North Carolina’s Biggest Hospital Systems Made Record Profits While Taking Billions In COVID Relief: Report

North Carolina’s Biggest Hospital Systems Made Record Profits While Taking Billions In COVID Relief: Report

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times,

North Carolina’s largest hospital systems made billions of dollars in profits during the pandemic, while simultaneously taking $1.5 billion in taxpayer-funded COVID-19 relief funds, according to a report released Wednesday by the state treasurer’s office.

The report, titled, “North Carolina Hospital Systems Profit During COVID” was published by State Treasurer Dale Folwell who called on the hospital systems to “use their profits to lower costs for patients” or “return unnecessary, taxpayer-funded relief dollars.”

According to the report, Atrium Health, Cone Health, Duke Health, Novant Health, UNC Health, Vidant Health, and WakeMed made a combined $5.2 billion in net profits in 2021 and recorded $7.1 billion in growth in cash and financial investments from 2019 to 2021.

Six of those hospital systems enjoyed higher net profits than in the years before the pandemic, the report states.

That growth came as the seven hospital systems reportedly took $1.5 billion in taxpayer-funded COVID relief meant to help support hospitals who were struggling through the pandemic, as well as another $1.6 billion in Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments from 2020–2021.

“These systems boasted huge reserves, but they still took the bulk of the relief funds meant for struggling hospitals – and then failed to dedicate more than a fraction of their windfall to increasing charity care for their suffering patients,” Folwell said in a press release unveiling the report.

The report further found that despite their reported profits, the hospital systems shared little of it with disadvantaged patients, noting that a third of North Carolina hospitals spent less on charity care in 2020 during the peak of the pandemic.

Across 104 hospitals, charity care spending rose only $246.5 million from 2019 to 2020, while some hospitals increased billing of poor patients that were eligible for charity care.

Atrium Health sued hundreds of patients, according to the report.

“While health care workers suffered on the front lines, hospital executives made billions on Wall Street,” said Folwell.

None of these nonprofit systems pay any property, income or sales taxes. Many failed to fully honor their charitable mission even when thousands of North Carolinians lost their businesses and their jobs during the pandemic.”

Folwell is urging the hospital systems to either return the taxpayer money or commit to reducing hospital price inflation. The Treasurer is also supporting the Medical Debt De-Weaponization Act which aims to bolster accountability, transparency and consumer protections on medical debt.

“We have a duty to hold hospital executives accountable for wrecking the financial health of thousands of patients and transferring wealth from citizens to them,” Folwell added.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 11:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Fp1VewN Tyler Durden

Reminder: “New York Supreme Court” = N.Y. Trial Court; “New York Court of Appeals” = N.Y. High Court

I’ve been seeing some headlines referring to decisions of the New York Supreme Court (see, e.g., Fox and CNN), but that’s likely to be confusing to most readers: In New York,

  • “Supreme Court” refers to the trial court, though in most other states it’s the name of the state highest court, and
  • “Court of Appeals” refers to the highest court, though in most other states it’s the name of the state intermediate court.

So when you hear that “the New York Supreme Court has struck down a law …,” that just means that one trial court judge has made that decision, which would often get appealed (and perhaps reversed) within the state court system. I therefore try to use “New York trial court” or “New York high court” instead, as the case might be. (Technically, New York has some other trial courts as well, but I think “trial court” for “Supreme Court” is likely to be the least confusing option.)

Of course, you might be curious what the New York state intermediate court is called: That would be “the Appellate Division,” short for “the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.”

The post Reminder: "New York Supreme Court" = N.Y. Trial Court; "New York Court of Appeals" = N.Y. High Court appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/pj9a3FG
via IFTTT

Reminder: “New York Supreme Court” = N.Y. Trial Court; “New York Court of Appeals” = N.Y. High Court

I’ve been seeing some headlines referring to decisions of the New York Supreme Court (see, e.g., Fox and CNN), but that’s likely to be confusing to most readers: In New York,

  • “Supreme Court” refers to the trial court, though in most other states it’s the name of the state highest court, and
  • “Court of Appeals” refers to the highest court, though in most other states it’s the name of the state intermediate court.

So when you hear that “the New York Supreme Court has struck down a law …,” that just means that one trial court judge has made that decision, which would often get appealed (and perhaps reversed) within the state court system. I therefore try to use “New York trial court” or “New York high court” instead, as the case might be. (Technically, New York has some other trial courts as well, but I think “trial court” for “Supreme Court” is likely to be the least confusing option.)

Of course, you might be curious what the New York state intermediate court is called: That would be “the Appellate Division,” short for “the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.”

The post Reminder: "New York Supreme Court" = N.Y. Trial Court; "New York Court of Appeals" = N.Y. High Court appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/pj9a3FG
via IFTTT

Chief Justice Roberts Lost His “Long Game”

At some point Chief Justice Roberts may have had a “long game.” But along the way, he he lost that game.

In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Chief Justice wrote a concurrence that seemed to lay the predicates for overruling Roe. Consider this observation:

[I]f adherence to a precedent actually impedes the stable and orderly adjudication of future cases, its stare decisis effect is also diminished. This can happen in a number of circumstances, such as when the precedent’s validity is so hotly contested that it cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases, when its rationale threatens to upend our settled jurisprudence in related areas of law, and when the precedent’s underlying reasoning has become so discredited that the Court cannot keep the precedent alive without jury-rigging new and different justifications to shore up the original mistake.

This passage could have come from the Dobbs majority opinion. But when the time came to overrule Roe in Dobbs, Roberts blinked. He wrote a concurrence in judgment that no one else joined. Indeed, Roberts committed the same three cardinal sins that the Casey plurality committed. First, both opinions overruled landmark precedents, in part: Casey overruled the trimester framework from Roe; Roberts in Dobbs excised the viability line from Casey. Second, both opinions substituted one arbitrary line for another: Casey replaced the trimester framework with the viability line; Roberts in Dobbs replaced the viability line with a standard based on when a woman knows she is pregnant. Third, both opinions took account of public opinion, and avoided a ruling that would harm the Court’s legitimacy (in the eyes of liberal elites).

In Dobbs, Justice Alito’s majority opinion cited Roberts’s Citizens United concurrence, as if to say, “you changed, bro!”

The concurrence’s most fundamental defect is its failure to offer any principled basis for its approach. The concurrence would “discar[d]” “the rule from Roe and Casey that a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy extends up to the point that the fetus is regarded as ‘viable’ outside the womb.” But this rule was a critical component of the holdings in Roe and Casey, and stare decisis is “a doctrine of preservation, not transformation,” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n (2010) (Roberts, C. J., concurring). Therefore, a new rule that discards the viability rule cannot be defended on stare decisis grounds. . . .

While the concurrence is moved by a desire for judicial minimalism, “we cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right.” Citizens United (Roberts, C. J., concurring). For the reasons that we have explained, the concurrence’s approach is not.

What happened between Citizens United and DobbsNFIB. The decision to adopt the saving construction, and save the ACA, changed the man. Once he signaled that he would choose narrowness as an end unto itself, the template was set. Roberts would do it over and over again. He would make the saving construction an art form, as he balanced the center of the Court. But when he was no longer the Court’s fulcrum, all he could muster was lonely, failed saving construction of Roe.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of Dobbs is that progressives no longer have a monopoly on defining the Court’s “legitimacy.” This rubicon cannot be uncrossed. Come what may, the Court will do its job, Justice Alito explained:

As Chief Justice Rehnquist explained, “The Judicial Branch derives its legitimacy, not from following public opinion, but from deciding by its best lights whether legislative enactments of the popular branches of Government comport with the Constitution. The doctrine of stare decisis is an adjunct of this duty, and should be no more subject to the vagaries of public opinion than is the basic judicial task.” Casey. In suggesting otherwise, the Casey plurality went beyond this Court’s role in our constitutional system. . . .

We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly.

I made this point in my Deseret News op-ed:

Today, Roe was overruled in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. And in doing so, the majority demonstrated real courage “under fire.” Five justices were willing to take this bold and correct legal step in the face of never-ending personal attacks, efforts to pack the court, fallout from the leaked draft opinion, protests outside their homes and even an assassination attempt.

Dobbs, which is a triumph for originalism and sound constitutional law, also signals that the court is infused with judicial fortitude. This virtue, more than any particular method of deciding cases, guarantees that the court will steadfastly safeguard the rule of law.

There is still hope for the Chief Justice to find his lost moorings. Or, he can continue in free-fall.

The post Chief Justice Roberts Lost His "Long Game" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/Ylb58Eu
via IFTTT

Fmr. Senate Sgt-At-Arms Michael Stenger Dies Ahead Of Last-Minute J6 Hearing

Fmr. Senate Sgt-At-Arms Michael Stenger Dies Ahead Of Last-Minute J6 Hearing

Michael Stenger, the former US Senate sergent-at-arms in charge of security during the January 6, 2021 US Capitol breach, died on Monday at the age of 71. The cause and circumstances of his death were not immediately clear.

Former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger testifies before a congressional committee in February 2021. Stenger died on June 27, 2022. (CSPAN/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)

A resident of Falls Church, VA, Stenger resigned the day after the J6 riot at the request of then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had originally hired Stenger for the post in 2018.

Stenger was responsible for security in the Capitol and all Senate buildings, and serves as the Senate doorkeeper.

In remarks (pdf) before a congressional hearing on Feb. 23, 2021, Stenger called the events of Jan. 6 “a violent, coordinated attack where the loss of life could have been much worse.” He called for an investigation of “professional agitators” at the January 6 protests.

“There is an opportunity to learn lessons from the events of January 6th,” he testified. “Investigations should be considered as to funding and travel of what appears to be professional agitators.” -Epoch Times

Senger’s death was reported by Fox News‘ Chad Pergram on Monday, and tweeted by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who said that he was “found dead today.”

According to former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, Stenger and former House Seargeant-at-Arms Paul Irving pushed back on an initial request to deploy the National Guard after it became obvious that large crowds were amassing on Jan. 6.

Stenger’s death came one day before a J6 panel hearing that was abruptly added to the schedule, in which an aide to former White House Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows will testify to present “recently obtained evidence and receive witness testimony.”

Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as a special assistant in the White House during the Trump administration, will take the stand to provide intel on last year’s Capitol insurrection and the administration’s response.

The House panel has yet to explain the newly added 1 p.m. hearing after Washington lawmakers were away on a two-week recess. The committee said last week no more hearings would be held until July. –NY Post

Stenger said that the J6 riot went “well beyond disobedience.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 11:19

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Hd0ep4w Tyler Durden

Chief Justice Roberts Lost His “Long Game”

At some point Chief Justice Roberts may have had a “long game.” But along the way, he he lost that game.

In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Chief Justice wrote a concurrence that seemed to lay the predicates for overruling Roe. Consider this observation:

[I]f adherence to a precedent actually impedes the stable and orderly adjudication of future cases, its stare decisis effect is also diminished. This can happen in a number of circumstances, such as when the precedent’s validity is so hotly contested that it cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases, when its rationale threatens to upend our settled jurisprudence in related areas of law, and when the precedent’s underlying reasoning has become so discredited that the Court cannot keep the precedent alive without jury-rigging new and different justifications to shore up the original mistake.

This passage could have come from the Dobbs majority opinion. But when the time came to overrule Roe in Dobbs, Roberts blinked. He wrote a concurrence in judgment that no one else joined. Indeed, Roberts committed the same three cardinal sins that the Casey plurality committed. First, both opinions overruled landmark precedents, in part: Casey overruled the trimester framework from Roe; Roberts in Dobbs excised the viability line from Casey. Second, both opinions substituted one arbitrary line for another: Casey replaced the trimester framework with the viability line; Roberts in Dobbs replaced the viability line with a standard based on when a woman knows she is pregnant. Third, both opinions took account of public opinion, and avoided a ruling that would harm the Court’s legitimacy (in the eyes of liberal elites).

In Dobbs, Justice Alito’s majority opinion cited Roberts’s Citizens United concurrence, as if to say, “you changed, bro!”

The concurrence’s most fundamental defect is its failure to offer any principled basis for its approach. The concurrence would “discar[d]” “the rule from Roe and Casey that a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy extends up to the point that the fetus is regarded as ‘viable’ outside the womb.” But this rule was a critical component of the holdings in Roe and Casey, and stare decisis is “a doctrine of preservation, not transformation,” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n (2010) (Roberts, C. J., concurring). Therefore, a new rule that discards the viability rule cannot be defended on stare decisis grounds. . . .

While the concurrence is moved by a desire for judicial minimalism, “we cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right.” Citizens United (Roberts, C. J., concurring). For the reasons that we have explained, the concurrence’s approach is not.

What happened between Citizens United and DobbsNFIB. The decision to adopt the saving construction, and save the ACA, changed the man. Once he signaled that he would choose narrowness as an end unto itself, the template was set. Roberts would do it over and over again. He would make the saving construction an art form, as he balanced the center of the Court. But when he was no longer the Court’s fulcrum, all he could muster was lonely, failed saving construction of Roe.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of Dobbs is that progressives no longer have a monopoly on defining the Court’s “legitimacy.” This rubicon cannot be uncrossed. Come what may, the Court will do its job, Justice Alito explained:

As Chief Justice Rehnquist explained, “The Judicial Branch derives its legitimacy, not from following public opinion, but from deciding by its best lights whether legislative enactments of the popular branches of Government comport with the Constitution. The doctrine of stare decisis is an adjunct of this duty, and should be no more subject to the vagaries of public opinion than is the basic judicial task.” Casey. In suggesting otherwise, the Casey plurality went beyond this Court’s role in our constitutional system. . . .

We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly.

I made this point in my Deseret News op-ed:

Today, Roe was overruled in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. And in doing so, the majority demonstrated real courage “under fire.” Five justices were willing to take this bold and correct legal step in the face of never-ending personal attacks, efforts to pack the court, fallout from the leaked draft opinion, protests outside their homes and even an assassination attempt.

Dobbs, which is a triumph for originalism and sound constitutional law, also signals that the court is infused with judicial fortitude. This virtue, more than any particular method of deciding cases, guarantees that the court will steadfastly safeguard the rule of law.

There is still hope for the Chief Justice to find his lost moorings. Or, he can continue in free-fall.

The post Chief Justice Roberts Lost His "Long Game" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/Ylb58Eu
via IFTTT

Rabo: The Market Endlessly Wonders How Long Until We Cut Rates And Re-start QE Again

Rabo: The Market Endlessly Wonders How Long Until We Cut Rates And Re-start QE Again

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Abby Normal

Dr. Frankenstein: “Igor… May I speak to you for a moment?”

Igor: “Of course.”

Dr. Frankenstein: “Sit down, won’t you?”

Igor: “Thank you.”

Dr. Frankenstein: “No, no. Up here.”

Igor: “Thank you.”

Dr. Frankenstein: “Now, that brain that you gave me… was it Hans Delbruck’s?”

Igor: “No.”

Dr. Frankenstein: “Ah! Good. Would you mind telling me whose brain I did put in?”

Igor: “Then you won’t be angry?”

Dr. Frankenstein: “I will *not* be angry.”

Igor: “Abby someone.”

Dr. Frankenstein: “Abby someone… Abby who?”

Igor: “Abby Normal.”

Dr. Frankenstein: “Abby Normal…”

Igor: “I’m almost sure that was the name.”

Dr. Frankenstein: “Are you saying that I put an abnormal brain into a seven-and-a-half-foot long, gorilla? Is that what you’re telling me?”

Young Frankenstein (1974)

If one does not laugh, one cries at another (Abby) normal day in markets.

Normal, as we saw US 10-year yields rise 7bp back to 3.20% and oil rise around 2%.

Normal, as G7 chair Germany welcomed South Africa’s progress on its ‘Just Energy Transition Partnership’ as it implements ‘Stage 4’ rolling blackouts.

Normal, as Sri Lanka, already allowing civil servants four-day weeks to grow their own food, suspends fuel sales entirely except for emergency services.

Normal, as the US and EU released a joint statement on European Energy Security that talked of “important, necessary, and immediate steps” and recognized “the enormity of the challenge” – and then promised 1.5m “smart thermostats” for an economy with 445m people. The thermostats really don’t need to be smart. All of them will read “it’s freezing!” this winter. Indeed, yesterday’s Bloomberg article ‘Many Winters Are Coming. Start Saving Energy Now’ is worth quoting in detail:

“The European manufacturing sector is crumbling under the weight of sustained high electricity and natural gas prices. With little prospect of relief, another wave of curtailments and closures looms. And that’s before any rationing of natural gas, potentially later this year, in Germany in the event Russia reduces supply even further. In that scenario, many companies will have no choice but to shut down… The months-long crisis that many industrialists pencilled into their plans has morphed into a years-long problem. The prospect of bleeding cash for a few months, perhaps half a year, or even a year, was one thing; losing money indefinitely is another thing entirely.

For example, an aluminium smelter would lose about $200m annually at current forward prices for electricity and carbon dioxide for the next year. And that’s despite elevated prices for the metal in the markets. Aluminium may be an extreme example, but it’s evidence of the pressures faced by industrialists. In private, European executives say they’ll use the forthcoming quarterly reporting season in mid-July to announce more plant closures. The affected industries will be those with the most intensive energy use: fertilizer, base metals and steel, chemical, ceramic, glass and paper. But increasingly food production will be, too. Heated greenhouses and chicken farms face astronomical energy bills.”

Normal, as someone snarked on Twitter about smiling G7 leaders looking like a terrible boy-band, “It took 14 months to go from ‘Build Back Better’ to ‘There Will Be Food Shortages’”.

Normal, as CNN carries the story, ‘‘Give us a plan or give us someone to blame’: Inside a White House consumed by problems Biden can’t fix’, which says, “Instead of managing an economy in the midst of a natural rotation away from recovery and into a stable period of growth, economic officials are analyzing and modelling worst-case scenarios like what the shock of gas prices hitting $200 per barrel may mean for the economy.”

Normal, as the article quotes a Harvard professor who was economic advisor to President Obama claiming, “There’s no playbook for fixing the supply side of the economy. It’s not like in economic policy school they teach you here are the 12 things to do to rapidly fix the supply side in an economy.” Funny how China manages it, and the US/West used to before neoliberalism.

Normal, as the Dallas Fed survey includes the quotes such as:

  • “As a country, we are not looking at the future and establishing relationships with emerging countries like we should to ease the dependency on Chinese products and services. This will hurt us in the long run.”
  • “Everything we buy and sell comes and goes by truck, if we can get a truck at any price. Inflation will continue until the country is self-sufficient in oil and gas. The current political policy may not change until 2024. Therefore, inflation will be our consistent companion for a while, then stagflation!”
  • “We’ll all be lucky to have a job with two more years of this disaster.”
  • “You can’t ignore the economic fundamentals leading to a likely recession, and the administration is either stubborn or as paralyzed as a deer in headlights.”

Normal, as the US starts to ramp up rare earth production yet hears, “Now that Western governments are saying we need our own supply chains, you think China is just going to say, ‘Thanks for being a great customer for the last 30 years?’… No. They are going to fight to protect their market share.”  Which one can apply to almost every product the US buys from them.

Normal, as the US continues to drain its strategic petroleum reserve, which is now at its lowest level since 1986, and yet energy prices remain sky high, as President Macron tells President Biden the UAE and Saudis cannot pump any more oil. Imagine if there were a major war and the US really needed that oil.

Normal, as Russia attacked a Ukrainian shopping centre, killing at least 13 people.

Normal, as NATO announced it will increase its rapid reaction forces on high readiness from 40,000 to 300,000. Now? In 10 years? Whose troops? Europe is long on pencil-pushers but short on people used to dealing the sharp end of anything else. This hugely expensive action suggests the alliance may be heeding rumours that Moscow may attack the Baltic states, a geopolitical development which could make what we have seen so far look like a sideshow for markets.

Normal, as NATO’s first strategy statement for a decade will apparently designate China as a “systemic challenge”, inflaming Beijing: yet that is still a compromise pushed by France and Germany, who insist on stressing a “willingness to work on areas of common interest”, and the Czechs and Hungarians won’t accept “strategic convergence” between China and Russia. Meanwhile, US China expert Matt Pottinger this week noted you cannot turn a great white shark into a bottle-nosed dolphin by treating it sweetly, and that even pre-Covid China refused to cooperate on disease-control efforts without the US making concessions on the South China Sea.

Normal, as China tried to set up a meeting with 10 Pacific Island leaders right before they hold their own meeting on 14 July, which, after Western pushback via the ‘Blue Pacific’ plan, seems far less likely to turn their vast maritime region ‘red’.

Normal, as The Hill carries another withering article asking, ‘Biden’s White House: Are we nearing ‘The Klain Mutiny’?’, noting, “The Biden administration is losing the short game when it comes to US national security, and President Biden’s upcoming July trip to the Middle East is yet another case study in how the White House keeps misfiring and setting the president up for failure. It would be one thing if the administration’s missteps were merely unforced errors, but they are not. They appear to be systemic in nature – they begin with chief of staff Ron Klain and extend to national security adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin.”

It goes on to claim that Klain’s “glaring lack of substantive national security or foreign policy experience, either at a Cabinet or command level, is proving problematic… 17 months into Biden’s presidency, it is clear that Klain, Sullivan, Blinken, and Austin are incapable of prioritizing, let alone apolitically balancing, the two – with US national security (and Biden) paying an unacceptable price…. Biden must recognize he is now a war president and that he must make changes to his national security team to reflect this reality.”

Normal, as Twitter debates Hunter Biden having had his bank account frozen after trying to make payments to escorts with Russian accounts, related snark that “I yearn for simpler times, like when a President’s child secured Chinese trademarks for a business venture”,  and a voicemail emerges of President Biden telling Hunter, “I think you’re clear,” regarding business dealings with a figure dubbed the ‘spy chief of China’ – almost none of which is worthy of mainstream media attention.

Normal, as most of the market endlessly wonders how long until we cut rates and re-start QE again, and this backdrop magically goes away: “Did you hear? We won the war because the Fed cut rates!”

It’s all Abby Normal: give me a sed-a-give until someone with real brains emerges.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 11:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ZCyed9p Tyler Durden

Ghislaine Maxwell To Be Sentenced Today As More Accusers Get Last Word

Ghislaine Maxwell To Be Sentenced Today As More Accusers Get Last Word

Jeffrey Epstein ‘Madam’ and partner in crime, Ghislaine Maxwell, is set to be sentenced today after being found guilty of participating in a decade-long scheme to lure and groom underage girls for sexual exploitation by Epstein and his associates – at times participating in the abuse herself, according to Bloomberg.

The 60-year-old former socialite, who was arrested two years ago at a New Hampshire hideaway, was convicted in December in what accusers have called long-overdue justice for Epstein’s victims.

Prosecutors have recommended 30 to 55 years behind bars – likely a life sentence, while Maxwell has asked for less than six years – arguing that she and her siblings were mentally and physically abused by their father, UK publishing tycoon and suspected Israeli spy, Robert Maxwell. She also argued that she shouldn’t bear the brunt of the punishment for Epstein’s crimes, since he’s dead.

Several victims who weren’t part of Maxwell’s trial will be allowed to speak during Tuesday’s sentencing in a Manhattan courtroom in front of US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan. Maxwell will also be afforded the opportunity to speak, should she so choose.

One of the victims expected to appear is Virginia Giuffre, who accused Prince Andrew of sexually abusing her. Giuffre and Andrew reached a settlement in a civil suit earlier this year, after she claimed Epstein “lent” her out for sexual abuse, a claim Andrew has denied.

She made the choice to conspire with Epstein for years, working as partners in crime and causing devastating harm to vulnerable victims,” argued prosecutor Maurene Comey in the government’s sentencing memo. “She should be held accountable for her disturbing role in an extensive child exploitation scheme.”

According to former UBS AG banker Justin Paperny, who served 18 months for securities fraud, Maxwell’s arguments for leniency will likely fall on deaf ears, especially with several accusers testifying on Tuesday.

“The first thing judges want to know if you plead guilty is if you identify with your victims,” he said, adding “In this case, Maxwell said ‘Yeah, there are victims but I didn’t create it. I didn’t do anything wrong. It’s just because I was friends with Epstein. If anything, I’m the victim,’” Paperny said. That attitude “doesn’t sit well with a sentencing judge when there are victims whose lives have been torn and ripped apart by her pedophile friend.”

Stay tuned for more…

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 10:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/LVYjZcF Tyler Durden

Soaring Inflation And Crashing Rates Are Sparking Trucking’s “Great Purge”

Soaring Inflation And Crashing Rates Are Sparking Trucking’s “Great Purge”

By Craig Fuller, CEO at FreightWaves

The last trucking market crash was in 2019. The current market could end up worse for small truckload fleets.

The freight market crash in 2019 was caused by two factors – a freight slowdown due to tariffs on Chinese imports and a surge of new fleets flooding the market, even as rates continued to fall. 

Until 2019, we had never seen that many new fleets enter the market, especially during a market downturn. During 2019 an average of 7,200 fleets entered the market per month compared to an average of 5,200 fleets per month during 2008-18. 

The 2019 drop in freight volumes wasn’t significant. At their deepest trough, tender volumes registered a 4.6% drop in year-over-year load requests, and that lasted for just a few short months (May-July).

Trucking is a commodity and anyone that has been around commodity markets understands that it doesn’t necessarily take a dramatic move on one side of the market to change the balance of supply/demand and cause significant price swings. 

In 2019, the trucking market already had too much capacity relative to demand. The year-over-year decline was only in the mid-single digits. But, it was enough to push rates below carriers’ operating costs.

Removing the cost of diesel from the spot rate, here is what the market looked like in 2019 (van per mile): 

  • Low: $1.51

  • Average: $1.59

  • High $1.75

We are nearing 2019’s rock-bottom, inflation-adjusted spot rates

Trucking companies have much higher operating costs now than they did in 2019, even when removing fuel from the number. Every fleet’s operating cost will be different, but using data from TCA, ACT, and FreightWaves’ own analysis, we can draw some conclusions about the cost increases that a fleet would experience in 2022 compared to 2019. 

Assuming a fleet averages 6,500 miles per truck per month and purchased a four-year-old used truck in 2019 at $50,000, plus sales tax, financed for five years at 5% interest, the monthly payment would cost around $0.15/mile. With used truck prices surging during the pandemic, a four-year-old used truck last fall would run $77,000. If the vehicle was financed with similar terms, the per mile cost would be around $0.23/mile.   

A driver employee with experience working for a top-paying fleet can expect to make around $0.62/mile. In 2019, the same driver would have made around $0.47/mile. 

Higher variable operating costs include insurance (+$.02/mile), maintenance (+$.06/mile), equipment (+$.08/mile) and driver wages (+$.15/mile).

All in, variable costs have increased at least $0.31/mile more for fleet operators in 2022 compared to 2019. These numbers are likely understated, as they don’t include increases related to back-office operations and support staff, which can vary widely among fleets. 

Adjusting the 2019 numbers, the rates per mile total: 

  • $1.82 (low) 

  • $1.90 (average)

  • $2.16 (high)

The current spot rate (net fuel) is $1.95/mile. On a variable cost-adjusted basis, the trucking spot rates have matched 2019 since May 2022 – $2.16/mile, dropping $0.21/mile. It’s likely to get worse. The month of May typically has among the highest rates we’ll see all year, with July and August being some of the weakest months. 

It is conceivable that spot rates will drop below the inflation-adjusted 2019 low of $1.82 per mile in July, since there doesn’t seem to be any near-term market catalysts to drive additional demand. 

U.S.- bound container volumes, which have been driving a substantial amount of the freight surge in the U.S. trucking market since 2020, are seeing a significant drop, as reported by Henry Byers, FreightWaves’ senior global trade analyst.  

There are also the economic challenges that are apparent in the economy, including record-low consumer confidence, declining construction and industrial activity, surging inflation, and a Federal Reserve that is determined to slow the economy down to tame inflation, even if it means putting the economy into a recession. 

All of this means that the freight market will likely encounter additional headwinds and there are more reasons to believe that trucking spot rates have further to fall.

Capacity matters

Of course, trucking is a two-sided market. Demand is only one part of the equation; capacity also matters. 

Capacity is really just a function of how much dispatchable capacity is in the market. Like 2019, the trucking industry has seen a record number of new entrants enter the trucking market to take advantage of what were strong market conditions and record high spot rates created because of government stimulus over the past two years. The number of new entrants into the trucking industry nearly doubled the 2019 monthly record average. Since 2020, the monthly average of new fleets entering trucking has increased to 13,370 per month, up from 7,200. In April, the number hit 23,479. 

This large number of new entrants means that the trucking industry has many companies that are brand new, have higher cost structures (because they joined when the freight market was peaking) and that have never experienced a downturn. 

This massive surge of dispatchable capacity was built for a market that had much more freight activity. If the economy contracts further, it could spell disaster for many of the most vulnerable operators.

The summer doldrums

Even if the economy doesn’t contract, July and August are always slower than June. It is the time of the year when supply chains take a break and get ready for the retail surges that typically begin after Labor Day. 

The retail surge is a really important part of the freight calendar and often offers some of the highest spot rate opportunities. In the first half of the year construction, auto, beverages, and fresh produce drive the surges in trucking. 

In the second half of the year, surges are caused by retailers scrambling to get inventories placed for the holiday shopping season. That may not happen this year, with many retailers’ inventories overstocked. Since their warehouses and distribution centers are full, they are reluctant to add additional inventory to their supply chain and will focus their efforts on liquidating what they currently have in stock.

Trucking spot rates will not increase significantly until the Great Purge is over

As long as the market has excess capacity, freight rates will remain depressed. It will take a substantial purge of capacity before spot market carriers can expect relief. 

FreightWaves editorial director Rachel Premack covered this topic last week in her article titled “the Great Purge.”

The unfortunate reality of trucking is that the market is often “feast or famine” and with so many new mouths to feed, the famine this year could be much worse than was experienced in 2019. 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 10:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Ig8BpSw Tyler Durden

Marijuana Banking Legalization Gets Scrapped Again


marijuana SAFE Banking Act Congress weed banks Senate

For a sixth time, the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act has been scrapped by the U.S. Senate just before earning a vote. The proposal would grant state-legal marijuana businesses access to federally insured banks.

The latest blow to the SAFE Banking Act came Thursday when senators stripped the proposal out of the America COMPETES Act, a House-passed bill that aims to subsidize computer chip manufacturers and other industries. The inclusion of the SAFE Banking Act was one of the few redeemable aspects of the COMPETES Act, which is mostly a cronyist mess of disjointed giveaways to politically connected industries.

House Democrats had included the marijuana banking provision in the otherwise unrelated bill in an attempt to finally get the SAFE Banking Act through the Senate, where it has repeatedly stalled. The most recent failure came in December when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) had the proposal stripped out of the National Defense Authorization Act. As Reason’s Jacob Sullum has reported, Schumer wants to prioritize his own, broader marijuana legalization effort over what he sees as piecemeal moves like the banking reforms.

To be sure, Congress should move immediately to legalize weed. But a perfect solution seems to have become the enemy of a good solution, and state-legal pot shops and growers find themselves caught in legal limbo.

“If there is a legislative version of The Twilight Zone, the SAFE Banking Act seems to be stuck in it,” says Morgan Fox, political director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), a nonprofit that advocates for legalizing marijuana. “It is incredibly disappointing that politics continue to get in the way of saving lives and helping struggling small businesses disrupt and ultimately replace the underground cannabis market.”

A standalone version of the SAFE Banking Act has now been sitting in the Senate for more than three years, noted Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D–Colo.), the bill’s sponsor, on Twitter. It cleared the House of Representatives in 2019 with a bipartisan vote of 321–103.

“The Senate continues to ignore the public safety risk of forcing cannabis businesses to deal in all cash,” wrote Perlmutter, who promised to keep trying to attach the proposal to other bills in addition to pushing the Senate to adopt the stand-alone measure.

Indeed, the lack of access to the federally insured banking system continues to be a very real threat to the country’s growing marijuana industry. Some weed entrepreneurs have been able to find access to nontraditional banks, but many others continue to have to act like criminals and deal entirely in cash, making them targets for actual criminals. Beyond those risks, it’s obviously harder to do basic business tasks—like paying your taxes and your employees—without access to banks.

There’s broad support for the SAFE Banking Act within the banking industry too. Marijuana Moment, a trade publication, points out that banking associations representing all 50 states and one U.S. territory and the Independent Community Bankers of America have voiced support for the bill.

Medical marijuana is now legal in 37 states. Recreational weed is legal in 19 states and quasi-legal in Washington, D.C. There were $25 billion of legal sales of marijuana made last year by an industry that employs over 400,000 Americans. There is, quite frankly, no good reason for Congress to continue excluding those businesses and people from the security of the federal banking system.

The post Marijuana Banking Legalization Gets Scrapped Again appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/f5jd9hL
via IFTTT