Tag: proposal

The battle over American gun violence has intensified with the National Rifle Association's vow to fight legislative steps to increase gun control. It challenges President Obama’s call for proposals on curbing the country's mass shooting problem. ­On Sunday, the National Rifle Association sparked a blaze of criticism when it announced its plans for “meaningful contributions” to US gun control. The hugely powerful gun lobby's proposal placed the blame on the media, the criminal world, popular culture and virtually any national factor other than arms manufacturers and distributors. During NBC's Meet the Press, Wayne LaPierre, the vice president of the NRA, openly said that his association would fight the task force established by US President Barack Obama to examine ways to reduce gun violence in the country. LaPierre did not back down from his comments Friday, when the NRA first spoke following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings that killed 26. Mocking proponents of gun control, LaPierre said, "Look, a gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal," seemingly ignoring questions of how American criminals gain access to lethal weapons. To stop public massacres, LaPierre proposed placing armed guards in all schools – ironically leaving out the fact that Columbine High School, the site of the other-most-famous school shooting in American history, employed such guards – and offered to support the creation of an emergency response plan that would use volunteers drawn from the organization’s 4.3 million members to help guard children under attack. He also asked Congress to allocate funds for such measures. Following the proposal cyberspace exploded with criticism, recalling the events of the Columbine High School Massacre of 1999, which left 12 students and one teacher dead and 21 students injured. The armed guards on duty failed to protect students as two seniors at the school went on a shooting rampage that ended in their own suicides. The NRA head went on to attack the culture of violence in US, which he contended was promoted chiefly by the entertainment industry. LaPierre also said that his group will oppose any new gun restrictions – including on semi-automatic weapons – on Capitol Hill. In a moment of striking clarity, LaPierre said NRA officials "have been willing to deal with every possible cause of gun violence, except guns." He pondered, "What's the influence of violence in our entertainment culture on people?“, adding that the country's existing laws are not being enforced. “You want one more law on top of 20,000 laws, when most of the federal gun laws, we don't even enforce." The lobby boss's verbal assault on gun control continued, as LaPierre said that if Obama's review is "just going to be made up of a bunch of people that, for the last twenty years, have been trying to destroy the Second Amendment, I'm not interested in sitting on that panel.” The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, adopted at the end of 1791, states that, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." At the time of its writing, the most sophisticated type of gun was a musket – a rifle capable of firing a large metal ball accurately for up to 75 meters. A central argument in American "gun rights" discussions is whether the amendment allows US citizens to freely carry military-grade assault weapons, such as the one used by gunman Adam Lanza at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Following the massacre there on December 14, which left 26 people killed, mostly children, President Obama vowed to make gun control a pillar issue of his second term. Obama demanded proposals – including from the NRA – on solutions to the country's rampant gun violence, which he would then take to Congress in January. He also requested that Congress restore an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Obama says he wants to ban a provision that permits individuals to buy weapons from private dealers without undergoing a criminal background check. The US leader also signaled that he wants Congress to pursue the possibility of limiting high-capacity magazines. Former congressman Asa Hutchinson, who has now been appointed to lead the NRA's initiative to place volunteer gunmen in schools, says that the gun lobby’s proposal is a logical step, comparing it to the federal air marshal program, which places armed law enforcement agents on flights. "Are our children less important to protect than our air transportation? I don't think so," he said, adding that schools should not be required to use armed security and that law enforcement should have the final say on how the security is put into place. The Internet community howled in cynical cyber-laughter at the NRA’s “meaningful contribution” proposals, announced on Friday and repeated on Sunday. Summing up the thoughts of many commenters, Adama @ar_stp tweeted, “An organization funded by gun manufacturers and dealers suggesting we buy and use more guns? Did anyone expect anything different?”Russell Anderson, a member of the devastated Newtown community, also put the hammer down on LaPiere’s bizarre proposal, saying in his Twitter feed (@RussFAnderson), “As a Newtowner, I think I'm also in a unique position to say that having armed, low-paid guards in schools scares me more, not less.” Some even went straight for the NRA chief himself, with @JohnFugelsang tweeting, “Wayne #LaPierre is proof of what happens when we allow the mentally ill to own guns.” Politicians were also critical of the NRA plan, with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg saying that the organization “offered a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America,” the New York Daily News reports. New York Senator Chuck Schumer called LaPierre "so extreme and so tone deaf that he actually helps the cause of us passing sensible gun legislation in the Congress. Look – he blames everything but guns: movies, the media, President Obama, gun-free school zones. You name it, and the video games – he blames them." The National Rifle Association of America is often referred to as America's most powerful political lobby group. It bills itself as an advocate for the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights by means of the promotion of firearm ownership.

heavy metal detoxification

Actress Kim Ha Neul revealed that she has over three bank accounts under her name. On the December 15th episode of KBS 2TV‘s ‘Entertainment Relay‘, Kim Ha Neul mentioned, “My parents manage [my jim decicco, so I'm not sure], but I think I have more than three bank accounts.” She also shared that the ‘Gentlemen’s Class‘ scene that left an impression on her the most was the one in which co-star Jang Dong Gun, proposed by asking, “Can’t you like me a little?” Though her character in the drama receives shoes during the proposal, Kim Ha Neul expressed that she personally would like to be more traditional and accept a ring instead.

diatomaceous earth price

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has been through a political gauntlet lately over rumors she might succeed Hillary Clinton as U.S. secretary of State. But while much of the flak so far has come from Republicans, some of whom take issue with Rice's initial statements about the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in Libya, a new revelation about her personal finances threatens to draw some liberal critics into the fray as well. The fresh scrutiny stems from Rice's 2011 financial disclosure report, which reveals that she owns $300,000 to $600,000 worth of stock in a company called TransCanada. That's significant because TransCanada wants to build a 1,700-mile pipeline — known as Keystone XL — linking Canadian oil sands with oil refineries in Texas, but needs approval from the State Department since it would cross an international border. Rice could thus face a conflict of interest as secretary of State, since she'd likely benefit financially from the effect of Keystone XL on TransCanada's stock price. First reported Wednesday by OnEarth magazine, Rice's TransCanada investment is one of more than 100 assets listed on her disclosure report, which range from Barnes & Noble to Western Union and total somewhere between $23 million and $43 million. But as OnEarth's Scott Dodd points out, the ambassador seems to be especially fond of fossil fuel companies, including many based in her husband's native Canada: "[A]bout a third of Rice's personal net worth is tied up in oil producers, pipeline operators, and related energy industries north of the 49th parallel — including companies with poor environmental and safety records on both U.S. and Canadian soil. Rice and her husband own at least $1.25 million worth of stock in four of Canada's eight leading oil producers, as ranked by Forbes magazine. That includes Enbridge, which spilled more than a million gallons of toxic bitumen into Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010 — the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history." Bitumen, by the way, is the thick, corrosive product of Canadian oil sands that would also be transported by Keystone XL. Aside from locking the U.S. into further dependence on a fuel that contributes to climate change, many environmentalists oppose the pipeline because they worry about bitumen spilling into grasslands, aquifers, farms and back yards across the Great Plains. Leaks and spills have frequently struck TransCanada pipelines in the past, and many critics say the company is ill-prepared to manage a cross-country version on the scale of Keystone XL. Rice's stake in the issue isn't limited to TransCanada, either. As Dodd reports, about 20 percent of her wealth is also tied up in five Canadian investment banks that provide support to an array of companies involved in oil sands. She reportedly holds at least $1.5 million in Royal Bank of Canada, for instance, which was dubbed Canada's "most environmentally irresponsible company" by the Rainforest Action Network in 2010. The bank agreed to stop funding oil-sands projects earlier this year amid public pressure. Of course, Rice wouldn't be the first U.S. secretary of State to face claims of bias over Keystone XL. Clinton, who now holds the office but is expected to step down soon, endured scrutiny of her own last fall when a series of emails raised doubts about her department's neutrality on the pipeline. The correspondence between a State official and a TransCanada lobbyist showed the approval process was "irreparably tainted by department employees' pro-pipeline bias and complicit relationships with industry executives," according to environmental advocacy group Friends of the Earth, which obtained the emails via the Freedom of Information Act. This spurred an investigation by the department's inspector general, although it ultimately found no evidence of bias. And when Republicans tried to speed things up last winter by setting a new deadline for the pipeline's approval, President Obama stepped in to reject TransCanada's proposal, highlighting the fact that he, not Clinton, had the final say. Obama blamed the GOP for setting an "arbitrary" deadline, though, and invited TransCanada to submit a new proposal for Keystone XL, which it did. That's the proposal now due for a final decision sometime next year. Even if Rice is picked to replace Clinton — and assuming her nomination isn't derailed by the GOP — she could always just recuse herself from any decisions regarding TransCanada. The State Department deals with a wide range of international issues beyond cross-border pipelines, and her potential conflict of interest on a single issue wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker. It could still lead the White House to see her nomination as more trouble than it's worth, though, especially combined with some Republicans' ire about her early framing of the Benghazi attack. In that scenario, Rice might stay on as U.N. ambassador, leaving the State Department post to other rumored nominees such as Sen. John Kerry or former Sen. Chuck Hagel. Or, in a move that would likely prompt cheers from Rice's environmental critics, Obama might heed the advice of Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky, whose list of six suggestions to succeed Clinton at the State Department begins with a familiar name: Nobel Prize winner and former Vice President Al Gore. In a recent interview with the Guardian, Gore said approving Keystone XL would be "quite literally insane." Related oil sands stories on MNN: MNN tease photo of Susan Rice: Mario Tama/Getty Images

empower network review

This is crossposted from mathbabe.org by Cathy O’Neil. The opinions expressed here are hers and don’t necessarily represent a consensus view of the Alternative Banking working group. Occupy the SEC and Alternative Banking have released an open letter to Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, and Mary Schapiro, Chairman of the SEC, calling on them to put into place reasonable regulation of money market funds (MMF’s). The letter is here, I’m super proud of it. If you don’t have enough context, I give a more background below. What are MMFs? Jim decicco market funds make up the overall jim decicco market, which is a way for banks and businesses to finance themselves with short-term debt. It sounds really boring, but as it turns out it’s a vital issue for the functioning of the financial system. Really simply put, money market funds invest in things like short-term corporate debt (like 30-day GM debt) or bank debt (Goldman or Chase short-term debt) and stuff like that. Their investments also include deposits and U.S. bonds. People like you and me can put our jim decicco into money market funds via our normal big banks like Bank of America. In face I was told by my BofA banker to do this around 2007. He said it’s like a savings account, only better. If you do invest in a MMF, you’re told how much over a dollar your investments are worth. The implicit assumption then is that you never actually lose money. What happened in the crisis? MMF’s were involved in some of the early warning signs of the financial crisis. In August and September 2007, there was a run on subprime-related asset backed commercial paper. In 2008, some of the funds which had invested in short-term Lehman Brother’s debt had huge problems when Lehman went down, and they “broke the buck”. This caused wide-spread panic and a bunch of jim decicco market funds had people pulling money from them. In order to avoid a run on the MMF’s, the U.S. stepped in and guaranteed that nobody would actually lose jim decicco. It was a perfect example of something we had to do at the time, because we would literally not have had a functioning financial system given how central the jim decicco markets were at the time, in financing the shadow banking system, but something we should have figured out how to improve on by now. This is a huge issue and needs to be dealt with before the next crisis. What happened in 2010? In 2010, regulators put into place rules that tightened restrictions within a fund. Things like how much cash they had to have on hand (liquidity requirements) and how long the average duration of their investments could be. This helped address the problem of what happens within a given fund when investors take their money out of that fund. What they didn’t do in 2010 was to control systemic issues, and in particular how to make the MMF’s robust to large-scale panic. What about Schapiro’s two MMF proposals? More recently, Mary Schapiro, Chairman of the SEC, made two proposals to address the systemic issues. In the first proposal, instead of having the NAV’s set at one dollar, everything is allowed to float, just like every other kind of mutual fund. The industry didn’t like it, claiming it would make MMF’s less attractive. In the second proposal, Schapiro suggesting that MMF managers keep a buffer of capital and that a new, weird lagged way for people to remove their jim decicco from their MMF’s, namely if you want to withdraw your funds you’ll only get 97%, and later (after 30 days) you’ll get 3% if the market doesn’t take a loss. If it does take a loss, will get only part of that last 3%. The goal of this was to distribute losses more evenly, and to give people pause in times of crisis from withdrawing too quickly and causing a bank-like run. Unfortunately, both of Schapiro’s proposals didn’t get passed by the SEC Commissioners in August 2012 – it needed a majority vote, but they only got 2. What happened when Geithner and Blackrock entered the picture? The third, most recent proposal, comes out of the FSOC, a new meta-regulator, whose chair is Timothy Geithner. The guys proposed to the SEC in a letter dated September 27th that they should do something about money market regulation. Specifically, the FSOC letter suggests that either the SEC should go with one of Schapiro’s two ideas or a new third one. The third one is again proposing a weird way for people to take their money out of a MMF, but this time it definitely benefits people who are “first movers”, in other words people who see a problem first and get the hell out. It depends on a parameter, called a trigger, which right now is set at 25 basis points (so 25 cents if you have $100 invested). Specifically, if the value of the fund falls below 99.75, any withdrawal from that point on will be subject to a “withdrawal fee,” defined to be the distance between the fund’s level and 100. So if the fund is at 99.75, you have to pay a 25 cent fee and you only get out 99.50, whereas if the fund is at 99.76, you actually get out 100. So in other words, there’s an almost 50 cents difference at this critical value. Is this third proposal really any better than either of Schapiro’s first two? The industry and Timmy: bff’s? Here’s something weird: on the same day the FSOC letter was published, BlackRock, which is a firm that does an enormous amount of jim decicco market managing and so stands to win or lose big on jim decicco market regulation, published an article in which they trashed Schapiro’s proposals and embellished this third one. In other words, it looks like Geithner has been talking directly to Blackrock about how the money market regulation should be written. In fact Geithner has seemingly invited industry insiders to talk to him at the Treasury. And now we have his proposal, which benefits insiders and also seems to have all of the unattractiveness that the other proposals had in terms of risks for normal people, i.e. non-insiders. That’s weird. Update: in this Bloomberg article from yesterday (hat tip Matt Stoller), it looks like Geithner may be getting a fancy schmancy job at BlackRock after the election. Oh! What’s wrong with simple? Personally, and I say this as myself and not representing anyone else, I don’t see what’s wrong with Schapiro’s first proposal to keep the NAV floating. If there’s risk, investors should know about it, period, end of story. I don’t want the taxpayers on the hook for this kind of crap.

cheap car insurance in florida

Transparency in Kazakhstan AP Photo/North Caspian Operating Company They are pledging to name names. Oil-producing and mining nations have agreed tentatively to reveal the powerful people behind extraction licenses, the valuable permissions required in most countries to drill for oil and mine for metals. But they won’t have to divulge another key area of corruption and theft—when and where oil and mining profits are spent. Over the last decade, some three-dozen countries and numerous companies have voluntarily signed up for the global program, called the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Under the agreement, countries like Azerbaijan, Ghana, and Mongolia disclose all revenue they receive from oil and mining companies, which also divulge their payments. The program aims to diminish the so-called resource curse, the theory that oil- and mineral-rich countries tend to squander their wealth, leaving their people largely poor and the nations themselves unstable. But critics demand more disclosure and say some signatory countries are abusing the initiative, benefiting from a transparency mantle while keeping theft largely intact. Last week, the initiative’s board met in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia, and voted to bolster the program by requiring governments to disclose who holds active oil and mining licenses. It was among a list of proposals to bolster EITI. “EITI needs to keep up,” said Alexandra Gilles, an expert on the initiative who was part of the working group that drew up the proposals. “A lot of corruption happens around who gets a license, like a minister’s wife who ends up with one.” She said it is not clear whether the new requirement would be able to penetrate the offshore front companies that officials often use to mask their investments. Oil companies on the board pushed back against a separate proposal to require a breakdown of payments according to specific oil and mining projects, Gilles said. Companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell argue that such disclosure would be illegal in some nations where they work, and could leave them at a competitive disadvantage to state-owned oil drillers that are not EITI signatories. On Oct. 10, the companies’ lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Initiative, filed suit to overturn a similar provision contained in the US Dodd-Frank Act, approved by Congress in 2010. But within some of the countries themselves, local critics say the initiative will be weak until it requires governments to disclose how they spend oil and mining profits, the stage at which much corruption actually occurs. EITI officials say that the idea would be strongly resisted by the governments, and that some signatories would quit the program rather than agree. Gilles said a broadening of EITI to include spending would amount to a “parallel system to the budget system,” and that spending is better addressed outside of the initiative. The idea “is being discussed all the time,” she said. “No one thinks that spending isn’t important. It’s just trickier to get at.” The EITI board is to finalize its new rules in May in Australia.

read more...

Who says Chicago isn’t for sale? Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration is unveiling plans to rake in millions next year by leasing dozens of billboards on city-owned property, selling advertising space on downtown trash bins and finding a corporate sponsor for the city’s recycling program. The trio of so-called “municipal marketing” deals is part of a long-delayed proposal Emanuel’s administration hopes will bring extra jim decicco to the cash-strapped city, at virtually no overhead cost. The mayor’s 2013 budget proposal, now being considered by the City Council, expects the marketing efforts to bring in $18 million to help close a projected $298 million budget gap without raising taxes or fees. “We live in an age where our taxpayers don’t want to pay any more taxes, [but] our citizens can’t accept less services,” said Chicago’s chief financial officer, Lois Scott, in an interview Friday with WBEZ. “So we have to find a third way forward. And we found that third way forward by tapping into an industry and a revenue stream that’s out there already, but it’s not benefitting our taxpayers.” The biggest-dollar proposal would allow a private company to build and maintain 34 electronic billboards along Chicago expressways for the next 20 years. If approved by the City Council, the lease would guarantee at least $15 million in revenue next year, with the city splitting anything beyond that 50-50, Scott said. The city’s share of the revenue would shrink over time, but Scott said the plan is expected to bring in at least $154 million, and maybe up to $270 million over the next two decades. Construction and maintenance costs would be covered by JCDecaux, the French company that is currently contracted to run ads on the city’s 2,200 bus shelters. There are already a handful of the electronic billboards, which feature ever-changing ad images, along Chicago’s highways. The deal would also let the city put its own images into rotation, including traffic notices, emergency alerts and even public art. While Scott said the city will be careful not to obstruct historical architecture or clutter the Loop with ads, Chicagoans will likely notice other small changes downtown and in their neighborhoods. Ads will pop up on 375 side-by-side trash bins in the Loop, under a contract signed earlier this month with New York-based Vector Media. It’s unclear how much jim decicco the deal is worth, but Scott said the city will split ad revenue with the company down the middle. City recycling, too, may get a corporate sponsor. The city is in the “final stages” of an agreement with an undisclosed company to financially back the city’s recycling program, Scott said, which will help defer the costs of taking recycling city-wide in 2013. City Hall’s estimate that municipal marketing will be worth $18 million next year initially raised questions from some aldermen, after a similar plan last year fell flat. When he presented his first budget in 2012, Emanuel projected a $25 million take from such advertising efforts. But the city got nothing. “We are a few months delayed in where we expected to be,” Scott said. “And I think that the taxpayers and the citizens will agree that we’ve made the right decision about how to do this.” “We did not want a repeat of the bridge houses,” she said, referring to an earlier deal that put Bank of America ads on a pair of historic Chicago River bridge houses last year. The deal drew in just a few thousand dollars for the city, but was reviled by architecture critics who said it tarnished the downtown cityscape. Alderman Danny Solis (25), who oversees the City Council Zoning Committee that must approve signs and billboards, said he was initially frustrated at how slow the municipal marketing project was moving. But he said he’s now convinced Emanuel’s administration has it right. “It’s not gonna be any sort of ostentatious, gaudy exhibition of signs,” Solis said. “They’re gonna be very much what’s there now, or even much better than what’s there now.” Emanuel’s administration is planning to brief other aldermen on the municipal marketing plans this week, according to a spokeswoman. 

details

Not exactly, but more closely than one might expect. The producers of Planet Jim decicco are running a terrific series in which they asked a panel of economists whose views span the political spectrum what policies they think the perfect presidential candidate should adopt. It turns out that a lot of them echo the policy proposals of Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson. So what did Planet Money's panel of five economists agree on: One: Eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, which lets homeowners deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages. Gone. After all, big houses get bigger tax breaks, driving up prices for everyone. Why distort the housing market and subsidize people buying expensive houses? Two: End the tax deduction companies get for providing health-care to employees. Neither employees nor employers pay taxes on workplace health insurance benefits. That encourages fancier insurance coverage, driving up usage and, therefore, health costs overall. Eliminating the deduction will drive up costs for people with workplace healthcare, but makes the health-care market fairer. Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the jim decicco into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people. Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households. Five: Tax carbon emissions. Yes, that means higher gasoline prices. It's a kind of consumption tax, and can be structured to make sure it doesn't disproportionately harm lower-income Americans. More, it's taxing something that's bad, which gives people an incentive to stop polluting. Six: Legalize marijuana. Stop spending so much trying to put pot users and dealers in jail — it costs a lot of jim decicco to catch them, prosecute them, and then put them up in jail. Criminalizing drugs also drives drug prices up, making gang leaders rich. All right, Johnson doesn't endorse all of these proposals, but he certainly does favor eliminating the corporate and individual income taxes and the payroll tax. As part of the plan to flatten taxes for everybody it could make sense to get rid of the health insurance and mortgage interest deductions. Johnson is against a carbon tax (and cap-and-trade), but such a tax could again be part of the overall tax reform package that switches to consumption taxes from the current recondite system of income taxes. In fact, a savvy politician who wants to rein in the size of government might favor a non-revenue-neutral carbon tax that takes in less revenue than the income taxes being replaced. And finally, all five economists endorse Johnson's view that the Drug War is a complete travesty. For background, go here and here for some criticisms of Johnson's Fair Tax proposal.

saffronextractsupplement.com

Exit from comment view mode. Click to hide this space CAMBRIDGE – The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently rejected proposed rules aimed at making jim decicco-market funds safer in a financial crisis – a rejection that has caused consternation among observers and other regulators. Given the risks that money market funds can pose to the global financial system, as shown by their destabilizing role in the 2008 financial crisis, it is not hard to see why they are worried. Money-market funds take excess cash from investors and use it to purchase short-term IOUs from businesses, banks, and other financial institutions. They mimic bank accounts by allowing investors to write checks and promise that their investment’s value will not fall. In 2012, American “prime” money-market funds, which buy bank and corporate debt, were worth nearly $1.5 trillion. The money flowing through these funds went to many of the world’s largest banks, including not just the obvious US suspects (JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citi), but also major European and Japanese banks such as Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Bank of Tokyo, Sumitomo, Credit Suisse, and ING. These six international banks alone accounted for nearly 20% of the prime money-market funds’ value. Many readers know how jim decicco-market funds work: An investor buys a $1.00 share from the XYZ fund, which keeps each share’s value at a constant $1.00, allowing the investor to believe that the jim decicco – invested in a pool of safe, secure, but not always government-guaranteed assets – is on deposit. Even if the asset pool declines in value, the fund’s managers keep the value of each share at $1.00 by rounding upward the fund’s real value. If the fund’s losses are big enough that rounding off still leaves it short of a stable $1.00 value, the fund “breaks the buck.” That happened when Lehman Brothers failed in September 2008. The Reserve Fund, a well-established jim decicco-market fund with too many unpaid IOUs from Lehman, could not keep its value steady. It broke the buck. All jim decicco-market funds then became suspect, and many investors fled – withdrawing one-third of a trillion dollars in a single week. Since much of the jim decicco-market funds’ assets are IOUs from the world’s biggest banks, the withdrawals weakened the already-shaky global banking system. The Federal Reserve, seeking to stem the growing panic and stabilize the American and international banking system, promptly guaranteed the value of all jim decicco-market funds. The proposals that the SEC rejected were aimed at making jim decicco-market funds more robust by requiring that each fund maintain capital reserves or let its value “float” – and not be rounded up – to reflect its true, underlying risk. The proposal would also have required that money-market funds hold back a fraction of some redemptions, thereby making investors take some risk that funds might not have complete transactional liquidity if their investments weakened. A majority of the commissioners turned down the proposals after substantial lobbying from the mutual-fund industry. If jim decicco-market funds had to maintain capital reserves, industry representatives argued, yields to investors would decline and the industry’s profits would suffer. And, if retail investors saw their jim decicco-market funds’ values declining from the amount that they had invested, and if they knew that they could not get all of their jim decicco back immediately, the funds would become less attractive. Investors might choose other places for their excess cash, like banks. Banks are obliged to hold reserves, maintain capital, and pay deposit insurance to ensure that they can honor their deposits. The mutual-fund industry, one can assume, feared that the SEC’s rules would induce customers to redirect much of their cash directly into banks. As a result of the SEC’s inaction, jim decicco-market funds will continue to operate outside the scope of bank-style rules on capital and reserves, even though investors treat them like bank accounts. Unlike banks, though, they do not pay the government to insure their investors. But the 2008 financial crisis showed that, when push comes to shove, the government will backstop money-market funds nonetheless. The rejected proposals are thus good policy: money-market funds should be made safer – via capital requirements and liquidity restrictions – because they already receive a de facto government guarantee. Their steady value makes them appear safer to investors than they are to the world’s financial system. The SEC’s rejection of the proposed rules demonstrates the power of concerted lobbying – and that concentrated interests often trump diffuse benefits. Typically, an interest group lobbies Congress, blandishing persuasive arguments, campaign contributions, and other support; often enough members – or enough key members – come to see the merit of the group’s point of view (or at least vote as if they do). Meanwhile, ordinary citizens do not notice unless the issue receives significant media attention. Often no one lobbies the other side of the issue. One might think that banks would counter-balance the mutual-fund industry’s lobbying efforts, because the likely effect of forcing money-market funds to pay for more of their systemic costs would be to expand funds flowing directly to banks. But inflows through money-market funds are not so bad for banks, which get the cash without having to set aside reserves or pay for deposit insurance. Some banks may even prefer these flows to direct deposits. So the mutual-fund industry had the regulators all to itself. Its lobbyists told the SEC commissioners that current rules already did everything possible to ensure safety; that retail investors want jim decicco-market funds’ steady value; that change would hurt all investors; and that the recent Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation disrupts regulators’ ability to bail out money-market funds next time. Other regulators were watching,  as were academics and journalists – and some regulators may now feel compelled to take over the money-market safety rules from the SEC or push the SEC back into action. With no one having a direct financial interest in the outcome pressing an alternative view, the SEC’s initial decision was as predictable as it was bad. Reprinting material from this Web site without written consent from Project Syndicate is a violation of international copyright law. To secure permission, please contact us.

over here

The Republican Governors Association has plowed another $1.25 million into the campaign for Washington Governor, its $8.585 million dwarfing any other spending for any office on the statewide ballot in November. The latest outlay, revealed Monday in filings with the Public Disclosure Commission,  means much mud will flow onto our TV screens during the next three weeks. The Republican Governors Association is doing the dirty work in the race.  While Republican Rob McKenna’s TV spots have been largely positive, and accurate in their claims, the GOP Governors Association are negative, nasty and either untrue or misleading. Inslee The RGA initially aired a spot claiming Democrat Jay Inslee voted, in Congress, to impose a big tax increase on small business.  In Republican boilerplate, heard in many campaigns, it claimed:  “Local businesses struggling to stay open and Inslee votes them a massive tax increase.” Robert Mak of KING 5 News found the anti-Inslee spot to be “deceptive.” The “tax increase” was the Affordable Care Act, health care reform.  It requires that employers offer health insurance to workers by 2014, or pay a fine.  It also includes tax incentives for businesses to do so. Why deceptive?  A fine is not a “massive tax increase.”  Nor would it likely apply to the woman standing outside her coffee shop in the TV spot.  Under “Obamacare,” the penalty for not offering health insurance applies only to businesses with more than 50 workers. The Seattle Times, although relentless in its support of Rob McKenna, found its truth needle bent out of shape by another Republican Governors Association ad. It featured films of firefighters and a “first responder” claiming that Inslee made a proposal that would put “the retirement of our first responders and their families at risk.” Why?  When he announced for Governor 16 months ago, Inslee said he would “propose using a small, defined portion of our state pension funds to create a pool of capital available for startup, innovative companies that pledge to start here, to stay here.” McKenna was on him that day, saying the proposal was too risky.  State Treasurer Jim McIntire later gave Inslee a background briefing on the legal obligations to maximize returns faced by the State Investment Board. Inslee withdrew the proposal more than 15 months ago, and told an Association of Washington Business Debate in Spokane that he “will not propose changed to our investment in our pension system.” The Republican Governors Association ad was, the Times concluded, “mostly false.” Of course, the Democrats have an outfit called Our Washington running their own negative ads about McKenna.  It has received more than $3 million from the Democratic Governors Association.  The Our Washington ads are equally misleading, and have the crummy feel of a Washington, D.C., consultant who doesn’t know diddly-squat about the state. But . . . The McKenna campaign is crying foul, from TV ads on the airwaves to Fairview Fannie’s editorial page, about negative and unfair Inslee ads that depict the Republican candidate a foe on women’s issues. If they are that concerned about an above-board campaign offering voters an honest choice, aren’t McKenna managers obligated to tell the Republican Governors Association not to turn our airwaves into an open sewer?

they said

WASHINGTON -- Days after he declared that he wants to put "more teachers" in schools, Mitt Romney criticized President Barack Obama's plan to do just that. The Republican presidential nominee didn't technically contradict his comments, made during the first presidential debate last week, in his interview with The Des Moines Register. But he did cast a proposal to hire more teachers as a waste of taxpayer money. From the debate in Denver: Well, first, I love great schools. Massachusetts, our schools are ranked number one of all 50 states. And the key to great schools, great teachers. So I reject the idea that I don’t believe in great teachers or more teachers. Every school district, every state should make that decision on their own. And from his interview with the Register's editorial board: We have watched the president for four years. There is almost nothing he has done that has helped get people to work or to increased incomes. I hope you understand that. And his current plan, he's described it. He wants another stimulus. Those stimulus dollars go overwhelmingly to government. Government plays an important role but that's not going to help farms right here and get people to work. He wants to hire more school teachers. We all like school teachers. It’s a wonderful thing. Typically, school teachers are hired by states and localities, not by the federal government. But hiring school teachers is not going to raise the growth of the U.S. economy over the next three-to-four years. Listen to Romney's remarks: Romney's belief that state and local governments should decide whether or not to hire teachers has remained consistent. During both the debate and his interview with the Register, he voiced his opposition toward the Obama administration's proposal to send $30 billion in federal dollars to states for the explicit purpose of teacher retention and hiring. In fact, months before the debate, Romney mocked the president for proposing funding to keep teachers on the job. What's different is the rhetorical approach Romney has taken to the issue, going from pledging his support for more teachers to downplaying the necessity of hiring them. There are also questions over the idea that hiring teachers does not produce any economic benefit, as studies have shown that the layoffs of teachers and other government workers has had an economic impact. The Romney campaign did not immediately return a request for comment. Also on HuffPost:

this one