Texas AG Sues Biden Administration Over Deportation Freeze For Unlawful Migrants

Texas AG Sues Biden Administration Over Deportation Freeze For Unlawful Migrants

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on Friday that the state is suing the Biden administration for freezing the deportation of illegal immigrants.

In a complaint and a motion asking for a temporary restraining order (TRO), Paxton wrote:

“In one of its first of dozens of steps that harm Texas and the nation as a whole, the Biden administration directed DHS to violate federal immigration law and breach an agreement to consult and cooperate with Texas on that law. Our state defends the largest section of the southern border in the nation. Failure to properly enforce the law will directly and immediately endanger our citizens and law enforcement personnel,” adding: “DHS itself has previously acknowledged that such a freeze on deportations will cause concrete injuries to Texas. I am confident that these unlawful and perilous actions cannot stand. The rule of law and security of our citizens must prevail.”

Earlier this week, President Joe Biden said he wanted to “reset” policies on who should be deported by rescinding an order from former President Donald Trump that broadened who officials could deport.

Paxton sent a letter to Acting Department of Homeland Security David Pekoske, saying “This complete abdication of the Department of Homeland Security’s obligation to enforce federal immigration law is unlawful and will seriously irreparably harm the State of Texas and its citizens.” –CBS DFW

In a Wednesday memo, Pekoske issued new guidance to officials directing them to refocus deportation efforts on convicted criminals who pose a national security threat. Illegals who entered the country on or after November 1, 2020 are also subject to deportation.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 01/22/2021 – 15:45

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

Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.

This week on the Short Circuit podcast, IJ Senior Attorney Rob Frommer discusses his recent argument challenging civil forfeiture at the South Carolina Supreme Court.

  • The Trump Administration repealed and replaced the Obama Administration’s signature regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, reasoning that the Obama-era rule was based on an erroneous interpretation of the Clean Air Act. D.C. Circuit: It is the EPA’s current position that is wrong. EPA has more authority to address global warming than it thinks. Dissent: To the contrary, EPA’s authority is even more limited than the Trump Administration believed.
  • Yemeni diplomat in the United States loses his post in September 1994. The following month, his wife gives birth to a daughter in the United States who, at the age of 20, drops out of college and moves to Syria to join ISIS, twice marries ISIS fighters, and has a son born overseas. After the caliphate collapses, the ex-diplomat files suit seeking permission for his daughter and grandson to return to the United States. D.C. Circuit: Nope. Although she was born in the U.S., her father was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States until the United Nations informed the United States of the diplomat’s termination four months later, and thus neither she nor her son are U.S. citizens.
  • In 2011, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel opined that the Wire Act’s prohibitions were uniformly limited to sports gambling. In 2018, the Office changed course, opining that most of the Act applies to all forms of bets and wagers. New Hampshire Lottery Commission sues. District court: The Office of Legal Counsel got it right the first time; the Act is limited to sports gambling. First Circuit: Indeed. (Fed Courts enthusiasts may also enjoy the First Circuit’s Whac-A-Moling the government’s standard trio of defenses: standing, ripeness, and mootness.)
  • Observing that the “issue of qualified immunity’s role in our jurisprudence is topical, to say the least,” the First Circuit nonetheless concludes that it is “dutybound to apply” the doctrine to bar a claim involving a schizophrenic individual shot and killed by the police.
  • In the spring of 2020, the Governor of Maine issued an executive order mandating that travelers coming from out of state self-quarantine for 14 days upon arrival. Two New Hampshirites (among others) sue, alleging violation of their right to interstate travel. District court: No preliminary injunction for you. First Circuit: Affirmed; the quarantine rule satisfies even strict scrutiny.
  • Seeking to secure top talent for NCAA basketball teams, an Adidas executive and others funnel tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to the parents of prospective players. The scheme is found out, and they are charged with defrauding the universities of the scholarship money that could have gone to other students. Second Circuit: This widespread and tacitly approved behavior that provides enormous financial benefits to universities does, indeed, defraud those same universities of the pittances they offer student athletes. Convictions affirmed.
  • Vermont will pay for high schoolers to attend up to two college courses if their high school is “publicly funded.” And Vermont generally won’t fund religious high schools, even in circumstances where it funds other private schools (an exclusion that IJ has separately sued to challenge). Second Circuit: Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction, as they are likely to succeed on their claim that these restrictions operate as status-based discrimination against religious schools. Menashi, J., concurring: And that would also be true if Vermont was discriminating based on religious use, rather than religious status.
  • Really stretch your imagination, and suppose a government reporting requirement isn’t clear. It reasonably could mean A or B. What happens if a bank reports information that is a lie under meaning A but true under meaning B? What if the bank was trying to lie under meaning A? The Third Circuit has the answer in a tour of crim-law fundamentals.
  • Pennsylvania man is convicted of murder in 1995 based heavily on the testimony of two cooperating witnesses. In 2010, he discovers from public records that those witnesses had other pending charges against them—later dismissed—that the prosecutor failed to disclose. He seeks habeas relief. The trial court dismisses his petition, arguing that he could have searched the public records himself, but three years later, the Third Circuit confirms that prosecutors must turn over all exculpatory evidence, even that in public records. Third Circuit: And because of that change in the law, the trial court should reconsider its dismissal. Dissent: The standard for reconsideration is “extraordinary circumstances,” and there’s nothing extraordinary about prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence.
  • New Jersey financial advisor, seeking to take advantage of state payments for easements over farmland, fraudulently obtains a loan, which he uses to finance the purchase a company that owns a farm. He’s found out, convicted, and the government seeks criminal forfeiture of the farm. Third Circuit: Since there’s no dispute that the company—and not the fraudster—is the actual owner of the farm and that it is not simply the fraudster’s alter ego, the government can, at most, seek criminal forfeiture of the fraudster’s 40% interest in the farm (and maybe civil forfeiture of the stakes held by the other owners: the fraudster’s wife and father).
  • In 2007, following Apple’s release of the iPod, iTunes, and iPhone, a company called RXD introduced a new internet-based notepad called “ipad.” Three years later, Apple released the iPad. RXD continued using the ipad mark and even launched a new “ipadtoday.com” website. Fourth Circuit: RXD is not a “first user” and should cut it out.
  • Can an equity partner in a law firm sue the firm for racial discrimination under Title VII? No, holds the Fourth Circuit, as an equity partner is not an “employee” of the firm. To hold otherwise would needlessly upend understandings that have been central to the organization of firm partnerships for decades.
  • The Orwellian-named “CoreCivic” operates detention facilities for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, where detainees are allegedly threatened with solitary confinement and other punishment if they refuse to participate in various work programs—including cleaning and cooking for other detainees. Fifth Circuit: CoreCivic claims Congress could not possibly have meant for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to apply to that type of program, but we see no exception in the law. If CoreCivic wants an exemption, it will have to go to Congress. (Bonus dissenting and concurring opinions about whether CoreCivic might prevail on other grounds—and whether to even reach those other issues on a certified appeal.)
  • For almost a decade, a municipal sewage system has spewed sewage onto private property—leaving “condoms, toilet paper, raw sewage, and feminine hygiene products.” Repeated requests for help went unheeded, allegedly for political reasons. Fifth Circuit: Precisely because the problem has gone on so long, the property owner’s constitutional claims are time-barred. But she might have a claim under the Clean Water Act.
  • The standard for pretrial detention is “probable cause.” The standard for a criminal conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sixth Circuit: In the unfortunate lacuna between these standards lies the plaintiff Duzaun Lester, who is out of luck despite spending 20 months in jail before the key witness at trial testified, “Honestly, um, that don’t look like Duzaun.” (To his credit, the prosecutor, who was not involved at the pretrial stage, told the jury to acquit.)
  • Officer appeals decision denying qualified immunity, claiming the case should not go to a trial because there is no question that he fired his gun after the victim made a “sudden movement.” Ninth Circuit: Under the Supreme Court’s Johnson decision, we cannot review this kind of factual dispute prior to a final judgment. Dissent: Johnson strikes again. I respectfully ask the Supreme Court to clear up this confounding Johnson decision.
  • Australian man living in Hawaii on an H-1B visa has a rifle in his garage. And federal law makes it a crime to knowingly possess a firearm while being an alien admitted under a nonimmigrant visa. But wait. Does that mean that government had to prove the man knew his visa was “nonimmigrant”? Just so, holds the Ninth Circuit. (But this guy totally knew, so conviction affirmed.)
  • In which the Ninth Circuit denies (on procedural grounds) a habeas petition filed by an inmate who was sentenced to nine years in prison for failing to update his address with the sex offender registry within five days of becoming homeless.
  • Inmate at detention center in McAlester, Okla. ingests a pill offered by fellow inmate. Days-long priapism ensues (if you’re inclined to Google it, don’t), leading to a high probability of life-long impotence. Inmate sues guards. Allegations: The guards let me linger in pain for days without getting me medical care. District court: No dice. Tenth Circuit: Yes dice, at least as to three of the guards, who, the record supports, knew of the inmate’s excruciating condition for a long time and didn’t get him help. And the county sheriff may be on the hook too, since the inmate presented a triable case on whether county policies were to blame for his neglect.
  • In a slip-and-fall lawsuit involving a Ross Dress for Less, the Tenth Circuit issued an unpublished decision holding that the presence of the store’s manager destroyed diversity jurisdiction—and leaving to the district court on remand the decision whether to dismiss the manager from the case to preserve jurisdiction. Judge Hartz, meanwhile, issued a separately published dissent declaring himself “baffled” the panel did not exercise its authority to dismiss the manager from the case, given that she was never served with the complaint.
  • Officers set a honeypot trap online, and a man calling himself “Rick” took the bait. From there, it was a simple matter to look up Rick’s phone number in a law enforcement database and arrest the man associated with the number. Simple, but also wrong, as it turned out the database was years out of date. Tenth Circuit: Qualified immunity.
  • Employees of a federally funded nonprofit allege that they were fired for investigating potential fraud. Eleventh Circuit: Troubling, but not False Claims Act retaliation. The False Claims Act applies to false claims, and the federal funds at issue here were paid to the nonprofit automatically without any claim being filed.

Charlottesville, Va. has long been home to a large community of writers, artists, and other freelance creatives. Surprise! The City now maintains the whole community is a bunch of tax scofflaws, and is seeking to collect years of back taxes under the City’s business license tax law. Enter the Institute for Justice, which sued on behalf of a Charlottesville-based novelist. This week, the court sided with IJ and its client, holding that the City’s tax is unconstitutionally vague as applied to freelance authors.

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

Cuomo Seems Intent on Screwing up New York’s Marijuana Legalization

acuomo_1161x653

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has tried and failed to legalize recreational marijuana use for several years now, and in his budget proposal for 2021, he’s giving it yet another try.

How hard can it be to legalize marijuana once the public supports it? In New York, the conflict is over the money, of course. In Cuomo’s budget proposal, he’s entirely focused on the revenue marijuana sales will bring into the state. He’s proposing a 10.25 percent state sales tax, and allowing local sales taxes on top of it. Cuomo predicted that eventually, once the state’s system is fully operational, the government will be bringing in $300 million in tax revenue annually.

But unfortunately, it looks like Cuomo’s proposal may also have some embedded bad ideas. Last year, when Cuomo started shopping around a legalization plan, it included a complete ban on home cultivation for recreational use. In order to legally access marijuana, you had to buy it from a legal vendor, thus guaranteeing the government gets a sweet cut of the money.

Reason has requested a copy of the governor’s full proposal, but his office has not yet responded. According to Marijuana Moment, which has spoken to local advocates, the home cultivation ban is back in Cuomo’s new legislation—and he’s actually expanded it. Last year’s proposal allowed medical marijuana users to grow plants at home. This year’s proposal allows cultivation for neither recreational nor medical marijuana users, a ban reportedly urged by major marijuana companies.

The proposal also allows municipalities and counties with a population of 100,000 and more to opt out of allowing recreational marijuana sales, so in some parts of the state, you may not be able to buy or grow your own marijuana. By contrast, California allows cities to opt out of retail sales, but citizens are permitted to grow up to six plants for their own use at home.

The proposal also doesn’t authorize delivery or point-of-sale marijuana consumption but will leave it to regulators to develop new categories of licenses later on.

More bad news about Cuomo’s plan came from public defender Eli Northrup of The Bronx Defenders. He noticed that Cuomo’s plan actually increases the criminal penalty for anybody caught selling marijuana to somebody who is under 21. It’s currently a misdemeanor, but Cuomo’s plan turns it into a class D felony with a potential prison sentence of up to two and a half years. The current marijuana legalization bill in circulation in the state’s legislature keeps it as a misdemeanor.

Cuomo’s proposal shows that he and the state don’t actually care that much about the devastating impact that the war on marijuana has had on poor communities. He just wants to make sure that the state still has a solid cash flow once they’ve stopped locking people up, fining them, and seizing their property. And if anybody attempts to grow or smoke weed without giving the state its cut, he’s willing to keep the drug war going.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3iOH0CR
via IFTTT

Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.

This week on the Short Circuit podcast, IJ Senior Attorney Rob Frommer discusses his recent argument challenging civil forfeiture at the South Carolina Supreme Court.

  • The Trump Administration repealed and replaced the Obama Administration’s signature regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, reasoning that the Obama-era rule was based on an erroneous interpretation of the Clean Air Act. D.C. Circuit: It is the EPA’s current position that is wrong. EPA has more authority to address global warming than it thinks. Dissent: To the contrary, EPA’s authority is even more limited than the Trump Administration believed.
  • Yemeni diplomat in the United States loses his post in September 1994. The following month, his wife gives birth to a daughter in the United States who, at the age of 20, drops out of college and moves to Syria to join ISIS, twice marries ISIS fighters, and has a son born overseas. After the caliphate collapses, the ex-diplomat files suit seeking permission for his daughter and grandson to return to the United States. D.C. Circuit: Nope. Although she was born in the U.S., her father was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States until the United Nations informed the United States of the diplomat’s termination four months later, and thus neither she nor her son are U.S. citizens.
  • In 2011, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel opined that the Wire Act’s prohibitions were uniformly limited to sports gambling. In 2018, the Office changed course, opining that most of the Act applies to all forms of bets and wagers. New Hampshire Lottery Commission sues. District court: The Office of Legal Counsel got it right the first time; the Act is limited to sports gambling. First Circuit: Indeed. (Fed Courts enthusiasts may also enjoy the First Circuit’s Whac-A-Moling the government’s standard trio of defenses: standing, ripeness, and mootness.)
  • Observing that the “issue of qualified immunity’s role in our jurisprudence is topical, to say the least,” the First Circuit nonetheless concludes that it is “dutybound to apply” the doctrine to bar a claim involving a schizophrenic individual shot and killed by the police.
  • In the spring of 2020, the Governor of Maine issued an executive order mandating that travelers coming from out of state self-quarantine for 14 days upon arrival. Two New Hampshirites (among others) sue, alleging violation of their right to interstate travel. District court: No preliminary injunction for you. First Circuit: Affirmed; the quarantine rule satisfies even strict scrutiny.
  • Seeking to secure top talent for NCAA basketball teams, an Adidas executive and others funnel tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to the parents of prospective players. The scheme is found out, and they are charged with defrauding the universities of the scholarship money that could have gone to other students. Second Circuit: This widespread and tacitly approved behavior that provides enormous financial benefits to universities does, indeed, defraud those same universities of the pittances they offer student athletes. Convictions affirmed.
  • Vermont will pay for high schoolers to attend up to two college courses if their high school is “publicly funded.” And Vermont generally won’t fund religious high schools, even in circumstances where it funds other private schools (an exclusion that IJ has separately sued to challenge). Second Circuit: Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction, as they are likely to succeed on their claim that these restrictions operate as status-based discrimination against religious schools. Menashi, J., concurring: And that would also be true if Vermont was discriminating based on religious use, rather than religious status.
  • Really stretch your imagination, and suppose a government reporting requirement isn’t clear. It reasonably could mean A or B. What happens if a bank reports information that is a lie under meaning A but true under meaning B? What if the bank was trying to lie under meaning A? The Third Circuit has the answer in a tour of crim-law fundamentals.
  • Pennsylvania man is convicted of murder in 1995 based heavily on the testimony of two cooperating witnesses. In 2010, he discovers from public records that those witnesses had other pending charges against them—later dismissed—that the prosecutor failed to disclose. He seeks habeas relief. The trial court dismisses his petition, arguing that he could have searched the public records himself, but three years later, the Third Circuit confirms that prosecutors must turn over all exculpatory evidence, even that in public records. Third Circuit: And because of that change in the law, the trial court should reconsider its dismissal. Dissent: The standard for reconsideration is “extraordinary circumstances,” and there’s nothing extraordinary about prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence.
  • New Jersey financial advisor, seeking to take advantage of state payments for easements over farmland, fraudulently obtains a loan, which he uses to finance the purchase a company that owns a farm. He’s found out, convicted, and the government seeks criminal forfeiture of the farm. Third Circuit: Since there’s no dispute that the company—and not the fraudster—is the actual owner of the farm and that it is not simply the fraudster’s alter ego, the government can, at most, seek criminal forfeiture of the fraudster’s 40% interest in the farm (and maybe civil forfeiture of the stakes held by the other owners: the fraudster’s wife and father).
  • In 2007, following Apple’s release of the iPod, iTunes, and iPhone, a company called RXD introduced a new internet-based notepad called “ipad.” Three years later, Apple released the iPad. RXD continued using the ipad mark and even launched a new “ipadtoday.com” website. Fourth Circuit: RXD is not a “first user” and should cut it out.
  • Can an equity partner in a law firm sue the firm for racial discrimination under Title VII? No, holds the Fourth Circuit, as an equity partner is not an “employee” of the firm. To hold otherwise would needlessly upend understandings that have been central to the organization of firm partnerships for decades.
  • The Orwellian-named “CoreCivic” operates detention facilities for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, where detainees are allegedly threatened with solitary confinement and other punishment if they refuse to participate in various work programs—including cleaning and cooking for other detainees. Fifth Circuit: CoreCivic claims Congress could not possibly have meant for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to apply to that type of program, but we see no exception in the law. If CoreCivic wants an exemption, it will have to go to Congress. (Bonus dissenting and concurring opinions about whether CoreCivic might prevail on other grounds—and whether to even reach those other issues on a certified appeal.)
  • For almost a decade, a municipal sewage system has spewed sewage onto private property—leaving “condoms, toilet paper, raw sewage, and feminine hygiene products.” Repeated requests for help went unheeded, allegedly for political reasons. Fifth Circuit: Precisely because the problem has gone on so long, the property owner’s constitutional claims are time-barred. But she might have a claim under the Clean Water Act.
  • The standard for pretrial detention is “probable cause.” The standard for a criminal conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sixth Circuit: In the unfortunate lacuna between these standards lies the plaintiff Duzaun Lester, who is out of luck despite spending 20 months in jail before the key witness at trial testified, “Honestly, um, that don’t look like Duzaun.” (To his credit, the prosecutor, who was not involved at the pretrial stage, told the jury to acquit.)
  • Officer appeals decision denying qualified immunity, claiming the case should not go to a trial because there is no question that he fired his gun after the victim made a “sudden movement.” Ninth Circuit: Under the Supreme Court’s Johnson decision, we cannot review this kind of factual dispute prior to a final judgment. Dissent: Johnson strikes again. I respectfully ask the Supreme Court to clear up this confounding Johnson decision.
  • Australian man living in Hawaii on an H-1B visa has a rifle in his garage. And federal law makes it a crime to knowingly possess a firearm while being an alien admitted under a nonimmigrant visa. But wait. Does that mean that government had to prove the man knew his visa was “nonimmigrant”? Just so, holds the Ninth Circuit. (But this guy totally knew, so conviction affirmed.)
  • In which the Ninth Circuit denies (on procedural grounds) a habeas petition filed by an inmate who was sentenced to nine years in prison for failing to update his address with the sex offender registry within five days of becoming homeless.
  • Inmate at detention center in McAlester, Okla. ingests a pill offered by fellow inmate. Days-long priapism ensues (if you’re inclined to Google it, don’t), leading to a high probability of life-long impotence. Inmate sues guards. Allegations: The guards let me linger in pain for days without getting me medical care. District court: No dice. Tenth Circuit: Yes dice, at least as to three of the guards, who, the record supports, knew of the inmate’s excruciating condition for a long time and didn’t get him help. And the county sheriff may be on the hook too, since the inmate presented a triable case on whether county policies were to blame for his neglect.
  • In a slip-and-fall lawsuit involving a Ross Dress for Less, the Tenth Circuit issued an unpublished decision holding that the presence of the store’s manager destroyed diversity jurisdiction—and leaving to the district court on remand the decision whether to dismiss the manager from the case to preserve jurisdiction. Judge Hartz, meanwhile, issued a separately published dissent declaring himself “baffled” the panel did not exercise its authority to dismiss the manager from the case, given that she was never served with the complaint.
  • Officers set a honeypot trap online, and a man calling himself “Rick” took the bait. From there, it was a simple matter to look up Rick’s phone number in a law enforcement database and arrest the man associated with the number. Simple, but also wrong, as it turned out the database was years out of date. Tenth Circuit: Qualified immunity.
  • Employees of a federally funded nonprofit allege that they were fired for investigating potential fraud. Eleventh Circuit: Troubling, but not False Claims Act retaliation. The False Claims Act applies to false claims, and the federal funds at issue here were paid to the nonprofit automatically without any claim being filed.

Charlottesville, Va. has long been home to a large community of writers, artists, and other freelance creatives. Surprise! The City now maintains the whole community is a bunch of tax scofflaws, and is seeking to collect years of back taxes under the City’s business license tax law. Enter the Institute for Justice, which sued on behalf of a Charlottesville-based novelist. This week, the court sided with IJ and its client, holding that the City’s tax is unconstitutionally vague as applied to freelance authors.

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

Investing Legend Sees “Spectacular” Crash In “The Next Few Months”

Investing Legend Sees “Spectacular” Crash In “The Next Few Months”

Two weeks ago, investing icon Geremy Grantham turned apocalyptic and warned that the “Bursting Of This “Great, Epic Bubble” Will Be “Most Important Investing Event Of Your Lives.” Since then the market has generally continued to melt up, yet Grantham’s conviction that all this will end in tears has only grown, and in an interview with Bloomberg today, the co-founder of GMO who correctly called the last two crashes, now predicts that Joe Biden’s economic-recovery plan will propel stocks to perilous new heights, followed by an inevitable crash.

“We will have a few weeks of extra money and a few weeks of putting your last, desperate chips into the game, and then an even more spectacular bust,” the value-investing legend said in a Bloomberg “Front Row” interview.

“When you have reached this level of obvious super-enthusiasm, the bubble has always, without exception, broken in the next few months, not a few years.”

Amid market euphoria the likes of which have – literally – never been seen before as the following chart from Citi shows…

… and which prompted Citi, BofA and Goldman to all warn that a selloff appears imminent, and which was fueled by risk-taking behavior funded by the latest round of pandemic-relief checks, Grantham has “no doubt” at least some of the $1.9 trillion in federal aid Biden is seeking from Congress will end up being spent on stocks instead of food or shelter.

While that will help push stocks even higher, Grantham then sees it all ending in tears, or rather a collapse rivaling the 1929 crash or the dot-com bust of 2000, when the Nasdaq cratered 80% before recovering thanks to trillions more in Fed “stimmy” checks.

And while some (increasingly fewer) investors claim that today’s valuations are justified by the growth potential of transformative technologies and new business models, Grantham, 82, dismisses that argument as fanciful, and rejects the popular theory that the Federal Reserve can cushion or even the next crash with even more QE or easing.

“At the lowest rates in history, you don’t have a lot in the bank to throw on the table, do you?” he said.

Unfortunately for Grantham, and his now cemented reputation as a perma-bear who misses out on rallies, the stock market has sneered at all warnings it will crash and just keeps on rising.

To be sure, as we reported last year, GMO’s bearish stance has been costly as assets under management fell by tens of billions of dollars during the decade-long bull market, as the firm steered clear of growth stocks. Then in April, GMO doubled down, insulating its portfolios from directional bets on the market and largely missing out on the second leg of the 2020 rebound.

As Bloomberg notes, Grantham thought the economy was on shaky ground even before the pandemic and he was concerned about the steady decline in U.S. productivity, warning that the Fed had only succeeded in blowing out the inequality and income gap to record wides, amid worries that the profit-at-all-costs nature of American capitalism was destroying the environment and fraying the social fabric.

For Grantham, the combination of fiscal stimulus and emergency Fed programs led to “spectacular excesses” and pushed an already overvalued market into bubble territory.

Echoing BofA’s earlier note, Grantham believes that the Fed’s “Immoral hazard” will have other devastating consequences as well:

“If you think you live in a world where output doesn’t matter and you can just create paper, sooner or later you’re going to do the impossible, and that is bring back inflation,” Grantham said. “Interest rates are paper. Credit is paper. Real life is factories and workers and output, and we are not looking at increased output.”

As a reminder, earlier today, BofA’s CIO Michael Hartnett – who is similarly concerned about the near-future – warned that asset price (hyper)inflation will eventually drag Main Street inflation higher, risking a disorderly rise in bond yields, which results in a taper tantrum, tighter financial conditions and “volatility events”, i.e., a market crash.

Grantham agrees and warns that the threat of inflation is the biggest risk, which is why he also thinks that bonds are risky. He also has reservations about gold because it generates no income. And in his view Bitcoin is make-believe nonsense.

In short, he is an asset manager who sees no attractive assets, and who is prohibited from shorting because the Fed will just keep ramping prices ever higher.

While selling everything and holding cash is one option, Grantham said his best advice for long-term investors is to focus on low-growth stocks that are cheap relative to benchmark indexes, emerging markets and companies fighting climate change with renewable energy and electric-car technology.

“You will not make a handsome 10- or 20-year return from U.S. growth stocks,” he said. “If you could do emerging, low-growth and green, you might get the jackpot.”

All this and much more in his full 38 minute interview with Bloomberg’s Erik Schatzker below:

d

Tyler Durden
Fri, 01/22/2021 – 15:25

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

Flack Leans into the Cynical, Ruthless World of Celebrity PR

Flack_1161x652_1161x653

Flack. Available now on Amazon Prime Video.

What can I tell you about Robyn? She’s an American working in at a crisis-management publicity agency in London. (Except nobody the word “crisis” is never spoken aloud. “We call them challenges,” she explains to a new staffer.) She spends her days constructing fake weddings, fake breast cancer, fake dog-walking and real dick pix to distract dimwitted reporters (and sometimes even dimwitted police) from the genuine scandals and setbacks of the celebrity world.

When an intern tries to remember who is the target on one complicated disinformation scheme complicated scheme—mistress, wife, or client himself—Robyn counsels her not to overthink it: “In the future, just assume we’re lying to everyone.”

That’s the world of the PR gangstas of Flack, a British-made drama making its sort-of debut this week on Amazon Prime. (Two seasons have already aired on Great Britain’s cable channel W, so if you live in London, stop reading this at once. And don’t post any spoilers in the comments, either, wanker.) Ruthless, cynical and epically mendacious, Robyn and her colleagues are either ghastly avatars of post-modernist truth, or appalling examples of the level of sleaziness that to which television programming has now descended, or maybe both. Either way, they’re quite fascinating as long as you remember to have yourself steam-cleaned after each episode.

Robyn is portrayed by Anna Paquin, who a few years back on True Blood played an amiable psychic with a sexual yearning for vampires and werewolves, a character practically normal compare to this one. Robin’s professional moral compass spins like a GPS with a broken microchip—she makes her team create a fake lesbian sex tape for a fading teenage pop star in hopes that it will divert public attention from the fact that the girl’s recording contract has just been canceled.

The weapons of mass distraction that Robyn unleashes at work inevitably leave her personal in rubble as well. She’s trying to have a baby with her boyfriend, but secretly taking birth-control pills to prevent getting knocked up by her quickie trysts with clients. Not to mention making her umpteenth attempt to dry out—except for red wine, Jagermeister and cocaine. She delivers a scorching  #MeToo rant to a TV-star client—”You haven’t been told since you’re eleven that every male you encounter has the potential to rape and murder you,” she begins, “followed by a life of pre-sexualization, cat-calling and slut-shaming that fills you with so much guilt and fear that when you’re 16 and some kid starts choking you during sex, either with hands or his penis because he saw that in a bunch of porn, you assume that it must be you who got it wrong” —then follows it with a plaintive appeal: “Why haven’t you tried to sleep with me?”

Her work crew is no less unhinged, starting with best friend Eve (Lydia Wilson, Star Trek Beyond), who prefers to be known as The Notorious VAG and introduces herself by saying things like “I only buy handbags made by free-range children.” Their boss, Caroline (Sophie Okonedo, Ratched), seemingly can’t compete a sentence without threatening to fire someone. Guileless intern Melody (Rebecca Benson, The White Princess) mostly serves as everybody else’s punching bag.

Flack is something like a gender-reversed version of Showtime’s Hollywood-fixer drama Ray Donovan, minus all the gunplay and fistfights, and it also has faint echoes of FX’s inside-the-tabloids Dirt. Those shows, however, offered at least some fleeting glimpses of humanity in their characters. The women of Flack are relentlessly savage: in their disdain for their wayward clients; in their open contempt for the stupid and greedy journalists they use as pawns in their schemes; and in their off-handed manipulation of their husbands and boyfriends.

This is all very entertaining. Flack will undoubtedly win the Emmys for Bitchiest Dialogue and Best Puking Sound Effects. (All that cocaine and alcohol has to go somewhere.)

But it also offers the bleakest worldview of humanity since snuff films were allegedly a thing in the 1970s. “I’m trying to be better,” a darkly contemplative Robyn confesses at the end of another long day of lying and laceration. “But what if I don’t actually have better in me?” If?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3671cKZ
via IFTTT

Cuomo Seems Intent on Screwing up New York’s Marijuana Legalization

acuomo_1161x653

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has tried and failed to legalize recreational marijuana use for several years now, and in his budget proposal for 2021, he’s giving it yet another try.

How hard can it be to legalize marijuana once the public supports it? In New York, the conflict is over the money, of course. In Cuomo’s budget proposal, he’s entirely focused on the revenue marijuana sales will bring into the state. He’s proposing a 10.25 percent state sales tax, and allowing local sales taxes on top of it. Cuomo predicted that eventually, once the state’s system is fully operational, the government will be bringing in $300 million in tax revenue annually.

But unfortunately, it looks like Cuomo’s proposal may also have some embedded bad ideas. Last year, when Cuomo started shopping around a legalization plan, it included a complete ban on home cultivation for recreational use. In order to legally access marijuana, you had to buy it from a legal vendor, thus guaranteeing the government gets a sweet cut of the money.

Reason has requested a copy of the governor’s full proposal, but his office has not yet responded. According to Marijuana Moment, which has spoken to local advocates, the home cultivation ban is back in Cuomo’s new legislation—and he’s actually expanded it. Last year’s proposal allowed medical marijuana users to grow plants at home. This year’s proposal allows cultivation for neither recreational nor medical marijuana users, a ban reportedly urged by major marijuana companies.

The proposal also allows municipalities and counties with a population of 100,000 and more to opt out of allowing recreational marijuana sales, so in some parts of the state, you may not be able to buy or grow your own marijuana. By contrast, California allows cities to opt out of retail sales, but citizens are permitted to grow up to six plants for their own use at home.

The proposal also doesn’t authorize delivery or point-of-sale marijuana consumption but will leave it to regulators to develop new categories of licenses later on.

More bad news about Cuomo’s plan came from public defender Eli Northrup of The Bronx Defenders. He noticed that Cuomo’s plan actually increases the criminal penalty for anybody caught selling marijuana to somebody who is under 21. It’s currently a misdemeanor, but Cuomo’s plan turns it into a class D felony with a potential prison sentence of up to two and a half years. The current marijuana legalization bill in circulation in the state’s legislature keeps it as a misdemeanor.

Cuomo’s proposal shows that he and the state don’t actually care that much about the devastating impact that the war on marijuana has had on poor communities. He just wants to make sure that the state still has a solid cash flow once they’ve stopped locking people up, fining them, and seizing their property. And if anybody attempts to grow or smoke weed without giving the state its cut, he’s willing to keep the drug war going.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3iOH0CR
via IFTTT

Flack Leans into the Cynical, Ruthless World of Celebrity PR

Flack_1161x652_1161x653

Flack. Available now on Amazon Prime Video.

What can I tell you about Robyn? She’s an American working in at a crisis-management publicity agency in London. (Except nobody the word “crisis” is never spoken aloud. “We call them challenges,” she explains to a new staffer.) She spends her days constructing fake weddings, fake breast cancer, fake dog-walking and real dick pix to distract dimwitted reporters (and sometimes even dimwitted police) from the genuine scandals and setbacks of the celebrity world.

When an intern tries to remember who is the target on one complicated disinformation scheme complicated scheme—mistress, wife, or client himself—Robyn counsels her not to overthink it: “In the future, just assume we’re lying to everyone.”

That’s the world of the PR gangstas of Flack, a British-made drama making its sort-of debut this week on Amazon Prime. (Two seasons have already aired on Great Britain’s cable channel W, so if you live in London, stop reading this at once. And don’t post any spoilers in the comments, either, wanker.) Ruthless, cynical and epically mendacious, Robyn and her colleagues are either ghastly avatars of post-modernist truth, or appalling examples of the level of sleaziness that to which television programming has now descended, or maybe both. Either way, they’re quite fascinating as long as you remember to have yourself steam-cleaned after each episode.

Robyn is portrayed by Anna Paquin, who a few years back on True Blood played an amiable psychic with a sexual yearning for vampires and werewolves, a character practically normal compare to this one. Robin’s professional moral compass spins like a GPS with a broken microchip—she makes her team create a fake lesbian sex tape for a fading teenage pop star in hopes that it will divert public attention from the fact that the girl’s recording contract has just been canceled.

The weapons of mass distraction that Robyn unleashes at work inevitably leave her personal in rubble as well. She’s trying to have a baby with her boyfriend, but secretly taking birth-control pills to prevent getting knocked up by her quickie trysts with clients. Not to mention making her umpteenth attempt to dry out—except for red wine, Jagermeister and cocaine. She delivers a scorching  #MeToo rant to a TV-star client—”You haven’t been told since you’re eleven that every male you encounter has the potential to rape and murder you,” she begins, “followed by a life of pre-sexualization, cat-calling and slut-shaming that fills you with so much guilt and fear that when you’re 16 and some kid starts choking you during sex, either with hands or his penis because he saw that in a bunch of porn, you assume that it must be you who got it wrong” —then follows it with a plaintive appeal: “Why haven’t you tried to sleep with me?”

Her work crew is no less unhinged, starting with best friend Eve (Lydia Wilson, Star Trek Beyond), who prefers to be known as The Notorious VAG and introduces herself by saying things like “I only buy handbags made by free-range children.” Their boss, Caroline (Sophie Okonedo, Ratched), seemingly can’t compete a sentence without threatening to fire someone. Guileless intern Melody (Rebecca Benson, The White Princess) mostly serves as everybody else’s punching bag.

Flack is something like a gender-reversed version of Showtime’s Hollywood-fixer drama Ray Donovan, minus all the gunplay and fistfights, and it also has faint echoes of FX’s inside-the-tabloids Dirt. Those shows, however, offered at least some fleeting glimpses of humanity in their characters. The women of Flack are relentlessly savage: in their disdain for their wayward clients; in their open contempt for the stupid and greedy journalists they use as pawns in their schemes; and in their off-handed manipulation of their husbands and boyfriends.

This is all very entertaining. Flack will undoubtedly win the Emmys for Bitchiest Dialogue and Best Puking Sound Effects. (All that cocaine and alcohol has to go somewhere.)

But it also offers the bleakest worldview of humanity since snuff films were allegedly a thing in the 1970s. “I’m trying to be better,” a darkly contemplative Robyn confesses at the end of another long day of lying and laceration. “But what if I don’t actually have better in me?” If?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3671cKZ
via IFTTT

ARK Funds Blow Past BlackRock, State Street, In YTD Inflows

ARK Funds Blow Past BlackRock, State Street, In YTD Inflows

The monstrous inflows into Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest don’t seem to be slowing up as we put the first few weeks of 2021 behind us.

We have been following ARK’s funds closely since late 2020, noting that the firm’s inflows were rising spectacularly, and questioning whether or not the law of large numbers would eventually catch up to it. 

While there has been numerous small bumps in the road over the last few weeks, ARK is still making its way through the first quarter of 2021 in grand fashion. ETF expert Eric Balchunas, whose coverage of ARK we have followed closely, noted on Twitter Thursday that ARK took in another $1 billion on Wednesday, causing their firm to pass BlackRock and State Street YTD in inflows.

ARK is now second only to Vanguard, Balchunas noted.

He says the firm is on a pace to see $136 billion in inflows for the year. It’s a figure that we believe is as optimistic as it is unlikely. 

“[Vanguard] and cheap beta is where the REAL money goes, ARK is still relatively tiny, it’s just crazy fascinating given the level of odds overcome,” Balchunas said. He even tossed around the idea of Wood filing to become a closed end fund. “It’s [possible],” Balchunas said, responding to the suggestion. 

We noted about 10 days ago that short interest in ARK funds had “exploded” after ARK’s banner 2020. Short interest as a percentage of shares outstanding for the firm’s flagship $21 billion ARK Innovation ETF spiked to an all time high of 1.9% from just 0.3% one month ago, according to data from IHS Markit Ltd. and Bloomberg. 

Shorts were also piling into the firm’s other ETFs, including its $9.4 billion Genomic Revolution ETF and its $5.9 billion Ark Next Generation ETF. ARKK rose almost 150% in 2020 and brought in $9.6 billion in new money. 

The fund’s success in 2020 was largely tied to the parabolic move in Tesla. 

Dave Nadig of ETF Trends told Bloomberg: “You can’t expect any shortable asset to have the kind of meteoric rise ARKK has had and not attract almost mechanical short-selling. There are, quite literally, traders who have screens for ‘ETFs that went up X far over Y time’ to use as contrarian short indicators.”

Blachunas commented at the time: “The Ark phenomenon is the first time ever that a rock-star portfolio manager has been shortable. Typically, they’re in a mutual fund or a hedge fund, which you can’t short. This is breaking new ground in a way.”

We noted days ago that ARK funds had seen a record inflows over $1 billion a week ago. The massive volume in ARK’s funds has continued from 2020 into 2021, as Balchunas had predicted late last year when he pointed out several reason the fund could actually become a victim of its own bloated size.

In late December, Cathie Wood entered into an agreement with Resolute Investment Managers that will allow her to remain the firm’s majority shareholder. The firm is going to retain Resolute’s distribution services as part of the deal. Wood purchased the option for an undisclosed sum and it was financed through a “multi-tranche term loan financing facility provided by Eldridge Corporate Funding LLC,” according to Bloomberg

Gene Needles, Resolute’s chief executive officer, said at the time: “Cathie Wood and her team have done an exemplary job building ARK Invest from the ground up, and we look forward to supporting the firm’s momentum for years to come. We’re pleased to continue being an instrumental part of ARK’s growth, a role we have fulfilled since acquiring a minority investment in the company in 2016.”

Recall, late last year we published a report highlighting Balchunas’ take on how ARK Funds could wind up becoming victims of their own success. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 01/22/2021 – 15:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3qN303o Tyler Durden

Janet Yellen Talking Out Of Both Sides Of Her Mouth

Janet Yellen Talking Out Of Both Sides Of Her Mouth

Authored by Michael Maharrey via SchiffGold.com,

During testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, Treasury Secretary-nominee Janet Yellen talked out of both sides of her mouth. She acknowledged that too much debt is problematic, but in the same sentence, insisted we need to “act big” to rescue the economy.

Neither the president-elect, nor I, propose this relief package without an appreciation for the country’s debt burden. But right now, with interest rates at historic lows, the smartest thing we can do is act big.”

This is a prime example of the old adage that you can ignore everything in a sentence that comes before the word “but.”

The truth is, Yellen doesn’t care about the debt, and she, nor the newly installed Biden administration, will ever do anything to address it. The strategy is to spend, spend, spend, and continue to kick the debt-can down the road. In fact, this has been the strategy of both Republicans and Democrats for decades.

Pretty much everybody pays lip-service to the national debt, just as Yellen did. But while politicians of every stripe have jawboned about the need for fiscal responsibility and talked vaguely about “dealing with our rising debt”  – someday – the national debt now approaches $28 trillion. This has to make one wonder, at exactly what number does legitimate concern kick in? $30 trillion? $40 trillion?

I’ll give you a hint: there is no number.

The fact of the matter is, there is always a reason to borrow, spend, and push concerns about the debt into some nebulous moment in the future. During the Obama years, it was the financial crisis. Today, it’s the coronavirus pandemic. And tomorrow there will be another reason — perhaps climate change, or maybe our crumbling infrastructure, or perhaps another war.

Any talk of actually addressing the debt problem should be viewed in the same way we look at Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. She’s going to pull it away. Every single time.

Yellen reasons that spending now is fine with “interest rates at record lows.” This should raise a question. Why are interest rates at record lows?

The reason is simple; the Federal Reserve is artificially keeping them there.

The Process

When Uncle Sam borrows money, it puts upward pressure on interest rates. The more bonds the Treasury Department issues, the lower the price falls because market demand can’t keep up with supply. Bond yields inversely correlate with bond prices. As the price of bonds drops, interest rates rise. This is simple economic calculus.

Enter the Federal Reserve. The Fed buys bonds on the open market (quantitative easing), creating artificial demand and propping prices up. This keeps interest rates artificially low.

So far, so good. But there is a small hitch in this process. The Fed buys these bonds with money created out of thin air and injects this money into the economy. This is inflation. And it’s precisely why the money supply increased at a record pace in 2020.

Yellen thinks this process can continue because “in a very low interest-rate environment like we’re in, what we’re seeing is that even though the amount of debt relative to the economy has gone up, the interest burden hasn’t.” And she believes “the future is likely to bring low-interest rates for a long time.” She can say this with some level of certainty because she knows that the Fed will have her back and continue to monetize all of the debt.

Ironically, Yellen promised she would “be a voice for fiscal sanity” in the Biden administration. If this is fiscal sanity, I shudder to think what the fiscally insane are saying.

The End-Game

Here’s the problem with this entire scenario: you can’t just keep printing money indefinitely without consequences. We already see the impact in the massive stock market bubble. We’re starting to see signs of inflation in the commodities markets. Oil is back above $50 a barrel. Remember $4 per gallon gas in the mid-2000s? And at some point, you’re going to see the impact in the supermarket. In fact, my wife insists we already are.

Typically, the Fed fights inflation by tightening monetary policy and letting interest rates rise. But how can it do this with Yellen and Biden depending on low rates to finance their massive spending spree?

The answer is obvious. It can’t.

In another example of Yellen double-talk, she insisted “the United States does not seek a weaker currency to gain competitive advantage and we should oppose attempts by other countries to do so.”

The US may not be “seeking” a weaker currency, but that’s what it’s getting. That’s exactly what happens when you print money out of thin air. And that’s exactly what the Fed is going to continue to do.

There is no exit strategy from this insane monetary policy.

As Peter Schiff explained in a recent podcast, the Fed managed to run this shell game successfully after the 2008 financial crisis because everybody believed all of the quantitative easing was a “temporary emergency measure.” They believed the central bank would unwind it, shrink the balance sheet and normalize interest rates. And as Fed chair, Yellen gave it a shot, and to a greater degree, Jerome Powell after her. But the stock market tanked in the fall of 2018 and the Fed went right back to rate cuts and QE.

Are people going to fall for this con a second time? Not likely, as Schiff explains.

Nobody is going to buy into it again. Nobody is going to bite on this a second time. Everybody knows at this point that QE is infinite. Everybody knows that the Fed is never going to shrink its balance sheet. The balance sheet is going to grow in perpetuity. It’s just that now people are under the delusion that it’s OK. They don’t realize that the only reason it worked the first time was because the world was convinced that it was temporary and a one-off emergency measure.”

A dollar crash is the end game. The Fed has to keep monetizing and the printing presses have to keep running because Yellen-Biden-et al. have to keep interest rates low.

So, sure Janet, debt doesn’t matter.

Until it does.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 01/22/2021 – 14:47

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39URlZB Tyler Durden