven’t you got another one?” Markets showing their innate ‘Oscar Wilde’ price vs. value genius once again. We also had an update on last week’s news from Israel that progress also continues to be made on a Covid treatment using common hyperlipidaemia drugs, which scientists claim could potentially downgrade the virus from a killer to just a cold. In short, a good day for science. Perhaps it’s not such a bad thing after all.

Europe found a way out of its multi-day mega-summit, which must have come as a physical relief to the leaders involved and the journalists having to sit there and cover it. The outcome is EUR390bn in virus recovery grants and USD360bn of low-interest loans. Italy in particular is to get EUR82bn in grants and EUR127bn in loans. Critics will continue to point out that this isn’t enough to really jump-start a recovery given the damage done – but it’s certainly not the cold hard nothing that was on the cards at one point.

In the UK, Chancellor Rishi (Rich) Sunak continues to defy traditional Conservative stereotypes, and has announced almost 900,000 public sector workers are due to get a pay rise of up to 3.1%. That doesn’t mean that the private sector won’t look at an atomised workforce where unemployment is surging and try to slash salaries or benefits, but at least the state won’t be the first into such a damaging downwards spiral.

Stocks continue to act as if we have already beaten Covid-19 – and every potential health-risk known to man. The Nasdaq in particular was up 3% on the day. Bonds still don’t buy that enthusiasm, acting in either a more hypochondriac (or realist) manner: US 10-year yields were at 0.61% at time of writing. The USD is still relatively on its heels, with bellwethers like AUD managing to hold over the psychological 0.70 level for example, and EUR at 1.1440.

However, lights at the end of the tunnel can be either an exit or trains coming towards us; and some might want to consider that in some key cases it could still prove to be either.

First, the White House and Congressional leaders are to sit down today and start to consider what stimulus comes next. Democrats are pushing for a USD3 trillion package while the White House only wants USD1 trillion, and focused on a payroll tax cut rather than an extension to the USD600 weekly extension to unemployment benefits. The clock is ticking given we are days away from income supplements drying up at a time when millions are jobless and one in three Americans is not making a full rent or mortgage payment. Political speed is of the essence.

The US Treasury is of course sitting on a cash balance of USD1.8 trillion at this point. I don’t recall any taxes being paid to raise that sum – almost as if MMT were already a thing. (On which note, please see this report.) One wonders when this massive fiscal firepower is going to be unleashed; because surely no president wants to leave USD1.8 trillion to a successor?

While it makes sense to argue it’s better to incentivise working (a payroll tax cut) than not working (unemployment benefits) this presumes everyone is able to go back to work. If many can’t physically get back to work and also have their benefits cut, it will risk an express train hitting the US economy.

So back to the USD. Bloomberg breathlessly reports today about the USD200bn IPO of a certain large Chinese financial company in Hong Kong and Shanghai. What a bright light that is, apparently. So much so it is flagged in one editorial as signalling the start of China’s de-dollarization. Really? The fact we are talking about a USD200bn IPO when it won’t actually be in dollars, or in the US, doesn’t say anything about which currency still rules? Or that one of the popular services under the umbrella of this firm is selling FX to buy USD at attractive rates and commission free.

Certainly there won’t be many CNH takers in Australia at present given the rapid shift in government opinion there. In Aussie markets we also saw the RBA make clear it won’t be making any rapid shifts on rates either: they are going to stay low for a long, long time – but going negative remains “extraordinarily unlikely. The RBA did also reaffirm “the importance of the longstanding principle of separating monetary policy from the financing of government” – so no MMT here, please! Which sits rather awkwardly with unlimited bond buying to keep the short end of the yield curve where they want it to be (albeit with little actual buying needed so far), and separate pleas from the RBA for the government to spend more to get the economy moving. The RBA are not exactly renowned for seeing trains coming, however, any more than they are for providing funding to build them in the first place.

Meanwhile, there are many potential trains ahead of us: there’s US-China relations, where Secretary of State Pompeo is due to make another speech on Thursday that might sour relations even further. Yet we also have the following headlines on Bloomberg opinion:

  • UK Living Standards Post Biggest Drop Since 1970s Oil Crisis (Whisper it, dear readers, but not everyone has had a good crisis. **The stock market is not the real world!** )
  • China Is Getting Closer to Its Lehman Moment (Oh, what party poopers they are to write this given that Chinese financial IPO: and why remind people the PBOC is forcing already struggling banks to give up most of their profits ‘for the team’?)
  • We’re One Gaffe Away From Another Taper Tantrum (So we can’t stop if we wanted to?)
  • Financial Repression Will Be a Liberator for Gold (Which says what about returns on other assets? And FX volatility?)

So to summarize: we are still deep in crisis despite huge fiscal stimulus in the UK; we heading for a crisis if we keep going the way we are in China; if we take a step back anywhere we are heading for another kind of crisis; and if we go all-in then we face a different kind of structural crisis. Not that any of that will stop current financial exuberance.

“Let there be light.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WIVnP3 Tyler Durden

#MeToo, #TheyLied, and Pseudonymous Litigation

Recent years have seen a surge of high-profile sexual harassment and sexual assault lawsuits (though there were plenty before as well). They have also seen a surge of

  • libel lawsuits by people (mostly men) who say they were falsely accused of sexual abuse, and who sued their accusers (mostly women);
  • libel lawsuits by the accusers who say they were falsely accused of lying (e.g., the libel lawsuits against Bill Cosby); and
  • due process and Title IX lawsuits by students who say they were wrongly disciplined by colleges in sexual misconduct investigations.

Many plaintiffs and defendants in these lawsuits want to proceed pseudonymously, to shield their identities from the public (though of course not from each other). But whether they can do so turns out to be complicated and unsettled.

There are quite a few sexual assault cases in which the plaintiff has been allowed to litigate as a Doe, and quite a few such cases involving lawsuits against colleges by people who claim to have been falsely accused. But I can’t say this is firmly established even within those categories; and things are even less clear in libel cases. I wrote about two such cases last year, and yesterday a federal court handed down another.

Jane Doe and John Doe are Oberlin College students. It is undisputed that they had sexual activity, but Jane Doe claims it was rape. She complained to Oberlin College, which found in John Doe’s favor. And she had also allegedly made similar claims to friends. John Doe then sued for slander and related torts, but wanted to proceed pseudonymously, as did Jane Doe. Judge James S. Gwin, however, said no:

On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff John Doe sued Defendant Jane Doe in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. On March 13, 2020, the Lorain County Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for both parties to proceed using pseudonyms. On May 8, 2020, Defendant removed the case to this Court.

On June 3, 2020, the Court ordered both parties to file briefing on whether they can
proceed anonymously. Both parties complied and moved to proceed anonymously [as to their own anonymity, though] {Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s motion to proceed anonymously}.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 requires complaints to state the parties’ names. {See Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004) (“As a general matter, a complaint must state the names of all parties.”).} But courts may excuse parties from identifying themselves when their privacy interests outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.

When weighing these privacy interests, certain factors could support contravening the typical rule of open court proceedings: “(1) whether the plaintiffs seeking anonymity are suing to challenge governmental activity; (2) whether prosecution of the suit will compel the plaintiffs to disclose information ‘of the utmost intimacy’; (3) whether the litigation compels plaintiffs to disclose an intention to violate the law, thereby risking criminal prosecution; and (4) whether the plaintiffs are children.”

Both parties seek anonymity to avoid the disclosure of intimate information. They
suggest that this suit will necessarily involve discussion of sexual contact that will leave each stigmatized.

The only controlling caselaw the parties cite in support is Doe v. Porter. There, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s anonymity allowance. But the Sixth Circuit affirmed because the suit involved three of the before-mentioned privacy considerations: it challenged government activity, involved religious beliefs which “invited an opprobrium analogous to the infamy associated with criminal behavior,” and was brought on behalf of children.

In contrast, this case does not challenge government activity and concerns only the actions of adults. While the parties may want to keep discussions of their sexual activity private, this preference does not outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.

The public has a right to access court records except in the limited matters Congress has deemed confidential. This suit does not fall within any such exception. The Court hereby DENIES the parties’ motions to proceed anonymously. The Court VACATES the March 13, 2020, protective order permitting the parties to proceed anonymously. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to (1) update the electronic docket to identify Plaintiff and Defendant by their full legal names and (2) unseal all documents in the court record.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39gbo3V
via IFTTT

16 Modules for Constitutional Law II (Rights and Equal Protection)

This year, professors will have to adapt their classes for distance learning. One helpful tip is to break down the doctrine into small, manageable bites. The buzzword is module, which is synonymous with unit or topic. To help professors, I have divided the corpus of constitutional law into separate modules. Each module will link to a set of Powerpoint slides, as well as previews of videos from An Introduction to Constitutional Law. The slides are free. Students can purchase our book ($23.99) to access the full video library. I encourage professors to consider recommending our supplement for this semester. Our book matches up with all of the leading casebooks. If you would like a review copy, please e-mail me: josh-at-joshblackman-dot-com.

The first post in this series focused on Constitutional Law I (Structure and Powers). Today, I will post sixteen modules for Constitutional Law II (Rights and Equal Protection). And on Wednesday, I will share seven modules for an upper-level First Amendment Class (Speech and Religion).

 

Module 1: Slavery

 

Module 2: The Privilege or Immunities Clause

 

Module 3: The Enforcement Powers of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments

 

Module 4: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

 

Module 5: “Economic” Liberty in the Progressive Era

 

Module 6: “Personal” Liberty in the Progressive Era

 

Module 7: “Economic” Liberty Through the New Deal

 

Module 8: “Economic” Liberty After the New Deal

 

Module 9: Equal Protection Clause on the Warren Court

 

Module 10: Affirmative Action on the Burger and Rehnquist Courts

 

Module 11: Affirmative Action on the Roberts Court

 

Module 12: Sex Discrimination

 

Module 13: “Heightened” Rational Basis Scrutiny 

 

Module 14: The Right to Privacy on the Warren and Burger Court

 

Module 15: The Right to Abortion

 

Module 16: Gay Rights

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZMQztW
via IFTTT

Why Are Taxpayers Footing the Bill for Full-Time Police Union Employees?

Portland Police

Police departments, fire departments, and school districts across the country pay thousands of public employees full-time salaries to do no work for the public. Instead, they work solely on behalf of the employees’ unions. This practice, called “release time,” means taxpayers must pay the salaries of officers who lobby against police reforms, such as eliminating qualified immunity and requiring cops to wear body cameras. When Houston Police Officers’ Union chief Joe Gamaldi tells lawmakers not to change qualified immunity, he’s doing so on “MBA Union Business Leave” time—funded by tax dollars.

Phoenix taxpayers pay about $3.7 million annually for officers whose only job is to work for the police union—lobbying, recruiting members, or representing employees in disputes with city officials—instead of patrolling the streets. This amounts to about 73,000 person-hours that could be spent on anything from fighting crime to de-escalation training.

Release time provisions are embedded in collective bargaining agreements. Sometimes these expressly say that “released” employees won’t be assigned public duties but will instead work for the union itself. The Jersey City Education Association, for example, specified in its contract with the school district that the union’s president and vice president would receive government paychecks but “shall be permitted to devote all of [their] time to the [union’s] business and affairs.” They weren’t required to report to anyone, or specify how they spent their time, and school district officials were not allowed to assign them work. Instead, they spent all their working hours on union activities, including filing grievances, circulating literature, and attending “gatherings” on the union’s behalf.

Many cities and unions refuse to disclose how much time and money is involved, so it’s impossible to say for certain how much it costs. But Mallory Factor, a professor of international politics and American government at the Citadel, has estimated that release time costs the nation’s taxpayers $1 billion each year. That’s almost certainly an underestimate, since release time exists across agencies and entities and is largely under the radar. But in Jacksonville, Florida, for example, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) is entitled to 2,500 hours to be spent “by any member of the F.O.P. for F.O.P. activities” instead of police work. In Tampa, more than a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars a year fund some 10,000 hours of “release time” for public-sector union bosses. In Austin, police, fire, and emergency medical services unions all obtained agreements that pay union officials to lobby for more benefits—a perpetual motion machine whereby taxpayers pay people to demand more taxpayer money.

Release time’s defenders say it benefits taxpayers by helping resolve employment disputes and ensuring a more orderly work environment, but the facts don’t bear that out. When the Goldwater Institute sued the Jersey City School District, for example, the union admitted there were no rules in place to ensure that officials actually performed such tasks. On the contrary, since “released” union officials negotiate against the government for pay and benefits, “release” is actually adverse to the public purse. And if “labor peace” is the objective, it doesn’t seem to work. In 2016, Jersey City teachers, led by “released” union officers, went on strike after their negotiations with the district failed. As the state’s Commission of Investigation found, “union representatives, first and foremost, are in the business of promoting the interests of private entities and their dues-paying members, not those of the taxpayers.”

The costs aren’t just financial—they’re social, too. Public sector unions occupy an anomalous position in a democracy: intermediaries between the people and their government. This gives them a unique monopoly, since taxpayers can’t shop elsewhere.

Because public employees are paid by tax money, those demands are not limited by the forces that restrain private sector unions. The United Auto Workers must always remember that if they insist on too much, General Motors or Ford will go bankrupt and everybody will lose their jobs. That’s not true in the public sector, where the concessions unions obtain are limited only by the voters’ tolerance—and often not even that, since constitutional rules limit the government’s ability to undo contracts made in the past. Recent pension reform cases show that if voters balk at wasteful spending, they often have no effective way to repeal a bad bargain.

Release time is also used to provide defenses for officers facing disciplinary charges. If a cop shoots an innocent citizen, he or she can’t be fired without a hearing—and at that hearing, the officer is entitled to representation funded by citizens. The same goes for other government employees, including teachers or principals who violate students’ rights. Victims of official wrongdoing surely take little comfort in the fact that they are paying to protect the jobs of the people who abused them. And I doubt it gratifies other cops or teachers when they get lumped in with the wrongdoers in the inevitable public backlash.

Favors like release time create a distinct, privileged class of Americans. They’re neither publicly accountable government agents nor private citizens, but a specially favored cadre, paid by often-dissatisfied “customers” and overseen by “employers” who have little effective power to fire or discipline them. That is extraordinarily dangerous, because it removes public employees’ responsibility without diminishing their authority. It’s no wonder many citizens view public employees—especially police officers—not as fellow citizens, let alone as their agents, but as occupiers and adversaries.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32S1ftp
via IFTTT

#MeToo, #TheyLied, and Pseudonymous Litigation

Recent years have seen a surge of high-profile sexual harassment and sexual assault lawsuits (though there were plenty before as well). They have also seen a surge of

  • libel lawsuits by people (mostly men) who say they were falsely accused of sexual abuse, and who sued their accusers (mostly women);
  • libel lawsuits by the accusers who say they were falsely accused of lying (e.g., the libel lawsuits against Bill Cosby); and
  • due process and Title IX lawsuits by students who say they were wrongly disciplined by colleges in sexual misconduct investigations.

Many plaintiffs and defendants in these lawsuits want to proceed pseudonymously, to shield their identities from the public (though of course not from each other). But whether they can do so turns out to be complicated and unsettled.

There are quite a few sexual assault cases in which the plaintiff has been allowed to litigate as a Doe, and quite a few such cases involving lawsuits against colleges by people who claim to have been falsely accused. But I can’t say this is firmly established even within those categories; and things are even less clear in libel cases. I wrote about two such cases last year, and yesterday a federal court handed down another.

Jane Doe and John Doe are Oberlin College students. It is undisputed that they had sexual activity, but Jane Doe claims it was rape. She complained to Oberlin College, which found in John Doe’s favor. And she had also allegedly made similar claims to friends. John Doe then sued for slander and related torts, but wanted to proceed pseudonymously, as did Jane Doe. Judge James S. Gwin, however, said no:

On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff John Doe sued Defendant Jane Doe in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. On March 13, 2020, the Lorain County Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for both parties to proceed using pseudonyms. On May 8, 2020, Defendant removed the case to this Court.

On June 3, 2020, the Court ordered both parties to file briefing on whether they can
proceed anonymously. Both parties complied and moved to proceed anonymously [as to their own anonymity, though] {Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s motion to proceed anonymously}.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 requires complaints to state the parties’ names. {See Doe v. Porter, 370 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004) (“As a general matter, a complaint must state the names of all parties.”).} But courts may excuse parties from identifying themselves when their privacy interests outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.

When weighing these privacy interests, certain factors could support contravening the typical rule of open court proceedings: “(1) whether the plaintiffs seeking anonymity are suing to challenge governmental activity; (2) whether prosecution of the suit will compel the plaintiffs to disclose information ‘of the utmost intimacy’; (3) whether the litigation compels plaintiffs to disclose an intention to violate the law, thereby risking criminal prosecution; and (4) whether the plaintiffs are children.”

Both parties seek anonymity to avoid the disclosure of intimate information. They
suggest that this suit will necessarily involve discussion of sexual contact that will leave each stigmatized.

The only controlling caselaw the parties cite in support is Doe v. Porter. There, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s anonymity allowance. But the Sixth Circuit affirmed because the suit involved three of the before-mentioned privacy considerations: it challenged government activity, involved religious beliefs which “invited an opprobrium analogous to the infamy associated with criminal behavior,” and was brought on behalf of children.

In contrast, this case does not challenge government activity and concerns only the actions of adults. While the parties may want to keep discussions of their sexual activity private, this preference does not outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.

The public has a right to access court records except in the limited matters Congress has deemed confidential. This suit does not fall within any such exception. The Court hereby DENIES the parties’ motions to proceed anonymously. The Court VACATES the March 13, 2020, protective order permitting the parties to proceed anonymously. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to (1) update the electronic docket to identify Plaintiff and Defendant by their full legal names and (2) unseal all documents in the court record.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39gbo3V
via IFTTT

16 Modules for Constitutional Law II (Rights and Equal Protection)

This year, professors will have to adapt their classes for distance learning. One helpful tip is to break down the doctrine into small, manageable bites. The buzzword is module, which is synonymous with unit or topic. To help professors, I have divided the corpus of constitutional law into separate modules. Each module will link to a set of Powerpoint slides, as well as previews of videos from An Introduction to Constitutional Law. The slides are free. Students can purchase our book ($23.99) to access the full video library. I encourage professors to consider recommending our supplement for this semester. Our book matches up with all of the leading casebooks. If you would like a review copy, please e-mail me: josh-at-joshblackman-dot-com.

The first post in this series focused on Constitutional Law I (Structure and Powers). Today, I will post sixteen modules for Constitutional Law II (Rights and Equal Protection). And on Wednesday, I will share seven modules for an upper-level First Amendment Class (Speech and Religion).

 

Module 1: Slavery

 

Module 2: The Privilege or Immunities Clause

 

Module 3: The Enforcement Powers of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments

 

Module 4: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

 

Module 5: “Economic” Liberty in the Progressive Era

 

Module 6: “Personal” Liberty in the Progressive Era

 

Module 7: “Economic” Liberty Through the New Deal

 

Module 8: “Economic” Liberty After the New Deal

 

Module 9: Equal Protection Clause on the Warren Court

 

Module 10: Affirmative Action on the Burger and Rehnquist Courts

 

Module 11: Affirmative Action on the Roberts Court

 

Module 12: Sex Discrimination

 

Module 13: “Heightened” Rational Basis Scrutiny 

 

Module 14: The Right to Privacy on the Warren and Burger Court

 

Module 15: The Right to Abortion

 

Module 16: Gay Rights

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZMQztW
via IFTTT

Why Are Taxpayers Footing the Bill for Full-Time Police Union Employees?

Portland Police

Police departments, fire departments, and school districts across the country pay thousands of public employees full-time salaries to do no work for the public. Instead, they work solely on behalf of the employees’ unions. This practice, called “release time,” means taxpayers must pay the salaries of officers who lobby against police reforms, such as eliminating qualified immunity and requiring cops to wear body cameras. When Houston Police Officers’ Union chief Joe Gamaldi tells lawmakers not to change qualified immunity, he’s doing so on “MBA Union Business Leave” time—funded by tax dollars.

Phoenix taxpayers pay about $3.7 million annually for officers whose only job is to work for the police union—lobbying, recruiting members, or representing employees in disputes with city officials—instead of patrolling the streets. This amounts to about 73,000 person-hours that could be spent on anything from fighting crime to de-escalation training.

Release time provisions are embedded in collective bargaining agreements. Sometimes these expressly say that “released” employees won’t be assigned public duties but will instead work for the union itself. The Jersey City Education Association, for example, specified in its contract with the school district that the union’s president and vice president would receive government paychecks but “shall be permitted to devote all of [their] time to the [union’s] business and affairs.” They weren’t required to report to anyone, or specify how they spent their time, and school district officials were not allowed to assign them work. Instead, they spent all their working hours on union activities, including filing grievances, circulating literature, and attending “gatherings” on the union’s behalf.

Many cities and unions refuse to disclose how much time and money is involved, so it’s impossible to say for certain how much it costs. But Mallory Factor, a professor of international politics and American government at the Citadel, has estimated that release time costs the nation’s taxpayers $1 billion each year. That’s almost certainly an underestimate, since release time exists across agencies and entities and is largely under the radar. But in Jacksonville, Florida, for example, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) is entitled to 2,500 hours to be spent “by any member of the F.O.P. for F.O.P. activities” instead of police work. In Tampa, more than a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars a year fund some 10,000 hours of “release time” for public-sector union bosses. In Austin, police, fire, and emergency medical services unions all obtained agreements that pay union officials to lobby for more benefits—a perpetual motion machine whereby taxpayers pay people to demand more taxpayer money.

Release time’s defenders say it benefits taxpayers by helping resolve employment disputes and ensuring a more orderly work environment, but the facts don’t bear that out. When the Goldwater Institute sued the Jersey City School District, for example, the union admitted there were no rules in place to ensure that officials actually performed such tasks. On the contrary, since “released” union officials negotiate against the government for pay and benefits, “release” is actually adverse to the public purse. And if “labor peace” is the objective, it doesn’t seem to work. In 2016, Jersey City teachers, led by “released” union officers, went on strike after their negotiations with the district failed. As the state’s Commission of Investigation found, “union representatives, first and foremost, are in the business of promoting the interests of private entities and their dues-paying members, not those of the taxpayers.”

The costs aren’t just financial—they’re social, too. Public sector unions occupy an anomalous position in a democracy: intermediaries between the people and their government. This gives them a unique monopoly, since taxpayers can’t shop elsewhere.

Because public employees are paid by tax money, those demands are not limited by the forces that restrain private sector unions. The United Auto Workers must always remember that if they insist on too much, General Motors or Ford will go bankrupt and everybody will lose their jobs. That’s not true in the public sector, where the concessions unions obtain are limited only by the voters’ tolerance—and often not even that, since constitutional rules limit the government’s ability to undo contracts made in the past. Recent pension reform cases show that if voters balk at wasteful spending, they often have no effective way to repeal a bad bargain.

Release time is also used to provide defenses for officers facing disciplinary charges. If a cop shoots an innocent citizen, he or she can’t be fired without a hearing—and at that hearing, the officer is entitled to representation funded by citizens. The same goes for other government employees, including teachers or principals who violate students’ rights. Victims of official wrongdoing surely take little comfort in the fact that they are paying to protect the jobs of the people who abused them. And I doubt it gratifies other cops or teachers when they get lumped in with the wrongdoers in the inevitable public backlash.

Favors like release time create a distinct, privileged class of Americans. They’re neither publicly accountable government agents nor private citizens, but a specially favored cadre, paid by often-dissatisfied “customers” and overseen by “employers” who have little effective power to fire or discipline them. That is extraordinarily dangerous, because it removes public employees’ responsibility without diminishing their authority. It’s no wonder many citizens view public employees—especially police officers—not as fellow citizens, let alone as their agents, but as occupiers and adversaries.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32S1ftp
via IFTTT

Silver Is Soaring Again, Citi Sees $2000 Gold Imminent

Silver Is Soaring Again, Citi Sees $2000 Gold Imminent

Tyler Durden

Tue, 07/21/2020 – 08:23

Update (0830ET): 5 minutes after we posted and suggested that BIS precious metals boss Benoit Gilson should “get back to work”… he did…

*  *  *

Silver futures are surging again this morning, dramatically outperforming gold (which is also up notably) with both pushing to new multi-year highs…

Silver futures are back near $21…

Source: Bloomberg

 

Source: Bloomberg

Silver is massively outperforming gold…

Source: Bloomberg

Erasing all of the pandemic/easing driven spike…

Source: Bloomberg

Citi analysts said in a note this week, gold is benefiting from loose monetary policy, low real yields, record inflows into exchange-traded funds and increased asset allocation. They expect the precious metal to climb to an all-time high in the next six-to-nine months, and there’s a 30% probability it’ll top $2,000 an ounce in the next three-to-five months.

“Nominal gold prices have already posted fresh records in every other G-10 and major emerging market currency this year,” the analysts said.

“It is only a matter of time for fresh” highs in U.S. dollars, they said, adding that demand for a store of wealth should also lift silver.

Citi is the latest in a growing line of firms suggesting precious metals have more room to run – even making new record highs (in US terms).

Is the woirld losing faith in fiat?

Get back to work Mr.Gilson…

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2BjqB7T Tyler Durden

Biden Unveils $775 Billion Plan For Universal Child & Elder Care

Biden Unveils $775 Billion Plan For Universal Child & Elder Care

Tyler Durden

Tue, 07/21/2020 – 08:12

Days after unveiling his ‘Green New Deal’ inspired infrastructure plan that will move the US to “100% green energy” by 2035 (much to the dismay of the energy industry, and taxpayers, who would probably rather see that money go to building bridges, airports and highways), the former Vice President is back with another expansionist, big-government plan to implement universal childcare across the US.

Biden’s plan calls for shelling out $775 billion to boost child care and care for the elderly. We imagine Biden’s campaign advisors feel that such a promise might resonate with suburban parents anxious about school closures and the struggle to find child care while they work.

The third plank of the Democratic nominee’s economic plan, it calls for universal preschool for three- and four-year-olds and would also eliminates the waiting list for home and community services under Medicaid while offering low-income and middle-class families a tax credit of as much as $8,000 to help pay for child care. If all that weren’t enough, the law increases pay for caregivers and educators.

Amusingly, Biden’s “caring economy” plan, if enacted, would be financed by new taxes on the sales of commercial real estate, which would deal another blow to the already hard-hit CMBS market.

Here’s more from BBG:

Joe Biden on Tuesday unveiled a $775 billion plan to bolster child care and care for the elderly that would be financed by taxes on real estate investors with incomes of more than $400,000 as well increased tax compliance by high-income earners.

The Biden campaign did not fully explain how the plan for a “caring economy” would be financed, but officials highlighted some tax breaks they would seek to eliminate to raise revenue.

In particular, a senior campaign official said a Biden administration would take aim at so-called like-kind exchanges, which allow investors to defer paying taxes on the sale of commercial real estate if the capital gains are reinvested in another property. The official also said they would prevent investors from using real estate losses to lower their income tax bills.

Biden is scheduled to deliver a speech on the policies Tuesday afternoon in New Castle, Delaware.

Is Biden’s latest shuffle leftward merely a pose, or does the former VP mean what he says about this ‘head start on steroids’ plan? Well, for what it’s worth, Biden shared details of the plan during a fundraiser hosted by a senior exec at Blackstone.

On Monday, Biden teased his “caring economy” plan at a fundraiser hosted by Blackstone Group President Jonathan Gray, telling donors he wanted to make it easier for elderly Medicaid recipients to receive care at home.

Across the universe of American finance, what more suitable industry exists than private equity to represent Biden’s “caring economy” ethic?

Another element of Biden’s economic plan (which he obviously cribbed from President Trump’s “America First” agenda) is a push for more union jobs.

Because if there’s anything the private equity is more well-equipped to create, it’s high-paying union jobs. Skeptical? Don’t worry, friend. Because according to Bloomberg, Biden reassured his private equity donors that powerful unions are “a totally market-based” phenomenon.

Biden also defended his broader economic agenda, which includes a push for more union jobs, telling the high-dollar donors: “I hope I don’t offend any of you by that but I really think it is totally consistent with a market economy and moving forward.”

Whether this platform seems genuine to you, or just another example of a politician saying whatever he believes will help him get elected, this isn’t the first time we’ve pointed out that Biden’s agenda seems like a hodge-podge of rhetoric designed to appeal to two hopelessly disparate voting blocs: Midwestern swing voters and AOC-loving progressives.

To us, that sounds like a recipe for alienating both.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZKDdON Tyler Durden